Would it not have been better to :
- state the problem / requirement
- provide several options, with pros and cons
- invite other suggestions from members
- maybe run a poll of members (of all degrees of commitment) on a shortlist of options to determine those with most support (easy enough to set up online)
- then formulate a motion for the AGM
?
There is of course now insufficient time for this before this year's AGM.
Is there any scope for a deferral and a later EGM (in conjunction with what I don't know - Croeso ?) after consultation ? Or even a final decision / vote by online poll ?
No solution will appeal to everyone but we could at least try to carry a majority. With the normal level of attendance at the AGM the decision between status quo and the one tabled proposal will be made by a very small percentage of (commited) members - possibly no more than 0.5% of total members. Does anyone fancy counting 10,000 proxies should every member decide to exercise their right in this way ? Anyone voting by proxy will not have the opportunity to hear arguments made for and against at the AGM.
The email sent out has no mention that I can see of this extremely important matter which will affect every member, so how many will not even click the links or be aware of what is about to be decided for them ? Not everyone reads Nopesport (or Focus).
By contrast it does specifically mention a talk. Illuminating as I am sure this will be, it is less likely to have a direct impact on the orienteering future of each and every member than changes to BO's income structure.
Maybe my take on priorities and perspective is just different ?
Membership and levy proposal
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Membership and levy proposal
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - guru
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
Re: Membership and levy proposal
Well if there is a vote I won't get one, after 30+ years of O I have not renewed my membership. I have become disillusioned with the way the sport is going, I stopped entering JK and BOC as the cost was purely driven by profit margins to BO, all event entries have increased yet the end product stays the same. I used to enjoy a level d on a weds night not so long ago for £3 now its £5, same event, same areas, same courses. I have enjoyed my time as planner, organiser, controller for many small and large events but the enjoyment has waned. Plus the spin that we should congratulate and give thanks to our volunteers only for mandatory safety courses and planners courses etc. Its all too much like hard work. So i've gone back to another sport that is not so profit driven.
My O enjoyment now comes solely from Nope, just as well it is not owned by BO as there would be a joining fee for the forum!
My O enjoyment now comes solely from Nope, just as well it is not owned by BO as there would be a joining fee for the forum!
- PhilJ
- green
- Posts: 392
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:59 am
Re: Membership and levy proposal
pete.owens wrote:Adrian wrote:Not great, but I support it. £15 is still not excessive, and most/all of it is got back through the £2 discounts at events.
One of the things that was changed when we move to the £5 membership model was dropping the requirement on clubs to charge a £2 surcharge on entries to non members. This was only ever introduced to try to give some incentive on people to join (at that time the concern was that the high membership fee was a deterring club-only members joining BOF). And it was resented by clubs who were actively trying to recruit new people to participate by offering discounted entry to first timers.
Clubs, in WMOA at least, have slipped back into offering the discount/making the surcharge. I did keep reminding clubs to stop doing it, but I gave up after a while. I don't like it - it puts new people off, as you say - but it'll certainly be necessary again if the BOF membership fee goes up to £15.
- Adrian
- blue
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:12 pm
- Location: Brum
Re: Membership and levy proposal
But, now under the current 'rules' you are only allowed to do THREE events while still not a BOF member. So, that is £6 to set against the £10 required for the hike.
Registration is going to be the most pleasant place for the volunteers now (not!!!).... saying no you can't orienteer tonight because you have been to the last three events, haven't joined BOF and not insured. The committee and the club become liable.
Incandescent is not a mood that is conducive to one's continuing volunteering status!!!!
Registration is going to be the most pleasant place for the volunteers now (not!!!).... saying no you can't orienteer tonight because you have been to the last three events, haven't joined BOF and not insured. The committee and the club become liable.
Incandescent is not a mood that is conducive to one's continuing volunteering status!!!!
- RJ
- addict
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: enjoying the Cumbrian outdoors
Re: Membership and levy proposal
RJ wrote:A consequence of this hike will be that people won't join but may just turn up as INDs. And then the poor sod on registration has to interrogate everyone to make sure they are members and have the relevant insurance. A b****y mess! Not a job I want to do....
It's hard to imagine that scenario, so if the fee goes up to £15, BOF will have to secure new insurance arrangements. Perhaps a higher levy for INDs to pay for them to be included in the BOF insurance? Either that, or revert to the previous system of national and local membership.
- Adrian
- blue
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:12 pm
- Location: Brum
Re: Membership and levy proposal
King Penguin wrote:Would it not have been better to :
- state the problem / requirement
- provide several options, with pros and cons
- invite other suggestions from members
- maybe run a poll of members (of all degrees of commitment) on a shortlist of options to determine those with most support (easy enough to set up online)
- then formulate a motion for the AGM
?
There is of course now insufficient time for this before this year's AGM.
No not according to my understanding of article 49.1 of the British Orienteering Federation Limited Memorandum and Articles of Association (the rules of the company) that are available to read on the Companies House website (date 17/04/2013 - 45 pages.
A member who is able to vote at the AGM can propose a resolution that the resolution put forward by the Board can be amended provided in the reasonable opinion of the chair the amendment does not materially alter the intention of the original resolution.
The intention is clearly to raise around £90k, so with the right wording two or more alternatives, or a reworded resolution could be decided on at the AGM. No time is required of advance notice provided it is in writing, it could even occur at the meeting.
So it is a two stage process the resolution to allow the amendment has to be passed at the meeting first and then the amended resolution is voted on.
If anyone knows better perhaps they could advise on here.
Looking at the February Board Meeting Minutes, the Board appear not to have discussed or possibly realised their proposal was in direct contradiction to the policy on income generation passed at an earlier AGM.
I agree with King Penguin it would be better for the resolution on fees to be withdrawn and the Board consult the members and come back with a revised resolution, possibly with some alternatives at another General Meeting later in the year. The costs are going to be modest and proxy votes are allowed at any General Meeting.
Last edited by maprun on Sun Mar 06, 2016 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
- maprun
- diehard
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:37 am
Re: Membership and levy proposal
RJ wrote:But, now under the current 'rules' you are only allowed to do THREE events while still not a BOF member.
Is that really a rule, or is it just that BOF's insurance only covers non-members for their first 3 events (per year? or for life?). There's no time at registration to check a big database and even if there was I can't imagine clubs turning competitors away...
-
greywolf - addict
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:45 pm
- Location: far far away
Re: Membership and levy proposal
See section 18 here: https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/ ... 202015.pdf "The individual must be members (sic) of British Orienteering from their 4th visit."
- Adrian
- blue
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:12 pm
- Location: Brum
Re: Membership and levy proposal
Adrian wrote:"The individual must be members (sic) of British Orienteering from their 4th visit."
...in order to be covered by BOF insurance
that's not the same as saying individuals must be members of British Orienteering from their 4th visit or they won't be allowed to compete.
(there were plenty of non-BOF members who did >3 events at the Scottish 6 Days)
-
greywolf - addict
- Posts: 1425
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:45 pm
- Location: far far away
Re: Membership and levy proposal
Spookster wrote:
Try Focus magazine, page 5.[/quote]
Tried it and the fuller reply in Mike's e-news on the web and I'm not really much wiser.I think that the worry here is that a good number of folk's perception is that we are not getting value for money (that perception may well be incorrect) so clearly a better public account of what is being done is needed.
- mykind
- orange
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2010 10:11 pm
- Location: Keswick
Re: Membership and levy proposal
greywolf wrote:Adrian wrote:"The individual must be members (sic) of British Orienteering from their 4th visit."
...in order to be covered by BOF insurance
that's not the same as saying individuals must be members of British Orienteering from their 4th visit or they won't be allowed to compete.
(there were plenty of non-BOF members who did >3 events at the Scottish 6 Days)
This is a fair point. The question then is, does it matter?
- Adrian
- blue
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:12 pm
- Location: Brum
Re: Membership and levy proposal
greywolf wrote:Adrian wrote:"The individual must be members (sic) of British Orienteering from their 4th visit."
...in order to be covered by BOF insurance
Whether it's just for (third party liability ?) insurance or not, it's a completely unworkable rule.
There are parts of the country where a newcomer's first three runs might be at events run by 3 different clubs, without much travel. If they then return to one of these clubs for their next event, even if the club can detect it is their 2nd run within that club, how are they supposed to know about the other two ? If their 4th event is run by yet another club how are they supposed to know ?
Are they then supposed to refuse the entry ? I struggle to think of a more effective way of ensuring "more people" does not happen.
I can immediately think of one newcomer I know whose recent first 3 events were run by SROC, DEE and MDOC - but one of those probably no longer counts for this rule as it was last year. Having just got her hooked am I supposed to tell her to choose between "join" and "go away" ?
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - guru
- Posts: 1511
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
Re: Membership and levy proposal
Well, the BOF website lists, amongst the benefits of membership,
which suggests to me that it's OK to continue competing as a non-member, it's just that you wouldn't be covered by BOF insurance.
Coming back to the main topic, it seems to me that anyone coming new to a sport - any sport - probably perceives little direct benefit from joining the NGB. So I can think of four ways that the NGB could persuade them to join:
1. Make the cost low enough that it seems worthwhile (or not worth arguing about) - which is the present BOF position
2. Make membership compulsory (which will be the case next year for track and field). Not very attractive for orienteering, I would think, where most people's first experiences of the sport will be competitions (in contrast to, say, track and field, where I very much doubt anyone competes until after they've had some training, either at school or in a club).
3. Collect the fees indirectly, from clubs.
4. Offer an incentive, by charging non-members more to enter events. This is, of course, what we used to have, and is the current position in road running. How much more, and which events, is a matter for debate.
Public Liability Insurance when participating in events and activities registered with British Orienteering
which suggests to me that it's OK to continue competing as a non-member, it's just that you wouldn't be covered by BOF insurance.
Coming back to the main topic, it seems to me that anyone coming new to a sport - any sport - probably perceives little direct benefit from joining the NGB. So I can think of four ways that the NGB could persuade them to join:
1. Make the cost low enough that it seems worthwhile (or not worth arguing about) - which is the present BOF position
2. Make membership compulsory (which will be the case next year for track and field). Not very attractive for orienteering, I would think, where most people's first experiences of the sport will be competitions (in contrast to, say, track and field, where I very much doubt anyone competes until after they've had some training, either at school or in a club).
3. Collect the fees indirectly, from clubs.
4. Offer an incentive, by charging non-members more to enter events. This is, of course, what we used to have, and is the current position in road running. How much more, and which events, is a matter for debate.
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: Membership and levy proposal
King Penguin, the insurance covers the person you mention in the extremely unlikely situation that a third party successfully sues them for something that occurred (negligence, nuisance or trespass) whilst they take part in the event. A similar position to someone out for a run or walk in the same woods.
- maprun
- diehard
- Posts: 688
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:37 am
Re: Membership and levy proposal
maprun wrote:King Penguin, the insurance covers the person you mention in the extremely unlikely situation that a third party successfully sues them for something that occurred (negligence, nuisance or trespass) whilst they take part in the event. A similar position to someone out for a run or walk in the same woods.
The nub of the problem is with the landowner...... They either want to see an insurance cover note, which the larger organisations insist on. Or for the smaller 'local landowners' they accept your assurance that we have insurance. But if the insurance company finds out that that competitor has competed in more than three events without being a BOF member then they will refuse to pay or provide cover. That either makes the club liable or the landowner refuses further access.... and worse, the sport gets an adverse image locally and loses other areas.
This is a minefield. While membership fees are at £5 per senior it is relatively easy to police the problem of the three events (we have found) and the competitor is very responsive to going online and joining. It works well. Now.... £15 per senior and £4 per junior (£38 for a typical family, as opposed to £14) is another matter. I would recommend care with this..... I'm not saying it is impossible.... but if it loads volunteers with unpleasant face to face situations then forget it.
- RJ
- addict
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: enjoying the Cumbrian outdoors
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 56 guests