The BMC is a breath of fresh air to a governance cynic like me, as although they do make mistakes they are genuinely open where they should be, more than any organisation that I know well, and try to apply the principles (and apologise and do it right next time when they fail) and they bend over backwards to be kind to troublesome members other organisations would have long ago put through discipline processes and booted out.
Offwidth, the BMC may seem like this to you, but as someone who has only recently started getting involved/caring they don't currently look "genuinely open where they should be". Also, as someone with no background in these kind of organisations or procedures, the lack of clarity of the nominations process and the fact it would appear, from the outside, that no-one's vote bar the President's mattered looks decidedly wrong.
Quote from: Offwidth on June 06, 2019, 08:41:15 amThe BMC is a breath of fresh air to a governance cynic like me, as although they do make mistakes they are genuinely open where they should be, more than any organisation that I know well, and try to apply the principles (and apologise and do it right next time when they fail) and they bend over backwards to be kind to troublesome members other organisations would have long ago put through discipline processes and booted out.Offwidth, the BMC may seem like this to you, but as someone who has only recently started getting involved/caring they don't currently look "genuinely open where they should be". Also, as someone with no background in these kind of organisations or procedures, the lack of clarity of the nominations process and the fact it would appear, from the outside, that no-one's vote bar the President's mattered looks decidedly wrong.All this seems a shame as the BMC seemed to be heading down the right track after a turbulent couple of years and this impression undermines all the good work that they do.
the fact it would appear, from the outside, that no-one's vote bar the President's mattered looks decidedly wrong.All this seems a shame as the BMC seemed to be heading down the right track after a turbulent couple of years and this impression undermines all the good work that they do.
On the elections none of us know if the outcomes would have changed if Lynn's average discretionary votes were stripped out from the numbers (seemingly round 700 but varying from motion to motion). Anyone can look at the voting total numbers we have and it seems very unlikely to me
I think if you really cared about openess and transparency you would have dealt with this like a proper journalist
All of this is in the context that JR admits upthread that he didnt campaign as he really wanted a woman to win the vote.
Quote from: Offwidth on June 05, 2019, 11:28:16 amI'd like to see a single example of an organisation like the BMC that does it.British Canoeing at 2019 AGM voted that proxy votes be disclosed as part of the show of hands, as well as disclosed for polls. (item 11.2)
I'd like to see a single example of an organisation like the BMC that does it.
Seriously folks...CYCLING UK IS A TRADING NAME OF CYCLISTS’ TOURING CLUB (CTC) A COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEEIt’s on the website and companies house.https://www.cyclinguk.org/about-ctc/policies-and-procedures/ctcs-structurehttps://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00025185Incorporated 1887
SteveBCU - look for 2019 AGM pack. They are changing their articles to disclose Proxies in order to comply with companies is their justification, though I'm not sure that's right.
I don't think that the President or any board member or person in a position of significant power should have the authority to assign large numbers of proxy votes, particularly if they can do so anonymously.
Quote from: Offwidth on June 07, 2019, 09:54:45 amI think if you really cared about openess and transparency you would have dealt with this like a proper journalist People who aren't professional journalists have no obligation to act like professional journalists. The average member would have no problem with the opinion piece Shark wrote for UKC in his capacity as a 'concerned member.' If the BMC hierarchy objected to it they could have put a speedy statement out correcting what they deemed to be wrong, which they are capable of given their commendably swift response to the wild camping farrago detailed on UKC/BMC website. They didn't do this for some reason.
I shouldn't worry too much, Steve. This stuff is all so boring that precious few people are paying any attention. I think I tried to read Shark's article but my lungs kept collapsing and my heart kept stopping as my body impulsively tried to shut down and give me the easy way out.
The best solution in my opinion is to get members to understand that a chair's discretionary proxy is given trusting the Chair will use it in the best interests of the organisation. That's part of why we elect a BMC President. If voters are unsure the President will vote the way they want they should give their discretionary proxy to someone else.
It shows how out of touch many are on this subject as (anonymity aside) this proxy facility has to happen for the AGM chair by company law. Issues around anonymity are also not as simple as you believe but big PLCs are now releasing chair proxy splits ( a pretty recent change) but I'm not aware of any other membership organisations with an AGM run under company rules that currently do this (this doesn't mean there are none).
I recognise this release of chair proxy breakdown is probably where we will end up