Membership Proposals - Back to the Future

[Mrs H.]

Redkite's agenda sounds good to me! In the meantime BOF will have to cut its coat to suit its cloth. I seem to recall that the best financial position they were in in recent years was the period between Sophie and her predecessor when no marketing manager was being paid for (no I'm not having a go at anyone here - but it makes you think doesn't it) like eldroc says (who's that i wonder?) if you don't have RDO's you don't have to pay for them either. We don't need Focus either - it tells us nothing we don't already know. and before the BOF glove puppets start saying this money comes from this agency or that agency - it may do now but it won't do for long - we'll be expected to find the money ourselves.

Remember - this money is only needed because BOF are following the agenda laid down by the government - not by it's members.

Redkite's is an excellent scenario - it's that of we all become woodland guerillas (I think i've just invented a whole new sport)

[PorkyFatBoy]

The current initial £50 rebate to be replaced with this and a ‘new members’ rebate scheme.

Anyone know what this is - can't see it mentioned elsewhere?

Must admit to being narked about the C5 levy, but if clubs are allowed to keep 50% of the event and development levies for non-members, there is nothing to stop them effectively giving it back to the non-members by way of a discount so that they only pay the BOF part of ther levy, is there?

If we assume that BOF Central are adamant on their spending proposals, then I think that it's possibly a workable compromise. I think we'll have to budget a little more before each event, but these may become prohibitive with the cost of a loo added. We'll also need to budget for the membership fees before the Club AGM to ensure that we get the numbers right for the coming year.

Credit to BOF Central for persisting and a document which I think more lucid than previous versions. There are howeer, still a number of assumptions in it that may undermine its success.

[Guest]

[quote="BOF Proposal"

If we assume that BOF Central are adamant on their spending proposals, then I think that it's possibly a workable compromise. I think we'll have to budget a little more before each event, but these may become prohibitive with the cost of a loo added. We'll also need to budget for the membership fees before the Club AGM to ensure that we get the numbers right for the coming year.

Why isn't BOF suggesting economies of scale to the regions, or even taking the lead. EG.Toilets are now used at most events, surely the numbers required could be estimated for a year, for each regions events and then an advanced order placed with one supplier which should reduce the cost. There is other equipment that is used at major events tat is hired every time and if purchased would almost certainly be cheaper and could even be hired to clubs.

Hocolite

[awk]

but if clubs are allowed to keep 50% of the event and development levies for non-members, there is nothing to stop them effectively giving it back to the non-members by way of a discount so that they only pay the BOF part of ther levy, is there?

This is quite ridiculous though - a club being "allowed" to keep half of a levy that it probably doesn't want to charge in the first place, and having to find ways of rebating it.

If we assume that BOF Central are adamant on their spending proposals, then I think that it's possibly a workable compromise.

No...then we tell them, fine, find another way of raising it if you so strongly believe this is the right way, but the membership doesn't. The membership need only let something happen it doesn't want if it allows itself to be railroaded into it.

[freaky_phil]

Graeme wrote :-

According to the strategic plan...
hey Graeme where does it say Welsh and Irish RDO's in the document,

BOF strategic plan section 6.11.


http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/d ... 004-09.pdf

Thanks Grame missed that first time round in the Strategic Plan, but as WOA top dog (Chair for my sins!) I have not have BOF knocking on my door with a bag of swag lately, but I'll collaring somebody at the next BOF Council meeting.

[freaky_phil]

RJ wrote:-

If we could only find a way of showing all clubs how a particular model was working with one or more clubs, then that success could be spread. The apparent spread of good practice ideas is indeed very slow.

Have a look of my reply under the posting of "Schools Development", it shows the POW model which increased their membership from 2001 to 2004 by 350%.

[John Morris]

On 14th April, I received a copy of the Membership Proposal – the one which we’ve just managed to get posted on the website. I responded on the same day with an annotated version, which I sent to the original circulation, attached to an email message which seems as relevant now as it did then.

I’ve slightly updated my annotations, picking up on the partiality of the RDO benefits and on the questionable assertion that the Sports Councils want this re-organisation.

I'm hoping that Mrs H, to whom I've sent a copy, can make the annotated paper available for download.

The email read:-

(Start of email)

I’ve spent an afternoon going through the paper. I haven’t got to Annex A – which shouldn’t have any problems apart from extensive grammatical lapses.

As for the main paper:-

The proposal seems perfectly acceptable – you know my views on Malcolm’s back-up budget – although there may be a worryingly attractive loophole in the levy refunds to Clubs (baby & bathwater?) which I’ll look at again later.

The drafting of the actual proposal is sloppy – for instance, unless the tenses are corrected, we won’t have authority to implement some of the changes – and needs serious attention.

The argument for the proposal is disappointing – a lot of bullets in feet and much obfuscation of what should be simple points. I have attached an annotated version pointing out some of the major weaknesses. I’d suggest however a complete re-write, saying (in your own words, gentlemen, but very, very simply):-

“We want to bring all Club Orienteers into BOF membership (we assume you know why but if not, there are some reading references).

“For it to make sense for occasional orienteers to join us, we have to lower the height of that critical step; we have to lower the cost of membership.

“If we lower that cost to what we consider the right level, the total BOF income from membership fees will fall. We shall therefore need, if we are to sustain our current range of activities, to increase our income from levy. Our proposals for changes in the levy system are listed below. You will notice that they include the re-imposition of levy on C5 events. This will reflect the increasingly central place that these highly approachable events have taken in our portfolio.

“We wish, in addition, to take advantage of government grant funding unexpectedly available for our RDO schemes. To secure this funding (Ranald, please confirm/amend?) we need to make our own membership-funded contribution. This will be achieved using an additional levy scheme.

“Annex A details the formal proposal. Annex B lists the services that BOF provides for its members, their Clubs and their Associations. Annex C expresses this financially, showing the sources and uses of all BOF funding, and highlighting (how about using some colour, gentlemen?) where your membership contributions go now and where they will go in the proposed future. Annex D builds on this, spelling out the effects of the proposed changes. Annex E contains a reading list for the BOF Membership debate.

“Please vote for this proposal – partly because it can help us migrate (in Sports Council eyes) from being a minor, oddball, and not very (politically) rewarding international success venture (way, way down the pecking order) into a standard-setting, class-leading (and much trendier) Fitter Nation project. And mainly because continuing Sports Council support, combined with the unrelenting enthusiasm of our own members, can help us renew and transform ourselves.”

I suggest also that, if you really want to sell this to those who voted down your last Special Resolution, you have to set up a BOF web Forum, invite comments to be posted there, and be prepared to get in there promptly and frequently to respond. Honestly and openly. Taking the knocks and tolerating the levity. Because there’s a lot of damage to repair.

Best wishes for success!

John

PS In case you have worries about chat rooms - and I certainly did when I tip-toed into nopesport - once you’re in, the water’s fine! I must admit to one slight disappointment, though. I’ve been on that forum for three months now, and no-one’s even tried to groom me for sex!

(End of email)

Since writing the email, I have (a) slightly extended my notes on the May 7th paper, (b) drawn up a ready reckoner which individuals and clubs can use to see how the tariff changes might affect them, (c) pressed (successfully) at Management Committee for the website mounting of the paper and (d) asked (unsuccessfully) that the names of the (approximately, according to Ranald) 25 invitees be published so that the disenfranchised 8,000 of us can ask them to relay our views to the May 7th meeting.

Let me reiterate: I’m broadly in favour of giving the Treasurer what he asks for in 2006.

But there are conditions…

1. I want much, much more openness, and much more open debate on membership and funding. Sucking selected contributions into a black hole – and calling it consultation – is not the same thing. And in an organisation owned by its membership, it is not ‘good governance’ – it deserves unremitting censure.

And, in general, I think that Management Committee needs to see itself as a two-way information link, which will help to ensure that strategic decisions are taken where they should be, in and by Council, as they should be, for the Membership. I’ll return to this…

2. The RDO scheme needs to be exposed to full, open, view. We need to see where, Region by Region, the money is to go, and on what (‘infrastructure’, indeed!) it is to be spent. We need to see what benefits are sought; we need to m-e-a-s-u-r-e their achievement. (If you can’t monitor progress, you can’t adjust your course – every orienteer knows that.) We need to see how those who will not benefit, or who have already set up and funded their own schemes, will be compensated.

3. Misrepresentations must be purged from the Proposal. At present there are references to a vote at the 2005 AGM and to UKSC’s “NGB Success Criteria” which are clearly at variance with known fact. And, if there are two, there may be others…

4. We need to be told where we’re going. Alongside the Strategic Plan, published on the BOF website, there is a Strategic Budget, not (as far as I know) so far published. This budget clearly maps the spending plans and the membership contribution to funding that have been committed to the Sports Councils. This budget is the reverse side of the membership and RDO schemes for which we are to be asked to vote. I want it published where we can all see it; failing that, we’re being asked to buy a pig in a poke.

I hope that this is not too much to ask.

JM 29/04/05

PS The ready-reckoner is available from me. Mrs H has a copy - which may be made available for download?

[redkite]

It would be interesting to see if your ready reckoner produces the same result as the calc I have done for my club. A downloadable version would be useful.

You can tell Im an accountant

[Ant W]

I can understand why, in order to maintain income levels, we might need to rethink the levy waiver on C5 events. But I don't understand why a differential approach has been disregarded. A £2 increase on an existing £2 C5 entry will have much more of an impact than, say, a further £1 increase on a £7.50 C3 entry.

What would be the impact of a £1 (50p to members) levy for C5 on that required for C4 & above?

[graeme]

Nobody has mentioned this "Development levy". It appears to be simply a way of raising more levy without raising the levy (think: income tax,national insurance). Why is it separate?

The obvious, but unstated, reason is that some people might pay levy, but not "development levy". Who might that be?

Scotland, I presume. The way the sports councils are structured Scotland is also obliged to pay extra to leverage our RDOs - and this extra has to come through SOA, not BOF.

Since we already pay an development levy for our own development (to SOA), in addition to BOF levy, is it reasonable to assume Scotland wont pay a third levy specifically for non-Scottish development?

Or should we be worried that you have more votes than us?

Graeme

[RJ]

This membership debate has fallen on us because of the dramatic decline in numbers over the last decade. If we, the remaining die-hards, are not to feel the total cost of the sport, then we are going to have to increase our numbers several times over. In other words the debate is really about increasing people, as a priority. In the short term we have to find more money if we are to continue to exist.

The development debate, and the place of the RDOs may be one way of solving our membership decline. Maybe the Sports Councils see the RDO model as the way to help sports develop. Obviously, those in the Dept. for Sport & whatever think they have a model that will encourage people to take up sport, with RDOs as the vehicle to the clubs. Who knows. But I do feel that someone is actually working on the problem.... up there!!!!

But there are plenty of other models around. Orienteering has lots of examples out there amongst the clubs. The recent postings about the POW model being one. We can do this ourselves..... but it could be a case of all hands to the pumps, with every possible tool being employed.

[awk]

I have to say that I'm not convinced about the value of extending RDO time ever further at such a large cost to a shrinking number of orienteers as a cost efficient way of increasing membership, and that's part of my problem with these proposals. We need to see evidence that it's working first, and what benefit it's likely to accrue. I would suggest that one way has to be a change of emphasis. If we are to be funders, then we need to have more say in what they do, and the exclusive focus on schools work is not what I want to see them do for starters. Fine whilst the Sports Council pay 100%, they can follow whatever agenda the SC lays out, but if we are to pay, then we need a say.

On raising money. What's wrong with a system whereby the expenditure is agreed at Council level. At this level as well, the cost per association is then agreed between the associations. The associations then take it back, and either start working out how they are to raise their contribution, or to divi the contribution up between clubs, who then decide how they are each going to raise their contribution to the association contribution? That way clubs/associations have more ownership and involvement, and control over how their activities are charged. I object to BOF telling us that we will charge new people £3 per run before a club has taken a penny towards real expenses.

[John Morris]

Graeme said:-

Nobody has mentioned this "Development levy". It appears to be simply a way of raising more levy without raising the levy (think: income tax,national insurance). Why is it separate?

I presume - and you would have to ask Ranald McD to confirm this - that the Development levy has been represented separately because it relates to an supposedly additional activity, "Regional Development", which the English Sports Council like to think they have just invented as part of (I guess) some new "Fit Nation" project (shades of "Sport for All"...) for which they can give grant monies (and thereby earn their own internal bonus points).

Orienteering, for all sorts of genuinely good reasons, is an excellent channel for such monies.

Unfortunately, to qualify for the tax-take goodies (and, No, I don't know what we get out of it, either...), we have (I understand) to sub up yet more ourselves to demonstrate fealty. And I don't doubt that there'll be a few additional small print commitments that we have to make.

So, in Ranald's Incarnation 3 paper we have, it appears, a hypothetical hypothecated tax for a reputedly new ring-fenced activity which you know and I know was up and away and running free in the hills and forests of Scotland, Wales and Cumbria some years ago.

But I'm sure Ranald will be able to present the full, budgeted plan for the collection and use of the new monies (and show how it relates to existing, organically-grown "Development" activities).

Like you , I look forward to seeing the reports on May 8th, especially the bits that show what HARD CASH we will get from Sprout England in return for our £40kpa tribute...

And, like you, I ask: If anyone out there knows what we have been signed up to here, and where the details are recorded for members' proper scrutiny, and why we weren't consulted before our servants Bob and Robin made a commitment on our behalf, please could you let us all know? After all, it's our sport, and OUR Federation...

[Mr H.]

I have been asked to go to the meeting on May 7th. I have decided to go as the whole funding issue worries me. Although I will represent the views of my club committee and members, I'm willing to represent your views as well.

My personal concerns are.
1 Where does our money go. I have not been able to find detailed accounts showing where monies are spent. In Annex A of the Membership proposal, the section What does BOF provide for members? the majority of the benefits are actually performed by volunteers.
2 C5 levies. If this happens I believe that we will have a huge decline in new membership. Our SMILE events that bring in most of HOCs new members could not survive the increase in entry fees.
3 We could land up with a huge volunteer problem with registration. Many volunteers will not help if they expect abuse which will certainly happen. Think of all those that complain about anything and everything when they are asked to pay extra because they have forgotten their BOF membership card and the volunteer doesn't know them.

I could go on and on but it should be the members views not one individuals so keep the debate going.

One thing that really worries me is that it appears that the Strategic Budget has been given to the Sports Council. I know how much the increase is proposed to be for next few year and its frightening. I do not know how BOF is expecting clubs to finance the increases. I had thought that it was only an internal memo rather than a document to be given to the sports council. I feel that BOF have got to come clean and not keep us in the dark any longer.

[Guest]

We could land up with a huge volunteer problem with registration. Many volunteers will not help if they expect abuse which will certainly happen. Think of all those that complain about anything and everything when they are asked to pay extra because they have forgotten their BOF membership card and the volunteer doesn't know them.

I for one am fed up with the people who turn up and say they are members of XYZ club (err perhaps they were some years back), who have got themselves off the membership list, so never get asked to help anymore. Perhaps the hard working volunteer in the map sales car might be happy to diplomatically insist on a card if they thought this through.

Try getting into a National Trust building, or your local leisure centre without your membership card. It don't work, and neither should it at BOF events.

BOF has prehandled the objections about a flimsy cardboard card by getting a nice laminated one that will last the 50 times a year you'll need it. Suggest you quickly get the habit of carrying it in your wallet/purse/whatever.