Membership and levy proposal

[SeanC]

Your talking about registration Paul, like parkrun.

I'm a 3 runs a year kind of parkrunner. I joined so many years ago and can never leave. Because I can never leave I always feel I am a parkrunner. Because I am a parkrunner I am more likely to promote it by word of mouth and Facebook, go more often myself, and I ended up encouraging my son to go to junior parkruns.

If I had to rejoin, even for a small fee, I most probably would no longer be a member and wouldn't belong, not because I wouldn't want to pay, but because I would inevitably forget one year and that would be it.

Orienteering has a big potential market of casual orienteers doing half dozen events or less per year. I could see the case for two levels of "membership" - registration (everyone must do it, but it's free, and you'll be emailed unless you tick the box) and membership (you pay but get more). Clubs could have access to the emails of those registering with them, and then use the emails to encourage participation. The second level - membership is aimed at the keen core orienteers - 10+ events per year. Members would get member discounts, focus etc but the main selling point being you're helping the sport.

This would leave a hole in the budget which would need to be filled by capitation or levies.

[PhilJ]

mapman

Your argument ignores how being a member of BOF and almost certainly a member of a club (more income for the club) will effect their future activity in the sport

how will being a member of BO effect my future activity? I probably orienteer about 8 times a year now, not been to JK/BOC etc for years, and like XX% of orienteers only attend club events (I am sure BO have the XX% of orienteers who only attend local club events, I wonder if they will share that info?). So BO does not effect my future activity at all.

SeanC

I could see the case for two levels of "membership"

...BO tried that not so long ago Local v National membership, can't remember why it was got rid of but National allowed you to compete in JK/BOC etc where as Local did not.

Time for its return?

[SeanC]

The reason why I put "membership" in quotes is because I was arguing for one level of membership and registration. Registration being for life and not just till Christmas.

[maprun]

Phil J, my comment was more about the behaviour of potential new BO members. Point taken on it not making a difference to local orienteers, which brings one to the issue of setting the fee at a level that retains inactive members rather encouraging them to lapse their membership. (post edited)

[andypat]

I dont know how relevant this is to our issue, but I joined SMBO (for free) after trying mountain bike orienteering at one of the 6 day events. As it happened their events always clashed with foot O so I never made it to one.
The following year I got an email saying not to rejoin unless I was attending an event.
No idea what their model is in terms of funding that requires them to say that, but I took the right huff after that and have never done any more MTBO.
(I dont think SMBO are affiliated to BOF by the way like BMBO seems to be)

[andypat]

The more I think about it, and having read Mike Hamiltons piece on British Orienteering, I'm prepared to admit that BOF have made an effort to both inform us of what they do and also (to an extent) show up at some events to try and appear less remote.

However the big sticking point for me, which I don't see Mike Hamilton explaining, is that the SOA perform quite a lot of the functions that BOF claim to in Scotland, yet we have to pay the same membership and levy.

One solution that might get BOF out of some of the criticism from up here would be for BOF levies to be reduced on Scotland allowing more money to be retained up here.

I'd also like to see the levy removed from local events again which are starting to get prohibitively expensive especially trying to get families to weekly series.

[Big Jon]

How is a £1 a 42% increase?

Because Simon is innumerate?

[Gross]

However the big sticking point for me, which I don't see Mike Hamilton explaining, is that the SOA perform quite a lot of the functions that BOF claim to in Scotland, yet we gave to pay the same membership and levy.

One solution that might get BOF out of some of the criticism from up here would be for BOF levies to be reduced on Scotland allowing more money to be retained up here.

Get Nicola on the case

[Spookster]

The Board met last weekend and debated the membership & levy proposal to be put to the forthcoming EGM.

There's a news article that summarises the outcome here.

[andypat]

Positive that the board have taken on some of the membership concerns.

Purely from a personal perspective the difference between option 1 and 2 appears minimal - a bit like voting for Labour or Conservative (at least before Corbyn came along). Whats the options if you dislike either option?

[Electrocuted]

I am assuming each proposal will come with a 'for' or 'against' option in which case you could vote 'against' both proposals.

It would however be nice to have some information of how the proposals will be put to the membership as the news item on the BOF website is not particularly clear.

[roadrunner]

The differences certainly seem insignificant for most people. The "break even" point is around 12 events a year; for 1 to 24 events a year (which probably covers a large fraction of the membership), it's no more than £2.30 for a senior and 80p for a junior - surely minimal for anyone. If you're a real enthusiast and do 52 events a year, it's less than £8 for a senior and £3 for a junior - which isn't going to be much compared to the cost of entering and travelling to all those events.

It does seem a bit of a waste offering two such similar options - or indeed having the EGM at all (it must cost quite a bit in its own right), except that I suppose that, having had the motion voted down at the AGM, it's the only way membership fees and levies can be changed.

Could it be that the vote will be option 1 or option 2, thereby ensuring that one of the other will be chosen?

[Spookster]

Could it be that the vote will be option 1 or option 2, thereby ensuring that one of the other will be chosen?

Yes, that's exactly what the vote will be.

The two options are reasonably similar, as a result of them being selected following the broad consultation (albeit that had some pretty varied views among responses), and the Board wanting to ensure the EGM options followed the same principles as the ones consulted upon (but amended slightly, given the decision to use reserves to make up some of the budget shortfall in 2017).

[roadrunner]

Could it be that the vote will be option 1 or option 2, thereby ensuring that one of the other will be chosen?

Yes, that's exactly what the vote will be.

Actually, from the EGM notice just received, it seems not. You can vote for Option 1, Option 2, or Against (or Abstain). If the sum of the votes for both options exceeds the votes against, the more popular option has been chosen. Otherwise, we stick with the status quo.

[Spookster]

Could it be that the vote will be option 1 or option 2, thereby ensuring that one of the other will be chosen?

Yes, that's exactly what the vote will be.

Actually, from the EGM notice just received, it seems not. You can vote for Option 1, Option 2, or Against (or Abstain). If the sum of the votes for both options exceeds the votes against, the more popular option has been chosen. Otherwise, we stick with the status quo.

Correct.

There was further discussion amongst the Board following the meeting, and we've agreed that this is the most appropriate way to put forward the proposal. We believe it's clear as described in the paper, but if not, then let us know!