£10 registration fee per event for organisers

[DanialW]

It doesn't. But if someone (anyone)  has the info to hand then they could post it (or a link to it)

That's pretty-much how things like The Knowledge and Ctrl-Alt-Del, and the PBP board, work.  If people ask things others answer if they can and if they wish to.

Indeed. Compare that to this demand that arrived in my YACF inbox this week:

I'm not sure of my facts so I'm having this conversation offline 'to protect the innocent'. That would be me.

As is, I'm a bit cross about this actually. The word I would use to describe the decision is, 'high handed'.

The justification offered seems to be that there have been calendar entries with a single entry. Is this a serious problem or is it a reaction to the 400km x-event with the £25 entry fee from last year which I suspect didn't attract a large field? If so then it seem rather precipitous to change the rules for all based on a single incident. Ref: all the grief generated by the 50% rule for championship points.  

More to the point, and this is where the conspiracy theorists amongst us start to get excited, AIUI the committee meets four times a year, which suggests the last meeting was immediately before the AGM. Is this correct? If so, then  why was the issue and proposed course of action not raised at the AGM (or did I sleep through that bit)?

For my part, as a matter of course, if not politeness, I would expect changes to charging structure to be at least announced at the AGM if not actually put to the vote, as for example, was the issue of the cost impact of the growing numbers of life members and how this might be addressed.

As for the decision itself, it could be argued that it does not support organisers of new events or those in the less populated areas of the country (though let's face it the the sums involved are trivial). Will there be a similar charge for listing Perms? If not, why not?

At this point it looks like Bad Law caused by a lack of consultation, and it's the lack of consultation which is unpopular.

Now, as you know, MV, I've had similar barrages in the public fora on here. What's really undermining though, is that more than one person on this thread has expressed a view that I should expect to be available for this kind of scrutiny of AUK decisions.

So yes, ask me a question like "when's the next AUK committee meeting", but I'm not going to engage anymore with posts and messages like the one above.

[DanialW]

What's been said is that committee members will never reply to a question on this forum. Full stop.  Even if the answer is in the public domain and they can simply and helpfully direct us to it.

Steady on, chap. Nobody has said that.

[Ian H]

A new committee was elected in November. It hasn't met yet - the first meeting is on Feb 23 (10.30 for 11.00 in Birmingham if you wish to attend as an observer) - so its members, particularly the ones new to post, are likely to want to meet, discuss, and settle into their roles, before pronouncing publicly on AUK matters.

[damerell]

I confess that if I stand back and look at a policy decision put in place by our committee, which has the modest impact of a £3 increase in the cost of putting on an event , I can not get my mind round why this is generating so much discussion.

1) It's an £3 increase for an event with 20 riders. It's more of an increase for a smaller event, up to £10. I can well understand that someone who puts on the 50/100/150/200 quad more than once a year might be a bit honked off.

2) The intention seems to be to discourage events with small fields. Now, it being a trivial sum of money means maybe it won't have much effect, but one can still ask why that is the intent. Particularly, the aforementioned organiser is bound to feel that they are being actively discouraged from offering a choice of distances!

[Jaded]

Modern world stuff.

Its an update on Paper | Scissors | Stone

Shiny paper 4 times a year doesn't beat Online Democracy
Online Democracy doesn't

Oh hell. I had three things lined up that illustrated it but I cannot remember the third. I've got a short attention span.

[Ray 6701]

A new committee was elected in November. It hasn't met yet - the first meeting is on Feb 23 (10.30 for 11.00 in Birmingham if you wish to attend as an observer) - so its members, particularly the ones new to post, are likely to want to meet, discuss, and settle into their roles, before pronouncing publicly on AUK matters.

Where abouts in Birmingham?  Are there drinks after  

I'd happily pay an extra pound or two to keep rides like the west & midland 400k running which only had 8 riders last year for some strange reason 

[phil d]

According to the minutes, Bennetts Wine Bar (in Bennetts Hill, off New Street), meeting in the Briar Rose opposite form 10.30

[DanialW]

10.30 tends to be social, but there's no reason why you can't come and be social first too.

Four of the committee (Sue and Keith counting as half each) won't be around until 11, because we're having a pre-AUK LEL meeting elsewhere

[Fidgetbuzz]

And on this forum - no individual ( even if they are on the committee) can give a committee answer to any question - they are here as individuals - entitled to their opinions - and they do not speak for the committee here.

Indeed.  I think that point's been made; the question asked was about an individual who knows the answer giving information on a committee decision already made and minuted.

Time to go for a ride - but before I do - just this comment - why are some AUK members expecting to have the reasons behind any ( or even all) committee decision made available to them after potentially each and every committee meeting (ie when any single member of YACF feels that maybe the wrong decision has been taken)- that isnt the way it should work - the committee takes decisions , makes copies of minutes available for members to read - can be questioned and challenged at the AGM , can have an EGM called ( havent checked constitution but would expect this provision to apply), can be voted in or out of their positions.

Leave them to get on with running the activity in the way they think is in the best interests of AUK -- if you are unhappy - chat with a committee member to get some feel for what is behind any decision- if you are still unhappy - stand for a post.

If this sort of "inquisition" takes place over every committee action - then quite frankly in a year or two - we may well be struggling to find anyone willing to stand and  be exposed to this scrutiny

[mmmmartin]

I'm not sure this is anything to do with me, as I'm not an organiser, but this is the relevant paragraph from the minutes (easy to find on the Audax website, by the way) of the meeting:

"SG/KH reported having processed all the 2010 season results – bar the couple
mentioned earlier by NH.  The total of 16,948 showed a continuing decline in
validated Brevets.  A particular concern was mentioned of several organisers running
events with single-figure fields.  A long and wide-ranging debate ensued on the best
way to overcome this problem, including a minimum card order per event per year, or
an overall event fee. Some concern was expressed that a levy endangering the
viability of such events would lead to riders opting for a DIY Perm instead.  It was
also noted, in passing, that entry fees for Devon CTC events are now to be payable
to the local group rather than the organiser which can only increase the amount of
admin required and be confusing to regular riders. The upshot was a unanimous vote
to levy a £10 pre-registration fee per event per year which would include 20 free
Brevet cards to take effect from the start of the 2010/11 season. (my italics.)"

I'm not sure if this helps, but it does provide a wee bit of context to this long discussion.

[mmmmartin]

Oh - and isn't this a brilliant idea? From the minutes of the committee meeting:

"DKB mentioned he had recently learned the Estate of Bry Ferguson, a former Brevet
Card Production Secretary who had passed away in September 2005, had now been
finalised and that under the terms of his will, AUK had received £2,000.  Half of this
sum is to be used to purchase champagne or other suitable wine for consumption at
committee meetings “to assist members in their deliberations.”  The remaining half is
to be used to purchase champagne for the winners of the individual trophies.  Two
bottles of champagne had accordingly been purchased for use at this meeting and
the members raised a glass in a grateful toast to Bry’s memory."

I'm just off to alter my will...............

[mattc]

Oh - and isn't this a brilliant idea? From the minutes of the committee meeting:

...
 Two bottles of champagne had accordingly been purchased for use at this meeting and
the members raised a glass in a grateful toast to Bry’s memory."

I'm just off to alter my will...............

It was a lovely idea.

 One can't help wondering how many small events that £2000 could have funded... <runs> ...

[mmmmartin]

The remaining half is to be used to purchase champagne for the winners of the individual trophies

I'm now off to the handbook to find out how to win a trophy...............

[frankly frankie]

(10.30 for 11.00 in Birmingham if you wish to attend as an observer)

Bring your own sandwiches?

[Keeff]

(10.30 for 11.00 in Birmingham if you wish to attend as an observer)

Bring your own sandwiches?

It's a food pub. 

Keith

[LiamFitz]

Indeed.  I think that point's been made; the question asked was about an individual who knows the answer giving information on a committee decision already made and minuted.
[/quote]

Time to go for a ride - but before I do - just this comment - why are some AUK members expecting to have the reasons behind any ( or even all) committee decision made available to them after potentially each and every committee meeting (ie when any single member of YACF feels that maybe the wrong decision has been taken)- that isnt the way it should work - the committee takes decisions , makes copies of minutes available for members to read - can be questioned and challenged at the AGM , can have an EGM called ( havent checked constitution but would expect this provision to apply), can be voted in or out of their positions.

Leave them to get on with running the activity in the way they think is in the best interests of AUK -- if you are unhappy - chat with a committee member to get some feel for what is behind any decision- if you are still unhappy - stand for a post.

If this sort of "inquisition" takes place over every committee action - then quite frankly in a year or two - we may well be struggling to find anyone willing to stand and  be exposed to this scrutiny


[/quote]

...what he said. (me agreeing with Fidgetbuzz is probably a first)

[phil d]

Time to go for a ride - but before I do - just this comment - why are some AUK members expecting to have the reasons behind any ( or even all) committee decision made available to them after potentially each and every committee meeting (ie when any single member of YACF feels that maybe the wrong decision has been taken)- that isnt the way it should work - the committee takes decisions , makes copies of minutes available for members to read - can be questioned and challenged at the AGM , can have an EGM called ( havent checked constitution but would expect this provision to apply), can be voted in or out of their positions.

Leave them to get on with running the activity in the way they think is in the best interests of AUK -- if you are unhappy - chat with a committee member to get some feel for what is behind any decision- if you are still unhappy - stand for a post.

If this sort of "inquisition" takes place over every committee action - then quite frankly in a year or two - we may well be struggling to find anyone willing to stand and  be exposed to this scrutiny

While this thread has become very long, and so quite possibly looks like an inquisition, it is my impression (and certainly my position) that the decision is not being challenged, but there is a real desire to understand the background to the decision.  Initially it was just stated, as a fait accompli, and then there was a suggestion (but not from an AUK committee member, so an opinion rather than a statement) that it was due to card production difficulties, and a perusal of the relevant minutes hint that it might be difficulties at the validation stage.  

It affects all organisers directly, some more than others.  It affects AUK participants to the extent that it could cause the choice of events to reduce.  There is an acceptance that this is just an unofficial discussion between interested parties on the subject, though interestingly and quite unnecessarily a comment has been made by a committee member, sort of telling us to mind our own business.  It is our business.

A bit more information would not change the decision made, nor would it change the way any formal comment should be made through official channels.  But it might prevent any further ill-informed speculation, and possibly result in more positive discussion for the good of all, and who knows, possibly a positive suggestion to formally feed back to the committee.

[Jaded]

And maybe some ideas from the membership at large for increasing fields on smaller events.

[frankly frankie]

I can't answer Phil's questions, I know nothing about the current thinking - but, before I stood down from committee 2 years ago, I was lobbying for, as I called it, a 'Calendar fee', and ISTR that I was saying that a £10 fee with 20 free cards thrown in would be a good start.  At that time, no-one else saw much merit in the idea.

Now it's resurfaced (parallel evolution?) so naturally I'm rather interested in all this (as a bystander).

I think my feeling was that the (then) recent introduction of the online Planner, co-incidentally coupled with our very long-standing EvSec who was known to run a tight ship standing down - had made adding new Events into the Calendar 'too easy'.  
This led not only to (as I see it) too many events, leading to smaller fields which IMO does nobody any favours - but also to more event cancellations, which to us grizzled old-timers is The Cardinal Sin of organising.

So - my idea was - the payment of an upfront fee (and the £3 imbalance) would counter the 'too easy' effect introduced by the Planner.
It would also have the very useful side effect of enforcing the 20 cards minimum order which makes things a bit easier for Pam.  (I think if you rake back through Handbooks of say 10 years ago you'd find this minimum order of 20 for event cards, in print - it's just never been enforced, you can imagine how difficult it would be for her to do so.)

I emphasise - current thinking may have nothing to do with any of the above, which is just the way I see it.
And as a parting shot - actually my first idea was £25 with all cards free of charge  

[DanialW]

though interestingly and quite unnecessarily a comment has been made by a committee member, sort of telling us to mind our own business.  It is our business.

Where?

[Keeff]

It is absolutely nothing about difficulties with validation.

Sue and I try to keep our fingers on the pulse of what is happening with regard to numbers of riders on calendar events.  We had been reporting to the board for several meetings that there had been a very significant downturn in numbers.

At the pre-AGM meeting, we were able to show figures from 5 complete seasons.   We had noticed a long time previously that 40% of events attracted fewer than 20 riders, and there has been an on-going discussion on how to increase rider numbers both in general and on smaller events.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the card production and validation areas of AUK are running at quite a large deficit.  Not an immediate problem, but card and validation prices have been held for at least 6 years, while postal charges have gone through the roof.

The decision to introduce a registration fee for events was taken after a long discussion at the meeting.


Keith

[frankly frankie]

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the card production and validation areas of AUK are running at quite a large deficit.  Not an immediate problem, but card and validation prices have been held for at least 6 years, while postal charges have gone through the roof.

As I said earlier, there's a real timing issue with setting these fees.  Really, the regulation (11) that ties them to the AGM needs to be revised, but that's a notoriously difficult thing to do.


If people want to equate 'not for profit' with 'pay as you go' then we can see a bright future where, as Manotea so memorably put it

... it's only a matter of time before skynet becomes self aware Audax administration goes fully online ...

It'll all start with the online entry process, which will
populate the online Start Sheet, which will
notify AUK's accounts of the number of entrants for the event.
(Eols via smartphone??)

Brevet cards will be 'free', and downloaded as a .pdf or whatever during the entry process,
(Pam will gratefully gracefully accept retirement)
each 'card' will not only be event-specific (as now) but dated,
and rider-specific (rider's name and address printed on the card)
and therefore non-transferable (see other thread).
(Info controls are a problem here, as are entrants losing their card before the event has even started 

So on through the post-event process, much of which is already in place,
finishing with a precisely-accounted per-entrant and per-validation funds transfer from Org to Auk.

[Manotea]

Really, the regulation (11) that ties them [fees] to the AGM needs to be revised, but that's a notoriously difficult thing to do.

For good reason, it seems. I attended the AGM and have no recollection of the Levy being discussed. It's not referenced by the AGM minutes in Arrivee as far as I can see.

Given the financial regulations are fairly explicit in requiring charges to be decided at AGM, that the charge is - against normal practice - retrospective, and the controversial nature of the charge (lack of consultation, impact on small calendar events, AUK strategy regarding developing events) the Levy should be withdrawn and resubmitted at AGM 2011.

[DanialW]

I think my feeling was that the (then) recent introduction of the online Planner, co-incidentally coupled with our very long-standing EvSec who was known to run a tight ship standing down - had made adding new Events into the Calendar 'too easy'. 
This led not only to (as I see it) too many events, leading to smaller fields which IMO does nobody any favours - but also to more event cancellations, which to us grizzled old-timers is The Cardinal Sin of organising.

I took on an events rep role at around this time, and indeed watched the calendar bloom. Easily two-thirds of an events rep role is sorting out a handful of small events on their patch. There are tiny events that are passed round riders like hot potatoes, and one-person-band organisers who will load up a new event on calendar publication date. Other are simply not administratively minded, but choose not to look for admin support. It's here that you get cancellations, and in my experience the number of cancellations is rising, albeit slowly and from a low base.

The events team do not have the time to carry out any development work, because they're too busy doing routine work. John H is brimming with good ideas, but I wonder how much time he has to make them happen. I stood down after a year, frustrated at having so little spare time to work on the big stuff, not least LEL which was starting to suffer. The validation secretaries do not have time to do anything much more than meet the admin needs of events.

Speaking personally, I've concluded that if Audax UK wishes to thrive, it needs to set the bar much higher for organisers, and reduce the size of the calendar dramatically. There is a place for small events, but I feel they sit better with perms. If an event consistently attracts just a handful of riders, then it won’t have all the trapping of a proper event anyway. So why not just run it as a group perm?

BTW – these are my personal views. I don’t think I contributed very much to the discussion back in November as I had a head full of other stuff. Like getting controllers for London Edinburgh London, and not getting my arse kicked over David Hudson’s lost 1000.

[DanialW]

PS - I always write committee reports for my official role (press officer) and unofficial role (LEL director). I'm happy to share any these reports from past meetings with anyone who would like to see them. You know where to find me.