BOF CEO

[pete.owens]

I was against the flat levy for all events and would be against increasing it now. Our club in conjunction with another local one runs a short series of (currently events in 8 weeks in Spring. The price of these events is now increased to £4 per adult /£2.5 per child. If a family of 4 attends all of these events thats £100 over 2 months for orienteering of which around £21 is BOF tax. I dont think thats encouraging grass roots orienteering. Its hard enough finding money to attend the events you actually want to, let alone trying to support your club at low key events you maybe arent that enthusiastic about.

But if your club disagrees with the new way of BOF funding there is absolutely nothing to stop you effectively continuing with the old system. Simply raise your club membership fee by the amount that the BOF membership fee was reduced - retain your pricing for larger events which now attract a lower levy - and use the cash to pay the levy on your spring series.

And an added bonus of the new system is that you are not required to charge a £2 supplement for non-BOF members - so there is £32 saving to your family of 4 straight away.

[distracted]

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).

I agree, Arnold. The focus is completely wrong.

If there are Sport England demands on the NGB, and they are demands that have to be met, is there the need for the Board to discuss and dissect these? Or just accept that they have to be there, agree to use the Sport England best practice guideline (which probably exists) and let the paid staff get on with sorting it out?

Similarly with the Sport England externally funded programmes. It used to be that the now defunct Development Committee held the decisions of the Development staff to account. I don't know who takes that role now - but if anyone, it will be the board. Does it matter what they do/don't say about the programme - it probably won't change what is happening. What they should be caring about is whether the programmes support/detract from the sport of orienteering, and whether there is any long-term benefit to the sport from getting more people out doing activities that involve map reading.

Ultimately, British Orienteering is a membership organisation, represented by the Board. It appears that currently, the vast majority of what the Board do/discuss is driven by 'top-down' decisions e.g. from CEO/staff, Sport England. A bit like MPs toeing the party line, rather than representing their electorate. Surely that's the wrong way round? But maybe the general membership don't care until it affects them - the recent catering issue being a case in point?

[andypat]

I was against the flat levy for all events and would be against increasing it now. Our club in conjunction with another local one runs a short series of (currently events in 8 weeks in Spring. The price of these events is now increased to £4 per adult /£2.5 per child. If a family of 4 attends all of these events thats £100 over 2 months for orienteering of which around £21 is BOF tax. I dont think thats encouraging grass roots orienteering. Its hard enough finding money to attend the events you actually want to, let alone trying to support your club at low key events you maybe arent that enthusiastic about.

But if your club disagrees with the new way of BOF funding there is absolutely nothing to stop you effectively continuing with the old system. Simply raise your club membership fee by the amount that the BOF membership fee was reduced - retain your pricing for larger events which now attract a lower levy - and use the cash to pay the levy on your spring series.

And an added bonus of the new system is that you are not required to charge a £2 supplement for non-BOF members - so there is £32 saving to your family of 4 straight away.

I never said my club was against it. I dont think we have a policy on the subject. I'm against it. Its very easy to suggest some convoluted way to balance the books levy v membership, but most orienteering clubs have a pretty hand to mouth existence as far as I know and cannot really be affording to subsidise one group of events with another. My club only gets a big event every couple of years for example. Should we just avoid putting on any level D events in alternate years? And what if the big event gets cancelled - grass fires, capercaillie migration, foot and mouth?

[bewildered]

distracted, there are groups mentioned on the BO website that should oversee Development, Performance etc.

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/page/Development_steering_group

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/page/talent_steering_group

The difficulty is that there are no names of who is (are) on these groups and no minutes to indicate whether they have met.

Given that they have Terms of Reference dated March 2013, we should assume that they have met at least once. If they haven't met, then who is overseeing the various parts of the organisation?

Somewhat worrying is that there is supposed to be a Welfare group that also doesn't seem to have met.

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/page/welfare

Perhaps a Board member could tell us what is happening with these and whose responsibility it is to set them up?

[Scott]

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

Okay, let's take a look at what was covered in that meeting:

• the review of the Strategic Plan (the internal document that sets out what we are going to try to achieve over the next five years - not a document that Sports England see/care about)
• coaching
• public liability Insurance for clubs/participants
• the current accounts
• the 2014 budget
• preparations for the AGM
• independent directors
• gender balance in the governance structure
• the results of the Association & Club conference
• the risk register (an internal document that allows the Board to keep track of what the risks to the organisation are)
• the "Governance Self-Assurance Report" (this is a Sport England document)
• the Operational Plan (i.e. everything the organisation has done in 2013, how it's gone, and what needs to change for 2014)
• the current staffing model
• the current performance of the Development programme
• the 2014 Rules of Orienteering revision
• issues raised by Associations
• issues raised by British Orienteering groups/committees
• issues raised by the IOF
• WOC 2015

I'll concede that there are a few governance items in there that were originally Sport England-driven, but I would hope that the majority of these are things where most people would agree that the Board ought to be discussing them anyway. Similarly, take a look at the March Board Meeting summary (the minutes haven't come out yet) and let me know what in there we shouldn't be talking about.

there are groups mentioned on the BO website that should oversee Development, Performance etc.

The Development and Performance Steering Groups are new creations. They both have meetings scheduled very soon (or possibly they have met very recently; I don't have the dates to hand). The Coaching National Source Group met in November and the minutes are on the website. I agree that we should have a list of the members for all of these on the website.

I know that the Welfare Steering Group continues to meet - I am not sure of the details, but we heard at the March Board meeting that our relevant policies/procedures had just passed their annual external validation. Judith Holt is the Director on this Group and would be a good person to contact if you have particular concerns about this.

[buzz]

The Development and Performance Steering Groups are new creations. They both have meetings scheduled very soon (or possibly they have met very recently; I don't have the dates to hand).

Scott - have the contact details of the members of the performance steering group been published? It would be useful to know who they are before they meet so that we can raise issues for their attention.

[bewildered]

I have been told that the Talent and Performance Group has met - but clearly in secret. There are no names on the BO website and no minutes.

The make up is interesting as England does not warrant a specific representative (which is typical across all these groups).

Having two athlete representatives sounds good, but would they be able to criticize the "Programme" with the NTP Manager in the room? Perhaps a section of the meeting where she is not present would be valuable? But how to minute this?

[Gross]

From experience of working with athletes.... they know their own mind and won't be worried about upsetting anyone if they think the programme is crap.... unless, of course, the elite have become mild mannered wimps in recent years

[bewildered]

Thinking more of the Juniors in the Talent Squad.

[greywolf]

From experience of working with athletes.... they know their own mind and won't be worried about upsetting anyone if they think the programme is crap

That might be the case for the top few senior elites whose selection is more or less guaranteed, but for those a bit further down the pyramid it would be difficult to express yourself when you know that compliance and conformity are selection criteria!

[graeme]

won't be worried about upsetting anyone if they think the programme is crap.

What I know of the present lot, the one thing they care more about than the programme being good/crap is being selected. They're pretty nervous about picking a fight with the selector.

(edit: what greywolf just said)

[RS]

Then nothing's changed in at least the last 20 years.

[buzz]

Then nothing's changed in at least the last 20 years.

That's not true there have been significant changes in recent years.

Squad management/coaches are now responsible for selection - previously this was managed independently.

The selection policy now specifically gives preference to squad members in terms of selection criteria.

Squad members are supposed to follow the prescribed training programme managed by squad coaches - previously athletes and their personal coaches were encouraged to devise their own training strategies and the squad coaches offered advice and encouragement.

Squad members are also 'expected' to attend squad courses and camps - previously these were offered as a resource which the majority would choose to attend because they were useful and dare I say it fun!

The implications of all this is that it makes it very difficult for some athletes, in particular juniors, to do what's best for them as individuals or to speak out if they have concerns about the programme.

The most urgent reform is to return to an independent selection process.

[Gross]

The most urgent reform is to return to an independent selection process.

Got to disagree with you there Buzz.... My view is (always has been) that selection should be the responsibility of the Head Coach & that the Head Coach should stand or fall by results... i.e. crap results then get a new coach........

[bewildered]

It shouldn't matter who the selector is IF the process is transparent and objective.