Discussion: OUSA Third Party Sanctioning

I was looking over the third party sanctioning contract and it seems the arrangements are very similar to the process for clubs, but I can't find any information on the fee schedule. Is it the same as for clubs? Are there other restrictions for third party operators that clubs don't have to worry about (aside from insurance of course)?

BTW, I think the move to encourage sanctioned third party events is a step in the right direction, and would even move toward allowing for-profit organizations membership in the OUSA umbrella organization. Such an arrangement could be mutually beneficial, reducing the third party's cost for insurance and providing additional income to OUSA.

The fee schedule is the same as that for clubs. However, clubs pay after the event; third-party organizations have to make up-front payments of part of the sanctioning fee. (NB: I have made a mistake on this in the past, so reserve the right to change this sentence if corrected.)

OUSA reserves the right to require course and event consultants for all events, but does not guarantee these will be available to third party operators, who might have to sweeten the deal in order to get consultants interested. So far the one third-party sanctioned meet has had no issues afaik with this.

I know nothing about the details of whether it is feasible to extend OUSA's insurance, so will leave the more qualified to comment.

The insurance provider used this year (2011) does not provide an option for insurance coverage to be extended to third party organizations/operators.

We (OUSA) are currently in discussions with providers for our 2012 insurance, and being able to extend insurance to cover third parties is definitely one of the discussion topics. At this point, we can't promise anything but we are working on it.

Third parties pay no royalties (the sanctioning fees are the same as for volunteer clubs) for the goodwill to maintain (and the inherit equity that is deserved from creation of ) the market that is provided by USOF volunteers. Therefore, IMHO, third parties, are an "economic sponge". Otherwise, I agree with the OP.

Of course, the quest to meet the quotae (is that a word, you latin freaks? does it matter, given how few quotas are being met?) is so strong that this makes no nevermind. Since I'm far from the senior economist around here, I'll shutup. (and post 11/6, will be out of your lives forever. Good luck).

Randy, one interesting point is the third party operators want to make a living doing this. Therefore, they are doing a lot of marketing. And it appears that they are bringing in a new batch of people from adventure racing, street scrambles, etc. So, I think there are tradeoffs. Yes, if a regular orienteer pays to go to a 3rd party event that would otherwise have been put on by a club, then that revenue is lost to the club. But if a 3rd party adds an additional event that would not have happened otherwise, it only increases the income to O-USA, and the exposure of orienteering to the public. And, if the 3rd party organizer successfully brings in lots of new people and some of them come back to club-hosted events in the future, then the clubs are will come out ahead as well. I think we are still at the point where creating additional opportunities to orienteer, regardless of who organizes them, can only increase interest and participation in our sport.

As with any business, if a 3rd party organizer wants to make money and get repeat customers, they need to uphold event quality. I know of one third party oprganizer that had a reputation for lousy events and they eventually faded away and quit the business. But those who provide quality will prosper, and in the process, they will create new orienteers who will also be attracted to club provided events.

Randy, I am not sure what your plans are post 11-6, but I for one have always appreciated your insights and comments. Even if I don't always agree, you've raised important issues and the resulting discussion/debate has in the end proved beneficial to the orienteering community. It is too easy to keep doing things "the way they always have been done" and you've frequently brought some interesting new ideas and perspective to the table. I hope you're not going so far away that we won't have an opportunity to raise a Golden Monkey together someday!

Yes, if a regular orienteer pays to go to a 3rd party event that would otherwise have been put on by a club,

The local orienteering club was approached multiple times about whether it would be interested to put on or collaborate on events that Get Lost!! has so far created, and the events on the current schedule, and the answer has been consistently negative (I just dug up communication about Henry Coe rogaine from 2001)—what we are doing is not exactly something the core membership is interested in. Our events, however, get similar attendance to those of the club, with the bulk being non-club, non-Orienteering USA members. Therefore

the market that is provided by USOF volunteers

is not correct. We compete for the same market to about the same extent as a movie theater competes with a golf course.

Have volunteered to vet and give comments for a local adventure racing outfit that does 4-5 races a year in the Apr-Oct time span and that draws about 40-90 people per race. Wanted to make sure the racers were getting a better quality experience. In the meantime, was allowed to set up a table with posters and sample maps of the orienteering club to share the info. Few racers did cross over (less than 10). At the end, got a freebie race entry at the AR last event. In a way, we are all in the same boat: map-based challenges, a crowd that is becoming thinner, in contrast with the plethora of clue-based scavenger hunt events that models as an "amazing race" urban race format in multiple cities. You can call what I did some form of informal sanctioning, for which I now got folks stopping me on the streets and offering me a beer.

Another note: "Not an orienteering club" does not equal "for-profit". In my opinion USOF painted itself into a hole when, sometime in the late 1990s, it started to require clubs to be 501(c)3's in fear that if they aren't, the whole organization's 501(c)3 status is jeopardized. But a nonprofit does not have to be a 501(c)3, and many nonprofits aren't. I can see why an NGB should be a 501(c)3—by definition. But most member clubs are just that—member-service organizations without "charitable, religious, educational, scientific, [or] literary" purposes, nor are they testing for public safety, fostering national sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals.

If you don't agree, count clubs that have training (= educational) programs, and see how much promotion clubs do of their events to the general public to even remotely be considered a public-benefit entity. I personally don't understand why a member-benefit organization that creates few benefits to the society as a whole should get off tax-free AND enjoy deductibility of contributions to it. But all clubs do, and this, in my opinion, is yet another example of how orienteers externalize the costs of their sport to keep the fees low at the expense to the greater society.

So if I were Randy, I wouldn't talk about sponges.

Do many orienteering clubs get financial donations?

One could interpret the fact that a club offers free instruction for beginners as having an educational purpose.

What has free to do with it?

Just adds a bit more emphasis on the not-for-profit aspect.

You can give crap away, like GM does with the SCVNGR promo, and that won't make you a nonprofit. Conversely, you can be an elite private school—charge your customers an arm and a leg for a lifetime, pay your directors and staff $$$$$$, and remain 501(c)3. The conflation of "cheap fees" and "free volunteer labor" with "nonprofit tax-exempt status" is the greatest fallacy this organization was driven into by its former ED.

Former ED?

Robin Shannonhouse's previous position was called Executive Director, though it covered different responsibilities from those of the current ED.