New BOF Membership proposals

[PorkyFatBoy]

Some hill races have been organised under FRA rules to avoid this

So if it happens, is there a possibility that a split could develop in revolt against BOF and events could start to be registered as, for example, Nopesport events rather than BOF?

[graeme]

Already happens (sort of) with mountain marathons, navigational races and long-Os (PFO's Capricorn and NATO's Phoenix have been FRA events). There's no reason why they shouldn't be registered (i.e. insured) through BOF but often they're registered through someone else.

In my opinion, Orienteering missed an opportunity by not formally embracing the mountain marathon/adventure racing scene.

Graeme

[Mrs H.]

Quite so - although the purists like Gross will say B******S

I read a while back that I think it was the portugese Orienteering Federation had just declared themselves in charge of adventure racing full stop so as not to miss out on its popularity.
Perhaps the idea of the adventure racers funding us would be more appealing to a thrifty scot like Gross

[ifititches]

I'm sure that one of the things Chris Brasher was praised for was the way that he kept orienteering outside the AAA structure, right from its origins.

Part of his reasoning,I think, was to keep it out from the stifling bureaucracy. So it's ironic that we now have same arguments about BOF, but not surprising that other, newer sports/events should be trying to keep out of BOF's control.

In athletics, if I am a "training only" club member, I can access club training groups (for a fee/session) and the clubroom, but cannot compete for club, or get concessionary entry fees. But many athletics/road events are pre-entry only, so I guess clubs could check details to see if I was fully paid-up or not. Major problem for O with a two tier membership system is EOD, as we are effectively asking the people who sit in registration cars (who may have only recently joined the sport) to challenge everyone on level of membership, even whilst queues are building up and people are grumbling.

I would support BOF in this, but ask them to justify every bit of the membership fee/levy spending, and demonstrate more openly how the membership benefits. For instance, I know over the last 2 years I've had what I consider huge returns in subsidised coaching and First Aid courses, coach insurance, conference attendances etc.

[awk]

Reading through the proposal again, found this:

BOF is not getting income from Club only members, Clubs are not getting income for participants who "float" from event to event. The current system is unfair.

Of course BOF is getting income from Club only members. It's called the levy. In fact, the only money BOF does not get from club only members is the membership fee, which has alwyas been intended to cover membership services.

Of course clubs are getting income from participants who float from event to event. It's called the entry fee.

To me, the system is anything but unfair, it's very fair. If anything, what is unfair is to require people taking part in local (district) events to join BOF.

The more I think about this, the more the basic premises upon which this paper is built bother me.

[awk]

For instance, I know over the last 2 years I've had what I consider huge returns in subsidised coaching and First Aid courses, coach insurance, conference attendances etc.

Actually, I see this as the other way. I think the sport has benefited hugely from the voluntary commitment of coaches, many of whom fork out money to train up to support orienteering development and are jumping through ever higher hoops to keep the sport going. Equally so for controllers, planners, organisers, mappers etc.

I'm not complaining, as without this mutual help we wouldn't have a sport, but not for one second do I feel that these volunteers are being subsidised.

[ifititches]

knew that someone would give other point of view! How equation balances depends not only on why people decided train,and/or why they took up these extra interests but also the reception/positive feelings experienced as a result. Also depends where you're at in your personal and professional life and financially.

At present, because I've heard from other sports about the vast amounts of money volunteers have to pay for training up to higher coaching levels, it still feels to me like subsidised enjoyment, but have been times in last year when enjoyment has worn a bit thin! People should also be aware that recent national review of the effects of volunteering showed that it was not good for your health!

Interestingly, if someone wanted to build a coaching career or just support themselves financially, BOF coach training, and the current amount of money being put into coaching within LAs, might well enable them to do so! (based on offers I've had locally, but situation might change again after this tranche of money finishes in 2006). BUT work would probably be free-lance and require mostly evening and weekend/school holiday work, so I'm saving that up for alternative career once family left home!

My other point was that the burden for policing split systems of BOF/club/no membership should not be left to pressurised volunteers trying to get truthful answers at registration on EOD events which have differential entry fees. Would people accept that they always had to show a membership card to get the lower rates, and promise not to be abusive if they were asked to pay the higher fee having forgotten their card? I would always prefer to have simplest possible membership structure, even if it meant paying a bit more, just to ease administrative pressure at club level.

[RJ]

The BOF membership debate is a very interesting one. I would suggest that there are two main ideas to keep at the forefront of our thinking if we are to improve upon the existing system.
(1) the club is the bedrock of the orienteering structure.
(2) simplicity.

Most will be aware that the NWOA membership and subscription system involves just ten members, the ten clubs in the NW region. Each year NWOA decides how much money they wish to raise from their members in order to fund the activities they wish to participate in. Historically this varies little from year to year, taking account of inflation etc. This revenue is raised from the ten clubs in direct proportion to their membership, including all members, full BOF and local. Each club is asked to declare their membership numbers. Effectively every club member contributes to the running of the NWOA.

BOF could do the same. There would just be 60(?) members of BOF, the clubs. Each club would be levied a 'membership fee' depending on the number of people in the club. BOF decides what it is that they wish to fund from the membership fees; insurance, the event structure etc. They come up with an annual target and apportion it according to member numbers in each club.

If, as a starting point, they only consider the current full BOF numbers in each club then the fees will effectively stay the same. But over a three year period each club could expect to declare all its members and gradually have its share increased if the club has a large 'local' only membership.

And then the nitty gritty of collecting the money! Clubs are notoriously bad at paying, simply because it is the poor volunteer's time that is involved. But it would be simple enough to set up a direct debit spread over a six month period, to allow for the trickle of membership money into clubs.

So long as BOF wish to raise the same amount of money as they do now, then after three years with ALL members paying, the actual fee will be less. Clubs will then decide who takes part in their events. If people are avoiding joining a club then they can be encouraged by persuasion locally; but deal with that problem when the scale and nature of it is apparent.

Roger Jackson (WCOC)

[PeterG]

The big problem with that is you lose the BOF membership database which is very useful to a lot of people.

[Godders]

The big problem with that is you lose the BOF membership database which is very useful to a lot of people.

And, effectively, a sports council requirement.

[RJ]

I don't follow that logic.

Just because clubs organise events it doesn't mean there isn't an event database. There is absolutely no reason why clubs wouldn't input their membership names into a central database.

[awk]

Actually, from what I can remember from previous discussion at BOF, I don't think the membership database was regarded as the stumbling block. I think there was a real problem with changing the constitution. Can't remember how or why - my memory is getting more addled every day I teach (!!), but that was the big headache.

[HOCOLITE]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned already, but in discussion at our AGM, when our W Mids rep reported back from council, it became clear that there are several suggestions but council prefer the everyone a member of BOF idea. All clubs are supposed to receive details before the Jan council meeting. With nearly half our membership non BOF we were not too enamoured with the proposal as we felt these people would most likely withdraw rather than become BOF members.

[Klebe]

With nearly half our membership non BOF we were not too enamoured with the proposal as we felt these people would most likely withdraw rather than become BOF members.

Got to agree with that statement. We have members in our club who willingly give their time helping at events without doing much orienteering themselves. I cannot see them wanting to pay out for full BOF membership, which could mean that we lose them completely from the club.

I am not experienced in orienteering politics but as a suggestion would it be possible to 'bend the rules' so to speak and the clubs write into their constitution that they have non-active members who only pay a club membrship fee. The problem I can then envisage is what we do with the infrequent orientering family who add to the clubs manpower resources but are not dedicated orienteers. These people are quite often on the first rung of the ladder, who may after a couple of years get hooked and then wish to attend badge events etc and then be willing to join BOF proper.

We must not lose this group of people.

[Mrs H.]

.......and because they are not BOF members they may not be consulted on the matter or be in a position to vote on it - which is why it's vitally important that these proposals are aired in club magazines - which might be a club-only member's only contact with the proposal!