Membership Meeting - some daylight

[Mr H]

As Mrs H said, our kids get embarrased when their friends think that they do what is taught at school. I'm not against the teaching at schools but if it's done badly then it is the worst thing that can be done for our great sport.
A couple of years ago I spent a few hours talking to Peter Palmer about orienteering. He was upset that white courses had become 'boring'and he felt it put kids off. Kids need a challenge. So unless they are very young (less than 8 ) get them running yellow.Our own clubs introductory events have 1 white, 2 yellow, 1 orange. This was set up by Peter Bylett and have been very successful at recruiting newcomers. If these sorts of events were undertaken at schools then the sport may not be in the problems it is today.

[FatBoy]

It was always my memory as a child that M10 courses were "harder in my day" than they are now, but also I thought perhaps that was just because it was a challenge to me at 7/8/9/10. A few years ago looking for something in my parents' loft I found a few M10 courses and I have to say my memory was correct and they were harder! It's a balance between keeping the interest and not scaring them (or their parents).

[brooner]

I must admit when i started out (as an M10) i found white courses pretty dull, and as such after doing my first one (and then returning back out into the forest to do a yellow), the next time i got the chance to go orienteering I then went straight for the more interesting courses on offer which were oranges. But even then, as soon as I got the chance to get onto lt greens, greens etc I lapped them up. But then maybe this is something to do with the fact i've always hated easy runners courses
Which probably does mean getting the balance right is quite difficult, some kids will love the sprinting round the course without thinking, others will prefer the challange it offers navigationally.

[Gross]

no white courses when I started.... it was Younger Junior Men

[Guest]

In describing the options that had been proposed, RJ wrote

(2) a two tier system. Existing members remain, and that funding is retained. Local members buy in at £5, and are registered as BOF 'local' members. Membership cards would be used. 'New Member' cards could also be used to look after those trying the sport, with, perhaps, various financial incentives associated with that card.

(3) an integrated IT system would keep a check on membership level and entitlements.

(4) Regional events and above could only be entered by full BOF members. Again, IT controls this. Online "everything" will be the norm before too long. Allowance for local members within the region can be catered for. Colour coded courses would be open to all. It would be understood that local members could only orienteer in their own region without paying a surcharge.

When I started orienteering, many years ago now, we had just such a system. If I remember correctly, as a non-member you could try 3 events, then you had to join a club. As a local member, you could attend colour-coded events (i.e. C4/C5) within your region, but to enter badge events (i.e. C3 and above) you had to join BOF. Apart from checks at major events, I don't think this was policed very closely, but it seemed to work OK because, by and large, orienteers are honest. In any case, there's limited point entering badge events if you can't qualify for the badges/ranking points/trophies, and if you're keen enough to regularly enter colour coded events outside your region then you'll probably want to enter badge events as well. That this scheme remained unchanged for (I think) over 13 years suggests that there wasn't too much opposition to it.

Now we have a proposal for something much the same, but with lots of technology to enforce it (which wasn't possible all those years ago). And technology doesn't come for free - either in the cost of buying it or in volunteers' time checking membership cards etc.

So my suggestion would be to go with the scheme, but scale down the checking to that which we already have. For events with electronic punching and runners with their own dibbers, it's generally easy to check BOF membership, even for EOD; in the longer term, this will probably be the norm for nearly all events. But in the short term, let's not squander the extra money we're raising on checking that no newcomer's trying a fourth event before joining, or no club-only member is running (say) a colour-coded course at the JK outside their region. After all, in doing so, we'd be reintroducing the issue of what to do when someone forgets their membership card - which was felt by some to be a problem with the scheme for charging non-members more, as originally proposed.

Incidentally, at present it can be some weeks before a club gets notified that someone has joined them through BOF; yet another reason not to check too strictly, unless this is improved.

[awk]

What about the membership proposal? Are we all so thoroughly bored stupid by it that we just don't care anymore and will just let whatever proposal Council puts to the EGM go through????

As far as I can see we haven't got a proposal yet - indeed my interpretation of feedback from people at the workshop is that the only decision really taken was not to take one.

Actually, I could live with a variety of membership scenarios, but not one where BOF membership is required or else you pay large sums to compete in local/district events. I await proposals with interest.

What I'm more concerned with is the financing going with it: I simply can't see the £40k increase that BOF Central seem determined on trying to raise (I was going to say "screw out of participants" but that might be too emotive even if accurate) as being remotely realistic. Indeed, I have a deep suspicion that any attempt to effect such a substantial increase will simply see the opposite effect, producing a fairly rapid decline in income as the sources dry up. It worries me that the last proposal was even remotely put forward as a serious suggestion, as it seemed to show a complete loss of any sense of proportion or balance and total focus on making money.

[graeme]

What about the membership proposal? Are we all so thoroughly bored stupid by it that we just don't care anymore and will just let whatever proposal Council puts to the EGM go through????

Yes.

[John Morris]

What a depressing thread!

Don't know what they mean... Don't see why it's a good idea... Don't understand what more RDO days will do for the sport... Don't see why we should pay for teaching assistants... BOF Central won't explain...

You are all orienteers. You have b-r-a-i-n-s. Use them.

If BOF Central proposes something at the forthcoming EGM that makes no sense to you personally, then vote against it! You'll be amazed at the beneficial effect a few rational rejections will have...

Loyalty and blind acquiescence are not the same thing... If it looks like bullshit, and smells like bullshit, it's probably bullshit. And we don't need bullshit.

Nil illegitimi carborundum!

[Blanka]

What about the membership proposal? Are we all so thoroughly bored stupid by it that we just don't care anymore and will just let whatever proposal Council puts to the EGM go through????

Yes.

Yes, we are bored of the debate, but that doesn't necessarily mean we'll vote 'anything through'. We'll just vote against it if we don't like what's put to the AGM!

Anything exciting get discussed at Council yesterday then?

[Guest]

You are all orienteers. You have b-r-a-i-n-s. Use them.
If BOF Central proposes something at the forthcoming EGM that makes no sense to you personally, then vote against it! You'll be amazed at the beneficial effect a few rational rejections will have...

I'm not sure why you might think otherwise. I think my postings indicate the way I intend to vote at the EGM unless there are some substantial changes.

[awk]

Grrrr! That was me again failing to log in. Really can't cope with not having automatic log in switched on!

[Blanka]

Anything exciting get discussed at Council yesterday then?

To answer myself, I have emailed one of the councillors to find out. He emailed me his notes, but asked me to wait with passing them on before Bob Roach confirmed that these were also his recollections (just so we don't go spreading unfounded rumours). Having had an email from Bob Roach this afternoon...

Yes, that's broadly right according to my notes & recollection. Suggestions for topics at the conference were the membership proposals and communications.

...I think I can safely copy and paste from John Morris' email for others' perusal (I hope he won't mind!).

"The meeting agreed that an EGM shall take place (in September?), being
associated with a Club Conference or similar event to ensure a quorum. The
EGM will discuss and vote on two proposals. One proposal will reword
Article 21(a) to bring it into line with normal Company practice; this will
specifically allow annual budgetary resolutions to pass on a '50% +1' vote.
'75% +1' majorities (aka 'special resolutions' in company law) will only be
required for proposals that would significantly change the nature of BOF's
declared aims or modus operandi.

"The other proposal will be a funding proposal. It will ask for more money
but it will NOT include any change in membership structure. It is not clear
whether the Treasurer will ask for about £180k (ie excluding the RDO
programme extension) or for about £220k (ie including the RDO extension).
If the main financial proposal excludes the RDO scheme, there may be a third
resolution to ask for the additional money (£40k).

"The meeting also agreed that a revised membership scheme (ie a fourth
version) would be presented to the 2006 AGM (ie not to the 2005 EGM). It
would not, or this is the intention, be associated with a major increase in
funding demands."

[RJ]

One of the main restraints with formulating the new membership structure is the desire to simplify the system where possible. This is a stated aim of council, I believe.

So, therefore, the crunch comes with the definition of those club only members who will become BOF members with the payment of £6. And in fact the proposal says that everyone (including the current full members) will have their membership fee set at £6 for senior level. The proposal envisages that everyone will become a full member and be entitled to compete at all levels.

Is this really what is needed? It might be simple, but I would suggest that the sport has and needs two levels of participation. We need an enormous base to our membership pyramid, which we have to build from almost scratch. These people will compete in informal and colour coded events. They are true 'local' members. They will eventually learn the skills of the sport and move upwards to "badge" events, then buying their full membership.

I think it is fundamentally flawed to think that all new people coming into the sport will want to go to the JK every year. We should encourage large scale participation at club level, funding the sport at local level and providing the band of helpers to keep everything going.

I think we should have a two tier membership. A proposal has been put together to this effect. Leave subscriptions as they are for current full members, but charge all local members £5 for a BOF membership which effectively provides the insurance and structure for "their" orienteering.

Now, will people migrate from full membership down to this cheaper form? They don't at the moment, so why will they in the future. Full membership is needed to enter C3s and above. I think the two tier system is basically sound; and I can't see why it has to be simplified in order to please the 'simplification' agenda.

[Klebe]

I would suggest that the sport has and needs two levels of participation. We need an enormous base to our membership pyramid, which we have to build from almost scratch. These people will compete in informal and colour coded events. They are true 'local' members. They will eventually learn the skills of the sport and move upwards to "badge" events, then buying their full membership.

I quite agree RJ. This is exactly how our family progressed. In the early days we did not understand the tiering C2, C3, C4. We were happy to attend local events and learn the skills. Once we had these basic skill levels we then wanted to move onto bigger events, understood the C3 rules on membership and took out full BOF membership after a couple of years. I am sure we are not alone in this respect.

I think it is fundamentally flawed to think that all new people coming into the sport will want to go to the JK every year. We should encourage large scale participation at club level, funding the sport at local level and providing the band of helpers to keep everything going.

Newcomers/beginners progress onto JKs and the like. I know numerous families who regulary attend our local events but have never travelled to a JK.

To pick up and support your final point RJ. Once 'bitten' by the generally better areas and atmospheres that go with Badge and National events I would think it unlikely that people would move back down a level. If family circumstances changed some may want to, but a two tier system would still keep them on the bottom of the pyramid and contributing.

[Blanka]

I also agree that there is a need for two levels of BOF membership. And this was the general impression I got at the most recent regional meeting I was at. As RJ said, a proposal to that effect *has* been made (Dick Towler's proposal) and presented at the 7th May meeting.

Given that quite a few people said/think that, it is surprising that Mr H said (http://www.nopesport.com/forum/viewtopi ... 78&start=0) in his summary of the 7th May meeting...

So what were the conclusions? There were 2 things that were agreed by all or nearly all. 1 all participating orienteers should be members of BOF (this is going to be an insurance stipulation in the near future).

Given that...

"The meeting also agreed that a revised membership scheme (ie a fourth
version) would be presented to the 2006 AGM (ie not to the 2005 EGM). It
would not, or this is the intention, be associated with a major increase in
funding demands."

...was there any indication as to what version the proposal presented would be based, John? Was there any indication whether it would be based on a two tier or 'all members are BOF members' system?

I am also pleased that there is at least some attempt to separate the RDO issue from this funding debate!