Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Minutes of the USOF Annual General Meeting
August 27, 2005
Bend, Oregon, in conjunction with the US Championships
1. Opening of the convention.
Chuck Ferguson, USOF President, opened the meeting at 3:15pm and read the mission statement.
2. Approval of agenda.
Passed by acclamation
3. Report by the Credentials Committee.
Credentials Committee: Linda Ferguson, Betsy Hawes, Joan Roos
There were 19 clubs present and 10 proxies with a total of 682 votes. This was a quorum (needed 153 votes).
(Representatives of two clubs came late and the above figures represent the final tallies as amended by the Credentials Committee.)
4. Election of two certifiers of the minutes.
Walter Siegenthaler, COK
Ardis Dull, COC
Passed by acclamation
5. Motion to dispense with the reading of the minutes of the previous Annual Convention and any Federation Referendums.
There are no Federation Referendums.
There are no minutes available at the moment from the previous AGM but we are working on getting them.
A motion was made to dispense with the reading of the minutes; it passed by acclamation.
6. Reports from the Treasurer and the Auditor.
2
The reports are attached. The Treasurer and Auditor were not present; Chuck Ferguson summarized their reports. The 2003 year end amount was about $124000; the 2004 year end amount was about $180,000. This increase was due partially to the fact that the insurance premium for 2005 had not yet been paid. At the end of 2004 the Insurance Fund had $60,000, the Operating Fund $36,000, the Map Loan and Map Grant Funds $32,000 and the O-in-Schools Fund $22,000. This accounts for roughly 84% of the USOF fund balances. Chuck Ferguson would like to take a look at where USOF is spending its money. He personally would like to see more money going to the US Teams and to youth programs and thinks it’s time the budget is re-examined to see if it is still in line with what USOF wants to do.
7. Budget for the next financial period.
The budget for 2006 will be voted on at the Board of Directors meeting to be held in November. The 2005 budget is attached.
8. Election of Officers and At-large Board members.
Regional Representatives that were recently elected with terms beginning in 2005:
o Pacific Region: Syd Reader BAOC, David Irving SDO (alternate)
o Northeast: Joanne Sankus NEOC, Sue Hawkes-Teeter, EMPO
(alternate)
o Heartland: not done yet
The following were the nominations for Board positions:
o President: Chuck Ferguson, GAOC/QOC
o VP Competition: Clare Durand, LAOC
o VP Program Development: Mike Minium, OCIN
o Secretary: Sandy Fillebrown, DVOA
o At-Large: Stephanie Martineau, MNOC
There were no other nominations from the floor; the candidates were approved by acclamation.
3
9. Report of the President.
Chuck Ferguson was in Japan for the recent WOC and learned the following about orienteering at the international level:
o The IOF is still interested in getting orienteering into the Olympics.
One criterion for admission into the Olympics is that orienteering be television friendly. The micro-O part of the middle distance race at the recent Norwegian Championships was an attempt to make orienteering exciting for TV. By agreeing to include micro-O at next year’s WOC, Denmark was given a better TV contract. Thus, we need to start including this new discipline to help prepare our athletes.
o After only 2 years in existence, the Chinese orienteering federation
has a million orienteers. They built a course in a stadium and had 40,000 people participate. The state has decreed that orienteering is a scientific sport and so it is taught in all the schools.
o Australia has a very successful park-O program which includes a
business league.
o Hong Kong is coordinating a Southeast Asian league.
o The South Korean ambassador of tourism was made president of
the orienteering federation.
An Interscholastics task force was created in the spring and is chaired by Edgar Paul. They have come up with several recommendations and reports and are looking for feedback. Their reports are attached.
The BOD added a sprint championship to the US Championship structure.
There has been major insurance “turbulence” but things are getting sorted out.
10. Report of the Vice-Presidents.
Frank Kuhn: VP Administration
o By-laws committee; nothing to report.
o Grievance committee: outstanding year, NO grievances, Nancy
Neimann is a new member. Full report is attached.
4
o Fund Raising committee: Stephanie Martineau is chair – very
successful year. Full report is attached.
o Convention committee: there was no convention held in 2005,
working on 2006 and 2007. (CROC asked to hold the convention in 2005 in conjunction with PNWOF and the US Championships, but were told the dates were not acceptable. There were no other clubs expressing interest in hosting the convention.) Full report is attached.
o Nominating committee: still looking for a chair
o Endowment Fund committee handles the actual investing of the
Endowment Fund, but USOF needs to market it. Looking for someone to head up this effort.
o Endowment Fund report by Mikell Platt: Full report is attached.
The fund has been in operation about 3 ½ years with funds distributed roughly 90% in equities and 10% in money market funds. Since inception the fund has a 4.7% rate of return; 4% of assets are returned to USOF yearly. The Endowment Fund committee has been trying to establish a good record of investment in order to attract donors. If the endowment fund can be grown, it will provide a long term income stream and stability to USOF.
Clare Durand: VP Competition. Full report is attached.
o The US fielded very successful teams this year in JWOC, WOC,
Ski-WOC and WMOC.
o The senior team is working hard to improve and is doing a lot of
fund raising.
o The new junior team leader is Janet Porter. The junior team is
working to establish a regional coaching network.
o Ski-WOC is now on a 2-year cycle on the odd years; the ski-O
team is particularly looking to develop younger ski-o participants.
o Clare and interested parties are currently working on defining a
structure for selecting future trail-O teams.
5
o Cathy Yekenevicz is chair of the anti-doping committee. Full report
is attached.
o Randy Hall is the new chair of the sanctioning committee; he has
established a website that hosts a planning calendar and the current status of all sanctioning requests (http://mapsurfer.com/sanct/).
o Significant progress was made in the last several years by the
Rules Committee to update the rules to reflect current practice; however, with the addition of new disciplines (sprints, trail-o, etc.) the rules need to be reviewed again.
o The Ski-O committee sanctions ski-o events and championships;
there are plans for a US championship in 2006.
o The Ranking committee is working on how sprints should be folded
into the ranking process. Clare wants to work with ranking committee to get a web-based ranking system, so that results could be submitted on-line after each event and so that rolling rankings could be available immediately.
o In response to some questions about reaching out to the disabled
community, Clare clarified that the Trail-O Committee reports to VP Program Development but that the Trail-O team, as an official US Team, is something new and is under VP Competition. There was some general discussion about efforts to promote Trail-O. One concern is that before we can reach out to the disabled community too much we need to make sure we have the personnel to be able to conduct quality events. Trail-O needs to happen at the club level and so more people need to be exposed to Trail-O. At the same time, it might be wise to begin to reach out and form relationships with the disabled community now.
o In response to a question about the sanctioning process for
rogaines, Clare indicated that for a club to call a rogaine the US Championships, the rogaine committee has to sanction the event and the USOF board needs to approve the bid. Clare will contact the American Bushwhacking Club, a club which is chartered with USOF, to clarify the status of their upcoming rogaine and their promoting it as the US rogaine champs.
Mike Minium: VP Program Development
6
o The focus of the Trail-O committee is development of trail-O, and
they are working on how to reach out to those with disabilities. Full report is attached.
o The College Development Committee has been very active in the
past year; providing awards for the US Intercollegiate Championships, providing travel grants to the World University Championships, and trying to help students who want to start orienteering clubs at their schools.
o The Orienteering in Schools books are selling at a steady pace.
o Mike has the USOF display that can be shipped for use by other
clubs to use at conventions, etc. It was suggested that a photo of the display be made available somehow so clubs could see what it looked like.
o The brochure “Orienteering; the sport of a lifetime” are available for
sale and there is room for clubs to put their own contact information. It was pointed out that it has not been updated for a while and perhaps it should be to include e-punching for example.
Gary Kraght: VP Club services
o The single most important service to clubs is providing insurance.
We are currently in negotiations with new brokers.
o Map Loans and Map Grants: the map loans are working well; the
map grant fund is underutilized
o The Environmental/Land Use Access committee needs a chair
o The Foreign Mapper committee needs a chair; hopefully someone
with some expertise in the area.
o The Financial Working Group (FWG) looked at USOF finances last
fall and made recommendations to increase USOF membership dues and to investigate looking to club starts instead of club membership for charging clubs for insurance. The committee will be starting up again and is looking for interested members.
VP for Marketing and Public Relations: need a new person for this position; Chuck has contacted some possible replacements.
11. Proposals from committees and Board of Directors.
7
By-laws change proposal from the BOD
o Gary Kraght introduced the proposal. The by-laws require club re-
charter fees and insurance fees to be based on club memberships. The proposal, if passed, would allow the BOD to determine how to structure re-charter and insurance fees.
o Motion to approve the by-laws change. Full text of by-laws change is
attached.
o ALTOS- 23 yes
o BAOC – 94 yes
o BGR – 6 no
o CAOC – 34 yes
o COC – 47 yes
o COK – 14 yes
o CROC – 18 yes
o COT – 11 yes
o DVOA – 107 yes
o FLO – 17 yes
o GAOC – 41 yes
o GCO – 7 yes
o HOC – 38 yes
o HVO – 67 yes
o ICO – 9 yes
o LAOC – 34 yes
o LIOC – 16 yes
o NTOA – 60 yes
8
o OCIN – 24 yes
o OME – 5 yes
o ORCA – 7 yes
o PTOC – 13 yes
o RMOC - 42 yes
o ROKS – 3 yes
o SAMM – 6 yes; 5 no
o SVO - 17 no
o TOC – 13 yes
o WCOC – 27 yes
o EMPO – 18 yes
o AOK – 5 yes
o CSU – 23 yes
o The proposal Passed.
12. Proposals from member clubs.
none
13. Questions related to the Constitution and Bylaws.
none
14. Questions related to the Competition rules.
none
15. Questions related to competition meets both national and international.
none
16. Questions related to USOF publications.
9
none
17. Questions related to the membership situation.
How are USOF memberships? Memberships have remained stable over the last several years.
18. Questions related to membership fees and other financial matters
How are USOF finances in general? Good. The 2005 budget beginning balance is $119,000 and the ending balance $123,000, the total fund balance as of 12-31-04 was about 180,000. There was no insurance payment in 2004 and the actual insurance payment for 2005 (the one that was made in January 2005) was considerably lower than budgeted.
19. Any other business.
Bob Reddick spoke about metrogaining and rogaining, variations of orienteering that are becoming very popular and he encouraged clubs to consider doing them. Clubs should request permission from city officials, parks departments and probably also the police department. You can usually get local businesses to sponsor the race in return for some advertising.
Clare Durand spoke about the Interscholastic task group which was formed to consider modifications for the rules for the Interscholastic Championships. There are several documents (attached) with first drafts of their proposals and they are actively seeking input from the larger community. Highlights of rules changes include:
o Home school eligibility: allow teams of home schoolers from a
geographical area, a county or school district which ever is larger.
o Allow middle schoolers to compete for the high school team if the
middle school doesn’t have a team.
o Add a primary school category on the white course.
o In order to compete for a school, a person has to be a full-time student
at that school.
o Making the JROTC Brunton cup a middle school award; get a new
award for JROTC.
o Team scoring based on placing not on times.
10
o There was some discussion about how best to get input into this
process as some constituents felt that they had been excluded. It was pointed out that not everyone reads USOFClubnet (the internet news group related to USOF clubs) but that it was also difficult to reach USOF members in a timely fashion through ONA because of the publication schedule.
20. Closing of the convention and announcements.
A resolution was passed by acclamation thanking ORCA and CROC for hosting the AGM.
The President’s award was given to David Irving, Karen Dennis, Ed Hicks and Bill Farrell for putting on the Trail-O at West Point at the last minute.
The 2005 Silva Award recipient was Bruce McAlister. The full citation is attached.
The meeting adjourned at 5:20.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Fillebrown
Acting USOF Secretary
11
Proposal for amendment of Article IV., Section A. 1 & 2 of the Bylaws of the United States
Orienteering Federation.
Purpose: Under the current Bylaws the club membership fee for both Regular and
Associated Orienteering Clubs consists of a charter fee and liability insurance fee, with the
charter fee set by the BOD, but the liability insurance fee based upon the number of club
members. The proposed amendment would remove the requirement that the insurance liability
fee be based upon the number of club members, and leave such fee to be determined by the
BOD.
Article IV., Section A. 1 & 2 are to be amended as follows, with added language appearing
in bold, and removed language in (parenthesis and italics):
Section A. Club Memberships:
1. Regular Club Membership is open to any amateur sports organization which
operates on a level of proficiency appropriate for the selection of amateur athletes to
represent the United States in international amateur Orienteering competition, a national
program or regular national amateur athletic Orienteering competition, or to other
organizations meeting the qualifications herein.
a. Five or more persons may for a Regular Orienteering Club, (hereinafter,
"club") which may be chartered by the Federation upon receipt of an application
signed by at least five individuals who endorse the objectives and purposes of the
Federation and are members in good standing of the Federation. The application
must be accompanied by the club membership fee.
b. The club membership fee for the initial year shall consist of both an initial
charter fee and a liability insurance fee (and shall be based on the number of
members of the club at the time it applies for a charter from the Federation). The
initial year is to be interpreted as the time until December 31 of the year the
application is filed, unless the application is filed after October 1, in which case
the initial year will conclude December 31 of the following year. The initial
charter fee and liability insurance fee shall be as determined by the Board of
Directors.
c. The annual club membership fee after the initial year shall consist of both
a charter renewal fee and a liability insurance fee (and shall be based on the
number of members of the club on December 15 of the previous year). The
annual club membership fee is due and payable February 1 of each year. The
charter renewal fee and liability insurance fee shall be as determined by the
Board of Directors. Direct members of the Federation, as per Section B.2.a of this
article, who are also members of a club shall not be counted when figuring the
charter renewal fee as long as their direct memberships are valid.
12
(d. The liability insurance fee for the initial year shall be the club’s share of
the Federation liability insurance premium, as determined by the Board of
Directors. For the purpose of determining the club’s share, family memberships
in the club count as two club members and persons who are members of more
than one club will only be counted in that club in which they claim primary
membership.)
d. (e.) Any club that has not paid its annual club membership fee by two weeks
prior to the Annual Convention shall pay the initial charter fee, as per Section
A.1.b of this article, in addition to its annual club membership fee.
e. (f.) Each club is entitled to full use of the Federation services under procedures
as established by the Board of Directors or the committees.
2. Associate Club Membership
a. Any person, persons, or entity may form an Associate Orienteering Club
(hereinafter, "associate club") which may be chartered by the Federation upon
receipt of an application signed by such person, such persons, or representative of
such entity. The application must be accompanied by the associate club
membership fee.
b. The associate club membership fee for the initial year shall consist of an
initial charter fee and shall be as determined by the Board of Directors. The
initial year is to be interpreted as the time until December 31 of the year the
application is filed, unless the application is filed after October 1, in which case
the initial year will conclude December 31 of the following year.
c. The annual associate club membership fee after the initial year shall
consist of both a charter renewal fee and a liability insurance fee (and shall be
based on the number of members of the club on December 15 of the previous
year). The annual associate club membership fee is due and payable February 1
of each year.
(1.) The charter renewal fee and liability insurance fee shall be as
determined by the Board of Directors.
(2. The liability insurance fee shall be the associate club’s share of
the Federation liability insurance premium, as determined by the Board of
Directors. For the purpose of determining the associate club’s share,
family memberships in the associate club count as two associate club
members and persons who are members of more than one club will only
be counted in that club in which they claim primary membership.)
d. Any associate club that has not paid its annual associate club membership
fee by two weeks prior to the Annual Convention shall pay the initial charter fee,
13
as per Section A.2.B of this article, in addition to its annual associate club
membership fee.
e. Each associate club is entitled to those Federation services as designated
by the Board of Directors.
14
2004 Tresurer's Report
12/31/03 Through 12/31/04
College Dev Fund Transfers, ->CDF 200.00
Fundraising, CDF 1,258.00
Travel, WUOC Team -1,467.80
Contributions, CDF 250.00
Expenses, WUOC Adm -40.00
TOTAL College Dev Fund 200.20
Comp Awards Fund Beg. Balance, CAF 2,278.51
Competitive Awards -3,453.23
Transfers, ->CAF 2,000.00
Comp Awards shipping to clubs -21.60
TOTAL Comp Awards Fund 803.68
Endowment Fund Beg. Balance, EnF 1,080.78
Life Membership Dues 5,400.00
Endowment Transfer -6,690.00
Contributions, EnF 660.00
TOTAL Endowment Fund 450.78
E-Punching Fund Beg. Balance, EPF 7,534.19
E-Punch rental fees 2,477.18
EP Equipment purchased -6,731.16
E-Punch Shipping -652.53
Contributions, EPF 250.00
TOTAL E-Punching Fund 2,877.68
Insurance Fund Beg. Balance, InsFund 4,909.92
Insurance Fees from Clubs 56,448.25
TOTAL Insurance Fund 61,358.17
Jr. Team Fund
15
Beg. Balance, JTF 2,040.21
Contributions, JTF 1,718.00
Fundraising, JTF 1,272.00
Travel, JTF -5,940.00
Transfers, ->JTF 3,000.00
TOTAL Jr. Team Fund 2,090.21
Map Grant Fund Beg. Balance, MGF 7,025.00
Contributions, MGF 270.00
TOTAL Map Grant Fund 7,295.00
Map Loan Fund Beg. Balance, MLF 32,110.00
Contributions, MLF 3,916.50
Map Loans Repaid 6,600.00
Map Loan -18,000.00
TOTAL Map Loan Fund 24,626.50
O' in Schools Fund Beg. Balance, OSF 25,222.79
Books - Redistribution 3,947.98
Programs, OSF -233.57
WUOC, OSF -1,000.00
Map Games Reprint -5,976.90
Contributions, OSF 115.00
TOTAL O' in Schools Fund 22,075.30
Operating Fund Beg. Balance, OF 30,524.86
Office Support -10,800.00
VP Marketing & Committees:ONA
-24,935.16
Contributions, OF 8,464.20
Club Dues 4,713.00
Membership Dues 26,515.00
Supplies-Other -2,083.94
Sanctioning Fees 10,896.00
Endowment Proceeds 2,505.00
Postage -1,114.40
Telephone -1,026.63
VP Marketing & -300.00
16
Committees:Web... VP Marketing & Committees:Mar...
-734.16
Dues & Charter -2,340.00
VP Program & Committees -681.42
Interest Income 1,774.56
Transfers, OF-> -5,000.00
VP Marketing & Committees:Med...
-1.29
VP Marketing & Committees-Other
-13.42
VP Competition & Committees-O...
-86.57
Bank Charges -5.00
Endowment Fund Promotion -230.00
VP Administration & Committees
-398.32
VP Marketing & Committees:Awards
-18.96
Transfers, ->OF 449.80
President & Committees -45.00
TOTAL Operating Fund 36,028.15
Program Dev Fund Beg. Balance, PDF 3,497.76
Contributions, PDF 250.00
Program Income, PDF 274.00
TOTAL Program Dev Fund 4,021.76
Ski-O Team Fund Beg. Balance, SkiTF 8,601.79
Travel, Ski TF -4,029.89
Contributions, Ski TF 103.00
TOTAL Ski-O Team Fund 4,674.90
Sponsor & Mkt Fund Beg. Balance, SponMkt Fund 6,461.90
Sponsorship Expenses -1,841.00
Marketing Income 1,875.00
Sponsorships 4,000.00
Video Distribution 14.75
17
Transfers, SMktF-> -449.80
Sponsorship Grants -1,686.75
TOTAL Sponsor & Mkt Fund 8,374.10
Team Fund Beg. Balance, TF 3,811.83
Contributions, TF 9,186.07
Fundraising, TF 1,087.00
Transfers, TF-> -200.00
Travel, TF -9,177.10
TOTAL Team Fund 4,707.80
Trail-O Team Fund Beg. Balance, TrTF 100.00
Contributions, TrTF 300.00
TOTAL Trail-O Team Fund 400.00
OVERALL TOTAL 179,984.23
18
2005 Operating Fund Budget Beginning balance 27,000.00 Income Membership 28,000.00 Club dues 5,600.00 Sanctioning/Surcharges 8,500.00 Interest 1,000.00 Contributions 4,500.00 Sponsorships 800.00 Endowment Fund transfer 2,700.00 Total Income 51,100.00 Expenses Bank Charges 0.00 Supplies/Printing 1,800.00 Postage 1,100.00 Telephone 750.00 Office Support 10,800.00 IOF/USOC/VA dues 2,500.00 Total Office expense 16,950.00 ONA 24,500.00 President 100.00 Ad hoc committees 0.00 Endowment Fund Promotion 0.00 IOF Travel Support 0.00 Subtotal President 100.00 Secretary 25.00 VP Administration 200.00 Fundraising 1,000.00 Convention Grants 2,000.00 Subtotal VP Admin 3,200.00 VP Club Services 25.00 At Large transfer to Insurance Fund 0.00 Subtotal VP Club Services 25.00 VP Competition Committees 200.00 Foot-O Team Support 1,000.00 Ski-O Team Support 0.00 Junior Team support 1,000.00 Championship Awards (xfer to CompFnd) 2,000.00 Subtotal VP Competition 4,200.00 VP Marketing VP and committee expense 1,000.00 Membership in Allied Organizations 0.00
19
Exhibit Fees 0.00 Publications and Printing 0.00 Recognition Awards 0.00 Website and listserv 300.00 Subotal VP Marketing 1,300.00 VP Program Development Committees 800.00 New club development (xfer to PDF) 0.00 Subtotal VP Program Development 800.00 Total Committees 9,650.00 Total Expenses 51,100.00 Surplus/Deficit 0.00 Team Support: Foot-O 0.00 Team Support: Junior 0.00 Team Support: Ski-O 0.00 Total Special Projects 0.00 Operating Fund Ending balance 27,000.00
2005 Restricted Fund Budgets
Foot-O Team Fund Budget Beginning balance 4,250.00 Income Contributions 2,750.00 Fundraising 3,000.00 Transfer from Operating Fund 1,000.00 Team Trials 0.00 Other income 2,000.00 Total income 8,750.00 Expenses Team News 0.00 Training camps 1,000.00 WOC Expense 11,900.00 Misc/Admin/Coach 0.00 Total expense 12,900.00 Ending balance 100.00 Junior Team Fund Budget Beginning balance 1,700.00 Income Transfer from Operating 1,000.00 Fundraising 2,000.00
20
Contributions 1,500.00 Total income 4,500.00 Expenses Domestic training camps 0.00 JWOC training camp 0.00 Lodging/entry fees 2,000.00 JWOC travel grants 2,000.00 Domestic travel grants 500.00 Uniforms 300.00 Other expenses 200.00 Total expense 5,000.00 Ending balance 1,200.00 Ski-O Team Fund Budget Beginning balance 5,000.00 Income Transfer from Operating 0.00 Fundraising 0.00 Contributions 2,000.00 Total income 2,000.00 Expenses World Champs entry fees/accomodations 3,000.00 Travel assistance 2,500.00 Other expenses 0.00 Total expense 5,500.00 Ending balance 1,500.00 Trail O Team Fund Beginning balance 300.00 Income Fundraising 0.00 Contributions 200.00 Total income 200.00 Expenses World Champs entry fees/accomodations 0.00 Travel assistance 0.00 Other expenses 0.00 Total expense 0.00 Ending balance 500.00 O In Schools Fund Beginning balance 20,500.00 Income Contributions 0.00 O for Teachers sales 2,000.00
21
Total income 2,000.00 Video production 0.00 Transfer,->CollDevF 1,000.00 Other expenses 500.00 Expenses 1,500.00 Ending balance 21,000.00 Program Development Fund Beginning balance 3,700.00 Income Contributions 300.00 Program Income 300.00 Transfer from Operating 0.00 Total income 600.00 Expenses Club Development Comm. 250.00 Reprint "Sport of a Lifetime" brochures 2,500.00 Grants & loans 500.00 Other expenses 0.00 Total expense 3,250.00 Ending balance 1,050.00 College Dev Fund Beginning balance 0.00 Income Contributions 300.00 Fundraising 1,500.00 Transfers 1,000.00 Total income 2,800.00 Travel 2,000.00 Other expenses 300.00 Expenses 2,300.00 Ending balance 500.00 Sponsor & Marketing Fund Beginning balance 8,200.00 Income Sponsorships 5,000.00 Video Distribution 0.00 Contributions 0.00 Total income 5,000.00 Expenses Sponsorship Expenses 1,500.00 Sponsorship Distributions 3,000.00 Compass Insert Brochures 5,000.00
22
Photo library/shoot 600.00 Total expense 10,100.00 Ending balance 3,100.00 Insurance Fund Budget Beginning balance 15,000.00 Income Club fees 57,000.00 At Large transfer from Op Fund 0.00 A meet fees 10,000.00 Total income 67,000.00 Expenses Premiums 49,000.00 Rebate to clubs 0.00 Total expenses 49,000.00 Ending balance 33,000.00 Competition Awards Fund Beginning Balance 900.00 Transfer from Operating Fund 2,000.00 Shipping to Clubs 100.00 Championship Award medals 0.00 Ending Balance 2,800.00 E-Punch Fund Budget Beginning Balance 1,500.00 Income Contributions 0.00 Transfers from Operating Fund 0.00 E-punch rental fees 3,000.00 Total Income 3,000.00 Expenses E-punch shipping 300.00 Equipment purchases/maintenance 700.00 Total Expenses 1,000.00 Ending Balance 3,500.00 Map Loan Fund Beginning cash on hand 24,000.00 Income Contributions 100.00 Loan repaid - Clubs 15,000.00 Total Income 15,100.00 Expenses
23
Map loans 12,000.00 Total expense 12,000.00 Ending cash on hand 27,100.00 Map Grant Fund Beginning cash on hand 7,100.00 Income Contributions 100.00 Total Income 100.00 Expenses Map grants 2,000.00 College map grants 3,000.00 Total expense 5,000.00 Ending cash on hand 2,200.00 Investment (Endowment) Fund Beginning Balance 160.00 Life memberships 3,000.00 Contributions 1,000.00 Investment Gains 0.00 Total Income 4,000.00 Transfer to Endowment Fund, Inc. 4,000.00 Total Expense 4,000.00 Ending balance 160.00 USOF Fund Totals Beginning balance 119,010.00 Ending balance 123,710.00
24
2005 ANNUAL REPORT
USOF ENDOWMENT FUND INC.
PRESIDENT’S LETTER
The Endowment Fund has been in operation for three and a half years now. When we started the
Endowment Fund our investment strategy was to invest in the US economy by putting a majority
of the fund into an index fund that tracked the S&P. We followed this strategy from January of
2002 until December of 2002. However, in the latter half of 2002 we reviewed our investment
strategy and decided that we needed to strive for a stronger return. We revised our strategy from
following a broad index of the US economy to investing in a small number of undervalued
companies that have a much better chance of outperforming the market. We implemented this
strategy by investing in two mutual funds that exemplify this strategy. We have been invested in
these two mutual funds since February of 2003.
We have had the Endowment Fund in operation for four fiscal years now and we are continuing
to look forward. We spent the initial period getting our investment strategy right and setting up
the operations of the Endowment Fund. We are now working with USOF to get the word out
about the Endowment Fund, in hopes of starting to increase donations in this long-term growth
vehicle for USOF.
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Prior to the actual opening of the Endowment Fund, the Directors of the Endowment Fund
discussed various investment strategies. The initial strategy was to invest the bulk of the fund in
a total stock market index fund with the balance in a money market fund in an equity-to-money-
market-fund ratio of 70/30. We used Vanguard‘s Total Stock Market Index Fund and a
Vanguard money market fund to implement this strategy.
25
Subsequently, our Investment Officer examined other strategies and recommended that the
Board consider looking at a small number of actively-managed mutual funds or individual stocks
that could out-perform the market index. It was agreed that the current size of the Endowment
Fund precluded individual stock investments due to the higher risk inherent in a concentrated
portfolio. However, the Board studied and agreed with the recommendation to shift funds into
Long Leaf Partners Fund and Clipper Fund. Both are actively managed funds which focus on
under-valued companies. In addition, it was decided to increase the equity portion of the
portfolio to 90% from 70% to take advantage of the higher long-term growth potential of
equities. All equity investments were split equally between the two funds.
During 2004 both funds grew substantially but at different rates. We rebalanced assets between
the two funds to keep the 50/50 split on equity investments. During 2005 both funds grew about
the same amount and there was no need to further rebalance assets. We continue to hold 10% of
the assets in cash.
Our current policy is that we will not hold individual securities and that any securities received
as a donation will be sold at once and invested in the current asset choices.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION OF FINANCIAL RESULTS
Total Assets under management by the Endowment Fund were $72,207 at 2005 fiscal year-end.
The Endowment Fund operates on a June 30 fiscal year basis. It was created in January 2002
with $52,070 infused by USOF in 2002, $7948 in 2003, $4590 in 2004 and $3180 in 2005. In
2003, the Fund began the yearly distribution to USOF of 4% of its calendar year-end assets as
required by the Fund‘s Charter. The Endowment Fund distributed $2699 to USOF in 2005 -- a
cumulative $5492 distribution since the Fund‘s inception.
Cash on hand has been increased to $8,125 in order to maintain the 10% cash allocation and to
fund the current USOF payment. Net Assets increased by $2230 in 2005 to a total of $9911.
26
Financial returns for 2005 reflect the positive impact of an improving stock market on the
performance of the equity portion. Overall, our investments have not performed quite as well as
the broader market index in the same time periods since value-focused funds have lagged other
market sectors. While results will vary from year to year, we continue to believe that the
investment strategy we have chosen to pursue will provide higher than average returns over the
long term.
Annualized Returns
2005 3 Years Since Inception
Endowment Fund 3.3% 7.4% 4.7%
S&P 500 Index 6.3 8.3 ----
Average Money Mkt
1.4 0.8 ----
OFFICERS
Mike A. Fritz.............................. President and Director
Charles C. DeWeese.................. Secretary and Director
Samuel D. Burd, Jr..................... Treasurer and Director
W. Mikell Platt........................... Investment Officer and Director
Open.......................................... Director
27
UNITED STATES ORIENTEERING FEDERATION ENDOWMENT FUND INC.
Notes to the Financial Statements
I. Accounting Principles and Practices
A. The Corporation maintains its records on the cash basis of accounting, an
Other Comprehensive Basis of Accounting.
B. Cash consists mainly of a money market mutual fund.
C. Investments in marketable securities are reported at fair value.
D. Financial statements represent the net assets and changes in net assets of the
Corporation. The Corporation has no stockholders.
II. Sources and Uses of Funds
The Corporation, according to its exempt purpose, receives funds from the United
States Orienteering Federation Inc., investing them according to policies established
by the Board of Directors. A stated share of the Corporations assets will be
returned to the Federation after December 31 of each year.
III. Nature of Corporation and Related Entity
28
The USOF Endowment Fund Inc. is a 501(c)(3) charity and qualifies as a non-
private foundation due to its relationship to the United States Orienteering
Federation Inc., a 501(c)(3) charity which receives support from contributions and
membership fees. Expenses of the Endowment Fund related to communications,
fundraising, and general office are paid by the Federation.
IV. Tax Status
The Corporation files form 990 annually with the Internal Revenue Service. Assets
are reported at fair value. Officers and Directors are uncompensated. There are no
other disqualified persons associated with the Corporation.
UNITED STATES ORIENTEERING FEDERATION ENDOWMENT FUND INC.
STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS AT JUNE 30
Assets 2004 2005
Cash
Money Market Fund $ 7,517.87 $ 8,124.63
Investments
Mutual Funds at Fair Market Value 61,978.05 64,081.99
Total Assets 69,495.92 72,206.62
Liabilities and Net Assets
Liabilities
USOF Transfers In 64,608.00 67,788.00
Payments to USOF (2,793.00) (5,492.00)
Total Liabilities 61,815.00 62,296.00
Net Assets $ 7,680.92 $ 9,910.62
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30
Investment Income/(Expenses)
Interest on Money Market Fund $ 42.76 $ 155.76
Dividends andCapital Gains Distributions 753.58 1,961.75
Brokerage Commissions/Fees (30.00) (30.00)
Realized Gains(Losses) on Investments 423.50 -
Unrealized Gains(Losses) on Investments 7,731.56 142.19
29
Change in Net Assets 8,921.40 2,229.70
Net Assets, Beginning of Year (1,240.48) 7,680.92
Net Assets, End of Year $ 7,680.92 $ 9,910.62
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
Transfers in from USOF $ 4,590.00 $ 3,180.00
Payments to USOF (1,725.00) (2,699.00)
Net Cash Flow from Financing 2,865.00 481.00
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
Interest and Dividends Received 796.34 2,117.51
Brokerage Commissions/Fees (30.00) (30.00)
Dividends Reinvested (753.58) (1,961.75)
Investments (Purchased)Sold - -
Net Cash Flow from Investing Activities 12.76 125.76
Net Change in Cash 2,877.76 606.76
Cash, Beginning of Year 4,640.11 7,517.87
Cash, End of Year $ 7,517.87 $ 8,124.63
See accompanying notes and accountant's report
30
2004 Annual Fund Drive Report
In 2004 the annual fund drive campaign was revived, and charitable contributions to
USOF substantially increased over the amounts received in recent years.
$15,410.00 was raised directly through the annual fund drive.
$3,656.50 was received in memory of Gari Williams. These donations are a direct consequence
of the fund drive because the campaign was underway, and friends of Gari suggested donations
in his memory.
$6, 084 was raised by Peter Gagarin through contributions to the team, help with uniforms, and
the relay auction (entry fees for fund raising events are not counted as contributions)
A total of $25,150.70 was received as donations to the operating fund and restricted funds.
(These numbers here are slightly different from amounts reported by Robin in 2004. Her
figures are strictly the calendar year numbers. If you add in the amounts received at the
beginning of 2004 by Robin as a response to the 2003 letter and early year contributions to Peter,
the total received is close to $27,500--essentially three times what was received in 2003.)
The operating fund received the largest number of contributions--$9679.20.
The restricted funds that received the most donations were:
Team $7710
Map loan fund $3856.50
Junior team $1660
31
The 2005 campaign will be launched in the October issue of ONA. The fund drive will focus on
getting greater participation of the membership in the campaign. Still subject to change, the title
of the 2005 campaign is ―Are We There Yet?‖ It will ask members to consider where they want
the sport of orienteering and USOF to be in the future.
If contributions to USOF can be sustained at a higher level, the members and the board have the
opportunity to implement programs that will strengthen the clubs and promote orienteering.
32
Bylaws Committee- Rob Wilkinson, Chairperson
Committee Members:
Francis Hogle, QOC
David Irving, SDO
In the last year, the Bylaws Committee, at the request of the USOF Board, drafted
revisions to the Bylaws that are being voted upon this year at the AGM. Committee
Members also responded to various inquires concerning the Bylaws and related matters.
Grievance Committee- JJ Cote, Chairperson
Committee Members:
Charlie DeWeese- WCOC
Nancy Niemann-HOC
Dick Opsahl-NMO
33
The USOF Grievance Committee is very pleased to report that in the past year,
no grievances whatsoever were filed, and thus we had absolutely nothing to do.
Our only action was the welcome addition of Nancy Niemann as a Committee Member.
34
Convention Committee Report
USOF Convention Committee: Sara Mae Berman, Chairperson
Committee Members:
All previous Convention Organizers serve as Convention Consultants
Openings for three Convention Committee Members
There were not any clubs willing/able to have a Convention in 2005; hence, it was necessary to
have the Annual General Membership Meeting (AGMM) in conjunction with an ―A‖ Event.
Many thanks to ORCA and CROC for accommodating USOF by having the AGMM and the
associated Board Meetings at the US Individual Championships at Bend, Oregon
The 2004 USOF Convention in Georgia was small, but attended by a very appreciative
Group.
No club has yet committed to hosting the 2006 Convention. I have been in e-mail
discussions with a club in the southwest who may be interested in 2006, but more likely
in 2007. It is a small club which would have to partner with an adjacent club‘s ―A‖ Event.
I will continue to keep in touch with this club.
I plan to expand my Club Hosting search by sending messages to club presidents and
Regional Representatives within the next month. I also plan to get help from other individuals,
three of whom I have asked to join this Committee. The general approach to getting convention
hosts comes first, but the direct personal contact is then needed, and this is my present strategy.
Suggestions are most welcome and I promise to follow up on all of them.
35
In wrapping things up-PLEASE CONSIDER BEING A CONVENTION HOST!
Convention Guidelines may be accessed from USOF‘s web page. I may be reached at
[email protected] , by telephone-617-868-7416 or by mail at 23 Fayette St.,
Cambridge, MA 02139 to answer any questions that you might have.
The Convention Guidelines offer a choice of incentives to clubs hosting Conventions.
It should be noted that club size should not be a factor in deciding whether or not to host a
Convention. Small clubs, or any size club for that matter, can co-host Conventions with
other clubs in their Region; tie a Convention to Regional ―A‖ Events, etc.
You will not be on your own! I will work with your convention planning committee to make
your convention worthwhile and a memorable one.
CONVENTION HOSTING CAN BENEFIT YOUR OWN CLUB AS WELL AS THE
WHOLE SPORT OF ORIENTEERING!
36
TRAIL ORIENTEERING COMMITTEE REPORT
FRANK H. KUHN, CHAIRPERSON
The US National Trail Orienteering Championships were held on April 30, 2005 in conjunction
with the West Point Event. The participation reached a new level with 44 doing the course on a
very rainy afternoon. This event and earlier events were used to select the Trail O Team for the
World Trail Orienteering Championship (WTOC) in Japan in August.
The three Team Members selected to go to Japan each received $100 from the Trail O
Team Fund towards their entry fees. The Team Members paid all of their own expenses for the
WTOC trip.
David Irving, SDO won the Silver Medal in the Paralympic Class Competition (David was the
Bronze Medal winner last year at the first WTOC in Sweden). David, Dean Sturdevant, NEOC
and Scott Drumm, CROC made up the Any Ability Team. Although they did not win any
medals, they did extremely well against the far more experienced Trail Orienteers from Europe
and Japan.
The 2006 WTOC will be held in Finland in conjunction with the Mountain Bike World
Championships, 9 to 14 July.
In the future, the USOF Trail O Committee will be working closely with the VP Competition
to develop a Trail O Team and establishing the methodology for selecting Trail O Teams for
WTOCs as well as the sanctioning approval of the yearly US Trail O National Championships.
To help build an Elite Trail O Team in the coming years and to bring many more folks into the
Trail O ranks, we need to have many, many more clubs offering Trail O Events and
Demonstrations in conjunction with Foot O Events and Championships.
37
Since conducting Trail O Events is much more labor intensive than Foot O Events, we will
be offering Trail O Mapping and Course Setting Seminars in the future to help train club
personnel on how to conduct Trail O Events. Our IOF Event Advisors will then be available for
consultation services when a club is ready to organize a Trail O Event.
The IOF Council and IOF Trail O Commission is working towards the goal of having Trail O
becoming a part of the 2012 Paralympics.
38
2005 USOF Competition Report
Clare Durand, Vice President, Competition
I‘ve really enjoyed helping the competition teams and committees to move forward over the last
year and feel that much progress has been made. I‘m happy to share the good news about the
competitive state of USOF.
NATIONAL TEAMS
Our national teams have put extensive effort into both fundraising and performance development
and both have paid off. Both the Senior and Junior Teams saw some increased donations coming
out of the USOF fundraising campaign, though still falling short of the funding needs just to send
teams to World Championships.
Senior Foot-O
The Senior team has continued with an aggressive internal fundraising approach centered on
putting on a combination of sprints in conjunction with A-meets and sponsoring A-meets
themselves, coordinating through smaller clubs. Through these efforts they were successful in
generating the funding to send a team to an expensive WOC in Japan. In addition, they are trying
to increase their ability to fund some athletes participation in World Cup events and potential
elite training camps.
The team‘s focus on training and performance really paid off in Japan with a number of
exceptional results, including Erin Olafsen making the Middle distance final and Samantha
Saeger missing the cut by only one slot in every discipline.
At the World Master‘s Champs Team Member Pavlina Brautigam took second place in F40A.
39
Junior Foot-O
Early this year, I appointed Janet Porter as the new Junior Team Leader. She has done a great job
of getting up to speed on the challenges of leading our Juniors and helping to move USOF Junior
Orienteering forward. We once again sent a large team to JWOC (5 men, 3 women) and had
some very nice results including Viktoria Brautigam and John Fredrickson putting in great
performances in an unofficial sprint event and Leif Anderson placing 30th in the Middle A-final.
John turned in a similar performance in the Long, placing 32nd of 151 finishers.
Maintaining this level of success is a challenge as the Junior Team keeps growing up and
experiences fast turnover as a result. Janet and I have announced the Junior Development Team
members for the year by region and we are working to develop a regional network of coaches
who will interface with the national program. This is intended to bring more support and
recognition to Juniors across the country. The Junior Team is also embarking on new fundraising
efforts, beginning with a Quilt raffle. This fundraiser will make it easy for Juniors from all over
to participate. In addition, once the regional system is in place, we hope that each regional
development team will sponsor a fundraiser each year to support the national Junior Team fund.
We would like to have enough funding to a) continue to send a team to JWOC, b) fund travel
expenses for the national coaches to attend regional training camps and c) provide travel grants
for juniors in need to attend national or international competitions.
Ski-O Team
The Ski-O Team also sent a Team to the World Championships this year (4 men, 3 women). The
Ski-O Team is currently struggling with issues of recruitment, leadership, and the challenges of
building a team with vastly spread out geography. I hope to become more involved with the Ski-
O Team to help them meet these challenges. With no WOC in 2006, we now have two years to
work on identifying new potential talent and rebuilding the Team fund for the 2007 Ski-WOC.
Trail-O Team
It was recently decided to form an official Trail-O Team structure under competition and I have
just begun working on that. USOF once again sent a team to the World Trail-O Champs and
David Irving again took home a medal (silver this time!) in the paralympic class.
Congratulations, David!
40
ANTI-DOPING
Cathy Yekenevicz agreed to take over the task of Anti-Doping Chair for USOF and was
officially appointed to this position as of January 1, 2005. She has been working with IOF and
the Teams to insure that all team members fill out their required team work to stay in compliance
with IOF Anti-Doping policies. She hopes to eventually streamline the process by making the
forms available to our athletes through the USOF webpage. We are still struggling with issues
involving which of our athletes are actually required to fill out the forms.
SANCTIONING
We‘ve also got a new sanctioning Chair. Randy Hall took over in this position earlier this year.
Through his and Sandy Fillebrown‘s efforts, USOF now has a planning calendar website where
clubs can go to find information on rumored meets, sanctioning status, and status of
Championship bids. Randy hopes that he has succeeded in making the sanctioning process more
efficient and open. In the future he hopes to develop a web-based sanctioning form and a
feedback mechanism on meet quality. I also hope that we can work together with the rules
committee to better define sanctioning and administrative policies related to A-meets and to
encourage increased A-meet schedules, especially in regions that are not currently offering at
least four sanctioned days per year.
RULES
The Rules Committee put a lot of work into the 2005 version of the rules to correct
inconsistencies and fix outdated information. We hope to continue this process into the future.
We also hope to reformat the rules to better define the wide variety of orienteering disciplines
and encourage more flexibility in A-meet format. If you notice problems or have questions about
the rules, please contact Rules Committeee Chair, Steve Shannonhouse.
SKI-O COMMITTEE
41
Larry Berman heads the Ski-O committee, which is the sanctioning committee for Ski-O events
and the National Ski-O Championships. This year, they cancelled the Championships, but they
are working on proposals for the coming winter.
One Challenge for Ski-O is trail fees that can increase the cost of putting on an event. One site
under consideration for the Championships will charge as much as $10 per person. Additionally,
the Ski-O calendar is far more regionalized with little overlap in competitors between areas. It is
a challenge to bring all Ski-Oers together more often to increase the competitive level in the
country.
ROGAINE COMMITTEE
Eric Smith heads the Rogaine committee, which is the sanctioning committee for National
Rogaine Championships and works with clubs to build a Rogaine calendar. After last year‘s
successful World Rogaine Championships in Arizona, there has not been a US champs
scheduled, however the North American Championships will be held in the US next year.
RANKINGS
This will be first year with any sanctioned sprints going in to the rankings and it will be
interesting to see what affect they have. The rankings committee has also been considering
potential changes to the rules regarding how DNF, MSP, etc. results get calculated into the
rankings. Probably the biggest challenge for rankings is getting the results after meets.
Sanctioning has been helping out by reminding meet directors of this responsibility. Also, it is
clear there can be confusion among the membership about which events are actually ranked. I
hope we can eventually make the rankings available as a web-based rolling rankings system that
will provide more information to help members understand their rankings.
Support your USOF Teams!
42
Anti-Doping Committee Report
August, 2005
Committee Person: Cathy Yekenevicz ([email protected])
Position: Anti-Doping Chair
Reports to: VP Competition Clare Durand
Clare appointed me to this position as of January 1, 2005.
Purpose: To comply with IOF and WADA requirements regarding banned substances, which are
tested for at international competitions and at random outside of competition.
Duties: Contact team leaders each quarter and request IOF forms, then sent to IOF.
Forms: W-1 shows a schedule of the competition and training events that a team will participate
in. W-2 details each event. They are completed by the team leader every six months.
―Whereabouts‖ forms are completed by individual team members and give their contact location
every day for a quarterly reporting period.
Accomplishments: I have gotten to know (by e-mail) Piritta F. at IOF and a number of the team
leaders and members. All are very helpful and cooperative! Piritta has given me insight into the
requirements and actual expectations that IOF places on the team members. With frequent
communication, she has helped me a great deal.
After discussion with Anne B, ski-O team leader, I agreed to accept the information in non-
standard form from those who cannot either get to a computer or open the zipped file from IOF.
I‘m willing to do that for any team member!
43
Future: One team member suggested that the required forms be available for download from a
website. Piritta is looking into this on the IOF level, but I would like to see it on the USOF
website, so that the team member will be able to grab it and go without waiting for a relayed
request.
Challenges:
The zipped package of files that we get from IOF is the most annoying thing, since it can‘t be
opened easily by everyone.
We have yet to make a filing on time, even with less than 100% reporting. There was some
confusion about what forms USOF‘s teams really need to file, but I see now that we should file
all three.
I am most puzzled by the question: who is required to report? We have a list of people named to
teams, A and B, etc., and then there are those who actually attend international competitions, but
also some who are not on the team list but still represent us at competition. Some feel that only
the A-team needs to report, but I think that a person who can represent our country must report.
This becomes most difficult when the members are chosen at the last moment (e.g. Trail-O for
Japan).
All in all, it has been an enlightening experience, and I‘m happy to do some paper pushing for
those who are out there winning medals for us!!
44
Edgar Paul
Apollo High School
2280 Tamarack Road
Owensboro, KY 42301
Clare Durand
USOF Vice President, Competition
August 18, 2005
OVERVIEW: At the direction of Charles Ferguson, President of the United States Orienteering
Federation (USOF), Clare Durand, USOF VP, Competition, initiated action to form a special
task force to evaluate various aspects of the USOF Interscholastic Championship Competition.
Edgar Paul was selected to Chair this task force the task force was soon labeled: The
Interscholastic Task Force (ISTF). Edgar Paul invited other members of the USOF to volunteer
for the task force by posting an invitation on the USOF CLUBNET. All who volunteered were
selected to serve as members and represented a cross-section of the USOF Orienteering
Community. Initially there were 10 members, but one Frank Campbell) withdrew his name for
personal reasons. The task force included both male and female members, both school and
JROTC coaches, Interscholastic Championship and other orienteering event organizers, a home
school orienteer, and current and former officers of various local orienteering clubs (See
attachment #1 for a list of task force members).
TASKING: Specific tasking to the Chair was given by Clare Durand in email correspondence
(see attachment #2). This tasking directed the Chair to examine several different aspects of the
Interscholastic Championship Competition. The Chair was specifically tasked to review and
make recommendations on the current USOF rules as they apply to the eligibility of home
schooled students to compete in the Interscholastic Championship. Additionally, the Chair was
45
tasked: to review the eligibility rules concerning students who attended schools that did not have
an orienteering team and foreign exchange students; alternative scoring methods used to
determine the winners of the competition; and alternatives to the current cross-country style type
competition currently used. Additionally the Chair was given the latitude to examine any other
issue he felt relevant to the Interscholastic Championship.
ORGANIZATION: The ISTF Chair was authorized to organize the task force and accomplish
the tasking at his discretion. The task force was subdivided into three sub-committees, with one
member of each sub-committee designated the sub-committee Chair. These sub-committees
were: Championship Sub-Committee, Eligibility Sub-Committee, and Scoring Sub-Committee.
Each sub-committee member was authorized and encouraged to communicate across and within
the three sub-committees. The ISTF Chair did not serve on a sub-committee. But was the point-
of-contact with the USOF VP for Competition. He assigned specific tasking to the three sub-
committees (See Attachment #3 & 4). All communication was via email except for one face-to
face meeting between The ISTF Chair and the Chairs of the Eligibility and Scoring Sub-
Committees. The efficiency of the ISTF was hampered by the inability of the members to meet
face-to-face and discuss the issues at length. This inability to meet was due to geographic
separation of the members and lack of funding for travel.
RESULTS: Although comments were requested from the USOF Orienteering community
through a CLUBNET posting and an article in Orienteering North America, disappointingly, not
a single comment was received from outside of the task force.
The three sub-committees developed several proposals and are presented in the section of this
report titled PROPOSALS. These proposals address each of the specific items of tasking. The
Proposal on Scoring is quite detailed and is presented separate from the other proposals.
Edgar Paul, Chair
Interscholastic Championship Task Force
46
ATTACHMENT # 2
(This email received March 19, 2005)
Edgar,
I'm hoping you will agree to serve as chair of this task group. Your name has been
mentioned as a good chair candidate and you said you would serve in any capacity.
Here are the other task group volunteers to date:
Jon Cuyler - a homeschool student
Robert Paddock - Board member SW Region
Mike Brooks - Board member Mid-Atlantic Region
Frank Campbell - School Coach SE Region
You will probably want to put out a message on the USOF Clubnet inviting other
interested folks to join.
Here are the issues I would like the group to discuss:
1) Individual Eligibility issues - Who should be eligible to be on a school's team?
47
Most specifically relating to homeschoolers, but also consider how similar issues
affect students without orienteering teams at their schools. Keep in mind that sports
eligibility rules and homeschool laws vary widely from state to state.
2) Team Eligibility issues - JROTC vs. School vs. Open Categories.
What team categories should exist? Should they overlap or be mutually exclusive?
3) Scoring issues - Some folks have suggested changing the scoring method from
adding up times to adding up places or doing some other sort of calculation to
better correlate the male/female results. Others have suggested splitting to separate
male and female team categories.
4) Any other Interscholastic Issues that the task group feels are important.
The Homeschool eligibility issue is the primary reason this task group is being
formed. Please be sure that some recommendation is made on this issue.
Deadlines:
The USOF Annual General Meeting will be held on August 27 in Oregon. I would
like to have preliminary recommendations from your group to be presented at this
meeting for public comment.
There will then be a Board meeting sometime in the fall - exact date TBD. At this
meeting I would like to have a final proposal to present to the Board for their vote.
The proposal needs to be ready to distribute to board members one month before
the meeting date.
Resources:
48
The official USOF Rules can be found online at:
http://www.us.orienteering.org/binder/rules.html
The Interscholastic rules were last changed in the fall of 2003 and have been in use
for the past two Championships.
Rules questions can be directed to Rules Chairman Steve Shannonhouse
I have a survey which I conducted at the IS Champs in 2004 which asked the
participants about some of these issues. If you send me your mailing address, I will
send you the filled out surveys. I have never had an opportunity to do a full
analysis of the results.
I will also send you a separate email with my own personal opinions on some of
these topics.
Thank you for helping out with this. Please keep me posted on the group's progress
and let me know if you need anything from me.
Clare Durand
USOF VP Competition
ATTACHMENT # 3
49
SUB-COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION AND TASKING
(Email to task force members 4/25/2005)
I have heard from all of the task force members and the number remains at 10.
There are a couple of members who need to share a brief description of their
orienteering experience with the rest of the members.
I am impressed with the level of orienteering expertise resident with out task force
members. Our tasking will have us dealing with some very contentious issues.
One of these issues is the proposal to allow home-schooled students, or students
whose school does not have an orienteering team to organize and build a team for
the IS. Another issue that will challenge us is whether to continue to allow JROTC
teams to be eligible for both the School and the JROTC championship. Another
contentious issue is team scoring which directly impacts team makeup. I am
referring to the boy/girl policy that has varsity girls run the Brown course and the
varsity boys run the Green course. I ask each of you to do your very best to remain
open-minded on each of these subjects. For example in the first issue I listed we
will have to balance ―Inclusiveness‖ with the fear that many hold of having to
compete against an ―All Star‖ team comprised of the children of adult orienteers.
Likewise, there are strongly held, but opposing views on the other two issues I
listed.
I would like to start the work of this task force by forming three committees.
These committees will be:
50
Home School Committee – This committee will gather information and
make recommendations concerning home school students. These
recommendations will include, but not be limited to:
Whether or not home-schooled students should be allowed to
organize and enter the IS as a team
If recommending approval of home-schooled teams, what will
be the defining rules governing the formation of these teams.
Should home-schooled students be allowed to join teams from
school who have established teams. If recommending this
policy, what will be the defining rules governing this policy.
Championship Committee – This committee will review the current policy
of championship eligibility and make recommendations.
Make a recommendation as to whether the current groups
(Middle School, JV, and Varsity) are appropriately defined.
Make a recommendation as to whether the IS would be better
served using an orienteering experience factor instead of an
age/school- grade criteria.
Should JROTC teams remain eligible for both JROTC and
School championship trophies
Scoring Committee – This committee will research and make
recommendations on the current team scoring policies for the IS.
Should a gender-based team concept be adopted with
separate boy teams and girl teams
51
If the present gender-neutral teams are continued, should
the current method of equalizing the winning times between
boys and girls be changed?
I would appreciate any input you have for additional committees or committee
tasking. I need each of you to volunteer for one of these committees and whether
you are a volunteer to chair that committee. Each task force member will be
encouraged to provide input to any of the three committees. When each of the
three committees have completed their draft recommendations, the committee
chair will publish the recommendations and rationale to each task force member.
At that point we will hold further discussions on each recommendation. After
these discussions each committee will rewrite drafts into final recommendations.
A couple of other items. I have been offered the opportunity to write a short article
for ONA describing out task force. Let me know if you object to having your
name used. Through this article and the Clubnet, I will invite the orienteering
community to contact me with any recommendations or inputs. I will forward
these recommendations to the appropriate committee.
What I need from you now is to volunteer for the committee of your choice and let
me know if you are willing to chair the committee.
ATTACHMENT # 4
Sub-Committee Members and Chair
(This Email sent to members on 5/9/2005)
52
Interscholastic Task Force Committees
*Indicates Chair
Championship Committee
Guy Olsen *
Ruth Bromer
Mike Brooks
Home School Committee
Louis Smith *
Jon Cuyler
Robert Paddock
Scoring Committee
Pat Meehan *
Carl Muench
Each committee should begin their work. I tried to assign each of you to the committee on
which you indicated you would like to serve. Please keep in mind I would like for each task
53
force member to feel free to interact with any of the committees. If you are adamant that
you would like to change committees, advise me. Please keep in mind that we need to have
some balance in numbers on each committee. I will remain separate from the committees
and will channel any additional comments to the appropriate committee.
I will need the mailing address for each committee chair, as I will be occasionally sending
printed material (material that I cannot email). As you receive the material, please
distribute it to your committee members in a timely manner. The first mailing will be
copies of the survey taken by Clare Durand at the 2005 Interscholastic Championship. In
addition, I will be emailing some statistical data I compiled from this survey. Please review
each survey questions and the comments. Please keep in mind that this is a small, un-
scientific survey of people attending the IS. Although this is a small sample, it does include
the comments of some of the orienteers who were actually interested and were able to
attend. To the best of my ability, I have compiled the yes/no answers into a spreadsheet for
your use. This compilation should save you some time.
Burr Paul
PROPOSALS
HOME SCHOOL ELIGIBILITY
Issue # 1
Should home-schooled students be allowed to form teams to compete in the Interscholastic
Championship? Should students who are enrolled at a school without an orienteering team
be allowed to compete with the teams from other schools or with home-school teams?
Home-schooled students should be allowed to form a team and compete in the
Interscholastic Championship competition. The following rules should be established to govern
these teams.
54
a. All team members must be from the same geographical area. This area would consist
of their county of residence or the public school district in which they reside, whichever area is
geographically larger.
b. Home-school team members must meet all other USOF eligibility requirements for
School Team members including age and grade level.
c. Individuals who are students at a regular school are not permitted to compete on a
home-school team but must compete with their school‘s team or as individuals.
d. Members of home-school teams must be USOF members.
The task force considered other options, including allowing home-schooled students to join any
local school team. Additionally, an option was considered to permit students at a school without
an orienteering team to join a school team from another school. Although some task force
members supported these options, they were ultimately rejected because:
1. Allowing these options would violate the spirit of a School Team as a group of
individuals who attend the same institution.
2. This would facilitate the creation of all-star teams.
3. It would likely result in reduced levels of participation
4. There would be no incentive to organize a School Team since a competitor could
just put together a collection of orienteers.
5. True School Teams would be reluctant to compete against all-star teams.
ISSUE # 2
Would the Interscholastic (IS) be better served using an orienteering experience factor
instead of an age/school-grade criteria?
PROPOSALS: None retain current system.
Due to time and resource limitations, it was not possible to fully explore the possibilities
and ramifications associated with such a change. In the opinion of the sub-committee chair it
55
would be too drastic a departure from the original model for the IS competition – the
Intercollegiate Championships.
ISSUE # 3
Given the potential inequities resulting from middle/junior high schools having different
grade groupings (6-8 vs 6-9), should the MS category be restructured?
PROPOSALS: None retain the current system.
Options considered:
a. Restrict all MS teams to the 6-8th
graders from the same school; add a new 9th
grade/Freshmen category.
Not recommended as this would adversely impact junior high schools and
private, multi-level schools. Implementation may result in significant
additional work for organizers.
b. Allow 9th
graders in a separate high school to be on the same team with 6-8th
graders from the sending MS they attended, and/or allow MS teams to include
students from different schools that ―feed‖ the same high school.
Not recommended because this runs counter to basic IS philosophy that
School Team should be comprised only of full-time students enrolled in the
team‘s school.
c. Discontinue MS as a national championship.
Not recommended because:
56
1. This could alienate many younger orienteers and their parents
and reduce participation in the IS.
2. This would remove a motivating factor for younger juniors to
recruit friends to orienteering.
3. Most other US Championships (2-Day, Night, Short Course)
consider age 14-and under youth categories to be championship
categories.
d. Allow MS students to compete on the high school team that the middle school
feeds.
This was a late submission and is included for informational purposes
only. This suggestion may have merit, but the task force will consider it during
the ―Public Comment‖ phase.
The Issue
Frequently a school will seek to start an orienteering team based upon the Interest
of a single student. That student may be a member of an Orienteering family with
one or more younger siblings who orienteer. They are each able to recruit one or
two friends that first year. They now have enough members to form a five
member team. Unfortunately they transcend high school and middle school ages.
They are unable to field a team. Thus unable to benefit from the promotion it
would bring. And ultimately they lose a year at best and never get off the ground
at worst.
Their effort to develop the team could fail.
Possible Solution
Allow middle school students to run up a category and compete on the high
school team where the middle school feeds. Eliminate the four year maximum
eligibility rule, so that they may compete on a HSV team from sixth grade
through twelfth. Eliminate the lower age limit.
57
This will present an environment for family based teems to spawn into regular
High School teams.
PROPOSAL (RELATED)
Add a Primary School (PS) category on the White Course for grades 6 and under
attending the same school. An additional, but smaller ―Brunton‖ cup should be obtained as a
traveling trophy.
This idea enjoyed strong support among most of those expressing an opinion on the
matter. While it will attract interest mostly near the event site, as well as from orienteering
families, it may also motivate young orienteers to recruit their friends to the sport.
ISSUE # 4
Currently, if a JROTC team also meets IS School Team criteria, it is eligible as an IS (HSV,
HSJV, MS) team. On the other hand, JROTC teams which have members from other
schools, which do have a JROTC program, are not eligible as an IS School team. Should
this continue?
PROPOSAL: Change the eligibility rules for all School Teams to require that all members
of the team be enrolled full time in their school.
The current rules read:
4.1 TEAMS
58
(a) Members must attend the same private or public school. MS teams may be composed
of 9th
graders with 6-8 graders if they attend the same school.
To prove that the students attend the same school, they must each be able to show
school ID for the same school or, if the school does not issue ID‘s, a letter from the
principal stating that the students are enrolled at the school. Teams competing only
for the JROTC trophy must be made up of students from the same JROTC unit per
the unit's most current Unit Enrollment Report.
This rule simply requires the team members to attend the same school, not be enrolled as a full-
time student at that school. By restricting school team members to being full-time students, this
change will eliminate the situation in JROTC when a team member may be attending the school,
but enrolled only in the JROTC class. The team would still be eligible for the JROTC trophy but
not the School trophy. However, for this requirement, to be equitable, it must be applied to all
School Teams.
Options considered:
a. Eliminate the JROTC category from the IS competition altogether.
Not recommended because:
1. Would very severely impact many schools with JROTC O-programs
2. Would result in drastic reduction in IS Championship attendance;
3. Would alienate largest pool of juniors and involved parents, as well as
many adult coaches from the sport.
b. JROTC teams would only compete on HSV or HSV and HSJV
Not recommended because: Currently all coaches have the option to enter their
teams in the HSJV and/or MS categories commensurate with age and grade-level
requirements. There is not sufficient reason to change this policy.
59
c. Have JROTC and IS team categories be mutually exclusive; e.g., IS and JROTC
Champs would be separate team competitions held at the same event.
Not recommended because:
1. This would negatively impact many schools with JROTC O-programs;
2. This could alienate the largest pool of juniors and involved parents, as
well as many adult coaches in the sport.
d. Allow JROTC teams which have members enrolled in other schools to be eligible as an
IS team.
Not recommended because: See proposal above that would limit s to team members
enrolled full-time at the team‘s school.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue #5
Should a JROTC team that is HSV eligible be able to win both the JROTC and HSV
Brunton Cups (traveling trophies)?
If the JROTC team is HSV eligible under the criteria of all JROTC team members being enrolled
full-time at the team‘s school, that JROTC team will continue to be eligible to win both the
JROTC Championship trophy and the HSV Championship trophy. This proposal is to change
the trophy awarded to the JROTC Championship team. This is not a proposal to change the
eligibility to win any other category.
PROPOSAL:
Obtain a new traveling trophy for JROTC Championship, equal in prestige, but not the
same design as the Brunton Cups. Transfer the engraved panels from the current JROTC
60
Brunton Cup to the new trophy. Then, convert the former JROTC Brunton Cup trophy to
the HSJV traveling trophy, adding engraved panels for all previous HSJV Champs.
This idea enjoyed strong support among most of those expressing an opinion on the
matter, for the following reasons:
1. This method would give the JROTC program its own, unique trophy.
2. This would preserve the tradition of awarding a Brunton Cups and both HSV
and HSJV champions will have similar trophies.
3. This would establish the Brunton Cups as THE Interscholastic traveling
trophies.
4. This would correct a perceived oversight by establishing a traveling trophy for
the HSJV Champions.
Issue #6
Should an "Open" team category for which any 3-5 individuals could form a team be
established?
PROPOSAL:
None -- retain current IS team definitions.
Establishment of "Open" teams was rejected for the following reasons:
1. This option would dilute the nature of Interscholastic orienteering competition
in general.
61
2. The possible formation of "all-star" teams would violate the ―School-Team
organization of the Interscholastic Championship competition, and put true
School Teams at a competitive disadvantage.
3. This option is a competition format that is more suited as an "overlay" to other
A-meets, including the US (2-day) Championships;
4. Would remove a motivating factor for juniors to recruit friends to the sport.
Interscholastic Task Force
Scoring Subcommittee
Mandate
Examine the current Interscholastic Scoring System and make recommendations for a scoring
system that will place girls on the same competitive level as boys.
Goals
Eliminate the gender bias that currently exists in the current IS scoring system.
Create an atmosphere of fun and challenge that will attract the High School youth to
Orienteering.
Encourage the growth of orienteering in high schools across the nation.
Limit the embarrassment factor a newly formed team may have with a poor showing at a
national event.
Standardize the event, the scoring, the courses, and the schedule in order to allow for
expansion amongst as many schools as possible.
62
Create an environment for easy change and expansion in years to come.
Proposal
Recommendation #1
We propose the team scoring method be modified immediately. The individual competition
should remain as is and will not be affected. The courses and categories shall remain as they
are. Team structure shall remain the same (coed, run 5, score 3). Make the changes as follows:
1. Eliminate the adding of elapsed times.
2. Implement a method of adding position-based scores. This will be similar to a Cross Country
style of scoring.
3. Score the genders separately for each category and course.
4. Weight the scores on a scale of 1 to 100.
5. All starters, up to five per team, will be given a score.
6. All starters that do not acquire a finish time will be scored a maximum of 100. This shall
include Did Not Finish, Over Time, and Mispunches. The exception should be: Anyone
found guilty of abusing a rule of conduct should be expunged from the scoring calculation.
(e.g. cheating, unsportsmanlike, drug violations, etc.)
7. Any teams with the exact same score shall be immediately resolved with a described
procedure.
8. A school may enter more than one team in each category, but only one team from each
school may medal in each category (1st, 2
nd, 3rd).
Rationale
63
1. Errors in arithmetic time calculations will be limited.
2. Attempting to balance the HSV boys and girls courses will no longer be necessary.
3. The gender bias in the HSV and MS categories is eliminated.
4. Although the 1st girl and boy may not be equal in talent they will be valued exactly equal.
The mid girl and boy will be valued the same, as well as the last, and all those in between.
5. The scores will become comparable. The lowest possible score will be above 2 (depends
upon the number of competitors), and the highest will remain 300. Results could be
compared from year to year and across categories.
6. Extreme skewing affect of ―super stars‖ will be limited to the weighted-percentile factor.
This makes the competition appear more of an effort of the team in terms of their score.
7. All individuals that fail to earn a finish time cannot score higher than 100. Even these
individuals may contribute to the team score. This applies a positive overtone on our current
method of disqualifying individuals and teams with a DNF, MP, or OT.
8. A team that fails to have three or more finishers will not be eliminated after the first day of
competition; nor the second day. This too adds a more positive atmosphere to the event.
9. Individuals that believe they have no chance of scoring in their team‘s top three now have a
new incentive. The 4th
and 5th
finishers of a team can displace a scoring member of another
team, thus pushing other team scores higher.
Methodology
The score for each individual shall be calculated based upon the following:
Individual Score.
Each individual starter shall receive a calculated elapsed time or an incomplete designation
(DNF, MP, OT).
Those with elapsed time shall be ranked from first to last. This is called POSITION.
64
The number of starters for that category (e.g. HSV-male) shall be reported by the start crew to
the results crew. This number is called the FIELD.
The individual score will be calculated using the equation below on a spreadsheet or simple
programmatic application. The individual‘s score is called iSCORE.
iSCORE = (POSITION –1 ) * (99 / (FIELD – 1)) + 1
All of those with an incomplete designation will be given a score of 100.
There will always be at least one individual with a score of ‗1‘. Ties are possible.
There will always be at least one individual with a score of ‗100‘. There can be many with this
score.
Team Score.
The lowest three iSCORE values for each team shall be added together to form a team score for
each day of competition. This is called tSCORE.
If the event consists of multiple days then they shall be added together.
tSCORE = tSCORE1 + tSCORE2
For calculation purposes the decimal should be carried as far as the used system will allow.
For display purposes the decimal should be carried one or two places, or as far as necessary to
indicate an order or tie. We recommend two decimals be the standard. This would
accommodate 10,000 unique individual scores.
Tie Breaking
65
If two or more scores are exactly the same, break the tie by:
First – consider the total times. If that fails:
Second – consider the positions of the teams Fourth members if available. If that fails:
Third – consider the time of the fourth positions. If that fails:
Fourth – consider the same as above for the fifth positions. If that fails:
Fifth – accept the tie. It must be valid.
Recommendation #2
The competition shall consist of one or more days of short to classic distances.
Rationale
Relays, sprint events, trail-O, etc. have unique properties that require specialized training or
additional courses. This does not lend itself to the limited time that schools, coaches and teams
have to develop a program and train the individuals.
A score event would not be difficult to include in the scoring calculations. Nevertheless we do
not recommend adding any such events to what should become a standardized, predictable,
heavily attended, national championship.
Recommendation #3
66
The Interscholastic championship shall be held no later than the first week of April each year.
The High School orienteering season shall be defined as first Saturday of November through the
first Saturday of April.
Rationale
This will limit the amount of conflict with other sports and activities vying for the time of the
individuals.
It gives a school, coach , and individual a predictable scheduled time to dedicate to
orienteering and training.
It creates an atmosphere of cooperation amongst schools as to when they will be competing
locally, regionally, statewide, etc.
Recommendation #4
Separate gender teams may be added to the Interscholastics within five to ten years. The timing
should be determined as the number of schools submitting teams increases and the gender
proportions become adequate. The coed teams do not have to be eliminated. The unique nature
of orienteering and the proposed scoring system will allow for both. Being on a coed or single
gender team does not have to be mutually exclusive. The scoring system will allow teams of
boys, girls, and coed be consist of overlapping rosters.
67
Current State of Scoring an Interscholastic
Competition.
The USOF rules address the scoring of the high school and middle school level US
Championships. They define how both teams and individuals shall be scored and ranked at such
events. Although not widespread, these rules would cover all local, regional, and national events
that seek USOF sanctioning as an interscholastic event, in addition to the US Championships.
What‘s more, the scoring rules are currently identical as those for the intercollegiate events.
Individual Competition
Individuals in high school may compete in a varsity (HSV) or a junior varsity (HSJV) category.
Middle school has but one category (MS). Each of these three categories has a male and a
female gender. The individual scoring is calculated by adding the net times for each day of
competition. This may be for any number of days as defined by the event but has been typically
two days. Individual scoring is not different from any other typical two day USOF sanctioned
event. The lowest times prevail.
Team Competition
Teams follow the same categories as the individuals. The rules for the teams define both a
structure and scoring methodology.
The structure is referred to as gender neutral. This is because members may consist of either
gender. Each team must have a minimum of three members and a maximum of five. The teams
may be all male, all female, or any combination of three to five members of either gender. The
term ―gender neutral‖ is not a claim of equality but more a declaration of fairness. Fairness is
attempted by placing HSV-M on Green and HSV-F on Brown, and varying the course lengths
and climbs according to gender for JV and Middle School courses.
68
The scoring is based on total elapsed time. For each day of the event the three fastest times of
the 3 to 5 team members are added together. The number of days is not dictated by the rules.
The total time for each day is added together. The lowest time prevails.
Scoring
Goals – Our Desired State
We need to know where we want to be before we try to discern the issues. We do not know the
official USOF goals, but we have identified the following as core goals affecting the
Interscholastic Championships:
1) Growth and expansion of Orienteering.
a. Maximize participation from youth within the spirit of Interscholastic
Competition.
b. Increase the number of schools involved.
c. Encourage schools to enter start up teams.
i. Recognize that the Interscholastic skill levels can be diverse and
underdeveloped.
ii. Create an equitable but inclusive and fun atmosphere for all levels of
skill.
d. Increase the number of females involved.
69
i. Create an incentive to develop the local programs for females as well
as males.
e. Spawn regional, state, and local championship events or tournaments.
We have found orienteering to be a great sport even for those who are not "stars." It helps a
lot of kids who are not naturally athletic or not interested in mainline sports.
We want to create an environment that leaves the participants with such a positive
experience that will continue to participant in college and then into their adult lives, thus
perpetuating the sport.
2) Increase the quality of US junior orienteering
a. Motivate the individual juniors with a scheduled annual goal
b. Incite higher levels of training
c. Create incentives at the grassroots levels by creating higher standards at the
Interscholastics.
The IS should be a showcase of the best talent in the nation and a major component in
feeding the Intercollegiate orienteering excellence and the US Junior team.
3) Improve the quality of the Interscholastic Championship event.
a. Improve the smooth execution of the event.
i. Seek improved results automation (systems, software).
ii. Maximize the speed and accuracy of posting results.
b. Create an equitable scoring system for teams
i. Eliminate any perceived disparity between genders.
70
ii. Seek to eliminate discouraging experiences.
iii. Recognize that ―fun‖ is a corner stone of lasting involvement.
iv. Without removing any incentive to improve - minimize the negativity
of defeat.
c. Create a long-range staged plan to ensure the future and position of the
Interscholastic Championships.
i. Envision the structure and format of the Interscholastic
Championships a generation from now.
ii. Identify and schedule transition stages to modify the Interscholastic
Championships.
iii. Consider the Interscholastics and Orienteering as it is viewed from
the schools and its associated programs
iv. Recognize that orienteering is a small attraction competing for the
limited time and attention of our country‘s youth.
Issues
Assuming that perfection is never achievable then this and any other system of scoring will have
issues. Below we have listed many issues that have been brought to our attention or that we have
uncovered during this investigation. All of these pertain to the team competition only.
1. Gender
71
The current method of scoring adds the three lowest team member times together without regard
to gender. The rules have the HSV females competing on a Brown course and the males on a
Green. USOF guidelines recommend a course designed to anticipate a winning time of 45 to 50
minutes on Brown and 50 to 55 minutes on Green. All members of the HSJV and MS teams
compete on an Orange or Yellow course respectively.
There are two major issues that result from this gender-neutral team makeup.
a. The genders are not physically equal.
The average boy is able to run faster than the average girl. In looking at girls and boys cross-
country race times over the past fours we have found a consistent difference of 14-15% between
the genders. These comparisons were over the same distance, course, and day. The population
samples were nearly equal.
With respect to the HSJV and MS teams, adding female and male times from the same course
gives the males a substantial advantage.
The scoring of the HSJV and MS teams is inequitable and must be restructured.
b. Comparing times from two different courses is not possible.
It has been the common practice at the Interscholastic Championships for the meet officials and
course designers to attempt to equalize the HSV men‘s green and girl‘s brown courses. There
are no rules, standards, or procedures that dictate how this should be done. Some base the course
designs on the predicted winning times; others consider the whole field. Some regard it as an art;
others a science. A study of the actual results over the past 4 years does not show success by
either method.
72
Designing a longer course and a shorter course for faster and slower people so that their
predicted times will be fair and similar is problematic. There are many subjective and unknown
variables that prevent the comparing of two separate courses. The distance is not one of them.
The course length is a definite. On the other hand, the ―optimum route‖ is a subjective metric. If
everyone agreed upon route choices there would be little left to separate orienteering from a foot
race. The amount of climb can be quantitatively measured over the subjective optimum route.
However, comparing the actual grade of the climb, considering the terrain differences between
legs and courses, and all of the other factors that differentiate one courses from another, lend a
level of complexity too great to master for the art of course design. We suspect that even if you
knew the competitors finish times in advance that it would be impractical to reverse engineer a
formula to use in equalizing two different courses.
The scoring of the HSV teams is inequitable and must be restructured.
2. Using Time in the scoring calculations
a. Adding elapsed race times frequently lends to mistakes in calculations.
Even considering our current level of technology it is impossible to remove the human element
from result calculations and postings. We are fallible, and when it comes to do adding and
subtracting minutes and seconds, or just communicating a single time, mistakes are made. The
current structure of team scoring requires that a lot of resultant times be added together. E.g.
51:50 plus 75:33 is 127:23 not 126:83; and 127:23 is not equal to 1:27:23 (a common mistake).
The calculation of team results would be simpler with a decimal over HH:MM:SS scoring
system.
b. When we regard elapsed race times only, the spirit of the “team” can be lost
in the result.
Each team may consist of members with a range of abilities. Some teams may consist of a
number of typical members and one with extraordinary talent. This single ―super star‖ can move
73
a team up several positions in the final rankings and make all of the difference. The converse is
equally true. A smaller team with little depth could have two average members and rely on a
third member with a time slow enough to throw the team into a position which gives no credit to
the efforts of the other two.
E.g. 1. A team with two members at 85:00 and 89:00 and one at 50:00 score a time of 224:00;
whereas a team with times of 70:00, 75:00 and 80:00 score a 225:00.
E.g. 2. A team with three members averaging 100 minutes score a time of 300:00; whereas a
team that relies on a weak third member could get times of 80:00, 80:00, and 170:00, resulting in
a score of 330:00.
In the above examples we do not feel that the scoring and team ranks represent the true spirit of
team competition. An individual first place finish is a first place finish regardless whether by a
minute or 20 minutes. Likewise, those who finish in the far back of the pack can be last by an
hour or by one minute. Either could remove a ―team‖ from any contention but the former may
demoralize and permanently discourage the development of an improved, larger, and dynastic
team.
The team scoring method should be restructured to reflect the spirit of team-competition,
reducing the effect of extreme talent levels (i.e.--superstars and dead-weight.)
c. Members of a team without a finish time may disable a team.
In the Interscholastics many individuals mispunch (MSP), run over the maximum allowed time
(OVT), or simply do not finish (DNF). When this occurs they are not given an individual time.
Thus, they are unable to contribute to the team score. What is worse, if a team fails to receive
three finish times on each day of competition the team is completely out of contention.
The scoring method could be restructured to include a maximum value in lieu of a null value in
these cases with the caveat that such teams will not be in contention for a medal.
74
3. Format of the competition
The current Interscholastic rules do not explicitly dictate but they imply that the competition
shall consist of one or more days of classic events. The rules state that all competitors will run
on the course specified for the category they are competing in. I.e. HSV M/F Green/Brown,
HSJV Orange, and MS Yellow courses.
With the intent of spiking interest amongst the junior competitors it has been suggested that the
competition consist of other formats as, i.e. relay, sprint, short, score, etc. In the interest in
increasing the fun factor one day of a two-day event could take this form. This would have an
affect on the team competition, the overall results, and subsequently the method used to score the
competition.
The rules should explicitly state what the competition format must be and what it may consist of.
4. Venue of the competition
a. The season
The U.S. Orienteering Interscholastic Championships involves high school students. High
schools organize their schedule over a ―school year‖, roughly late August through early June.
The students at many of these schools are offered a wide variety of activities from amongst
sports, clubs, drama, band, JROTC, service groups, academics, work, etc. Orienteering is
competing for the time and attention of these students. Most sports have state regulated
schedules. The Interscholastics have been held many different months of the year. This impacts
not only who attends it but also which students partake in orienteering at all and which adults are
available to lend assistance.
Year round activities are not as likely to affect an Orienteering schedule as greatly as seasonal
activities. Seasonal sports are fairly structured with their schedules across the nation. Many
75
states define fall, winter, and spring sport schedules. The Interscholastics have been held in
January, February, and April, over the previous years. This variety makes it difficult for students
and coaches to develop a lasting program outside of a select and small group of individuals.
USOF should establish a calendar schedule for the Interscholastics that will maximize annual
participation.
b. The Audience
The Interscholastic Championship is a single event generally hosted independently by a
chartered club. This event is directed at middle and high school aged orienteers. It is a separate
event from the U.S Individual Championships. As a result this partly divides the junior
competitor population between school based teams and those that are more family oriented. The
school based teams with limited resources and tight schedules are attracted to the IS event and
very few others. The individual competitors have a stronger attraction to the US Champs and the
support of their families to get to additional top competitions. There is no single youth
championship that involves all of the top competitors in one race.
USOF may consider restructuring its junior championship classes, categories, and events in order
to maximize the participation, competition level, and prestige.
Possible Solutions
1) Gender Issue:
a) Establish separate male and female team categories instead of the current coed team
i) Advantages:
76
It allows a system of fair scoring for each gender‘s team competition.
It may provide motivation for schools with females to do a better job recruiting and
training them for a team. Why recruit females if you have plenty of guys to do the
job?
ii) Disadvantages:
It may make it very difficult for schools with small or no programs to get enough
people for a team either a male or female team; much less both.
Increases the complexity of the IS Champs with additional setup, results, awards,
tracking, etc.
Loss of the unique coed nature that orienteering can offer over other activities and
sports. Coed can increase the fun factor and the attractiveness to the sport from the
youthful perspective.
b) Establish separate male and female team categories for HSV only. Leave HSJV and MS
as is; co-ed.
i) Advantages:
Kids have years to plan, recruit, and train some of their comrades for the varsity
level—This gives them 2 to 3 years to get a program growing if they start in 9th
grade, longer if they start in MS.
Eliminates any possible inequity in the HSV coed team structure
ii) Disadvantages
Retains a biased scoring structure against the females on the HSJV and MS
Increases the complexity of the IS Champs with additional setup, results, awards,
tracking, etc.
Loss of the unique coed nature that orienteering can offer over other activities and
sports. Coed can increase the fun factor and the attractiveness to the sport from the
youthful perspective.
c) Create separate courses for each gender for the HSJV and MS categories.
77
i) Advantages:
Eliminates some of the inequity in the HSJV and MS coed team structure.
Puts HSJV and MS on par with the HSV.
Easier to design courses without attempting to equaling them.
ii) Disadvantages
Increases the complexity of the IS Champs with additional course setup, results,
tracking, etc.
Retains the same flaw that exists with the HSV; comparing separate courses.
d) Retain the coed team structure as it is but weight the males and females separately with a
modified cross-country style of scoring.
i) Advantages:
Removes gender bias
Allows the coed team structure to remain
Eliminates the flaw of comparing separate courses
Creates a possible incentive to recruit and develop both males and females.
ii) Disadvantages
Requires the use of a weighting formula in calculating the results.
Would require a plan to resolve tied scores and unforeseen situations.
Newly created perceptions of inequity will need to be addressed.
Will generate a new set of ingenious strategies to take advantage of any perceived
weakness in the system.
e) Leave the team competition structure as it is with the coed teams
78
i) Advantages:
It is understood as it is. No need to learn or explain anything new.
ii) Disadvantages
Remains gender biased.
Impractical to ever regard as fair and equitable.
2) Eliminating the use of time in the scoring calculations:
a) Establish a cross-country style scoring system for team scoring.
i) Advantages:
Does not affect individual competition.
Eliminates the use of ―time‖ calculations and their associated mistakes.
Reduces the affect of extreme talent levels.
Partially balances the genders without concern about comparing different courses.
ii) Disadvantages
Adds a new complexity to scoring teams
By only partially balancing the genders a whole new set of inequities is created.
Does not address DNF and MP
b) Establish a weighted cross-country style scoring system for team scoring.
i) Advantages:
Eliminates the use of ―time‖ calculations and their associated mistakes.
Reduces the affect of extreme talent levels.
79
Completely balances the genders without concern about comparing different courses.
Allows scoring of those who do not earn a finish time. E.g. DNF, MP, and OT
ii) Disadvantages
Adds a new complexity to team scoring.
Invites a new generation of criticism.
c) Count all competitors in a category with a weighted cross-country style scoring system
for team scoring.
i) Advantages:
Allows all members of a team to contribute to the teams final position. The 4th
and
5th
finishers of the team may displace another teams 3rd
runner, thus pushing the other
teams total score higher.
Using a cross-country style scoring system, this puts the IS even more in alignment
with that established and familiar system.
ii) Disadvantages
Adds a new type of competition not seen in orienteering.
d) Count all competitors in a category with a weighted cross-country style scoring system
for team scoring.
i) Advantages:
Allows all members of a team to contribute to the teams final position. The 4th
and
5th
finishers of the team may displace another teams 3rd
runner, thus pushing the other
teams total score higher.
Using a cross-country style scoring system, this puts the IS even more in alignment
with that established and familiar system.
ii) Disadvantages
Adds a new type of competition
80
3) Other Options
a) Change the format of the competition. Allow a day sprint, short, or relay competition.
i) Advantages:
Increases the variety and perhaps the fun and excitement for the competitors.
May be counted as a day of individual competition.
Classic or short events do not conflict when used in team competition.
ii) Disadvantages
A traditional relay would not simply contribute to a team competition.
A traditional relay would ordinarily conflict with individual competition.
A sprint requires an especially honed skill. This is not the emphasis of introducing
and establishing orienteering at the school level.
Adds a level of complexity to the event and scoring system, beyond all other options
presented.
b) Define an interscholastic orienteering season. Prescribe when the IS championships may
be held.
i) Advantages:
Targets a set time in the school year that orienteering will compete with all other
activities.
Allows a coaching staff and group of kids to attend to other activities that are
scheduled.
USOF clubs, old schools teams, and new school teams will be able to coordinate
efforts during a known time of year for training, instruction, and intramural
competition.
May enhance the growth of IS teams.
81
ii) Disadvantages
Would force the hosting clubs to schedule the event during a prescribed window of
time.
Would either compete against very organized and popular sports or be held late fall
winter and early spring.
c) Combine all youth and junior championships into one super event. E.g Interscholastics,
Intercollegiates, Junior U.S. Champs.
i) Advantages:
Creates an environment where all of the top youthful talent will be in one place at
one time.
A single metric to assist JWOC team selection.
Added prestige even amongst non-orienteers
ii) Disadvantages
Would force orienteering families to attend two Championship events
Combining events could exceed attendance and complexity issues for hosting clubs
and meet sites.
Interscholastic Task Force
Scoring Subcommittee
Mandate
82
Examine the current Interscholastic Scoring System and make recommendations for a scoring
system that will place girls on the same competitive level as boys.
Goals
Eliminate the gender bias that currently exists in the current IS scoring system.
Create an atmosphere of fun and challenge that will attract the High School youth to
Orienteering.
Encourage the growth of orienteering in high schools across the nation.
Limit the embarrassment factor a newly formed team may have with a poor showing at a
national event.
Standardize the event, the scoring, the courses, and the schedule in order to allow for
expansion amongst as many schools as possible.
Create an environment for easy change and expansion in years to come.
Proposal
Recommendation #1
We propose the team scoring method be modified immediately. The individual competition
should remain as is and will not be affected. The courses and categories shall remain as they
are. Team structure shall remain the same (coed, run 5, score 3). Make the changes as follows:
9. Eliminate the adding of elapsed times.
10. Implement a method of adding position-based scores. This will be similar to a Cross Country
style of scoring.
83
11. Score the genders separately for each category and course.
12. Weight the scores on a scale of 1 to 100.
13. All starters, up to five per team, will be given a score.
14. All starters that do not acquire a finish time will be scored a maximum of 100. This shall
include Did Not Finish, Over Time, and Mispunches. The exception should be: Anyone
found guilty of abusing a rule of conduct should be expunged from the scoring calculation.
(e.g. cheating, unsportsmanlike, drug violations, etc.)
15. Any teams with the exact same score shall be immediately resolved with a described
procedure.
16. A school may enter more than one team in each category, but only one team from each
school may medal in each category (1st, 2
nd, 3rd).
Rationale
10. Errors in arithmetic time calculations will be limited.
11. Attempting to balance the HSV boys and girls courses will no longer be necessary.
12. The gender bias in the HSV and MS categories is eliminated.
13. Although the 1st girl and boy may not be equal in talent they will be valued exactly equal.
The mid girl and boy will be valued the same, as well as the last, and all those in between.
14. The scores will become comparable. The lowest possible score will be above 2 (depends
upon the number of competitors), and the highest will remain 300. Results could be
compared from year to year and across categories.
15. Extreme skewing affect of ―super stars‖ will be limited to the weighted-percentile factor.
This makes the competition appear more of an effort of the team in terms of their score.
16. All individuals that fail to earn a finish time cannot score higher than 100. Even these
individuals may contribute to the team score. This applies a positive overtone on our current
method of disqualifying individuals and teams with a DNF, MP, or OT.
17. A team that fails to have three or more finishers will not be eliminated after the first day of
competition; nor the second day. This too adds a more positive atmosphere to the event.
84
18. Individuals that believe they have no chance of scoring in their team‘s top three now have a
new incentive. The 4th
and 5th
finishers of a team can displace a scoring member of another
team, thus pushing other team scores higher.
Methodology
The score for each individual shall be calculated based upon the following:
Individual Score.
Each individual starter shall receive a calculated elapsed time or an incomplete designation
(DNF, MP, OT).
Those with elapsed time shall be ranked from first to last. This is called POSITION.
The number of starters for that category (e.g. HSV-male) shall be reported by the start crew to
the results crew. This number is called the FIELD.
The individual score will be calculated using the equation below on a spreadsheet or simple
programmatic application. The individual‘s score is called iSCORE.
iSCORE = (POSITION –1 ) * (99 / (FIELD – 1)) + 1
All of those with an incomplete designation will be given a score of 100.
There will always be at least one individual with a score of ‗1‘. Ties are possible.
There will always be at least one individual with a score of ‗100‘. There can be many with this
score.
Team Score.
85
The lowest three iSCORE values for each team shall be added together to form a team score for
each day of competition. This is called tSCORE.
If the event consists of multiple days then they shall be added together.
tSCORE = tSCORE1 + tSCORE2
For calculation purposes the decimal should be carried as far as the used system will allow.
For display purposes the decimal should be carried one or two places, or as far as necessary to
indicate an order or tie. We recommend two decimals be the standard. This would
accommodate 10,000 unique individual scores.
Tie Breaking
If two or more scores are exactly the same, break the tie by:
First – consider the total times. If that fails:
Second – consider the positions of the teams Fourth members if available. If that fails:
Third – consider the time of the fourth positions. If that fails:
Fourth – consider the same as above for the fifth positions. If that fails:
Fifth – accept the tie. It must be valid.
Recommendation #2
The competition shall consist of one or more days of short to classic distances.
86
Rationale
Relays, sprint events, trail-O, etc. have unique properties that require specialized training or
additional courses. This does not lend itself to the limited time that schools, coaches and teams
have to develop a program and train the individuals.
A score event would not be difficult to include in the scoring calculations. Nevertheless we do
not recommend adding any such events to what should become a standardized, predictable,
heavily attended, national championship.
Recommendation #3
The Interscholastic championship shall be held no later than the first week of April each year.
The High School orienteering season shall be defined as first Saturday of November through the
first Saturday of April.
Rationale
This will limit the amount of conflict with other sports and activities vying for the time of the
individuals.
It gives a school, coach , and individual a predictable scheduled time to dedicate to
orienteering and training.
It creates an atmosphere of cooperation amongst schools as to when they will be competing
locally, regionally, statewide, etc.
87
Recommendation #4
Separate gender teams may be added to the Interscholastics within five to ten years. The timing
should be determined as the number of schools submitting teams increases and the gender
proportions become adequate. The coed teams do not have to be eliminated. The unique nature
of orienteering and the proposed scoring system will allow for both. Being on a coed or single
gender team does not have to be mutually exclusive. The scoring system will allow teams of
boys, girls, and coed be consist of overlapping rosters.
88
Actual Day 2 2005 Varsity results
Girls Number of starters: 26 Boys Number of starters: 76
Position Time Score Position Time Score Shafer-Skelton, Anna 1 0:53:21 1.0 Paddock, Robbie 1 0:40:52 1.0 Zavalia, Jessenia 2 0:58:18 5.0 Strat, Andy 2 0:50:30 2.3 Sweezy, Melissa 3 1:04:16 8.9 Thies, Dylan 3 0:55:55 3.6 Hotz, Kristin 4 1:10:22 12.9 Enger, William 4 0:56:15 5.0 Livingston, Erica 5 1:14:59 16.8 Miner, David 5 0:56:23 6.3 Tisinger, Kristine 6 1:16:38 20.8 Cornish, Hunter 6 0:59:16 7.6 Urich, Erica 7 1:17:58 24.8 Johnson, Jarvis 7 0:59:47 8.9 Lee, Sara 8 1:20:06 28.7 Pearson, John 8 1:00:06 10.2 Worsham, Franchesca 9 1:20:13 32.7 Wright, Joshua 9 1:00:59 11.6 Borish, Tori 10 1:20:34 36.6 Norris, Michael 10 1:02:02 12.9 Davila, Jessica 11 1:21:47 40.6 Eddy, Erik 11 1:04:59 14.2 Austin, Sara 12 1:24:08 44.6 Boehm, Richard 12 1:06:49 15.5 Tindle, Tasia 13 1:25:35 48.5 Anthony, Marcus 13 1:10:36 16.8 Jenkins, Arissa 14 1:29:44 52.5 Lawall, Brennan 14 1:14:47 18.2 Gomez, Carmen 15 1:34:31 56.4 Lane, Justin 15 1:15:23 19.5 Wigand, Emily 16 1:35:42 60.4 White, C J 16 1:16:26 20.8 Griego, Ashley 17 1:43:24 64.4 Adams, Curtis 17 1:16:57 22.1
Olsson, Catherine 18 1:54:29 68.3 Peterson, Aleksander 18 1:17:06 23.4
Wellman, Tiffany 19 2:03:06 72.3 Parsons, Nick 19 1:17:21 24.8 Kuestner, Holly 20 2:06:02 76.2 Frederick, David 20 1:17:54 26.1 Manchack, Jenfer 21 2:06:35 80.2 Tully, Clint 21 1:18:37 27.4 Williams, Jamie 22 2:10:50 84.2 Tomlin, Andrew 22 1:22:21 28.7 Lewis, Kristen 23 2:44:55 88.1 Hartung, Tobias 23 1:23:56 30.0 Taylor, Cynthia 24 3:45:30 100.0 Galt, Jesse 24 1:23:56 31.4 Clay, Samantha 25 mp 100.0 Sandoval, Arturo 25 1:24:13 32.7 Lendennie, Karla 26 mp 100.0 Dunkle, Blake 26 1:24:30 34.0 Striegel, Shane 27 1:24:56 35.3 Carey, Jonathan 28 1:25:29 36.6 Pomian, Patrick 29 1:25:54 38.0 Griger, Ed 30 1:26:26 39.3 Nixon, Travis 31 1:33:24 40.6 Toporski, Chris 32 1:34:33 41.9 Craft, Anthony 33 1:37:53 43.2 Lovett, James 34 1:38:51 44.6 Avalos, Johnny 35 1:40:02 45.9 Maroon, Eryk 36 1:46:46 47.2 Isom, Cody 37 1:47:44 48.5
89
Vincent, Dustin 38 1:52:31 49.8 Hirnyi, Volodymyr 39 1:57:58 51.2 Straughan, Terry 40 1:58:34 52.5 Score Clifford, Josh 41 2:00:10 53.8 Espinoza, Jose 42 2:00:28 55.1 Smith, Beau 43 2:04:36 56.4 School Individual Team Blankenship, Adam 44 2:07:13 57.8 The Colony Jonathan Carey 36.6 38.6 Girten, Spenser 45 2:08:48 59.1 Blake Dunkle 34.0 Kollstedt, Kyle 46 2:11:16 60.4 Robbie Paddock 1.0 McCrary, Corey 47 2:11:50 61.7 Jessienia Zavala 5.0 Eschevarria, Michael 48 2:12:00 63.0 Franchesca Worsham 32.7 Green, Curtis 49 2:12:34 64.4 Snyder, Michael 50 2:18:22 65.7 LaPorte Curtis Adams 22.1 25.4 Ransom, Caleb 51 2:18:30 67.0 Michael Norris 12.9 Hernandez, Jose 52 2:18:32 68.3 Melissa Sweezy 8.9 Jacobson, Jeremiah 53 2:19:47 69.6 Dylan Thies 3.6 Izaguirre, Edgar 54 2:21:39 71.0 Erica Urica 24.8 Circulado, Cholo 55 2:22:06 72.3 Chapman, Jonathan 56 2:24:29 73.6 FUMA Josh Wright 11.6 40.0 Patterson, Dane 57 2:28:33 74.9 Jarvis Johnson 8.9 Ray, Aaron 58 2:30:10 76.2 Justin Lane 19.5 Carolan, Liam 59 2:31:46 77.6 Jon Chapman 73.6 Balderas, Noah 60 2:35:36 78.9 Aleks Peterson 23.4 Davidson, Clinton 61 2:37:11 80.2 Bilbo, Brandon 62 2:41:40 81.5 Exeter Hunter Cornish 7.6 59.8 Hatfield, Ryan 63 2:42:44 82.8 Erik Eddy 14.2 Sumner, James 64 2:52:05 84.2 Patrick Pomian 38.0 Kratsas, Zachary 65 2:52:11 85.5 Chris Toporski 41.9 Chris O'Bryan, Chris 66 3:00:19 100.0 Zachary Kratsas 85.5 Clifford, Terry 67 4:07:38 100.0 Bateman, Patarick 68 4:17:31 100.0 Badin David Frederick 26.1 59.8 Granados, Demetrio 69 mp 100.0 Brennan Lawall 18.2 Hatfield, Brent 70 mp 100.0 Richard Boehm 15.5 Shelton, Zachary 71 mp 100.0 Zac Wilkins 100.0 Layson, Aaron 72 mp 100.0 Kyle Kollstedt 60.4 Peyton, Jason 73 mp 100.0 Campbell, Charles 74 mp 100.0 Brown, Kyel 75 mp 100.0 Wilkins, Zac 76 mp 100.0
90
91
Club Services
United States Orienteering Federation – 2005 Annual General Meeting
Insurance
Providing insurance coverage is probably the most important service that USOF offers our
chartered clubs. Over the past several years, our insurance premiums more than doubled and club
insurance fees more than doubled as well.
The good news is that our insurance premium for 2005 is substantially lower, in line with our
historical yearly premiums from several years ago. Premiums are not likely to go up again for at
least the next couple of years. The bad news is that service has deteriorated, and we are no longer
getting adequate service from our insurance broker (Marsh Affinity Services) and our carrier (a
subsidiary of AIG).
Steve Vaughan, Insurance chair, and I have been exploring insurance options. We are currently
negotiating with two brokers. Both brokers are experienced in handling the insurance needs of
NGO‘s (national governing organizations) and are familiar with orienteering.
Map Loans and Map Grants
The map loan fund currently has a balance of $36,319 available for loan, with outstanding loans
of $30,200. Loans of $20,600 to four clubs have been made since January 2004. The fund is
healthy and successfully accomplishing its mission of enabling clubs with limited cash balances
to produce larger, A meet quality maps.
The map grant fund has a balance of $4,695. A grant of $2,600 to one club has been made since
January 2004. The purpose of this fund is to enable startup clubs and smaller clubs to produce
92
low-cost maps close to urban centers that can be used for local orienteering events. This fund is
currently underutilized.
Linda Ferguson has been very ably managing both the map loan fund and the map grant fund.
Club Finances
USOF club recharter fees are currently set at a rate of $8.50 per club member. $0.50 goes to the
USOF Operating Fund, and the remainder goes to the Insurance Fund. Our insurance premiums
have significantly decreased, so less club revenue is needed for the Insurance Fund in 2006.
However, an increase in revenue for the USOF Operating Fund is needed to resolve an ongoing
structural deficit. Although the USOF Board will not act until the fall Board meeting, it is likely
that the average club will see lower recharter fees in 2006.
A financial working group was formed in 2004 to review USOF finances and make
recommendations. The working group recommended that dues for USOF members be increased,
and the USOF Board of Directors passed this recommendation in October 2004. The working
group also recommended that a portion of club recharter fees be based on club start totals rather
than club membership totals. This recommendation requires an amendment to the USOF Bylaws.
The financial working group (since disbanded) consisted of Clare Durand, Stephanie Martineau,
Michael Schneiderman, Gary Kraght, Bill Cusworth, Karen Williams, Cathy Yekenevicz.
501(c)(3) Status
Every USOF club that has averaged $5,000 in annual gross receipts over the past three years
must file for either 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(7) tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service.
93
Beginning in 2006, USOF will require either a copy of the club‘s IRS determination letter, a
copy of the IRS ―receipt of application‖ acknowledgement if the club is currently applying for
tax-exempt status, or a signed statement that the club has not averaged over $5,000 in annual
gross receipts for the past three years. Consider this a friendly reminder.
More information and help is contained in the USOF package ―Applying to the IRS for 501(c)(3)
Status‖, available from the USOF national office.
Gary Kraght
Vice President for Club Services
United States Orienteering Federation
94
SILVA AWARD PRESENTATION - BRUCE McALISTER
For the past two decades Bruce McAlister has been very actively serving the orienteering movement at the international, national, regional, and local levels. His ardent belief in the value of our great sport is very well known throughout the worldwide orienteering community.
From the 80’s until today Bruce has worked very hard and with never ending effort for both clubs as mapper; as a meet director for orienteering events, rogaines, metrogaines, and trail-o; as a course setter; as course vetter; and as a host for meetings and social events. He has set up many training camps and played a key role in Sammamish's National Orienteering Days (NODs), which are usually spread over three days. Since the early 90’s he has been heavily involved in introducing OCAD to the Pacific Northwest and teaching the art of mapping and OCAD to many juniors - so guaranteeing the transfer of know-how to the next generations. He goes to Junior High School classes to do OCAD clinics for beginning mappers.
It's safe to say that orienteering in the Puget Sound area wouldn't be what it is today were it not for Bruce's incredible amount of administrative, technical, and social contributions. He definitely has been a key mover in many local projects, especially in mapping new areas and in getting juniors involved through trips to events and training opportunities. He has been the main force to champion Trail-O in the Pacific Northwest.
For over a decade Bruce has hosted local events with the courses starting and finishing at his driveway, leading to nearby o'maps produced by him. There always have been follow-up social gatherings in or behind his house.
In the year 2001 he was Course Consultant for COC’s A-meets during the Pacific Northwest Orienteering Festival.
On the Washington State Orienteering Association (WSOA) Board Bruce McAlister was a representative for COC from 1990 to 1994 and for Sammamish OC since 2002. For the last three years he has headed its Fund-Raising Committee. As a great supporter of the Washington Interscholastic Orienteering League (WIOL) he truly has spearheaded getting WIOL participants (Washington state high school students) to regional and national events. He has earned the respect and admiration of students and their parents, as well as the larger community.
95
Bruce is a current and very active member of USOF. Since 1991 he has served two complete three-year terms as USOF regional representative and since 1997 to present as an alternate. For at least six years he has worked as a member of USOF Sanctioning Committee.
More than once he represented USOF as a delegate at IOF-conventions. For over 10 years he has been on the IOF Technical Committee and put together - with others, such as Hans Steinegger and Finn Arildsen - the electronic punching standards as well as working with Emit and Sport-Ident to develop practical units. He did a great job on the "international parquet" by contributing to all these pro-SI landmark decisions in our long-term interest.
During the past years Bruce has shifted his focus to our juniors. One of U.S.A.'s currently leading juniors says this about Bruce: "Throughout the past 2 years, Bruce has led a plethora of trips to both national and international meets, facilitating the development of juniors from the Pacific Northwest as well as juniors from across the nation. Beyond chaperoning, Bruce has proved his great generosity by providing both financial support and inspiration in his devoted effort to improve U.S. orienteering. Bruce has also acted as an orienteering travel agent, freeing juniors to spend time training or studying, while he arranged flights, hotel reservations, and car rentals." The list of meets for which Bruce has supported juniors mentally as well as financially in full or in parts (plane tickets, rooms, rental cars, food; often from his personal funds) is endless. Among them are events like U.S. Interscholastic and Intercollegiate Champs 2003 - 2005; U.S. Championships 2003 - 2004; countless A-meets in the U.S.A. and Canada; U.S. Team Trial 2005; World University Championship (Czech Rep.), Junior World Orienteering Championship (Poland), and O-Ringen (Sweden), all during 2004. At the World University Championships in Pilzen (Czech Rep.) Bruce was the U.S. team leader.
In December 2004 Bruce organized the first NW Junior Orienteering Camp, attended by 19 juniors. He engaged the two top coaches Alexei Azarov and Eric Bone, provided transportation, and shopped and cooked for 27 people at his close by cabin. He was instrumental in organizing flights and bookings for many of the northwest regions' juniors competing in Texas this February in the Interscholastic National Championships.
Currently he is teaching Norwegian to a junior so he can live in Scandinavia for a while for orienteering and other experiences - and hopefully will bring back to us a huge load of new know-how!
For decades Bruce McAlister has been focused on the long-term improvement of orienteering and its future by supporting the next generation of orienteers. The facts that Bruce doesn't orienteer himself too often and is over 70 years old make his actions even more remarkable.
96
Some personal statements from Pacific Northwest orienteers tell of the phenomenon Bruce McAlister:
"I would not be an orienteer right now if it wasn't for the efforts of Bruce McAlister ... and I am intent on orienteering for the rest of my life" (a top junior).
"He was and is willing to put forth countless hours in the service of orienteering and orienteers" (a long time ex-USOF-delegate for the NW).
"He has held the Bog Slog [December O'event] After-Party for many, many years at his home, providing most of the food; time and again has been at the coldest meets of the years with hot cocoa and his signature killer chocolate brownies" (F40-competitor, orienteering since the mid-80es).
"He has given generously of his time, knowledge, and money to bring juniors from the outside to the inside of orienteering ... For many years, Bruce has continuously contributed locally, nationally, and internationally." (Classic U.S. Champion).
For all his outstanding contributions to our sport on all levels in administrative, technical as well as social respects and especially during the last 5 years Bruce McAlister definitely deserves not only lifelong thanks but also our selection for this year's Silva Award.
Not all of these deal with scoring, but I think they bring up some valid points. I have no great
disagreement with their consideration.
Is this really an issue with spreadsheets? I have not been involved at this level in any
competitions, so I do not know.
I am not sure that I see this as a problem. The two runners with deadweight would not have a
team if it were not for the third guy. They took the time to recruit and train this guy so they
could enter a team competition. Teams in any sport will always be made of mixed talents. The
team work is incorporated not in the talent level, but in the working together.
