BOF CEO

[awk]

Personally, I still find this discussion rather distasteful on a public forum with innuendos and implicit criticism that the person concerned may be unaware of and not able easily to address. How many Nopesport readers would like one aspect of their job performance (which may or may not be relevant) discussed publicly?

Maybe, although I disagree, but there remains nowhere else for members to discuss. Given that it is the only place, a lack of awareness that this is being discussed would worry me far more.

And I restate that in my opinion an NGB CEO's objectives are not at all like those of the MD of a private company.

Again, that may be the case, although I think many of the responsibilities are near enough the same. Any membership organisation that fails to expect its CEO to get to know its members is in danger of doing exactly that - failing - and any CEO of any membership organisation, NGB or otherwise, who doesn't spend some of their time in contact with its members is equally in danger. Bewildered has simply brought up a subject and implied a viewpoint that I have heard expressed many times 'in the carpark'.

[NeilC]

My own club has had quite a lot of contact with MH in recent months. He has proved to be very approachable, understood our concerns and provided solutions/reassurances.

[andypat]

If I was the BOF CEO ...

Just as well my wife knows the heimlich manoeuvre Mrs H or you'd have had a death on your hands!

[bewildered]

Neil

I'm glad to hear MH has been useful to you.

If anyone has other examples please would they post?

Thanks

[gowrie]

I spent 6 years as permissions officer for my club and on half a dozen occasions I sought MH's advice and support where I encountered issues which could not be resolved on a local level. He was always completely available and supportive and on all occasions his advice, or the contacts he forged for me, brought positive outcomes. He was always available out of hours for personal contact by e-mail or phone.

[Oldman]

I think Gowrie's example shows that there are many positive things going on, but of course it's natural (but not entirely fair) to focus on a single perceived negative issue.

I trust the Directors I elected to set and review the CEO's objectives.

[bewildered]

I think the two examples show that there are some positive things going on.

But are these few and far between?

Are they always initiated by those other than MH?

Please carry on proving me wrong - I would love to be wrong.

I was a director of a multi million pound company for a period. Staff saw me all the time and that is how I knew what was going on.

Getting out to activities and events and talking to members, especially those that might contradict what he is being told by staff, seems very important to me.

[graeme]

Mike was immediately helpful in the early stages of putting together the RaceTheCastles event. He understood very well how to deal with government bodies to create, from scratch, the UK's biggest autumn race. He's not an orienteer, he's a sports administrator.

Sadly, both BOF and WOC seem to have lost confidence that it will be profitable and have left us to get on with it. All the more for the rest of us methinks! I'll let you know in November whether they got that one right. .

RTC entries opening "Real soon now".

[DaveK]

Perhaps the 'problem' then is with the Board (?); what do we have to do to get some other ('better') people involved (would you be interested 'bewildered''?). I think (honestly), that we can always do with different perspectives in the 'management' of our sport.

[Arnold]

While I agree it would be nice, I don't really care whether Mike Hamilton turns up to orienteering events.

What I do care about is what he and the Board spend their time on. And my concern is that over the last few years, it's been less and less about "orienteering as members would describe it" (events, coaching, performance etc) and more and more about "orienteering as sport england sees it" (independent board directors, transgender policies, strategic plans, talent pathways, governance self assurance reports, terms of reference, etc).

As an example here is the December board summary. Try and see how much you understand, and how much of it you care about: http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/images/uploaded/downloads/governance_minutes_board_14_12_13.pdf

Presumably this is all happening because of funding. But I'm worried that it has become a self fulfilling machine that grows ever further apart from the concerns of the membership. So, excited orienteer Joe Bloggs joins the board with lots of good ideas on how to develop orienteering, but is over time beaten into submission and accepts that it's more important to talk about self assurance reports (whatever they may be).

Now, how to change that?
Can some of the funding be obtained anyway and they're just going way overboard with the management speak?
Should we sod the funding and accept a much slimmed down, mostly volunteer run BOF with maybe one paid person?
Other ideas?

It does feel like we should have some sort of "constituent assembly" of members to clarify again what BOF is actually there for, and how big it should be.

[RJ]

Mike ..... is not an orienteer, he's a sports administrator......

I can't say that I am in a position to judge whether he is being effective in this role..... but.... I agree that that is what we need. For so many reasons we need to be recognised as a SPORT and not just a group of 'navigators' who 'do their own thing'.

We interface with all sorts of organisations over land use and permissions (NT, FC and loads of Private Estates), we negotiate insurance cover for our activities, we develop our club structure with guidance from the various Sport England ideas (you might not agree with some of the thinking, but that's another story!), we work within the education system, we work within a coaching structure, an equality structure.... , we have a co-ordinated fixture and event structure.

Yes we are the ones who put on all the events, we are the volunteers who make it all happen (for our own enjoyment in the end!), but we have the reassurance that we are doing the right thing in a safe and secure environment, with a coherent product that can be understood by the general public...... and may very well be taken seriously by the general public.

[Mrs H]

W But I'm worried that it has become a self fulfilling machine that grows ever further apart from the concerns of the membership. .

Isn't this what I've been saying for years?

But I think things have stepped up a mark or two recently. Witness the JK/BOC catering debacle brought about on the pretext of making the event more professional and attractive to sponsors - put another way:" What you've been doing all these years may have been cute but it wasn't commercial - we don't actually care what you want we want more money"

My best guess is that BOF is actually feeling the financial pinch with the new fee structure and declining numbers and may be struggling to pay the wages and other bills so needs money quick.

In that sense the NGB is becoming a parasite on the sport. Question is are we talking mistletoe or tape worm!

[RichT]

I suppose I have to disagree with some of your views Mrs H.

The appointment of a new Major Events Mgr & Commercial Manager will inevitably lead to change and change brings uncertainty. Whilst the change in bidding process for the food vendors may not be perceived as "fair" in some quarters (although I don't know the details) you shouldn't describe it as a debacle until AFTER we have the new style events and see what food is on offer.

And I'm sure all organisations struggle with cash-flow and have to cut their cloth accordingly. I think MH works extremely hard and successfully addresses a lot of NGB issues which a lot of us wouldn't want to touch with a bargepole - we are in the sport to "go orienteering".

I think I've lost the plot with this thread as to what exactly is trying to be achieved - what is it we are really unhappy about?
It must be more than the food at the JK . . .

[AndyC]

- put another way:" What you've been doing all these years may have been cute but it wasn't commercial - we don't actually care what you want we want more money"

My best guess is that BOF is actually feeling the financial pinch with the new fee structure and declining numbers and may be struggling to pay the wages and other bills so needs money quick.

I'm going to criticise one word in what you've said I think "need" is more correct than "want" - I think the NGB is possibly in danger of not being able to fund operations within the year.

[graeme]

But I'm worried that it has become a self fulfilling machine that grows ever further apart from the concerns of the membership.

Well yes, of course. But that's been happening in every sport since the lottery funding came in*. Firstly, any organisation will look to its own survival. Secondly employees will do what they're paid to do: since BOF is primarily funded by government quangos, it will do what the quango wants. So it's naive to expect members' needs to be other than of tertiary importance.

Once I accepted that BOF is a benign irrelevance to its Scottish membership, it became easier to see how Mike is doing a good job on behalf of SportEngland.

* Actually, even longer. The very existence of BOF has its roots in the founders' desire to keep the sport out of the AAA blazerocracy.