Independent Directors

[SJC]

because the governance is perceived as remote most with real interest in the sport do not want to go there

Do the Board see this as a problem ?
If so, then they should have a plan to address it.
If not, then I think the sport has a problem.

[Spookster]

because the governance is perceived as remote most with real interest in the sport do not want to go there

Do the Board see this as a problem ?
If so, then they should have a plan to address it.
If not, then I think the sport has a problem.

Well, what's the question here? Is it about the remoteness of the people involved in the sport's governance from the people at grass roots level who run the sport? Or is it about the scope of what the board and other parts of the governance structure discusses, being remote from the things that matter most to people at grass-roots level in orienteering?

Or maybe the problem is the way it's perceived, regardless of the way it really is? There is certainly a recognition of a need for better communications between the Board and members (item 10, board effectiveness).

[Glucosamine]

This seems to have a familiar ring. For "remote governance" read "AAA blazers", and for a solution read creation of BOF (noting the F for Federation). After some unfortunate decisions from the blazers, the FRA nearly declared UDI from the AAA a few years back - I for one rather regretted that the resolution failed, but I'm hardly an active member these days. Both BOF and FRA had a central principle that those steering the sports should be active members - I think the fell runners still do. Perhaps the independent director issue is orienteering's independence moment? Have we an Alex Salmond in the house?

[Oldman]

I can understand concerns about the sport not being run by those involved, but I would make several points:
- even if the independent director change is approved, there is still a majority of elected directors
- reading Board minutes (yes, some sad retirees do that ) shows the Board is much more concerned with finance, vision and broad strategy, staffing and HR issues, risk management (eg exposure of BOF to financial risks which might bankrupt it), etc
- the new Events/Competitions Committee seems to be the place where most matters that affect orienteers directly will get decided in future and it is (and surely always will be) made up of orienteers.

... and the change enables access to considerable funding, some of which on past form indirectly funds things that members might expect their money to pay for

I for one am for the change as we should also benefit from real unblinkered experience from outside orienteering

[daffdy]

This seems to have a familiar ring. For "remote governance" read "AAA blazers", and for a solution read creation of BOF (noting the F for Federation). After some unfortunate decisions from the blazers, the FRA nearly declared UDI from the AAA a few years back - I for one rather regretted that the resolution failed, but I'm hardly an active member these days. Both BOF and FRA had a central principle that those steering the sports should be active members - I think the fell runners still do. Perhaps the independent director issue is orienteering's independence moment? Have we an Alex Salmond in the house?

I'm sure I'll be showing my ignorance here, but is it possible for you to translate the acronyms, please? I got BOF, I think FRA might be fell running but I'm struggling with the rest.

[King Penguin]

Fell Running Association
Amateur Athletic Association
unilateral declaration of independence

[MIE]

This seems to have a familiar ring. For "remote governance" read "AAA blazers", and for a solution read creation of BOF (noting the F for Federation). After some unfortunate decisions from the blazers, the FRA nearly declared UDI from the AAA a few years back - I for one rather regretted that the resolution failed, but I'm hardly an active member these days. Both BOF and FRA had a central principle that those steering the sports should be active members - I think the fell runners still do. Perhaps the independent director issue is orienteering's independence moment? Have we an Alex Salmond in the house?

I'm sure I'll be showing my ignorance here, but is it possible for you to translate the acronyms, please? I got BOF, I think FRA might be fell running but I'm struggling with the rest.

Oh dear, showing your age (or lack of it )

AAA = Amateur Athletics Association (ran (or otherwise) UK athletics back in the day)
(All the members of the governing body were 60+ retired Male would-be county or club
"worthies")
FRA = Fell Running (? Runners) Association
UDI = Unilateral Declaration of Independence

[DaveK]

because the governance is perceived as remote most with real interest in the sport do not want to go there

I sense that most of us as 'ordinary' orienteers, are a good deal closer to our 'governance' than participants in a lot of other sports.

[daffdy]

Thanks for clarifying the acronyms, was genuinely quite lost. I think I found the relevant section in the Fell Running Association AGM minutes from 2000 (wow my life is exciting):

The FRA consults with the grass roots fell runners throughout the UK and looks into alternative ways of administering sport, including the possibility of dis-association with the Regional AAs, and reports back to the membership outlining the different options available and recommending a course of action.

It's worded a bit weirdly, but the really important difference between that situation and our current situation is that it is a plain and simple investigation into the options available and consequences of change. I fully support the right of members to bring a similar proposal to the British Orienteering AGM, but this proposal about Independent Directors is not that discussion. All it's really about is the ability to appoint a small minority of the board by skills needed rather than orienteering enthusiasm or who the outgoing Board can persuade to stand. Yes, it's influenced by our funding partners, but I genuinely (and as someone who lives and breathes our sport) think it's a good idea. The majority of the Board will still be the usual crop of enthusiastic orienteers (provided we can keep finding volunteers who don't mind all the flack on Nopesport), but the Board will be stronger for it. This probably does't cause much excitement among those on here, but I'm pretty sure even the harshest Nopesport critic would notice some benefits eventually.

As Scott said way back, there are some important skills currently missing from the Board. I've seen threads on here criticising problems caused in part by these gaps. Wouldn't it be a good idea to approve the change that does something about it?

[DaveK]

Well summarised. I have to say that I'm with you daffdy.

[andypat]

Also agree - but the fudge around what an independent director actually is doesnt work for me.

[graeme]

this proposal about Independent Directors is not that discussion.

While noting and agreeing with this point, in true nope fashion I'll veer further off topic.

The analogy between BritishOrienteering and ScottishAthletics (SA) is interesting. Some 15 years ago SA adopted a much more "professional" and centralised approach. The consequence of that was the marginalisation of clubs in many areas.

One example of this is JogScotland (look it up). It's an excellent initiative for introducing beginners. So excellent that before it existed many clubs tried to do a similar thing - only to be hit with punitive levies and membership requirements by SA, which made it impractical.

Another is events. In the '90s there would be a decent quality club-organised road/XC race somewhere in central Scotland any Saturday and Sunday. Most of those have gone now, initially priced out of the market by SA: for a while, you needed full SA membership to run a club race - charity races and external bodies were exempt from this, and the outcome inevitable.

So what happened? For about 10 years the sport collapsed, numbers dropped and standards dropped: as I quietly fell through old-age decline from 35-45 I got ever slower and ever closer to the front of races Some races abolished vet. categories since vets. were winning overall, and established "modern era" course records!

Now the landscape has changed - the independent ParkRun organisation has taken over the club-race niche with free 5ks, and mammoth commercial events with £20+ entry fees to run on the pavements bring in thousands of entrants. The few surviving club-based races (Carnethy 5, National XC) are booming.

So it took distance running about 10 years of pain to get through the modernisation process to its current happier state. It seems to me that BOF is just starting down that road...

[Glucosamine]

The few surviving club-based races (Carnethy 5, ...) are booming.

As I remember, the Carnethy is a hill race now run by a hill running club (with orienteering cross-overs of all ages up to Bill Gauld's 80 year old completion this year). Arguably SHR (abbreviation alert - Scottish Hill Runners) managed to build up racing in the Scottish hills despite rather than because of the SAAA (Scottish Amateur Athletics Association).

Do we really want to tread a painful road for ten years?

[SeanC]

There's a lot of stuff in the thread, but going back to Scott's original post I think I'm right in saying that:

- BOF have to do this to keep the funders happy.
- Since it has to be done they are using it as an opportunity to get some marketing/publicity/sponsorship experience onto the board for the benefit of the sport.

This seems very sensible. In terms of the grass roots vs BOF stuff, if this person can help BOF provide more publicity and marketing services/support direct to clubs that is excellent. Look in CompassSport and see how publicity is a component of SN's success. There are plenty of other examples, but also many clubs who struggle to do publicity. And if it's going to bring in sponsorship cash (reducing our dependance on funding bodies) then that's a big tick as far as I can see.

I wasn't going to vote, but hearing that some people might vote against, I'll send off my vote before Thursday.

[Paul Frost]

- Since it has to be done they are using it as an opportunity to get some marketing/publicity/sponsorship experience onto the board for the benefit of the sport.

There isn't any guarantee that someone with those skills will come forward though.
In fact it's possible that an orienteer with those skills could be blocked from being on the board if we already have the full quota of elected directors. We could then be forced to have an independent director who doesn't have the skills we want and is only there to look good on their CV.
I realise these are all hypothetical issues but I don't see why we want to force ourselves into a corner when we shouldn't need to.

Don't forget the additional demand for fixed gender quotas is also on Sport England's shopping list, so voting for independent directors isn't enough if you want to stay on their good side.

If Sport England withdraws funding from us because the membership voted against a policy they wanted to force on us, what does it say about democracy, equity and fairness.