BOf Committee and Group members gagged?

[eldroc]

Received this today -

To all Chairs and members of Groups and Committees
28 April 2010
At its meeting on 20 April, the Board noted with disappointment that a 2010 AGM proposal which opposed a Board policy had been proposed, seconded and canvassed for by members of a Group within the governance structure of British Orienteering.
The Board believes that the best interests of British Orienteering are served when there is unity within the governance structure. The Board therefore believes that if Group or Committee members are dissatisfied with an aspect of Board policy, they should keep their concerns within the governance structure but raise it through their Group or Committee Chair and then on through the governance structure to Board level in a formal way if still not satisfied. Finally, if still unhappy with the situation, members concerned are free to air their views with the general membership, but only if they have relinquished their Group or Committee membership.
The Board respects everyone’s right to hold their own views, but this policy is a necessary discipline for ordered progress.
Signed by:
Neil Cameron
Chairman, British Orienteering 2009-2010
Lyn West
Chairman, British Orienteering

So, any members of any BOF Group or Committee seem to be banned from expressing opinions on Nopesport or elswhere, about ANY BOF Policy, even those not connected with the work Of their Group or Committee.

I would like to tell you what I think of this policy, but unfortunately my membership of a BOF Governance Group prevents me from doing so!

[NFKleanne]

I can see lots of people leaving their groups!!

[rebbid]

On nopesport you can just create a new username and persona and say what you want. Even the authors of the alleged email.

It's been a bit quiet today though.

[Mrs H]

Mmm - I suspect there will be an explosion in the mole population

If you allow an open dialogue then at least you know who's doing the talking.

You really can't legislate something like this - when do you draw the line between canvassing opinion and agitating and where does "transparency" fit in on that line?

I'm rather put in mind of Thomas Jefferson's "Given the choice between government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I'd choose the latter."

[IanD]

Can't support this.

If the Board is confident that policy is correct, it should be able to put the case for the policy to the membership, and be confident of the membership's backing at an AGM.

This "censorship" is being proposed because the Board failed to persuade the membership of the merits of its case, despite having the advantage of control of direct communication to the membership (i.e. Focus put the Board's case, but not those of the dissenters).

If anybody is going to resign, I think it should be those Board members whose policy was democratically rejected by the membership, not those whom the membership decided had won the argument (and I write this as someone who supported the Board line that it was too soon to change the event structure again).

In any case, as rebbid has pointed out, preventing people campaigning anonymously is impractical. If this ruling goes through, will we have witch-hunts to see if someone posting on Nopesport is a Board or Group member? All that would be achieved is "stooges" rather than the real instigators proposing and seconding AGM motions.

[awk]

Ludicrous statement.

Sounds like a bunch of sore losers - and I'm one of those who argued against the proposals. What the proposers, seconders and supporters did was perfectly legitimate. If the Board continue this line, they will see the supply of volunteers drying up rapidly.

Oh dear! Does that mean now, that as a group member, because I've publicly disagreed with BOF policy without going through my group chair, they expect me to resign?

[Snail]

Given that this issue doesn't appear in the summary minutes I guess it may be one of the three missing items referred to in this thread: http://forum.nopesport.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10661

I have some sympathy with the position the Board find themselves in. If the majority of a particular group disagrees with an AGM/Board decision, and thus just refuses to implement it, progress can rapidly come to a halt. It isn't entirely unreasonable to expect governance groups to either apply agreed policy or to step aside.

However suppressing opinions by individual members of such a group is not necessarily the most productive approach. And it is difficult to see why individuals should be prevented from expressing views on areas that are not part of their governance remit.

One potential problem with AGM motions is that they are only ever proposed by individuals, and not by elements of the governance structure, eg the 2010 levy proposals were made by "Jenny Peel (SYO)" rather than "Jenny Peel - Finance Director". When members who happen to be part of the governance structure propose a motion it may not be immediately obvious to the membership at large whether it is being proposed in an individual capacity, on behalf of a governance group (disagreeing with Board policy), or as an agreed Board policy. Supporting / counter statements sometimes make it clear - but not always. However that could be easily addressed by the wording of the motion.

[Mrs H]

The e-mail does rather smack of "us and them" doesn't it? I have always thought BOF Central need to assess where the power base of the sport lies and reflect that in their operation.

(Clue - it's with the club members not the Board or the Government - if we had one)

I agree this might be a massive turn off for anyone who had been asked to consider joining a BOF committee or working party

I did predict some fall out from the motion but expected it to take the form of some administrative foot dragging - this is a surprise. We might have anticipated a rough ride for the likes of Eldroc but will the board be expecting this to produce a back lash from both supporters and opponents of the motion in the manner of Voltaire?

[roadrunner]

I think Snail puts the case very well. Certainly we can't have the situation where a committee refuses to implement an agreed policy. But there's a difference between refusing to implement a policy you're unhappy with, and implementing it while campaigning for it to be changed.

[SJC]

If anybody is going to resign, I think it should be those Board members whose policy was democratically rejected by the membership.

In particular the new Chairman of British Orienteering whose outright opposition to the four level structure was public knowledge.

[Steler]

I agree with AWK. Who is going to volunteer if they can't have the freedom to say what they think.
"The Board respects everyone’s right to hold their own views, but this policy is a necessary discipline for ordered progress." I've heard these sorts of comments from political parties before, they have always been extremists on either end of the spectrum.

[ludicrousinlycra]

Shouldn't we wait before jumping to conclusions. All governing bodies exert a degree of 'cabinet responsibility', and even if they aren't allowed to speak out, aren't our votes anonymous so they can still vote, and I'm sure no one is suggesting that they control the way they vote at an AGM either.

I'm sure there will have been good reasons for that letter, and jerking our collective knees (such as calling for resignations - without even hearing the reasons) is not going to help the organisation or the sport. Certainly making comments about people being politically extreme isn't going to help in moving things forward.

Let's all take a deep breath and discuss things rationally.

[Clive Coles]

Surely one of the problems we face is that whereas the BOF Board is made up of elected individuals, groups members are more often delegates who tend to represent their clubs and associations views.

It's the clubs (and to a lesser extent the associations) who actually provide orienteering opportunities for our membership. This is the power base for our sport ~ BOF deliver very little for the club orienteer.

BOF over the last few years have made a number of questionable decisions. Where there was disagreement with a Board ruling many clubs have tended to ignore them.

This is a regretable situation as it indicates that the views of the Board and the membership are diverging. The club however stages the style of event that suits their membership. Frankly ~ Long may this be the case.

The event structure implementation ( not the original proposals) was what fired the debate which led to the 4-tier proposal. BOF made a mess of the restructuring implementation. To my mind, the call to reconsider what had been imposed came from the core of the membership.

The propasal was properly made, well debated both in this forum and amongst the wider membership. The vote in favour of 4 tiers was conclusive. The BOF Board need to accept that the membership has spoken.

If certain members the Board are unhappy it is they who should resign.

[graeme]

groups members are more often delegates who ... represent their clubs and associations views.

Which will be somewhat challenging if we're not supposed to talk to our clubs and associations

[EddieH]

If there's ever a case for just get on with this brilliant sport and leave procedures to .... (God knows why anyone wants to be involved) this is it.