Membership and levy proposal

[roadrunner]

In the situation you mention, then as far as I can make out there's no problem if the club's held liable, since BOF insurance does cover it. What I don't know is whether the club might be held liable for only (say) 50%, and the competitor for the rest, or if they're jointly liable for the whole lot, and in that case if the club insurance would pay up in full when the competitor wasn't insured.

As you say, it's a minefield!

[pete.owens]

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.

Of course non-BOF members are allowed to compete - certainly the vast majority of competitors at our schools leage events are not members. We don't ask, we don't charge extra, though we do explain how to join to anyone who doesn't wan't to.

I think what you are thinking of is that the entry fee doesn't include free personal liability insurance for the duration of the event - a benefit that I would estimate the value at 0.0000001p. I wasn't even aware that BOF membership included such insurance until this limit of three events for non members was somehow thought to be a problem - and it would never occur to me to get such insurarance. I would be astonished if any claim had ever been made by in individual competitor.

[RJ]

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.

Of course non-BOF members are allowed to compete........

Perhaps check this.....

See section 18 here: https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/ ... 202015.pdf "The individual must be members (sic) of British Orienteering from their 4th visit."

[maprun]

Returning to the membership fees. The 2012 AGM approved the aim of a low membership and a higher levy and it was specifically agreed from 1 January 2013 that "...the budgeted amount to be raised from membership fees will not exceed 25% of the total budgeted total income to be raised from membership and levy fees."

The 2016 proposal makes no reference to this change of policy approved at a previous AGM.

it would be helpful if the Board explained whether the proposal for the 2016 AGM that contradicts the Board's own policy and agreed at the 2012 by the members is an oversight on their part, if not, what is the new proposed policy and the rationale.

In the absence of an explicit proposal to change a previous resolution on the future proportion of fees and levies, I wonder if the proposal, as tabled, can be adopted at the AGM. Perhaps someone can advise on Nopesport or in BOF?

[SeanC]

For the sake of fairness and accurate reporting, I confess I made a mistake in an earlier post when I calculated MOR's new total membership fees. I wrongly assumed the current BOF junior membership is £0, when it's actually £2. Basically the proposal is to rise the fees by £3 per junior, and £10 per adult.

So these figures I quoted are wrong:

Family membership, 2 adults, 2 children: £28 now. £58 future
MOR senior membership, £12 now, £22 future.
MOR junior only membership, £2 now, £7 future.

These are the correct figures.

Family membership, 2 adults, 2 children: £28 now. £54 future
MOR senior membership, £12 now, £22 future.
MOR junior only membership, £2 now, £5 future.

The other thing worth considering is that both associations I looked at (SEOA and SOA) obtain at least part of their money from membership and could therefore consider raising more money from levies in order to help keep total membership fees below the level that deters the less committed orienteer from renewing.

But being forced into such a change without discussion might be the type of thing that causes friction between associations and BO.

[pete.owens]

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.

Of course non-BOF members are allowed to compete........

Perhaps check this.....

See section 18 here: https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/ ... 202015.pdf "The individual must be members (sic) of British Orienteering from their 4th visit."

Which is exactly what I meant when I posted:
"I think what you are thinking of is that the entry fee doesn't include free personal liability insurance for the duration of the event".
Only now I can miss off the first two words of the sentence.
Nothing in that section, or indeed any of the other sections does anything to prevent non-BOF members competing in as many orienteering events as they feel like. That document is not a set of rules but an explanation of the extent of insurance cover.

Now for all I know, there may be some CLUB somewhere that insists that competitors take out 3rd party orienteering cover (not that I have ever seen this as a condition of entry) just as there are some CLUBs who demand a surcharge from non-BOF members. But, there is most certainly no BOF rule that says you are only allowed to compete in thee events.

Note clause 8 in the same document:
"Any member permanently living abroad is not covered."
I am sure pretty much everyone in any position of authority in BOF is aware that a number of non-UK residents are planning to compete in FOUR events in Yorkshire at the end of March.

[greywolf]

"Any member permanently living abroad is not covered."

This means that any BOF member living abroad isn't covered (by the BOF insurance, anyway) for any British event, not just from the 4th onward.
The issue isn't really whether individuals care about their insurance, but whether event organiser feel comfortable with uninsured competitors at their events.

[pete.owens]

The issue raised in this thread was a complaint that:

"under the current 'rules' you are only allowed to do THREE events while still not a BOF member. "

This is simply not the case. Nothing in the rules prevents non-members competing (other than at national and area championship). And no organiser at any event I have attended has required competitors to have third party insurance. Though if they were uncomforable they would be perfectly within their rights to insist on such.

[RJ]

....."under the current 'rules' you are only allowed to do THREE events while still not a BOF member. "

Well, yes, pete.owens , it is a 'rule'..... but it is set by the insurance cover.

We need insurance cover in order to run our events, mainly because landowners insist on it. Now, the unfortunate thing is that the insurance cover specifically states that cover (third party liability) is only provided for competitors who are BOF members or are only doing their first THREE events with the sport. There is something going on there..... perhaps BOF have negotiated that in the cost of the premium, partly to insist all competitors join the sport NGB.... what do you think?

You can judge that the lack of cover provided for someone's fourth run as a non-BOF member is worth the risk to the club committee and the event organiser, and you personally don't see a problem. But the question is.... why are we bothering with insurance at all? A no-brainer really (why insure your car!).

We, as a club & committee decided we must make a sensible effort to 'police' the three event 'rule' and actively encourage people to join the NGB. At £5, which can be sold as the 'insurance cover', was straightforward. Now, at the proposed £15 level I judge that we will meet considerably more resistance. And in the end, with these new participants to the sport it is the welcoming conversations you have that are critical to a successful outcome on membership. IMO these people can be considered as the 'old local membership' participants, who will orienteer at the local level D & some level C events for a year or so, and then move to 'full membership' with the NGB and enter the JK and BOC.

That is the model I would propose, with a return to the two tier structure, or alternatively keep the membership fee low.... £6, £7.... and make the levy a little higher.

I couldn't negotiate access from a landowner if I wasn't able to say that insurance was in place. And equally I wouldn't like to think that 'registration personnel' had to have difficult conversations with entrants over membership. We have never charged an extra £2 for non-members because it is seen as counter productive, and just goes into club funds, and certainly isn't fed back to provide insurance cover for those participants.

[SeanC]

I sympathise completely with your club's position RJ. This is why consultations with clubs would have been much better before deciding on the best way to fund such a significant increase in funding. The minutes give the impression that the decision to raise nearly all the money by membership fees was done by the gut feeling of those in the meeting. Perhaps I'm being unfair, but there is still time to change minds and be flexible.

RJ - the alternative is to raise money through entry fees. According to the minutes 10p on the levy generates £10000, so BO need to increase levies to £2.25 per run to keep membership fees the same as now (or implement the capitation scheme as Scott suggested). Would either approach work for your club?

Personally I'm not that keen on re-introducing membership levels as it adds administrative costs and also makes selling membership harder. You could have an "optional extra fee/BOF supporter" option to pay extra if you're a keen orienteer maybe?

[roadrunner]

....."under the current 'rules' you are only allowed to do THREE events while still not a BOF member. "

Well, yes, pete.owens , it is a 'rule'..... but it is set by the insurance cover.

We need insurance cover in order to run our events, mainly because landowners insist on it. Now, the unfortunate thing is that the insurance cover specifically states that cover (third party liability) is only provided for competitors who are BOF members or are only doing their first THREE events with the sport. There is something going on there..... perhaps BOF have negotiated that in the cost of the premium, partly to insist all competitors join the sport NGB.... what do you think?

Mike's enews back in July 2014 seemed to address this:

The situation remains the same, under our cover the following applies:
a) The club and its officials will be covered for public liability insurance regardless of the non-members situation
b) All members participating or volunteering to organise etc will be covered
c) Non-members will be covered by public liability for 3 events.

The FAQ adds that volunteers are covered whether members or not, but that members permanently living abroad aren't covered.

So, unless anything else has changed, it isn't a rule, and the insurance cover for the event, which is what I presume the landowners are interested in, isn't affected.

I wonder whether anyone's considered offering "day membership" as part of the non-member entry fee. That would mean that everyone would be a member, and hence be insured.

[maprun]

RJ, at the 2012 AGM the ratio of the subscription fees and levy was agreed by the members by majority vote that from 1 January 2013 onwards (the minutes are available under Governance on the BOF website, click on 2012 AGM), the subscription income was not to exceed 25% of the combined total of budgeted subscription and levy income. The decision made was not for a limited period, and the directors are therefore bound by the members decision until they go back to them for this binding decision to be changed.

The proposal on subscriptions and levy tabled by the Board for the 2016 AGM ignores the binding decision on the ratio of future funding. Whether this is is an oversight by them is irrelevant, the decision by the members stands until the members pass a resolution explicitly revoking their earlier decision and the directors proposal has not asked the members to do so. Hopefully the Board will take advice on this.

[RJ]

....."under the current 'rules' you are only allowed to do THREE events while still not a BOF member. "

Mike's enews back in July 2014 seemed to address this:

c) Non-members will be covered by public liability for 3 events.

The crux of the matter is that the public liability insurance does not cover those non-members after event number three, and the insurance company will search that one out with vigour(!). So you can't tell a landowner that all the competitors are going to be covered, unless you have a working policy to capture as many as possible of the 'fourth' event runners and get them to join the NGB. If you upset a landowner through an insurance claim you will do so much damage to your club that it doesn't bear thinking about. Local press reports need to be about the great successes of the club, not one of arguing over liability following an accident or whatever.

I feel that BOF need to carefully look at who/what they are trying to get the funding for. It may be that there have to be redundancies. It is not as if this has appeared out of the blue. We have worried about losing Sport England grant money for quite a few years. 'Trimming the coat' has not been a focus of the Board..... I would suggest we question that!

[SeanC]

To be fair, the focus article does state that 4 paid posts that would be redundant or greatly reduced should the 90K not be forthcoming. It doesn't specify who they are, I would imagine this includes paid members of the performance team, the marketing manager and some of the administrative assistants. But clarity on this would help the debate.

[Simon]

To be fair, the focus article does state that 4 paid posts that would be redundant or greatly reduced should the 90K not be forthcoming. It doesn't specify who they are, I would imagine this includes paid members of the performance team, the marketing manager and some of the administrative assistants. But clarity on this would help the debate.

Further detail is in the longer response on the website.

Point of fact – Most of the staff posts are not supported by member funds. Only two are fully funded from British Orienteering funds, the Major Events Manager and Apprentice Administrator. The National Office team of CEO, Accounts Manager, Marketing Manager, Administrator, are 84% funded by Sport England. The Development team (6 people) and Talent team (1 + consultants) are all entirely funded by Sport England. Our staff in Northern Ireland (2) are funded entirely by Sport Northern Ireland. All funding is accompanied by challenging aims and targets.