Discussion: Proposed USOF Budget Eliminates All Funding For Teams

The USOF Board will be meeting next Saturday and one item on the agenda is the budget for 2010. A proposed budget has been reviewed by the Finance Committee, the President, and the Executive Director. It was distributed to the Board Tuesday.

The proposed budget eliminates all funding for the national teams, as well as all funds for coaching or for junior development.

Apparently the rationale behind this is that a strategic plan for the Federation has been developed that lays out priorities, but I have been unable to find out what is in the plan or what the priorities are. So far I've been asking questions but not getting much in the way of answers.

Just thought others might like a heads up.

The proposed budget is here. Note there there are three pages, click the tabs at the lower left.

The budget was distributed to the Board with the following comments from Gary Kraght, chair of the Finance Committee --

-----------------------------

Attached is the proposed 2010 budget for USOF. The first sheet shows the Operating Fund budget, while the second sheet shows the budget for the various other funds. The third sheet is a wish list of requested budget items that are unfunded in the budget.

This represents the first full budget since USOF hired an Executive
Director. It looks different from the 2009 budget. No transfers from the operating fund are being made to any of the teams, while significant money is budgeted for marketing and promotional activities. This change in emphasis is consistent with the Board's strategic planning meeting in Rochester.

The budget proposal is a starting point, not an end point. It has already been reviewed by the Finance Committee, the Executive Director and the President. Now it is your turn. Please publish any comments on the Board net. If there is an item you think should be in the budget that was not included, it would be helpful to indicate where the source of funding for the item might be (i.e. what else should be dropped or reduced). I would caution against increasing the operating fund spending deficit more than the budgeted amount, as 2011 is likely to be an even more challenging year.

One additional point - the USOF Board has previously indicated that $2000 should be reserved for any club that hosts a USOF Convention, either for mapping costs or the costs of putting on a training camp. EWOC is expecting a $2000 contribution from USOF to cover mapping costs for the 2010 Convention. This money is not included in the Operating Fund, but money is included in the Map Grant Fund budget.

(end of Gary's comments)

If USOF doesn't support its Teams, coaching, or development, it fails to address a stated objective in its Mission Statement. A question immediately arises if USOF can remain the National Governing Body for the sport of orienteering, accredited with both the U.S. Olympic Committee and the IOF.

Thanks for bringing this to light Peter. It certainly is a startling proposal.

@Tundra: i) Yes, but not if the Mission Statement is amended/revised. ii) Not sure.

It looks like usof is looking at a deficit in excess of $60k/yr, most of it funded by reduction of the balances in the various fund budgets in the second tab. The deficits are the result of under funding the Executive Director position, extra programs associated with the bod's new vision, and structural deficits left over from the Eagleton Era.

I think the bod can manage this deficit over the next couple of years by continuing to tap our reserves and by increasing revenue from current sources (note: donations are more tax efficient than event charges). Of course some of the efforts to support the teams will divert contributions and some resources from usof.

If usof is successful at marketing orienteering, growth in people, program grants, sponsorships, etc will close the deficits. One of the scenarios of a very successful JWOC would erase many years worth of deficits. However, the JWOC budgets don't show where the $100k of seed money will come from or where the "profits" will go.

How much was the USOF-supplied US team funding in prior years? I was under the impression that a substantial part came from fundraising activities, but I could be mistaken. I'd be pi*sed.

Gary Kraght has been a valuable USOF volunteer for many years...I don't mean to criticize. Nevertheless more detail for each line item is normally supplied with budget submissions:

- year-to-date 2009
- estimated 2009 total year
- budget 2009
- actual 2008
- variance $ and % for each

It is very difficult to interpret a single column of figures without some means of comparison. Is it possible to get some additional columns so we can analyze these changes? Excel will calculate the V's with a click of the mouse.

I'd like to know the total financial effect of our Executive Director...will he be able to increase USOF revenues in 2010 enough to offset his $100k cost?

Neil, yes a substantial part did come from donations and fundraising. It has been ~$12k/yr from that, ~$6k/yr directly from USOF in 2007. Less successful fundraising in 2008 and 2009.

Clem—if the Mission Statement is revised to the point that USOF does not fit the criteria of a National Governing Body, then another organization will sprout that will. There will be an ugly battle for certification, which USOF does not need. It happened in some olympic sports recently.

Clark - good suggestion. Send me a private email to gkraght@ffric.com, and I'll see if I can publish your suggested spreadsheet on the USOF Board net.

The 2009 USOF budget is on the USOF web site, here.

The relevant numbers for money spent from the general fund for 2009 are:

Senior team - 6,000
Junior team - 2,000
Ski-O team - 2,000
Coach - 6,600
Junior development grants - 8,000

All of the teams raise substantial amounts via contributions and fundraising events.

Clark -- Agreed absolutely, Gary has been and continues to be a very valuable volunteer for the federation. We could use a hundred more of him.

Let's just say the idea that $100K seed money for JWOC shouldn't be accounted for very carefully as a large payment - even if it's all paid back by 2014 - is kind of ridiculous in this climate. Providing $100K seed money means no funding for a lot of other things. I stand by my 'you should apply a high discount rate' comments in the other thread.

Shame to see the coach go. We worked hard to get that, finally got a qualified and dedicated coach, and the program was just starting to take off (it was up and running less than a year), and BAM!

The proposed budget will eat the operating fund in 3 years, with no support for high performance at all, and assuming the 50K is a recurring top line item.

Dues have been raised twice in recent memory, as have internal fees which affect the cost of the product. The quality of the product remains the same.

And lets not even think about the 100K JWOC seed money, as others have mentioned. Anyone have a guess as to what USOF's credit rating would be? :) Where's Moody's when you need 'em?

Total budget for "marketing" is 17K, which happens to be the attrition rate of the OF. So, to just stay even with the 8 ball, you have to make a 100% return on the investment in "marketing".

I tend to take a very long view of things, and aside from total gutting of high performance, don't have much else to say. Hopefully it will work, I guess, and we all have are sacred cows, don't we?

But, if this budget is passed as proposed, I would suggest those who vote for it specifically address some of the points raised in this thread. It turns out that some of the most dedicated volunteers for and contributors to USOF are also keenly interested in high performance. Just something to consider.

Sacred cows?

Sacred Goats. Balter? If we're going to sacrifice him we'll have to fatten him up first. He's all skin and bones (waaay too much skin).

The gods will not think highly of us if we sacrifice Balter. Nothing but pestilence would arise from such a stinting sacrifice.

And think of how bleak our existence would be afterward?

No, I suggest we form another Federation, and USOF should be coming up with arguments right damn now of how it would argue for the worth of its existence with the IOF.

NGBs are supposed to do certain things. If you aren't doing these things, you don't qualify as an NGB.

AP threads would be all arguing and no laughing. The absence of post-race Baltering will leave our arenas silent. Song birds will stop singing to drown him out - their sole reason for existence. They will then die of boredom and fall from the sky.

That sounds pretty close to pestilence to me. Didn't that happen to the Egyptians when they started causing trouble for Moses and his gang?

Tundra/Desert: it may be that people interested in high performance provide a lot of the volunteer effort but I doubt they provide a lot of the money that is used to make maps; so I don't know how your breakaway USOF would fund itself. Plus, I think implicit threats are not that productive or helpful until those providing this budget proposal get a chance to justify it.

Here is a copy -- Word format or RTF format -- (it says "draft" on it, don't know if there was a later version) of a document prepared by Glen in preparation for the strategic planning meeting in Rochester, the meeting that supposedly resulted in the priorities that led to this proposed budget.

It's an interesting read. It seems well thought through. And I still think that having Glen on board and trying to give him the resources to do his job is just what USOF should be doing.

But how we get from that document to the budget, well, I have no idea, and the powers that be aren't yet doing much to elaborate.

Guess we'll have to keep digging....

Will—the Map Loan Fund is mostly idle, so it isn't USOF who's funding the maps. I would love to see how USOF would try to attract big-name corporate sponsorship if it isn't an NGB. All those U.S. Championships? their worth to a sponsor goes way down if you aren't a sports NGB, just some educational/recreational 501(c)3.

So this is a request to not classify the suggestion to form an alternate USOF as a threat, it is a request for "those providing this budget proposal" to consider USOF's responsibilities to the international and U.S. sports movements.

I was at the Rochester meeting and I share PG's puzzlement. There was nothing at the meeting, written or spoken, that suggested getting rid of the support to National Teams or coaching.

I attended said strategic planning meeting, and it was sadly apparent that "Establish[ing] a strong United States presence in the world orienteering community by 2015" and all the things under that aim was not popular. Indeed, it appeared that it was close to the least popular.

So, arguably the putative (and yet unseen) USOF strategic plan and the proposed (tactical) budget reflects the outcomes of that meeting, at least insofar as you understand that there is a finite amount of cash.

That said, I would argue that there may be a selection bias in the composition of that group.

And finally, as an aside for anyone reading this that happens to be on the US Team mailing list, did anyone take advantage of the opportunity referenced here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usoteam/message/1962 ?

PG, thanks for linking the document. It was, indeed, an interesting read, and it is exciting to see where USOF goes from here.

As for cutting off funding for US Teams, let's see what Glen (and others involved in the decision) has to say about it before lashing out with threats of separation.

j-man: Apparently only members of the usoteam Yahoogroup can access the archives to read message# 1962.

I was also at the strategic planning meeting.

During the latter part of the meeting, Glen went down the list of 7 "potential strategies" and, for each one, asked the group for a show of hands if it was among our top-3. This was done after giving everyone time to think about which we would choose for our top-3.

Frankly, if I thought the result would be defunding the teams, I might have chosen differently.

Guy: The message Clem refers to advises team members who are attending the ROC meet to participate in a discussion about the teams with Glen scheduled from 1-2PM Sunday.

But how we get from that document to the budget, well, I have no idea, and the powers that be aren't yet doing much to elaborate.

This budget dropped on Tuesday. It is disappointing that, at present, its proponents aren't more engaged in the ensuing discussion. It will be bad if the discussion were one-sided, and be bad if people have to catch up with mountains of comments 3 minutes before the meeting that it is voted on. One would think that if this budget had support, (either minority or broad-based), we'd be seeing those comments by now.

As for sacred cows, it was a way of writing to contain my aggression, in suggesting that perhaps my attitude that sport should be about supporting high performance was being parochial on my part. I didn't come out right, did it?

It came out fine. There are lots of sacred cows. We have them indvidually. Some might think we have them collectively.

moo?

Ugh. I just step in something squishy.

Can I call a cease fire?

Really what I want to call is for everyone to take a step back and a deep breath. Remember, quoting Gary, "The budget proposal is a starting point, not an end point."

He goes on to say that "if there is an item you think should be in the budget that was not included, it would be helpful to indicate where the source of funding for the item might be (i.e. what else should be dropped or reduced)."

In other words, this is a question of priorities, and if you feel that the Teams deserve funds (as I do, of course) then you need to suggest what to cut, and by how much.

To say that "USOF" or "the BOD" has done this terrible thing is a bit off the mark, since nothing has been done yet. This is a draft budget and has barely had a chance to be examined by the rest of the BOD. Continue to provide feedback, but please try to make it productive.

Good point Cristinah. But, mind the cows.

Always trying to mind the cows, j-man.

Questions:

How much of the $27,000 cost of ONA is due to printing and postage?

Surely it would be cheaper to create an online version in .PDF?

If receiving a paper copy would be an opt-in/opt-out choice, I'd opt out and read it electronically, if it went to directly funding the US Teams.

When the Executive Director position was created, I was somehow under the impression that it was paid for from an endowment created specifically for that purpose and separate from the USOF operatin budget. Is that not the case? Was it ever the case?

Also, reading the budget, it seems like no USOF development programs, such as O in colleges, O in schools, etc., are getting any funding. Is this really the direction USOF has decided to go in?

kupackman>>Good thinking, I would definitely do the same.

I think ONA falls into the "sacred cow" category. Anyways, it won't make any sense financially unless *everyone* gets it electronically. I can't imagine there is any savings at all by a few (or even many) receiving it electronically if even one copy is still being printed on paper.

moo.

Boris--not exactly. There was partial foundation support for the ED expense. This funding was to be completely phased out after three years, at which point the ED is supposed to be self-sustaining. There was never an endowment.

If switching ONA from physical to virtual won't work...

How about we switch the US Teams from physical to virtual? We can dominate the World Catching Features Champs! :)

I think Tero is already world champ at that too.

Not sure. Thierry is pretty darn good at that, too.

I was told once that USOF dues pretty much only cover ONA, and looking at the budget, income from membership is $31k and cost of ONA is $27k, so that's pretty close.

What are the ramifications for doing the following? When my USOF renewal comes next month, I don't renew my USOF membership, but instead I directly fund the US Teams $35.

I'd be supporting the US Teams directly and I'd still be supporting USOF through start fees at local and national events. I guess I'd lose a few bucks at every A-meet I enter (which doesn't amount to a whole lot, really). Oh, and I won't be eligible for any US Champs (which I won't be winning, anyway).

You also could not be on any of the teams.

In addition to saving money on printing/mailing, an electronic ONA could potentially reach a much wider audience. Seems like a no-brainer for marketing.

Good thinking there Patrick. People in USOF should remind themselves that lots of people do orienteering in the U.S. outside of USOF's and clubs' channels. Some of these people make money on orienteering-related activities, more in a year than several years' worth of Team budgets combined. An alternative structure would not lack channels of funding.

With regards to ONA, I'm interested in ways to save money/go digital and have discussed this in the past with Donna. We'll look into it again.

As for reaching a wider audience, we have to consider the fact that people join USOF (pay dues-->provide income) for different reasons. One of those reasons - especially for people who rarely run A meets and who don't care about rankings - is a subscription to ONA. I don't know how many people that is, but we can't forget about them.

To keep and increase USOF membership, I believe that there has to be a tangible benefit to paying dues. For some, that's rankings, A-meet discounts, and inclusion on the team. For others, it's ONA. And for some minority it's probably just because they feel they should, their club receives benefits, they want to belong to something. Keep these things in mind as we look to slice and dice things.

If I may be so "arrogant" to provide an external (and hopefully productive) viewpoint, I think the complete scrapping of a high performance budget would be a mistake. To quote your own ED in a Board Report this year ... "properly handled there can be an effective balance between those that are serious athletes and those that are recreational orienteers ... the nature of the sport allows the two groups to peacefully co-exist"

My response would be those two groups will not peacefully co-exist if you completey gut national funding to one of them, at least without some prior warning.

With respect Cristina, it is not the job of high performance supporters to suggest where cuts should be made to other areas. They (should) have the right to simply express their philosophy that a portion of the national budget should be directed to high performance activities and how the numbers are juggled to make this work is up to the people/person responsible.

The proposed budget would make more sense if the USOF had come out and said having national teams is not a strategic priority (underlying philosophy: we don't care if we have teams going to WOC/JWOC etc or not) and thus we won't be spending any money on them. The OP hints that this may be the case - but until it is stated/published, it cannot be assumed.

The normal order of things is agree/publish strategic priorities and then cut your cloth (budget) to fit. Not the other way around. Hence why I view the proposal as a mistake - judging by the comments in this thread, it is a "surprise" to some of you that HP funding is being scrapped, which suggests to me no (or not enough) communication/consultation on USOF strategic priorities with your O community at large.

I was also at the meeting in Rochester, and was shocked to now hear that the already paltry team funding was dropped. It is interesting to note that the Jr team funding by our national organization was only $2,000 (less than $200 per JWOC participant), especially alongside a couple of other data points:

1) Our small, and not particularly competitively-oriented, club provided much more support than that for our local JWOC participant.

2) The response to the ice cream social fundraiser at the ROC A-Meet was incredible across all attendees (highly competitive or not, USOF member or not). I don't have the precise financial results, but the net proceeds were certainly more than 1/3 of the funding that USOF [used to?] provide, and possibly closer to 1/2. KUDOS to the volunteers that pulled this off, and to the donors that participated!

It would be interesting to see which of the tangible benefits USOF offers members would elect to partake in if given a choice.

Do we actually know (or care) what members want?

With respect Cristina, it is not the job of high performance supporters to suggest where cuts should be made to other areas. They (should) have the right to simply express their philosophy that a portion of the national budget should be directed to high performance activities and how the numbers are juggled to make this work is up to the people/person responsible.

You're right, but people have become a bit hysterical, and that's what I was trying to curb

It's not just enough to say, "the Teams should be funded!" You should give some reasoning, which means saying why you think it's a higher priority than something else.

I say this because it could be argued (for example) that the Team doesn't seem to want funds, since they don't do a lot of fundraising. A bit extreme, perhaps, but not everyone feels the same way about these things.

eddie's last, short comment deserves attention.

Clearly, if USOF does not support the Teams, it seems really laughable that USOF membership is a requirement to be on those Teams.

As for reaching a wider audience, we have to consider the fact that people join USOF (pay dues-->provide income) for different reasons. One of those reasons - especially for people who rarely run A meets and who don't care about rankings - is a subscription to ONA.

I was assuming the number of people in that category was pretty low, but you could be right.

@Brendan--it seems to me that if marketing were the goal, the website would be the best channel rather than the magazine? Since the magazine only goes to current devotees whereas the website would be where people go to find out more? To be dazzled?

It might be low, but I don't know how low. I don't know if it would be easy to figure out, either.

@Brendan 2--Maybe. Let's do an experiment. I only conjecture where I can't introduce evidence.

Unbundle.

I have to disagree with Cristina regarding the seriousness of shall we say the "offense" contained in the current budget. Why do the US Teams have to start at zero and fight to get money back? Why is that the de-facto starting point? How about funding the full request, zero out some other line items, and then ask the US Team where it could cut and how it could contribute?

And if we are going to be forced to argue dollar by dollar, then we need something to rebut. It is no secret that the BOD yahoo group is not secret. It is understood that any information there will be public. Posting the current budget without any explanations or clarifications is, at the very least, a blunder. How can anyone be surprised by our (my) reaction?

In this thread we are discussing changing the distribution format of ONA. However, my in-house journalist can explain why it is sometimes more effective, and long term more profitable, to keep a printed product. If this is the sort of decision USOF has consciously made, then they need to document it so that we can understand the decision and move on. We may not agree, but at least we won't be wasting our time hashing what is effectively a non-issue.

If funds were simply being trimmed at the edges, then I would not be bothered about having to wait to Wisconsin to discuss it. But I am being asked to go after other line items without any information regarding the importance of those items, and the ramifications of taking funds from those line items. We'll all end up at the meeting taking pot shots at each other.

Or how about this for a suggestion. The ESC submitted a fairly detailed budget to the BOD. How about contacting us to discuss the current financial situation and ask where we could help to solve the problem?

One of those reasons - especially for people who rarely run A meets and who don't care about rankings - is a subscription to ONA.

Here's the thing. We're not eliminating ONA. We're just electonic-ifying it (assuming that printing+postage makes up a huge chunk of the $27k-- I may be wrong here.)

The people who still care about ONA will still receive ONA, just in electronic format. If they really want a printed copy, that's just a click away.

We're discussing how to get more funds to , which is this case are the US teams. The first thing to do is look for low-hanging fruit. After the executive director position, ONA is the next biggest chunk of change at $27k.

Switching ONA to electronic format isn't just a money saver, it also saves trees, yadda yadda yadda. Some of those USOF-only-for-ONA folks might not give a care about the US Teams, but they might care about saving the trees, squirrels, and attack badgers.

The response to the ice cream social fundraiser at the ROC A-Meet was incredible across all attendees [...] I don't have the precise financial results, but the net proceeds were certainly more than 1/3 of the funding that USOF [used to?] provide, and possibly closer to 1/2.

So who needs USOF? If its message to competitive athletes is, hey, get off your asses and go find something to feed yourself 'cause we just went broke chasing a pie in the sky, the answer should be—pretty well, we'll do that, we've done that in the past, and you don't count on the exposure we bring you.

P.S. Decertification would certainly mean no JWOC.

I guess I'm missing something. I wasn't shocked when I opened up the budget because this is what I thought the plan was:

1. Hire ED, who promotes sponsorship and marketing
2. Make budgetary sacrifices to pay for 1
3. Bring in increase income from sponsorship and marketing efforts
4. Have a lot more money for the Teams

We have done 1, and now we're faced with 2. Hopefully next year will be the beginning of 3.

Cutting transfers to the Team Fund from the Operating Fund to $0 is significant, but the budget also assumes that the Team Fund can survive for one year.

I'm not saying that I agree with this 100%, just that it's not some kind of slap in the face to the Teams - it's part of the plan that we've been working on for the past 2 years.

We should then assume USOF can survive without its Teams for one year. Put a moratorium on all WOC/JWOC participation, announce that so that it's clear to all possible sponsors, and see if any of them are willing to support USOF in this state.

Make budgetary sacrifices to pay for 1

Other than the teams, what other budgetary sacrifices are being made?

Maybe that is what the plan was, but I don't think that is what the team(s) understood the plan to be. It isn't what I thought the plan was, either, although it is not the most implausible thing I could imagine.

However, to the extent that it is the plan, I can only imagine that it has been since ROC, since I would imagine this uproar would have occurred much earlier if that was the universally understood road map.

Good question Randy.

We should then assume USOF can survive without its Teams for one year.

Oh, the drama.

The Team Fund begins the year with money. To speculate a bit on what the drafters of this budget were thinking, Team operations can continue unaffected without an infusion of Operating Fund $. For one year, and one year only. Is it risky? Yes, which is why I would like to see a non-zero number there.

You are all doing a great job at turning me into a defender of the draft budget. I didn't start there, but the hyperbole is a bit much and is affecting even me.

Also, it's worthwhile to note that the contributions from USOF to the various team funds are only around 1/5th to 1/4th of their operating budget (or whatever the correct term is); they already get large amounts of money from fundraising and other non-USOF sources.

Put a moratorium on all WOC/JWOC participation, announce that so that it's clear to all possible sponsors, and see if any of them are willing to support USOF in this state.

As Vlad suggests, my impression is that it is the elite programs that attract sponsorships and funding that can then be used to expand the organization to benefit all of US orienteering. Local participation - C-meets, Scout-Os, O-in-schools, attracting new parents, kids, and participants - is less likely to garner the financial support from sponsorship and marketing than an increasingly successful elite component.

It then seems counterproductive to reduce the funding to the most attractive component for sponsors in an effort to attract sponsorship.

Well, I guess they don't need to know? We can keep that part a secret.

Other than the teams, what other budgetary sacrifices are being made?

Good question. The following programs received Operating Fund $ last year and none in the draft budget:

Junior Development Grants: $8000
Coaching expenses: $6600
Foot-O Team Support: $6000
Ski-O Team Support: $2000
Junior Team support: $2000
College Dev Fund: $1100

Most of that $ now appears to be focused on Marketing.

j-man: where would you expect budgetary sacrifices to be made, if not in areas that have existed Funds to pad them for a year or two?

(I have some ideas, just wondering what you think.)

We're not eliminating ONA. We're just electonic-ifying it

Right, but there are a lot of unknowns here. How many people really want print? Is a digital copy worth the $? How much will ONA lose due to lost advertisers if it goes digital?

Donna's looking into it, but it may not be as easy to cut some of the $27k as it would seem at first.

Why is the focus entirely on cutting expenses and not at all on raising income? Something like asking all clubs to raise local event fees by $1 that would go to support USOF initiatives seems like a good way to start. I mean, local events are already so incredibly cheap compared to just about any organized activity I can imagine.

Cristinah: I appreciate the fact that you are doing damage control and asserting that it is well understood by both fund receivers and disbursers that this is a temporary measure. As far as I can tell, you are the only person making this claim. The facts don't contain this backstory and I think people have a right/obligation to be circumspect.

As for budgetary sacrifices: well, pro-rata is one approach. And why not simply make ONA a separate subscription? If USOF offers benefits aside from ONA, shouldn't they have value? And, if ONA has intrinsic value, shouldn't people be willing to pay for it? By bundling, it seems to me, you are not capturing the full surplus. (I need feet to weigh in here.) Or, perhaps you are mis-estimating the value of the benefits you think you are providing.

Cristina, I'm afraid I don't see much in the way of hyperbole here (Vlad's "split" excepted, although the irony of a federation claiming possession of teams but not even tokenly paying for them is not lost on me). I accept that you find this thread frustrating and I wish I could help soothe the pain. Since I can't, I will throw more gas on the fire :)

ONA has been low hanging fruit for decades and no one has been able to eat it. I think ONA is a non-starter. It would take a parting of the Red Sea to dislodge it. However, since we're on the subject, given a $27K/yr budget for 6 issues, dropping 1 issue should net about $4k. Enough to cover the teams' annual token allotment with very minimal impact to ONA as it exists now (and even gains a deserved break for Donna). Distilling to 5 issues/yr might even increase the sugar content.

Re Boris: I think because the proposed route is more expedient and would be less acrimonious, if that is possible to imagine.

Clem, I think your proposal was made in the past and the answer was that only a few lost subscriptions would result in the inability to publish at all. e.g. if half the membership refuses subscription, there's not enough funding to even produce it for the other half that does want it. You'd have to increase their subscription cost. At some point its value won't match the subscription price. A-la OT.

I frankly do not find this an unreasonable proposal. I eagerly paid for Orienteering Today for several years because it was a great magazine. I stopped when it stopped being a great magazine. If people think ONA is a great magazine they will pay for it, too.

I missed Eddie's last post. Still, I stand by what I said.

Why is the focus entirely on cutting expenses and not at all on raising income?

Club dues: 13,000 -> 27,000
Sanctioning/surcharges: 19,000 -> 33,000

That's an increase in income of $28k by basically doing what you suggest.

Also note that foundation support goes from $75k -> $50k, a significant difference almost equal to the cuts in my previous message.

I thought OT was a great magazine all along. However I think paying $70/year to receive nothing is a bit overpriced.

By the way, I'm not disagreeing with your suggestion, I'm just saying I think I've heard this proposed (maybe it was me ;) in the past and that was the answer I received.

Regarding OT: It ceased being great to me primarily when I stopped receiving it. But, the last ones I received weren't great enough, notwithstanding.

Also, the exchange rate and international postage did not help the cost.

When it was arriving on time and was well done, I was willing to pay.

Thank you, Boris.

As I read down the thread, I was thinking about posting something similar until I read your post. Dues increases should also be on the table.

How much more income might need to be raised? The third tab on the draft budget spreadsheet is the "wish list", i.e. unfunded items. It totals just under $60,000.

oh boris, careful now, you'll unleash the 3 dollars fifty is already expensive for a race because the map only costs a buck to print so that's a lot of profit brigade

asserting that it is well understood by both fund receivers and disbursers that this is a temporary measure. As far as I can tell, you are the only person making this claim. The facts don't contain this backstory and I think people have a right/obligation to be circumspect.

Sorry, I can see why this would be shocking to those who have nothing but the draft budget. BTW, I find the title of this thread to be misleading - the existing team funds are not being eliminated. The draft budget calls for a reduction in the amount transferred from the Operating Fund to the Team Fund in 2010. Unfortunately, the reduction is currently $6k. Not pocket change, so I understand the uproar.

Based on conversations with those who crafted the budget, this is a temporary measure. The next year or two are going to be tough. Note that the "wish list" in the draft budget includes $8k for the Team Fund, which is more than what is in this year's budget. In other words, it's still on the table, we just have to make it work.

USOF did ask all clubs to raise meet fees by $1 this year - sanctioning fees went up to cover an insurance premium increase and to help pay for the ED position. I was told to expect another increase next year for the same reason. My club raised its meet fees by exactly $1 this year in response to that. And still there is apparently no money for the teams.

Dues increases should also be on the table.

Okay, now I just feel like I've entered the twilight zone.

Just now? :)

To speculate a bit on what the drafters of this budget were thinking, Team operations can continue unaffected without an infusion of Operating Fund $. For one year, and one year only.

USOF mission statements and slights or non-slights to the US Team aside, your speculation represents is the crux of the problem. We do not have any documentation or communications regarding what exactly was the drafter's intent.

There may very well be a wonderful and highly profitable grand plan in the works. And personally, I am of quite supportive of the ED's position and the broader goals and directions that have been laid out. However, you can not zero the budget of some fundamental components of USOFs mission and not expect questions to be asked. Information should be provided so that we can fairly evaluated the proposed budget. As is, it comes across as arbitrary.

There was not even a hint that any further budget information would be provided until Peter and I started making some noise. Since then Glen has stated he would get back to us this weekend when he returns from travels; I look forward to speaking with him and will report what I learn. I would also welcome the BOD jumping into this conversation with any clarity they can provide so that we can reduce whatever hyperbole there is.

ps: The wish list of $8k is based on our request for $8k, not some new found generosity by USOF to increase the team budget in the future.

Hey, about that $6600 for coaching expenses last year. Was that the budgeted amount for the paid US team coach? As I understand it, he never accepted any payment. I realize there must be other coaching expenses, but the amount we allocated to pay the coach must still be in a pot somewhere. In lieu of a coach which we are not likely to get in the foreseeable future, can we just roll last years coaching money to the teams' operating fund for this year?

About 50% of the coaching budget will be paid out shortly. The other 50% should be available to rolling over into some other line item.

We do not have any documentation or communications regarding what exactly was the drafter's intent.

True. (Almost... I'm not lying when I say that Gary and Glen's intent is for this to be temporary.)

But here is why I am frustrated with the conversation: The draft budget was released to the board with the understanding that it was just a draft. All three of us (you, PG, me) have contacted the budget creators for more information. This took the form of civil conversation with serious questions. We will all have conversations on Saturday to work things out and get some clarification.

While I agree that it would have been better to have had more information at the outset, especially considering the big changes, the whole reason for releasing a draft to the BOD is to have these kinds of discussions, for people to ask questions and get answers.

Why can't people ask questions in a civil manner instead of engaging in all kinds of dramatic rhetoric? I'm doing my best to answer questions (even when the answer is available to all on the USOF website or ClubNet/BoardNet archives) but we're really going to have to wait until Saturday or later to have a more comprehensive set of responses.

BTW, I find the title of this thread to be misleading - the existing team funds are not being eliminated

I believe the Strategic Plan (DRAFT) says that they are. It's on Page 8:

Move away from current fund administer model to a single federation budget. Program and team budgets would still be developed and approved as part of the annual budget process.

If it wasn't for my prior curious attention to this very item at the Rochester meeting, and now the announcement of the budget cuts, I wouldn't be nearly as paranoid:

Why can't people ask questions in a civil manner instead of engaging in all kinds of dramatic rhetoric?

Because the proposed step, in combination with the above quote and the lack of discussion with the affected parties, reads quite dramatically, just as Eddie paraphrased above. Irony? more like willful negligence.

Between the 2010 budget and 2013 JWOC it looks like the October 24 USOF Board meeting could be an arduous, perhaps even raucous, affair. One thing's for sure: it will not be short! Unfortunately, the banquet is not at the same location as the meeting.

Mike Miinium and I have proposed three revisions to the Interscholastic Champs. They are also on the agenda, and I hope they don't get buried by these other issues.

ONA produces 8 issues per year, not 6.

Not everyone has computer access (though those folks are few and far between, these days), so not everyone would be able to download/print a PDF version.

Ok, 8. Drop 2 instead of 1 and save $6k

Tundra/Desert: by "funds" I meant "money". The money in the restricted funds is still available.

Man, its hard to imagine that any BOD meeting item could take more time than a discussion involving changes to the Interscholastic rules. That would truly be epic. Everyone might want to bring their own snacks and wear a camelback. :) Or maybe bring a sleeping bag.

Here's what's changing with Interscholastics:

1) It's going to be JWOC. Magically. Without the seed money and volunteer headaches.

2) It's going to make $20,000 in profit. Again, magically. Which will immediately be donated to the US Teams.

I think you put Interscholastics on the agenda first, and then what's left to discuss? :)

This comment is a couple of hours late, but

@j-man regarding ONA and marketing:

Obviously the marketing benefits of sending ONA to people who are already USOF members are low, but if we were to produce an electronic copy, there would then be no reason not to make it publicly available. There would be no additional cost, and it's the best window into the sport for potential USOF members, as it has far more content than the website. Of course, if it turns out that most USOF members are paying dues exclusively for the privilege of receiving their ONA in the mail, then this wouldn't work. Apparently that might be the case.

I can certainly imagine that Vlad's point is valid about there being additional benefits to mailing a hardcopy. There could be a greater sense of involvement for someone who opens up their mailbox and sees an ONA than for someone who opens up their inbox and sees a link to the PDF.

Damn, I disappear to play a little golf, play quite well in fact, and this thread is on the verge of going platinum....

I've got a few things to add, but dinner out tonight comes first. :-)

1. Propose that Team Funds will be eliminated, all Team and development money has to come out of the General Fund.

2. Do not budget any money from the General Fund to Teams or development.

3. Do not communicate the budget cut in advance to the affected parties. Suggest instead that they be ready for sacrifice.

4. Schedule the budget hearing at the same BOD meeting as an Interscholastic Rules change discussion.

All facts without a modicum of editorialization. Where's the hyperbola?

Not everyone has computer access (though those folks are few and far between, these days), so not everyone would be able to download/print a PDF version.

My impression was that everyone should be expected to make sacrifices. It is not an undue hardship to access and print digital content at a library or Kinko's like place; certainly not compared to other sacrifices in the proposal.

It may even be a benefit to go all-digital. Evidence for this is the boast by the publisher of USARA's magazine that it is "eco-friendly" for being all digital. Isn't our prospective market "eco-friendly"? I wonder if USARA members whine about not having a print issue? I wonder if it is a turnoff to prospective members that a glossy print zine is not "eco-friendly"?

As for being civil, I've tried to be. I agree with Eddie that I think most posts have been, actually. It certainly wasn't my intent to make Cristina a punching bag on this, or to be generally uncivil.

As for the drama of a splinter organization, that has been out there at least as long as I've been orienteering (1998). In my mind, it is cry wolf, but perhaps the next 11 years will prove me wrong. I wouldn't get worked up about it.

As for the "Saturday" thing, most of the thread occurred before this was mentioned. In today's digital world, I think the expectation was that a response would be much quicker from one of the proponents of the proposal, given the obvious grave concern expressed by many constituents. Perhaps the communication expense line items are candidates as well for sacrifice. :)

The perception, at least on my part, was that a budget was dropped, with controversial provisions, a week and a half before voting, without much expectation of discussion. Certainly the delay of several days to respond doesn't lend itself to a fluid discussion, and supports the idea that one was not expected. That's just my opinion and observation.

With all due respect, it is easy to see where some of the perceptions have come from. A proper drop, IMHO, would have been to initiate a frank discussion either here or on Clubnet, at least a month or two before the vote. It is not rocket science to expect people to be upset by the way it dropped, yet I think civility was maintained.

That's it for me. I don't know if I can or have added value to the thread. I would simply spread the sacrifice around, if there is evidence that it is necessary and will be effective, and at the same time clearly justify some of the other line items (such as $17K marketing), and how there will be a return on that investment, and how it really will get us from here to there.

Good luck.

eddie: ... Everyone might want to bring their own snacks and wear a camelback. :) Or maybe bring a sleeping bag.

or bring your grandchildren. Not only will they be ready for the senior team, but the way this discussion is going they will be the only candidates in the US.

I'm bringing my cow and whenever I deem it appropriate I will have it fart in their general direction.

I was just going to bring popcorn.

BTW, it appears to be cheaper to subscribe to ONA from overseas than to purchase a USOF membership, so anyone who just wants the magazine ought to go that route. (See ONA section on USOF website). I wonder how many non-member subscriptions there are?

eddie: Man, its hard to imagine that any BOD meeting item could take more time than a discussion involving changes to the Interscholastic rules.

This perception would appear to be based on the last IS debate, which involved the scoring system. The proposed changes do NOT affect the scoring system.

In a nutshell, the three proposed Interscholastics rules changes are:
1) Add a Primary School team competition;
2) Add Intermediate and Primary School club team competitions; and
3) Establish "vertical eligibility", by which students attending lower level schools would be eligible to be members of higher-level school teams, under certain conditions; i.e. "run up".

Based on feedback so far in other forums, all three have support. #s 1 & 2 are fairly straightforward, and build on current rules, so should not result in prolonged debate. While the basic concept of #3 has support, the devil is in the details, and unless a rapid convergence on exact wording occurs, I could see this one being postponed.

The three proposals are not a package; each can stand alone.

There haven't been a lot of uncivil comments, just the normal "draw conclusions before waiting for a response" AP attitude. Which is frustrating.

Some people see something like this and ask, "why is it like that?" and then wait for some answer from people who know rather than draw their own conclusions. Other people see it and seem to think, "OMG, is the USOF BOD on crack!? WTFO?!"

I didn't draft this budget and I have my own questions, soon to be answered by those who did. Maybe I *am* on crack, but I didn't find this draft to be all that shocking, given what we're doing - spending $100k for an ED to increase our sponsorship and marketing presence. The funds have to come from somewhere, and we have already increased club dues and sanctioning fees. There's not much left that actually has some padding in it to carry it through the next year.

I don't mean to suggest that anyone posting here is wrong to be alarmed, just that I'm surprised by the strength of the reaction. What's wrong with writing to a board member with, "I'm really surprised by the draft budget - why are there such large cuts to the Teams? I really think we should spend more money on the Teams," and ask to have that posted to the BoardNet? You know, asking the questions before coming to the conclusion that the BOD is ditching support for the Teams. Seems absurd to me, but what do I know?

GuyO, please take the IS issues to another thread. I only have so many cows to spread around.

to add to the ONA electronic copy discussion....NEOC moved to an online newsletter this year with the option to pay a higher membership fee to recieve a printed copy. That higher fee covers the cost of printing and mailing.

TomWow!, it is not my intent to have the IS proposals debated on this thread, just to allay concerns about the controversy they might generate.

A new thread on the merits of the IS proposals is planned.

If it helps, our state association (OAWA) offered members the choice between online and/or printed newsletters with no cost difference to them if they wanted a printed one. If they got a printed one, they still had access to the online version - in fact everyone does, they're posted on our website.

From memory over 60% of members immediately opted for online only. Looking at the budget figures from our last meeting, printing costs will drop by ~70% for the year and postage costs will be halved. (Not all newsletters were posted, some distribution takes place at meets.)

Production costs for ONA would be higher (I'm assuming it's a shiny mag and takes more than one person to compile it) but there's still significant savings there if your membership accepts the online format.

Ok I have a few things:

1. Is anyone allowed to attend the meetings happening at the US champs? As i'm getting older now and are starting to fully understand what is going on, and now part of the JWOC team this past year and hopefully in the future I want to know what is going on and have a say in it.

2. How are we going to pay for JWOC now? and i'm not trying to be uncivil or anything about that statement, i honestly want to know how USOF thinks we can pay for it. Denmark is going to be a lot more expensive than Italy and all juniors have to be under 21. That means we are all in school and probably don't have a job (and if so it is paying for school). We already are paying for air-fair and food. Many teams get everything paid for them! If i have to pay $4000 for JWOC this coming summer that is me gone from orienteering for a long time after wards if i'm going to still be able to pay for college. That also means that this would mean adding yet another thing to our lives. I'm sorry but i have a ton of homework i should be doing tonight, and yes it is my choise to use my time on here posting, But that is because orienteering has given me so much and is a motivator for me to do well in school. I don't want to sit back and see that go away.

3. DVOA talked about the whole print vs online of our newsletter. Everyone agreed we liked and needed the print since everyone doesn't have internet. That however doesn't stop us from already posting and promoting ONA online. Maybe the member benefit is getting a paper copy. And actually if you pay for a junior USOF membership you don't even get a copy!

4. and since we are talking about marketing and online and our website i'm going to use this chance to bring up what i have been annoyed about for a while. We are saying that we are doing all this marketing and such but i'm sorry our website is out of date! I have countless times sent my friends to the USOF website to give them info about events and they just can't find it. The website is one in which you have to learn how to use it before it is helpful, and the Home page is not appealing. I know people work hard to keep things up to date on it and that it should be content not look, but now a days look and user friendliness is a huge part! I know things are up to date since i look at the page all the time but first come users can they find things? Also not everything is clearly linked on the USOF website, The only way i read the US senior team blog is because it is in my favorites. That is an amazing blog and should be promoted!
I would like to point people to the British Orienteering Federations website. Their homepage is nice and easy to read and appealing, making the sport look exciting and fun. Ours i'm sorry to say is kinda back in 1999 and looks more like the PA legislator website. I think it would do USOF a world of good to update the website and i'm willing to help anyway i can (i'm only just learning programing though so can't really help that way, but with graph ideas and how to link things together/lay out i could.)

You know, asking the questions before coming to the conclusion that the BOD is ditching support for the Teams.

In the preflight announcement they say, if you are travelling with small children, put the oxygen mask on yourself first, then help others. Southwest used to add "if you are travelling with more than one small child, decide which one of your children you like more and proceed accordingly". I don't know if they still do, I haven't flown Southwest in years.

Well this is very much like deciding on which children you like more without first helping yourself. There are certain things that constitute the core responsibility of an NGB, and they can't be sacrificed without surrendering the status of an NGB. I, for one, am truly impressed that budget-writers don't understand that. Because, well, if there is no money in a budget proposal for any teams or development, it means there is a possibility of no financial support for the Teams. Which does mean exactly that: the BOD is considering ditching support for the Teams. Not sure how one would not follow from the other.

I should point out that there have been years in the past when the Team received no financial support from USOF and yet managed to get by.

Hear, hear Alison! All good questions/comments I think.

I have no doubt the Team will get by. It may even get better. I don't want to confuse the issue, but frankly, from a development point of view, I am not sure that any support USOF has given the Team in the past has had an appreciable impact on performance. To me, the symbolism is far more important. (I remember symbolism threads from about a year ago, but I digress.)

Anyway, time to sign off. They are turning off the lights around here :)

One final note--maybe AP could be the official media organ of USOF? :)

This is probably a stupid question to ask here, since we're all on the interweb...

But it's been mentioned that some people just don't have internet access for an online newsletter.

Which is a greater number: people on the US Teams, or USOF members who don't have the internet?

To the a-meet registrars out there, what percentage of the registrants use online registration, and how many do the paper and postage method?

Not sure how one would not follow from the other.

Because, to my knowledge, no one on the BOD is considering ditching support for the Teams. Why do you think we're spending all that time and money on marketing and sponsorship appeals? We're trying to get, among other things, more money for the Teams!

This is a draft for 2010, which assumes that the Teams can manage for a year without an infusion from the Operating Fund. There is money for us to use in the Team fund, and hopefully there will be sponsorship money as well. I'll have to defer to Glen on the details of such plans, but hopefully I am at least successful in assuring people that this board member does not wish for USOF to drop support for the teams, and I am certainly not alone in feeling this way.

The USOF BOD is not an enemy to the Teams.

I should point out that there have been years in the past when the Team received no financial support from USOF and yet managed to get by.

U.S. Orienteering Team? yes. U.S. Junior Orienteering Team? don't think so. All Teams? don't think there was a single year since USOF's inception that there was not a transfer from the Operating Fund to at least one of them. USOF started before me, though, I haven't seen the budgets for the 1970s and the 1980s.

How are we going to pay for JWOC now?

The payments directly from USOF that went towards sending juniors to JWOC were shockingly low, only 20% of the costs they budgeted for JWOC. The rest of it comes from fundraising, and "contributions". I wouldn't be so worried - as long as this is a stopgap measure, all teams are going to end up with positive $$s in their funds after this year.

Here's a thought:

I am aware of at least two O-clubs that have significant cash reserves. Perhaps clubs in such fortunate circumstances would be willing to offer loans to USOF. Such forward looking gestures would help cover some of the unfunded needs during the upcoming "lean" years.

Acampbell writes: "1. Is anyone allowed to attend the meetings happening at the US champs?"

Yes. USOF Board meetings are open to all members.

What's wrong with writing to a board member with, "I'm really surprised by the draft budget - why are there such large cuts to the Teams? I really think we should spend more money on the Teams," and ask to have that posted to the BoardNet?

I've tried that in the past in several instances. They simply do not respond. Such an important issue (to me) deserved a more public discussion (IMHO). Note that I only posted to FB originally, and others brought the issue more to the fore.

Next time, I'll do as you suggest, as an experiment, and we'll see if it correlates with my past experience.

"Yes. USOF Board meetings are open to all members."

can we talk/respond in them or are they just open to listen?

Looking at previous BOD meeting minutes, it looks like any USOF member has 5 minutes at the start of the meeting to address the Board. Should be an interesting beginning to the meeting. :-)

Alison, if you or anyone else in USOF has the time and expertise to redesign the USOF website into a more cohesive/user-friendly format, I'm sure Glen S. would love to hear from you. Orienteers who supply articles to the website and to ONA are also very much appreciated. But that's beside the point of this thread.

Wow, I take one night off from reading AP and I missed A LOT of important info. As the Junior Team administrator and the lone writer of the Junior Team Budget,I want to post the 2009 budget, expenses for this year to 9/15/09 and my budget for 2010as I wrote it.

2009 Budget
beg. bal. 10,600.00
Income
Transfer from Operating 2,000
Fundraising 2,000
Contributions 3,000
Expenses
Domestic Training camps 1,000
JWOC Training camp 4,000
JWOC Fees 7,000
JWOC Travel Grants 2,000
Domestic Travel Grants 2,000
Uniforms 500
Other expenses 500
End BAl 600.00

Expenitures to 9/15/09
Beb. BAl 11,012.22
Contributions 3,650
Fundraising 2,054.50
Transfers 2,000
Travel grants - 1,400
2009 JWOC expenses - 13,500
Bal as 9/15 4,166.72

My 2010 Budget as I told Gary
same as 2009 except for JWOC 2010 expenes

Beg. BAl 4,166.72
I did not project the income as I have
no knowledge as how to do this other than
The transfer from the Operating Fund

Expenses for 2010
Domestic training camps 1,000
JWOC training camp 5,000
JWOC Fees 9,500
JWOC Travel grants 2,000
Domestic travel grants 2,000
Other expenses 500
total expenses 20,000

Less beg. bal that leaves 15,833.28 of income needed to bal.
the budget for 2010

The budget that was enter as the junior budget for 2010 without my knowledge totally wipes out all expenses for all of the Juniors that do not make the JWOC team which is only 12 juniors if we send an entire team which we have not as of yet. Also the budget totally removes the training camp before JWOC which has proven to be very important for the improved success of the team.

So what do we say to the juniors that are not our elite JWOC juniors. You don't matter to USOF. WE cannot support your efforts to travel to A events and training camps so that you can continue to improve your orienteering ability. After workings so hard to get a good JWOC program of one week of training before JWOC and then the JWOC competition, we are suddenly going to take the training camp away??? I'm a totally confused and very frustrated Junior Team Administrator. NOT only can I not get help I need to grow the junior program but now I'm being told that my budget is being cut and I have to live with it. Sorry but as volunteer this is way more than I ever signed on for and a lot more than I feel should be expected of any of us working with the US Teams.

I'm totally dedicated to the Teams and the Juniors as a whole and I have always supported USOF but right now I'm totally lost as to what is going on. I, too was a part of the meeting in ROC and I DID NOT leave there thinking that the teams were on the way out of favor so to speak. I'm trying to patiencely wait for further information and explanation but it isn't very easy considering what has been put forth by Gary.

Also would like to know why I was asked to do a budget if it wasn't going to be used? I spend 2 evening comparing all of the factors and currency rate of exchange to come up with the costs for 2010 JWOC and in the end it didn't really matter anyway.

I sure hope that the explanation and further information sheds some light on the matter so that I can better understand it all.

Also I am not able to go to the board meeting as I cannot afford to travel to the US Champs, so I'm looking for a volunteer to go to the board meeting as a representative of the Junior team. 'Any Volunteers????

Hi Janet,

but now I'm being told that my budget is being cut and I have to live with it.

No, you're not being told that. The budget is not finalized, and at least one member of the board (me) will be advocating for more Junior Team funds over the next week.

And please, do not think that the Teams are going 'out of favor'.

I'm planning to be sitting in the meeting, and to figure out what is going on!

I've looked at the documents referenced here, and several things are not clear to me.

Did the budget process ever include a step where every line item is cut by an equal percentage? (Subtract fixed expenses like the ED budget off the top and "peanut butter spread" the remaining budget to all the line items using last year's percentages.)

I like this as a starting point because it spreads the pain around quasi-equitably. It allows the person responsible for each line item to either accept that amount of funding or to prepare an argument why they need more.

With the right spreadsheet layout it would also allow intuitive "priorities" adjustments based on percentage of total budget (or some other convenient figure). You could show funding both by percentage of the total USOF budget, as well as by the percentage of last year's budget for each line item.

Even if this Budget proposal is just a "draft" it sends a very strong message. It's appalling to me.

Btw, when a member of the US team and US WOC team Cristina says: "I say this because it could be argued (for example) that the Team doesn't seem to want funds, since they don't do a lot of fundraising. A bit extreme, perhaps, but not everyone feels the same way about these things." it means we, the US team, are not doing a good job.

This draft sends us a very strong signal, but maybe we, the US (WOC) team, are not working hard enough for the money we think we deserve. However, I cannot support the idea of cutting the Team(s) funds because fundraising isn't being done properly by *all* team members instead of just a few.

If I were the ESC/Jr Team Admin, again I would start getting a lot more worried about the proposed elimination of Team Funds than the (one-year?) defunding from the General Fund. As of now at least you have a stash of money and you can do own fundraising and you know it will be approriated for the Teams' needs. Once they take away Team Funds, a defunding like this will be catastrophic.

I agree with Tundra on this point. That was something I was concerned about/didn't understand and I brought it up with Glen. We actually never discussed it, so at this point my reservations remain.

Clare sent the following to the ESC last night. It is progress. My comments in my next post....

====================

To: Team ESC

I understand the negative feelings that are coming out of the team right now. I think it's important to understand the nature of the budget
process this first year with our new ED and reorganization. There has
not been a huge amount of discussion even internally about whether the best thing is to reduce the team's funding, but this budget proposal places it on the table for discussion.

Nothing is a done deal yet. At the strategic planning session in
Rochester, however, Glen led some strawman voting to try to get a sense of what the Federation's priorities should be for the next few years. The teams were a little ways down the list. When it comes to funding, the teams have clearly been a top priority for a number of years now. Much of USOFs discretionary Operating Fund budget has been going to competition interests.

Right now, we are making decisions about the appropriate funding model for the next few years - tough decisions. We have committed to the hiring of an Executive Director with the hope that this will ultimately increase our budget and allow us to provide greater support. But to get there we need to fund his salary and the programs and projects that he feels will best meet our goals - including financial goals. This budget is currently only a proposal and it clearly lays out those items that were requested and are left unfulfilled so that Board Members can haggle over whether different funding decisions should be made. Team funding is sure to be a heated debate item.

We do need to start insuring that our funding is aligned with an overall plan of action, rather than continuing to grant funds simply because we would like to. For the next few years the teams should expect it to be tough. Hopefully, in a few years, we will be seeing increased coffers and will have the ability to reverse many of the tough decisions we make today, but without spending in the right places now, that day won't materialize.

Clare Durand
USOF President

It seems to me that it is time for some creative thinking. And that with a little creative thinking, this whole issue can be resolved in a positive way.

1. The leadership of the federation, Clare and Glen, need to make it very clear what the new direction of the federation is, and what the implications are.

By new direction, I mean that we have hired Glen to grow the sport of orienteering. More people orienteering, more events, more awareness, more sponsorship. A look at the allocation of dollars in the budget shows that this is the first priority, and this is really the only priority.

The implications are that supporting this priority means that there will be essentially no money available in the short term (1-3 years) for the competitive program (or anything else). The implications are also, hopefully, the increase of competitively inclined athletes into orienteering that will significantly strengthen the program over the longer term (3-10 years).

Clare and Glen need to communicate this clearly and often. Clare's e-mail to the ESC was a start.

2. We should realize that the budgets for 2011 and 2012 will probably be even tougher. The current plan, I believe, is that there is foundation support for Glen's job of 50K for 2010, 25K for 2011, and none at all for 2012. The expectation is that as he moves us forward, he will be able to generate enough new income to cover his salary, his program expenses for marketing, and then additional funds for other parts of USOF including the competitive program. That will not be easy. But it is absolutely worth trying.

3. The teams need to realize this and accept it. Seriously. There will not be any significant money available through the normal transfers from the operating fund.

4. That doesn't mean there is no money available. We just need a different approach. And that different approach puts responsibilities on both the teams and the USOF Board and leadership.

5. The teams need to accept the fact that they have to play a large role in raising the funds for their programs, that they can't just expect USOF to write them a check. They have done this fundraising before, but often only in bits and pieces.

One aspect is organizing events that benefit the teams, and also benefit orienteers in general because there are more events taking place. This can be done much more. Every team member should be involved in this, and every club should be.

Another aspect is a program Glen used at USA Lacrosse, "friends and family" or some such name, fund drives to acquaintances of team members where USOF provides the materials and team members just provide names and personalize the appeals. This was made available to members of the WOC team this past summer. It was very successful, except only 2 team members did it. There ought to be 100% participation, not 20%, and all teams should be involved.

With full implementation of both of these program, plus the usual other fundraising (ice cream socials, contributions, etc.), the teams could more than offset any decline in official funding.

6. The Board and other leadership of the federation, including committee folks and club leadership, needs to accept the fact that the competitive program is a vital part of the organization and that it is in everyone's interest that it thrive. At the very least, much of the work of organizing events is done by folks who are competitively inclined. The more we have of them, the more we have them excited about orienteering and thinking positively about orienteering, the more orienteering will thrive.

So the leadership, unable to be supportive in strictly monetary terms, has to be much more supportive in non-monetary terms.

I would love to see every member of the Board, and I mean every member, involved in organizing some sort of fundraising event for the teams.

I would love to see much more in the way of non-financial stuff from the leadership -- clearly and frequently and in a variety of ways communicating support for team members and team efforts. They have been woefully negligent in this regard in the past. These things make a difference.

7. So both sides have some responsibilities. And some opportunities to make, as the saying goes, some good lemonade out of what is now just a bunch of lemons. But it will take some effort to move beyond the current situation.

Can we get there?

So the leadership, unable to be supportive in strictly monetary terms, has to be much more supportive in non-monetary terms.

The way I read your Item 3, Peter, the Teams are supposed to generate international exposure, goodwill, and sponsor interest for USOF in exchange for more sacrifice over the next several years. This just isn't right.

It looks like nobody is thinking of the Teams as a vehicle for marketing that will pay for itself just like it does in other sports. The thinking, both on the BOD and the Team members' part, is that the Teams and development programs are expensive cash drains. With that kind of thinking we'll never get anywhere no matter how large the sacrifice. There will always be an incentive to plug the drain.

With this kind of thinking on part of USOF, which isn't likely to suddenly go away, I see a very different solution.

If Glen/USOF don't see the worth and marketing potential in the Teams, at least in the short term, maybe the solution is along the lines of further financial and organizational independence for the Teams and development programs. Well, you ask, who'll do the marketing for the Teams? nobody has been particularly successful over the years in attracting sponsors for performance programs, and the present USOF leadership, although far more professionally equipped to deal with marketing tasks, apparently doesn't see much value in the Teams, either, to fund them as a priority.

So if the Teams are going to feed themselves, howsabout we appropriate a portion of the fundraising to get a certain portion of the ExDir's time on marketing tasks strictly for the Teams and performance-related items? if the ExDir is not the appropriate person, we can fund a contractor or have USOF get a part-time Performance Marketing person on the payroll. If we are faced to go to the WOC and JWOC on alternating years, we should get something in return. The $15--20k/year savings if we do that can fund a marketer at some significant %FTE.

Again this all is along the lines of further independence, in which scenario at some point a question will become quite urgent of whether USOF is fulfilling its NGB duties.

USOF's point is clear. If we don't invest into growth, we die. But this version of growth is enough to drown the baby in the bathwater. We just started to get barely reasonable WOC results, and the lack of funding or prioritization is likely to kill whatever hope we have. The Teams should take initiative.

Anyone want to work with me on a proposal for USOF Performance, Inc., so far within USOF? I'm dead serious. I'll hopefully have time after the Sprint Finals.

Something has to happen. I personally will just take the defunding as a slap in the face, and my frank position as one of the Team fundraisers in the past is going to be, if USOF doesn't see value in these efforts and is not doing its share, I won't do mine. If I do mine, I will want some control over the fruits of my labor, not have them drown in the General Fund.

A few observations:

Both teams should make a positive case for the good that a general transfer brings the federation. I think that makes a much stronger case than focusing on the perceived harm caused by a cut.

Reading some of the comments gives me an impression that the team's are viewed as separate from USOF. But they aren't. They are two pieces of USOF.

Budget processes are messy.

If Glen/USOF don't see the worth and marketing potential in the Teams, at least in the short term

I think you should make the worth clear. Make the case. That's what budgeting is about.

Tundra: while I agree that having Team funds routed into the General Fund is not desirable, at least to the extent I understand the mechanics, it is hardly a fait accompli. Or at least I don't think it is. It was another line item under a broader strategic mandate on the straw man strategic plan. Like "Establish[ing] a strong United States presence [internationally]..." the broad mandate that this proposal was located was itself not popular. So, if logic is applied consistently across the outcome of the meeting, this need not come to pass. It might anyway, of course.

Anyway, my other issue--you are interpreting the budget as prima facie evidence that the ED does not see much value in the Teams. Money talks, right? But, do you see any other evidence that this is the case? Personally, I feel that he does indeed see a lot of value there. Of course, I may be delusional.

Oh I just keep responding to a proposal with another proposal.

If the budget-writers didn't mean it, maybe I didn't really mean it. But then maybe I did. And maybe they did. If theirs is a starting point, well mine is one, too.

More fundraising for the teams is fine, but most of the fundraising comes from the same people all the time. Isn't these a limit especially in this economy that people are willing to donate to the team?
There have been some great fundraisers in the past that people don't mind paying for ie the junior food stand, but when the same people are stuck running it all the time and can't even get out to Orienteer because there are no volunteers to help then it stops happening. How are the teams going to generate even more money now with the same fundraising?
More team events are great too, but clubs need to generate money and having all their volunteers running team fundraising events instead of club events will hurt the local clubs.

Bingo, Siobhan. I've been sitting here thinking about how to say this for the past few hours, given all the fast moving inputs (and I should be working). I'm at the breaking point already. Just about to crack up and be ground to dust under all the tasks I have to do and the *severe* lack of time to do them. Things are already falling on the floor. Last week it was a Team camp. This week I'm doing a ton of stuff for my club's meet. I'm setting for another club meet in a few weeks. Now all this JWOC and budget discussion, which I feel like I should be participating in, but the dam's about to burst. I thought tomorrow would be my first day off at home in over a month, so I could catch up on the many chores there. But its not to be. I'll be drawing maps for Sunday's meet, which I have to be at early to hang controls. Also have two memorial services to attend tomorrow which just came up (I might only go to one). I really need to come up with a way to say that I think there is no capacity left for all the "do more" requests that are being pushed onto the team members and their supporters. I honestly don;t see how the athletes can concentrate on training and having a coach and a training plan and going to camps to simply get better while everyone is telling them they need to do MORE fundraising and MORE local club service, and MORE JWOC 2013 volunteering. If you want the teams to get better they need to be freed up from the vast majority of this stuff. There are already too many other outside demands. If we want the athletes to get a coach and a training plan and spend more time training to get better we have to get this burden off of them, not pile more of it on. Hire a friggin coach - a qualified one for elite competitors - and keep him/her (we had a good one up until a week ago), get some athletes to *commit* to being elite orienteers, and free up their time to get it done! We're never going to get anywhere with the status quo, and we're just going to bog down in the mechanics of fundraising if USOF cuts us off completely. If that ends up being the case, I think the best thing for the teams will be to take a year off from JWOC/WOC, and just concentrate on filling the chest with coins for next year. I really don't think an orienteering marketing pitch to the US population is going to net much of anything. The culture just won't support it. O in schools, O in scouts, $27k/yr for the newsletter - tons of money going into those programs and nothing to show for it. I'm with Vlad here. I want to see my USOF dues and effort pitched towards competitive orienteering. I've really had just about enough of it all. Its not fun anymore. Its just work.

Presumably a component of "growing the sport of orienteering" (and its funding base) would include applying for grants. Is that on the agenda? Seems like all the discussion has been towards marketing but there are other funding sectors too. To take the first example that came up in my 15 seconds of googling for US sports organizations grants: http://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/Grants-And-S.... I seem to remember that the US women's team put in good show at WOC this year... A question for the ED would be to what extent he's been looking into funds other than marketing and corporate-type stuff. It won't help the immediate crunch but it might be productive for future years.

Bingo to both Eddie and Siobhan, Eddie I feel the same way as you. I'm being pulled in all directions and getting no where. I'm being critizied for what I DON"T get done but those doing the critizing are not offering to help either, typical. My orienteering is down, my skills are rusty as are Denny's. Neither of us will ever be elite but we just keep giving and giving to the cause and never getting to do the one thing that got us into giving, doing an orienteering course without worry about getting back for some Junior fundraiser or some meeting I need to go to. I spend 1 - 2 hours every night at my computer doing something for the juniors or USOF . I just spent 5 hours this past saturday working at the computer for the Juniors and I'm still behind on things Forget my personal house work and personal needs of any kind. Why do I do these things? Because I truly care about the juniors and the teams in general. I love orienteering and want to see it continue and to grow but at what cost to those of us that give and give and get nothing in return.

As to fundraising, I have some good ideas and I would be very much interested in seeing the Senior and Junior team working together on this but I NEED HELP! I need people to step and say let get this done. Lets work together. At this point I feel that it is the only way we, the teams are going to survive the next couple of years. Both teams have invested to much time and money to get where they are now, finally starting to show so respectibility in the orienteering community to just let it all go.

I'd hate to see juniors having to miss their one shot at JWOC because there isn't enough funding and they turn 20 this year. I wouldn't like not being able to send a team to WOC too, but at least there is no age limit for WOC.

I won a women's sports foundation scholarship in 1999. It's a possibility for orienteering and a good idea to try again, but this time for the Women's WOC relay team? Or something similar?

What PG said.

Also, I understand the alarm over the sudden drop in Operating Fund money for the team, but I think the speed with which we are able to respond online is yielding a bit too much heat and not enough light (as Cristina said.)

I am not following the situation super closely, but I still think I basically understand the situation well:

+ USOF hired and Executive Director. We knew we'd probably need to scramble to come up with the money to keep paying him, and we are now scrambling. No surprise there.

+ The budget reflects an emphasis on marketing. This is a reassuring sign that our ED may know what he's doing, since we've unquestionably been sorely deficient in that department. Orienteering has been growing only very slowly by itself (with uncoordinated, sporadic volunteer efforts at marketing.)

+ The draft budget was not rolled out with as much accompanying explanation as needed to make everyone comfortable with it. This is no surprise, as we're still a volunteer organization. We're not going to get our busy volunteers to furnish professionally prepared documentation of all of their work.

+ As a team member, I'm concerned about our ability to fund our activities, but what would really disappoint me is not having to cut costs and work harder to raise team funds, but to have to dismiss our new ED and take a step backward in our effort to grow the sport (an effort that will ultimately be of great benefit to the teams.)

+ Thanks especially to the talents and hard work of people like Tundra/Desert and PG, as well as the great support of so many orienteers all around the country, the U.S. Senior Team is probably better positioned than any other part of USOF to raise funds to compensate for the lack of an OF transfer. Would we rather be focusing on training? Of course! But when the money starts to come in from growth and sponsorship, you can bet we'll be in line to benefit.

+ I'm concerned about the Junior Team. Their fundraisers are well-liked but on average less lucrative, and I think they should be first in line (among the teams) to get at least some OF transfer in 2010, if at all possible.

+ I have not heard any rationale that would lead me to be in favor of rolling the Team Funds into the General (Operating?) Fund (if that has even been proposed.) This would basically take away the teams' ability to engage in consumption smoothing. Maybe that's the point--to lend great urgency to the project of fund raising, but I think that's salt in the wound of the cuts and would be an overreach.

+ Most or all of the USOF Board members (and certainly the group in general) is supportive of the U.S. Team. As PG said, they could stand to do more to express this.

+ As BorisGr said, we have a huge untapped revenue-generating capacity at the local level. Despite the economy, there is a relatively large amount of money sloshing around in orienteers' pockets, not to mention healthy coffers of many local clubs. I think it is entirely appropriate to create some suction at the national level, so that we have an incentive to charge more for our excellent product in order to fund initiatives to share that excellent product with more people. Will people get upset about the changes? Of course; change is upsetting. It's not an indication that we're doing anything wrong.

To all,

I have just returned from a business development trip where I did not have access to free Internet. This is why I have not posted.

As I promised some individuals that read AP, I have posted a strategic plan update to the board on Board Net. This lists each of the POTENTIAL stratetgy in the order of votes received. This was a straw man pole.

If you do not have access to Board Net, just send me an email request to glen_schorr@usorienteer,org and I will send you a copy.

Glen

Just to keep Glen from having to answer more e-mails, here is the strategic plan update. The draft strategic plan that Glen prepared before the Rochester meeting is here.

It is worth noting that "Establish a strong United States presence in the world orienteering community by 2015. (5 total votes, 1 first place)" placed 6th out of seven in the poll.

Though one could argue that this wasn't a pure reflection on the status of the teams, since also included in this area was "Successfully host either a JWOC or WOC event."

Or maybe it still was an accurate reflection. There are a lot of people who think of orienteering as an activity, not a sport.

I'd like to throw in a little perspective on USOF financial support of the teams. Various years and budgets may show transfers from the operating fund to team funds. Remember, however, that the annual fund drive accepts donatons for restricted uses, such as the team funds. Each year that I've worked on the fund drive, more has been donated to those funds than the operating fund. Thus, the transfers are hardly the extent of USOF support. The fund drive is a vehicle for financial support of the teams.

Not enough, of course. Only a small percentage of USOF members make conttributions to the fund drive. Those who do contribute are usually generous--sending $100 or more. If the balance of the membership sent just $25 each, it would provide another $25,000. Any ideas out there how to encourage donations?

I'm really glad that Glen is working on a strategic plan for USOF, and I'm optimistic that he'll see to it that more is done to implement the plan than we have been able to manage following previous planning processes.

In the draft strategic plan, Glen states, "these strategies are roughly prioritized."

I wasn't able to be in Rochester and attend the meeting, so I imagine I missed some discussion/explanation about the strategies. After reading both the draft plan and today's updated version, I have a few questions and comments (the questions are mostly for Glen, but really for anyone who understands the plan and can explain it):

1. What does the rough priority order mean? Does it mean we should implement strategy #1, then when we have further capacity add strategy #2, etc? Or does each successive strategy replace the former one? If the strategies are in priority order, then what is the purpose of re-ordering them according to straw polling? Is this being used to re-prioritize them somehow, for example to make budgeting decisions, or to go forward first with the strategies that have the greatest buy-in, or something else?

2. I am a little confused by the strategy descriptions. Can they be stated any more simply? (Or are the strategy headings simply meant to summarize the bullet points below, which I think I understand better?)

3. How do the bullet points under each strategy relate to one another? Some seem closely related, for example the "targeted marketing efforts" strategy, which lists efforts aimed at three different broad age groups: youth, younger adults, and older adults. Others seem to be grouped more arbitrarily, for example "Establish a strong United States presence in the world orienteering community by 2015," which heads two bullet points having to do with high performance (and I can see how these are related), one bullet about our international political presence, and one having to do with organizing an international championship event. I can see how we might want more presence at IOF meetings if we were trying to sell a bid for JWOC, WOC, or another major IOF event, but both of these seem much less related to fostering high performance or "a Team USA structure and philosophy." I was expecting the strategies to be analogous in some way, but it appears they may not be, in which case wouldn't a straw poll (if it were intended to rank or prioritize the strategies) be comparing apples to oranges?

4. What is a realistic time line for implementing each strategy? I'm particularly wondering because of the strategy that Glen listed last in the original rough priority order: "Begin the transition from a volunteer based organization with a self-funded national headquarters, paid staff and volunteer leadership and support by 2014." I would guess this means that the other strategies would already be underway by 2014, which isn't too far off. My local bicycle club (Cascade Bicycle Club, not to be confused with Cascade Orienteering Club) has a paid staff of 22. I would place a high priority on securing funding to keep paying an Executive Director, first and foremost, then to employ additional staff (e.g. a Marketing Director, paid Team Coach, administrative assistants, etc.)

I know that the strategic plan was presented as a starting point for discussion, and I hope these questions and comments will help move that discussion forward.

In the Strategic Plan Update, Third Priority, the second bullet point proclaims

"Develop and implement a sponsorship program focusing on USOF and closely related third-party properties in the events, media and national teams' categories."

So USOF would like to sell orienteering to sponsors using the Teams and the competitive image, and this is listed as a priority, albeit a mid-grade one. Wouldn't that require at least some investment on part of the organization into these very things that supposedly make us attractive to the potential sponsors: our competitive events, the coverage in the media, and our National Teams?

ebone

Attempted to answer your questions earlier but I think that my responses got swallowed in cyberspace. Apologize for any duplication

Here is a synopsis:
1) "Rough priority" means those receiving more straw man votes were deemed by the group to be of higher priority. Regarding timing, many of these goals would run concurrently. My initial intent (nor was it discussed) to complete these one at a time.

2) Strategies are designed to be general - "how are we going to get there" - bullets are the details. They should be read together.

3) At this preliminary stage some of the strategies and tactics hang together better. Others (like international presence) do not at this time.. More thought needs to be given to add, embellish or delete strategies and programs. Strategies do not need to be analigous as long as they all add toward a comon goal...grow the sport in the US.

4) Timing was not discussed in Rochester. But some of these strategies (especailly income generation) will have to float to the top. The final plan will include timing as appropriate.

Hope that this helps clarify.

A final word. If this was an orienteering course we are at control 3 of a 15 control course. My job is to have the USOF BOD approve a 2010-2014 strategic plan by Q1, 2010.

Glen

I went down the list of contributors to this thread?31 not counting the ExDir and two juniors. I could identify 11 that have donated to USOF from 2007 to 2009. What does that say about the non-contributors? It?s not that they don?t care, but in one respect--financial--they expect others to make the sacrifice. I?ve talked to a number of people who do not donate to USOF via the Annual Fund Drive. The response I got from one board member was that his time was his contribution. If everyone had that attitude, there would hardly be anything in the pot to divvy up?just a few bucks from the parents of juniors and some memorials from non-orienteering friends of orienteers who have left us. I know of few USOF members who can't afford even a $10 or $20 contribution, and I am aware of more than a few who have the means but don't donate.

I am dismayed that criticism would be leveled at Gary for his efforts to draft a budget rather than applaud him for doing a project that isn?t any fun?just a lot of time and hard work. It?s so much easier to criticize someone?s work than to offer alternatives that deal with the realities.

Speaking of reality, if a new NGO is the solution to support for the teams, I would really like to know how this new body would be funded. Where will it get the money to support the teams? If you know, why can?t those same sources be funneled to USOF now?

There are elements to the money puzzle that are not apparent from the information offered in this thread although Ingils recognized it in his message. Besides the transfers to the team funds from the operating fund, the list of sources for team support includes donations through the annual fund drive to the restricted team funds, and money raised through efforts like quilt raffles, lunches, silent auctions, ice cream socials and sprint events. Teams also can solicit donations directly from supporters. The senior team did this earlier this year and received several thousand dollars.

While that helps out their team, I have to wonder about the impact on the other teams. If a person has donated to the senior squad appeal, will they now contribute to the Annual Fund Drive? If contributions to the operating fund drop, there is less money to make transfers to any teams. Thus, the Annual Fund Drive is urging donations this year to the operating fund; the Board can then respond to what the needs are within the total organization.

Which is not to say there won?t be arguments about how to spend the money?we are back to the allocation of limited resources. In the meantime I?ll be looking for YOUR donation.

Thin ice...
I think I better go for a walk.

We should be very very wary of measuring commitment, contributions and sacrifice to US orienteering based solely on direct financial contributions to USOF. IMO, this is out-of-bounds and "not cool." I think I'll go find Eddie.

Say hello. Or maybe I'll do it myself.

...based solely on direct financial contributions to USOF...

Where have you guys been? Altho I'm philosophically on your side of this issue, USOF embarked on a path towards "big sport" last year, when we resolved to hire our first fully-supported employee. The time to object was then, not now.

I too liked the low-cost volunteerism inherent in the sport when I discovered it 20 years ago. My club would regularly vote me down each time I asked for an increase to our paltry $5 meet fee...and they were right. Somehow we were able to put on meets all year with a 3-figure bank balance. Orienteering then didn't need finances, just enthusiasm.

But since then, we've consistantly chosen the "high-cost" option, to add "bells and whistles" to our simple sport: OCAD, e-punching, A/P, fancy club websites, Route Gadget, GPS-tracking, etc. No longer are we satisfied to gather beside the road, grab a black-and-white Xerox map out of the back of someone's car, and run off into the woods, with results hanging from a string when we reemerge.

A lot more than just you will soon be shocked by USOF's naked need for cash. For instance, included in Gary Kraght's 2010 budget is the proposal that local clubs must now Double their financial support to USOF:

Club Dues sent to USOF
2009: $13 000 Budgeted
2010: $27 000 Budgeted
Increase: $14 000 - 108%

Sanctioning receipts from Clubs
2009: $19 000 Budgeted
2010: $33 000 Budgeted
Increase: $14 000 - 74%

The sport has changed. We've embarked on a new road that requires major financial planning, and other heretofore taboo subjects. Stephanie is a very hard working Annual Fund Drive chair. It is not fair to belittle her efforts to do her job.

Last year before I sent in my check, she was very responsive to my many questions. So were several other non-Board orienteers I spoke with. They all convinced me that this was the way to go. I hope you guys will do your homework, albeit a bit late, come to the same conclusion, and then pony up like the other 11 guys on this thread.

In no way shape or form did my post belittle Stephanie's efforts. I greatly appreciate them as well as the contributions from the 11 guys she refers to. The rest of your comments are frankly insulting and I'm not even going to bother dignifying them further comment.

Insulting? Perhaps. Cogent? As usual.

Speaking of reality, if a new NGO is the solution to support for the teams, I would really like to know how this new body would be funded.

Just like the Teams are going to be funded for 2010: by selling cookies. It won't be any more or less cookies. USOF, however, would be exactly one less NGB.

Woah, you'd better not try persuading me to donate to the USOF...

The US team spends thousands of dollars per person on training and on travel to training and competitions. Thousands and thousands. To represent themselves, their clubs and the US. They are grateful for what little financial support they get. Asking them to donate money on top of that is not necessary, nor particularly diplomatic.

While that helps out their team, I have to wonder about the impact on the other teams.
[...]

the Board can then respond to what the needs are within the total organization.

And this is exactly why the proposed elimination of the Team Funds, for which Stephanie argues based on limited total resources, should scare the bejesus out of anyone interested in the Teams' well-being. Does the Board really consider itself capable of determining the donors' intent better than the donors themselves express it?

Not taking sides on this issue but it seems fair game to at least bring up the donation issue. After all, this entire thread is about MONEY. More specifically it is measuring USOFs commitment to the team by the amount of money USOF budgets for it (and not by the non-monetary things USOF does(insurance, rules etc etc etc) I see nothing wrong with at least looking at it from the other way and asking if those who are most vocal in support of the team have given as much as they can to help the team. If so, then that's fine.
While on the money issue, the team and its supporters may want to find a way to better communicate to the average USOF member what they are getting for money spent on the teams. What is the return to USOF members on the funds spent on the teams? Right or wrong, I think the answer from the average USOF member would be "not much". Make them aware of all the benefits of ahving a well funded team. And it probably needs to be done in places other than AP which really is "preaching to the choir."

In the context of US orienteering, insurance, rules, etc., are public goods.

I volunteered for the vetting team for our last two A-meets. The two chief vetters are on national teams. The local participation of team members and past champions is a major inspiration to the rank and file. I haven't sent in a financial contribution yet this year. I think I will. Now.

Regarding people who are "most vocal in support of the team": one of those individuals received the 2006 Silva Award expressly for that and for support of US Orienteering in general. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

You're absolutely right. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Putting aside the uninformed slights to our valued contributors (and rest assured, you are valued - ALL of you), can we look a little harder at the budget that the board will be reviewing and possibly voting on this weekend?

I've looked through all the numbers and would like some more information about them if possible so I can talk to my board rep about them. Its hard to make decisions without knowing whats behind them. Does Gary or anyone else have a document with background for these?

These items stood out to me. Everything else seemed at least appropriate:

---

USOF branding (budgeted $9500)
I'm not in marketing, so I don't even know what this means. Its a big chunk of money and I'd like to see exactly what it is proposed to be spent on. Other things in the marketing category are broken out like printing, exhibit fees, so if those aren't included in "branding" then what is?

Office Support ($18000)
I know this costs money, but postage and phone are broken out as line items separate from this. So what's coming out of this pot? It may be entirely appropriate, but its a black box at the moment.

Web hosting and Website administrator ($900)
I presume the $300 hosting fee is to our ISP. Fine. I also presume Janet has some expenses as administrator, but $600 is in a black box. Is this for software or something? I don't think we are paying Janet for her effort, so this must be for something else.

ONA ($27000)
Yep, that's three zeros. I don't know what else to say about the elephant in the room. I would really like to see how this expense is broken down. If we are really going to look seriously at online publishing or cutting back issues, we'll need to see the numbers, otherwise there is no way for any of us to have an informed discussion about it. Again, this alone uses 87% of our USOF dues income.

Executive Director ($100871)
I'm hesitant to touch this, but it deserves scrutiny like everything else. At least its broken out nicely in the budget. The $78K salary is what it is, and I think the $50K foundation number on the income side was given specifically towards this. $12,500 seems like alot for travel. Cutting this to about $6000 would make me more comfortable, but not being in marketing and not knowing how much travel is required to be effective at it, I can't really say. Twelve thousand dollars is alot of money.

---

As I said, everything else makes reasonable sense to me. Excepting of course the goose egg that is still in the Sr Team line. I appreciate the attempt at offering something, however saying the team can have whatever is left after we clear some A-meet income hurdle is like saying "if there are leftovers you can have the table scraps," and that still leaves the team feeling like an afterthought. Saying the team is good at selling cookies (they should just sell more) is not justification for no support at all.

Thanks for any background information anyone can provide.

Practical Question. I happen to think USOF should support the teams. I am sitting with my contribution envelop. Last year if a contribution was designated for the team I'm sure it became part of the USOF allocation for the team. This year if I designate a contribution for the team and USOF doesn't support the team - what happens?

Lou: my understanding is that if you earmark a contribution for the team, it will go there. USOF is just reducing the transfer they are making from the operating fund, but that is above and beyond contributions from individuals.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong.

You are probably right, but I don't understand this notion of folding the team fund into the OF.

Vlad writes --

And this is exactly why the proposed elimination of the Team Funds, for which Stephanie argues based on limited total resources, should scare the bejesus out of anyone interested in the Teams' well-being. Does the Board really consider itself capable of determining the donors' intent better than the donors themselves express it?

Is this FUD? Or not? What does it mean?

Wait a minute. Team funds aren't being eliminated. The funds are still there. Money already in the funds is staying there. Donors can donate to the Team funds. All that was in the original proposed budget (which has since been amended) was that no additional money was to be transferred from the operating fund to the team funds this year.

Don't want to let the facts get into a good argument but the facts are that the amount budgeted to be spent on the Foot-O team has not been cut. 2009 budget was $16,000 ($4k training, 9k WOC, 2k World Cup and 1K uniorms). 2010 budget if for $19,000 (13k WOC, 6k non-WOC). This is increase of +-20%
The difference is in the source of the funds where the team fund is not getting a transfer from the operating fund and is made up largely by contributions (I assume this is from the annual campaign and they have a good idea about the amount) and a drawdown of reserves. The source shouldn't really matter since the team has the $19000 to spend, unless I'm misreading the budget.
USOF has embarked on an ambitious program with the hiring of an exec. dir. and, if successful, will result in a much larger pie for all to share. If it fails, then things go back to the way they were and nothing is really lost. Rather than infighting about the current budget, why not see what the Exec Dir. does (and this was debated ad nauseum at the time.) Especially if the Foot-o Team is seeing an increase to its budgeted expenses for 2010

Some clarifying points regarding the team's budget and expenses:
* The "reserve" is not stagnant but is an operational reserve. Many substantial bills, particularly WOC, become due in the first part of the year before the current year's fund raising and contribution income is received. Thus, the operational reserve is used to cover these expenses.
* The Team will be reducing expenditures across all of its initiatives to hedge against the predicted lean budgets in the coming years. As a specific example, we will likely send a smaller team to WOC Norway, which is anticipated to be expensive (being in Norway).
* When the operational reserve is spent down, the team will be forced to borrow from the OF to continue operations. However, we are not currently allowed to do this. Hopefully, it will not come to this.
* Finally, I am not aware of any team athlete who is not supportive of the ED and his mission. The team accepts that it will have to make some sacrifices in the short term and we are discussing ways that it can raise additional income. Please stayed tuned and we hope you and your local clubs will be willing to participate.

The $19K you quote here is the wish list. This is what we would like to buy. As it turns out, that's exactly what we spent last year (see the budget linked above and click on the "funds" tab at the bottom of the excel file). Most of this was spent to represent USOF at WOC. The team fund currently has $2000 in it. $2000 << $19000. And the proposed 2010 USOF budget puts $0 from the operating fund into this pot for us. In order to cover the $19K wish list we have to make up the difference entirely through fund raising. Think of the team budget as being a tiny little separate budget outside the main USOF budget. Normally USOF kicks a few thousand dollars into the team fund every year. Its that contribution that is being cut from the proposed USOF budget.

Wait a minute. Team funds aren't being eliminated. The funds are still there. Money already in the funds is staying there. Donors can donate to the Team funds

That was my impression. Hopefully Vlad will clarify what he means if it is at odds with this.

Eddie, where did you get $2000 from? Both the proposed 2010 budget and the latest financial statement from Robin show $9000.

Sorry, yes $9000. $2000 is the expected balance at the end of next year.
So $9000 << $19000 and we have to make up the difference entirely with fund raising. We'll be worse off next year even if we make it through this year.

Also, $7,000 is from contributions (again I assume from the annual fund drive) up from $4000 in the 2009 budget. Fundraising revenue is budgeted at $5000 up from $4000 in the 2009 budget.
As to Tom's concern re: maintaining a large balance to meet operating needs, this is really a cash flow issue and there are other, better ways of handling it e.g. short term borrowing. Corporations do it all time if revenues come in say during the holiday season and bills are year round. Towns as well when taxes come in once or twice a year and expenditures are more even
Understand Tom's concern about future years as this is not a long term solution but I expect that by 2011 or 2012, we will know if the ED will be successful. If not, I assume USOF will go on w/o an ED and all the funds budgeted for him and his office will then flow to the restricted funds as they did in the past. If he is successful (and I hope and expect he will be), then they'll be more money than anyone knows what to do with (insert smiley emoticon here)

Eddie asks some very good questions about budget specifics, so let me attempt some answers.

USOF branding - $9500 - The budget request from Glen was actually for $15000. He has already put out a rfp, and the returned proposals averaged in the $40-45k range. Obviously we can't afford this. I believe the current plan is to go with a free lance designer that Glen has worked with previously, with Glen providing much of the labor himself.

Office Support - $18000 - this is a contractual arrangement with Robin Shannonhouse.

Website administration - $600 - this goes to Janet Tryson, or whoever the current USOF web administrator is. It started with Debbie Newell.

ONA - $27000 - I won't comment on this one, except to say it is a $1000 increase over the last year.

ED travel - $12500 - The executive director has already burned through his travel budget for 2009, and the 2010 budgeted amount represents a small decrease over his current travel rate. I gave Glen the choice of travel dollars or more dollars for USOF branding or redesigning the USOF website. Glen feels the travel is more important, and he might be right, if it brings in sponsor and grant money.

The $7000 in contributions was quite high. We had some significant large donations that came from outside the annual fund drive. We would be extremely fortunate if those generous donors were able to match those amounts again; I'm not counting on it. And it is not safe to assume that all donations, large and small, occur via the annual fund drive.

Sammy, if you have particular expertise in managing funds and accounting, I'm sure USOF could use your assistance. Me, I'm doing the best I can with the system that is in place.

I too hope Glen will be so successful and that all of these issues become moot. But Glen has one very tough job -- just ask him.

OK, thanks Gary. I see who the money is going to, but I still don't see what its being spent *on*.

For example, what is "branding?" Is it TV commercials, radio ads, T-shirts, billboards on busses, bat signals, something else? What specifically are we getting for the $9500?

Office Support - $18000 - this is a contractual arrangement with Robin Shannonhouse.

This is very vague, and a bit too mysterious for my tastes. Are we paying a salary or for durable goods or both. Can we see the contract? Again, what specifically are we buying?

Website administration - $600 - this goes to Janet Tryson, or whoever the current USOF web administrator is. It started with Debbie Newell.

ditto. What is the $600 being spent on each year?

For ONA, we really must see a breakdown. I've never seen one, and I think the membership is owed at least that much.

Thanks for the travel info. As I said, I'm not in a position to comment about that. If Glen says its important to do his job, then fine. I can chalk it up to the marketing effort and assume that the 2010 EOY audit will break it all down for us to see.

I will defer to others for the specifics - branding - Glen Schorr, office support contract - Clare Durand, ONA breakdown - Donna Fluegel. For the website administration, it is a stipend, currently to Janet Tryson.

I'm out of here now (probably will not check AttackPoint again until after the Board meeting) and I don't know the availability of the others I mentioned. But I encourage everyone with interest to come to the Board meeting 2:30 Saturday at the Baymont Inn in Plymouth.

From Eddie: ONA ($27000)
Yep, that's three zeros. I don't know what else to say about the elephant in the room. I would really like to see how this expense is broken down. If we are really going to look seriously at online publishing or cutting back issues, we'll need to see the numbers, otherwise there is no way for any of us to have an informed discussion about it. Again, this alone uses 87% of our USOF dues income.

My response: I have, many times over the last 10 years, issued this statement: I volunteer my time to publish ONA. I have no salary from this and in some years, we put out our own money to cover the difference between what income there is and what it costs to print and mail the magazine (in addition, I might add, to the donations we personally make to the Team funds). The money from USOF and club and Brunton ads is used for printing and mailing. Period.

I have often checked into many other printers and the one the Bermans used before me and I continue to use, is the best price going.

And, Glen and I are discussing "going digital" or reducing the number of issues per year (as I have done many times in the last few years with Clare and Chuck and at Board meetings) but until we can make a decision based on what the total USOF membership wants and what is good for the overall marketing of USOF, we will not make a drastic change.

And, the last time I did a survey (at a USOF Convention and AGM a few years ago) the vast majority voted to keep ONA in it's paper form. Asking APers what they think does not cover the 1000 other USOF members out there!

Tom,

Gary and/or Robin are probably the best people to address the cash flow situation with the Team Fund. They know the particulars far better than an outsider. A possible solution is for the team fund to "borrow" on a short-term basis from another fund and pay it back when the revenue comes into the Team. This is really just a bookkeeping entry since, I assume all the cash is commingled in one account. For example, if the Team needs $8,000 to pay WOC fees in January and it has only $5000 in its account and will get the additional $3000 in March, the team fund can "borrow" the $3000 from the say the E-punch fund( which may not need the money until June.) The Team would then pay back the e-punch fund in March when the revenues come in. This is a fairly common practice in cash management called interfund borrowing. Again, let me stress that the borrowing is really just an accounting entry. I'd be surprised if USOF doesn't do something like it . If they don't, I would think they could easily set it up with a few ruls changes put Gary/Robin would know much more

Eddie writes: Excepting of course the goose egg that is still in the Sr Team line.

I respond: Have you noticed there is not even a line for the World Univ O Team for this summer? Nothing. Zero. That means the team, college kids from all over the country without jobs, will have to come up with the $6900 I asked for in the 2010 budget (and this does not even cover their flight to the event!). Yes, the Senior Team is not getting a transfer from the Operating Fund, but at least you have a line in the budget, with some money in it!!

Eddie: I'm as unsure as you about the $9500 of "Branding" expenditures. I can only guess they cover the first year of promotional expenses for Item #2 in Glen's Strategic Plan:

2. Creation of a national identity for the sport of orienteering...identifying USOF as central in developing materials to promote the brand
 Creation of a brand campaign to generate a "rallying cry" for the sport.
 Establish and implement effective communication strategies for internal and external audiences.
 Establish...public relations, social media and marketing strategies...to expand national awareness of orienteering - translating to starts at the club level....

Can't wait to hear our brand "Rallying Cry" : - )

As to whether the $7000 in contributions is a "good" number, I'll defer to Gary/Stephanie who I don't think would not have put that amount in if they didn't feel reasonable comfortable with it.
Perhaps that is why Stephanie is pushing unrestricted contributions vs restricted contributions, so that USOF can have a little more flexibility.

Here's what the budget numbers look like:
Team Fund
Beginning Balance 9000
Contributions 7000
Fundraising 5000
WOC expenses -13000
Non-WOC expenses -6000
Ending Balance 2000

Sammy, the proposed 2010 budget was created by the US Team, and more specifically me, in consultation with a few others. I certainly hope that we can reach both the fundraising and contribution goals that we set. And if the USOF finance whizzes provide me with new procedures for how to manage the team's funds, I will certainly comply.

If it fails, then things go back to the way they were and nothing is really lost.

Tell that to the little kids who miss their only JWOC. It's only a JWOC, after all.

@ONA: Have you noticed there is not even a line for the World Univ O Team for this summer? Nothing. Zero. That means the team, college kids from all over the country without jobs, will have to come up with the $6900 I asked for in the 2010 budget (and this does not even cover their flight to the event!).

Yeah, poor kids, having to pay to go on vacation - and then pay for what they do when they get there! Oh, the humanity.

And I say this having been to the World University Champs twice. And paid my own cost twice.

If you can't fund WOC and JWOC teams, you shouldn't even be thinking about funding Student WOC teams. Just not in the same league of seriousness.

You are probably right, but I don't understand this notion of folding the team fund into the OF.

Randy: it is from the Strategic Plan Update. The Update provides a ranked list of priorities, on which the following quote is Priority 3, Bullet Point 5:

Move away from current fund administrator model to form a single federation budget. Program and team budgets would still be developed and approved as part of the annual budget process.

This is how the Plan Update opens:

One of my primary goals is to "lead development of the 2011 – 2014 strategic plan, securing board approval by Q1, 2010; while working concurrently working with the finance committee to develop the 2010 budget".

The objective of this report is to provide an overview of the work to date, as well as to show a general direction that the strategic plan is heading.

The following letter by Glen accompanied the Update:

To the Board of Directors,

Prior to our board meeting in Wisconsin, I am forwarding an update as to the strategic planning process. While the plan discussion will occur at a later time, I wanted to send this to you to provide context to our discussion regarding the 2010 budget.

Strephanie's post seemed to support this exact concept:

Teams also can solicit donations directly from supporters. The senior team did this earlier this year and received several thousand dollars.

While that helps out their team, I have to wonder about the impact on the other teams. If a person has donated to the senior squad appeal, will they now contribute to the Annual Fund Drive? If contributions to the operating fund drop, there is less money to make transfers to any teams. Thus, the Annual Fund Drive is urging donations this year to the operating fund; the Board can then respond to what the needs are within the total organization.

As you can see this is all on the level of thoughts being thrown around, not concrete proposals, but judging by the speed at which a ranked list of priorities got transformed into a working budget about to be voted on, some care should be given to what is on this ranked list, with attention to the exact wording.

Please be assured that if you designate a donation through the annual fund drive to a team fund, the money is credited directly to that fund. Just as those donations sought directly by the team go into the team fund. If enough donations were made to the team fund, no one would worry about transfers from the operating fund.

As far as predicting how much will be raised in the annual fund drive, the budget numbers have always been quite conservative. Frankly, I have no way to make a prediction. About the only thing I expect is that donations to the team will be down because many team supporters gave directly to the team earlier in the year. Even though the fund drive numbers will be down, the team may receive just as much donations through the year. The issue is that there seem to be a limited number of donors.

I realize I was pressing my argument about needing to put your money where your mouth is. Frankly, I have put in enough hours on the board and for fund raising, and paid my way to enough meetings, that I could argue I've given enough without also donating. I really do understand how people feel if they've already paid for their kids to go to JWOC or practically single-handedly put on an A-meet. I've had more than one person quite pointedly tell me not to ask them for donations, so it hasn't been fun at times doing this job. But others have been generous and made my efforts seem worthwhile.

I understand that sponsors and grantors are interested in the amount of support that the members give to their own organization. I have tried, unsuccessfully, to get 100% board participation in the fund drive. (In many non-profit organizations, you wouldn't be offered a board position unless you can donate or bring in donations. Governance is only part of what the board members are expected to contribute.) Among the general membership, the contribution rate has ranged from 4% to 8% in different years.

I don't know how that strikes you. (High? Lower than you expected?) If we could get to 20%, we might generate enough donations to generate to cover the teams' expenses. What percentage of the membership goes to A-meets? Are they persuaded of the value of having national teams? I'm guessing they are not. As someone has already pointed out, we need to market the value of the teams within our own ranks. (To people not reading AttackPoint probably.)

Tundra/Desert said "No, I suggest we form another Federation, and USOF should be coming up with arguments right damn now of how it would argue for the worth of its existence with the IOF."

And how would you fund the new federation?

BorisGr said "When the Executive Director position was created, I was somehow under the impression that it was paid for from an endowment created specifically for that purpose and separate from the USOF operatin budget. Is that not the case? Was it ever the case?"

The endowment paid for 1/2 for 3 years, now we need to find the other 1/2.

Has anyone mentioned insurance cost?
I have asked several times and nobody has told me how our insurance costs are calculated.

The Road Runners Club of America charges $175 (D&O) per club plus $2.33 (liability) per household.

The insurance fees per club are in the club charter renewal documents. For 2009:

3.50 per primary member for Regular Clubs & Associate Clubs > 3yo
2.00 per primary member for Associate Clubs < 4 yo

BTW, the USOF Documents (old Virtual Binder) site contains the answers to many of the questions I see asked here. The ClubNet and BoardNet archives also contain summaries and announcements. Here's a summary of the fee changes, posted to ClubNet by Gary after the January Board meeting:

"At the USOF Board of Directors meeting in Georgia on January 17, the Board approved the following changes in fees and dues:

Effective March 1 2009, USOF membership dues will be $35 individual, $40 family per year. Lifetime membership fees will be $700 individual, $800 family. There is no change in student or junior membership dues, which remain at $15 student, $5 junior.

Effective for A-meets as of December 1, 2009, A-meet sanctioning fees will be $4.00 per A-meet start ($5.00 U.S. championships), $2.00 per junior entrant ($2.50 U.S. championships). The additional surcharge for entrants that are not USOF members will now be $4.00 ($2.00 for juniors) per A-meet start.

Effective for club recharters in 2010, USOF club dues will be $0.60 per non-A-meet start at all club events in 2009. USOF insurance fees remain unchanged at $3.50 per club member for regular clubs, $2.00 per club member for associate clubs.

Effective for club recharters beginning in 2011, USOF club dues will be $1.00 per non-A-meet start at all club events for the previous year. As before, USOF insurance fees remain unchanged."

The purpose of ClubNet is for USOF to have an easy way to disseminate information to the clubs. If you're not seeing this information, check with your club officers to make sure that you have someone subscribed to the list who can forward pertinent information.

I've said this in the past and I'll mention it again, ClubNet is NOT an effective way to disseminate information to the clubs because its essentially unmoderated. I realize that it is *intended* to be the easiest means of information dispersal, but it it not functioning that way. Its virtually impossible for the average busy person to wade through the dozens and dozens and dozens of daily emails on endless discussion topics there just to find the gems of important information that are trickled down from USOF to the clubs. If there was a one-way avenue, adequately moderated, for passing important messages from the BOD and the ED to clubs without all the chaffe, I'd be first in line for it.

I have nothing against an e-mail discussion forum - far from it! I just think that it should be separate from the official USOF information pipe.

Its virtually impossible for the average busy person to wade through the dozens and dozens and dozens of daily emails on endless discussion topics there just to find the gems of important information

That's why there is supposed to be someone from each club to pass along what's important.

That said, I realize that in practice the ClubNet system does not work well, even if the idea is nice in theory. You're suggesting an announcements/information-only list for any USOF member that is discussion-free? That is (theoretically) an easy fix.

yes, precisely.

I think having 100 different filterers (one per club) is not especially efficient, when you could have just one at the front end. Also in my club no one wants to be the filter :). I was designated the filter some 10 years ago. I lasted about 2 months. Brad has done it ever since, and he passes me maybe one message per year. Everything else I get second-hand through AP posts.

I believe that yahoo has a setting that allows you to only receive emails from moderators. That would probably provide the functionality you describe, as long as the moderator chosen would avoid commenting on extraneous discussions.

I might be opening a can of worms, or maybe its already opened - why doesn't ONA have enough advertisements to pay for more of itself? Isn't that how most successful magazines operate? There are so few ads in the magazine compared to other sporting magazines, its no wonder it costs so much. Is it possible to get more ads, or has that already been tried and failed?

Alex, if you know of a promising sponsor, Donna and Glen would be happy to hear about it; personal contacts are particularly helpful. Otherwise, both are hard at work to find new sponsors. Glen will also be saving the world starting on Monday.

Take a look at the advertising rates for ONA. At the current rates it would take 113 full page color ads to cover the current cost of a year of ONA... except that I'm sure the production cost would go up if ONA had 113 color pages.

I don't know much about the publishing business, so I don't know if the rates are low or high for a publication of this size. Seems pretty cheap, even given the pretty small audience... but I can't imagine that many of the current advertisers (clubs with A-meets, US O vendors) would be able to pay much more. I suppose it is a careful balance. And I don't think that we should expect a membership-benefit magazine to be entirely paid for by advertising.

(I know, there's room for lots of more discussion on this topic, etc., etc.)

Thanks Donna, I know you work for free on the mag, and I feel your pain regarding submissions. I've been the newsletter editor for my club for about the past 10 years, and almost no one sends me anything despite repeated requests. People are busy. Some don't like to write, etc. Everyone has their reasons. I have to write 75-80% of the content of all of our newsletters myself just to have something to put in there with the schedule and results.

So effectively all $27K is used to cover the printing and postage costs.

1) How much for printing and how much for postage (roughly)?

2) Does the cost per mag scale linearly with print volume? That is, if half of the subscribers elected to get an electronic version instead, would we save $13K or would it be some other fraction?

I'd just like to get some idea of what we are looking at here.

Thanks

And how would you fund the new federation?

Teams would solicit and fundraise just like now, part of fundraising to marketing person and IOF dues. Insurance out of event fees. No magazine, no Little Troll, no Map Loan Fund.

Eddie,

In response to your questions about the proposed budget:

USOF Branding - $9,500

Here is where the money would go (when it was at $15,000)
+ New USOF logo
+ New Team USA logo to be shared by all teams
+ New NOD logo
+ Poster/ flyer designs for local events for USOF charter clubs
+ Poster/ flyer designs for NOF for USOF charter clubs
+ Base artwork for all future USOF fliers (Annual fund, Sponsorship, etc)
+ USOF and NOD banners for USOF charter clubs
+ Base artwork for www.us.orienteering.org redesign (home page and one interor page design)
+ Electronic newsletter template
+ USOF Event signage for "A" meets
+ Artwork for business cards, letterhead, etc.
+ Base artwork for redesign for ONA mangazine conisisting of a new cover direction, masthead, table of contents and one, two page spread.
+ Related projects that still have to be developed once budget is set and final needs determined.

Again, this was at $15k, The number is now $9,500

Some people will say that "Wow, $9,500 is a lot of money>" Their right. However, I recieved multiple bids, from interested parties. Some were over $100k. The only firms I thought were worth while bid at $15, $40 and $45k. The low cost optoin means that I am creating creative strategy and writing copy as well.

In addition, I sent an RFP out this summer via various nets and vehicles to the orienteering community. I got no responses.

Exectutive Director - $100,800
+ I currently earn a salary of $70,000. I also recieve an IRA contribution of approximately $2,000. I took a salary cut from US Lacrosse to come here because I believe in what this sport can be. You get to $78 by adding in payroll insurance, peyroll service nad payroll taxes. I will not discuss compensation ever again and request that you foward any questions privately to Clare Durand.
+ In 2009 my office received a travel budget of $7,500 for 8 months. I spent that quicky attending "A" meets in Maryland, Ohio, New York, New York, Washington, New York, Wisconsin and California. Plus local meets plus local travel. I book Southwest airlines 30 days in advance to save on travel and rent ecnomy class cars. I also stay in the host hotel when rooms are available. I do not charge mileage to USOF. I requested $12.5k because it is an accurate reflection of reality. An aside: my travel strategy will shift to less "A" meets and more club meets and business meetings.
+ $1,100 for office printing and postage. I work from a home office and need supplies to run this office. Paper, ink, stamps etc.
+$500 for Computer/ Furniture and Supplies - Occasionally I need new items to do my job.
+$1,700 for telephone. This covers my cell phone and a portion of my home phone and internet plan.

I hope that this answers your questions clearly. If you would like to discuss further I am staying at the Baymont Inn in Wisconsin. I will not be checking AP between now and then.

Thanks for the great, detailed info, Glen. As I said, I have no problem with the ED numbers, I just wanted to see the breakdown. It would be very nice to see the same for the $18K Office Support contract. I'd really like to see you get another $10K for branding from creative management of ONA and the office support numbers this year. I think its doable and needs to be done before the 2010 budget is approved by the BOD.

I'd really like to see you get another $10K for branding from creative management of ONA and the office support numbers this year.

Eddie, here is why that's unlikely: Postage is more or less linear with number of magazines mailed, but printing isn't even close to linear, so cutting numbers is a poor way to cut expenses. The IOF saw benefit in producing a glossy magazine as a marketing tool, despite the fact that it was obliged to send it to nobody. ONA could be similarly useful for USOF and could eventually (in some years) turn into a modest money maker (as the magazine of my local running club is.) I see from Glen's detailed marketing budget that he is already looking at ways to make better use of ONA.

By the way, Donna, you're doing a great job on ONA. Thank you!

The office support number is--I'm pretty sure--for contract services, including the functions that Robin still very capably and expertly provides to USOF. Contractors are responsible for covering their own costs, and their budget breakdown is their own business. It simply is not up to us to approve or disapprove the office support internal budget, but as anyone who knows Robin's work can attest, we're getting a bargain.

Eddie, I agree that it would be great to see another $10K go toward the branding budget. Maybe we should do some targeted fundraising. :-)

As a long-time member of the U.S. Team, I'm really excited at the direction USOF is headed! I don't mind tightening my own belt a little to support the effort.

I'm not excited. No longer am. And have no particular desire to help out within this particular framework.

Do the French spend $10k/year on cool logos? $10k/year could be a cool performance stipend. I survived many years in grad school on that. If you could get that for two juniors, about twenty would get motivated to train.

I've been bombarded by the let's get behind the ED buzz, and I was convinced for a while, and now I think that it indeed may be the right thing to do. Just nothing in it for me as a supporter of competitive performance. I hope everyone enjoys the logos.

Nothing against the chosen path or Glen personally. Glen is doing a great job determining what the membership really wants, and marching along to get there, with power tools. The problem is that the Federation never cared much for competitive performance, and the ED position is a multiplier. Had we had a performance program, one truly supported by the membership, in place by Glen's arrival, things would most likely be different.

I promise to help the Teams as much as I can, just not through USOF channels.

This is really getting out of hand. You have poor Glen justifying why he spends $500 on office supplies, ONA is a favorite punching bag and now you want Robin to explain why she's using bright white copy paper rather than recycled. Most have answered graciously but enough is enough and its time to turn this question around.

As an typical USOF member, I would like an answer to what I get from USOF money spent on the US Senior Team. You have asked others to defend their budgets, its only fair that you provide a detailed answer to yours (however paltry you think it is.) And I don't mean WOC fees and uniforms, but what do I get out of it

Before you become indignent, threaten to leave the room and take your ball and go home, this is a serious question. If you can't articulate clearly the answer, then you will continue to have a difficult time selling elite orienting to members and sponsors.

For example, money spent on insurance allows me, as the avg USOF member, to go out orienteering. The map grant fund provides for maps for me to go out Orienteerig, ONA gives a magazine so I can read about a sport I enjoy. The E-punch Fund enhances my enjoyment of orienteering by allowing me to compare splits, etc. The Little Troll encourages little kids to try orienteering and who doesn't like to see little kids having fun in the woods.

But I (as a typical USOF member) have a hard time seeing what tangible benefit I get from money spent on the team. A few extra O-meets as team fund raisers and some vague feeling of pride seeing USA on back of someones O jacket.
Until you can answer this question in the same gracious and articulate manner as Glen and Gary et al (without histrionics and hyperbole), I think you're going to have a difficult time marketing yourself to the broader USOF community and to outside sponsors.

As to Tundras implication that the BOD and ED are doing something wrong by "determining what the membership wants and marching along to get there". First of it is the members money and I would think the Board has an obligation to spent it the way the members want.

Second, I see three possible solutions for him.
One is to win over the membership and sponsors to the benefits of more $ to the Senior Teams (see discussion above).
The second is to convince the current Board to devote larger $ to something the membership is only modestly interested in (the current approach)
The final would be for him and a few like-minded people to run for the Board and over a short time obtain a majority and sent USOF on the path they feel is correct (this shouldn't be hard to do since Board is a pretty thankless job and they seem to always be looking for people)

Sammy—for the average member, not much indeed from the Teams, directly. For the sponsors—a whole different kettle of fish. Most Federations of USOF's size get serious sponsors, and they happen to run serious performance programs (Australian OF and the French are prime examples). They have the same participation numbers as USOF. They have World Champions and we have best 28th place, and an unsmiling Brunton boy on the back of O/NA. Our problem is not that the sponsors aren't interested, in principle. The problem is that it takes an effort to get to these sponsors and nobody has been putting in a full-time marketing effort. It is with hope that Glen would be successful in reaching out to the sponsors that I was optimistic about his hiring.

Thierry Gueorgiou does not spend his time winning over the French orienteers about the benefits of paying him a stipend. He trains and competes. He is able to do that because the French OF has enough foresight and sense of responsibility to the orienteering community to come up with the stipend. His accomplishments motivate kids who then aspire to be good. In Federations in which serious performance programs are in place, these kids see the possiblity of success and work hard on improving their performance. Orienteering becomes a greater part of their lifestyle than if they were litte trolls just running around to have fun. They carry on this attachment to the sport through their lives to be serious about training, serious about organizing events, serious about managing the sport when they grow too old for top-level competitiveness.

As to the benefit to all Federation members, World-Champion exposure brings sponsor interest. Sponsor monies can then be channeled into Federation programs. If there is no top-level exposure, the sponsors are less interested.

A point—my own position is not about the Senior Team. I am not officially affiliated with any of the Teams. Had the argument been "you Sr Team folk are useless over-the-hills full of yourselves and we're going to rip out your self-congratulating WOC trips and put all this money to use for 15-yr-olds so we can coach them to serious Tero-iousness", I'd be all for it. I'd be out there breaking my back doing more fundraisers. It's not. It is about a complete gutting of performance-related programs down to nothing left for people to aspire to besides having fun in the woods. (Not exactly nothing—there is $2000 for the Jr Team in the latest budget, which is a faint glimmer of hope.)

For the curious, here's the Ted Stevens Act. Subchapter II (Page 11) is about National Governing Bodies. The U.S. Olympic Committee has to recommend an NGB in order for the NGB to be recognized by the international Federation, in orienteering's case, for USOF to be recognized by the IOF. The Act applies directly to Olympic-recognized sports, and for all practical purposes to sports that aspire to Olympic recognition. (Claiming off the bat that we never aspire to be in the Olympics will get USOF out of USOC and compliance with the Act. It won't get USOF far with the IOF.)

There a lot in the Act about the NGB's obligation to represent competitive athletes. An NGB must "have as its purpose the advancement of amateur athletic competition". The purpose is not member enjoyment, it is not a glossy mag or office support. Sports in the U.S. don't get direct government support. In a (form of) exchange, they are supposed to be governed by the Act. Page 16, Chapter 220524, outlines general duties of the NGBs. I would suggest paying particular attention to Items 1 and 3; the latter says

"For the sport that it governs, a national governing body shall— [...] reasonably reflect the views of the athletes in its policy decisions"

The Act is there so that a body that does not speak for the athletes does not usurp the power. I am sorry to say that exactly this is happening, down to the suggestion that the Teams do not deserve the funds that they successfully solicit from supporters.

So the Board's obligation to members is not the only obligation it has. There is an obligation to the society and to the sports community, both U.S. and international, based on USOF's status as the NGB. If USOF wants to remain an NGB, it must follow what's in Ted Stevens' act. If USOF does not want to be an NGB for the sport of orienteering in the United States, it is free to do so. It is free to rip the competition-related item out of the Mission Statement, and remain a member-benefit educational org. Good luck to Glen with the sponsors, then.

I'm not really asking for what Robin is spending the $18K on specifically (paper, kazoos, whatever), although knowing the details would be useful. Postage and phone are broken out. Why would paper not also be broken out or postage and phone rolled in?

I'm asking what we (USOF) are buying for that $18K. Because I have no idea. Does that pay for membership renewal services only? Does it cover her work managing the banking funds? What? Is it worth $18K to us? Can we do it cheaper? Everyone else in USOF is being asked to do the same thing they are doing now, but do it with less money (the teams included). So why can't I ask the same of ONA and the Office budget? This seems like an entirely reasonable request to me.

The teams' budgets are already out there for everyone to see. The sr team budgets are in the excel spreadsheets with the budget proposals. Orienteeringmom (Janet Porter) posted a detailed list of the 2009 jr team expenses near the top of this thread.

Eric, I know the printing cost won't scale linearly. I just want to know what the number *is*. We can say it might be worth it or it might not, but until we see the number its all just talk. That number (or volume breakpoint numbers) must exist. It seems that some people would be willing to receive ONA electronically, so lets find out how much it would be worth to actually do that. Also, is dropping a couple of issues a year worth the savings? We don't know until we see some numbers.

The French Federation is in sufficient financial difficulty to have been seriously considering merging with (i.e. getting swallowed up by) the French federation of hikers.

No, seriously.
http://www.ffrandonnee.fr/

Also, is dropping a couple of issues a year worth the savings?

It's almost certainly more cost effective to print fewer issues than print fewer of the same number of issues. (Being, if we have 100 subscribers and 5 issues, it's more cost effective to print 4 issues than to send 5 issues to 50 people electronically and 50 people paper-ly.)

Tundra,
I think your interpretion of Stevens Act is a bit off and the threat of decertifying/replacing USOF as NGB virtually impossible.

You're correct that NGB shall " reasonably reflect the views of the athletes in its policy decisions"and "advance... amateur athletic competition".

But an athlete is defined as "anyone who meets eligibility standards of NGB" and an athletic competition is defined as a "contest, game, meet...". It says nothing specifically about top athletes. Basically, a person who completes a blue course in an hour or a yellow course in three hours meets the definition of an "athlete" participating in an "athletic competition". So the NGB must represent all its members not just the top performing members.

The Act also provides other duties such as:
develop interest and participation
inform athletes of policy matters
disseminate rules
encourage women and people with disabilities
select a national team
etc.
All of which USOF does.

In order to unseat USOF, you would have to petition the USOC and provide evidence that the NGB is not fulfilling its obligation under the Act. Tundra, in your opinion, what specific sections of the Act is USOF failing to meet?

Even if USOF is in violation, you would likely need a credible alternative and getting a handful of people to sign a petition (even if they're the top orienteers) with limited start up funds probably wouldn't cut it.

Seems to me, easier to try my suggestion 3 above and obtain a majority on USOF board. I think you would need only 6 like- minded people.

Tundra,
Agree with your point that a successful US Team would be a benefit to attracting sponsors. The key word is successful. Lance Armstong attracts more sponsors than a domestique. Ditto LeBron James vs a benchwarmer. Of course, a Tero would do it but he is a once in a generation athlete and we are long way from there.

But we do have some success to sell- the Veterans Team.
I can envision it now. A full page color ad promoting a product geared to yuppie babyboomers with big wallets and a growing fear of their mortality. Photo with all the smiling, fit veterans wearing their medals, small print identifying their palmares (e.g. Sharon Crawford,65, Gold Medal 2009, silver medal 200_ Pavlina Brautigan,45,Gold Medal,2009).
Branding Slogan something like "Fountain of Youth Cereal for performance through the ages"

From my 30+ years of experience in the sport a strong international presence in the World orienteering community makes for a richer national experience and I'm sure that the latter is something we all can agree on is a good thing.

Sammy—the procedure to replace an incumbent NGB is outlined in Chapter 220528 of the Act. The incumbent NGB does not have to fail to meet the specific obligations, as you allege. The petitioner just has to prove that it can meet the obligations "more adequately". What would happen is that the petitioner would argue that it represents the interests of all athletes, whereas USOF, the incumbent, fails indeed to represent its top-level competitors. The hypothetical petitioner would argue that it is "capable of providing a more effective national program of competition than the national governing body". With USOF failing to support a performance development program, this will not be hard to prove.

It would take time in order to get an organization together that does indeed represent the interests of all orienteers. I'll meet you in about 4 years, by the time there is a credible alternative. My guess is that the item in violation at the time will be 220522 (2), financial capability. Certainly if you extrapolate the present level of spending, it won't even take that long.

Sammy, I like your idea to emphasize a particular market segment. There's certainly money in that segment. USOF has to tread carefully, though, when claiming credit for the achievements of the WMOC winners. In which way exactly did USOF support these athletes? Did it coach them in training camps? Pay entry fees, airfare, or accommodation? Have a Master's Team Fund targeted at improving their results? As Peter said in a different thread, answer is no many times over. And for a good reason. The level of competition at the WMOC, with all respect to these athletes, is just not the same as at other IOF events. The level of respect and recognition these athletes bring their Federation, while significant, is not on par with what Tero brings to France. And if I were a sponsor and were approached by an outfit trying to sell what it didn't pay for, well, I'd be a bit wary.

Although Tero is a once-in-a-generation athlete, the French Team are no benchwarmers. There is some depth, not as much as in the Scandinavian countries but enough to hand off the relay to Tero in the lead (or within sight) two years in a row. My belief is that without the depth and without the programs needed to get that depth, there would be no Tero. What you effectively suggest is to pursue a model under which there is a guarantee of no Tero at any time, ever. No sane 15-year-old will pursue a Babyboomer Fountain of Youth.

As to your suggestion to just get a Board majority—too much baggage. Easier to just start over, building on map-sport, navigation-athletics communities that are not represented in present-day USOF, but outnumber and outspend its members. I am talking about people who compete in events put on by non-clubs and for-profits; adventure racers, rogainers, street-navigators. Once that works, it won't be hard to get at least some of the clubs on board, as long as they see value in the membership in the new organization. I have a few ideas and a few leads, and instead of seeing my efforts drown in the same old stuff (what has USOF achieved since WOC 1993, anyway?), I'd rather channel them in a fashion that I perceive as more productive. I hope to get some like-minded bodies on board.

I wish you the best of luck with it and, I guess, we'll see in about 4 years. It's amazing what people with a passion and a vision can sometimes achieve.