It pleases me that you are ending each of your bullet points with a semicolon. The code won't compile otherwise.
For the injury risk I suggest instead of running trying cross training for OUSA's Board of Directors.
On a more serious note, first congrats and best wishes for good efforts by your new cohort for the BoD.
WRT more a meet incentives, eliminate the sanctioning fee premium for these events.
Glad to see you running for the BOD. Agree with all of your priorities so you will get my vote.
I am pleased to see all of you getting involved! I think each of you has great ideas, enthusiasm, and drive.
I do have a little concern about the Boston-centric nature of the group. (Hey, I love Boston, I just worry about the optics and what the rest of the country would think. Having said that, QOC currently has several Board members ... and with Kissy coming back to DC, that's one more. Though I don't know who is leaving the BOD so maybe it won't be so QOC-heavy.)
Still, I support your candidacy. Do you have a motto, or at least a button?
This is one of the most encouraging OUSA-related things I've seen in some time.
I will vote for the whole party.
Since feedback was solicited, I will note one area where I have a fundamental disagreement... I would strongly argue for provision of professional mapping services. It is not exactly the same thing, but I'd rather have a professional surgeon operating on me than someone who attends a few clinics. Sure, apples and oranges here, but maps are the sine qua non of our sport, and you guys more than most, are so well placed to appreciate the striking differences between the work of an ambitious amateur, plying his/her trade in the eddies of North America between compiling her code or visiting his grand kids and someone who is plugged into the latest developments, the state of the art, and the zeitgeist of the continent. And the thing is, unlike heart surgery, you can get a professional for the same price as a non-professional (for practical purposes.)
Maps are too important to treat casually,
Clem, I completely agree with you. Maybe I need to reword what I was trying to say, since it clearly came out wrong. I also think that the development of professional mappers is hugely important to our sport.
How many BOD positions are up for election at the next AGM? Will your slate of 4 be trying to take all of those available (or maybe even more than all that are coming open)? It certainly seems that it could be a good thing for a big infusion of a (mostly) younger cohort to be getting more directly involved in the administrative end of the national level of the organization.
Coming out of Attackpoint silence to comment:
(b) This looks like an attempt to takeover OUSA by a Boston-based group of elites. Whether it is one or not. Is it one?
(b1) If it is, is that going to generate votes from clubs who are not so strongly connected to the national team scene? Why are you going to be better for GAOC, or NTOA, or MNOC, or ... than the status quo, and not just a redistribution of resources from them to CSU and DVOA?
(b2) If it isn't, why is it different from the status quo? And how do the clubs who have to vote for you know that it isn't going to be one?
(c) (Related but focusing on activities rather than clubs) If you are going to increase resources for activity X, it either comes from new resources or from taking resources away from activity Y. Who loses? Or are you not saying this yet because you are going to 'study' it first? If the latter, what's the process?
(d) The elephant in the room is what you think of the executive director, both the incumbent and the position itself. You are very silent on this.
@feet, replying generally for the group though not for Boris in particular:
(b) It's a bit of a mischaracterization to define this as Boston-based or -affiliated elites alone. It is true that Alex, Boris, Barb, and I are the ones running, but there are many more people contributing to the ideas and working hard towards these goals. From my own experience, being on the Board is not necessary to impact an organization (and may be a hindrance). While the membership generally skews young compared to typical a organizational audience, there are people from Seattle, Norway, QOCland, Connecticut, Colorado, and Wisconsin who have contributed.
(b1) I refer you to this analysis
of OUSA's unrestricted spending that I ran recently. The coalition is interested broadly in (1) increasing focus on junior development and leagues, (2) expanding our marketing and publicity efforts, (3) restructuring OUSA to better execute these targeted objectives and the general role of club support, and (4) increasing support for the elite teams - which are a major "product" of orienteering in the US that can be used for marketing, etc. It is true that starting up some junior programs (hopefully in diverse locations, not just the biggest clubs) actually accomplishes the goal of growing the sport at the cost of a reasonable investment by OUSA. Furthermore, it's preferable to the redistribution of resources now to nominal marketing and growth efforts that have proven unsuccessful over the past 6 years.
(b2) We have to acknowledge what is and what is not working, and right now, there are large swaths of discretionary spending that aren't giving a good return on investment.
hey feet join with them and you would have a coalition of the Will'ing or are they Boston Tea Partiers? ;-)
Seriously though Good luck to all four of you. wonderful ideas.
On the Boston question: Ian will not be in Boston any longer, starting this fall. Boris is not in Boston. Alex and I (the Boston people) represent, in my opinion, quite different primary interests and constituencies. She is an elite orienteer and cares very much about supporting the senior team and young adults. I am a recreational orienteer, and care about children's orienteering, as well as things that matter to old people like me (eg, legible maps). But we are willing to support each other's projects, with the common goal of the #1 bullet point in OUSA's mission: to increase participation in the sport.
As far as geography goes, all of us have good communication with many clubs and orienteers around the country - both through working with OUSA (teams,etc), and also making contacts while competing nationally and organizing national events. I'm also a sometime member of Tucson O Club and have directed meets for them for several years, for example.
I think we have the right mix of diversity of interests, broad reach nationally, and common goals around the OUSA mission.
Yeah, I know you don't live in Boston. I see you at our local meets. ;-)
My concerns were spelled out by feet, that it's the appearance. I reiterate that I have no concerns myself & I support your (and Barb's, Alex's, & Ian's), just wondering what other parts of the country will think.
Where is Ian going??
Regarding Feet's point c), the three-year goal is that increased membership will yield enough of a boost in revenue that we don't have to eliminate activity X to support activity Y. One of the many reasons why it's so important to grow this sport!
By the way, at the request of Kris Beecroft and some of the others in the coalition, I've thrown my hat in the ring as well, same agenda, but living in Colorado (although I grew up west of Boston). So, five of us.
Also coming out of Attackpoint silence to comment:
+1 about professional mapping services. I would go further and ask, are there enough experienced mappers in the U.S. and is the number increasing?
Regardless,could OUSA develop a certification program for mappers? More than "a few clinics"; instead a rigorous program modeled on the coaching certification, perhaps? Or how the Sierra Club develops outing leaders.
When fully realized, I would expect such a certification to carry weight on someone's CV or resume.
are there enough experienced mappers in the U.S. and is the number increasing?
Great question, but unfortunately, no and no.
IMO, it is as silly to expect 1) professional mappers to spring up endemically in the US as it would be for 2) professional orienteers or 3) professional fruit pickers.
There is no market for 1 or 2 in the US (demand for maybe one person is not going to engender a bidding war for services) and as for 3--there is a big demand for those, but with ample foreign labor supply at the market clearing price.
When and where is the AGM? I've looked but not found anything.
Apparently it is on September 17 with the classic champs, but that info does not seem to be very visible anywhere except in the minutes of the last BoD meeting.
This discussion thread is closed.