[shark]

Overall vote breakdown:

Voting result by TheUKBShark, on Flickr

[reeve]

Up now

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2019-report

Ah, just beat me to it thanks again Simon

[galpinos]

Simon, does this mean your concerns have been addressed?

[tomtom]

How did the ERG vote?

[shark]

Simon, does this mean your concerns have been addressed?

Fraid not - the info I'm after isn't included in the article. I'll send some emails

[shark]

So my concerns relate to proxy voting and in particular discretionary proxy voting.

Proxy voting is being able to be absent from a meeting and still lodge a vote. There are directed proxy votes where you select your vote on each motion and discretionary proxy voting where you nominate an individual to use their discretion to vote on your behalf.

In the case of the BMC AGM there were 100 or so people in the room and clearly it is impractical to 85000 members present. As I understand it (please correct me if wrong) the proxy votes came in via post with the completed voting forms that were included with the Spring edition of Summit or electronically via the new system run independently by the Electoral Registry Service. In either case an individual can vote directly for the motions or nominate the Chair to use their discretion. The proxy votes could also be exercised in the room by nominated representatives in bloc vote type fashion by any authorised BMC member and as mentioned the Chair which in the case of the BMC AGM was Lynn the President.

In a post mortem analysis of the votes the members only get to see the overall votes and not how many discretionary proxy votes were being placed so it is difficult to ascertain what level of power nominated individuals had in determining the outcomes. However, by looking across the variances of votes from one item to another you can make comparisons and assumptions.

My concerns are that a nominated individual may have so many discretionary votes that they have too much discretionary power especially in the election of Directors. The former bloc power vote of the Trade Unions in the Labour Party is often cited as an example of the negative consequences of this sort of thing. In the case of the BMC it might be that by dint of their discretionary vote that the Chair of the meeting or a Club luminary like Pettigrew harvesting proxies might be in position to an unwelcome individual level of power. Currently it is unclear whether this is the case.

I have requested the numbers of discretionary proxy votes that were used at the AGM for each item but so far been turned down on legal grounds. I’m new to all this but instinctively that doesn’t seem right with an organisation that repeatedly claims to aspire to be open and transparent. I’m undecided whether discretionary proxy voting is inherently undemocratic and un-transparent but my current feeling on the subject is that you should do away with them altogether and outcomes should be entirely determined by individual votes.

Thoughts?

[galpinos]

Simon, that aligns with the concerns I had already heard voiced.

So, if I read this correctly, the current President was the chair, and they could then use these proxy votes (number uncertain) to effectively (if the proxy number was large enough) vote for the board they wanted?

That doesn't sit right with me.

[shark]

Simon, that aligns with the concerns I had already heard voiced.

So, if I read this correctly, the current President was the chair, and they could then use these proxy votes (number uncertain) to effectively (if the proxy number was large enough) vote for the board they wanted?

That doesn't sit right with me.

You can draw all manner of assumptions which is why it would be useful to verify the discretionary proxy numbers held by the Chair and ideally anyone else in the room to understand what is going on.

It also seemed odd that the President was the Chair rather than the Chair of the Board of Directors (Gareth) as would be the case in corporate AGM's and understand how and why that decision was arrived at - which I assume is in enshrined in the Articles of Association.

One thing worth mentioning is that it is also possible for nominated representative to split their vote, if they choose which is another thing to confuse guesswork. Nick Kurth did this by splitting his discretionary vote 50:50 for the contested Presidential election at the last AGM.

[Ru]

Shark have pm'd

[galpinos]

What's a discretionary vote in BMC terms, I'm assuming not mandated proxies?

[Andy Syme]

Simon

I must admit that after the votes it was immediately clear to me that an unintended consequence of the current articles is that any Board member with discretionary votes is actually a potential governance issue as the majority of AGM business is related to Board accountability.

If the Board Members have discretionary votes, albeit given and exercised in good faith, there is the potential risk.

Safe to say it's on my list of things to review with the Board and NC for next years (final I hope) revision of the articles.

[Andy Syme]

What's a discretionary vote in BMC terms, I'm assuming not mandated proxies?

When you proxy vote you can either direct your vote i.e. I want you to vote for X

or give your proxy the discretion to vote as they believe appropriate on the day.

The default in the BMC has always be they go to the President, unless you select someone else, but you can elect anyone to exercise your proxy vote, the only criteria is they attend the AGM in person.

[shark]

Thanks Andy. Glad it’s in the to-do list to change the rules.

Given the circumstances what is your view on keeping the number of discretionary proxy votes used by the Chair secret?

[shark]

Voting numbers up on the BMC website which adds a little more info here

For the Funding Director post which was contested by three candidates there is a note:

“After the first round no candidate had over 50.01% of the votes. Therefore the votes for the losing category (abstain) were reassigned to their next highest preference and this provided the outcome: percentage of votes for Jonny Dry – 55%”

 

[Offwidth]

It seems to me the most odd factor in this election, irrespective of any discussion of chair's discretionary votes, is what the round 1 score for JR tells us. The number is a bizzarly low proportion of what was a low turnout (I count 2297 total round 1 votes in this item) for a Director as a VP, with all that great work he's done on ORG and ODG and his links to partner organisations. The key message to me from this is way more members needed to vote.  If a voter wants a particular outcome on a proxy they should simply mandate it.

There are no block votes... each eligible member can vote and if they proxy someone (it could be anyone present) they either choose to mandate a decision or to allow the discretion of the proxy on their behalf. Members present should only be carrying discretionary proxys because they are trusted to be of 'like mind' on votes after any debate.

I'd be happy if AGM elections for Nominated Directors ended; it was always a risky idea that might have ended up pissing-off some loyal volunteers (maybe even some of those elected this time!). If 'member input' is needed (Nom Com could also  just appoint!?) it's much better done in a National Council vote in my view. As it was, any candidate presented to the AGM for election was regarded as meeting the Board agreed appointable criteria for the role... ALL are regarded by the Board led process as good enough to do the role.

[Offwidth]

Voting numbers up on the BMC website which adds a little more info here

For the Funding Director post which was contested by three candidates there is a note:

“After the first round no candidate had over 50.01% of the votes. Therefore the votes for the losing category (abstain) were reassigned to their next highest preference and this provided the outcome: percentage of votes for Jonny Dry – 55%”

 

Yep... it looks like 21 of 293 voters who's first choice was abstain had second preferences.

[Andy Syme]

Thanks Andy. Glad it’s in the to-do list to change the rules.

Given the circumstances what is your view on keeping the number of discretionary proxy votes used by the Chair secret?

I said I'd review, not guarantee change.  Speaking to a lawyer friend there are some issues!!

Re proxy votes I'm not sure that it is right to disclose them any more than anyone else's votes.  Even if they were declared then what?

  You might agree or disagree with the decision made but is your opinion of what the members want any more valid than the Presidents views?  She is the members champion and has been going round meeting loads of members.

I guess if people are in some way 'worried' by events, my take away is we need to look at why that is, and then what can be done to ensure people don't feel this way in future; whether that's changes to articles, processes, communications or whatever.

[Andy Syme]

It seems to me the most odd factor in this election, irrespective of any discussion of chair's discretionary votes, is what the round 1 score for JR tells us. The number is a bizzarly low proportion of what was a low turnout (I count 2297 total round 1 votes in this item) for a Director as a VP, with all that great work he's done on ORG and ODG and his links to partner organisations. The key message to me from this is way more members needed to vote.

John has done an excellent job in ODG, but given the role (and the fact some still smart about last year's motion) I'm not surprised he scored lower than others (by my estimate of direct votes). 

What was disappointing to me was
1.  that the Board when looking at ND roles did not feel ODG was important enough to warrant a director specifically for that.  I would have liked to see a firm commitment from the Board for work which I think is absolutely vital to us moving forwards.
2.  Why, by the look of things, those people with discretionary votes did not vote for him, thought I suppose given my initial statement about role they maybe felt the same and so could not 'in good faith' support him given the job description.

I may be biased but getting ODG right is the most important thing for the BMC if we are going to move away from the last few years problems, and there is NO ONE in the BMC better qualified/knowledgeable than John to lead that work.

[user deactivated]

More gobbledegook

[Andy Syme]

More gobbledegook

Gobbledegook as in you don't understand the words or just bored of subject.  I did try to use short words :-) :-)

[user deactivated]

Just had the urge to say gobbledygook

[spidermonkey09]

Just had the urge to say gobbledygook

Childish. If you aren't interested (the thread is called BMC AGM so its fairly clear you wouldn't be) then butt out.

[spidermonkey09]

Re proxy votes I'm not sure that it is right to disclose them any more than anyone else's votes.  Even if they were declared then what?

If I understand this right the proposition would be to disclose numbers though wouldn't it, rather than who voted which way?

[shark]

Quite. The exercise is to do with numbers not names with a view to understanding whether there was an unacceptable concentration of discretionary power.

I am specifically interested in whether this led to JR coming bottom despite being manifestly the strongest candidate with respect to his BMC track record and relevant experience of Sport England funding and governance.

[user deactivated]

Just had the urge to say gobbledygook

Haha cheers for the ‘stern parental’ advice and the negative Karma lads. Just had a flash back to middle school and the arsehole headmaster ‘billy’ the goat Butlin.

I was under the impression that childish heckling was a valid part of the political process. Along with fraud, sexual deviancy and general hypocrisy. 

Childish. If you aren't interested (the thread is called BMC AGM so its fairly clear you wouldn't be) then butt out.