Another British Horse Society c**k-up

[GHamlet75]

I agree honetpot. But by the looks of things members still don't have any power. BE's statement reveals:

• Will we be voting for a new Chairman and Chief Executive?

No - a motion of no confidence has no legal standing in terms of removing a Director from the Board, however we need to make sure that any concerns are fairly considered and where necessary addressed. The Board takes seriously the views of members and will continue to do so, it is also acutely aware of its responsibility to both the members and for the future of the sport.

Full statement is here: https://www.britisheventing.com/asp-net/news/item.aspx?id=7863

 

[JanetGeorge]

Seems an open response - time will tell. At least the 'Directors' - other than the Chief Executive - are volunteers and on the Board.

BHS has jumped from 5 'directors' - when LP took over - to 12 'directors' now - although 2 of the posts are vacant at present if anyone has masochistic tendencies. And let's not talk about the number of 'Consultants' brought in!!!

 

[DiNozzo]

I agree honetpot. But by the looks of things members still don't have any power. BE's statement reveals:

• Will we be voting for a new Chairman and Chief Executive?

No - a motion of no confidence has no legal standing in terms of removing a Director from the Board, however we need to make sure that any concerns are fairly considered and where necessary addressed. The Board takes seriously the views of members and will continue to do so, it is also acutely aware of its responsibility to both the members and for the future of the sport.

Full statement is here: https://www.britisheventing.com/asp-net/news/item.aspx?id=7863

All that means is that there won't be a vote for Chairman/CE at the EGM, not that there won't be one at the next meeting.

 

[GHamlet75]

Very true DiNozzo!

Everyone we've reached over 20,000 views . Thank you to everyone for spreading the word. The truth will come out!

 

[Gingerwitch]

Face it many of us pay about £68 quid a year so we get our pl insurance - tbh if I could pay £68 to the Donkey Sancturary or to Brook or the Blue Cross I would be more than happy for them to have my money, as long as they could sort out the same insurance level.... and I would suspect that many of us HHO'ers would do the same.

 

[J&S]

I believe World Horse Welfare do the same, it was a little cheaper than BHS when I last looked into it.

 

[Orangehorse]

I know that many people join the BHS for the insurance - but every rider in the UK should be happy to join and support the BHS as the most important horse and rider representative in the country that can speak to Government and is taken seriously because of having a large membership. Spread yourselves out over several different charities, that have different aims, and you weaken the voice for riders everywhere.

 

[JanetGeorge]

But, Orangehorse, we have no say in what the BHS spends our money on - or what LP thinks is important. The BHS is NOT listening to its members - hell, LP doesn't even listen to her senior staff. I have my business insurance as a breeder - and employer - but if I wanted personal insurance, I'd join World Horse Welfare. https://shop.worldhorsewelfare.org/membership/

 

[SO1]

The RCN Board and CEO have stepped down. Only 4% of the membership voted. In terms of charity governance should a CEO and Board have to step down when such a small proportion of the members have voted.

The issue with a lot of these Societies is that the vast numbers of members are apathetic and have little interest in how the organisation is governed. This can make it very difficult to influence change.

It must be something in the water. The Royal College of Nurses had a EGM and the committee lost a vote of no confidence, so they have gone away to review their position.
I think the running thread is the 'elite' of what ever organisation thinking they act for all their members and not really paying attention to ordinary members opinions, because they obviously know better.

 

[HectorTTerry]

Seems an open response - time will tell. At least the 'Directors' - other than the Chief Executive - are volunteers and on the Board.

BHS has jumped from 5 'directors' - when LP took over - to 12 'directors' now - although 2 of the posts are vacant at present if anyone has masochistic tendencies. And let's not talk about the number of 'Consultants' brought in!!!

I thought I'd investigate this a little further. I have gone through each of the annual reports from when the current CE started at the BHS (appointed 26 November 2012).

Janet you are correct. When the CE started she had a team of 5 directors. In 5 years she has increased the number of directors to 12, which is an increase of 140%. There are now double the number of employees being paid between £60,000 and £130,000.

In 5 years, she has made 21 changes to the director positions (ie changes to the job title and/or remit). During her time she has employed 19 new directors. Out of the 19 new directors, 58% (11 directors) have resigned or no longer work for the organisation.

The average turnover of management in the UK is 3.1%.

 

[HectorTTerry]

Apologies.

I forgot to add that an additional 3 directors from the original senior management team (ie when the CE started) have also left the BHS.

Therefore that's a total of 14 directors that have left the BHS in 5 years.

 

[GHamlet75]

She's beating Donald Trump's record! http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-white-house-staff-turnover-records-2018-7

However don't forget, she'll also be declaring all of this as fake news. Luckily for us, the annual reports are available to the public so this is not fake news!

 

[honetpot]

The RCN Board and CEO have stepped down. Only 4% of the membership voted. In terms of charity governance should a CEO and Board have to step down when such a small proportion of the members have voted.

The issue with a lot of these Societies is that the vast numbers of members are apathetic and have little interest in how the organisation is governed. This can make it very difficult to influence change.

.

Having been to the RCN Congress a couple of times under my own steam, when I got talking to other members the question was,'who are you with?' Nearly all were subsidised to attend in one form or another. It was a real eye opener. I always used to vote for the person with the smallest connection to the nursing hierarchy.
Those that have the time, inclination or CV to fill are active. Most of the nurses that I have know over the last 40 years have been more interested juggling life and work than adding yet another commitment.

Yes we do get what we do or do not vote for, and we have all been very sceptical all been about the motives of politicians but I suppose we have all thought that the BHS has been like grannies old cardigan, old fashioned, a bit holey, due for a change but does the job. Run by people who even if we didn't agree with how they did things it was going the right way.
The members have no idea what's happening and why, and is it going the right way? So I suppose we want some answers its just finding out what are the right questions to ask how to get answers.

 

[GHamlet75]

.

Having been to the RCN Congress a couple of times under my own steam, when I got talking to other members the question was,'who are you with?' Nearly all were subsidised to attend in one form or another. It was a real eye opener. I always used to vote for the person with the smallest connection to the nursing hierarchy.
Those that have the time, inclination or CV to fill are active. Most of the nurses that I have know over the last 40 years have been more interested juggling life and work than adding yet another commitment.

Yes we do get what we do or do not vote for, and we have all been very sceptical all been about the motives of politicians but I suppose we have all thought that the BHS has been like grannies old cardigan, old fashioned, a bit holey, due for a change but does the job. Run by people who even if we didn't agree with how they did things it was going the right way.
The members have no idea what's happening and why, and is it going the right way? So I suppose we want some answers its just finding out what are the right questions to ask how to get answers.

Hi Honetpot

You make an excellent point here. Unfortunately I don't have a solution as to how we get the answers we need. I'm concerned that there is too much media spin from the CE to ever get truthful answers with the current structure, but I'm hopeful we will find a way of getting the answer to 'why' this is all happening. I think the facts that we are collecting on this forum are helpful and insightful. Thank you HectorTTerry for taking the time to gather facts and to share these.

 

[onemoretime]

Apologies.

I forgot to add that an additional 3 directors from the original senior management team (ie when the CE started) have also left the BHS.

Therefore that's a total of 14 directors that have left the BHS in 5 years.

OMG

 

[Blazingsaddles]

Apologies.

I forgot to add that an additional 3 directors from the original senior management team (ie when the CE started) have also left the BHS.

Therefore that's a total of 14 directors that have left the BHS in 5 years.

Good grief, that statistic clearly indicates a problem in the higher command.

 

[HectorTTerry]

Over the last 4 years the BHS has paid out £125,219 in redundancy or termination payments to leavers. Unfortunately not all of the annual reports list this detail. However I can see that in the first year, the CE made 3 directors redundant so the total costs for removing people from the organisation will be much higher than this. https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/changes-to-senior-british-horse-society-personnel-390591

 

[Gingerwitch]

So how could they make 3 directors redundant and replace them with more directors?

 

[Archangel]

How can they make 3 Directors redundant because...
“I wanted to bring in more experience and more skills,” said chief executive Lynn Petersen.

Why are they Directors if they lack experience and skills (and they don't appear to).

 

[JanetGeorge]

Gill Evans was Head of Finance in my day - and she was damn good. But, of course, she would not have ALLOWED expenses/income to be 'hidden' or put in the wrong place. Margaret Linington-Payne wasn't 'in office' in my day - but I know her and she has a TONNE of experience and skills (and gee, she knows a lot about horses too.) Alison Field was after my day - we didn't have an head of HR then - but I guess she was good but wouldn't follow orders about shoving/bullying good people out.

 

[onemoretime]

So how could they make 3 directors redundant and replace them with more directors?

good questions Gingerwitch.

 

[GHamlet75]

So how could they make 3 directors redundant and replace them with more directors?

Gosh I hadn't even thought about that Gingerwitch! That's a very good question. Any HR experts on this forum who can explain that one?

 

[McFluff]

Gosh I hadn't even thought about that Gingerwitch! That's a very good question. Any HR experts on this forum who can explain that one?

The devil will be in the detail. True redundancy is a situation where your business needs have changed and you no longer require a particular post (skill set and/or resource). It should be the post that is redundant, then you use a redundancy process to find a solution for the person in the post. Most organisations try to make losing the postholder the last resort (its expensive, you lose good people and it affects overall morale). Sometimes it is unavoidable.

Technically if you make a post redundant you can’t then just reinstate the post. It is open to legal challenge if you do. However that doesn’t always stop bad practice. So you could make a director of marketing redundant and create a director of HR, but you couldn’t make a director of marketing redundant and replace with a director of marketing (you may get away with a director of marketing and sales, but would need to evidence a clear difference if challenged).

I see lots of badly managed redundancy. Usually where it is used to get rid of a person (rather than a post) or where a voluntary process is applied to reduce headcount with no quality control (so you lose the talent you need). It is the person who was made redundant who would have to challenge a poor process, and for most, that would not be worth it, so most go unchallenged.

This situation could be ‘correct’ if the skills being made redundant are genuinely no longer needed, it is hard to see how this can be done when the structure is relatively small so the director needs can’t really change that drastically. The changes in senior level and turnover rates are a cause for concern, and would indicate to me that all is not well. That combined with the detail in the ET (link near the start of the thread) would not fill me with confidence that a proper process has been followed. The ET indicates either very poor HR skill or HR being powerless (which is arguably poor skill too).

Regardless of the outside view, it looks like some of the risks they’ve taken are impacting on the internal culture and people. That is very sad, but can only be changed from the top.

 

[GHamlet75]

The devil will be in the detail. True redundancy is a situation where your business needs have changed and you no longer require a particular post (skill set and/or resource). It should be the post that is redundant, then you use a redundancy process to find a solution for the person in the post. Most organisations try to make losing the postholder the last resort (its expensive, you lose good people and it affects overall morale). Sometimes it is unavoidable.

Technically if you make a post redundant you can’t then just reinstate the post. It is open to legal challenge if you do. However that doesn’t always stop bad practice. So you could make a director of marketing redundant and create a director of HR, but you couldn’t make a director of marketing redundant and replace with a director of marketing (you may get away with a director of marketing and sales, but would need to evidence a clear difference if challenged).

I see lots of badly managed redundancy. Usually where it is used to get rid of a person (rather than a post) or where a voluntary process is applied to reduce headcount with no quality control (so you lose the talent you need). It is the person who was made redundant who would have to challenge a poor process, and for most, that would not be worth it, so most go unchallenged.

This situation could be ‘correct’ if the skills being made redundant are genuinely no longer needed, it is hard to see how this can be done when the structure is relatively small so the director needs can’t really change that drastically. The changes in senior level and turnover rates are a cause for concern, and would indicate to me that all is not well. That combined with the detail in the ET (link near the start of the thread) would not fill me with confidence that a proper process has been followed. The ET indicates either very poor HR skill or HR being powerless (which is arguably poor skill too).

Regardless of the outside view, it looks like some of the risks they’ve taken are impacting on the internal culture and people. That is very sad, but can only be changed from the top.

McFluff this is very insightful. Thanks!

I thought I'd track down the annual reports that HectorTTerry has been quoting. I can see in 2012 there was a Director of Standards who was made redundant. Then in 2013 there was a Director of Education created and appointed - is this not the same thing but just with a different job title?

As McFluff says, if someone is playing with the lives of individuals and impacting the internal culture, it's a sad, sad situation.

 

[JanetGeorge]

I thought I'd track down the annual reports that HectorTTerry has been quoting. I can see in 2012 there was a Director of Standards who was made redundant. Then in 2013 there was a Director of Education created and appointed - is this not the same thing but just with a different job title?

As McFluff says, if someone is playing with the lives of individuals and impacting the internal culture, it's a sad, sad situation.

That's certainly what it is - and has been - since the current CE moved in. Of course in my day there was a Head of Education, a Head of Training and a Head of Approvals. Of course they worked together - but were all responsible to the CE. Of course, the way to fix the problem (if the Board had the balls) would be to make the CE redundant - and replace her with a team of 3 Executive Directors, Perhaps Finance (with overseeing of Finance, Marketing, Fund Raising & Membership, and Examinations/Approvals, and Charitable Concerns (which would cover Access, Safety, Welfare and possibly PR too.) That team of 3 would have Heads of Departments below them but would have to work as a TEAM - responsible directly to the Board.

 

[HectorTTerry]

Unfortunately it's not possible to track down the actual staff turnover figures. LinkedIn is a good source to ascertain an estimated turnover rate but I am mindful that only 56% of males use LinkedIn and 44% females, and this is potentially likely to be lower in the equestrian industry.

Therefore, what I have done is look at roles that the BHS has advertised, as this also gives a good indication. I can not give you complete figures as some roles are advertised on the BHS website, others are advertised through a myriad of recruitment websites (some very costly websites), and others don't appear to be advertised at all (yet LinkedIn indicates that there are people in further new positions at the BHS).

So far in 2018, I have been able to track down 35 different positions that have been advertised (NB the BHS driver appears more than once).

Unfortunately it is harder to track down the total number of positions in 2017 but from a snap shot of 7 different weeks that the BHS advertised roles on their website, they advertised 21 positions.

I stress this is under estimated but to conclude that's 56 new employees that have been recruited in less than 2 years in an organisation whose official full time employee count is 112.

 

[suestowford]

I've been a member of the BHS for 20 years. During that time I have written to them on several occasions, raising concerns about various things which I think the society should be tackling. Every time I have been ignored, not even a generic 'thanks for writing in' response.
Reading the report about Sheila Hardy's dismissal has made me decide, I am not going to be a member any more. I get the arguments about changing from within, but on my past experience being a member cuts no ice with the BHS. I might as well save myself £68.
I'm really sad about all of this - but not surprised. The BHS is not the only organisation to become top-heavy and spendthrift.

 

[GHamlet75]

Hi Suestowford. Thanks for sharing your opinion with us. Ironically the CE talked about the importance of good manners in her recent interview with H&H but I don't consider being ignored as 'good manners'. Members are the foundation of the organisation so they at least deserve some kind of acknowledgement! If you need insurance, then a number of people on this forum have suggested you try World Horse Welfare.

 

[GHamlet75]

Unfortunately it's not possible to track down the actual staff turnover figures. LinkedIn is a good source to ascertain an estimated turnover rate but I am mindful that only 56% of males use LinkedIn and 44% females, and this is potentially likely to be lower in the equestrian industry.

Therefore, what I have done is look at roles that the BHS has advertised, as this also gives a good indication. I can not give you complete figures as some roles are advertised on the BHS website, others are advertised through a myriad of recruitment websites (some very costly websites), and others don't appear to be advertised at all (yet LinkedIn indicates that there are people in further new positions at the BHS).

So far in 2018, I have been able to track down 35 different positions that have been advertised (NB the BHS driver appears more than once).

Unfortunately it is harder to track down the total number of positions in 2017 but from a snap shot of 7 different weeks that the BHS advertised roles on their website, they advertised 21 positions.

I stress this is under estimated but to conclude that's 56 new employees that have been recruited in less than 2 years in an organisation whose official full time employee count is 112.

I really don't know what to say in response to this. Either the CE is on a huge spending spree which is not sustainable (which will mean redundancies down the line), or people are voting with their feet and leaving the BHS because they have realised they can't change things from within (or worse), or it's a combination of the two. Either way people's lives are being affected.

Alternatively, information in the annual report is not accurate and the total number of people employed is considerably larger. In which case this is deceitful.

The BHS keeps denying there are issues with staff turnover and that instead they claim there are personality clashes or people unable to adapt to the BHS environment. I'm sorry but I don't believe a word of this. There is clearly an issue and it's not fair to impact so many people's lives. I know that BHS should be focusing on horse welfare but please, not at the sacrifice of human beings!

 

[Tiddlypom]

Oops, posted on wrong thread.