British Orienteering AGM 2013

[Mrs H]

It worked

[Paul Frost]

I got all the stuff in plenty of time by all the methods used.
But couldn't find anything that was worth the time and effort voting on.

The separate thread on Independent Directors covers the pointlessness of that process.

The sex of the composition of the board is something I've lost so much sleep about over the years. But I still can't decide what to do and how we should treat people who may be male but think they are female (or the other way round). What happens when a male is acting like an old woman?

It looks like we have enough trouble finding people to do voluntary jobs in the first place without potentially turning down men because we don't have enough women.

Not sure why this proposal will be withdrawn if proposal 1, the adoption of the accounts is not passed?

But what's the point in voting on either, the outside bodies that give us money demand that we comply or the money stops, so what's to vote on?

[Big Jon]

Good points Paul, thanks, you've saved me the effort of thinking about and composing a response!

[Clive Coles]

I agree the AGM looks to be as dull as ditch water ~ I suspect a well below average attendance.

That of course makes it all the more important to exercise your proxy vote if you want to retain control of strategic decisions within a group of people who you might know and quite possibly respect.

The danger with both proposals, if carried, is that we probably hand the Executive the power to seek out and appoint anyone they can find to fill either the Independent Director positions or the gender quota lists.

Is this democratic ? I guess it is as we all have the option to vote on this occasion. But ... once the Articles are changed that's it. You probably will not get another chance to change the rules of appointing Directors again as the new Board will control what gets discussed at future AGM's.

The choice is there ~ it's up to each of us to decide if we care. 100 proxy votes could determine the outcome.

[Paul Frost]

So if enough people vote against the independent and gender proposals where does that leave British Orienteering and funding from Sport England?

AGM booklet...funding bodies such as UK Sport, Sport Wales and Sport England (whose support to British Orienteering has been and continues to be considerable) now require National Governing Bodies in receipt of grant support to implement this good practice with at least 1⁄4 of Directors on a Board being Independent.

If I bother to vote it would be against the proposals, so I could be part of bankrupting British Orienteering if the vote goes against them.

So I'm now faced with the dilemma of voting by following my true beliefs and thus aiding the collapse of British Orienteering due to lack of money, or not voting and seeing the collapse of British Orienteering due to an increasingly out of touch management.

[Spookster]

The danger with both proposals, if carried, is that we probably hand the Executive the power to seek out and appoint anyone they can find to fill either the Independent Director positions or the gender quota lists.

Is this democratic ? I guess it is as we all have the option to vote on this occasion. But ... once the Articles are changed that's it. You probably will not get another chance to change the rules of appointing Directors again as the new Board will control what gets discussed at future AGM's.

The choice is there ~ it's up to each of us to decide if we care. 100 proxy votes could determine the outcome.

Clive,

I think you may mis-understand the proposed change, and the current situation.

Firstly, the proposal is to change the board composition to be up to 6 elected directors, plus up to 3 independent directors, plus the CEO. Currently it is up to 9 elected directors, plus the CEO. In other words, the majority of the board (6) will remain elected by the membership.

Secondly, you appear concerned about allowing the board to appoint other board members (the independent directors). The fact is, the board already has that power to appoint other directors, under article 28, to fill a vacancy by co-opting a replacement director. And in the situation where fewer candidates stand for election than there are vacancies, the board is almost bound to go ahead and look to co-opt others to make the number up to 9, as we have done in the past.

I trust that's clear, but let me know if I can help further. I agree these proposals will look dull to most orienteers, but they are actually quite significant to the way the board is composed, and it's important that people don't vote based on mis-understood information.

[greywolf]

You say "up to 3 independent directors" but the proposals make it clear that (in a couple of years) there will be three appointed directors

also, there's a significant difference between the Board having the power to co-opt director(s) with specific skills, and being able to pick the most appropriate candidate(s); and being obliged to do so, and having to draw from a rather smaller pool of previous unengaged candidates

[Clive Coles]

I think Martin it is not only the arrival of 3 appointed independent directors but also the introduction of the gender list. This gives the power to any Board in the future to appoint more "chosen" ones ~ the proportion of directors elected by the membership is further compromised.

I am disappointed that so few Board elections are contested ~ this I think is a fault in the way the Board operates and the way it's function is perceived.

Before Govenance became an issue, BOF was "governed" by Council. This had the advantage of involving Association Chairmen / Women in deciding the strategic thinking governing the development of orienteering. The system was not purfect but you did at least have a direct channel of commumication down through the Association chairs to the clubs.

To my mind when we transferred the federation to company status we threw the baby out with the bathwater. That direct link to the clubs was lost. And it is clubs ( not BOF) who deliver orienteering to the recreational sporting community.

We are now in the silly situation where we have a board which cannot find sufficient orienteers to stand for election. If we have to have lists to orchestrate the balance of a Board could we not state that a certain proporting has to be selected from serving "elected" Association chairs. The fact that chairs are elected by their Associations at least maintains a semblance of democracy.

I would be quite happy for the board to consult outside experts so as to provide advice on topics where they feel they lack a depth of expertise. This advice may have to be a budget item. But I do not warm the thought of such appointees having a Director's responsibility.

[Scott]

If we have to have lists to orchestrate the balance of a Board could we not state that a certain proporting has to be selected from serving "elected" Association chairs. The fact that chairs are elected by their Associations at least maintains a semblance of democracy.

Sadly, it's not just the Board which struggles to find candidates for election. How many Associations have had contested elections for their Chair in recent years? I'm aware of at least three Associations having major difficulties finding anybody willing to do the job at all, so I'm not sure that that system would be much of an improvement.

[Clive Coles]

Possibly Scott ~ but I think all Association do end up with a Chair after a little persuasion who can speak up for the clubs they represent.

I am not suggesting all associations should have a place on the board (some chairs might not wish to undertake the commitment), ~ I suggest rather that the Executive should seek to appoint a certain proportion of Directors from the panel of serving chairs.

[Oldman]

If Chairs could be persuaded to become Directors, then why wouldn't they stand to be elected as a director anyway?

[Spookster]

I think Martin it is not only the arrival of 3 appointed independent directors but also the introduction of the gender list. This gives the power to any Board in the future to appoint more "chosen" ones ~ the proportion of directors elected by the membership is further compromised.

No, the number of directors elected by the membership will remain as 6, as long as sufficient candidates are nominated by the membership. The gender requirement could end up favouring one of the candidates over another. It's only in the event that the 6 elected posts have a vacancy that the board (or actually an appointment panel) would have to fill the vacancy with a co-opted director. That panel would also follow the gender guideline if the required balance wasn't achieved.

[SJC]

The gender requirement could end up favouring one of the candidates over another.

Rather more than favouring if in order to meet the gender requirements the membership have no choice other than to elect a specific candidate.

[Paul Frost]

I keep getting a whiff of smoke from an Italian city and the faint sound of a violin playing in my ears.
Thinking of doing a Google search for 2nd hand fire engines and earplugs.

[King Penguin]

... so what happens if political correctness says we need a 12-year-old lesbian but we have a skills gap for a Treasurer for which the only "qualified" applicant is a mid-50's heterosexual male, and there is only one vacancy ?
(deliberately over-exaggerating for effect)