Quote from: Will Hunt on April 16, 2019, 11:09:40 amThe discussion here encapsulates quite nicely why I don't think I will ever seek a volunteer position of any responsibility whatsoever with the BMC. Which is a real shame... Aside from other roles which Shark rightly points out are less political, the BMC does need to transparently review the Nominated Director process, not to change any past results, but to ensure that in future volunteers who are willing to put their head above the parapet, and challenge the status quo, are not disenfranchised by poor process.Thanks to Andy Syme for pushing on with gathering feedback on these issues so they can be tackled at NC (and assumedly local areas too)Quote from: Offwidth on April 13, 2019, 11:17:35 amI really doubt anything in that meeting swung the vote.For me, this is less about the outcome of the vote, than it is some of the behaviours that were present in the lead up to the AGM (and somewhat present at the AGM), that led to the process not going as it should have done both for the Nominated Directors, the accounts and other issues prior too. I'd agree other things probably affected the vote more than anything on the day itself, although I suspect abstaining from giving a husting speech (as did Kaye) didn't help guide a significant block of discretionary proxy votes in either Kaye or my direction!Of course, when an organisation starts to implement better governance practices, it starts to peel away the layers and reveal historical practices underneath. This is a good thing, but only when dealt with in a transparent way to members.Transparency and good governance are natural bedfellows, and they both lead to greater accountability, which is a good thing in any organisation, but particularly so in a members' organisation. My personal view is that all positions of leadership need to accept that. As the BMC is in a governance transition period, decisions need to be made with real care and thought looking to the longer term likely outcomes from the ODG work, rather than risking setting precedents, or possibly undoing some of the good work that's gone before. We also need to be careful with new rules and regulations, as they might not be perfect and need an iteration here or there.Here's some facts as they lie now:• As a Director at the time of the AGM I abstained from the vote on the accounts• As a Director at the time of the AGM I voted against the auditors• The ODG MoU wasn't signed at the AGM (it was minuted at Board to happen)• An excellent Nominated Director female candidate (Rebecca Ting - I have checked she's happy to be named) for fundraising dropped out before the AGM papers were released. It almost led, but perhaps regrettably didn't, to my own withdrawal from the process.• The number of AGM voters dropped from > 6000 in 2018 to around 2000 in 2019• There was no, or very little, social media or ongoing membership engagement push about voting until the day of the proxy voting deadline• The BMC board is now 25% female, which is short of the 30% SE gender diversity target in order to meet the SE code. This is actually a backward step for the BMC who has had > 30% for the last 2 years, and was essentially a requirement in 2017. I'm unaware as to whether this will affect SE funding again.Genuine mistakes happen, and that's absolutely fine, but there is a line between individual responsibility and Board collective responsibility. Humility, accountability and transparency are values that I'd like to see more of, and help fix errors properly to build a better BMC for everyone. Quote from: Andy Syme on April 16, 2019, 10:45:20 amGareth (Board Chair) has committed, subject to formal Board approval, to discuss the outcomes of the NC discussions at the Board in July and then to commit to addressing the issues as we can in time to ensure there are fewer questions/issues at the next AGM.Likewise, hopefully a positive outcome from this, and thanks to those involved. Obviously the thoughts above are higher level issues than any more specialist concerns with respect to ODG which is on the whole is progressing well (with a few twists and turns and blockages...) thanks to the committed team of volunteers.And, for the absolute governance geeks, there's an excellent article in The Governance Institute magazine this month, that describes the process British Cycling to improve its governance and meet the SE/SRA codes. Obviously British Cycling is a different beast to the BMC with respect to participation/competitive nature, but the parallels of the issue faced with respect to improving its internal governance are remarkable.
The discussion here encapsulates quite nicely why I don't think I will ever seek a volunteer position of any responsibility whatsoever with the BMC.
I really doubt anything in that meeting swung the vote.
Gareth (Board Chair) has committed, subject to formal Board approval, to discuss the outcomes of the NC discussions at the Board in July and then to commit to addressing the issues as we can in time to ensure there are fewer questions/issues at the next AGM.
Transparency in company governance means something different to its normal meaning in English. There are numerous acceptable exceptions where company information does not need to be disclosed and plenty of clear advice on what does. I think the BMC goes beyond standard transparency governance requirements, as a membership organisation should. I see no serious issues of Transparency in governance terms from the outside and if you saw this from the inside I would be asking what you did about that?As an well connected outsidier, I'm really perplexed why you would abstain from voting for the accounts and also that you would say that in public here. Ditto wrt voting against the auditors. This is serious stuff (although I would understand if you feel its not appropriate to comment further).
If there were gender issues that seriously concerned you in the ND elections why didn't you push for a gender reserved ND post, and if that was refused by the Board (something that would seem weird to me) resign from the election? I simply don't understand your gender percentages for the Board. Emma has now left and Fiona has gone in so there is no gender balance change I can see since the last AGM. At the 2018 AGM Amanda came onto the Board.. at that time adding an extra woman). I'm not aware the BMC has ever had >30% female representation (4+ board members).
I assumed the MOU wasn't signed was because the meeting hit the end time before completion of the agenda.
Finally some news articles showing British Cycling had really serious governance issues and why these regular comparisons with the BMC look bizzare to me.
the need to agree non Board replacements for the VPs (the choice in the current articles being a single Deputy President...
Bad Behavior has blocked 1088 access attempts in the last 7 days.