Scottish Orienteering

Paul Frost says:

I should add that the views above are mine, the SOA board have not issued an official response yet. But as time is short I felt I should alert you sooner rather than later.

Bill Meville says:

This will further reduce contact between the grassroots orienteer and decision making. It’s a further erosion of the democratic structure.
It looks as if conflicts like those over competiton structure and JK organisation will become more common but at the same time, more difficult to advance.
For some time now, I have been querying whether it is time for the SOA to go it alone.
At the very least, it must be time for the SOA to start asking what we get from being such a formal part of BOF.

Dick Carmichael says:

I agree with Bill that this Governance review has potentially serious implications for Scottish Orienteering futures. In the micro sense what is proposed is the abolition of the existing Events,Fixtures and other volunteer committees from all the Associations so that a BO Board overseen new body can take over later this year. Apparently according to Mike Hamilton BO CEO this new Events body may decide to keep the existing regional fixtures advisory groups from the Associations intact, but there is no guarantee.
However in the macro sense the dangers are much greater as demonstrated by my comments below which were sent to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) earlier this week.

1) Basically this Governance review will be viewed north of the border as the latest in a long historic series of efforts to undermine Scotland’s orienteering delivery by pulling central control (and funds) to the south. The 1987 to 1993 period springs to mind when BOF levied an International event tax that nearly wiped out the fledgling Six day event. Today for example BO major events does not even recognize that a grade 1 controller delivering a Six day event day for 3500 competitors over some 38 courses has earned any credits towards retaining his qualification. Firstly BO failed to tax it as an International event and then BO penalise the controllers and event officials by giving the family holiday event a strictly applied low grading. Square pegs forced into round holes.

2) The crux of the problem from a Scottish viewpoint is that the National Associations are indistinguishable within BO from the English area Associations and yet have historic independent structures, events, rules and finances. The main issue being that no EOA exists in parallel form so read BO/EO.

3) The BO Board has no representation north of Sheffield which means our whole O world of NE and NW England and the whole of Scotland (effectively the entire North Britain) is unrepresented at meetings. To then suggest that this body increases its powers by the end of the year and existing structures are removed is going to be unpopular. 

4) Volunteer endeavor is critical to Orienteering delivery at all levels including administration and the perception is that increasingly BO is run professionally by paid officials some of whom are sports administrators rather than committed lifelong orienteers. As one of the 6 day Company’s three wise men who first interviewed and employed Derek Allison 25 years ago for the first professional officer job I applaud this professional elite support but taking Governance away from volunteers to be easier for central control is counterproductive. Equally in tough financial times non Olympic sports are having difficulty meeting all their obligations and naturally payroll and pensions cannot be easily adjusted. I see from the BO Board minutes that even senior volunteer British representatives to IOF are being asked to absorb some of their own valid expenses. Again the perception is that the volunteer participant orienteer is being given a back seat, treated unfairly or indeed dismissed by this review.

5) It is a fact that the constituent Nations of UK are devolving and increasingly powers are being released to ,for example,The Holyrood parliament,  Whether or not this leads eventually to Scotland’s independence and consequent separate eligibility to join IOC and IOF is not relevant, but clawing powers back to BO board control in 2011 is seen as reverse devolution and clearly against the electorate’s wishes and obviously may potentially negatively affect any ability for us all to cope with possible future SOA independence.

David Nicol says:

I hugely support Bill and Dick’s comments. Even within its own terms, the review is astonishing. It appears to be being rushed through, with the object of:

“improve association and club involvement in strategic
decision making prior to decisions being made.”

and

“General Meetings including the Annual General Meeting remain the most significant decision
making forum in British Orienteering.”

Yet where in this top down imposed set of changes is it allowing for members, clubs and associations to agree to these changes as proposed.

John Colls says:

I add my support to comments above. Since Dick alerted me to the existence of this Review a few days ago, he and I have had extensive contact with Mike Hamilton to flag the naivety/folly/lunacy of what is now proposed. Back in 1993, in the wash-up to the levy debacle of 1990/91, BOF’s own Re-Structure Working Party recommended a much slimmed-down UKOF, with all ‘devolvable’ responsibilities placed in the hands of the individual Home Countries and ‘UKOF’ handling only those matters needing UK-wide action (eg selection of ‘GB’ teams). The crux of those reforms was to re-surrect an English OA (which became defunct after BOF was created) to handle English affairs. A proposal to that effect was put to the 1994 BOF AGM but defeated by the weight of apathy/opposition from English votes. We have suggested strongly to Mike H that any credible review now (ie in 2011) of BOF’s Governance needs to take the 1993 position as its starting point and then overlay on that the effects of the massive political devolution (not just in Scotland but in Wales and NI too) of the ensuing 18 years. Hope this helps!

John Colls says:

Adding a couple of extra points to my own earlier posting. It would be completely wrong to assume that there is widespread support south of the Border for the current proposals: the evidence I have seen suggests otherwise. In fact, without at that time any of us knowing anything of this ‘Review’, I was approached at the JK in NI at Easter by two former chairmen of BOF (both from the ‘deep South’) each very concerned about the current geographical imbalance of input to BOF, and was urged by them to try to raise the Scottish profile within BOF, Secondly, in my recent correspondence with Mike H, I have made the point that, in all probability, a re-structure of BOF on UKOF lines will generate goodwill and co-operation from Scotland (helping to bind UKOF together) because it addresses what has been, from a Scottish perspective, as an untreated sore for nearly 50 years.

Jon Musgrave says:

Interesting that the only way individuals and clubs can have any input into the proposed system is through an “advisory” role - so the Board can completely ignore these (as large companies do if the AGM vote down excessive executive pay packages).  An advisory role is no role at all, there has to be an effective and rigorous mechanism for input from clubs and individuals if they are to feel valued and continue to run the sport.
A great system for easy ride for the board members - until orienteering collapses due to lack of interest from the volunteers who run it or a group split off to form their own new “BOF”

Scott Collier says:

I don’t want to get drawn into the discussion here, but I would just like to clarify that, contrary to what Paul says above, British Orienteering have provided a channel for feedback: as both the news article on the website and the email to clubs made clear, any comments (from associations, clubs or individual members) are very welcome, and should be sent to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) - ideally before the end of June.

Paul Frost says:

I apologise for the wording I used, what I meant was OPEN discussion/debate (like this).
It is hard for members to judge the support the proposals have if all the responses are in private emails.

Jon Musgrave says:

Scot - is this feedback merely “advisory” or is it going to affect any change to the central dictat?

Scott Collier says:

At the moment the review paper is still a draft.  All feedback is “advisory”, but - although I can’t speak on behalf of the Board - if do we get a significant number of members/clubs/associations putting forward similar points then I believe we would look at making appropriate adjustments to the proposals.

As Paul quite rightly says, it would be hard for members to judge support for the proposals if all the responses were in private emails - and so discussions here/on Nopesport/at club meetings etc are invaluable - but it will be equally difficult for the Board to judge support unless enough members (and clubs/associations) formally send in their responses to the feedback address!

So if you have comments on the proposals then please do take the time to email them in, and encourage your club committee to look at the review document as well.

Kevin Holliday says:

The issue of devolved government is significant. With governmental input to sport being a devolved power any attempt to centralise administrative structures and diminish Scottish identity seems unwise.
I have heard the President of a Royal College from London claim that its ok for the Scottish contingent to represent to the Scottish Government, as long as they don’t disagree with London policies. That’s not what devolution was about, in my mind. So, with sport admin being devolved we need a stronger voice of our own, not a weaker one as this review implies.

Chris James (Past member of SOA) says:

The Proposed 4 Nation UK Structure

I was one of the Frank Rose Working Party back in the 1990’s that recommended devolution to 4 Nations. Very unfortunately the Working Party were largely denied opportunities to explain their ideas to the orienteer in the forest as our recommendations were taken, as I recall, to be completed by the then Chairman for circulation to the members. This finally happened only just ahead of the AGM and subsequently defeated as people did not have enough time to understand all the implications. I have always rued the day. A golden opportunity was lost.

The Apparent Inability of Orienteers to agree

Around a decade ago I was re-elected as a Councillor after many years away from the Centre. I volunteered in order to try to discover why there was such dissatisfaction. A few of us took a period to start to sort out matters but did indirectly lead to the present Governance structure including the Board of Directors, of which I became one for a year in the transition. It was like a breath of fresh air to find the Board begining to work as a proper governing body working for the orienteer in the forest.

Unfortunately up until the time I retired the respresentation from the SOA gradually reduced and no Director has been nominated from within Scotland.  Having a Scottish Director would surely be the most constructive way to keep all 4 nations working together under a UK umbrella.

If we now have a weakness it is in the desire of the orienteer in the forest to really study and consider matters thoroughly BEFORE they become firm proposals.

So where does the SOA come into all this? It is by making sure they have good representation within British Orienteering.

Conclusion

I have been in orienteering for 46 years and remember the days in 1967-70 when I did my best to help the SOA develop as the first Fixtures Secretary. It remains my heart felt desire is to see our sport move forward in unity both UKwise and internationally.

Chris James (Past member of SOA) says:

I read the above thoughts with great interest and replied at length only to apparently lose the lot! Perhaps a few brief thoughts would suffice for now:

1. As the first Scottish Fixtures Secretary 1967-70 I did make my contribution and have continued to take an interest in the SOA. My wife is also Scottish (As is my daughter - but that is another matter!).
2. I was a member of the Frank Rose Working Party that recommended a 4 Nations UK Federation. Defeated by lack of opportunity to fully explain our reasoning.
3. I was re-elected Councillor a decade ago after becoming very dissatisfied by the lack of proper progress. A number of us urged change that eventualy led to the creation of the Board of Directors. I became one for a year in the transition. It is an exacting role and 9 of them ARE active orienteers.
4.The gradual dissappearance of any SOA folk from the Centre and the recent difficulties regarding effective liaison between the SOA and BOF have perhaps led to the lack of understanding that appears to have arisen.
5. As the late Bob Climie (SOA & BOF Chairman 1972-75) observed the difficulties in getting any unified decision. This has lead the Board to attempt to streamline decision making into a more effective process. However it will only work effectively if the orienteering in the forest really study and contributes to decision making before apparent agreement rather than afterwards. We are all invited to contribute NOW.
6. So members of the SOA I urge you to please get stuck in
and study proposals in sufficent depth to understand all the issues.
7. I continue to work for the unified future of our sport that I hold very dear to me.

Dick Carmichael says:

Time is running out and since I already have my feedback in to Mike at BO office I can only guide others to do likewise. Chris writes “If we have a weakness it is the desire of the orienteer in the forest to study and consider matters before they become proposals”
Weakness ?
Sorry Chris but is this a BO board weakness or an active orienteer weakness? Given the comments above about not establishing an O admin elite like athletics I do hope you mean the latter !
Our SOA President 2011 Donald G was delivering excellent O in Forres all weekend, particularly fine in sunlit forest at Culbin on Sunday. We really do not have such “a weakness” here in Scotland but obviously British orienteering admin does.
How could this governance document remain hidden throughout the AGM period, become a must respond by June, Board must vote in July and all committees must disband by year end emergency, with no consultation or presentation to the orienteer in the forest?
If the Orienteer in the forest has the respect of his admin elite then he will always be given the consultation period, he will always have representation on the Board however awkward it may be to achieve, and he will never feel cheated out of his sporting core values. 
So what went wrong here ? Please please write to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) and vote this
crazy document down , if only for further thought and better presentation before detailed representation to the orienteer in either the street or the forest at AGM’s in 2012.
SOA executive Meeting 18th June will consider the official SOA response to this issue. Please lobby someone near you now as we, in my opinion, do have an emergency!

Gareth Bryan-Jones says:

I have read the proposals on the British orienteering website and also the discussion of the Scottish Orienteering Association website.  I am generally in agreement with the comments of John, Jon, Dick and Bill. This is a copy of a feedback email I have sent to British Orineteering.

I have always found it difficult to get involved in the debates about how orienteering is organised and governed in the UK, finding it much easier to get enthusiastic about actually organising orienteering events and having input into technical development of orienteering and orienteers in the UK.

However I am stimulated to respond by two major concerns about the current proposals. 

First is the move to more central control - especially if the Events and Competitions Committee, which seems to be taking over the remit of a number of existing committees, is appointed by the Board.  This seems to be a Committee that will have a key role in the future development and sustainability of Orienteering in the UK.  However to me the proposal seems to be a plan for more central control and possibly more beaurocracy.  Currently I often feel as a Scottish orienteer that British Orienteering seems somewhat remote and rather Anglo centric.  I worry that this will get worse.

My second concern is that there seems to be no detail about the composition of the actual committee - size, skills needed, geographical spread, creative challenging people or “yes” men?  Also the appointment by the Board will be according to the British Orienteering   “Recruitment and Selection Policy”.  This appears to be a general policy and offers nothing to help with understanding how the Committee will be appointed.  For example will there be advertisements inviting applications?

I am adding a copy of this email to the SOA website discussion.

Gareth Bryan-Jones

Graeme Ackland says:

I’ve recently been on the BOF event structure working party and senior competitions group.  My view of these is that they are almost completely ineffective. 

The working party devised a coherent 3-tier event structure,  over a period of several months. It was then mauled in one-off meetings with no consultation by various committees, and ultimately the board, into an incoherent mess which lasted only a year before being tossed out at an AGM.  The senior competitions group has achieved nothing except for Eddie Harwood and his Master’s Cup spreadsheet.  This is not for the want of good discussion between a varied and representative group of people - its because the reporting structure is so opaque.

What this tells me is that the current structure is a mess, and I genuinely believe that the primary aim of the board is to sort it out.  It may appear that a consequence of this is a loss of Scottish input. But currently, when everything is decided by people who can afford to spend a Saturday in Birmingham, we have almost no say anyway.

In any case, a few non-O related issues aside (see my post on nopesport), there’s just as wide a divergence of views in Scotland as across the UK as a whole.

The new structure won’t be perfect, but I reckon it will be better.

Chris James says:

I do sympathise with the current perception that the BO Board appear to be pushing through changes with undue haste. However it is a perception for as Scott Collier has indicated there are channels for feedback that I am pleased to learn are now being used. The presentations at this years AGM certainly invited involvement in these processes.

I do believe that it would help if some members of the SOA would establish facts before demonising the BO Board as out of touch administrators. There are 9 Board members all duly elected at BO AGMs. There is certainly scope for one or more Directors to come from North of Sheffield if such interested individuals would volunteer. Only the CEO, as an ex-officio Member is not actually an ACTIVE orienteer. However he is a very experienced sportsman having previously been involved with the sport of hockey at both national and international levels. He has a great depth of knowledge of just how Sports Councils and other arms of government operate.

It is the need for any orienteering representative body to operate within the statutes, rules and regulations whilst trying to keep the orienteer in the forest happy that creats the largest challenge. The 9 active members of the Board give up considerable personal time to try to wrestle with such matters. Just as Dick quotes the SOA President of being involved in delivering orienteering in the forest so you will find, if you take the trouble, to see just as much active forest involvement from other Directors as well as spending time on governance on the behalf of us all.

Orienteering stands out as a sport with the highest levels of voluntary involved at ALL levels and such volunteering is from ACTIVE orienteers.

I am distressed to learn that it appears to have been an SOA policy to not be represented directly within the BO structure. If this is so then how can the SOA points of view be really properly considered as proposals are formed. When I was re-elected as a Councillor over a decade ago there was an elected Scottish Councillor and the then President of the SOA did attend and contribute to BO decision making. Since that time a great deal more professionalism has come into the governance of our sport.

I am picked up by Dick Carmichael for suggesting that the orienteer in the forest only becoming involved too late. On this occasion I trust that I am wrong. When I referred to the orienteer in the forest I was looking back over 4 decades when it has often been the case that decisions and policies have been reversed thanks to groups of members finally getting to grips with a decision after it had been voted in. It can be very frustrating to seek and seek again feedback, make a decision, only for it to then be overturned once members really take notice.

I sincerely hope that these present distresses and apparent disagreements can be calmy considered and that good solutions to decision making will evolve for the future benefit of us all.

Jon Musgrave says:

The BOF structure, as far as I can see, is designed to provide solutions to English problems etc.  In this case I can understand why SOA is not interested in getting too involved. 
Perhaps experienced, active Scottish Orienteers prefer to put their efforts into putting on successful, high quality events in Scotland rather than sit in committee rooms after travelling half the length of Britain
As an individual I was on mapping group for a few years- many years ago and eventually gave up after realising that many issues were almost exclusively English issues - eg how to ensure adequate standard maps at events, how to control dodgy mappers - neither really an issue in Scotland.  Holding meetings in Crewe was also a problem - it meant an overnight stay on the way down (if I was to avoid a 4am start) and a return home after midnight thus taking up one and a half days for each meeting - very different to most English members who could get a morning train and be back in time for tea. 
On an administrative note why doesn’t BOF sort out video conferencing, massive savings on travel costs and volunteers’ time from every meeting.  I am sure most orienteers can get hold of a video conference facility in their local area even if they have to pay a bit for it.

Paul Frost says:

I agree that the existing structure isn’t working, and that things need to change.
I also accept that the Board is made up of active orienteers who I respect.

A question that keeps coming up in my head is why there was no mention of this at the British Orienteering AGM?
There was a short discussion at the end about Membership and Levy systems, why not this?
If they wanted input they could have made it more public, which is why it looks like they don’t want input from members.

Dick Carmichael says:

Personally I think this is an excellent forum and long overdue debate. Chris having explained above that the best way to get on with governance is to leave the orienteer in the forest in the dark thus possibly explaining the secretive launch of the current BO Governance Review ?

My initial concern and the reason I initially dragged this issue before a larger audience was because of fears for the independance of the Scottish Six Day event once fixtures were set by a BO Board with all members living south of Sheffield. To reassure everyone with similar concerns I would like to repeat here Mike Hamilton’s reassurance/ answer to my feedback above.

“After a quick read I, and I’m sure the Board will, appreciate many of the points you are making however I’m not entirely convinced of the relevance to the immediate review. If we were looking at the entirety of the BOF structure I think many of the issues you raise are valid however this review is about the committees and groups rather than the entirety of the BOF structure.

With the exception of the BOF/EOC/SOA relationship the Board members understand the points you raise – the Board does not wish to ‘interfer’ in SOA business! One of the examples of how the current committee structure does not work is that the Board would like to see the Scottish 6 Day as a high level event (it is after all the biggest event staged in the UK) whilst maintaining the independence of the S6D and unfortunately Rules Group is a problem in this regard. So even though the Board agrees with you re the independence of the S6D it is finding it challenging to ‘encourage’ Rules Group to expand on the Board vision!”
Mike Hamilton

John Colls pointed out in response
“But doesn’t the review document itself relate to the ‘entirety’ of the structure?? The following sentence is copied straight from the document on the website: The intention of the Board is to bring clarity to the governance structure particularly with regard to the ownership, delegation, authority, responsibility and accountability surrounding decision making within British Orienteering.”

Conclusion. Scottish orienteering needs a governance review as well!

Chris James says:

I am not quite sure I follow the comment about leaving the orienteer in the forest in the dark that appears to be attributed to me by Dick?
However I sincerely believe in exactly the opposite (if only people would be interested earlier enough to make the process more effective).
At present I am baffled by what appears to have happened to the ways in which British Orienteering is communicating with its members. I do know that the AGM presentation with the outline intentions have been circulate to Associations, Clubs and all Committees. So how effective are these groups in passing on the message to all members? I do hope that we will see clear statements to all members via the BO website to help to overcome these apparent gaps and stop us all going round in circles.
Dick cites the issue of the Rules Group and the S6D. This is exactly the other part of the governance review that is being considered. Too many committees with conflicting remits that the Board wishes to sort out. It is another example of different groups failing to consider the bigger picture and hence the lack of effective decision making and progress. Also a way in which the SOA perspective can be missed without some form of involvement from Scotland. In my view it is not an attempt to stifle views and opinions but to channel them more effectively.

Does this help?

Barry Elkington says:

“One of the examples of how the current committee structure does not work is that the Board would like to see the Scottish 6 Day as a high level event (it is after all the biggest event staged in the UK) whilst maintaining the independence of the S6D and unfortunately Rules Group is a problem in this regard. So even though the Board agrees with you re the independence of the S6D it is finding it challenging to ‘encourage’ Rules Group to expand on the Board vision!”

This is an interesting statement, as at no time has the Scottish 6 Day event ever been discussed at Rules Group, or Rules Group ever been asked to consider anything in relation to it. 

In fact it is difficult to envisage in what respect Rules Group could possibly be a problem to “the vision” that the Board has of the Scottish 6 Day being a high level event.

Barry Elkington
Chairman, British Orienteering Rules Group

Mike Hamilton says:

In response to Barry Elkington, Chair of Rules Group, highlighting a passage from one of my recent emails I would like to apologise to members of Rules Group.
Unfortunately I expressed myself poorly in that email and I can confirm that at no time has the Board approached Rules Group regarding the matter of the S6D.
As a point of interest the Board would not approach Rules Group directly regarding this matter as the approach would always be via the parent committee, which is Events Committee.
Once again I apologise for any embarrassment caused to members of Rules Group.

John Morris says:

Well, well, well!

Here we are again…

And I have been rereading a contribution I prepared earlier - much much earlier…

Then, as now, there was a confusion in the minds at BOF Central between the proper top-down organisation of an administration machine (to which the current proposals might well apply) and the proper bottom-up structuring of participation with Clubs, supported by loyal, enthusiastic LOCAL, members, erecting National/Regional bodies to serve their regional needs.

And it is the Clubs, not BOF Central, that deliver the volunteer-reliant events that are the primary reason for BOF’s existence.

Now, if you’re still listening to this voice from the past, please read what I wrote in 1993.  It won’t all apply now - or I’d be surprised/horrified if it does - because these are unamended excerpts from an 18 year old document.

And that document was the result of a two year campaign, led from Scotland, which ultimately came to nothing because of the appalling state of BOF governance at that time. 

BOF’s governance is now incomparably better but I’d suggest that we need to remind the apparatchiks that while the central administration can organise ITSELF any way it wants, it can only AUDIT the event deliverers.

Harrumph!

Now, imagine it’s April 1993…

Reforming BOF
A Contribution to the BOF ‘93 AGM Debate

Mr. Chairman, Fellow Members,
I speak in support of the motion to reform BOF by, amongst other things, reshaping it as a Federation of four National Associations.

Renewal
This debate is about renewal.  BOF has served Orienteering in Britain well over the last twenty years but now needs overhauling.  Clive Allen thought so.  Anne Braggins thought so.  The SOA thought so.  The 1992 BOF AGM thought so.  The Structure Working Party thinks so.

...

Disaggregation - Selection - Vigorous Growth
The SWP’s ... analysis, following on from that of the SOA Working Group, has identified and disaggregated BOF’s separate elements.  We propose to select the best and to reposition them to best advantage.  After a brief period of adjustment we expect to see a surge of growth.

...

A key, and desirable, feature of the growth will be its variety.  Different groups will grow in different ways, as local conditions dictate.  It is a not a weakness of our proposals, but a strength, that orienteering in Scotland, in Yorkshire and in the Home Counties may develop differently.  Harmony is vital, uniformity is not.

A Four-Nation BOF
One key feature of our proposals is a careful separation and redistribution of powers between clubs, regions, nations and the Federation.  The ideas behind this have been widely discussed and strengthened by an encouraging amount of constructive criticism.  This redistribution will pull decision making away from the central core towards the grass roots.  This will allow different groups to choose to move forward in different ways.  This sensitivity to local needs can only increase effectiveness in the longer term.

...

A 4-nation BOF will not, as some have suggested, cost more.  There need be no duplication of expense because there need be no duplication of function.

...

Orienteering Services Agencies
Having clearly separated the governmental functions, we must now make the second, equally bold and equally simple, partition.  We must separate government from the provision of services.  As soon as we do this the roles of the National Office and of the Coaching Directorate in the new structure become clear.  They will be orienteering service agencies.

...

The SOA employs one such agency, with a legally distinct existence, to run the Six Day Event.  The Six Day Company frees the SOA Executive to concentrate on wider issues and also provides a prudent financial separation, being required at least to cover its own costs.

The Six Day Company is not the only example.  Clubs throughout Britain buy services from the various orienteering mapping companies, which have moved into a very similar role by a different route.

...

Reform for Effectiveness - and Economy
In summary, the potential I see in the SWP’s proposals is for the division of BOF’s responsibilities into three parts:

  NuBOF - Policy, audit & international;
  NOAs, ROAs & Clubs - Operations management & membership;
  Service Agencies - Specialist service suppliers.

This division will increase effectiveness (and) ...  decrease costs.

John Morris, Edinburgh, April 1993

Dick Carmichael says:

Welcome back John to the truly circular sport of O .
A fantastic sport where a 19 year old Scottish Working party Paper (SWP) that we both put lots of wasted hours into, can come around again for a brand new 2011 BOF governance consideration.
Your contribution now has truly made this web discussion page an historic document. Thanks !
Everyone should maybe buy and read John Coll’s S6D book A FEW SURPLUS MAPS at Oban 2011 to fully understand this circular O significance.

John Colls says:

Prompted by the comments above of John M and Dick, I cannot resist the temptation to quote from the final chapter of “A Few Surplus Maps” (which takes a wee peek into ‘The Future?’).

It didn’t need any input from the Brahan Seer to write it (just a bit of fine-tuning from Gareth B-J):

” ... it is to be hoped that in future the relationship [between the S6D and BOF] ... can be managed without the difficulties that have characterised it from time to time in the past.

“We need to find ways to prevent such tensions arising. From a Scottish perspective, those who determine BOF policies and actions often do not seem to understand how their decisions can have an adverse impact on the health of the 6 Days. Whilst the BOF constitution retains its traditional form, it is inevitable that decisions reflect a strong bias towards meeting the needs of the sport in England.

“Perhaps the best way forward is to pick up the threads from the reforms proposed in the early 1990s to re-structure BOF so that each of the four Home Countries is placed on an equal footing. Much has changed in the wider political landscape since that time, notably with the devolution of powers previously wielded from Westminster to self-governing bodies in Cardiff and Edinburgh. Either though this process or alongside it, the reality is that some issues fundamental to our sport (notably land access in general and Forestry Commission aspects in particular) have to be managed very differently between, in particular, England and Scotland.

“Why not create a structure for BOF which explicitly recognises such issues?”

Game on!

Chris James says:

I also welcome John Morris to this debate. Of course we were both involved in the 1993-4 proposals for a 4 Nations Federeation.

Dick Carmichael says:

To summarise the position as we reach the deadline for submissions of feedback later this week:
1) What is proposed is a British Orienteering constitutional issue affecting Scottish Orienteering governance. As such it cannot be passed by the BO Board without bringing it to an AGM.
2) The next BO AGM is at JK 2012 in Scotland and the proposals may need modification to persuade the membership

Please write to BO board with your feedback and anything that emphasises the above core facts will help.

John Morris says:

Just to bring everybody up to speed…

On 19th June I emailed Mike Hamilton, as follows:-

[Text begins]

“Mike,

I spent 2 hours this morning manning a quiet Start at Southdowns’ 3-in-1 event – which gave me time for a thorough re-reading of the Governance Review.  I found that I disagreed with only two words: “Governance” and “Review”.

One key mistake (imho) is the description of ‘standards management’ – which is what Events and Competition Committees are about – as ‘governance’.  It most clearly is NOT governance, so if a reader accepts the false message of paragraphs 2 and 4, he or she will read on with mounting puzzlement, frustration and (possibly) anger. 

The diagram below paragraph 5 only adds more confusion.  Governance is the privilege of the AGM, and by delegation therefrom, of the Board.  That’s it.  The rest of the bodies on the diagram have purely advisory functions (as is noted – only – for the A&CAC;).  It’s hardly surprising that a – totally unnecessary – storm has arisen.

I suggest that you try substituting “standards management” for “governance” throughout the paper when referring to the Events and Competition Committees.  I suggest that you refer to the work of all Committees as ‘management’ rather than ‘governance’.  Use the word ‘governance’  (a) only when referring to the actions of the AGM or the Board or both, and (b) where, and only where, those actions involve no other person(s) – not even the CEO.  I suggest…

The second obvious piece of misdirection is that this paper is not a ‘review’; it’s a ‘proposal’.  And, in my opinion, it has a lot going for it.  You, I and all the copy addressees know exactly why it’s necessary; however, none of us would care to write a frank review of what we know about the past behaviour of these Committees and their members, for fear of legal entanglement.

So – let’s relaunch this document as a ‘Standards Management Proposal’, a perfectly proper thing for the Board to publish, on a consultative basis.  The consultation is now a prudent courtesy rather than a legal necessity, because the Board is acting well within its powers if, on behalf of its stakeholders, it moves to improve the effectiveness and/or economy of the sport’s management.

“Sitting on a branch, sawing off the tree…”, I wrote.  Neil C tells me he does not understand what I meant by this phrase.  My apologies if my humour is sometimes obscure…  I suggest – and the SOA and NopeSport threads both support the suggestion – that both the intended message (about professionalising Committee activity) and the unintended message (about a self-declaredly important – although completely illusory – governance change) have really annoyed the stakeholders.  The Committees and their adherents are angry – rightly – because their hegemony is (properly in my opinion) threatened.  The rest of us are angry – rightly – because a simple, fit-for-purpose, managerial proposal has been so ineptly presented – by a Board which advertises its own excellence…

And if the Board continues to alienate a large proportion of the movers and shakers who actually run - and run in - events, week in, week out, it is the Board – and its branch - that will fall, not the orienteers in the forest.

And the REALLY depressing thing is that, by this single unfortunate move, the Board has taken us back to the early nineties when a number of us had to explain to the Officers of the day what BOF Central’s role was – and wasn’t.  Out of that, eventually, with Robin Field as (erm…) catalyst, came our vastly improved current model.  Which is, all of a sudden, being questioned by those who worked for twenty years to build it.

Please redraft and re-issue this defective paper, so that the very sensible proposal at its core can be seen for what it is – a move towards more effective management.  And an apology to the Membership would be well received…”

[Text ends]

I should stress that the apology I ask for is due (imho) not from our hard-pressed CEO but from the BO Board.

Gross says:

Given the depth of feeling shown by the various posters above I assume they will be acting as their club representatives at the BOF Conference in mid Oct & also that ALL Scottish Clubs & the SOA will be fully represented to take advantage of a rare opportunity to present valid views & opinions.

“A Conference of Association and Club representatives will be held on Saturday 15 October 2011 in a venue to be confirmed in Sheffield.”

John Morris says:

Gross says:- “Given the depth of feeling shown by the various posters above I assume they will be acting as their club representatives at the BOF Conference ...”

And, of course, they won’t.

These are views submitted by interested/concerned individuals based on their experience and understanding.  They are NOT consensus views of Clubs or Associations.

I certainly do not claim to speak for SO or SEOA, let alone for ESOC or SOA; to do so I would have (a) to have been chosen as a representative, (b) to have understood the wishes of my constituency, (c) to have delivered a statement agreed by that constituency.  And that’s not how ideas or developed in debates/forums such as this. 

These forum debates are dynamic; a representative conference, such as the Conference of Associations and Clubs (CAC?) is static.  It can be little more than a series of assertive proclamations, reminiscent of a gathering of rutting stags.

And, as the Directors of BOF decline to respond to any initiative without first consulting amongst themselves (this debate being a case in point), any BOF Central response at CAC is likely to be anodyne and (essentially) non-committal.  One might almost think that this had been the intention.

So, I suggest, the real debate has to be held as an internet forum, as only here can we hope to enjoy a proactive exchange of views - “thesis, antithesis and synthesis”.

It’s a great pity that BOF Central still refuses to engage with individual orienteers, leaving the task to NopeSport and the SOA.  Do you think we should change that?  Or should we gratefully accept CAC?

Gross says:

John,

The BOF Conference should not be dismissed out of hand! Surely ‘fighting’ from within makes as much senses as longwinded debates on a forum read by very few individuals.

It would be interesting to see an ‘official’ reponse from the SOA to the BOF Review… is there one coming?

Paul Frost says:

The 33 comments have been dominated by the old guard and not a single comment from anyone under 30 (apart from Scott Collier).
Given that many of the decisions we make will probably affect them more than us oldies it’s a shame they haven’t become engaged in the debate.

John Morris says:

Gross wrote: “The BOF Conference should not be dismissed out of hand! Surely ‘fighting’ from within makes as much senses as longwinded debates on a forum read by very few individuals.”

On reflection I was maybe a little hard on the Conference - my apologies to its organisers, whom I’m sure will do all they can to allow practical proposals to emerge.  But what then? 

The Conference is advisory - and within the current structure that’s a proper description, as the ‘Federation’ is NOT a federation of either Clubs or Associations (as the ‘old guard’ diffidently mentioned twenty years ago) but an association whose members are individual orienteers…

So the Directors, answerable only to individual orienteers, can properly - if ill-advisedly - take note of, and set aside, anything the Conference proposes.

And you can’t - to use Gross’s term - ‘fight’ an opponent who doesn’t turn up…

What you can do, given BOF Central’s apparently preferred stance of disengagement, is accept that Clubs and Associations already have the freedom to do what they want in their own forests, provided only that that they observe the IOF rules handed on by BOF’s standards committees.  All the rest is optional, BOF being a service agency whose services (membership, UK-level events, training etc.) you can treat as a pick-n-mix menu.

Paul Frost said:- “not a single comment from anyone under 30…” with the exception of Scott Collier…

Is that because the under-30s have already written BOF off as an irrelevance (which would be sad) or because they’re just not impressed by ghosts from the past (which would be entirely healthy!)?

I’ll get back in my box now; dawn approaches…

Scott Collier says:

The below is a repost of a post I have just made on Nopesport, but I thought I’d stick it on here as well in case anybody is reading this thread but not that one.

[Speaking entirely personally here, and not with my BOF Director hat on.]

I actually had this discussion with a small group of young (under-25) English orienteers a few days ago. As Paul points out, they were pretty much apathetic to the whole review, even once I’d explained it to them.

The general feeling seemed to be that, seeing as the BOF groups/committees were in any case likely to be composed of some M55s they had never met, it didn’t make a blind bit of difference whether those M55s were appointed by some M55s on the BOF Board they had never met or by some other M55s on their association committees they had also never met.

To be fair, I think everyone involved in the governance of orienteering in the UK (from the BOF Board and committees, through the association committees and down to the clubs) could be doing a lot more to engage young people in the issues facing the sport.

And it would probably be a good start to spend more time discussing the actual issues - declining participation (at least in “traditional” orienteering), rising travel costs, volunteer shortages, the loss of funding. Unfortunately, for most young orienteers “orienteering governance” summons up images of old men having violent squabbles over irrelevancies.

The highest profile “governance” issue in the last couple of years has been “how many levels of event we should have,” and I know very few people under the age of 30 who could understand why this made the slightest bit of difference to anything. Most of the ones I know found it unbelievable (and slightly depressing) how much time and energy that went into discussing it, given some of the (rather more serious) issues facing the sport. If this is the image of orienteering governance that young people have then it’s no wonder they are disengaged.

(Major kudos, by the way, to the SOA, who do seem to have managed to get some “young” orienteers involved in their governance.)

Scott Collier says:

And now with my Director hat back on: an update on the review is now available on the British Orienteering website.  Further feedback is welcome!

Dick Carmichael says:

Great, A big step in the right direction…backwards!
What we need to do in Scotland is refer this matter to our sportscotland partner who is also simultaneously addressing issues such as the GB IOC football team issue. Is UK sport looking after all the issues and is British Orientering in its current proposed changes unaware of these devolution questions? Is the governance review an accident or a plot?
I am glad so many care to comment despite reluctant cautious clubs associations and BO. However the new timetable has nothing for AGM 2012 the only time the members get their say ? Why ?

John Colls says:

In the last millenium Gross presented me (StAUOC dinner c1975?) with a gnarled walking-stick in recognition of my advanced age even then - and I’ve just used it to stagger down the hallway in my dressing-gown to type this note. And Scott, even earlier I was at OU before the OC was yet a twinkle in its founders’ eyes - running up and down Shotover Hill with nary a notion of using my brain to navigate en route. Thus, I empathise with - and totally support - your comments about the need to get the oversight of Orienteering into the hands of those whose future is ahead of them not behind.

But be careful not to throw out the grandparents with the bathwater. This thread of discussion was an outcome of BOF’s issuing (with at least a muted blast of trumpets) a document headed “Governance Review”. Some of us thought, naively as it turns out, that such was indeed its purpose. But now the exercise is revealed to have shrivelled to a plan to implement some internal management changes. That is not to decry their importance, but rather to illustrate how the apparent canvas has shrunk.

As Dick indicates above, without a genuine Governance Review (and then reform onto a ‘Four Nations’ basis) BOF risks losing its remaining relevance in Scotland - and likely elsewhere too, perhaps even in Cornwall!

Perhaps look at it in these terms. The structure of BOF when it was created in 1967 (and which has remained effectively unchanged ever since) was determined by the Government’s rules at that time for UK-wide sports’ funding. That factor aside, it is clear from contemporary reports that ‘BOF’ would have been set up initially as a 50:50 partnership between the SOA and the EOA. Fast forward to 2011 - and guess what! The (UK) Government’s rules have changed and many sports in Scotland (not just Orienteering) are actively reviewing their ‘traditional’ (aka ‘imposed’) relationships with London.

What does the current BOF Board wish to be remembered for - taking an initiative to deal with these big picture issues or burying its head in the sand?

Chris James says:

I believe that John Colls has summarised the current situation very well. As one of the grandparents, with children and grandchildren in the sport, I believe that John Colls has summarised the current situation very well. May I bring experience into the picture summarising the following factors:

Founding the Federation in 1967

As one of the four representatives of the EOA at Dalbeattie in March 1967 that evolved the structure I can assure members of the SOA that it might well have been a 4 Nations Federation but for government funding policies at that time.
Recognition was made in allowing the SOA a greater representation on the Council in 1967.However some years later this was removed leaving the SOA representation at 1 in 12 of the Regions.

Re-examining the Structure in 1993/4

At that time it was the sheer weight of English members at the AGM that out-voted the proposals to change to a 4 Nations model. This was not helped by being denied the lack of a proper opportunity to sell and explain the reasons behind the proposed changes.

International Devolution

Take a look around the globe at the cries for independence. Consider the current moves by the UK government to recognise this trend by establishing separate legislatures for the 4 Home Nations. Whether or not this will lead to a totally separate Scotland is open to debate. In Scotland there are definitely two opposing views. However there can be no doubt that there is a strong call from many members of the SOA to govern and manage orienteering within Scotland - not necessarily to leave a 4 Nations Federation.

Organisational Development

Effective communications are the key to successful management and good organisational development. We know that many young people have added pressures today of young families involved in a variety of activities on a Saturday which coupled with pressure of careers, prevent them from taking a more active part in the running of our sport.  Many of them are grateful for the grandfathers – and don’t forget the grandmothers too – who put their time and effort into keeping things running on the ground, and in the committees.  Scott, you say that many of the youngsters you speak to do not know the people in their club who run the events, then encourage them to get to know who is who and COMMUNICATE.
Potential Outcome
Now that the strengths of feeling regarding more SOA autonomy have re-emerged then surely it is time to use this opportunity and the changes to government structures to re-organise our Federation into a 4 Nations model. It is surely all about effectively running the structures in ways that allow the orienteer in the forest to gain the maximum benefits whilst leaving the governance and management to those with interests and skills. Hence the Board seeking appropriate skill sets in potential members. Surely there are members of the SOA that could significantly contribute and bring their experiences of the many good things that the SOA does so well into British Orienteering?

I move for a re-examination of the 4 Nations Proposals.

John Morris says:

With all due respect to my experienced and thoughtful friends, I think we’re making very heavy weather of this – and quite unnecessarily.

The relationship between BOF and the Clubs and Associations is defined, implicitly but clearly, in the original ‘Governance Review’ paper, as follows:-

“Association & Club Conference: To discuss major strategic decisions and advise the Board of their considered views. This will ensure communications between the Board and the associations and clubs regarding major strategic decisions is robust and takes place before major strategic decisions are taken.”

Not, you’ll notice, WHEN major strategic decisions are taken, but BEFORE…

The relationship is (as the accompanying diagram emphasises) ‘advisory’.

In the Update paper, we have:- “The Board is of the opinion that an Association & Club Conference is necessary in order for the Board to carry out consultation which will inform its strategic decision making.”

No change there; the relationship is confirmed as advisory – nothing more.  And that’s entirely consistent with recent practice and with the Memorandum & Articles of BOF.

In his recent posting on this forum, Dick Carmichael says:-  “…is British Orientering in its current proposed changes unaware of these devolution questions? Is the governance review an accident or a plot?”

I think, as a believer in the ‘cock-up’ theory of history (conspiracy theorists, you can stop reading here…), that it’s an accident, and a messy one at that.

Consider the contractual implications: if BOF’s obligation to Clubs and Associations is merely to listen to their advice, should it so wish, before taking independent decisions, then surely the same obligation holds in the other direction.  Effectively, the independence of Clubs and Associations is confirmed – indeed, asserted – in BOF’s two papers.  Devolutionists, do your thing!

And if you don’t believe me, READ THE INSTRUCTIONS…

BOF Memorandum, Paragraph 3, begins…

“3. The objects for which the Federation is established are:
3.1 To act as the official governing body for the sport and recreation of orienteering in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (which territories are referred to below as the “United Kingdom”), through or in conjunction with the Constituent Associations as defined in Article 1.
3.2 To be responsible for co-ordinating the work of the Constituent Associations subject to the general regulations of the Associations.
…”

There’s nothing here about the Associations being governed by BOF.  The SPORT is “governed by BOF … in conjunction with the … Associations”.  You have freedom!  The cage door is open!

This is confirmed by BOF Article 6.1, which says:-

6.1 In addition to its Members, the Federation shall recognise the following classes of groups and individuals:-

(i) Constituent Associations, being the self-governing National, Regional and Other Associations which are recognised by the Federation, and which are listed in Article 44.
…”

And BOF Article 44 (bear with me, it’s worth it…) says:-

“44.

44.1 The Constituent Associations shall be the National Associations:
(A) The Northern Ireland Orienteering Association.
(B) The Scottish Orienteering Association
(C) The Welsh Orienteering Association.
(D) Each of the nine Regional Associations of England which are:-
…
E) British Schools Orienteering Association
or any other body
(i) deemed by the Board to be a legitimate successor to a
Constituent Association.
(ii) to whom all the assets and functions of the predecessor
Constituent Association have been legally transferred.
(iii) which complies with article 44.3 below.

44.2 Adjustments to the boundaries of the nine Regional Associations of England may be made if so approved by the appropriate Regional Associations and by the Board.

44.3 Each Constituent Association shall submit its Constitution or Memorandum of Association to the Board before its representatives are entitled to vote in the
committees of the Federation. The Board will approve the Constitution or Memorandum of Association provided that its objectives do not conflict with those of the British Orienteering Federation. Any amendments that may be
made from time to time shall also be submitted to the Board.”

So not only are you already self-governing, you already have the right to amend your Constitution (Article 44.3) and, somewhat to my surprise, the right to transfer your assets and functions to a successor body (Articles 44.1.(E).(i), (ii) and (iii)).

What more could you ask?

All you have to do, in exchange for your freedom, is to accept that, if BOF cannot rule you, you cannot rule BOF.

Your choice…