New Levy proposals

[IanD]

This is a detail which needs some clear rules.

My starter for 10: a "junior" is someone paying the junior entry fee. This leaves the event organiser with the decision, and it might vary from event to event. But I think that's OK, club's won't be able to "cheat the system", as the only people they would be paying a reduced levy for would be those they'd taken a reduced entry fee from.

It's already entirely up to the individual event whether to give "junior" entry fees to student, unwaged, juniors running adult courses, etc. The reason for asking for a reduced levy for juniors is precisely because they pay a reduced entry fee; logical therefore to define those for whom a reduced levy is paid as being those for whom the entry fee is reduced.

If one club charges students the full whack, and pays the full levy, whereas another gives them a reduced entry, and pays a reduced levy, that seems fine to me.

[SeanC]

I would probably support a proposal for juniors to pay less, or no, levy (and for adults to pay more). However the experience of my (small) club is that, in isolation, it will make little difference.

For as long as I've been at the club, junior entry fees at our local league (run jointly between DFOK and SAXONS) have been free to DFOK and SAXONS members, and somewhere between £1-£2 for everyone else. Until this season, the number of juniors at the local events have been pretty miserable, usually less than 10, and often less than 5. This season is different, we've made a few changes to the league (name, league structure etc), we've improved the publicity and, crucially, Jerry Purkis of Saxons has started a junior schools league with the schools attending our local events. Our last local event had 39 juniors. Note that junior entry fees are more or less the same.

Ultimately most of this effort has to come from within clubs, but there is an important place for BOF for such activities. For example BOF can reduce clubs workload through efficient central systems (eg the membership system), they can provide support and motivation for clubs through RDO's, they can produce an excellent website that enthuses newcomers to the sport, they can run regional or national marketing/publicity initiatives that individual clubs would not be able to do, etc etc.

I'm not saying BOF are doing a bad job in this respect, but I would like to see them being better resourced so that they can do a much better job. I believe that a well thought out and well communicated plan which would cost a little more would generate the support of orienteers.

Going back to levies then, I would comment that awk's proposals should talk in terms of the percentage juniors should pay. If you agree with my viewpoint then maybe the amount (in pounds and pence) of a junior levy might remain the same, and the adult levy goes up, perhaps signficantly, in order to fund a BOF development plan that helps to fulfil the "more people, podiums, places" vision.

[Mrs H]

Thinking about the original proposal from the "coal face" point of view - i wonder how the level of helpers at junior only events will hold out if they are now not allowed to run for fear of endangering the levy-free status. I think a lot of helpers (and you need a lot at a primarily junior only event) probably go along and give their time happily when there is a free or cheap "training run" on offer at the end whether they'll be quite so willing to give up a day of their weekend without it remains to be seen.

considering we are already suffering a volunteer crisis it makes you realise even further how poorly thought out the original formula was - and all for a 3% overall rise in levy income - is it going to be worth it in terms of good will. why not just raise the levy by 3%?

It was exactly the sort of thing i was talking about in my last CompassSport article about getting someone to chair the Volunteer Strategy Panel so that all these decisions are run through by the people at the pointy end who have to implement them before they become cast in concrete.

[RJ]

We really did have a perfectly good levy system! OK, so there was a disparity between the level 5 events and the others. The simple answer would have been to adjust the levy amounts to decrease this disparity, year on year. A 3% increase could easily have been achieved.

Currently it is 25p and £1.20 with the first £50 of levy waived. Changing to 35p and £1.50 with the first £75 of levy waived might have taken us to exactly where we wanted to go. The higher level events (C4 to C1) could have had their levy altered as well. It could have been altered a bit at a time and balanced up. But no..... we had to have a totally new system that brought loads of inconsistencies and problems.

Large junior only events would have had to pay SOME levy, and even school events with high attendance would have had to pay SOME levy. No problem! But the HUGE increase in the proposed new levy payments would have crippled school only events. So now we have human intervention in the form of a committee, which will involve a large amount of committee and volunteer time to sort out. It really was no unnecessary!!!

[IanD]

getting someone to chair the Volunteer Strategy Panel so that all these decisions are run through by the people at the pointy end who have to implement them before they become cast in concrete.

It doesn't really need a committee. The problem is that the motions are fixed in stone once the AGM papers go out. All members, this is supposed to be a democratic institution remember, need to be able to see the AGM proposals, discuss them, and propose amendments, which in turn need to be published. And all this needs to happen before votes are cast.

Ideally, for financial matters, it should be possible to discuss with the Treasurer, and fine-tune the detail before proposing a formal amendment.

Many of us spotted what we thought was a big flaw in the new levy system as soon as we saw it. Much good it did, the choice was accept it unchanged, or plunge Brit-O finances into chaos.

Other considerations apart, the consequence of this stifling of democracy is that nobody accepts the result as the will of the membership. It may be the majority of the membership actually like the system they voted for. Had there been a chance to amend the proposal, the amendment may have been defeated. In which case, we could have finished up with exactly the same levy, but it would have been clearly the wish of the membership. All the hot air and bad blood which has been generated is so unnecessary.

Hopefully the new directors will put their minds to introducing some real democracy before the next AGM.

[SJC]

We really did have a perfectly good levy system!

Except that we didn't. Some quite big events paid very little levy by calling themselves a C4. Other small events quite a lot if they were a C3.

As has been stated earlier, the idea of a levy system based on the number of competitors is inherently much fairer than the old system.

Changing to 35p and £1.50 with the first £75 of levy waived might have taken us to exactly where we wanted to go.

Which isn't that far off what people are suggesting if you count a Junior as a quarter of an adult.

[awk]

We really did have a perfectly good levy system! OK, so there was a disparity between the level 5 events and the others. The simple answer would have been to adjust the levy amounts to decrease this disparity, year on year. A 3% increase could easily have been achieved.

Another problem with the old levy system is that it was tied into the events structure, which made any changes to the latter doubly difficult as there were significant financial implications. By relating the levy to numbers rather than the grade of event, that link has been broken, which makes changes to the structure much easier. The old levy system would have needed changing anyway with the introduction of the new system, as the old grades bear no relationship to the new ones (and if held onto would have seen massive hikes in the levy for many more locally orientated events anyway).

Personally,as I've said before, I think the principles are excellent - it's the detail that needs some sorting.

[Adventure Racer]

Hopefully the new directors will put their minds to introducing some real democracy before the next AGM.

Glad to see I'm not totally on my own out on the limb suggesting the whole thing was undemocratic!

[Oldman]

Hopefully the new directors will put their minds to introducing some real democracy before the next AGM.

Glad to see I'm not totally on my own out on the limb suggesting the whole thing was undemocratic!

Lots of people claim because most of the population want the return of hanging and parliament won't vote for it, that this is undemocratic.

At the BOF AGM, everyone had a chance to vote, and a majority supported this proposed change - why is that undemocratic? Sounds more like sour grapes to me!

[IanD]

At the BOF AGM, everyone had a chance to vote, and a majority supported this proposed change - why is that undemocratic? Sounds more like sour grapes to me!

On a narrow view of democracy, you have a point.

However, consider:
1) there were a number of aspects to the fees & levy motion; I think it would be true to say that most people were in favour of most aspects; some had objections to relatively small - but important - parts.
2) no amendments were permitted to the motion, the only choice was to vote for or against the whole package. Everyone would have been reluctant to vote against as this would have left BOF with no agreed membership or levy system at all for 2009.
3) no debate was permitted at the AGM. People were permitted to make points "for recording in the minutes" (the chairman's words, not mine). At no time did anyone, including the proposer and seconder of the motion, provide any evidence in favour of the most controversial aspect, the treating of juniors and seniors identically for levy purposes at normal events. There was no justification of this in the AGM papers, and no-one spoke in favour of it.

I think democracy should involve an attempt to arrive at a consensus as to the best possible structure. Instead the BOF hierarchy put together a package which they knew many people would be unhappy with, refused to justify it, and forced people into an unpalatable choice between voting for the entire package, or throwing BOF funding into chaos.

As I said earlier in this thread, it may be that if the issues had been properly debated, and people allowed separate votes on the individual components, we may have ended up with exactly the same system. In which case, it would be seen to be the democratic view of the majority, and even those who voted against could reasonably be expected to work within the new system.

Instead, it feels like a system imposed on volunteers by a central taxation body with no understanding of the grass-roots of the sport.

[distracted]

In essence we're back to the transparency aspects of things - hopefully this will improve with the new board of directors and we will not only get proposals, but the justification behind them. For far too long, especially when it comes to areas concerning membership and financial proposals, we've had something chucked in front of us without any explanation of why it is being suggested, and why it has been chosen in favour of other options.

This is something fundamental that needs to be changed if the current atmosphere of apathy of the majority of the orienteering population when it comes to the governance of our sport is going to change. And perhaps then, those who already take an interest in these areas, might not feel like it's "them and us" when it comes to the BOF management.

[Jon X]

Other considerations apart, the consequence of this stifling of democracy is that nobody accepts the result as the will of the membership.

Ha ha ha - if only those elected volunteers who are our chosen representatives as BOF officers had simply asked you rather than put together proposals and offer them to the entire membership for a vote - it seems you are able to speak for all of us anyway!

[greywolf]

I didn't go to the AGM, and having heard the reports it sounds like i was better off in the pub, however, I have checked the BOF Mem and Arts re: proceedings at General Meetings and they say the following:

"21. (b) At all General Meetings only the business notified in the agenda accompanying
the notice shall be transacted. Amendments must be kept within the terms of
the motion and the chairman of the meeting shall have the power to refuse any
amendment which substantially alters the intention of the motion.
(c) Notwithstanding sub-clause (b) hereof, nominations for any post for which no
valid nomination has been received in advance of the General Meeting, and
proposals for membership fees, may be made from the floor and voted on at an
Annual General Meeting.
(d) Proposals other than those of sub-clause (c) hereof may be made from the floor
at a General Meeting and the chairman of the meeting may take a vote on such
a proposal amongst those voting members present at the General Meeting, but
such a vote shall not be binding on the Board, neither shall it be considered as,
nor shall it be deemed to be, a resolution of the Federation."

Which I take to mean that the chairman of the meeting can refuse amendments from the floor, but only on the grounds that they substantially alter the intention of the motion - e.g. s/he shouldn't be able to refuse an amendment that proposes an alternative method of raising levy income by 3%, which was the stated intention of the original motion. The potential disenfranchisement of proxy voters is not grounds for refusing amendments.

Further, it suggests that amended proposals for membership fees made from the floor are binding on the Board - as the Board had taken the curious step of bundling the membership fees and levy proposals together in a single motion (presumably to limit opposition to the latter), one might imagine that a single amended motion including both membership fees and levy proposals would also have to be binding on the Board....

(Worth noting that elsewhere in the Mem and Arts it says "34. The Board shall have the power to fix a levy on all or any entry fees received by Constituent Associations, Affiliated Clubs or Affiliated Groups from all or any orienteering events where an entry fee is charged." which means that basically the Board can charge whatever levy they want - unless presumably bound by AGM as part of a membership fees motion as above)

Don't suppose any of this makes much difference to whats happened ... but might be handy (and democratic?) in future if those running meetings read the Mem & Arts....

[Adventure Racer]

Hopefully the new directors will put their minds to introducing some real democracy before the next AGM.

Glad to see I'm not totally on my own out on the limb suggesting the whole thing was undemocratic!

Lots of people claim because most of the population want the return of hanging and parliament won't vote for it, that this is undemocratic.

In the most basic sense it is - but then our system of government isn't actually a pure democracy, which is sometimes a good thing, since it avoids lynch mob decisions, but sometimes not.

At the BOF AGM, everyone had a chance to vote, and a majority supported this proposed change - why is that undemocratic? Sounds more like sour grapes to me!

It's undemocratic because two different proposals were joined at the hip on a single vote - not only that but no alternative was offered to vote for. Just to come back to your point above, would it be democratic if we had a referendum on hanging, but on the ballot paper you had a single vote to cast for or against hanging and slavery (ie to vote to bring back hanging you'd also have to vote to make slavery legal)?

[Adventure Racer]

"21. (b) At all General Meetings only the business notified in the agenda accompanying
the notice shall be transacted. Amendments must be kept within the terms of
the motion and the chairman of the meeting shall have the power to refuse any
amendment which substantially alters the intention of the motion.

SNIP

Which I take to mean that the chairman of the meeting can refuse amendments from the floor, but only on the grounds that they substantially alter the intention of the motion - e.g. s/he shouldn't be able to refuse an amendment that proposes an alternative method of raising levy income by 3%, which was the stated intention of the original motion. The potential disenfranchisement of proxy voters is not grounds for refusing amendments.

Very interesting. So there was actually a perfectly valid mechanism for making the sort of amendment which would have made most people happy, but the chairman (unconstitutionally) didn't allow it. I can't see any grounds at all for refusing an amendment which would only tweak the original proposal, such as that which awk is suggesting.

What exactly is the status of a motion when the constitutional rules haven't been followed correctly when voting on it at the AGM?