New BOF Membership proposals

[PorkyFatBoy]

Sorry to drag this up again but BOF has posted its proposals (including a Powerpoint that contains a timetable for implementation) on their website and are asking for feedback

I guess they're aware of our views via this thread and Ranald, but if there are any more views that have not yet been expressed here (or you want to re-emphasise) then feel free to let BOF know.

[Mrs H.]

I've been thinking about this. Do you suppose it's legal, let alone ethical (BOF buzz word), for a bunch of people to vote on the fate of people who don't have a vote. Is it not reminiscent of certain repressive regimes the civilised world condemns? surely the only fair way to proceed with these proposals is for every club member (BOF registered or not) to have a vote on whether they are adopted.

[PorkyFatBoy]

It's probably legal, I don't know about ethical (ethics to me is where SOS come from)

If the non-BOF member's feel disenfranchised about the decision, they can always join BOF to vote against it - but then they've become BOF members - which is what BOF wants in the first place. Is that unethical or just lateral thinking?

[gross2004]

I thought my BOF bashing was bad but Mrs H is getting over the top here:) How on earth can you expect BOF to allow non-members to vote in the running of BOF? Club members can have a say in the running of thier club... and the club can represent thier views to BOF. But at present BOF is a collection of individual members & it's those members who have the right to vote............................

[bendover]

agree. if you choose to opt out of BOF, then why should you have a say in how its run?

[Mrs H.]

Yes but............ BOF are attempting to exert a massive influence on how clubs are run. Individual BOF members will vote at the agm on the membership proposals - but the only fair way to do it woulf be for each club to have an internal vote and then take that all-club vote to BOF who can then count them up. How can the members of one organisation (BOF) take a decision which affect the future of another organisation (the individual clubs) when we have already established that the membership of one is not the same as the membership of the other.

[PorkyFatBoy]

I guess the question is more about how the sport is run rather than BOF membership figures, but if they really cared about how the sport was run, then they'd not only be BOF members but would turn up to vote at the AGM. In my experience club only members can't be [nope]d even to turn up to club AGM's, so I don't think they'll be too bothered about having a say in BOF, even if the plans affect them.

I'm beginning to find the structure odd - most other sports seem to be recognising that the sport is best delivered at a club level and the clubs are the only members of the national body. In effect the opposite of what seems to be happening in O. BOF could argue that it is better able to represent the sport to national/governmental bodies, obtain funding and support clubs in tht way.

May be we have an inherent mistrust of BOF and greater transpanecy and say in how the additional funding is to be used would go some way to appeasing us.

[Mrs H.]

Absolutely and totally agree with your last statement - infact the only way i can see this proposal working at all is if BOF becomes a federation of clubs and not individual members like the NW guy suggested. then BOF would clearly have to do what the clubs say and not the other way round. i think the tail has been wagging the dog for far too long.

[gross2004]

Some years ago BOF Membership had a major opportunity to restructure BOF into a more viable structure...... more in line with the reorganisation of funding bodies. It required regions, clubs and individuals to move forward.... were the membership in general interested???? No way...

You'll find that by far the majority of BOF members (and I guess non-BOF members) couldn't actually give two hoots about what BOF does or doesn't do or what it provides..... but that doesn't mean sitting on your backside doing nothing.

If anyone is unhappy with proposals being put forward by BOF then they should take the opportunity to provide an alternative & put those ideas forward..... so Mrs H.. the ball is in your court... you don't like what BOF are proposing... what is your alternative thoughts? Put them on the table & we can compare & discuss.

[Neil Crickmore]

Like the NW the SE have a club membership system with fees based on declared membership. That way clubs can choose whether to raise the fees via subs/event levy/sponsorship/fundraising etc. Fees for the next year being based on this year's membership.

This could work for BOF as well, although a central database of members should be maintained. There are many logisitical advantages in having BOF numbers and for BOF to have demographic information.

Clubs not paying/declaring is a potential problem but one faced by any business.

[Mrs H.]

I think you either maintain a two tier system for those who are new to the sport/ social/local only members OR you abolish BOF membership fees all together - declare all orienteers BOF members and raise the levies at regional events and above so people who orienteer more are the ones who pay the most for the services they use more than others - simple supply and demand and leave the clubs alone. BUT before you change anything you should make it perfectly clear what you are going to spend the money on - and indeed where the existing income is going. BOF members are being asked to make a big decision in return for lower membership fees. Bribery is of course a very persuasive argument but hardly an intellectual one. apart from the prospect of losing many of their club only members - what is in it for the clubs as a whole if BOF get their way?

[PorkyFatBoy]

On the BOF website, the strategic plan for 2005-2009 has a lot of great goals, most of which seem to be delivered by the RDOs. These are funded (for one day a week) by Sports Council funding. Any additional time is funded from the local associations, who asked the clubs if they would support a second day. (there is no mention of this funding coming from increased membership fees in future.)

The RDOs seem to be the only part of the plan which is openly costed and mention made of the funding sources. It would appear that the additional income generated by having everyone become BOF members is taken up with bureaucracy - albeit in the form of national exposure and funding support for orienteering. Other "deliverables" seem to revolve around volunteers, much as now.

"All club members to be BOF members" is however a strategic goal for 2007/8 under "gerenal development" and is repeated as part of the funding section. The two are obviously linked, but does it really cost so much (on an ongoing basis) to develop and implement a policy or two to comply with government rules?

[awk]

I would totally agree with Neil Crickmore: all members of clubs are then members of BOF. There are one or two fairly minor operational issues attached to this, but nothing more difficult than those raised by the current system.

I'm actually a bit bemused why this isn't being advocated by the BOF paper - it has certainly been on the table at BOF for some time, and was seen at one stage (admittedly over a year ago!) as the most logical way forward. Unless some major difficulty has been discovered....?

In my response to BOF, I underlined the fact that before any fees or levies are raised, a much stronger and more precise financial argument needs to be put forward, not least because some of the statements made in the introduction to the paper are simply and fairly obviously wrong. I was told that I was the only one of the 50 or so responses who was strongly negative about the paper.

[Mrs H.]

Indeed, i think this is the only vaguely satisfactory version of the proposal - and may actually have some merits in that it gives the clubs the flexibility to raise the subscription as they choose ( and a possibility to introduce an incentive scheme for helpers - an introductory scheme for newcomers etc etc) and more importantly will make the clubs - as the BOF members - more influential in the running of BOF - like a TUC or House of Representatives.

I suspect that BOF have already resigned themselves to this but have gone in with a more radical proposal to make the perceived compromise more acceptable.

[freaky_phil]

Just another slant on the debate, if a person e.g. Joe Public turns up at your event (IND) and runs he is not covered under the BOF Insurance for Public Liability.
So who is covered ??? Answer is on the BOF website (type in Insurance and go to the Coaching Documents Link)...

Answer is (from document) BOF and all its members: associations, clubs and individuals, including claims made against us personally, and claims made by other members, in connection with orienteering activities. That’s why it’s important that coaches and event officials (controllers, planners, organisers) are BOF members. They are more likely than most to have a claim made against them, for something silly they did, or told someone else to do. ...Hope all your controllers, planners and organisers are BOF members??

What about guests, spectators, or club-only members?
If they’re not BOF members, they’re not covered. But we are covered for them, i.e. we’re covered if a claim is made against us for something a non-member did. If a spectator who is not a member drops a match and starts a fire, and the landowner sues them, they’re not covered by our insurance. But if the landowner sues us for the fire, we are covered.

When I was club fixture secretary I had to send a copy of the BOF Insuance to Local Councils and some landowners (to show we had public liability cover) bet they don't know about the IND runners, probably would not be let on any publically owned land again.. Also the document did not say categorically if Club only members were covered or not, the inference is that the club is covered so therefore the members of the club are also, but then it says if they are not a member of BOF then they are not covered. Confused..

So if somebody who wants to run at your event turns up - tell them that although the levy they pay will go to BOF it does not cover their insurance, so as well as having the "Orienteers take part at their own risk" sign make a new sign saying "if you are not a BOF member you are not insured and could get sued by the landowner if you knock down a wall, start a fire, etc etc"