Now we have civilly established between us the issues you believe are important I will address them as comprehensively as I can in the earnest hope that this draws a line under the matters in establishing my position. I also please ask that you maintain the civility that you have more recently exhibited.
First point to make is that what you say you consider most important and what I consider most important are evidently two different things.
My most important issues with respect to the UKC article I wrote all relate to concerns over the recruitment and election of Directors and the BMC AGM article that failed to reflect those concerns which prompted the article being written as a response.
The reason that this issue is most important to me is that the BMC went though the wringer to gain Board primacy so the composition of the Board is vital for taking difficult decisions to modernise the organisation. When one of the Directors (JR) who I perceive as one of the driving forces of modernisation was not re-elected to the Board that rang alarm bells straight away and a desire to understand how such a detrimental outcome came to pass.
My endeavours of trying to understand how that came to pass included contacting two Board members (Lynn and Simon Mccalla) for information on the discretionary proxy votes and relay concerns about recruitment procedures.
Even now I am not seeking a Board response to the other issues that are a priority concern to you (but a secondary concern to me) and the list of questions I sent to Simon Mccalla all relate to the recruitment processes, election and BMC AGM article which for reference are as follows:
The advert for the 3 Nominated Director positions was posted for about a week and the interviews took place about a week after that limiting. Why were the time scales so compressed ?
Does the Board agree the short timescales were unreasonable for three senior posts and will have limited the number of applicants and made the process look rushed? Was it in fact rushed and did this contribute to mistakes and poor process?
Was there a written procedure at the outset for how the selection of candidates, the interviews and the post interview actions? If so can this document be publicly disclosed in its original form for member scrutiny. If there wasn’t a written procedure at the outset why not?
Can you confirm that the interview panel was comprised only of Gavin Pierce Chairman, Lynn Robinson and Mick Green of National Council and clarify how the members were decided. Was anyone else on the Nominations Committee but not on the interview panel?
Is it true that the original terms of reference for the Nominations Committee required an Independent Director to participate in the interviews yet not only did this not happen but also that the terms of reference were changed after the interviews took place that removed the requirement for Independent Directors to participate?
In terms of deciding the specialist requirements for the three pools of candidates is it true that determining the pools were largely carried out by Lynn Robinson and Dave Turnbull and if so was that part of any written procedure and does that mean Dave Turnbull was on the Nominations Committee?
Is it true that the candidates statements were made up of a section of the Nomination Committee comments and the candidates own comments and if so why wasn’t that made clear that was the case in the candidate statements presented to members?
Is it the case that candidates were initially asked for referees rather than a proposer or seconder? Was this a mix up or were referees not required or were both required and they did not need to be the same people? How clearly and in what way was this communicated to candidates and the mooted referees? Were any of the referees/proposers/seconders contacted or approached for validation or references?
Is it true that at least one of the successful nominated candidates was not informed the election would be contested? Was this communication just verbal or was it made in writing and by whom? Was the same manner and content of communication made to all the candidates?
Was it clarified to candidates that they would or wouldn’t be expected to present at the AGM? How was this communicated?
Overall how clear and consistent were communications with the candidates and were they up to the Boards expected standards? Where lessons not learnt from the issues arising from Amanda Parshall’s on the importance of correct procedure?
At the AGM Lynn Robinson made clear to the audience that candidates would not be speaking (unlike at previous AGM’s). When was it decided this would be the case and by whom and why wasn’t that stated in AGM papers?
At the AGM in response to audience protest Lynn Robinson used Chair discretion to change that decision and asked the candidates to speak. Was that a reasonable Chair decision? Was it fair to candidates? Was it also fair to proxy voters who had already cast their votes?
Prior to making that decision the BMC solicitor from Womble Dickenson counselled from the floor that letting candidates speak would put the elections at risk to legal challenge. Was the Chair right to overrule this counsel and how serious is the legal risk?
With regard to discretionary voting the Chair typically holds a lot of discretionary votes. Is it a conflict of interest that this person is also a member of the Nominations Committee and on the interview panel?
On reflection does the Board believe that the number of discretionary votes held by the Chair at the 2018 AGM represent an unreasonable concentration of individual power?
At the end of the AGN Phil Simister (one of the Nominated Director candidates) asked from the floor whether discretionary proxy voting numbers would be made available. Lynn Robinson replied that they would be made available at the end of the meeting and published online. This did not happen. Why?
Why was the precedent from the 2018 AGM when a proxy voting decision and the numbers was disclosed immediately after a Director vote not followed at the 2019 AGM?
Why has further member requests to the Office and the President for disclosure of discretionary proxy votes by the Chair been refused? Was this a Board decision prior to the AGM? Is it right that this information is withheld? If so how is that balanced against openness and transparency?
Regarding the AGM report published on the BMC website - why was it delayed for so long?
Is it true that whilst the report was drafted in the Marketing department it was circulated for review for editing to Lynn Robinson and others? If so who was it circulated to and what amendments were made?
Given that a number of complaints have been levelled in person and online after the AGM why has there been no public acknowledgement of these concerns from the President, Chair or Board?
Have all or any of the candidates who participated in the process including any who withdrew been approached for feedback by the Nominations Committee? If not will they?
Bearing in mind that I have failed to elicit a response on my information requests for my primary issues from Board members individually or the Board as a whole, why would I be hassling the Board on secondary issues? It is not incumbent on me to submit my opinion piece to the Board so that they can deliberate before it is published.
Having said all that….
Let’s look at your individual issues and relate it in turn to what I said in the article
Gron's experiences as a candidate Yes I flagged up this early on in a confidential email to Simon Mccalla in his capacity as Senior Independent Director in the week following the AGM the email I sent on 3rd April:
Furthermore the actual candidate recruitment process was poor. Gron Davies approached me to act as a referee which I agreed to. He then contacted me to say that he had been successfully nominated. I was expecting a reference request which I never received. I was then surprised to see that it was publicised as a contested election with my name as seconder and Rehan as proposer. Neither of us were consulted about this change of status from private referee to public proposer and seconder. Furthermore, Gron only knew that it was contested when Rehan and I told him. He was never officially informed that it was contested. In addition he was not forewarned to make a presentation but had to do one on the hoof at the AGM when Lynn bowed from pressure from the floor despite the Womble Dickenson solicitor advising otherwise. Clearly Kaye Richardson and John Roberts took a stand on this and refused to give a presentation maybe to their detriment.
In terms of the actual statement I took from Gron and included that was at a very late stage of the article being written (23rd April) I had last spoken to him at the AGM and contacted him for feedback in case he wanted to add anything to the article. By this stage he had resigned from the Finance Committee. It is notable that despite his resignation that the only person that had contacted him from the BMC since was Alan the Office Accountant.
[Lynn going]against legal advice [of the Womble Dickenson solicitor at the AGM] The relevant paragraph in my article was this:
The 2019 AGM was Chaired by Lynn Robinson, BMC President. She is also a member of the Nominations Committee. When we reached the contested Director elections Robinson declared that in the interests of fairness that candidates would not be addressing the audience i.e. there would be no hustings. Unsurprisingly, this was met by some protests from the floor as at previous AGM's candidates were expected to speak and there was nothing in the AGM papers to indicate a change in this practice. In response, Robinson backtracked and asked the candidates to do a short presentation despite the BMC's paid legal adviser counselling otherwise.
I’m not sure what more to say about this. She stated this from the floor and was located about 15 feet away from me. Lynn was looking in her direction when she said it. I’m surprised that you didn’t hear her too as you were about the same distance away. I am assuming her comments were minuted. If not she can be contacted for confirmation. In any case this was all in the public forum and should have been heard by Dave and Lynn at least and been subject to any post AGM wash-up with the solicitor. Hardly a job for me to flag up what should already be known by the BMC’s paid legal advisor.
Whether the BMC is in charge of its financesThe relevant section in my article is this:
Personally I don't begrudge paying an extra £6 a year, but I do begrudge money being wasted. I would be wholly supportive of the subs increase if I thought that the BMC had an iron grip on its finances and placed the use of (members') money as a greater priority than it currently seems to be. The fact that the accounts were restated due to numerous narrative errors and the subscription recommendation was repeatedly changed in the run up to the AGM are just two clues that financial management could be greatly improved.
I noted that in previous posts you referred to the minor changes to the Accounts mooted at the AGM. What I am referring to in my article is the more extensive narrative changes that took place before the AGM that led to the AGM papers being amended.I agreed with Dave Musgrove that the more minor amendments presented to the AGM did not need warrant updating till next year’s submission and voted in favour of that motion. The subscription recommendation changes are also a matter of public record.
As I said in the article these are two clues. My overall view that the BMC does not have an iron grip on its finances is informed by my role as Commercial Manager and attendance of all the Finance Committee meetings whilst employed at the BMC. I lobbied more than one Director currently sitting on the Board of Directors at the
2017 2018 AGM in person and gave them my opinions on Financial Management at the Office and advocated that in my opinion that the appointment of a Finance & Commercial Director would go towards addressing the issues.
That the ODG is going too slow? The relevant section of my UKC article is this:
There was scarcely any ODG discussion at the AGM, which hopefully does not reflect it diminishing in importance. However, there was a handout listing all 51 of the ORG recommendations. Disappointingly only 7 of those 51 recommendations had been ticked as completed. Furthermore 5 of the 7 had already been completed by the 2018 AGM. Therefore, on the face of it, not much has been achieved by the ODG since its inception.
Regarding your point in a previous post about John Roberts presenting at the AGM I have checked this with JR directly and you are correct that there was a slot. He says he was given a maximum 5 minute slot whilst the votes were being counted. Unfortunately I along with many others missed this slot assuming it was a break in proceedings and headed straight for the toilets. I think it fair to say that it was not assigned the priority it deserved.
As for only 2 recommendations being completed since the last AGM I only knew that from the AGM handout. The Board should be very aware of what has and hasn’t been done to date so not my job to flag up things they should know in far greater detail than I ever would.
[The level of Lynn's attention to detail on governance nitty grittyThe relevant section of the UKC article is this:
Whilst Robinson has shown herself to be an outstanding President at the Public Relations and ambassadorial elements of her role, she appears to have been less adept and enthusiastic with respect to the nitty gritty detailed ODG work of governance and policy changes…….. I think it would be an impressively brave and humble move (rather than a weakness) if Robinson acknowledged her strengths and shortcomings by making way for someone else to manage her half of the ODG workstreams. This would allow Robinson to concentrate on her real strengths as a superb ambassador for the BMC. Given that she has already voiced that the workload of the role of President is too big for one person this also seems a practical step in making the workload more manageable.
This is obviously close to home for you so please remember the article is an opinion piece and I am stating opinions not fact. I didn’t state it as fact that Lynne
isn’t adept and enthusiastic at the nitty gritty of governance and policy but that that she
appeared to be. That appearance is based on her postings on social media and conversations and with her in person where her focus has been far more on being invited to be a judge at Banff and similar than possessing a zeal for reform. Her likely lack of backing for John Roberts, the ODG Chair, who has generally been praised for his contribution and commitment to reform adds to the jigsaw of facts and appearances strongly indicate that it isn’t where her passion and priorities lies.
Also don’t forget I know her and there are various things she's said that have led me to holding the opinion I have. Whilst recognising Lynn's strengths as a “people person” I have long been apprehensive about her unknown abilities with respect to the grind of process change hence my advice to her in an email (11.7.18) after her election as President:
“If you are to achieve the level of change that the ORG aspired for the BMC during your term I suggest you and JR sit down and form a game plan. It will be all too easy to get diverted, bogged down by inertia etc. My plan was all I had to cling on to at times. The importance of impact of the first 30/60/90 days in office and all that. Maybe you already have that in hand.”It seemed obvious to me that if Lynn and John worked closely in partnership they would be a force to be reckoned with. Lynn could take the outward facing leadership role as the face and communicator of change and Roberts could drive the internal aspects and the detail. On paper it could have been a great double act. It is a calamity that the opposite occurred.
My early apprehension has only been subsequently strengthened by things she has said and comments from others. One was over our public exchange on her use of “holding the Board to account” regarding the MoM at a Peak Area meeting which you may recall.
You have characterised me as having a conflict of interest in terms of friendship with John Roberts but I have a longer term friendship with Lynn which you should therefore also acknowledge.
Going back I was the first one to let Lynn know about the upcoming Vice President vacancy and encouraged her to apply (email 10.3.17). I then encouraged her to stand as Acting President when Rehan resigned. Finally I publicly endorsed her Presidential bid on UKB when she stood against Les Ainsworth.
In short Lynn is a wonderful person but in the context of her duties as President in the article I am dispassionately judging her on her actions. As a ‘fan’ it has been personally disappointing her lack of transparency and disclosure. The consequences of her likely lack of support for John Roberts undermines progress at the ODG and in her position she should have been acutely aware of that.
I have endeavoured to understand the issues that were important to you and openly give context to how I arrived at the opinions and the timings of when I communicated matters to Board members which you are concerned about.
