Election of Directors for British Orienteering

[RFM]

To help in this poll and the one at the AGM, please can each candidate voice their opinions on the maps scale debate which has generated a fair amount of comment on another thread. Let's have vote on real facts in the best interest of the sport.

Straight answers would be appreciated. Sitting on the fence, whatever you think, will be easily detected and for me will not gain any votes.

This sounds like 'give me the answer I want and I'll vote for you' rather than ' how would you go about making a decision?'

The problem with discussions such as that around maps scales is that we rarely get the full 'facts' on Nopesport and it's easy to criticise the decision making without understanding the process. I Chaired EC for two years and know how difficult it is to get the full facts or even to get a reasonable feeling about what the membership thinks without drawing out the process for too long. The one thing you can be sure about in orienteering is that whatever decision is made a sizeable and vocal minority will always disagree claiming a lack of due process. In my profession we refer to 'herding cats' - think about it!

As has already been mentioned, those on EC are highly committed and experienced orienteers and committee members who are working in the best interests of the sport - as volunteers. If you want to know where I stand, I would be the same.

Ranald

[DM]

RFM

The question was posed so we could make a judgement on the approach the candidates would take to tackle an issue, as directors working in the best interests of the sport/business (whatever they are involved in). It was not posed to allow candidates to "win" votes for popular answers, most people on here would see through this and I hope all candidates would recognise that if they made any "promises" they would need to be sure they could deliver if elected.

I can not question the experience of the people taking the decision on map scales as I don't know them directly/indirectly.

[Scott]

Second attempt at this post, having stupidly overwritten my first whilst attempting to reply to it .

For instance that communique from Neil, Scott, is it in the public domain anywhere?

It doesn't seem to be - I'd guess it's just been sent out to candidates . I've emailed to suggest that they put it on the website; in the meantime, I've uploaded a (poor-quality) scan here.

I suppose that this brings me back to my main manifesto point (see what I did there ): British Orienteering (both as an organisation, and as individual volunteers) needs to seriously improve its communication with its members. This also links in with DM's question about the BOC map scales: looking at the relevant thread, it seems that people were almost as aggrieved at not receiving acknowledgement for their emails - and, for that matter, not being sure whom they should be emailing in the first place, or even when/how/by whom the decision was being made - as they were by the decision itself. And now, apparently, there are rumours of some sort of appeal: if this is the case, it would be nice to know about it officially...

As for the question of which scale should be used, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take the same line as RFM: it's very easy for us to sit here and criticise without having the full evidence, and for all I know the map could be perfectly legible by everybody at 1:10000. I have to admit, though, that I do feel that Events Committee could have done a better job of responding in their statement to the concerns and queries that (apparently) members had contacted them with, rather than just calling upon IOF regs to justify their decision (presumably, other factors were also considered) - after all, regulations should never take priority over competitors having fun. Of course, I'm probably doing them a disservice here, and all will most likely become clear when the minutes from that meeting are published.

[martyn]

please can each candidate voice their opinions on the maps scale debate which has generated a fair amount of comment on another thread.

I have to agree with Ranald and Scott that it would be totally inappropriate for me to question decisions made by others far more knowledgeable and experienced in mapping matters that I am. I therefore support their decision.

I think your question, DM, in so far it is addressed to those of us standing for election as Directors, also raises an issue as to what is the proper role of the Board. I am firmly of the view that the Board is there to oversee the long-term strategic direction and development of our sport, and monitor and steer our journey along the way towards those objectives. To perform this role effectively, it will need to make sure the right structures, with the right people and representation, are in place to tackle the operational aspects of our sport.

Those structures will need clear terms of reference and delegated authorities, balanced with clear responsibilities and expectations regarding communication, research and representation amongst the wider membership. There will need to be some kind of scrutiny role where members raise legitimate concerns through appropriate channels (a "complaints" process if you will). All of this needs to be as transparent as reasonably possible, so that the membership at large can understand what's going on even if they don't agree with the outcome.

I certainly do not see it as the role of the Board to arbitrarily overturn decisions or even recommendations properly made by committees and working groups, unless there is some deficiency in the process followed. To do so, in my view, is the basis for bad decision-making and will only embroil the Board in detail which will inevitably cause it to lose sight of the bigger picture.

In other words, the Board should make sure that there is a good plan, make sure the right people and resources are there to implement the plan, monitor the work to make sure the plan is implemented as the Board intended, and then TRUST THE OUTCOME.

We should also all remember that the bulk of the work done on event-related matters is done by people who give up their time freely and willingly so that the rest of us can enjoy weekend after weekend in the forest. We should all recognise, appreciate and value their efforts, notwithstanding that we may disagree with their decisions from time to time.

Martyn

[ER]

Why are there no women candidates?

[brooner]

presumably because none stood for election?

[awk]

The problem with discussions such as that around maps scales is that we rarely get the full 'facts' on Nopesport and it's easy to criticise the decision making without understanding the process. I Chaired EC for two years and know how difficult it is to get the full facts or even to get a reasonable feeling about what the membership thinks without drawing out the process for too long. The one thing you can be sure about in orienteering is that whatever decision is made a sizeable and vocal minority will always disagree claiming a lack of due process. In my profession we refer to 'herding cats' - think about it!

In spite of being the person who started the main thread that discussed this issue, in most respects I completely agree with your (and Scott's and Martyn's) stance on this one. However, I think the nub of the problem is where you state "know how difficult it is to get the full facts or even to get a reasonable feeling about what the membership thinks without drawing out the process for too long.". If BOF is going to have individual membership, then it MUST have a system of ensuring that it's member's views are both represented and taken on board. To my mind, BOF has actually moved away from that rather than moved towards it, and decision making is more remote than ever before. Getting much better at the communication to membership (although even this remains dodgy, as the inadequacy of the AGM papers shows which don't even tell us how many directors are to be elected or what voting system is to be used), not good (collectively rather than individually) at encouraging and dealing with communication from membership, as this issue of map scales all too clearly has shown. Scott has summarised the real source of grievance in this case very well.

[DJM]

One important aspect of the election is that as many members as possible should actually take part and vote. With three to be elected from eight standing, it's crucial that the decision should be made by a truly representative range of orienteers rather than just the small group of "usual suspects" (of whom I am often one!). So please urge all you know to rescue the AGM papers from the bin, look at them, and take considered action!

Should I be elected myself, I wouldn't want to bring a personal agenda along to the new Board and hence have no detailed manifesto; I would prefer to bring experience with me which complements rather than duplicates that of others instead. For example, I think that there are many situations where we can learn from best practice in Federations outside GB so the many contacts I've built up over the last decade of IOF work could prove to be of value.

Although relatively long in the tooth, I am far from being a dyed in the wool traditionalist and would regard myself as being very much a moderniser and simplifier instead.

I'm amazed that so many of the eight candidates are also nopesport contributors. Whoever is elected, your future should be in good hands!

David May

[Oldman]

I am a little surprised that there is criticism of the new Board's communication effectiveness when the board hasn't even started yet!

If you aren't happy with the Map Scale or AGM papers situations, blame the existing set-up not the new one!

I think all the candidates look as though they will bring skills and experience to BOF. Let's give them a chance to mke their presence felt before criticising: known failings and inadequacies of the old system of communication with the members was as I understand it one of the reasons for changing to the soon-to-be-started new system.

[awk]

I am a little surprised that there is criticism of the new Board's communication effectiveness when the board hasn't even started yet!
If you aren't happy with the Map Scale or AGM papers situations, blame the existing set-up not the new one!

I may be missing something, but I don't think the prospective board is being criticised - the focus has been very much on the present structure and processes. Indeed, directly elected directors by individual membership may actually help reverse the trend of decision making moving away from the membership that I commented on in a previous post.

[Spookster]

Just a reminder that with the deadline for receipt of proxy votes being Monday 17th, you'll need to get them posted off to BOF office today or tomorrow if you haven't already done so.

If you've lost the form BOF office sent you, or accidently put it in the bin , there's a copy online here.

[gg]

you making an appearance ath the agm then gross? or is that mr. anderson?

[IanD]

I'd just to say thanks to all the candidates for standing. Most unusually for me at an election, I won't be voting "against" any of them; I would be quite happy to see any of them elected. It's a shame only three of them will be, and I hope the other five won't feel rejected.

[andy]

who was elected?

i couldn't make it and neglected to ask anyone who was there...

[distracted]

The 3 new directors are Martin Ward, Ed Nicholas and David May.

What I neglected to find out was who are the other 6 directors who just assume their positions?