Membership and Levy proposal Feb 2012

[Oldman]

Anyone got observations about why so few members voted (about 2% by my calculations)?

With so many individuals and clubs potentially affected financially (plus and minus), you'd think more would vote.

[awk]

Bye-bye students

I think that's a bit OTT. What will actually happen for students?

If one takes the changes at face value then:
For those under-21, Local members will pay £2 more, National members will pay £2.75 less. The effect on Family members is more varied, depending on the number of juniors in the family, but Local members will pay slightly less if they have up to 2 juniors, after which they will start to pay slightly more. National members will pay less for their juniors, unless they have more than 10 juniors in the family.

For those over 21, Local members will pay £5 more, National members will pay 25p more.
For families with students, the effects are again dependent on the number of students/juniors in the family, but the first adult student will pay 50p more, then £5 for each subsequent adult student. For national members, one can have up to 4 adult students in the family before starting to pay more (assuming no juniors as well!).

As for entry fees, that will largely depend on how clubs work. I think a lot of clubs will retain student discounts - I would certainly be disappointed if mine did not - bearing in mind that it's likely that larger events will see adult fees coming down anyway. I would be even more disappointed given that we've paid a fair amount of student offspring's entries to some of the bigger events in the past year, so we've got a personal interest as well! After all, clubs don't have to raise the levy payments directly from an event's fees.

[Paul Frost]

Apathy?

But I suspect that if asked several of your club members who are not Nope readers or actively "political" in orienteering terms, you will find they didn't even read the AGM notes or any other proposals sent to them.
I can think of lots of my fellow club members that are active orienteers, volunteer a lot, have got coaching qualifications but don't really care (in a nice way) about the administration of the sport. It's not what is important to them. As long as the club puts on quality events, arrange coaching sessions and have a good social atmosphere they are happy.
We discussed the potential rise in entry fees and the drop in membership fees at our AGM a few weeks ago and no one had any particular view on way or another.
Entry fees have never been an issue for us, when we started charging extra for non-members more of the semi-casuals joined.
When the issue of paying hire fees for SI-cards was imminent (Oban 6 Days) and I explained it made processing results easier, 26 more bought their own cards.

As has been said many times before, people join their local club, the association and national body membership is just an obstruction encountered along the way. The sooner we recognise this the better.

The joining process will be simpler with the local/national confusion removed, but it is still focused on starting at the wrong end. Join the national body, then join the regional association (which could also be a national body for some of us) and if you are still there, the club of your choice. None of these are optional, you can't join any one of them without the others, so why do we give them a choice?

We need a personalised club membership/payment page on the British Orienteering website that can be linked to directly from the club website, then returned to the club website after the financial stuff is completed.

[roadrunner]

The joining process will be simpler with the local/national confusion removed, but it is still focused on starting at the wrong end. Join the national body, then join the regional association (which could also be a national body for some of us) and if you are still there, the club of your choice. None of these are optional, you can't join any one of them without the others, so why do we give them a choice?

Spot on, Paul. I don't know what other sports do, but in running I join my local running club, which happens to be affiliated to SEAA and UKA (but could have chosen ARC instead or as well). None of this matters directly to me (or I suspect most other members), it just gives us a card which entitles us to members' discounts at (most) races, plus provides insurance cover - a bit like BOF, really.

[frog]

I meant to vote but JK stuff got in the way and my voting papers got lost in a pile that I have still to tackle. We debated it at our committee meeting and ended up ambivalent anyway.

[charles2]

Anyone got observations about why so few members voted (about 2% by my calculations)?

With so many individuals and clubs potentially affected financially (plus and minus), you'd think more would vote.

From my point of view, being new to orienteering and not really knowing how the sport is run, there was insufficient information on the issue from BOF.
The only reason I knew vaguely what the proposal was about was through this forum.

[Clive Coles]

I don't think is is a question of apathy ~ that's very judgemental. It's more likely to be a case of being realistic.

Orientreers probably see their club (and to some extent their region) as being their center of focus and interest. These are the organisations who stage the events that most orienteers enter. BOF appears to offer them very little.

When they join up they are really joining a club ~ by so doing they are obliged to become a member of the National Body. Very few seem to exercise the choice offered by some clubs to be a 'club only' member.

BOF is a bit like a wasp that buzzes around and stings you from time to time. They are perceived as a necessary institution.

Now even wasps have their uses, as indeed does BOF. But the Federation had aspirations of grandure if it really thinks it is important ( or relevant) to many of the members. Orienteers would rather be orienteering than attending meetings or reading AGM papers. It is a minority who take BOF issues seriously. That's their choice.

[Paul Frost]

Clive, I think that's what I said after I questioned if it was apathy.

Talking to Mike Forrest at the JK I asked the question if AGM's could be virtual?

The fact that any debate at the AGM can't really change anything, as the proxy votes have already been cast, means there is little point in going in person. You can stand up and have your say, and it might make you feel better, but not many people will hear your comment.

How about having a website/forum where people can respond to pre-proposals and so shape the final proposal to iron out potential issues and then vote online.
What other purpose does a physical presence at an AGM provide?

[andypat]

But the Federation had aspirations of grandure if it really thinks it is important ( or relevant) to many of the members. Orienteers would rather be orienteering than attending meetings or reading AGM papers. It is a minority who take BOF issues seriously. That's their choice.

I think the BOF website reflects their perceived priorities. When the British SPrint/Middle Champs was on, the main BOF headline was the election of somebody to IOF. Right now this AGM issue is on the front page and the successes of our elite athletes at JK have quickly slipped away. I'd like to see BOF focus much more on the sport rather than (apparently) building up this big backroom industry around the adminstration of it. I appreciate this has to be done, but

A - does it need to be front page news
B - does it actually need to keep growing

[Clive Coles]

I agree with you Paul ~ AGM's are not really an effective way to debate issues and achieve consensus. What we are lacking at present is a real connection between the grass root membership and the Board. Without a connection there is no effective dialogue. Motions such as the membership/levy proposal were tabled at the eleventh hour on a take it or reject it basis. Perhaps a web based forum as you suggest might help bridge the gap.

Attendance at an AGM will always be low all the time it is held at Easter at the JK. With the JK venue moving around to different regions ( or Nations) each year you get a core list of loyal attendees and a different sub-set of locals who turn up out of curiosity..

We have of course just had two JK in parts of the Country that required lots of travelling. By all accounts both were well worth the trip but not everyone is prepared to dig that deep into their pockets at a time of the year where the weather is likely to be questionable. A summertime location might be more attractive.

But to hold an AGM at a more central location without attaching it to multiday event would I think result in even lower attendance.

No easy answers.

[Snail]

But to hold an AGM at a more central location without attaching it to multiday event would I think result in even lower attendance.

Definitely. That's the way it was until the early 90s, and I think one year the AGM didn't each reach a quorum, and we (collectively) incurred the expense of having to schedule it again.