Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012

[madmike]

I could not vote in favour of the accounts at the AGM as I had not seen any, other than the far-too-high-level pie charts in the glossy.

Did you not see the web site news item on 26 March?
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/i ... counts.pdf

Sorry Oldman but methinks you miss the point - your document merely has the high level numbers that where used to produce the high level pie chart.

The point being made is: what is the underlying detail on the 4 broad headings of the pie chart and the document at your link.

[Oldman]

OK, sorry if my attempt to be helpful misunderstood what was said, but he did say "... I had not seen any [accounts]", and it is the published ones (as audited and to be filed at Companies House) that we are asked to approve at the AGM.

[SeanC]

There was a request last summer for volunteers to join in a consultation on the new levy/membership proposals. That gave plenty of time for views to be fed into the decision making process. There weren't many volunteers.

Re activities, my understanding is that, as well as no results, these must be organised by a qualified coach, UKCC level 1 or old level 2 being needed for most small woods/country parks etc. For more remote areas a UKCC level 1 coach will need to be supervised by a UKCC level 2 coach or above (for insurance). I might be wrong but this is what I understand.

[madmike]

Oldman fair point; I was not having a go, I was also trying to be helpful (unusual as it is on Nopesport)

It seems to me the issue is that people want to see a more detailed breakdown of the headline figures to better understand how the money is spent.

However, the accounts whilst they will be OK for Companies House (or wherever) but do not provide the fidelity that some people want to see when something like the need for an increase in Levy income is to be discussed. (personally I don't mind either way because for me: travel coats, travel costs and travel costs are the 3 highest expenses for orienteering -entry fees, levies etc are lost in the noise).

If I were a conspiracy theorist (I am not btw) looking at the accounts as presented, I might conclude someone is trying to hide something. I suspect some BOF members just want to see that extra level of detail to understand what he is being asked to vote on. Not unreasonable?

[Oldman]

However, the accounts whilst they will be OK for Companies House (or wherever) but do not provide the fidelity that some people want to see when something like the need for an increase in Levy income is to be discussed.

"do not provide the fidelity" seems a strange phrase for audited accounts - perhaps you meant "do not provide the detail"?

Also, as I understood it, the proposal was not intended to increase levy income - indeed it might well not raise as much as before.

[King Penguin]

No, I missed that and did not have time in the run-up to the JK to go searching the website (? Alpha Centauri ?) for the accounts. I did find that document earlier today ahd have taken a quick look. There are still some big-ish numbers without any breakdown.

[MIE]

In addition to the transparency of the accounts the following clause from
the newly approved Articles should be noted:

"48. No right to inspect accounts and other records
Except as provided by law or authorised by the Board or an ordinary resolution of the Company, no person is entitled to inspect any of the Company's accounting or other records or documents merely by virtue of being a member."

[SJC]

Also, as I understood it, the proposal was not intended to increase levy income - indeed it might well not raise as much as before.

The proposal is intended to, and indeed will, increase the income received from event levies. However the income from membership fees will go down. It is the overall income from levies and membership combined which is intended to remain about the same.

[madmike]

"do not provide the fidelity" seems a strange phrase for audited accounts - perhaps you meant "do not provide the detail"?

semantics - I had used word detail too many times previously and was looking for a synonym, i.e. like hi-fidelity sound - so, yes that is exactly what I meant and what I thought I wrote.

[smf]

Has anybody noticed that if this new scheme proceeds there will no longer be a club affiliation fee payable to BOF? This is a saving of £46.00 for each club.

[Oldman]

Also, as I understood it, the proposal was not intended to increase levy income - indeed it might well not raise as much as before.

The proposal is intended to, and indeed will, increase the income received from event levies. However the income from membership fees will go down. It is the overall income from levies and membership combined which is intended to remain about the same.

Yes, of course, you're right - the total income targeted is the same. Sorry for my error.

[Spookster]

Also, as I understood it, the proposal was not intended to increase levy income - indeed it might well not raise as much as before.

The proposal is intended to, and indeed will, increase the income received from event levies. However the income from membership fees will go down. It is the overall income from levies and membership combined which is intended to remain about the same.

Yes, of course, you're right - the total income targeted is the same. Sorry for my error.

Actually, no.

The total income from membership and levies was the same, when the proposed levy was £1.30. But as per the published article that followed the last board meeting, the reduced levy of £1.00 will raise less, and hence the combined amount will be less.

[Oldman]

In addition to the transparency of the accounts the following clause from
the newly approved Articles should be noted:

"48. No right to inspect accounts and other records
Except as provided by law or authorised by the Board or an ordinary resolution of the Company, no person is entitled to inspect any of the Company's accounting or other records or documents merely by virtue of being a member."

Not sure what point you're making, but the existing (now former) Articles have this:

47. The Board shall from time to time determine whether and to what extent and at what times and places and under what conditions or regulations the accounts and books of the Federation or any of them shall be open to the inspection of Members not being Directors and no Member (not being a Director) shall have any right of inspecting any account or book or document of the Federation except as conferred by the Statutes or authorised by the Board or by the Federation in General Meeting.

[Oldman]

A news item has been posted confirming the proposal was passed.

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/i ... 9yZy51ay8=

[RS]

Bye-bye students