From: Blair Trewin [B.Trewin@bom.gov.au] Sent: Thursday, 16 June 2011 10:59 PM To: Arthur, Bruce; Geoff Hudson; Barry Giles; Ian Greenwood; Margi Freemantle; Margi Freemantle; Ian Stirling; Debbie & Ian Dodd; John Sheahan; Bruce Arthur; Wally Cc: craigfeuerherdt@gmail.com; ruthg@netspace.net.au; voa@netspace.net.au; evan barr; Don Fell Subject: RE: Motion for submission to the VOA Council Meeting - July 2011 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] My comments are that what we're discussing, fundamentally, are the questions: (a) how is revenue from park/street O split between the clubs and OV? (b) who has the power to make spending decisions with respect to park/street orienteering (or any other branch)? Geoff's motion leaves the answer to (b) unstated but the implication is that decisions on the spending of funds would be made by the park/street committee. I think, at least in principle, that if the concept is for risk to be shared, then all the parties that are involved in sharing that risk need to agree to the risk they are taking. I think the cost centre model makes sense if, and only if, the whole VOA finances are structured along those lines. This would require a, inevitably somewhat arbitrary, splitting of whole of organisation overheads and whole of organisation income (e.g. memberships, interest) between the cost centres (otherwise you end up with a leftover cost centre with no income). This would seem to me to be adding another layer of complexity to an already complex structure. If a park/street cost centre is set up in isolation without any attribution of whole-of-organisation items to it, then a consequence is that that part of park/street levy income which goes to whole-of-organisation items now will need to be found from somewhere else. The concept of a split of profits between 'stakeholders' (OV and the clubs) is not actually a new idea - OV levies were calculated on a percentage basis up until the mid-90s. There are arguments for and against both systems, but one of the arguments for moving to a fixed per-person rate at that time was that it was simpler - by 1996 we'd got ourselves into a tangle over what we and weren't allowable deductions before levy calculations that was starting to approach the Tax Act in complexity. There is also no reason why a proposal for further investment in park/street orienteering couldn't be handled through existing structures (i.e. a proposal to the VOA Council or Board). The only such proposal which is on the table is Geoff's electronic controls idea. If the figure of $80/competitor being floated last week is correct that's a fair bit of money (several tens of thousands to implement across the various series), and it will have to come from somewhere - the competitors directly, clubs (through entry fees and drawing on reserves), OV (ditto), or grants. The closest analogy I can think of, the implementation of Sportident for bush events (and to some extent MTBO), had the cards funded by the competitors themselves (through sales or hire fees), while the other equipment was funded partly from grant money and partly from an extra levy on events that used the system. If authority is to be delegated to the park/street committee (or any other subcommittee) to make this sort of decision we need to be very clear about what limits (if any) there are to the powers of that subcommittee. I'm prepared to support experiments for the new series (although my support, or lack thereof, is a moot point since I won't be at the meeting), but would oppose its extension to existing series at this time. Blair ________________________________________ From: Arthur, Bruce [BArthur@superpartners.com.au] Sent: Thursday, 16 June 2011 5:47 PM To: Geoff Hudson; Barry Giles; Ian Greenwood; Margi Freemantle; Margi Freemantle; Ian Stirling; Debbie & Ian Dodd; John Sheahan; Bruce Arthur; Blair Trewin; Wally Cc: craigfeuerherdt@gmail.com; ruthg@netspace.net.au; voa@netspace.net.au; evan barr; Don Fell Subject: RE: Motion for submission to the VOA Council Meeting - July 2011 Hi Everyone, Thankyou for the opportunity to attend a constructive meeting last Friday. I think that people got a better understanding of Orienteering Victoria finances and the services that are provided to all members. We need to all take ownership of this and ensure that members understand this better. I also thought that we reached a good compromise to allow Geoff to trial some new ideas but still within the structured organisation of the Park & Street Committee and Orienteering Victoria. However, my interpretation of the outcomes of Friday’s meeting was different to what Geoff suggests in his motion. My understanding was that any changes would be trialled in Geoff’s experimental series first and then reviewed prior to further consideration. An alternate motion that is more in line with my understanding of the agreements reached is as follows: It is moved that an experimental Park-Street Orienteering Series be run as a Cost-Centre – responsible for setting its own fees and charges, managing its own promotion and development and providing financial reporting and dividends to its stakeholders. This means that for this experimental series, the OV levy component (but not OA component) would be waived, but instead OV be one of the stakeholders that would share in any profits. A review would be conducted by Orienteering Victoria Council at the conclusion of the series to evaluate success. If this proves successful then wider implementation will be considered. I feel that this motion has a much better chance of approval with the Council but still provides the opportunity for what we agreed last Friday to go ahead. Clubs need to consider that any decision that has an impact on levy income will need to be compensated by either a substantial decrease in services from OV, or alternatively an increase to membership fees or club affiliation fees. My above suggested motion should be possible without any significant impact. However the financial implications of Geoff’s motion 1 are un-costed and my concern is that this could have major impacts. Other cost centres would also not be considered until after a review of the experiment/pilot. Kind Regards Bruce Arthur President Orienteering Victoria H 03 9481 8191 M 0458 391 261 E brucearthur1@bigpond.com W http://www.vicorienteering.asn.au From: Geoff Hudson [mailto:geoff.hudson@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 15 June 2011 12:09 AM To: Barry Giles; Ian Greenwood; Margi Freemantle; Margi Freemantle; Ian Stirling; Debbie & Ian Dodd; John Sheahan; Bruce Arthur; Blair Trewin; Wally Subject: Motion for submission to the VOA Council Meeting - July 2011 At the meeting on Friday evening, I was asked to draft the motion or motions arising from the meeting. I believe the attached paper summarises the key issue. I'd appreciate your comments/feedback - there is little point putting up a motion if it is likely to be defeated. This would send us all back to square 1. Please REPLY ALL with feedback. Geoff This e-mail contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, distribute, copy, print, or rely on this e-mail. Whilst reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure that this message and any attachments are free from viruses or other malicious code, no guarantee is implied or given. The views expressed in this communication may not necessarily be the views held by Superpartners Pty Ltd, ABN 57 078 907 883.