Another British Horse Society c**k-up

GHamlet75

Well-Known Member
Joined
26 September 2018
Messages
76
Just had the Regional regular email through this morning, lots of info, but NOT a peep about the AGM! Nothing!!
Rather 'secret squirrel' of them to omit any mention.....
Hi The Xmas Furry
The Regional emails are sent by the Regional Managers. Unfortunately they are kept in the dark as much as members are. I believe the AGM and the changes to the constitution are something that the CE was hoping to keep under the radar on her quest for ultimate power and control. However thanks to JanetGeorge, people are being made aware!
 

Velcrobum

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 October 2016
Messages
1,465
I am being dense if I attend the meeting in person will we be able to vote then or do we have to send in our vote prior to the meeting?? I I personally am concerned the vote is not being administered by a third party independently of BHS.
 

JanetGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 June 2001
Messages
6,978
Location
Shropshire/Worcs. borders
I am being dense if I attend the meeting in person will we be able to vote then or do we have to send in our vote prior to the meeting?? I I personally am concerned the vote is not being administered by a third party independently of BHS.
No - if you're going to be there, you can vote in person. They'll probably do it as a written vote collected from members present and then add the proxy votes. And - I agree with you - given the type of changes being proposed, it SHOULD be supervised independently. (But I doubt that it will be.)
 

PAK

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
Now is the time to come to the aid of your society. Please see my post BHS BS. Go to the meeting. Ask the tough questions!
 

PAK

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
No - if you're going to be there, you can vote in person. They'll probably do it as a written vote collected from members present and then add the proxy votes. And - I agree with you - given the type of changes being proposed, it SHOULD be supervised independently. (But I doubt that it will be.)
This is the central point - nothing seems to be supervised independently. In my opinion, there are no effective checks and balances in the systems of governance and leadership.
 

PAK

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275

PAK

Well-Known Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
Oh, I have had a browse on Facebook. The post does not look very good for the BHS.

I don't know about any corruption, but I have not found them to be efficient or professional as an organisation. A bit left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing rather than any corruption.

They cost me a lot of money at one point with their inefficiency. But then, they did pay me back somewhat with the flood of Accredited Trainer jackets they sent and then did not want back.

It does seem very cliquey.

On the FB post it did seem ironic that someone is claiming that a senior staff member was banned from driving for 6 months for speeding during the BHS Slow Down For Horses campaign, and then claimed extra expenses from the charity as a result. Rather counterproductive and an own goal, but not corruption.
This was fraud! And this was at the top of the hierarchy & nothing was done about it.
 
Joined
17 October 2018
Messages
12
I'm still unsure whether to send paper copy to Duncan Snook with my X in the against box and also send to my proxy, because the form says Duncan Snook has to have 3 days before. What has everyone else done because I don't trust BHS HQ
 

Velcrobum

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 October 2016
Messages
1,465
I guess to make sure there is enough space for everyone especially as the meeting is being highlighted via social media and that the responses are generally not favourable to BHS.
 
Joined
17 October 2018
Messages
12
Well an email has just popped in my box with information about the meeting. Perhaps the complaints haven’t fallen on deaf ears. Has anyone else had one?
Yes I have one now. I did ask a question earlier today about whether we should send our proxy form in two directions as I don't trust anyone in BHS any more if they see an against vote.
 

honetpot

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2010
Messages
5,955
Location
Cambridgeshire
It’s funny that in the accounts 2017, most of the income comes from membership, so you think they would a) to consult members before any changes were proposed, and b) want to keep us happy.
So what do we need to make us happy?
 

honetpot

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2010
Messages
5,955
Location
Cambridgeshire
http://www.bhs.org.uk/our-charity/p...il&utm_term=0_ce97b82f97-49d192a8c3-208449535
So some answers??

'The calling of a General meeting needs to be a fair and democratic process. The current membership of the Society is in excess of 104,000. To allow 12 members to call a General Meeting has the potential to be unrepresentative of the whole membership. Changing the number required to a percentage will reflect a proportion of the membership, whether that increases or decreases. If the number required is low this can give rise to unwarranted and frivolous actions that might bring the Society under risk. If the number required is too high this would clearly be undemocratic. It is considered that 0.25% is representative.'
This would sound reasonable if GM were a common occurrence, as its is,

' Following a vote by members at the 2009 AGM, the Society no longer holds automatic Annual General Meetings. Extraordinary General Meetings (EGMs) will be held as and when necessary and members will be notified electronically where we have their email addresses, and in writing through British Horse.'
 
Last edited:

JanetGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 June 2001
Messages
6,978
Location
Shropshire/Worcs. borders
http://www.bhs.org.uk/our-charity/p...il&utm_term=0_ce97b82f97-49d192a8c3-208449535
So some answers??

'The calling of a General meeting needs to be a fair and democratic process. The current membership of the Society is in excess of 104,000. To allow 12 members to call a General Meeting has the potential to be unrepresentative of the whole membership. Changing the number required to a percentage will reflect a proportion of the membership, whether that increases or decreases. If the number required is low this can give rise to unwarranted and frivolous actions that might bring the Society under risk. If the number required is too high this would clearly be undemocratic. It is considered that 0.25% is representative.'
This would sound reasonable if GM were a common occurrence, as its is,
Lol, and while they are talking about membership, as I understand it, only Gold Members CAN vote. SO, is the membership number claimed TOTAL membership - or just the Gold - voting - members?? Making the number too hign just makes it virtually impossible for members to request an AGM - given as it has to be ONE document signed by the membership calling for the meeting. How the hell do you get the same document to - say - 200 members to be signed, unless you set up a stand at a BIG show!
 
Top