Discussion: Orienteering USA proposed budget
in: Orienteering; General
Oct 6, 2010 4:16 PM
#
The proposed budget for 2011 has been posted on the Orienteering USA website (www.orienteeringusa.org or www.us.orienteering.org). The direct link to the documents (budget memo and proposed budget spreadsheet) is included in the board minutes here.
The board will discuss and finalize the budget at their October meeting beginning at 2:30 pm at the Queensbury Hotel in Glens Falls, NY, after Day 1 of the US Classic Champs at Moreau.
Janet Tryson
for Glen Schorr/Phil Martineau
The board will discuss and finalize the budget at their October meeting beginning at 2:30 pm at the Queensbury Hotel in Glens Falls, NY, after Day 1 of the US Classic Champs at Moreau.
Janet Tryson
for Glen Schorr/Phil Martineau
Oct 6, 2010 5:57 PM
#
Is the idea that we are allowed to comment on this budget?
1) I am not good at reading documents like this, but does the proposed budget say that the US Teams will get no money from OUSA in 2011 other than what they raise themselves? I seem to recall that in 2010, we had a deal where the Teams got a share of the "surplus" sanctioning fees for A-meets. Is anything like that in place again for 2011?
2) What is this expense for fundraising for 4000 dollars? Is that for mailing out requests for money to OUSA members or something else?
3) It's great to see that the Kentucky Orienteering Partnership is yielding some results. Is there an update on how it's going somewhere that we can read?
4) The only sponsorship that I recall being secured by OUSA in the last year was Motel 6. Out of curiosity, is it possible to find out how much money we have made through it?
Thanks for posting the proposed budget ahead of the Board meeting.
1) I am not good at reading documents like this, but does the proposed budget say that the US Teams will get no money from OUSA in 2011 other than what they raise themselves? I seem to recall that in 2010, we had a deal where the Teams got a share of the "surplus" sanctioning fees for A-meets. Is anything like that in place again for 2011?
2) What is this expense for fundraising for 4000 dollars? Is that for mailing out requests for money to OUSA members or something else?
3) It's great to see that the Kentucky Orienteering Partnership is yielding some results. Is there an update on how it's going somewhere that we can read?
4) The only sponsorship that I recall being secured by OUSA in the last year was Motel 6. Out of curiosity, is it possible to find out how much money we have made through it?
Thanks for posting the proposed budget ahead of the Board meeting.
Oct 6, 2010 6:04 PM
#
Send comments to Glen S, or to the members of the Board, your representatives. Or you can attend the board meeting and comment there.
Remember, don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. ;-)
Remember, don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger. ;-)
Oct 6, 2010 7:05 PM
#
feet:
The memo also says that there will inevitably be discussions on Attackpoint too...
I'm an outsider too, so I could be wrong. However, I do think Boris' reading of team funding is kind of wrong. However, the document is unclear.
First, expected expenditures on the senior team are projected as $16300 (mostly on WOC entry fees). Expected income for the senior team is $7000 contributions (from team members? it's not clear what this is) and $3500 fundraising. The gap between these two, $5800, has to be planned Orienteering USA spending on the team.
However, second, the memo explains that indeed no additional funding is going to the teams other than fundraising and what is in the formerly ringfenced pots of money specific to each team.
That is, yes, money is being spent on the team, but it comes from the balance of the pre-existing team fund, and no additional money will be available.
So, the maximum amount that will be spent is that preexisting balance, plus fundraising. Presumably if less than $11,300 is spent by Orienteering USA on the senior team after expenses minus fundraising, then the intention is to have that money available in 2012 and beyond for the team, but the memo is explicit that this is not guaranteed. (Presumably this is except to the extent that the original funds were donor-designated specifically for the team.)
Similarly for the other teams.
Note: no funding for the WUOC team - no WUOC in 2011. I wouldn't see it coming back in 2012, though, given the budget position.
Also note: the Kentucky partnership line items show up as $4000 income and $4000 expenses on 'starts/branding', so this is net budget neutral. Still a good thing.
The real worry is the $41,800 deficit, even with assumed increases in
Looking at the 2010 budget, the projected year-end balance for the operating fund was $34K. Other funds had projected balances of $1K (college development), $3K (awards), $6K (e-punch), $35K (insurance), $3K (junior team), $1K (map grants), $29K (map loans), $13K (O in schools), $3K (program development), $10K (ski-O), $2K (team), and $1K (trail-O team). That is, if O USA is something like on budget for 2010, then the year-end funds available are $141K, of which we are proposing to spend down between $42K (good case) and $63K (worse case) in deficit spending. (There is also money in the endowment fund which doesn't appear on the 2010 budget, I believe - another $90K or so?) As is obvious, this can't go on for long without one or more of budget cuts,tax increases, or hyperinflation oops, or fee increases (printing money not working so well if you are not a country).
I'm an outsider too, so I could be wrong. However, I do think Boris' reading of team funding is kind of wrong. However, the document is unclear.
First, expected expenditures on the senior team are projected as $16300 (mostly on WOC entry fees). Expected income for the senior team is $7000 contributions (from team members? it's not clear what this is) and $3500 fundraising. The gap between these two, $5800, has to be planned Orienteering USA spending on the team.
However, second, the memo explains that indeed no additional funding is going to the teams other than fundraising and what is in the formerly ringfenced pots of money specific to each team.
That is, yes, money is being spent on the team, but it comes from the balance of the pre-existing team fund, and no additional money will be available.
So, the maximum amount that will be spent is that preexisting balance, plus fundraising. Presumably if less than $11,300 is spent by Orienteering USA on the senior team after expenses minus fundraising, then the intention is to have that money available in 2012 and beyond for the team, but the memo is explicit that this is not guaranteed. (Presumably this is except to the extent that the original funds were donor-designated specifically for the team.)
Similarly for the other teams.
Note: no funding for the WUOC team - no WUOC in 2011. I wouldn't see it coming back in 2012, though, given the budget position.
Also note: the Kentucky partnership line items show up as $4000 income and $4000 expenses on 'starts/branding', so this is net budget neutral. Still a good thing.
The real worry is the $41,800 deficit, even with assumed increases in
- third party grants and sponsorships from $2K to $10K
- major gifts from 0 to $1K
- general contributions from 0 to $5K
- annual fund from $8K to $15K
Looking at the 2010 budget, the projected year-end balance for the operating fund was $34K. Other funds had projected balances of $1K (college development), $3K (awards), $6K (e-punch), $35K (insurance), $3K (junior team), $1K (map grants), $29K (map loans), $13K (O in schools), $3K (program development), $10K (ski-O), $2K (team), and $1K (trail-O team). That is, if O USA is something like on budget for 2010, then the year-end funds available are $141K, of which we are proposing to spend down between $42K (good case) and $63K (worse case) in deficit spending. (There is also money in the endowment fund which doesn't appear on the 2010 budget, I believe - another $90K or so?) As is obvious, this can't go on for long without one or more of budget cuts,
Oct 6, 2010 7:54 PM
#
The gap between these two, $5800, has to be planned Orienteering USA spending on the team
It actually is spending cash on hand that's currently in the Team Fund and has been fundraised/contributed before. The Team Fund is being eliminated, as is evident from the budget memo. The monies that are in it ($11,300 as of—now, I guess) become general O-USA monies and are "the first dollars to fund [the] team in 2011".
Basically what is happening is that the separate pot, the Team Fund, is going away. Teams will fundraise into the general operating fund and will be funded from it. There is absolutely no guarantee that the monies raised by the Teams will be directed by O-USA in the future to support the Teams; O-USA is broke and needs all the help it can get. There is only a promise to "develop a fair and equitable way to fund the individual teams".
The way I read the memo and the budget, I understand the following.
"The individual teams agree that their expenditures will not exceed the amount of the Board Designated funds on hand plus funds raised. If expenses exceed income, the Board is unable to provide additional income to the individual team.
Should any of the individual teams raise monies in excess of their budget, or to cover incremental expenditures in 2011, those funds will be the first dollars budgeted for that team’s expenses in 2012."
But this doesn't say what happens to the funds that are NOT raised in excess of the budget (line item Group: Team USA Support/ Development, SENIOR TEAM) in 2011, NOR spent in 2011. Suppose the fundraising and the contributions are exactly on the budget target in 2011. Indeed the 2011 budgeted Team-related expenses exceed Team-related income by $5800 as feet noted. Under the old model, the cash in the Team Fund would correspondingly decrease from the $11.3k to $5.5k. Under the new model, O-USA can take over these $5.5k, unless the Teams spend in excess of the budgeted expenses in 2011. There is no promise for the $5.5k to be available to the Team at any point in the future, after 2011; the promise is only for the funds raised in excess of the budget, i.e. in excess of the $10.5k of budgeted Contributions + Fundraising, to be available.
So, what I see is, the $5.5k is there; you can spend it in 2011 or it's O-USA's at the end of 2011, to spend on purposes other than originally contributed/raised for (or perhaps not). If I'm wrong, then whoever wrote the memo needs to word things more carefully, but it all seems consistent with reality and the stated goals. It's a creeping way to take over unused monies in the various Funds (the Team is not an exception). I'm not sure how consistent this is with the Bylaws, but since the various Funds have apparently gone away, I guess it's all legal.
It actually is spending cash on hand that's currently in the Team Fund and has been fundraised/contributed before. The Team Fund is being eliminated, as is evident from the budget memo. The monies that are in it ($11,300 as of—now, I guess) become general O-USA monies and are "the first dollars to fund [the] team in 2011".
Basically what is happening is that the separate pot, the Team Fund, is going away. Teams will fundraise into the general operating fund and will be funded from it. There is absolutely no guarantee that the monies raised by the Teams will be directed by O-USA in the future to support the Teams; O-USA is broke and needs all the help it can get. There is only a promise to "develop a fair and equitable way to fund the individual teams".
The way I read the memo and the budget, I understand the following.
"The individual teams agree that their expenditures will not exceed the amount of the Board Designated funds on hand plus funds raised. If expenses exceed income, the Board is unable to provide additional income to the individual team.
Should any of the individual teams raise monies in excess of their budget, or to cover incremental expenditures in 2011, those funds will be the first dollars budgeted for that team’s expenses in 2012."
But this doesn't say what happens to the funds that are NOT raised in excess of the budget (line item Group: Team USA Support/ Development, SENIOR TEAM) in 2011, NOR spent in 2011. Suppose the fundraising and the contributions are exactly on the budget target in 2011. Indeed the 2011 budgeted Team-related expenses exceed Team-related income by $5800 as feet noted. Under the old model, the cash in the Team Fund would correspondingly decrease from the $11.3k to $5.5k. Under the new model, O-USA can take over these $5.5k, unless the Teams spend in excess of the budgeted expenses in 2011. There is no promise for the $5.5k to be available to the Team at any point in the future, after 2011; the promise is only for the funds raised in excess of the budget, i.e. in excess of the $10.5k of budgeted Contributions + Fundraising, to be available.
So, what I see is, the $5.5k is there; you can spend it in 2011 or it's O-USA's at the end of 2011, to spend on purposes other than originally contributed/raised for (or perhaps not). If I'm wrong, then whoever wrote the memo needs to word things more carefully, but it all seems consistent with reality and the stated goals. It's a creeping way to take over unused monies in the various Funds (the Team is not an exception). I'm not sure how consistent this is with the Bylaws, but since the various Funds have apparently gone away, I guess it's all legal.
Oct 6, 2010 8:12 PM
#
One point of clarification: Endowment Funds are separate from O USA moneys and can not be tapped by O USA, other than in the form of the mandated distributions (basically 4% of the EF per year) which are determined by the bylaws of the Endowment Fund.
Oct 6, 2010 8:14 PM
#
P.S. I will refrain from giving a less balanced assessment of the situation, but will mention that I stopped paying USOF dues in 2009, and think now more than ever that one needs to constantly remember whether the proposed actions best match the stated goals, in particular that pesky thing about being the National Governing Body for a sport.
Oct 6, 2010 8:16 PM
#
feet:
Subject to the different emphasis on what happens to any money left over from the former specific funds at the end of 2011, I think Tundra/Desert and I agree on our understanding of what's intended for team funding.
The elephant in the room is the net budgetary contribution of the ED position. I was a supporter of giving this route a try (particularly with the generous startup contributions that were and are being made), but things are not looking good for its sustainability. I don't want to make any more comments at this point. I hope the BOD members are considering the position carefully.
The elephant in the room is the net budgetary contribution of the ED position. I was a supporter of giving this route a try (particularly with the generous startup contributions that were and are being made), but things are not looking good for its sustainability. I don't want to make any more comments at this point. I hope the BOD members are considering the position carefully.
Oct 6, 2010 8:31 PM
#
PG:
I wrote this this morning on my own log, shifting it over....
So the proposed OUSA budget for 2011 has been released, plus a memo regarding it.
I wish I wasn't disappointed.
1. There is no information about how we are doing in the current year. That seems to be in line with OUSA's financial reporting in general -- figures are released monthly, but there is no explanation, no highlighting of good news or bad news, no nothing.
I was hoping for something about progress that we are making with Glen on board, or problems we are encountering, or just something about how we are doing. But nothing.
2. There is a budget for 2011, with comparison to 2010. The 2011 budget proposed has a deficit of $41,800, which the Finance folks think is acceptable. It would be nice to know some of their reasoning.
3. There is what seems to me a quite convoluted statement about financing for the teams. Right now, there is a team fund for each team, money raised by each team goes into its fund, money spent comes out. And to the extent possible, money also comes in from OUSA's general fund. In 2010, this was limited to 2K for the Junior Team.
For 2011, the proposed budget has no support for the teams. (Interestingly, the proposed budget also lists a number of requests that it is not funding, and there is nothing there listed for the teams. So maybe they requested nothing?)
The budget also moves in the direction of having one unified team for financial purposes, but it is not clear to me what is actually being proposed. Perhaps someone else can read the wording in the memo and tell me what it really means. In particular I'd like to know, if I give X dollars to a particular team, or put on an event to raise X dollars for a particular team, does that team get it, or does it get doled out by the Board, or the Finance Committee, or some unified team ESC? It would be nice to know.
4. The budget for ONA drops from 24K to 18K. It would be nice to know what is being planned.
5. It is requested that the official channel of discussion about this (prior to the Board meeting nest weekend) is the BoardNet. I'm curious to see if that happens. It's been pretty much a dead discussion board in the past. I'd expect a more lively, and probably more annoying/obnoxious discussion on AP. :-)
So the proposed OUSA budget for 2011 has been released, plus a memo regarding it.
I wish I wasn't disappointed.
1. There is no information about how we are doing in the current year. That seems to be in line with OUSA's financial reporting in general -- figures are released monthly, but there is no explanation, no highlighting of good news or bad news, no nothing.
I was hoping for something about progress that we are making with Glen on board, or problems we are encountering, or just something about how we are doing. But nothing.
2. There is a budget for 2011, with comparison to 2010. The 2011 budget proposed has a deficit of $41,800, which the Finance folks think is acceptable. It would be nice to know some of their reasoning.
3. There is what seems to me a quite convoluted statement about financing for the teams. Right now, there is a team fund for each team, money raised by each team goes into its fund, money spent comes out. And to the extent possible, money also comes in from OUSA's general fund. In 2010, this was limited to 2K for the Junior Team.
For 2011, the proposed budget has no support for the teams. (Interestingly, the proposed budget also lists a number of requests that it is not funding, and there is nothing there listed for the teams. So maybe they requested nothing?)
The budget also moves in the direction of having one unified team for financial purposes, but it is not clear to me what is actually being proposed. Perhaps someone else can read the wording in the memo and tell me what it really means. In particular I'd like to know, if I give X dollars to a particular team, or put on an event to raise X dollars for a particular team, does that team get it, or does it get doled out by the Board, or the Finance Committee, or some unified team ESC? It would be nice to know.
4. The budget for ONA drops from 24K to 18K. It would be nice to know what is being planned.
5. It is requested that the official channel of discussion about this (prior to the Board meeting nest weekend) is the BoardNet. I'm curious to see if that happens. It's been pretty much a dead discussion board in the past. I'd expect a more lively, and probably more annoying/obnoxious discussion on AP. :-)
Oct 6, 2010 8:36 PM
#
I think we should have a really nice barbeque. Then look for a bank.
Oct 6, 2010 9:18 PM
#
All,
Thanks for your comments to date. I am sure that this trend will continue. I want to take a moment to answer some of them and add a few of my own.
1) Why Boardnet? Not to diminish the importance of dialogues on AP and Clubnet, but the board needs a single communication place. Boardnet is an open forum (for lurkers) and the usual place for the board to conduct business and pre meeting discusions. To keep the dialogue focused on this stream, we just ask that you post through a board member or me. Between now and the board meeting I will not be the best person to contact as I am on the road most of the next week and a half.
2) Are you allowed to comment on budget? Absolutely.
3) Fundrasing costs of $4,000. In 2010 we budgeted $2,000. In 2011 we are expecting more returns from fundrasing including grants, major gifts. While the income line items are low (for now) we want to do more. Addtional funds are needed to tap these revenue streams.
4) Kentucky. We had an effective meeting with OCIN, OLOU and the state. Plans are being developed and will be shared when complete.
5) Motel 6: This relationship has produced approx $2,000 in revenue to date.
6) Re: the teams. Each team submitted their own budgets. The Senior Team planned on the use of that $11,300. All teams provided their own fundraising/ contribution goals. The Juniors were not proposing a balanced team budget, so the committee in -creased fundraising/ contributions goals so that teams budget would be balanced. Some used the Board Designated Team funds. Some didn't. Some asked for money, some didn't. In the end, the committee felt that a single policy for all teams should be applied.
The way the team budgets would work is this. The Senior team has $11,300 in board designated funds. That is their starting budget. Anything they raise for the year goes on top of that. If they raise more than they need for the year then the excess is their beginning balance for 2012. If the team decides not to raise any money or receives no contributions, their budget is $11,300.
Regarding the accompanying document: I apologize to Peter for his disappointment. The attached memo attempted to do that. I guess it didn't . I have to issue a board report early next week (which will be posted to boardnet) and will attempt to answer those questions.
ONA: In working with the publisher, the only way we can cut budget is to go to combination of print and electronic issues. $18k would cover 5 print and 3 electronic issues. This is an area for discussion. Our member survey that the majority of those who responded still preferred a printed publication, but we must explore options while effectively seeking to reduce costs.
Conversation on Boardnet: If 2010 is any indicator the conversation will be lively. I encourage all, especially members, to join the debate.
As I am away from a computer for most of the next two weeks, I will attempt to monitor this thread. I just may not be able to respond. Please feel free to call me at 410.802.1125 or email me at gjs@orienteeringusa.org if you have a question. If you wish to post reply to this thread, just let me know you plan to do so.
Also, I will ask PG (assuming that he is a boardnet lurker) to post my October board report to this thread. (if he feels it will add to the dialogue). If not, that is fine as well.
Sincerely,
Glen
Thanks for your comments to date. I am sure that this trend will continue. I want to take a moment to answer some of them and add a few of my own.
1) Why Boardnet? Not to diminish the importance of dialogues on AP and Clubnet, but the board needs a single communication place. Boardnet is an open forum (for lurkers) and the usual place for the board to conduct business and pre meeting discusions. To keep the dialogue focused on this stream, we just ask that you post through a board member or me. Between now and the board meeting I will not be the best person to contact as I am on the road most of the next week and a half.
2) Are you allowed to comment on budget? Absolutely.
3) Fundrasing costs of $4,000. In 2010 we budgeted $2,000. In 2011 we are expecting more returns from fundrasing including grants, major gifts. While the income line items are low (for now) we want to do more. Addtional funds are needed to tap these revenue streams.
4) Kentucky. We had an effective meeting with OCIN, OLOU and the state. Plans are being developed and will be shared when complete.
5) Motel 6: This relationship has produced approx $2,000 in revenue to date.
6) Re: the teams. Each team submitted their own budgets. The Senior Team planned on the use of that $11,300. All teams provided their own fundraising/ contribution goals. The Juniors were not proposing a balanced team budget, so the committee in -creased fundraising/ contributions goals so that teams budget would be balanced. Some used the Board Designated Team funds. Some didn't. Some asked for money, some didn't. In the end, the committee felt that a single policy for all teams should be applied.
The way the team budgets would work is this. The Senior team has $11,300 in board designated funds. That is their starting budget. Anything they raise for the year goes on top of that. If they raise more than they need for the year then the excess is their beginning balance for 2012. If the team decides not to raise any money or receives no contributions, their budget is $11,300.
Regarding the accompanying document: I apologize to Peter for his disappointment. The attached memo attempted to do that. I guess it didn't . I have to issue a board report early next week (which will be posted to boardnet) and will attempt to answer those questions.
ONA: In working with the publisher, the only way we can cut budget is to go to combination of print and electronic issues. $18k would cover 5 print and 3 electronic issues. This is an area for discussion. Our member survey that the majority of those who responded still preferred a printed publication, but we must explore options while effectively seeking to reduce costs.
Conversation on Boardnet: If 2010 is any indicator the conversation will be lively. I encourage all, especially members, to join the debate.
As I am away from a computer for most of the next two weeks, I will attempt to monitor this thread. I just may not be able to respond. Please feel free to call me at 410.802.1125 or email me at gjs@orienteeringusa.org if you have a question. If you wish to post reply to this thread, just let me know you plan to do so.
Also, I will ask PG (assuming that he is a boardnet lurker) to post my October board report to this thread. (if he feels it will add to the dialogue). If not, that is fine as well.
Sincerely,
Glen
Oct 6, 2010 9:36 PM
#
Glen, as Peter has pointed out, the $11.3k are not "board designated funds." They are "donor designated funds." All $11.3k of it is donor designated - the Board has nothing to do with this money. The wording needs to be changed in the memo to reflect this, and probably also in the budget line items.
Oct 6, 2010 9:37 PM
#
LouP:
I feel free to comment since despite my new insider status I know no more about this matter than anyone who attended the annual meeting in Spokane and read the proposed budget.
I raised a similar question last year when there was talk of USOF not funding the teams and was assured that contributions designated to teams would go to them.
To Tundra/Dessert's comment - Last month when I sent in this year's Orienteering USA contribution I designated over a third of it to teams with the expectation that that is where it will go. Certainly we have a moral obligation if not a legal one (yeah I know I'm a lawyer - but I don't do this kind of stuff), and I will certainly work, if necessary, to see that that happens. Also, I personally want Orienteering USA team support from general funds and do not want that support to decrease if designated contributions increase.
The single fund thing was described at the annual meeting as an accounting change to a) satisfy the accountants, and b) give a better picture of Orienteering USA finance to potential (one hopes big bucks) donors. We - the general membership not any insiders - were told that it was a change of form not substance and I believe that to be the case.
My personal view:
1) Orienteering USA should support the teams from general funds;
2) Designated contributions within gifts to Orienteering USA must go where they are designated - forever if not used this year;
3) For the foreseeable future, team members should expect to do separate fund raising and use personal funds for at least some team expenses.
If JanetT is the messenger, I'm not. You can shoot me after the EMPO meeting if appropriate. I will try to make it inappropriate.
I raised a similar question last year when there was talk of USOF not funding the teams and was assured that contributions designated to teams would go to them.
To Tundra/Dessert's comment - Last month when I sent in this year's Orienteering USA contribution I designated over a third of it to teams with the expectation that that is where it will go. Certainly we have a moral obligation if not a legal one (yeah I know I'm a lawyer - but I don't do this kind of stuff), and I will certainly work, if necessary, to see that that happens. Also, I personally want Orienteering USA team support from general funds and do not want that support to decrease if designated contributions increase.
The single fund thing was described at the annual meeting as an accounting change to a) satisfy the accountants, and b) give a better picture of Orienteering USA finance to potential (one hopes big bucks) donors. We - the general membership not any insiders - were told that it was a change of form not substance and I believe that to be the case.
My personal view:
1) Orienteering USA should support the teams from general funds;
2) Designated contributions within gifts to Orienteering USA must go where they are designated - forever if not used this year;
3) For the foreseeable future, team members should expect to do separate fund raising and use personal funds for at least some team expenses.
If JanetT is the messenger, I'm not. You can shoot me after the EMPO meeting if appropriate. I will try to make it inappropriate.
Oct 6, 2010 9:53 PM
#
LouP and Glen>> Thanks for your answers!
Lou, I can't speak for all the teams or even all of the one team I am on, but it's very reassuring to read your comments. This makes me feel a lot better about the budget situation and how it concerns funds donated to the teams. Thanks!
Lou, I can't speak for all the teams or even all of the one team I am on, but it's very reassuring to read your comments. This makes me feel a lot better about the budget situation and how it concerns funds donated to the teams. Thanks!
Oct 6, 2010 9:54 PM
#
At the risk of having my stupidity pointed out, I just spent ten minutes trying to figure out from the OUSA website how one joins BoardNet, with no success. Any tips?
Oct 6, 2010 11:31 PM
#
Wow, not a lot of good news in this budget.
To add a little more gloom, I seem to recall that the private foundation was spreading its donation over three years with 2011 being the final year. If I am reading the budget correctly, that amount is $28200 in 2011. In 2012, that money is gone and OUSA will need to cut expenses or raise revenues by that amount just to run the same deficit. Hope there are some big sponsors in the wings.
To add a little more gloom, I seem to recall that the private foundation was spreading its donation over three years with 2011 being the final year. If I am reading the budget correctly, that amount is $28200 in 2011. In 2012, that money is gone and OUSA will need to cut expenses or raise revenues by that amount just to run the same deficit. Hope there are some big sponsors in the wings.
Oct 7, 2010 12:07 AM
#
Regarding the Team fund balances, it seems from comments by LouP and Glen plus what I could decipher from the budget cover letter, that funds in the former team funds plus any fundraising/donations are available only to the Teams and balances will carry over. I hope that relations between the Board and the Team haven’t deteriorated to the point where you need to fight over what those funds are called. I realize that there is probably a legal distinction between the two but at some point there has to be a minimum of trust.
Oct 7, 2010 12:41 PM
#
Too bad the government's TARP bailout program just expired :)
The discussion on board net centers around how USOF can save $25 by not conducting background checks on military officers, not the proposed $40,000 to $60,000 budget deficit.
Hope there are some big sponsors in the wings.
After 18 months, one would think the low hanging fruit in the space would have been plucked by now.
When this whole "big USOF" thing was proposed, I presented my concerns to a board member in a 4 hour phone conversation, in January 2009. It was explained to me that this initiative would be funded by the "grants, sponsorships, increased starts, membership dues" and so forth that the initiative would generate, and that the initiative would be financially self-sustaining as a result of those things.
We all know that this is simply not happening in a material way, after 18 months of data, and we have no evidence that it will all the sudden start happening. It is not even gradually happening in a material way. I do not define 2K for the Motel 6 sponsorship as material, given the cost of the initiative.
When we had this discussion last October, and team funding was thrown under the bus as a result, it was stated by a USOF official on the team mailing list that (paraphrasing) 'the hope is that down the road the initiative will generate even more funds for the team'.
The problem with that is that "hope" is not a business or financial plan. You need evidence that a business or financial plan is working or will work, and so far, there is no evidence that this initiative has any chance of being even remotely financially self-sustaining, let alone able to generate excess cash flow to fund the Junior Team, Senior Team, Trail-O team, Ski-O team, and so forth. (As an aside, my analysis shows that even if the adopted strategic plan is successful in meeting its endpoint goals (and there is evidence that it won't be, more on that later), there will not be enough excess cash to fund initiatives that were thrown under the bus. It is very easy to check my math if you don't believe me, all the data is on public web sites).
(And my point isn't to be pro-team, it is just an example. Some issues of print ONA are now being thrown under the bus this time).
And furthermore, if you do a financial analysis based on the cost and revenue generated from this initiative since inception, you see that the budget deficit will be even larger next year, unless something else is thrown under the bus.
So, where does this leave us? First, a prediction: Everything in USOF is fait accompli, so I predict at the board meeting there will be a bit of hand-wringing, one or two members of the audience may object to the ginormous budget deficit and lack of financial sustainability of the initiative, but, at the end of the day, a substantially similar budget to the one proposed will be adopted. Everyone will go on their merry way, and next October, when an even larger budget deficit is proposed (keep in mind, as was pointed out, the private funding sunsets next cycle), yet another round of dues and race fee increases will be proposed. And, perhaps, ONA will be thrown farther under the bus. Even these actions still won't close that budget gap, however.
I realise that not many people reading this will object to further costs to feed this alligator. Remember, as one board member likes to say, "all orienteers are affluent, look at all the SUVs parked in the parking lot" (I think that is my favorite quote from my 2 terms on the board, or at least the most memorable). But, that was a bad idea at the end of 2008 in this bad economy, and it remains a bad idea now in this ongoing crappy, non-inflationary economy. And the actual evidence for this is in -- A USOF official recently reported that overall starts were down for CY 2009. This is evidence that the endpoints of the strategic plan will not be met, certainly not for CY 2010, thus you can't count on that revenue increase either. The problem is that while the affluent, hard core base doesn't mind paying just about anything, the prospective market does.
So, what would you do -- always negative and offering no solutions? Aside from suggesting that this was a bad idea to that board member in January 2009 and not even going down that road, I guess I just wouldn't continue it now. I wouldn't worry about "big USOF" unless the evidence suggested that there was a financially viable business plan to achieve it. I would be content with putting on the highest quality races and fielding the highest quality teams with what we have, and not risk sending the federation further into a financial black hole based on "hope".
Given the fact that this continuing is fait accompli, I think the board has at least a fiduciary duty to members and race fee payers to take the following steps, if it chooses to continue down this road --
a) put in a "stop loss" order. At what point is the budget deficit so large that even we can't live with it? In my mind, we are well past that point. In my line of work, not doing this can be fatal -- as things get worse and worse, you always string yourself along with "hope", and by then it is too late. Unless there is actual evidence that the tanker will eventually turn around, it almost never does, and then you have a really big mess to clean up.
b) do a financial analysis. It is really not that hard. I have yet to see one presented by supporters of these budgets and initiatives. I think anyone that does realises that this thing isn't even remotely financially sustainable. But you don't have to trust me, all the data is available on public web sites.
c) provide actual evidence that it is "just about to work". If the initiative really is about to bring in increased starts, sponsorships, grants, and so forth, great! Share this specific information. Maybe it changes the financial analysis for the better. But base this on evidence of these revenue events about to happen, not hope.
I realise no one wants to hear from me anymore, and, quite frankly, I don't really want to post anymore. But what I say is true or untrue, regardless of whether or not I take the time to say it. The board has a fiduciary duty to get its head out of the sand and really analyze whether pressing on with this still seems like a good idea, and such analysis needs to be based on evidence, not hope. The fact that there is no discussion of the growing budget deficit on board net is disappointing, to say the least.
The discussion on board net centers around how USOF can save $25 by not conducting background checks on military officers, not the proposed $40,000 to $60,000 budget deficit.
Hope there are some big sponsors in the wings.
After 18 months, one would think the low hanging fruit in the space would have been plucked by now.
When this whole "big USOF" thing was proposed, I presented my concerns to a board member in a 4 hour phone conversation, in January 2009. It was explained to me that this initiative would be funded by the "grants, sponsorships, increased starts, membership dues" and so forth that the initiative would generate, and that the initiative would be financially self-sustaining as a result of those things.
We all know that this is simply not happening in a material way, after 18 months of data, and we have no evidence that it will all the sudden start happening. It is not even gradually happening in a material way. I do not define 2K for the Motel 6 sponsorship as material, given the cost of the initiative.
When we had this discussion last October, and team funding was thrown under the bus as a result, it was stated by a USOF official on the team mailing list that (paraphrasing) 'the hope is that down the road the initiative will generate even more funds for the team'.
The problem with that is that "hope" is not a business or financial plan. You need evidence that a business or financial plan is working or will work, and so far, there is no evidence that this initiative has any chance of being even remotely financially self-sustaining, let alone able to generate excess cash flow to fund the Junior Team, Senior Team, Trail-O team, Ski-O team, and so forth. (As an aside, my analysis shows that even if the adopted strategic plan is successful in meeting its endpoint goals (and there is evidence that it won't be, more on that later), there will not be enough excess cash to fund initiatives that were thrown under the bus. It is very easy to check my math if you don't believe me, all the data is on public web sites).
(And my point isn't to be pro-team, it is just an example. Some issues of print ONA are now being thrown under the bus this time).
And furthermore, if you do a financial analysis based on the cost and revenue generated from this initiative since inception, you see that the budget deficit will be even larger next year, unless something else is thrown under the bus.
So, where does this leave us? First, a prediction: Everything in USOF is fait accompli, so I predict at the board meeting there will be a bit of hand-wringing, one or two members of the audience may object to the ginormous budget deficit and lack of financial sustainability of the initiative, but, at the end of the day, a substantially similar budget to the one proposed will be adopted. Everyone will go on their merry way, and next October, when an even larger budget deficit is proposed (keep in mind, as was pointed out, the private funding sunsets next cycle), yet another round of dues and race fee increases will be proposed. And, perhaps, ONA will be thrown farther under the bus. Even these actions still won't close that budget gap, however.
I realise that not many people reading this will object to further costs to feed this alligator. Remember, as one board member likes to say, "all orienteers are affluent, look at all the SUVs parked in the parking lot" (I think that is my favorite quote from my 2 terms on the board, or at least the most memorable). But, that was a bad idea at the end of 2008 in this bad economy, and it remains a bad idea now in this ongoing crappy, non-inflationary economy. And the actual evidence for this is in -- A USOF official recently reported that overall starts were down for CY 2009. This is evidence that the endpoints of the strategic plan will not be met, certainly not for CY 2010, thus you can't count on that revenue increase either. The problem is that while the affluent, hard core base doesn't mind paying just about anything, the prospective market does.
So, what would you do -- always negative and offering no solutions? Aside from suggesting that this was a bad idea to that board member in January 2009 and not even going down that road, I guess I just wouldn't continue it now. I wouldn't worry about "big USOF" unless the evidence suggested that there was a financially viable business plan to achieve it. I would be content with putting on the highest quality races and fielding the highest quality teams with what we have, and not risk sending the federation further into a financial black hole based on "hope".
Given the fact that this continuing is fait accompli, I think the board has at least a fiduciary duty to members and race fee payers to take the following steps, if it chooses to continue down this road --
a) put in a "stop loss" order. At what point is the budget deficit so large that even we can't live with it? In my mind, we are well past that point. In my line of work, not doing this can be fatal -- as things get worse and worse, you always string yourself along with "hope", and by then it is too late. Unless there is actual evidence that the tanker will eventually turn around, it almost never does, and then you have a really big mess to clean up.
b) do a financial analysis. It is really not that hard. I have yet to see one presented by supporters of these budgets and initiatives. I think anyone that does realises that this thing isn't even remotely financially sustainable. But you don't have to trust me, all the data is available on public web sites.
c) provide actual evidence that it is "just about to work". If the initiative really is about to bring in increased starts, sponsorships, grants, and so forth, great! Share this specific information. Maybe it changes the financial analysis for the better. But base this on evidence of these revenue events about to happen, not hope.
I realise no one wants to hear from me anymore, and, quite frankly, I don't really want to post anymore. But what I say is true or untrue, regardless of whether or not I take the time to say it. The board has a fiduciary duty to get its head out of the sand and really analyze whether pressing on with this still seems like a good idea, and such analysis needs to be based on evidence, not hope. The fact that there is no discussion of the growing budget deficit on board net is disappointing, to say the least.
Oct 7, 2010 2:17 PM
#
PG:
Some very good points by Randy. I'll add the following --
1. We are 3/4 of the way through the year and I don't think we know much about how we are doing this year, which makes a budget for next year mostly wishful thinking.
Most of the variables in this year's budget are on the income side, such as club starts, club members, sanctioning fees, contributions, and grants/sponsorship deals arranged by Glen. Glen reports on what progress he has made, so far very limited from a strictly monetary point of view, but some progress.
Are we making progress on the others. Are memberships up? Are starts up? Are sanctioning fees up? Are contributions up? I don't think so, but I really have no way of knowing. It seems we just wait until the year is over and then see what happened. I'm not suggesting we do as is done in the business world and get reports every day (or every 15 minutes), but we ought to be tracking these things. Because that's how you find out if what you do is working. And if it's not working, figure out what to do differently. And do that before another year goes by.
But I've seen nothing in the budget document, or on Boardnet (the e-mail list for Board disussions), or in any Board minutes, that anyone is concerned about this.
That might be less a concern if we were doing great. But I don't think we are. And we ought to know. The Board ought to be asking for the info. And then using it.
2. The deficit is not sustainable. There will need to be major changes in the following years. The only major change for sure in the following years is there will be 25K less income in 2012, so just projecting things forward a year puts the deficit at 65K+. That may be a ways off in the future, but the Board should be talking about it.
3. The issue with the teams is, in all honesty, a non-issue at this point. There is no money. The money available is what they raise. There is no more. And also no less, the Board isn't going to take it away from them, I've been assured of that.
4. The budget presented for ONA is based on 5 issues mailed, 3 electronic. It would be nice to see a good open discussion of this at the Board, but it didn't happen last year and I don't expect it to happen this year.
5. I expect the Board will pass something similar to the proposed budget. I just hope they ask a lot of questions about points 1 and 2. But so far not a word on Boardnet.
1. We are 3/4 of the way through the year and I don't think we know much about how we are doing this year, which makes a budget for next year mostly wishful thinking.
Most of the variables in this year's budget are on the income side, such as club starts, club members, sanctioning fees, contributions, and grants/sponsorship deals arranged by Glen. Glen reports on what progress he has made, so far very limited from a strictly monetary point of view, but some progress.
Are we making progress on the others. Are memberships up? Are starts up? Are sanctioning fees up? Are contributions up? I don't think so, but I really have no way of knowing. It seems we just wait until the year is over and then see what happened. I'm not suggesting we do as is done in the business world and get reports every day (or every 15 minutes), but we ought to be tracking these things. Because that's how you find out if what you do is working. And if it's not working, figure out what to do differently. And do that before another year goes by.
But I've seen nothing in the budget document, or on Boardnet (the e-mail list for Board disussions), or in any Board minutes, that anyone is concerned about this.
That might be less a concern if we were doing great. But I don't think we are. And we ought to know. The Board ought to be asking for the info. And then using it.
2. The deficit is not sustainable. There will need to be major changes in the following years. The only major change for sure in the following years is there will be 25K less income in 2012, so just projecting things forward a year puts the deficit at 65K+. That may be a ways off in the future, but the Board should be talking about it.
3. The issue with the teams is, in all honesty, a non-issue at this point. There is no money. The money available is what they raise. There is no more. And also no less, the Board isn't going to take it away from them, I've been assured of that.
4. The budget presented for ONA is based on 5 issues mailed, 3 electronic. It would be nice to see a good open discussion of this at the Board, but it didn't happen last year and I don't expect it to happen this year.
5. I expect the Board will pass something similar to the proposed budget. I just hope they ask a lot of questions about points 1 and 2. But so far not a word on Boardnet.
Oct 7, 2010 2:27 PM
#
Hi Randy. I, for one, would like to continue to hear from you here and would be disappointed if you disappeared. We could do with more, not less, discussion from folks like yourself, who are intelligent, thoughtful, and call it like it they see it. I agree in toto with you that the financial situation is not good and must be addressed head on, and not papered over with various hopes about "next year" or the year after that, etc.
Oct 7, 2010 2:38 PM
#
feet:
If Glen's 'October board report' contained evidence that things are moving in the right direction, it would be very wise for it to be posted in this thread, since he has given permission for it to be made public here. If there is evidence that things are turning around, that is where it must be, I guess.
I also am happy Randy posted.
I also am happy Randy posted.
Oct 7, 2010 3:52 PM
#
the Board isn't going to take it away from them, I've been assured of that.
Then the budget memo should be rewritten. This isn't the first time there seems to be a proposal to appropriate the Teams' "surplus" funds for other purposes (for example in that very discussion back then by a then-USOF official), which reinforces the language hinting at that in the budget memo.
Then the budget memo should be rewritten. This isn't the first time there seems to be a proposal to appropriate the Teams' "surplus" funds for other purposes (for example in that very discussion back then by a then-USOF official), which reinforces the language hinting at that in the budget memo.
Oct 7, 2010 3:53 PM
#
I think randy raises many valid points. However, I think (hope?) that even the biggest blockheads (apparent consensus AP view of board members) can see that this is unsustainable. Given the balances feet posted, it is probably sustainable for one year, possibly two.
The real question, as others have pointed out, is whether this will turn around.
Two years ago, a generous donation allowed USOF to embark on a three year program to move the organization toward the big time. We are a year and a half into it and it is not going anywhere near as well as projected, from a financial perspective. Quite simply, do we throw the program under the bus now (using randy’s term) or do we see it through to its term? I don’t know the correct answer and I’m not even sure there is one since so much is riding on sponsorship. One major sponsor could eliminate the entire operating deficit but there is no real way of knowing how likely that is until they sign the agreement. Until then, it all just wishful thinking and difficult to budget.
Ending the program now would cut our losses by not throwing good money after bad but it would pretty much send us back to the old organization and orienteering would remain a small-time sport in the US for the foreseeable future. I guess I come down on the side of continuing for another year and knowing that everything was gone to advance the sport. I can’t say I feel great about it, though.
The real question, as others have pointed out, is whether this will turn around.
Two years ago, a generous donation allowed USOF to embark on a three year program to move the organization toward the big time. We are a year and a half into it and it is not going anywhere near as well as projected, from a financial perspective. Quite simply, do we throw the program under the bus now (using randy’s term) or do we see it through to its term? I don’t know the correct answer and I’m not even sure there is one since so much is riding on sponsorship. One major sponsor could eliminate the entire operating deficit but there is no real way of knowing how likely that is until they sign the agreement. Until then, it all just wishful thinking and difficult to budget.
Ending the program now would cut our losses by not throwing good money after bad but it would pretty much send us back to the old organization and orienteering would remain a small-time sport in the US for the foreseeable future. I guess I come down on the side of continuing for another year and knowing that everything was gone to advance the sport. I can’t say I feel great about it, though.
Oct 7, 2010 3:56 PM
#
Money (or the lack of) in the OUSA bank account doesn't worry me. US Orienteering's strength has and always will be in it's volunteer base. The tens of thousands of hours put in by these people are worth far more than the meager amounts we derive from meet revenues or other sources. So our financial health should also be measured in terms of the number of people who do things for free like: serve on the OUSA board, hold OUSA committee positions, hold club officer and board positions, A-meet organizers, local course setters, meet directors and meet workers. This may also include prospective US Team members who train hard and receive no training or travel expense reimbursement.
A year to year statement tracking our volunteer effort would be difficult to compile but probably more relevant to the health of the sport than the OUSA budget.
A year to year statement tracking our volunteer effort would be difficult to compile but probably more relevant to the health of the sport than the OUSA budget.
Oct 7, 2010 4:01 PM
#
To Tundra/desert’s point ensuring that team fund balances stay with the teams. Some ideas:
1) Ask donors to add “Restricted to X Team” on the check and include a note with the check that it is a restricted donation and can be used only for X Team. This makes them legally restricted, I think
2) Do a similar thing with fundraising
3) Longer term, consider setting up a separate 501(c) 3. Call it something like “Friends of OUSA Teams”. Into this fund would go all of your fundraising money. Also, to the extent possible, ask your donors to contribute directly to the “Friends” fund and bypass OUSA completely. I think many donors are confused enough about where their money is going and whether it’s available only to the Team that they would welcome the clarity. Since “Friends” is a 501(c) 3, they are fully tax deductible. The Teams would control this.
This would be somewhat of a nuclear option, perhaps burning whatever bridges are left. But if the teams are basically funding themselves through donations/fundraising, they may as well eliminate the middle man.
Apologize if this has been discussed before and rejected but I don’t recall it.
1) Ask donors to add “Restricted to X Team” on the check and include a note with the check that it is a restricted donation and can be used only for X Team. This makes them legally restricted, I think
2) Do a similar thing with fundraising
3) Longer term, consider setting up a separate 501(c) 3. Call it something like “Friends of OUSA Teams”. Into this fund would go all of your fundraising money. Also, to the extent possible, ask your donors to contribute directly to the “Friends” fund and bypass OUSA completely. I think many donors are confused enough about where their money is going and whether it’s available only to the Team that they would welcome the clarity. Since “Friends” is a 501(c) 3, they are fully tax deductible. The Teams would control this.
This would be somewhat of a nuclear option, perhaps burning whatever bridges are left. But if the teams are basically funding themselves through donations/fundraising, they may as well eliminate the middle man.
Apologize if this has been discussed before and rejected but I don’t recall it.
Oct 7, 2010 4:07 PM
#
I appreciate Geoman’s remarks, at least on emotional level.
Practically, it is a bit more like wishful thinking, but I won’t dismiss them entirely. After all, smart people think Facebook is worth $30, $50, or even $100BB. On what grounds? Not current revenue, certainly. Rather, I think it is based on a multiple of virtual animals or something. Anyway… OUSA should just have an IPO and all problems will be solved. Can we all get some equity allocations beforehand?
Practically, it is a bit more like wishful thinking, but I won’t dismiss them entirely. After all, smart people think Facebook is worth $30, $50, or even $100BB. On what grounds? Not current revenue, certainly. Rather, I think it is based on a multiple of virtual animals or something. Anyway… OUSA should just have an IPO and all problems will be solved. Can we all get some equity allocations beforehand?
Oct 7, 2010 4:40 PM
#
j-man: here is the simple way to put it.
If OUSA had a million dollars in the bank but everyone stopped volunteering, the sport would be dead.
If OUSA had no money but the volunteer effort was maintained or increased the sport would continue.
If OUSA had a million dollars in the bank but everyone stopped volunteering, the sport would be dead.
If OUSA had no money but the volunteer effort was maintained or increased the sport would continue.
Oct 7, 2010 4:49 PM
#
The real issue is whether or not funding for an Executive Director can or should be sustained going forward. That's the elephant in the room.
Oct 7, 2010 5:04 PM
#
Geoman: I agree.
Swampfox: a more interesting question is if an Executive Director cannot be sustained, why is that the case and what does it mean for US orienteering?
Swampfox: a more interesting question is if an Executive Director cannot be sustained, why is that the case and what does it mean for US orienteering?
Oct 7, 2010 5:08 PM
#
PG:
Sammy, on a side note, you wrote earlier in this thread --
I hope that relations between the Board and the Team haven’t deteriorated to the point where you need to fight over what those funds are called. I realize that there is probably a legal distinction between the two but at some point there has to be a minimum of trust.
I would say that relations are better, and probably a good deal better, than you suggest, at least from my perspective. Over the years the teams have gotten support in a variety of ways from the Board as a whole, and from individual board members in particular. I know there have been cases where the Board has been unable to provide funding requested, and then individual Board members have made significant donations. In the midst of discussions/arguments about the best way forward, it's easy sometimes to get the impression that the two sides are at loggerheads, but I don't think that's the case. I think both parties are just wishing there were more resources (human and financial).
I hope that relations between the Board and the Team haven’t deteriorated to the point where you need to fight over what those funds are called. I realize that there is probably a legal distinction between the two but at some point there has to be a minimum of trust.
I would say that relations are better, and probably a good deal better, than you suggest, at least from my perspective. Over the years the teams have gotten support in a variety of ways from the Board as a whole, and from individual board members in particular. I know there have been cases where the Board has been unable to provide funding requested, and then individual Board members have made significant donations. In the midst of discussions/arguments about the best way forward, it's easy sometimes to get the impression that the two sides are at loggerheads, but I don't think that's the case. I think both parties are just wishing there were more resources (human and financial).
Oct 7, 2010 6:30 PM
#
I don't have much time to write (today and in general) so this may be more condensed than appropriate. E-mail me for more explanations.
I personally don't see such a huge problem with running out of cash if this situation prompts us to find new ways to do things that will be beneficial in the long term. Example: obsolete job eliminated, crisis. Bad solutions: Eat Ramen, sell everything, move to Unabomber shack. Better solution: Go back to school, get a (different) degree. The ED position is why we are running out of money in the short term but eliminating it is almost certainly going back to the 1970–2009 status quo, which just about everyone agreed was stagnation and not so good.
So, in the immediate term, whacking the base with higher fees may not be so bad. A few won't pay, most will, the net is certain to go up. The larger problem for the current way of doing things is that shifting a higher proportion of the organization's income onto the shoulders of the most dedicated people will mean these dedicated people will want the organization to put emphasis on what's beneficial for them. This will most likely imply increased funding for the Teams and, sorry, less or no funding for Little Troll and O in Schools. I personally will happily rejoin at ~$100 yearly level if the Teams were appropriately funded.
So, tax and spend; that sadly seems not the best governmental model. I prefer fee for service. This may go up some posters' collective political throats so quite sorry. The essense of my preferred way governments should operate:
Orienteering USA should be providing its members and clubs with services they cannot obtain on the open market, and charge for them pretty.
Insurance we get through Bollinger is a prime example. Clubs, acting separately, will not be able to get this good a deal. The Map Loan Fund is not. Map loans are something a club can get at a bank. O-USA is subsidizing this Fund and losing money. The intentions are good and the clubs are certain to benefit but the net effect to the government is to starve the beast. If the beast is dead, it's dead.
Here are a number of suggestions. Several of these things are being actively worked on, some are in the 2011 budget—unfortunately only on the expense side, no income predicted for them and that's part of why the overall numbers are so dire. These ideas all have good chances to pay back. Orienteering USA should charge the members and the clubs for the fruits of these initiatives in such a proportion as to cover for some of these undertakings that eventually fail, and have a reasonable expectation to run even budgets or small deficits. (Note: The ED position can be perceived as one of these sizeable out-there things that are unreasonable for clubs to do independently, and it isn't quite working out, and that's why we're running out of money, and yes, I am proposing more of these things.)
1. A mapping organization with a number of mappers on payroll, both U.S.-based and foreign hires. Greg Lennon is actively working on the foreign end of things but the unmet demand is such that even if Greg's initiative, funded at $2000 in this budget, were to work out there'd still be need for more labor. O-USA should contract the mappers to clubs, handle most paperwork, and keep a portion of what the clubs compensate the mappers in exchange for its scheduling and government-relations work.
2. A repository of lidar data. Again Greg has a line item to get access to high-quality lidar data that can then be resold to clubs, perhaps with added value along the lines of how Eddie massages raw lidar at the moment.
3. Two event sanctioning/consulting levels. The basic level, with Course Consultants, is the status quo and is an included service with the base sanctioning fees. Paying $1–2k on top of that gets a club an esteemed Event Consultant who makes site visits and isn't scared by having to plug into event organization duties if holes arise. I think all reasonably-minded club staff who were involved in putting on high-level events in the U.S. in the recent past agree that there is real value in having an extra set of eyes and neurons to go over the courses and the map, and there is particular value in having these eyes and neurons on site a few weeks prior. The value transpires in the event's perceived quality and worth to the participants, and thus in increased attendance. There are people willing to fill in Event Consultant functions without fine-printing of who is going to pay for what (I am one of them).
4. Selling services to adventure-racing organizations (who are flush), perhaps devising an official seal of O-USA approval for the orienteering sections of AR courses.
5. Booster membership level; pay upfront. Includes a number of free A meets per year, camps with the Teams with personalized training, perhaps a WOC visit along the Team, perhaps there are other sweets that I'm not thinking of at the moment. There will be some complex accounting involved with the clubs but even if this is a zero-net-to-O-USA affair, it's worth it simply as a pyramid scheme to plug up the current bleeding (as an aside, some government pyramid schemes have benefitted hundreds of millions of people). This is quite unlike life memberships. There are benefits to doing this compared to simply asking people for money upfront and then spending or investing it. O-USA and the Teams will know they have to work for this money, for example organize a training camp where there'd be none.
I'm sure more similar ideas can be devised. I'd suggest we work on that rather than lamenting the insatiable alligator.
As most of you will rightfully note, it all depends on key people to run these things. Agreed. But I gave examples of people who are already doing similar things for 1–3. Running these emphasized-profit activities can be made a condition of being on the Board or on the Team (latter for, say, Item 5). And indeed these people's jobs will be perhaps made more difficult by the recognition that they are contributing time and personal money to nurture cash cows for the organization, out of proportion to other volunteers' efforts. But the organization has been asking people for cash since 1970, and doesn't feel much remorse.
The objective is to get added value to the organization out of these people that goes far beyond cash they or others may contribute. And to make this happen, it would perhaps be appropriate use token compensation as a force multiplier. This compensation does not have to be monetary. I am well aware of the recent research and books that people won't do things for money or other compensation that they are glad to do for free. I agree some people are like that, perhaps the majority, but am sure not all are. If a small part-time compensation is available, and it looks like it motivates the key person, again so that the overall organization's numbers are flat or a reasonable deficit, so be it. How to arrange the non-monetary compensation? For example, as a condition of sanctioning, clubs are obliged to donate 20 A meet entries to O USA. Orienteering USA then distributes these among its volunteer pool. The net hit to the club is small, if there are 200 attendees the 20 freebies certainly won't account for 10% of the event expenses, yet the benefit to all, through the programs that these support, can be large.
Also note this is us still steaming in our own pot so to Russian-speak, it's a suggestion on how to extract more funds/productivity of the current closed system, there is no outside energy source in what I propose. I wouldn't be suggesting these activities as the main emphasis if there were flush sponsors. I think we need to realize we're somewhat unique in our niche, and it calls for a different way of doing things compared to other organizations we try to draw similarities with. We can't run this thing (at least now) like they do in real sports, or like they run it in Scandinavia, or like they do in AR, nor can we run it as a recreational or educational organization, which is what "the old USOF" used to do.
I personally don't see such a huge problem with running out of cash if this situation prompts us to find new ways to do things that will be beneficial in the long term. Example: obsolete job eliminated, crisis. Bad solutions: Eat Ramen, sell everything, move to Unabomber shack. Better solution: Go back to school, get a (different) degree. The ED position is why we are running out of money in the short term but eliminating it is almost certainly going back to the 1970–2009 status quo, which just about everyone agreed was stagnation and not so good.
So, in the immediate term, whacking the base with higher fees may not be so bad. A few won't pay, most will, the net is certain to go up. The larger problem for the current way of doing things is that shifting a higher proportion of the organization's income onto the shoulders of the most dedicated people will mean these dedicated people will want the organization to put emphasis on what's beneficial for them. This will most likely imply increased funding for the Teams and, sorry, less or no funding for Little Troll and O in Schools. I personally will happily rejoin at ~$100 yearly level if the Teams were appropriately funded.
So, tax and spend; that sadly seems not the best governmental model. I prefer fee for service. This may go up some posters' collective political throats so quite sorry. The essense of my preferred way governments should operate:
Orienteering USA should be providing its members and clubs with services they cannot obtain on the open market, and charge for them pretty.
Insurance we get through Bollinger is a prime example. Clubs, acting separately, will not be able to get this good a deal. The Map Loan Fund is not. Map loans are something a club can get at a bank. O-USA is subsidizing this Fund and losing money. The intentions are good and the clubs are certain to benefit but the net effect to the government is to starve the beast. If the beast is dead, it's dead.
Here are a number of suggestions. Several of these things are being actively worked on, some are in the 2011 budget—unfortunately only on the expense side, no income predicted for them and that's part of why the overall numbers are so dire. These ideas all have good chances to pay back. Orienteering USA should charge the members and the clubs for the fruits of these initiatives in such a proportion as to cover for some of these undertakings that eventually fail, and have a reasonable expectation to run even budgets or small deficits. (Note: The ED position can be perceived as one of these sizeable out-there things that are unreasonable for clubs to do independently, and it isn't quite working out, and that's why we're running out of money, and yes, I am proposing more of these things.)
1. A mapping organization with a number of mappers on payroll, both U.S.-based and foreign hires. Greg Lennon is actively working on the foreign end of things but the unmet demand is such that even if Greg's initiative, funded at $2000 in this budget, were to work out there'd still be need for more labor. O-USA should contract the mappers to clubs, handle most paperwork, and keep a portion of what the clubs compensate the mappers in exchange for its scheduling and government-relations work.
2. A repository of lidar data. Again Greg has a line item to get access to high-quality lidar data that can then be resold to clubs, perhaps with added value along the lines of how Eddie massages raw lidar at the moment.
3. Two event sanctioning/consulting levels. The basic level, with Course Consultants, is the status quo and is an included service with the base sanctioning fees. Paying $1–2k on top of that gets a club an esteemed Event Consultant who makes site visits and isn't scared by having to plug into event organization duties if holes arise. I think all reasonably-minded club staff who were involved in putting on high-level events in the U.S. in the recent past agree that there is real value in having an extra set of eyes and neurons to go over the courses and the map, and there is particular value in having these eyes and neurons on site a few weeks prior. The value transpires in the event's perceived quality and worth to the participants, and thus in increased attendance. There are people willing to fill in Event Consultant functions without fine-printing of who is going to pay for what (I am one of them).
4. Selling services to adventure-racing organizations (who are flush), perhaps devising an official seal of O-USA approval for the orienteering sections of AR courses.
5. Booster membership level; pay upfront. Includes a number of free A meets per year, camps with the Teams with personalized training, perhaps a WOC visit along the Team, perhaps there are other sweets that I'm not thinking of at the moment. There will be some complex accounting involved with the clubs but even if this is a zero-net-to-O-USA affair, it's worth it simply as a pyramid scheme to plug up the current bleeding (as an aside, some government pyramid schemes have benefitted hundreds of millions of people). This is quite unlike life memberships. There are benefits to doing this compared to simply asking people for money upfront and then spending or investing it. O-USA and the Teams will know they have to work for this money, for example organize a training camp where there'd be none.
I'm sure more similar ideas can be devised. I'd suggest we work on that rather than lamenting the insatiable alligator.
As most of you will rightfully note, it all depends on key people to run these things. Agreed. But I gave examples of people who are already doing similar things for 1–3. Running these emphasized-profit activities can be made a condition of being on the Board or on the Team (latter for, say, Item 5). And indeed these people's jobs will be perhaps made more difficult by the recognition that they are contributing time and personal money to nurture cash cows for the organization, out of proportion to other volunteers' efforts. But the organization has been asking people for cash since 1970, and doesn't feel much remorse.
The objective is to get added value to the organization out of these people that goes far beyond cash they or others may contribute. And to make this happen, it would perhaps be appropriate use token compensation as a force multiplier. This compensation does not have to be monetary. I am well aware of the recent research and books that people won't do things for money or other compensation that they are glad to do for free. I agree some people are like that, perhaps the majority, but am sure not all are. If a small part-time compensation is available, and it looks like it motivates the key person, again so that the overall organization's numbers are flat or a reasonable deficit, so be it. How to arrange the non-monetary compensation? For example, as a condition of sanctioning, clubs are obliged to donate 20 A meet entries to O USA. Orienteering USA then distributes these among its volunteer pool. The net hit to the club is small, if there are 200 attendees the 20 freebies certainly won't account for 10% of the event expenses, yet the benefit to all, through the programs that these support, can be large.
Also note this is us still steaming in our own pot so to Russian-speak, it's a suggestion on how to extract more funds/productivity of the current closed system, there is no outside energy source in what I propose. I wouldn't be suggesting these activities as the main emphasis if there were flush sponsors. I think we need to realize we're somewhat unique in our niche, and it calls for a different way of doing things compared to other organizations we try to draw similarities with. We can't run this thing (at least now) like they do in real sports, or like they run it in Scandinavia, or like they do in AR, nor can we run it as a recreational or educational organization, which is what "the old USOF" used to do.
Oct 7, 2010 7:29 PM
#
Excellent comments from T/D, Sammy, PG and Randy, among others. Keep them coming.
I am a member of the finance committee, and have some additional observations or responses.
1. The 2010 budget states that any sanctioning fees in excess of $33,000 will go 50% to the junior team and 50% to the senior team. So far, we are on target to take in just about $33,000 by year end. If we go over, it won't be by much.
2. The carryover figures for the teams in the 2011 budget cover letter are placeholders. The actual figures won't be known until December 31, depending on additional team fundraising and expenses through 2010.
3. Everyone (and I mean everyone) is on the side of the teams. Although there is no additional USOF money available for the teams next year, there is also no interest in taking away from the teams fundraising or donation monies, or in reallocating monies between teams. And I'm sure this principle will extend to future year budgeting.
4. Robin Shannonhouse supplies the Finance Committee and Executive Director monthly reports on USOF's finances. I don't believe these reports are disseminated further in any way. Curious people may want to lobby for a mechanism of sharing USOF's finances in a timely manner.
5. Everyone (and again, I mean everyone) is aware that USOF is engaging in significant deficit spending which is not maintainable over the long run. We can get through 2011 and probably 2012 without running our asset base down to an imprudent level. 2013 will be dicey unless we see significant changes. Some of the possibilities have already been mentioned in previous comments. I'm in Sammy's camp (and I think T/D). Returning to the torpidity of our previous all-volunteer organization would be truly sad.
6. The actual 2011 budget deficit is likely to be significantly less than the number that has been posted. Glen and I are working on a cost savings in excess of $10000 which is quite likely to happen, but won't be known by the budget meeting.
7. T/D's suggestion of selling services to adventure racing organizations and others is potentially a real winner, that we have already identified as a potential future profit area. It needs to be fleshed out, and will be worked on in 2011.
8. The finance committee grilled Glen on the 2011 budget income figure of $10000 for sponsorships. Glen is confident that he can raise that much in 2011 at a minimum. His goals (and his performance metrics) are much higher. Having said that, it often takes multiple years of contacts to land a sponsor.
I am a member of the finance committee, and have some additional observations or responses.
1. The 2010 budget states that any sanctioning fees in excess of $33,000 will go 50% to the junior team and 50% to the senior team. So far, we are on target to take in just about $33,000 by year end. If we go over, it won't be by much.
2. The carryover figures for the teams in the 2011 budget cover letter are placeholders. The actual figures won't be known until December 31, depending on additional team fundraising and expenses through 2010.
3. Everyone (and I mean everyone) is on the side of the teams. Although there is no additional USOF money available for the teams next year, there is also no interest in taking away from the teams fundraising or donation monies, or in reallocating monies between teams. And I'm sure this principle will extend to future year budgeting.
4. Robin Shannonhouse supplies the Finance Committee and Executive Director monthly reports on USOF's finances. I don't believe these reports are disseminated further in any way. Curious people may want to lobby for a mechanism of sharing USOF's finances in a timely manner.
5. Everyone (and again, I mean everyone) is aware that USOF is engaging in significant deficit spending which is not maintainable over the long run. We can get through 2011 and probably 2012 without running our asset base down to an imprudent level. 2013 will be dicey unless we see significant changes. Some of the possibilities have already been mentioned in previous comments. I'm in Sammy's camp (and I think T/D). Returning to the torpidity of our previous all-volunteer organization would be truly sad.
6. The actual 2011 budget deficit is likely to be significantly less than the number that has been posted. Glen and I are working on a cost savings in excess of $10000 which is quite likely to happen, but won't be known by the budget meeting.
7. T/D's suggestion of selling services to adventure racing organizations and others is potentially a real winner, that we have already identified as a potential future profit area. It needs to be fleshed out, and will be worked on in 2011.
8. The finance committee grilled Glen on the 2011 budget income figure of $10000 for sponsorships. Glen is confident that he can raise that much in 2011 at a minimum. His goals (and his performance metrics) are much higher. Having said that, it often takes multiple years of contacts to land a sponsor.
Oct 7, 2010 7:46 PM
#
#8 is the key point. $10k by year end 2011 will not cover the ED's salary into 2012, or even begin to cover many of the programs outlined in the strategic plan. If the ED himself expects to only raise that much, we should cut our losses now and save the $100k ED package expenditure in 2011 (giving the $50k 2011 LFF grant portion back of course). Then rethink what to do next.
Oct 7, 2010 7:54 PM
#
suggestion of selling services [...] is potentially a real winner, that we have already identified as a potential future profit area. It needs to be fleshed out, and will be worked on in 2011.
$10k by year end 2011 will not cover the ED's salary into 2012, or even begin to cover many of the programs outlined in the strategic plan. If the ED himself expects to only raise that much
What if the ED were to devote most of his time on these seemingly easier future-profit areas? Agreed, going after the Nikes with the lacrosse Rolodex was a swan in the sky. Potentially a large payoff. Worth a try, not working out. Each of my initiatives 1 through 5 can bring in $10k/year net. So, maybe instead of throwing the ED under the bus and taxing the volunteers/Board with short-term planning they can only complete in 2011, the ED could work on these ideas full time, now, and have proposals ready before 2011 starts.
The mapping services org can be up and running by the end of Q1 2011. Base map services, even earlier, or folded into the mapping org. Premier sanctioning/consulting is perhaps not the ED's direct area, may need others to be in charge but it's also the easiest one to implement. I'm not sure where the talks with the AR people are but they also seem to like things done quickly, and it's not that much work reaching them as it is reaching Phil Knight. Booster level? the Team can come up with the details in less than a week, I bet, if there is something in it for the Team.
$10k by year end 2011 will not cover the ED's salary into 2012, or even begin to cover many of the programs outlined in the strategic plan. If the ED himself expects to only raise that much
What if the ED were to devote most of his time on these seemingly easier future-profit areas? Agreed, going after the Nikes with the lacrosse Rolodex was a swan in the sky. Potentially a large payoff. Worth a try, not working out. Each of my initiatives 1 through 5 can bring in $10k/year net. So, maybe instead of throwing the ED under the bus and taxing the volunteers/Board with short-term planning they can only complete in 2011, the ED could work on these ideas full time, now, and have proposals ready before 2011 starts.
The mapping services org can be up and running by the end of Q1 2011. Base map services, even earlier, or folded into the mapping org. Premier sanctioning/consulting is perhaps not the ED's direct area, may need others to be in charge but it's also the easiest one to implement. I'm not sure where the talks with the AR people are but they also seem to like things done quickly, and it's not that much work reaching them as it is reaching Phil Knight. Booster level? the Team can come up with the details in less than a week, I bet, if there is something in it for the Team.
Oct 7, 2010 10:02 PM
#
PG:
Lots of good ideas from Vladimir. And thanks, Gary, for your comments.
We are part of the way down the road with Glen. We don't yet know how things will work out. But now is definitely not the time to bail. Even if it never works out financially, it is still the right thing to do. The challenge is to see enough success in 2011 and 2012 so that keeping the position in 2013 and beyond will be a no-brainer.
We are part of the way down the road with Glen. We don't yet know how things will work out. But now is definitely not the time to bail. Even if it never works out financially, it is still the right thing to do. The challenge is to see enough success in 2011 and 2012 so that keeping the position in 2013 and beyond will be a no-brainer.
Oct 8, 2010 12:16 AM
#
All,
I have read all of your comments with interest and have taken many thoughts from them.
First to Sammy - Personally I feel that the relations between the board and the various team programs are far better than they were in Wisconsin last year. While we have a long way to go in funding and support for the teams, they are a critical part of he mission of our organization. Still I feel that we are moving in a positive direction. I for one, feel that the dialogue between the Senior Team ESC (primarily Linda and Tom) has been positive and productive.
To Vladimir - thank you for your constructive program ideas. In the last few days I have had similar thoughts about new programming to add and additional revenue stream to the organization.
I think that we can sell our navigational knowledge to Adventure Racers and the like. My initial concept would be a navigation academy (conceptual name) that would be developed by Orienteering USA resources and marketed / run by clubs and third party operators. Revenues would be shared. I have had a series of dialogues with peers at an outdoor conferenece I am attending the the concept appears to have come initial traction. We could then market orienteering to those who take the course.
Orienteers seem to be some of the smartest people in the woods, maybe it is time to sell some of that knowledge.
All - I encourage you to continue this dialogue. If there are any items that you would like me to post to Boardnet, just let me know. I ask that you send me a separate email to gjs@orienteeringusa.org.
Have a good night.
Glen
I have read all of your comments with interest and have taken many thoughts from them.
First to Sammy - Personally I feel that the relations between the board and the various team programs are far better than they were in Wisconsin last year. While we have a long way to go in funding and support for the teams, they are a critical part of he mission of our organization. Still I feel that we are moving in a positive direction. I for one, feel that the dialogue between the Senior Team ESC (primarily Linda and Tom) has been positive and productive.
To Vladimir - thank you for your constructive program ideas. In the last few days I have had similar thoughts about new programming to add and additional revenue stream to the organization.
I think that we can sell our navigational knowledge to Adventure Racers and the like. My initial concept would be a navigation academy (conceptual name) that would be developed by Orienteering USA resources and marketed / run by clubs and third party operators. Revenues would be shared. I have had a series of dialogues with peers at an outdoor conferenece I am attending the the concept appears to have come initial traction. We could then market orienteering to those who take the course.
Orienteers seem to be some of the smartest people in the woods, maybe it is time to sell some of that knowledge.
All - I encourage you to continue this dialogue. If there are any items that you would like me to post to Boardnet, just let me know. I ask that you send me a separate email to gjs@orienteeringusa.org.
Have a good night.
Glen
Oct 8, 2010 2:45 AM
#
I was reading through the thread thinking about what I would write when I got to the end and saw that Glen pretty much answered as I would.
As Gary said, EVERYONE is aware of the large deficits and concerned about how long such can be sustained. I have personally had some internal conversations where I've indicated that a year from now, when we are drafting the 2012 budget, it must be clear that we are headed for a financial turnaround or we will likely have to go backwards.
And I'm definitely not in favor of going backwards. I'm encouraged by the variety of ideas that I see coming from members and from Glen to increase revenues. We realize the $10k in sponsorships is not much. While we are looking to do everything we can to increase this type of funding, there are many facets of the strategic plan with potential to increase revenues that are not based in sponsorship. A wide variety of approaches need to be taken to achieve our goals. I'm certainly prepared to sign up for another year of deficit to get there.
The teams are the number one asset of our organization. While I wish that we had more to offer in the short term, I want to affirm my personal support for team programs, and to make it clear there is no intention to use money contributed or raised by the teams for anything other than that purpose.
As Gary said, EVERYONE is aware of the large deficits and concerned about how long such can be sustained. I have personally had some internal conversations where I've indicated that a year from now, when we are drafting the 2012 budget, it must be clear that we are headed for a financial turnaround or we will likely have to go backwards.
And I'm definitely not in favor of going backwards. I'm encouraged by the variety of ideas that I see coming from members and from Glen to increase revenues. We realize the $10k in sponsorships is not much. While we are looking to do everything we can to increase this type of funding, there are many facets of the strategic plan with potential to increase revenues that are not based in sponsorship. A wide variety of approaches need to be taken to achieve our goals. I'm certainly prepared to sign up for another year of deficit to get there.
The teams are the number one asset of our organization. While I wish that we had more to offer in the short term, I want to affirm my personal support for team programs, and to make it clear there is no intention to use money contributed or raised by the teams for anything other than that purpose.
Oct 9, 2010 11:11 PM
#
All,
I just posted an update on Boardnet/ Clubnet with a "budget legend" to help (hopefully) clarify some of the terminology.
I have asked PG to link this post, but if someone is on and wants to take care of it first...go for it.
Have a good night. Glen
I just posted an update on Boardnet/ Clubnet with a "budget legend" to help (hopefully) clarify some of the terminology.
I have asked PG to link this post, but if someone is on and wants to take care of it first...go for it.
Have a good night. Glen
Oct 10, 2010 1:41 AM
#
PG:
Here's the budget legend that Glen was referring to. It's a Word document. If you can't read it, let me know and I'll try something else.
Note: just in case, it's also posted as an HTML document, though it doesn't look as nice. But something ought to work.
Note: just in case, it's also posted as an HTML document, though it doesn't look as nice. But something ought to work.
Oct 10, 2010 1:48 AM
#
Why the addition of the word "temporarily" in front of the old "restricted funds?" There seems to be nothing temporary about their restriction (which is good) so why add the word temporary? That just seems confusing (and worrisome).
Oct 10, 2010 6:14 PM
#
All,
I just posted the October board report to Boardnet/ Clubnet. As in the case earlier PG will post to here. Most of the items you will be interested in are in the last two sections.
Have a good day.
Glen
I just posted the October board report to Boardnet/ Clubnet. As in the case earlier PG will post to here. Most of the items you will be interested in are in the last two sections.
Have a good day.
Glen
Oct 10, 2010 7:52 PM
#
eddie -
"temporarily restricted" is a standard accounting term, required by a terminology shift in the past few years. See for example this explanation. Confusing but not worrisome.
Short explanation: It's called temporary because the expectation is that the donated funds will be spent within a year or so.
"temporarily restricted" is a standard accounting term, required by a terminology shift in the past few years. See for example this explanation. Confusing but not worrisome.
Short explanation: It's called temporary because the expectation is that the donated funds will be spent within a year or so.
Oct 10, 2010 11:50 PM
#
PG:
Here's the October board report from Glen. Microsoft Word format. If you can't read it, let me know and I'll send it to you as plain text.
Oct 11, 2010 2:13 AM
#
Thanks to PG for posting. It is appreciated. I will also forward to you if you need. Have a good evening.
Glen
Glen
Oct 11, 2010 11:50 PM
#
I read the board net report. One thought I've had over the years is if Orienteering should market itself to advertising agencies as the ultimate "proving ground" for equipment and other stuff. For example, I can picture a TV commercial clip of a "runner" with map going through the blue berry bushes at Harriman, then looking at the horrific yellow stain right around ankle level. The commercial than cuts to mom throwing the yellow stained white socks into the wash with ACME detergent and Voila---they come out clean!!! It wouldn't be a stretch to make a similar commercial with muddy equipment either.
The thing that has stayed with me over the years is that NO activity is harder on equipment than orienteering and I would think advertisers would capitalize on this if they knew it too. Maybe USA Orienteering wouldn't make money on this but it would sure be a boost for publicity.
The thing that has stayed with me over the years is that NO activity is harder on equipment than orienteering and I would think advertisers would capitalize on this if they knew it too. Maybe USA Orienteering wouldn't make money on this but it would sure be a boost for publicity.
Oct 12, 2010 9:23 PM
#
Few know that the name "Swampfox" is actually a corruption of the nickname given to him by his roommate at the Academy: "Swamp Socks".
Oct 13, 2010 3:40 PM
#
my two cents on partnering with adventure racing organizations to provide services for:
most races use a USGS-like map printed by MyTopo, with scale usually 1:30000, with very coarse mapped features, at a cost of $30, but very very large and waterproof. The size is a necessity, since the bike leg is usually 40-70 miles long. For the foot orienteering leg, It would be nice if the AR clubs could start using O club maps. For the foot race, most clubs provides a color printout of a National Geographic TOPO! map, size 8"x11". It would be nice if O clubs could approach the AR clubs and "sell" them the idea of start using the O maps, and tutoring them on using only mapped features, instead of an ambiguously vague clue description such as "hillside slightly to the left of large rock". Vetting a foot orienteering course in AR is not done at the same high standards of an "A" meet orienteering course, and here is another opportunity to "sell" expertise and advice. It is very common in AR to place a control along a linear feature such as a stream, instead of a reentrant junction or stream bend. It is a cultural difference, and it takes time and education. If you look at the USARA website, sanctioning page, nowhere it mentions that clubs hosting races will get the benefits of an experienced vetter.
btw, the USARA finals are this weekend, in southwestern Pennsylvania
most races use a USGS-like map printed by MyTopo, with scale usually 1:30000, with very coarse mapped features, at a cost of $30, but very very large and waterproof. The size is a necessity, since the bike leg is usually 40-70 miles long. For the foot orienteering leg, It would be nice if the AR clubs could start using O club maps. For the foot race, most clubs provides a color printout of a National Geographic TOPO! map, size 8"x11". It would be nice if O clubs could approach the AR clubs and "sell" them the idea of start using the O maps, and tutoring them on using only mapped features, instead of an ambiguously vague clue description such as "hillside slightly to the left of large rock". Vetting a foot orienteering course in AR is not done at the same high standards of an "A" meet orienteering course, and here is another opportunity to "sell" expertise and advice. It is very common in AR to place a control along a linear feature such as a stream, instead of a reentrant junction or stream bend. It is a cultural difference, and it takes time and education. If you look at the USARA website, sanctioning page, nowhere it mentions that clubs hosting races will get the benefits of an experienced vetter.
btw, the USARA finals are this weekend, in southwestern Pennsylvania
This discussion thread is closed.