BOF Board briefing paper

[Oldman]

A briefing paper expanding on the recent Board meeting has been published:
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/i ... atters.pdf

It covers the JK, strategic budgets, governance and the external company Limelight.

[greywolf]

IMHO the briefing paper is an admirable attempt to keep us informed and put some flesh on the bones of the minutes...

But 1) is it really a "partnership" when one "partner" claims ownership and dictates terms?
But 2) how will appointing three independent directors, perhaps non-orienteers, improve governance?

[Red Adder]

A few observations

From the impact on BOF office of having to support their end of the partnership seems that BOF now realise just how much volunteers have contribute to JK/BOC and also hopefully can extrapolate to realise that clubs foremost role is putting on events rather than some of the woolier ideas they have come up with.

Budgets are going to be the big problem in coming years, especially if BOF need to go to ordinary members to help fund an elite program.

Annual appraisals for directors - one of the best things about working for yourself is avoiding corporate crap - I certainly would voluntarily put myself in that position again.

Limelight - seems like another Govt scam to seem to put money in to sport but actually fill the coffers of their mates. My experience of consultants who come from outside to tell people how to run their affairs is not good - they very rarely get down to understand the fundamental nature of the "client" just end up lazily parroting standard and generally ineffective solutions whilst spending/taking all the budget.

I don't envy Mike H any of these challenges - and I suspect most of the O community really just want to get on an put on and compete in a few straight-forward events.

[Oldman]

I don't envy Mike H any of these challenges - and I suspect most of the O community really just want to get on an put on and compete in a few straight-forward events.

I think you're right, Red Adder, so it seems to me that it's therefore sensible that any new resource-demanding recreational orienteering efforts are organised without putting further pressure on existing club volunteers (unless they want to be involved).

As far as Independent Directors are concerned, there must be some advantage if the SRA are promoting the concept, so I think it's up to the Board to argue their case.

[greywolf]

As far as Independent Directors are concerned, there must be some advantage if the SRA are promoting the concept, so I think it's up to the Board to argue their case.

You seem easily convinced. I would like a little more evidence as to what these advantages actually might be. I'd also be keen that the BOF Board discuss the potential disadvantages, and not just the benefits, as Mike's paper suggests.

As for the voluntary code, seeing the enthusiastic backing for its proposals by the page 3 twat (public school, life guards, investment banker, tory mp - pretty much the full set of tosspottery) only makes me more suspicious - if he likes it it has to be sh*te.

[Oldman]

As far as Independent Directors are concerned, there must be some advantage if the SRA are promoting the concept, so I think it's up to the Board to argue their case.

You seem easily convinced.

No, I am asking for the case to be argued so that we can assess it. And by the way, the SRA are a well-respected pro-NGB body and they are for example working to help achieve forest access

The Alliance is working with the Forestry Commission to improve opportunities for sport and recreation in the public forest estate, with plans to create a set of principles for woodland managers to allow them to understand the needs of sport and recreational events and activities.

Three surveys have been launched to gather the information needed to create these principles, which will be discussed at the second working group meeting in July. The Alliance will also hear from the chair of the Forestry Commission who is keen to hear about the work of the Alliance and the Independent Panel on Forestry report will also be discussed.

[pete.owens]

The argument presented in the code of practice:
http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/si ... ersion.pdf
(page 16) seems reasonable to me:

The role of an independent Board member is to provide objective rationale to the
Board’s decision-making process without the potential for a vested interest in the
outcomes of such decisions. Their broad perspective aims to ensure the Board’s
decisions take full consideration of the macro-environment within which it operates
and that decisions are made in the best interest of the activity or organisation.

[greywolf]

well yes, independent directors with an objective perspective sounds like a good idea, and the concept is well established in the business world - perhaps BOF could ask Sir Michael Rake how effective he and his "independent" colleagues have been

More to the point, where exactly would BOF find these capable, independent (i.e. non-orienteers with no knowledge of the sport) directors willing to serve on the Board for free (unlike Sir Michael, who got £188k last year in fees)? It doesn't seem to be overwhelmed by applications from those who are passionate about the sport...

[roadrunner]

More to the point, where exactly would BOF find these capable, independent (i.e. non-orienteers with no knowledge of the sport) directors willing to serve on the Board for free (unlike Sir Michael, who got £188k last year in fees)? It doesn't seem to be overwhelmed by applications from those who are passionate about the sport...

BOF's view (which obviously still has to be accepted by Sport England) is that they needn't be non-orienteers:

British Orienteering should recommend to Sport England that the definition of an Independent Director be a person who has not been involved in the national governance structure including the Board, or any national committee or group.

I'm more bemused by the idea that 25% of the board must be male and 25% female, when 66% of the board are supposed to be elected - that seems to imply that it can't be a free election.

[AndyC]

No it doesn't because 33% of the board can be appointed making it possible to bias the appointments to rebalance the genders. (Time scales may be an issue but in the long run it cn be done)

[Oldman]

I'm more bemused by the idea that 25% of the board must be male and 25% female, when 66% of the board are supposed to be elected - that seems to imply that it can't be a free election.

Yes, whenever you have gender "quotas", there is the risk of some candidates being successful without needing to win the vote. IOF I think has quotas and you can find this situation arising.

It is also complicated by the gender of any appointed Independent Directors (if the membership agree to that idea).

It is not always a non-free election though, because it depends on the current gender balance of those not retiring, and also on how many nominees there are of each gender. It also depends on when Independent Directors are appointed (before or after the election).

A simple example to illustrate:
Suppose there are 9 Directors, with 3 Independent and 6 elected, and the gender of the 6 (4 elected and 2 Independent) not retiring is 3 men and 3 women. Then the election is entirely based on the two top polling candidates (ie is "free") regardless of their gender since the 25% quota is already satisfied no matter who is elected.

[Kitch]

The role of an independent Board member is to provide objective rationale to the
Board’s decision-making process without the potential for a vested interest in the
outcomes of such decisions. Their broad perspective aims to ensure the Board’s
decisions take full consideration of the macro-environment within which it operates
and that decisions are made in the best interest of the activity or organisation.

The cynic in me interprets all this as follows:
The concept of independant directors is well established in the business world where it is a neat way of paying your old school mates an inordinate amount of money to be on the board of a company despite the fact that they know nothing about the business. However, they're a good chap (and hopefully will return the favour). The spiel above is the spin that you give to the shareholders to provide them comfort about the obscene amount of money being payed to your mate.
You see, to me, any responsible, intelligent, competant, moral director of a business should not need an "independant" to make sure they are doing "the right thing", its their job that they are being paid for (and very nicely so too in most cases). If they need someone to help them / keep an eye out then they are not competant.

Its all bullshit, but because a tory government is so in thrall to its mates in business they will listen to anything they are told and foist it on the public as a good idea from the world of business.
Then when they leave politics they can pick up a few nice Independant Director roles.

Total, utter, self serving, a-moral, parasites.

[andypat]

Kitch - put the cynic back in!

Your finance based logic applies to business and paid directors, but surely thats not the case for BOF directors?

I'd suggest if as a director you aren't prepared to have someone question your logic or actions then you are one step away from Fred the Shred and a RBS style collapse.

I can see the logic in having someone independent on any board to put the brakes on the sort of runaway train type of discussion that leads to major change without consulting the membership for example... not that BOF would ever do that of course...