Another British Horse Society c**k-up

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
I should also say that there were many ex trustees in the room which was standing room only and many valid criticisms were made. I hope the trustees takes them all on board and modifies the proposals into seperate portable sections. Apparently the current constitution does not allow meeting notices to be published in the magazine and this is one of the things they want to change. It was pointed out that the information being given to the floor today was considerably more detailed than the information in that small white unlabeled envelope that many put in the recycling!!!!!
Thanks for adding the detail. This sounds like it was on the right track and began to get the issues in the open.
 

Velcrobum

Active Member
Joined
17 October 2016
Messages
666
Thank you for the news. I had a short message but am awaiting a longer call. Look forward to your notes.
A secret ballot? What permitted that?
A part of the constitution/articles, there was a scurrying behind the scenes to see if the motion was valid and someone had done their homework and it was. It could have been show of hands or poll. Poll was chosen initially with name and signature which was roundly rejected by the floor. We then lined up our names were checked on the sign in list to prove we were eligible to vote and we got a hastily prepared ballot paper. There was a independent vote counter who had been brought in specifically.
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
A part of the constitution/articles, there was a scurrying behind the scenes to see if the motion was valid and someone had done their homework and it was. It could have been show of hands or poll. Poll was chosen initially with name and signature which was roundly rejected by the floor. We then lined up our names were checked on the sign in list to prove we were eligible to vote and we got a hastily prepared ballot paper. There was a independent vote counter who had been brought in specifically.
Thanks for the explanation. So they came prepared to have the ballot to not take vote as originally communicated in the wee notice?
 
Joined
7 October 2018
Messages
32
It was a very interesting meeting . We were informed early in the debate that even if they assumed all in the room voted against the proposals they already had enough positive votes to carry forward the proposals . Which made me feel a little defeated but then the curve ball with the motion to vote on an adjournment to allow the board to work on the various elements and to actually separate the issues . Great, the vote was in favour of adjournment so the board have not succeeded in getting the changes through without time for full scrutiny by members. There was a lot of feeling in the room with good debate and challenge. It was my interpretation that board and CEO were very negative about social media and made several comments about the damage caused by negative and inflammatory Social media conversations suggesting they were inaccurate and misleading . So I guess this is US . Still it confirms that they are following us. I was so pleased I was there and had my say .
 

honetpot

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2010
Messages
4,236
Location
Cambridgeshire
Thanks for the explanation. So they came prepared to have the ballot to not take vote as originally communicated in the wee notice?
No it was off the cuff.
The resolution was to adjourn the meeting, it was going to be voted on a show of hands but as some member voting were also employees of the BHS it was put forward they would not be able to vote freely.
So they scuttled off to print voting papers, which, wait for it you had to put your name on and sign! This was objected to, so I suggested as we had a list of members present, like at a polling station, you name was ticked off the list, you were handed your polling slip, and put it in the box. Job done.
You could not make it up.

I am surprised that as the 'biggest equine charity' in the country, there was not someone from H&H there, or perhaps they were?
This really is big equestrian news, at a slack news time.
 
Last edited:

JanetGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 June 2001
Messages
6,667
Location
Shropshire/Worcs. borders
Well that is a very good start! Naughty social media - I'd guess my name is MUD right now, lol. What they appear to be too stupid to realise that social media is a very inexpensive way to spread the GOOD news and get support for the IMPORTANT things. (But it will also get you right up the behind if you deserve it.)
 

honetpot

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2010
Messages
4,236
Location
Cambridgeshire
I am still not sure it is ethical for employees of the BHS, who are also members, they have their membership paid should be allowed to vote, if they have been paid to attend the meeting as part of their job, unless its a secret ballot at all times. Its smacks of gerrymandering.
Most of us who went to vote against will have travelled a long distance and claim no exs, so what ever The Board/ BHS head office wants to get through they will always have an advantage of local employee votes.

The whole thing was very badly run, unlike any AGM I have ever been to.
The Treasurer usually talks though the accounts, he left midway, so he was not there to ask questions on how £1.4m was spent on IT.
Why the salaries bill is so huge?
Why the marketing budget is huge?


I think they thought their presentation would be taken at face value. I think they have been reading social media, but who ever is advising them thought the gloss of a slide presentation and a shiny materials would over awe the country bumpkins who are actually, it turns out have vast experience in a variety of fields.
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
It was a very interesting meeting . We were informed early in the debate that even if they assumed all in the room voted against the proposals they already had enough positive votes to carry forward the proposals . Which made me feel a little defeated but then the curve ball with the motion to vote on an adjournment to allow the board to work on the various elements and to actually separate the issues . Great, the vote was in favour of adjournment so the board have not succeeded in getting the changes through without time for full scrutiny by members. There was a lot of feeling in the room with good debate and challenge. It was my interpretation that board and CEO were very negative about social media and made several comments about the damage caused by negative and inflammatory Social media conversations suggesting they were inaccurate and misleading . So I guess this is US . Still it confirms that they are following us. I was so pleased I was there and had my say .
Thank you for adding this. I too am glad they did not get the changes through as they had planned and without full scrutiny and due process. As for social media - this is just the latest technology in a long line of democratic means of discussion going back beyond "phamphlets".
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
No it was off the cuff.
The resolution was to adjourn the meeting, it was going to be voted on a show of hands but as some member voting were also employees of the BHS it was put forward they would not be able to vote freely.
So they scuttled off to print voting papers, which, wait for it you had to put your name on and sign! This was objected to, so I suggested as we had a list of members present, like at a polling station, you name was ticked off the list, you were handed your polling slip, and put it in the box. Job done.
You could not make it up.

I am surprised that as the 'biggest equine charity' in the country, there was not someone from H&H there, or perhaps they were?
This really is big equestrian news, at a slack news time.
Thanks for this explanation. I believe that employees whose membership is paid for by the organisation should not be entitled to vote. Another one for the Charities Commission. Well done you for your suggestion. Great thinking. I contacted H&H several times. After initial contact, I had no reply to my requests for them to attend even at least 2 of them are members. I can only assume bias.
 

honetpot

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2010
Messages
4,236
Location
Cambridgeshire
I am also not happy that the CEO tried to make people who asked questions feel guilty, like we were children in the playground, 'this is not BHS, this is not what the BHS is'
She spoke before the vote taken which was totally in appropriate and do not know why she was allowed to speak as all the other employees only spoke when they needed to answer questions.
 

JanetGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 June 2001
Messages
6,667
Location
Shropshire/Worcs. borders
The whole thing was very badly run, unlike any AGM I have ever been to.
The Treasurer usually talks though the accounts, he left midway, so he was not there to ask questions on how £1.4m was spent on IT.
Why the salaries bill is so huge?
Why the marketing budget is huge?
I'll bet the Treasurer ran mid-way!!

I can have a pretty good guess at the reasons.

1. The IT bill is so big because the CE knows b'all about IT and has no interest - so left every department director to do their own thing. So the various parts of the system don't communicate and so she's pulled in loads of consultants (and they are expensive) to sort out the mess. Mind you, with several different mobs of consultants, it probably won't work and the IT bill will be double that next year.

2. Partly because the Senior Management Team is too big in number - and partly because of unfair/constructive dismissals and replacement costs - not ALL those costs coming under salaries - but hell, you have to hide the legal costs somewhere.

3. Because the CE has the weird idea that throwing money at marketing will fix it - especially if you sack the marketing people who disagree with you and your grandiose ideas.
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
I am also not happy that the CEO tried to make people who asked questions feel guilty, like we were children in the playground, 'this is not BHS, this is not what the BHS is'
She spoke before the vote taken which was totally in appropriate and do not know why she was allowed to speak as all the other employees only spoke when they needed to answer questions.
Thanks for adding this. Wasn't the Chairman in control of the meeting?
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
I'll bet the Treasurer ran mid-way!!

I can have a pretty good guess at the reasons.

1. The IT bill is so big because the CE knows b'all about IT and has no interest - so left every department director to do their own thing. So the various parts of the system don't communicate and so she's pulled in loads of consultants (and they are expensive) to sort out the mess. Mind you, with several different mobs of consultants, it probably won't work and the IT bill will be double that next year.

2. Partly because the Senior Management Team is too big in number - and partly because of unfair/constructive dismissals and replacement costs - not ALL those costs coming under salaries - but hell, you have to hide the legal costs somewhere.

3. Because the CE has the weird idea that throwing money at marketing will fix it - especially if you sack the marketing people who disagree with you and your grandiose ideas.
I'll bet the Treasurer ran mid-way!!

I can have a pretty good guess at the reasons.

1. The IT bill is so big because the CE knows b'all about IT and has no interest - so left every department director to do their own thing. So the various parts of the system don't communicate and so she's pulled in loads of consultants (and they are expensive) to sort out the mess. Mind you, with several different mobs of consultants, it probably won't work and the IT bill will be double that next year.

2. Partly because the Senior Management Team is too big in number - and partly because of unfair/constructive dismissals and replacement costs - not ALL those costs coming under salaries - but hell, you have to hide the legal costs somewhere.

3. Because the CE has the weird idea that throwing money at marketing will fix it - especially if you sack the marketing people who disagree with you and your grandiose ideas.
I'll bet the Treasurer ran mid-way!!

I can have a pretty good guess at the reasons.

1. The IT bill is so big because the CE knows b'all about IT and has no interest - so left every department director to do their own thing. So the various parts of the system don't communicate and so she's pulled in loads of consultants (and they are expensive) to sort out the mess. Mind you, with several different mobs of consultants, it probably won't work and the IT bill will be double that next year.

2. Partly because the Senior Management Team is too big in number - and partly because of unfair/constructive dismissals and replacement costs - not ALL those costs coming under salaries - but hell, you have to hide the legal costs somewhere.

3. Because the CE has the weird idea that throwing money at marketing will fix it - especially if you sack the marketing people who disagree with you and your grandiose ideas.
The treasurer was not there to take questions? Did anyone raise this point?
 
Joined
7 October 2018
Messages
32
Yes I believe it has which is a big shame as I and a few others said they wanted to add our names to this and I think if there was any chance made available in the meeting to discuss this further then many others would probably had done the same . Unfortunately the issue was raised by me at the very end as I wanted clarification of what this meant but unfortunately the meeting was being brought to a close and I had to stand up and effectively talk over the chair to ask my question and hurriedly put my support of motion across. It was explained to me after by I assume some lovely people who raised the motion that they had withdrawn it to allow the board a chance to do the right thing . I understand this approach and respect it but I'm very disappointed as I do not trust the board or senior leadership .
 

ester

Not slacking-multitasking
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
45,908
Location
Cambridge
Wow, it seems like an adjournement was the best resolution all round, especially if those who postal voted were doing so on minimal information compared to that which was provided at the meeting.
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
I am also not happy that the CEO tried to make people who asked questions feel guilty, like we were children in the playground, 'this is not BHS, this is not what the BHS is'
She spoke before the vote taken which was totally in appropriate and do not know why she was allowed to speak as all the other employees only spoke when they needed to answer questions.
I wish someone had picked up on this. How can it be inappropriate for members to ask respectful questions and comments.
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
Yes I believe it has which is a big shame as I and a few others said they wanted to add our names to this and I think if there was any chance made available in the meeting to discuss this further then many others would probably had done the same . Unfortunately the issue was raised by me at the very end as I wanted clarification of what this meant but unfortunately the meeting was being brought to a close and I had to stand up and effectively talk over the chair to ask my question and hurriedly put my support of motion across. It was explained to me after by I assume some lovely people who raised the motion that they had withdrawn it to allow the board a chance to do the right thing . I understand this approach and respect it but I'm very disappointed as I do not trust the board or senior leadership .
I am not following this clearly. I thought that the proposed changes were being taken away, broken down, revised, and proposals be submitted for vote at another time.
 

JanetGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 June 2001
Messages
6,667
Location
Shropshire/Worcs. borders
. It was explained to me after by I assume some lovely people who raised the motion that they had withdrawn it to allow the board a chance to do the right thing . I understand this approach and respect it but I'm very disappointed as I do not trust the board or senior leadership .
You and many others! Of course, the CE/Chair will be delighted - gives them a chance to get the changes through and make itnecessary to get 200 signatures!!
 
Joined
7 October 2018
Messages
32
Yes that is correct the vote on the changes to the constitution has been adjourned it is the vote of no confidence in the board which would force an EGM that has been withdrawn as far I'm aware .
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
Oh! Thanks for that clarification. Now that is a pity. So there will not be an EGM within 21 days. And the revisions and new voting timings will be determined by CE,Chair, Board.
 
Joined
7 October 2018
Messages
32
Big shame . Particularly as I felt a deeper sense of mistrust and even less confidence in the board by the end of the meeting . Which I was not really expecting to be honest . I thought I was already at an all time low .
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
Big shame . Particularly as I felt a deeper sense of mistrust and even less confidence in the board by the end of the meeting . Which I was not really expecting to be honest . I thought I was already at an all time low .
Keep the faith, Chica. There's more to come.
 

Velcrobum

Active Member
Joined
17 October 2016
Messages
666
Yes I believe it has which is a big shame as I and a few others said they wanted to add our names to this and I think if there was any chance made available in the meeting to discuss this further then many others would probably had done the same . Unfortunately the issue was raised by me at the very end as I wanted clarification of what this meant but unfortunately the meeting was being brought to a close and I had to stand up and effectively talk over the chair to ask my question and hurriedly put my support of motion across. It was explained to me after by I assume some lovely people who raised the motion that they had withdrawn it to allow the board a chance to do the right thing . I understand this approach and respect it but I'm very disappointed as I do not trust the board or senior leadership .
Oh dear that is very disappointing, I hope that the board actually takes on board the points raised by this meeting.
 
Top