PDA

View Full Version : Recruiting Accredited Marshals - volunteers, pressgangs and pay



Hugo Robins
26-10-2010, 11:45 AM
It is now clear how important it is that we recruit some more Accredited Marshals (AMs) -

http://forum.errl.org.uk//showthread.php?9144-2011-the-missing-events-the-missing-clubs&p=66280&viewfull=1#post66280

What can we as a League do to help?

One suggestion is that we make it compulsory for each club to provide either a Commissaire or an Accredited Marshal. At the moment our rules just say that this is "expected".

Each AM has to commit to at least five duties each year to maintain the qualification, so this would go most of the way to meeting the requirements from our current races.

We could introduce this rule change at our AGM with one year's grace, but we need to think about what the effects would be and whether they would be good, whether they would be fair.

What other ideas have people got?

Brad Lamb
26-10-2010, 02:48 PM
Each AM has to commit to at least five duties each year to maintain the qualification, so this would go most of the way to meeting the requirements from our current races.

Because of this, at least 95% of potential candidates are eliminated.

I would like a coherent argument, using science, reason, logic and common sense to explain to me why someone is more qualified after completing five duties than say someone who only completes two.

George Gilbert
26-10-2010, 03:18 PM
Because of this, at least 95% of potential candidates are eliminated.

I would like a coherent argument, using science, reason, logic and common sense to explain to me why someone is more qualified after completing five duties than say someone who only completes two.

The five duties a year point is an economic one, not one based on experience. To train an accredited marshal to the standard required by the Police takes training courses which we (the region) are charged several hundred pounds a go - on top of that each AM has to be kitted out with Police approved kit, a CB radio and so on. If we're to train sufficient AMs to cover all the events required and each person then only does one or two events a year, the total cost would be astronomical. To make it affordable, each AM therefore has to do several duties a year to spread that fixed cost of training / equipping out.

Of course, as you rightly point out, if imposing that minimum level of commitment means that there's insufficient numbers of people willing to do it, then we can lower the number of duties per year...but the cost of doing that would have to be bourne by a very substantial increase in levies on Road Races so it's affordable.

Ultimately it's up to you guys to decide how we proceed by whether people step forward and volunteer or not. Fundamentally it boils down to a simple question of which would you collectively prefer - expensive races and low volunteering committment, or cheaper races and a higher volunteering committment?

Nick E
26-10-2010, 04:55 PM
Ultimately it's up to you guys to decide how we proceed by whether people step forward and volunteer or not. Fundamentally it boils down to a simple question of which would you collectively prefer - expensive races and low volunteering committment, or cheaper races and a higher volunteering committment?
Or a common ground?
Or is it one way or the other?

pottsie
26-10-2010, 05:01 PM
The five duties a year came from BC HQ and the Police agreed with this otherwise it was stated that if they did not complete the five duties they would have to be re-trained. Derek fought against this and I understand the agreement now is: if they do not do the five duties they have to be re-assessed. This can be done at very little cost to the Region by the two assessors who are also AMs and have been trained to complete the assessments to the satisfaction of both parties.

To be sure that I am correct you need to contact Derek Lusher and he will tell you the exact requirements for becoming an AM. That is if you are interested.

Holmesy
26-10-2010, 05:30 PM
It is now clear how important it is that we recruit some more Accredited Marshals (AMs) -

http://forum.errl.org.uk//showthread.php?9144-2011-the-missing-events-the-missing-clubs&p=66280&viewfull=1#post66280

What can we as a League do to help?

One suggestion is that we make it compulsory for each club to provide either a Commissaire or an Accredited Marshal. At the moment our rules just say that this is "expected".

Each AM has to commit to at least five duties each year to maintain the qualification, so this would go most of the way to meeting the requirements from our current races.

We could introduce this rule change at our AGM with one year's grace, but we need to think about what the effects would be and whether they would be good, whether they would be fair.

What other ideas have people got?

I think it looks as if Diss will be kicked out of the league in the future, as for a small club like us to get someone to agree to train as an AM, then travel to deepest darkest Essex five times to marshall will be near imposible, as 95% of races are in this county.

I agree we need more marshalls, but as there was only one race in Norfolk this season, and only a few more in Suffolk, can we expect these indviduals to get up at stupid O'clock, and travel many miles for their five duties.

idotomuch
27-10-2010, 10:08 AM
The five duties a year came from BC HQ and the Police agreed with this otherwise it was stated that if they did not complete the five duties they would have to be re-trained. Derek fought against this and I understand the agreement now is: if they do not do the five duties they have to be re-assessed. This can be done at very little cost to the Region by the two assessors who are also AMs and have been trained to complete the assessments to the satisfaction of both parties.

To be sure that I am correct you need to contact Derek Lusher and he will tell you the exact requirements for becoming an AM. That is if you are interested.

Another issue to the amount a marshal does is that they are on the B/C payroll which again takes up another employees time which again cost money . so if we can operate with the right amount of marshal,s for the region this can only benifit all, This year the road track committee have agreed for me to be a cordintor for the marshal,s so that they dont have to be call apon at the last minuate and i can liase between them and the race orgainiser thus taking the pressure of the orgainser this will be a work in progress so please pass me any comments you have to help make this work well. thanks Paul Vaux

idotomuch
27-10-2010, 10:21 AM
I think it looks as if Diss will be kicked out of the league in the future, as for a small club like us to get someone to agree to train as an AM, then travel to deepest darkest Essex five times to marshall will be near imposible, as 95% of races are in this county.

I agree we need more marshalls, but as there was only one race in Norfolk this season, and only a few more in Suffolk, can we expect these indviduals to get up at stupid O'clock, and travel many miles for their five duties.

I would just like to point out we are looking to recruit in norfolk & suffolk for your road races to which i believe there are about 5 to 8 races and it wont be a question of getting you to travel silly miles to cover essex it may be that if the marshall lives about about 10 miles in the suffolk border it maybe if they are trained for essex as well they could cover a race close to the border ie colchester . At the moment a few of essex marshall are now accredited to marshal norfolk and suffolk and i have personally been upto norfolk to marshal so i dont think once in a while will hurt anyone and normaly the orgainiser does help cover the travel cost if you speak to them first.

Hugo Robins
27-10-2010, 10:24 AM
Well done with this Paul.

Could you tell us what the pay is for Marshals? How much is each duty worth in cash?

Do you usually get your mileage re-imbursed by the organisers?

We should never expect Accredited Marshals to be giving up their money as well as their time so that we can race. Do you think this has ended up happening?

Brad Lamb
27-10-2010, 11:23 AM
Another issue to the amount a marshal does is that they are on the B/C payroll which again takes up another employees time which again cost money

So change the rules!

Brad Lamb
27-10-2010, 11:27 AM
I would just like to point out we are looking to recruit in norfolk & suffolk for your road races to which i believe there are about 5 to 8 races and it wont be a question of getting you to travel silly miles to cover essex it may be that if the marshall lives about about 10 miles in the suffolk border it maybe if they are trained for essex as well they could cover a race close to the border ie colchester . At the moment a few of essex marshall are now accredited to marshal norfolk and suffolk and i have personally been upto norfolk to marshal so i dont think once in a while will hurt anyone and normaly the orgainiser does help cover the travel cost if you speak to them first.

Conjecture.

If you have not yet recruited then you are not in any position to comment on travel time or distance.

Hugo Robins
27-10-2010, 11:38 AM
So change the rules!

The legislation that allows the police to delegate their powers to control traffic is worded in such a way that the powers can only be given to employees of another organisation, so BC found that they had to make the AMs into employees.

AMs now enjoy all the employment protection, health and safety and insurance rights and Minimum Wage rights that go with that, and BC have to meet the cost of administering them as employees, we have to meet the cost.

Red Tape in action, yes, but it does show why it's not practical to train AMs and put them on the books of BC just for them to do one or two races a year.

Not so much a question of changing the Rules, Brad, we'd have to change the Law.

George Gilbert
27-10-2010, 11:46 AM
So change the rules!

To what?

As above, the rules don't exist in a vacuum - they are there for a reason, and in this instance that reason is money. To put some numbers to Pauls point, if we were to employ (and as Hugo says, legally we have to *employ* AMs - with all the red tape that entails) 50 AMs who did 5 races each then that imposes an acceptable administrative burden on BCHQ (who already employ some 200 staff). If they were to only do 1 race each, then we'd have to employ 250 AMs to cover the same total number of duties which would swamp BCHQ and result in us not only employing more AMs, but also having to employ yet more people to deal with the administration for the AMs employment.

The salaries for these people don't come out of thin air - they come out of our membership and race levies. If we're happy for these to go up, then we can change the rules and employ more people - if not, then we need people to volunteer more (or of course accept that there's a limit on the number of races we can put on and with an increasing membership accept that that means we each get to race less).

As above, ultimately it's up to the membership as to how we proceed from here. We can't force people to volunteer; what would it take for you to want to?

George Gilbert
27-10-2010, 11:49 AM
As an aside, today is the last day people can sign up to marshall for the Olympic Road Race in 2012. If anyone is interested in doing that, please see http://tinyurl.com/32o76de for more details.

Gray
27-10-2010, 12:54 PM
An alternative to the way in which the AMs are currently conceived would be to see them very much as employees doing it for a decent payment and get away from the idea that they are volunteers. AMs could even be expected to pay (at least in part) for their own training (radical thought!) and would then be incentivised to do as many races as possible to recoup their investment. There would be a standard travel allowance - which again would incentivise AMs to do the races nearest to them - and a reasonable hourly rate of pay for the races themselves. And there would be perhaps a stronger incentive on those carrying out risk assessments to ask whether AMs were really needed. Of course this might all be prohibitively expensive but it would be interesting to know what the "market" costs would be and whether racers would be prepared to bear them in order to get more races.

idotomuch
27-10-2010, 01:15 PM
Hugo in answer to you the marshal is paid three hrs at goverment min wage , some org,s pay fuel cost some dont personaly i would only expect it if travelling a long distance but if i do get offered money for fuel i do take it nowdays especialy with the cost of fuel and the amount of work i do thru out the season it all balances out .

In answer to you Brad to be and accredited person of an organisation home office rules state that you have to be employed by said organisation.

Brad Lamb
27-10-2010, 06:35 PM
The legislation that allows the police to delegate their powers to control traffic is worded in such a way that the powers can only be given to employees of another organisation, so BC found that they had to make the AMs into employees.

AMs now enjoy all the employment protection, health and safety and insurance rights and Minimum Wage rights that go with that, and BC have to meet the cost of administering them as employees, we have to meet the cost.

Red Tape in action, yes, but it does show why it's not practical to train AMs and put them on the books of BC just for them to do one or two races a year.

Not so much a question of changing the Rules, Brad, we'd have to change the Law.


To what?

As above, the rules don't exist in a vacuum - they are there for a reason, and in this instance that reason is money. To put some numbers to Pauls point, if we were to employ (and as Hugo says, legally we have to *employ* AMs - with all the red tape that entails) 50 AMs who did 5 races each then that imposes an acceptable administrative burden on BCHQ (who already employ some 200 staff). If they were to only do 1 race each, then we'd have to employ 250 AMs to cover the same total number of duties which would swamp BCHQ and result in us not only employing more AMs, but also having to employ yet more people to deal with the administration for the AMs employment.

The salaries for these people don't come out of thin air - they come out of our membership and race levies. If we're happy for these to go up, then we can change the rules and employ more people - if not, then we need people to volunteer more (or of course accept that there's a limit on the number of races we can put on and with an increasing membership accept that that means we each get to race less).

As above, ultimately it's up to the membership as to how we proceed from here. We can't force people to volunteer; what would it take for you to want to?

But you said in an earlier post that you could change the rules - albeit at an expense

"Of course, as you rightly point out, if imposing that minimum level of commitment means that there's insufficient numbers of people willing to do it, then we can lower the number of duties per year...but the cost of doing that would have to be bourne by a very substantial increase in levies on Road Races so it's affordable."

Brad Lamb
27-10-2010, 06:37 PM
Another issue to the amount a marshal does is that they are on the B/C payroll which again takes up another employees time which again cost money . so if we can operate with the right amount of marshal,s for the region this can only benifit all, This year the road track committee have agreed for me to be a cordintor for the marshal,s so that they dont have to be call apon at the last minuate and i can liase between them and the race orgainiser thus taking the pressure of the orgainser this will be a work in progress so please pass me any comments you have to help make this work well. thanks Paul Vaux

But surely once BC have funded the initial outlay of training and providing equipment for each AM, the only cost to BC per AM is the 3 hours minimum wage, each and every time they carry out a duty?

George Gilbert
27-10-2010, 07:16 PM
But you said in an earlier post that you could change the rules - albeit at an expense

"Of course, as you rightly point out, if imposing that minimum level of commitment means that there's insufficient numbers of people willing to do it, then we can lower the number of duties per year...but the cost of doing that would have to be bourne by a very substantial increase in levies on Road Races so it's affordable."

Yes, we can change the rules, but it will cost you more in levies / membership fees to do so. Not sure what your point is here though.


But surely once BC have funded the initial outlay of training and providing equipment for each AM, the only cost to BC per AM is the 3 hours minimum wage, each and every time they carry out a duty?

No. Employment is way more expensive than just salary - it's nothing to do with cycling or BCHQs processes - have a chat with your boss at work one day about just how complex it is! Given the amount of bureacracy and employment legislation there is, it's a minor wonder anyone employs anyone in life.

It costs far, far more to employ 5 people and pay them each 18 a year (in round figures 3 hours x 6 per hour) than 1 person and pay them 90 a year.

Holmesy
27-10-2010, 07:42 PM
Yes, we can change the rules, but it will cost you more in levies / membership fees to do so. Not sure what your point is here though.



No. Employment is way more expensive than just salary - it's nothing to do with cycling or BCHQs processes - have a chat with your boss at work one day about just how complex it is! Given the amount of bureacracy and employment legislation there is, it's a minor wonder anyone employs anyone in life.

It costs far, far more to employ 5 people and pay them each 18 a year (in round figures 3 hours x 6 per hour) than 1 person and pay them 90 a year.

If this is an Eastern Region problem, and not just the ERRL, any news on the 2.4 million that is coming here.
I haven't seen it in use yet here in Norfolk, apart from Active Norfolk funding a few P&R events, which they have now pulled the plug on. Must need the money for wages for the new exective postions they have.

Brad Lamb
27-10-2010, 09:38 PM
Yes, we can change the rules, but it will cost you more in levies / membership fees to do so. Not sure what your point is here though.



No. Employment is way more expensive than just salary - it's nothing to do with cycling or BCHQs processes - have a chat with your boss at work one day about just how complex it is! Given the amount of bureacracy and employment legislation there is, it's a minor wonder anyone employs anyone in life.

It costs far, far more to employ 5 people and pay them each 18 a year (in round figures 3 hours x 6 per hour) than 1 person and pay them 90 a year.

So if the employment of AM's is so onerous, and the number of duties they carry out makes no difference to the initial expenditure or the administrative burden, why do you want additional AM's?

My point that you ask for above is that we have identified that in order to put on more road races in Essex we need more AM's and Commissaires. With regards to the AM's, it seems to me that by forcing this 5 duties rule restricts a large majority of potential volunteers who under the current scheme would not be prepared to have their racing season jeopodised.

George Gilbert
28-10-2010, 08:12 AM
So if the employment of AM's is so onerous, and the number of duties they carry out makes no difference to the initial expenditure or the administrative burden, why do you want additional AM's?

Because we now have more events to cover. Yes, it would be cheaper if the existing AMs did more events, but...as you're arguing in the rest of your post...if we said that each AM had to do a minimum of, say, 10 events each, then that would lead to many dropping out and would be counter-productive.

You seem to be viewing this as a black and white issue. It's not - it's shades of grey. Where does the balance lie between acceptable cost and minimum number of duties?


My point that you ask for above is that we have identified that in order to put on more road races in Essex we need more AM's and Commissaires. With regards to the AM's, it seems to me that by forcing this 5 duties rule restricts a large majority of potential volunteers who under the current scheme would not be prepared to have their racing season jeopodised.

Yes - completely accept that that's the case, but as I've posted before, it's a balance between that and increased membership / levies. You're just pointing out one side of the case without dealing with the consequence; namely how would a decrease in minimum number of duties be paid for?

Lets put some numbers on it and see what everyone is actually prepared to accept in practice rather than just talking theory...so, would you accept a 5 increase in each race entry fee if it meant that each AM only had to do 1 event a year each?

If not, what price increase would you accept?

yappay96
28-10-2010, 09:22 AM
Lets put some numbers on it and see what everyone is actually prepared to accept in practice rather than just talking theory...so, would you accept a 5 increase in each race entry fee if it meant that each AM only had to do 1 event a year each?

If not, what price increase would you accept?

George,
I am not sure what sort of organisation your work in, but at the Bank that I work at the incremental HR costs associated with hiring and retaining an individual are minimal. The most significant cost is a desk and computer and phone etc which are not relevent to an AM (unless you tell me they all have their own desks at BC HQ). Therefore I would ask that you justify the cost of the AM before we start talking about 5 pounds a race. I also understand that Easter Region has over 20,000 in the bank so it would seem that the region is running a surplus each year currently with no clear plans on where that surplus is going to be used for. Maybe it could be partially used to ofset the costs of increasing the number of AM's ???

George Gilbert
28-10-2010, 09:37 AM
George,
I am not sure what sort of organisation your work in, but at the Bank that I work at the incremental HR costs associated with hiring and retaining an individual are minimal. The most significant cost is a desk and computer and phone etc which are not relevent to an AM (unless you tell me they all have their own desks at BC HQ). Therefore I would ask that you justify the cost of the AM before we start talking about 5 pounds a race.

The employment of AMs is done by BCHQ, not by myself or the region - I'm just passing on the information we've been told. As has already been pointed out, Derek has been arguing with BCHQ for a long time now for a reduction in the duties but have been told no because it costs too much. The bottom line is that BCHQ are the employers and therefore they call the shots - we as a region are hamstrung here; either we get people to volunteer for the longer duty time or we have to pay more.


I also understand that Easter Region has over 20,000 in the bank so it would seem that the region is running a surplus each year currently with no clear plans on where that surplus is going to be used for. Maybe it could be partially used to ofset the costs of increasing the number of AM's ???

It already is! A significant chunk of that 20k is explicitly ring-fenced off for heavily subsidising AMs and is already being used to offset the costs associated with recruiting / training them.

pottsie
28-10-2010, 10:45 AM
I feel it may be easier to understand the AM problem if you were aware of the background to the scheme and some of the issues to date.

When the scheme was first introduced each AM was only going to have to do their own event and only do others if they wished, they only had to be a member of BC. But the Home Office stepped in told BCHQ they would not accept just membership they had to be employed. This was after BC Eastern had already put on 3 training courses, BCHQ then stated if they were to employ them they would be required to do at least 6 events, Derek had this reduced to 5. Several of those who had already been trained resigned and BCHQ stopped BC Eastern from running further courses, because of the financial burden on them. In the mean time BCHQ were trying to get the situation of employment changed, but this would require an act of parliament and I am unaware of how far this has gone.

At the begining to this year there were about 36 AM's to cover events in Essex which was approximately 167 duties, which is just over 4 each. But some AM's have done more than 10, due mainly to organisers not being able to contact some of the AM's and therefore selecting those they could. This situation will hopefully be better next season as we now have a dedicated coordinator. But because of past problems some AM's have already resigned and others are threatening to do so.

This is not the only problem facing races for next season, as the AM scheme has been extended to Norfolk and Suffolk, due to the Police withdrawing their services for free and refusing to allow permits to be issued if paid Police or AM's were not used. This happened sometime during this season and 13 of the Essex AM's are now accredited to work in Norfolk and Suffolk and have already done so. This will put an extra burden on the AM's that we have left.

There are also talks ongoing to extend the scheme to Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, which will mean another added burden, if volunteers do not come forward from all these new areas involved. The only other option is for clubs to pay for Police cover for their events and hope that there is not a major incident that would require their services to be withdrawn at the last minute, thus meaning the event would have to be cancelled.

Hugo Robins
28-10-2010, 03:49 PM
. . . it seems to me that by forcing this 5 duties rule restricts a large majority of potential volunteers who under the current scheme would not be prepared to have their racing season jeopodised.

It's probably worth pointing out that with racing from March through to October, racing AMs can load their duties into a mid-season break or into one end or the other of the season without it really amounting to "jeopardising" the whole year. Definitely worth doing to ease the pressure.

Equally if you look through the calendar you will find what you think of as blank weekends, where racing is only available for 3rd cats and you're in a higher category, or you are a 3rd and all that's on offer is a nails E123 that you don't fancy. These blank weekends are your chance to get your AM duty in - take it!!

The other thing that would solve all this at a stroke is if we could organise races on Saturdays as well as Sundays. Then AMs who wanted a season's racing could happily marshal one day and race the other.

racyrich
28-10-2010, 04:43 PM
It's probably worth pointing out that with racing from March through to October, racing AMs can load their duties into a mid-season break or into one end or the other of the season without it really amounting to "jeopardising" the whole year. Definitely worth doing to ease the pressure.

Equally if you look through the calendar you will find what you think of as blank weekends, where racing is only available for 3rd cats and you're in a higher category, or you are a 3rd and all that's on offer is a nails E123 that you don't fancy. These blank weekends are your chance to get your AM duty in - take it!!

The other thing that would solve all this at a stroke is if we could organise races on Saturdays as well as Sundays. Then AMs who wanted a season's racing could happily marshal one day and race the other.

Or morning and afternoon races. I've ridden many races where the chief comm rode the morning's 3/J.

pottsie
28-10-2010, 04:46 PM
The other thing that would solve all this at a stroke is if we could organise races on Saturdays as well as Sundays. Then AMs who wanted a season's racing could happily marshal one day and race the other.

There is no reason why you cannot have a road event on a Saturday, it is only Redgrave that have asked for it to my knowledge. What you have to keep in mind is that events are held at Hog Hill on a Saturday and some of their organisers may not take kindly to a road event taking their riders, especially with the cost involved in hiring the circuit.

But otherwise a good point Hugo.

Holmesy
28-10-2010, 08:01 PM
There is no reason why you cannot have a road event on a Saturday, it is only Redgrave that have asked for it to my knowledge. What you have to keep in mind is that events are held at Hog Hill on a Saturday and some of their organisers may not take kindly to a road event taking their riders, especially with the cost involved in hiring the circuit.

But otherwise a good point Hugo.

You have to remember that not everybody wants to, or can afford to travel and race at Hog Hill for 50 minutes.

I'm sure there would be loads that would rather race on a Saturday than a Sunday, but you will always get the hardcore ride both days, but then we would go into full fields, and who would be aloud to race on both days.

racyrich
28-10-2010, 09:14 PM
You have to remember that not everybody wants to, or can afford to travel and race at Hog Hill for 50 minutes.

I'm sure there would be loads that would rather race on a Saturday than a Sunday, but you will always get the hardcore ride both days, but then we would go into full fields, and who would be aloud to race on both days.

Ration cards? With a healthy black market late season for desperate points grabbers?

Roz
28-10-2010, 10:06 PM
Or morning and afternoon races. I've ridden many races where the chief comm rode the morning's 3/J.

So I have heard but there werent too many horse & carts on the roads back in the " good old days". Was that when Queen Victoria was on the throne ?

racyrich
29-10-2010, 10:11 AM
So I have heard but there werent too many horse & carts on the roads back in the " good old days". Was that when Queen Victoria was on the throne ?

Blimey, being called old by a genuine OAP. Whose reign do you remember then?

Roz
29-10-2010, 10:51 AM
Blimey, being called old by a genuine OAP. Whose reign do you remember then?

Some say " if the cap fits then wear it ". I was not refering to any individual but to a period in time.As a genuine OAP I can claim to suffer from C.R.A.F.T. Cant remember a flipping thing, some suggest another word also begining with F.

ego_land
05-11-2010, 01:58 PM
There are also talks ongoing to extend the scheme to Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, which will mean another added burden, if volunteers do not come forward from all these new areas involved. The only other option is for clubs to pay for Police cover for their events and hope that there is not a major incident that would require their services to be withdrawn at the last minute, thus meaning the event would have to be cancelled.

Who is driving these talks further?

Surely given the current crisis with the AM system, we shouldn't be pushing to extend the counties where it applies until we've somehow resolved the situation. If the police in Cambs & Herts are threatening to withdraw support etc unless we switch to the AM system that is one thing, but it would seem inadvisable to expand a program that is currently 'hamstrung' as George quite aptly described it.

The 'expense of employing' argument from BCHQ does smell a bit; we're talking a 5x increase as opposed to orders of magnitude here, I have trouble believing that once you are initially set up to administer 50 AMs there is much difference between that and 250. Smells more like political feet dragging, but as has been said they're the employer, they call the shots.

George Gilbert
05-11-2010, 02:18 PM
Who is driving these talks further?

Derek Lusher, as the Regions Competition Administrator, is ultimately responsible for dealing with all the issues concerning Accredited Marshalls and the interaction with the Police. On top of that, I, as Region Chair, have been regularly speaking directly with BCHQ to try and progress the issue that way. I spoke with Ian Drake (CEO of BC) last week and have been speaking with Jonny Clay (BC's Director of Cyclesport - i.e. racing) this week specifically about the Accredited Marshalls and the problems the minimum of 5 duties rule is creating.

We're well aware of exactly what the problems are and what limits have been imposed upon us and are working to try and resolve them. At every step of the way however, we've been advised that it's simply too expensive to employ AMs who do fewer than 5 duties a year - that seems to be a fundamental impasse and unless people are willing to pay significantly more to race, one that it feels we're not going to get past.

George Gilbert
05-11-2010, 02:22 PM
The 'expense of employing' argument from BCHQ does smell a bit; we're talking a 5x increase as opposed to orders of magnitude here, I have trouble believing that once you are initially set up to administer 50 AMs there is much difference between that and 250. Smells more like political feet dragging, but as has been said they're the employer, they call the shots.

NB. I should point out that those numbers above are just for our region. BCHQ are viewing this on a National scale whereby it's likely that the AMs scheme will be rolled out to every police force in England within a couple of years. BCs view is that they're going to have to employ 540 AMs at 5 duties each and are comparing that with employing 2700 at 1 duty each...employing that extra 2200 additional people and all the administrative burden that goes with that, is what they're baulking at.

skipper
13-12-2010, 08:24 PM
So I have heard but there werent too many horse & carts on the roads back in the " good old days". Was that when Queen Victoria was on the throne ?

I have seen less trafic on a saturday afternoon than a sunday morning