The price of a no vote?

[SeanC]

Assuming we vote 'no' at the AGM to the membership and levy proposal to raise 90K for British Orienteering (mainly through increased membership fees), and no alternative deal is sorted out, British Orienteering will stop doing a lot of things it currently does.

Overall, is this a good thing (because orienteers may save 90K per year) or a bad thing (because services may be lost).

The focus article lists the difference between 'strategic budget' and 'most prudent', by which I assume these are the items that will disappear in 2017 with a 'no' vote (saving in brackets)

Membership, Focus and mailings (£25K)
Performance WOC squad support (21K)
Developing the sport (18K)
Expenses, Travel and Subsistence (12.5K)
Promoting the sport (10K)
Events and competition support (4K)
Performance TrailO and MTBO (2K)
Expenses, IOF post holders (2K)
Training staff (2K)
Pension contributions (1.5K)
Membership other (0.5K)

I can see that Focus and athlete support would be history... but any help interpreting the other items from the directors or others with knowledge? For example what promotion and development would be lost?

Would there be costs to loosing these services? (so we wouldn't save 90K after all)

Could some or all of these services be provided for free some other way? Or even a better way? And how would this work?

If you're serious about voting no, these are important questions IMHO.

[canol]

Is there not a legal requirement to pay pension contributions, which might reduce of course if the staff being paid were reduced in number?
For what it is worth I am not in favour of a great reduction in what is offered by BOF. I like to read Focus, I think international competition and officiating should be supported but I would like to think the Board closely monitor the performance of all employees in conjunction with where the monies come from.

[maprun]

Some people may have to vote NO because although they are not against the £90k increase in member funding, they oppose the £80k hike in subscription income, as they believe it will damage the membership base and recruitment/development work by clubs.

Our CEO and the then chairperson of BOF drafted the 2012 AGM proposal that was passed by us (members), that from 1 January 2013 onwards, subscriptions should not exceed 25% of subscription and levy income. This was after a year of consultation across the sport, " a root and branch review" according to our CEO at the time.

The proposal to blow that policy out of the water with a proposed tripling of subscriptions at the AGM in 16 days time is beyond me. It appears it was only first discussed and agreed at the February 2016 Board meeting, not long enough time for the rest of the Board to take soundings. Sadly it is a case of marching the members up to the top of the hill and saying we need to go down again without an explanation, beyond it is apparently fairer. Where the Strategic Review/Plan/Vision thing is in all of this is anybody's guess!

If we vote NO, then there is no reason why after proper consultation a sensible proposal cannot be put forwards later in the year to a General Meeting. The cost will be relatively small, a venue for 50 plus people and the general meeting being communicated to us, as with the AGM, via the website and emails.

I strongly suggest members vote NO, not necessarily as an up yours gesture, but so we can be properly consulted over BOF's biggest decision in years, and we get it right.

[greywolf]

The focus article raises more questions than it answers, not least does it really cost £10k per annum for an unfit-for-purpose membership database and website?

The biggest problem is that it pretends that it is in some way starting a discussion with the membership - asking what we think is important from BOF, and how much (and how) are we willing to pay for it. If that was the case then fine -unfortunately the Board have already decided the answers and are presenting the membership with an ultimatum and no Plan B.

[daffdy]

The focus article lists the difference between 'strategic budget' and 'most prudent', by which I assume these are the items that will disappear in 2017 with a 'no' vote (saving in brackets)

Membership, Focus and mailings (£25K)
Performance WOC squad support (21K)
Developing the sport (18K)
Expenses, Travel and Subsistence (12.5K)
Promoting the sport (10K)
Events and competition support (4K)
Performance TrailO and MTBO (2K)
Expenses, IOF post holders (2K)
Training staff (2K)
Pension contributions (1.5K)
Membership other (0.5K)

That's a useful list. Worth remembering that it also doesn't include any salaries - which is something else to think about, and also makes talking about what could happen challenging as it concerns people's jobs.

The Board sets the annual budget to make best use of the available funds - if the available funds became £90k smaller, then we'd sit down and have a long, probably heated, likely unpleasant discussion about what we can and can't do. We've already had quite a few of those over the years as savings have been made and budgets reduced, they weren't fun, this one would be much worse!

So it's really quite hypothetical. What I personally think might happen is that British Orienteering would have to focus in on the things it is legally obliged to do, and ditch as many of the things that a half-decent NGB really should be doing.

I'd guess things Focus might take a hit and go down to an annual report type thing or not happen at all. This would hardly improve comms with members, which is something British Orienteering hasn't always been that great at and needs to keep working on.

Even with only one or two salaries added in to the budget, I can't imagine it would be defensible to give elite (senior) performance even the fairly minimal amount they got this year, so elite support would probably be reduced.

Support for major events might have to reduce as well, which would mean undoing all the steps to make life easier for volunteers.

Development things like clubmark and the in-development organiser training could be lost too.

Or other things, or some combination of the above - in short it would be very uncertain. And probably nobody would be happy with the result.

The focus article raises more questions than it answers, not least does it really cost £10k per annum for an unfit-for-purpose membership database and website?

Yes, pretty much - has to be secure, robust, accessible in the right ways to the right people... but goodness me, I would love there to be enough money to give it and the website a right proper going over.

[daffdy]

The focus article lists the difference between 'strategic budget' and 'most prudent', by which I assume these are the items that will disappear in 2017 with a 'no' vote (saving in brackets)

Membership, Focus and mailings (£25K)
Performance WOC squad support (21K)
Developing the sport (18K)
Expenses, Travel and Subsistence (12.5K)
Promoting the sport (10K)
Events and competition support (4K)
Performance TrailO and MTBO (2K)
Expenses, IOF post holders (2K)
Training staff (2K)
Pension contributions (1.5K)
Membership other (0.5K)

That's a useful list. Worth remembering that it also doesn't include any salaries - which is something else to think about, and also makes talking about what could happen challenging as it concerns people's jobs.

The Board sets the annual budget to make best use of the available funds - if the available funds became £90k smaller, then we'd sit down and have a long, probably heated, likely unpleasant discussion about what we can and can't do. We've already had quite a few of those over the years as savings have been made and budgets reduced, they weren't fun, this one would be much worse!

So it's really quite hypothetical. What I personally think might happen is that British Orienteering would have to focus in on the things it is legally obliged to do, and ditch as many of the things that a half-decent NGB really should be doing.

I'd guess things Focus might take a hit and go down to an annual report type thing or not happen at all. This would hardly improve comms with members, which is something British Orienteering hasn't always been that great at and needs to keep working on.

Even with only one or two salaries added in to the budget, I can't imagine it would be defensible to give elite (senior) performance even the fairly minimal amount they got this year, so elite support would probably be reduced.

Support for major events might have to reduce as well, which would mean undoing all the steps to make life easier for volunteers.

Development things like clubmark and the in-development organiser training could be lost too.

Or other things, or some combination of the above - in short it would be very uncertain. And probably nobody would be happy with the result.

The focus article raises more questions than it answers, not least does it really cost £10k per annum for an unfit-for-purpose membership database and website?

Yes, pretty much - has to be secure, robust, accessible in the right ways to the right people... but goodness me, I would love there to be enough money to give it and the website a right proper going over.

[maprun]

Daffy, thank for the information, it's pleasing and helpful that someone at the coal face is helping the members understand the issues.

[madmike]

My view on this topic is this:

I spend much, much, much more on traveling to events than I do on membership or event levy. The sum in question is lost in the noise of my overall spend on O. Therefore, I don't care one hoot how the NGB collects the relatively small amount of money from me.

[maprun]

Mike, I assume you care about O development. The low subscription fee that the proposal will do away with, was meant to encourage new members. I'm sure most people on Nope are indifferent and they will renew.

Interestingly fuel prices peaked at around £1.45 a litre at the time of the 2012 AGM, when the low fee and the £1.00 levy was agreed as the way forwards by members after a year of BOF consultation. A levy of £3 (currently £1.35) is small beer now compared to the fuel savings in attending events, another reason to keep fees down and put the majority on the levy.

[greywolf]

Membership, Focus and mailings (£25K)
Performance WOC squad support (21K)
Developing the sport (18K)
Expenses, Travel and Subsistence (12.5K)
Promoting the sport (10K)
Events and competition support (4K)
Performance TrailO and MTBO (2K)
Expenses, IOF post holders (2K)
Training staff (2K)
Pension contributions (1.5K)
Membership other (0.5K)

An interesting list indeed. Why would a new club member who brings their kids to a 5 or 6 local level D events a year, and is already paying BOF membership, BOF levy and SOA membership want to pay another £10 for this?

[maprun]

Membership, Focus and mailings (£25K)
Performance WOC squad support (21K)
Developing the sport (18K)
Expenses, Travel and Subsistence (12.5K)
Promoting the sport (10K)
Events and competition support (4K)
Performance TrailO and MTBO (2K)
Expenses, IOF post holders (2K)
Training staff (2K)
Pension contributions (1.5K)
Membership other (0.5K)

An interesting list indeed. Why would a new club member who brings their kids to a 5 or 6 local level D events a year, and is already paying BOF membership, BOF levy and SOA membership want to pay another £10 for this?

Well according to the Board's 2016 supporting AGM statement it will be fairer to triple the fees. So on BOF's logic from 2013 to 2016, the income sources were unfair. These were recommended to members at the 2012 AGM after a year long consultation and the agreement of the members. The 2012 resolution was incidentally drafted by the CEO, no less.

I wonder if we will be told at the AGM that the development policy from 2013 onwards was not helped by the lower fees.

[madmike]

Mike, I assume you care about O development.

you assume correctly

[SeanC]

Speaking of development, there is something else interesting that I don't think anyone else has spotted?

In the list of things we don't get if we don't pay the extra 90K is "developing the sport". Presumably this is things like supporting clubmark, and the volunteer strategy *

Do we still have a "multi-day levy"? It used to be used for the BOF development fund, grants given out to clubs. The development fund was wound up in 2012 and after that the multi-day levy was used directly by BO for its development work.

So, if we vote no, and we end up with the most prudent budget, can we really say that the multi-day levy is being used for development? Would that be another previous AGM resolution that has been forgotten? Wouldn't we need a vote on the use of the multi-day fund if the money was to end up paying for things in the "most prudent" category? Please do correct if this is all wrong.

Here's the quote from the last BO development committee minutes at https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/ ... _10_12.pdf

The Board has decided to include the multi-day levy fund in the budgeting process rather than leave it as a ring-fenced fund. It does not believe this goes against the original AGM decision of 10 years ago which specified that the money should be used for development. The Board considers that the fund is not currently being used as effectively as it could be and has decided that the money would be better used strategically by being centrally allocated to support the development priorities of British Orienteering. In particular, the Board is concerned at the lack of spending on volunteer support. Our sport is heavily dependent on volunteers and the Board believes that this is an area that our objectives rely on and that we should apply more resources to. Inclusion of the multi-day levy will increase the amount of money available to support, train and develop volunteers.

* all useful things, any extra info on these for the debate gratefully received.

[maprun]

The money went into the general budget spread across the whole of BOF's budget, on the basis that BOF develops the sport. Begs the question what it has been spent on since.

The development committee was duly closed down as it had no further purpose! Arguably development and a committee driven by and supported by the clubs and regions, would avoid the lack of cohesion between Xplorer and clubs, and other issues on development.

[maprun]

The minutes per SeanC above, the Board say: Our sport is heavily dependent on volunteers and the Board believes that this is an area that our objectives rely on and that we should apply more resources to. Inclusion of the multi-day levy will increase the amount of money available to support, train and develop volunteers.

Any announcements on the training, developing and supporting "volunteers" (the members), as referred to above? Since found(?) at page 4 and 5 in latest Focus.