Independent Directors

[Paul Frost]

The current system allows us to advertise for and appoint people with vital skills, but only as long as there aren't people who don't have those vital skills but who want to be on the Board and who are more active about coming forward. That's not exactly a great system for ensuring the that the Board has necessary skills to function properly.

But as you said earlier there is no queue of people wanting to be a director.
But what would be wrong with making it clear that the current vacancy for a directorship is for someone with xyz skills. So if there were 2 candidates and only one had the required skills why would the membership vote for the unqualified candidate?

To put it another way, last year the Board could quite easily have ended up with a full complement of Directors, none of whom were willing and able to be Treasurer, and no ability to bring someone in to do the job. That's not really a great position to be in.

If that had happened I'd like to think that a current board member would have been prepared to stand down and make space to allow a more suitably qualified person to be co-opted. If they wouldn't I would question their commitment to the sport and wouldn't want them to be a director in the first place.

Having three out of nine non-exec Directors who are appointed to fill specific skills requirements allows us to ensure we have that necessary balance, without taking away overall control from the voting members.

I don't have a problem with there being appointed directors who have specific skills that are needed. What I want is the freedom to choose however many are needed at the time (possibly more than 3), and the opportunity to vote them off at the next AGM if they were not meeting the expectations of the membership. What I don't want is a forced quota and no way of deposing them if the membership is unhappy with their performance or direction.
This applies to the gender mix issue as well, we want the right people for the job irrespective of their gender or independence.

[Clive Coles]

What I don't want is a forced quota and no way of deposing them if the membership is unhappy with their performance or direction.
This applies to the gender mix issue as well, we want the right people for the job irrespective of their gender or independence.

That I think is at the core of my concern too ~ we have a current problem as insufficient members want to serve. The board however have powers to co-opt and to receive paid advice from folk who can offer specific expertise. These "experts" don't have to be Directors. They can attend parts of a board meeting in the same way that other BOF officers report.

And why the need to introduce quota to address the perceived Independent and Gender issue. Do we actually have a gender problem in orienteering ? Did Lyn have to fight off predudice to rise to Chair our organisation ?

I am afraid Gender equality is currently "flavour of the day". If there is a problem with our sport this needs to be addressed but in my "masculine" opinion enshrining quotas in the rules of appointment is a unnecessary step to far. Who knows where the next call for a quota may come from. Please ~ don't want to go there.

I am intrigued as to why the gender quota proposal will be withdrawn if the Independent Director proposal is defeated. It's almost if the board don't really believe the gender quota proposal is necessary. We appear to be being obliged to change our rules of appointment to meet demands from our current funding sources.

Like Paul I still don't know whether to cast my proxy vote to record what i believe or to vote to secure funding ( for now at least). Should funding be curtailed or stopped in the future we will be stuck with what we approve.

[graeme]

We appear to be being obliged to change our rules of appointment to meet demands from our current funding sources.

The words "piper" and "tune" spring to mind.

A typical problem, evident here, is that external people frame the rules of appointment with a mindset...
"We must make sure that BOF make the best and fairest appointment from the mass of people clamouring to do this job"
When the actual situation BOF face is...
"Where the FNL will we get someone to volunteer to do THAT?"

[roadrunner]

To put it another way, last year the Board could quite easily have ended up with a full complement of Directors, none of whom were willing and able to be Treasurer, and no ability to bring someone in to do the job.

If this is true it seems that something's badly wrong. Every club I've been a member of has a specific role of "treasurer" (and of course others as well) that people may be elected to, rather than assuming that, having elected a quota of committee members, one of them will do that job. Is it really not that way with BOF?

[King Penguin]

As I understand it the members can elect the Board members, but the Board members then choose amongst themselves who is to be Chair, Treasurer etc.
Most clubs have specific elections for each key post, then n other committeer members.
It has always seemed better to me for the main positions to be specifically elected, hopefully someone competent to perform the role.
Perhaps the piper dictates otherwise in this case ?

[Paul Frost]

It does seem crazy not to be stating what skills are required to fill a vacancy.

A company wouldn't place an advert just saying "Job going at xyz" when what they want is a finance director. They would either get 100's of applications from unskilled workers thinking they were qualified or none because no one thought they would be qualified enough.

I've long thought that just advertising a volunteer job is doomed to failure. As Scott mentions elsewhere, people often don't think they are good enough so they don't step forward.
The most successful recruitment method (in my experience) is to brainstorm with others and come up with a list of people who you think could do the job well. Then go and approach them directly and put your case as to why you think they would be good at the job, and be ready to provide answers to the sorts of questions they might ask.
This method can be applied wether you are looking for a planner for a simple club event or a board director.

[Mrs H]

I agree with you Paul, this democracy lark is well over rated - you know who's going to be good in the job so just tell them they are the chosen one and why and let them get on with it. It's the approach I've always used when recruiting volunteers. Why would any sensible person want to put themselves through the song and dance of an election?

[Spookster]

It does seem crazy not to be stating what skills are required to fill a vacancy.

Well, we did state the skills required to fill the several vacancies...

As a previously co-opted Director, Bob Dredge can choose to stand for election if he chooses to do so. The Board will need to appoint a Treasurer, from within the directors, after the 2013 AGM.

and

The current directors of British Orienteering have previously conducted a skill and knowledge audit. A number of skills featured frequently amongst current Directors, including administration, strategic planning and training, governance, IT and management.
Some skills required for the Board to operate effectively featured less frequently; marketing, commercial, legal, disability awareness, diversity & equality awareness. The Board would like to see members with such experiences put forward as perspective candidates as they would bring experience to strengthen the overall skill set of the Board of Directors. The Board would also ask members to consider nominating women as candidates and any younger members that would like to be involved so that our membership base is full represented.

I appreciate that being female, and younger, are characteristics rather than skills...

[graeme]

The Board would also ask members to consider nominating women as candidates and any younger members that would like to be involved so that our membership base is full represented.

On the one hand, our membership base is heavily skewed away from women and young members. On the other hand, I find that these women and young members represent my views much better than the M50+ brigade do.
So I think I'll skip the meeting and spend time with the family

[Paul Frost]

And has that been successful Martin?

Did adding the younger and female consideration make it easier to find suitable people amongst the masses that applied?

I think I know the answer to that. Which is why I don't agree with the making of any rules that fixes the number of appointed or gender specific positions.

I don't believe we have any problem within orienteering of women being blocked from senior positions. The fact that women currently hold the chair of British Orienteering, the Scottish 6 Days company and many O clubs proves that we are open to any gender. There are many excellent female planners, controllers and organisers too, so I don't see why we need quotas.

[Spookster]

I don't see why we need quotas.

The need for Independent Directors on Boards of NGBs is a clear requirement of Sport England core funding of NGBs for 2013-2017 funding period. See Sport England Governance Strategy, pages 9 and 10. (There is also a strong hint that boards should contain gender balance, see page 11). So there is no argument that part of the reason for needing Independent Directors on the BOF Board is to assure Sport England that British Orienteering is well-governed, and hence maintain the future funding. I imagine other similar funding bodies will follow this lead in due course (Sport Wales already do; Sport Scotland and Sport NI have agreed the requirement in principle).

I think the debate here is about (a) whether we think independent directors will really bring new ideas and fresh thinking, and (b) whether we need to change the Articles to achieve that.

On the issue of gender balance, you are right in that women do fulfill some key roles within British orienteering. About one-third or orienteers in Britain are women. However, when Lyn steps down from the BOF Board after the AGM, we will have one woman (Judith) on a Board of up to 10, so that's clearly an under-representation of the membership profile.

[Paul Frost]

Sorry Martin, I believe the only block to females becoming directors is that they don't want to. Forcing a quantity is more likely to result in a lower quality of director.

There is already a flexible mechanism for co-opting people with specific skills onto the board (or just using them in a consultancy role) and there is nothing that says they can't be from outside orienteering now. So again the proposed changes just remove any flexibility and I don't believe they will result in a better quality of director.

Sport England seem blinkered and without independent thought, and they are in effect blackmailing us into complying with their demands. The seem to think that one size fits all, and if your organisation doesn't fit you must keep chopping off bits until you do. More sports should stand up and "just say no" as in the anti-drugs campaign.

The more this bureaucratic interference dictates how we run our sport makes me less inclined to give my time as a volunteer.

[Spookster]

Just for fun ( ) I thought I'd check out the Boards of a few other NGBs.

England Netball (Board of 11, 3 independents, 9 women)
British Triathlon (Board of 10, 3 independents, 2 women)
British Fencing (Board of 10, 2 independents, 3 women)
Rounders England (Board of 9, 4 independents, 5 women)

The rounders page has a good profile of each director. Just look at the experience and expertise they've been able to bring in with their four independent directors (Kirsty, Steve, Gemma, Will) who come from sports other than rounders.

[Paul Frost]

But did all those examples choose to have independent directors before they were forced to by Sport England?

I guess what puzzles me is why anyone would give so much time to a sport they are not part of. I'm a pretty good example of someone who gives a lot of time as a volunteer but I've never considered giving less time to orienteering in order to give it to another sport that I'm not interested in. So I'm suspicious of giving power and influence to someone who is not going to suffer the consequences if their decisions are bad ones.

These good people you infer are waiting to sign up could have provided help and advice at any time over the years, even as directors if they were keen, but they didn't then so why now?

As I've said repeatedly, I don't have a problem with independents with specialist skills being directors (or consultants), but I'd like the ability for the membership to vote them in and out .

If the proposal is rejected and we loose all the Sport England money it might be the wake up call the sport needs.

Much of the money from them is not spent on the services and resources that benefits existing orienteers, so the loss of it will probably not have any significant impact on them. Their club will carry on providing them with whatever type of orienteering they like and they will be oblivious to the effects of the loss of Sport England money.

The losers will be the non-orienteers who haven't taken up orienteering because they don't like the way we do things at the moment, but who might have liked the alternative options being planned for them. Do I care about them? No.

[andypat]

I guess what puzzles me is why anyone would give so much time to a sport they are not part of.

Possibly to enhance their cv?