BHS Meeting Update

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
Thanks for posting those. I was so disappointed I left them and wrote to Lucy Elder (LE by line) who I had spoken with before the meeting. What does bias smell like? Oh yes - kind of like an American skunk.
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
My email to Lucy E
In my opinion, your piece on page 5, like the email sent today to BHS meeting attendees and proxy voters, appears misleading at best.
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
Folks - Its approaching the close of business on the day the meeting minutes we're promised. Who's taking the book for if we get them and the related book for will they be accurate?
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
I have not received any minutes yet. Has anyone?

"Thank you for your enquiry requesting further clarity on some of the topics discussed in the General Meeting of the British Horse Society held on Saturday 5 January. Notes from the meeting will be made available by close of business on Friday 11 January. If these notes do not answer your query then please emailgeneralmeeting@bhs.org.uk

Best wishes

Sarah (Phillips) COO"
 
Joined
26 September 2018
Messages
76
I find it too sad that BHS believes their number one priority with horse welfare is castration clinics. This was confirmed by the Director of Welfare at the AGM. How can the UK in the 21st century still have such major welfare issues? 200 horses?! BHS please put UK horse welfare back on your agenda. These horses need you!
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
I find it too sad that BHS believes their number one priority with horse welfare is castration clinics. This was confirmed by the Director of Welfare at the AGM. How can the UK in the 21st century still have such major welfare issues? 200 horses?! BHS please put UK horse welfare back on your agenda. These horses need you!
Excellent point. Our former BHS Chair in Scotland, a internationally known vet, was opposed to these clinics. There was lots of feedback and none of it taken on board
 

JanetGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 June 2001
Messages
6,737
Location
Shropshire/Worcs. borders
Excellent point. Our former BHS Chair in Scotland, a internationally known vet, was opposed to these clinics. There was lots of feedback and none of it taken on board

They ARE crazy. Why should BHS subsidize dodgy breeders?? It's not stopping them from breeding. MAYBE improves the horses' chance of not ending up in the meat market - but that's about all. Gee - I wonder if the BHS will cat MY castration costs this year for me.
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
They ARE crazy. Why should BHS subsidize dodgy breeders?? It's not stopping them from breeding. MAYBE improves the horses' chance of not ending up in the meat market - but that's about all. Gee - I wonder if the BHS will cat MY castration costs this year for me.
IS the cat near a horse? If so, maybe.
Seriously now, there were lots and lots of issues with these clinics - for example, if the BHS is paying the vet and the horse appears well but then dies, who is liable / responsible? Where is the actual evidence that castration clinics would in practice (not theory) reduce welfare issues? At what point in time would this happen? Whether one agrees or not with the topic of abortion, in the book "Freakonomics", they show that in the USA the reduction in crime, and population of people in prison was more the result of the Wade vs Roe decision (right to abortion) than anything else (investment in police, etc). But the reduction did not occur until long after the decision and the growth in access to legal abortions. So sure we might subsidise castration clinics but it may take a very long time for that to effect the population of horses & the number of welfare cases. Meanwhile, AI, or any another intervening variable, might become even cheaper & easier and negate any progress of castration clinics. Where was there a discussion about members about paying for castration clinics?
 
Joined
28 May 2010
Messages
778
Completely agree with Janet re the castration.
Unfortunately the same type who breed, God I use that turn loosely as let's face it, turning a load of inbred ponies out and seeing what pops out year after year, are used to having the rubbish they leave behind cleared up by others with no repercussions.
I also include dumping dead ponies like trash, fly grazing or decide to park up on others land and leave things in a mess as well as the rescue operation that has just happened. Sorry but yes over 90% of these problems come from travellers. Will probably be called racist for that but it's a well proven fact.

Authorities and people like the RSPCA/BHS need to get a back bone and deal with this problem and I don't mean by giving them free passports/microchipping/castration. Pay for it like the rest of us have to or inforce the relevant fines.

Ooo I'm a bit ranty today 🙈
 

JanetGeorge

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 June 2001
Messages
6,737
Location
Shropshire/Worcs. borders
Everyone who is still in the dark about what happened at the meeting, should read this - thoroughly. And any of your friends who are BHS Members should see it too.


Notes: on the General Meeting and strategy presentation by The British Horse Society board on the 5th January 2019
From Bob Milton gold member 263474

Dear All BHS members
The General Meeting was called to vote on a special resolution of the board to change a number of clauses of the Articles of Association of The British Horse society being a private limited company by guarantee without share capital and with charitable aims. It should be pointed out that the notice refers to The British Horse Society Constitution which does not exist

Prior to the meeting, which was attended by 105 voting members [see below for details] two thing happened:
  • Many of the proxy votes held by attending members were found to have been disallowed. This it seems was despite many of the proxies having been assured by phone or email that they would be accepted. Four of these were mine. Two because the posted forms were not validated until the 4th January with post marks in December. Two others which were on time and sent by email used electronic signature. Any thoughts on this point should be sent to the Company Secretary.
  • A letter of ‘no confidence’ in the board, properly signed within the present Article of Association of the company incorporated in July 2016. This was accepted by the Chief Executive and the meeting was opened without anything further said by the Chairman
The Chairman opened the meeting and members of the board spoke to a presentation of the salient changes of the ‘Constitution’. There were questions raised both during the presentation and the open question period. Minutes were recorded as well as filming of sessions.
In no particular order the questions and issues raised were;
  • Was this a general meeting in relation to a special resolution terms defined in the Company’s Act 2008 for changing the Articles of Association [ie 75% of members to vote in favour]. The Chairman responded that this was not such a special resolution but a written resolution, so a simple majority would apply. The calling papers do refer to the proposals as being a ‘special resolution’.
  • There were quite a number of questions and concerns raised about the proposed format of the new board how that might be abused in the future.
  • The potential for abuse was particularly aimed at the nominations committee in that it was seen to be biased, capable of manipulation and not independent or transparent.
  • The Fellows raised concerns following an explanation that their involvement in the nominations committee was only advisory and not as they had understood.
  • The issue of employees who were also members of The Society was raised after a substantial number entered the room just before the proposed vote. It was felt by a number of remarks made that this was not quite right as there could be a conflict of interest
  • The ability of the chairman who is coming to the end of his six-year tenure to be re-appointed for another six years was confirmed to be the case under the proposed changes and was not well received in the room.
  • The amalgamation of all the changes into one resolution was not well received by several members who wanted each article dealt with individually
This disquiet and animosity within what seemed a substantial portion of the room prompted me to act.
At the point when the Chairman was about to call for a vote and the employee members had entered the room, I got up to speak. I expressed in strong terms about the potential for abuse inherent in the proposed changes to the Articles of Association as well the issues raised by the floor which the Chairman had already agreed to seek clarification but had put to one side in seeking to get the resolution voted on. I had previously on the 27th December met with the Chairman and expressed my concerns which had been expounded on by the floor up to this point.
For the reasons set out above I invoked Article 25.6 and called for a vote to adjourn the meeting with a request that the board take notice of the floor and the members, withdraw the special resolution and enter into dialogue with members.
After much coming and goings with staff and the independent observer a poll was demanded and taken. No proxies being allowed even those that were general/open.
The voting having been checked by the independent observer was61 for the motion and 44 against. The meeting was closed. No date for reconvening was given.
On a personal basis I an extremely cautious of the reasons given by the Board relating to Sport England and the Charity Commission. Before supporting such major changes to our Articles of Association I would need written evidence from both of these bodies that they have required such changes and why.
The afternoon continued with a presentation of the strategy document for the next ten years. I have set out below my questions and/or comments on the 12 Areas of focus published in the document.
1.Public launch of our recreational qualification- Challenge Awards
Q. What is the definition of ‘recreational qualifications ‘and are they UKAS registered?
2.Increase participation through British Riding Clubs, Approved Centre and Changing lives.
Q. The legal position of British riding clubs and members seems still to be unresolved.
3.Launch a bridleways project in partnership with strategic partners (funding permitted).
Q. Funding from who, for what and by whom?
4.Revise our membership proposition and invest in new proposition development.
Q. Why and for whom
5.Develop a riding centre model which integrates education and membership
6.Further develop our effective lobbying resources
Q. What does this mean?
7.Increase voluntary income from fundraising
Q. Is this supposed to be self-financing, if so by when?
8. Expand The British Horse Society -International
Q. Which part of the BHS and should this be done as a separate company wholly owned by the BHS. What are the tax ramifications?
9. Review regional governance and structure
Q. what is wrong with what we have?
10. Obtain UKAS accreditation.
Q. Seems to have been a ‘focus’ for many years.
11. Champion key campaigns
Q. what constitutes ‘a key campaign’.
12. Invest in the marketing function and digital resources.
Q. What are the resources needed and what has been the return of money spent in the last six years.
Other issues and questions:
  • There are no Fellow provisions for those working in the Access and Welfare areas of the Society ie there are no NVQ or higher education qualifications.
  • There are no ‘breeding qualifications’ recognised or provided by the BHS
  • Should members who are employees be considered as having a legal interest and/or are connected persons.
  • Misleading terminology should be dispensed with e.g. constitution.
  • If the board is relying on legal advice or demands from outside organisations to make changes to the companies Articles of Association then these must be made available to the members.
  • There does not seem to be a list of members lodged annually with Companies House.
  • As a result of changes to the membership structure the definition of those legally allowed to vote and carry the company’s liability should be up dated.
I have made it clear to the chairman that I am happy to be involved in dealing with these and other issues raised at the meeting or as a result of the meetings adjournment.

Regards
Bob Milton
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
Dear BHS –

This morning when I was mucking out, I got a text from our bank. Our joint account was overdrawn.

They told me about some shocking payments that I had no idea you had made. Lorries, drivers, puppets, computer systems, lots of other fancy things like uniforms, and designer gins- all kinds of things that we have never discussed and I thought we were “one team”.

When we got together, I believed that you genuinely cared for me. That our relationship wasn’t just all about the money. And that we shared a common love of horses. But now I see that isn’t true. You’re spending so much money, without my knowing, on things that don’t really matter to me.

After I finished the call with the bank, and all the mucking out, I checked the horses and sat down with a coffee. I was rather tempted to add a large dollop of brandy to pick my spirits up but I did not. I opened the newspaper and there on the front page was a picture of you at a fancy place in another country hob-nobbing.

I am off out to see a lawyer now. I am getting a divorce.

Your former "better half"
A. Member
 

Velcrobum

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 October 2016
Messages
760
Has any one read the Q&A to BHS chair in H&H news section today. Not really anymore answers but they did ask the question about "that driving ban" !!!!!

I am sure a more tech savvy person will be able to reproduce it on here later.
 

ester

Not slacking-multitasking
Joined
31 December 2008
Messages
46,393
Location
Cambridge
Thanks TP, I found it interesting that your copy of the initial report/BHS response said that they would let attending members and proxy voters know the next steps. Surely all members should know? It reads as though they’ve not learnt anything about correct communications.

I love how they call it an insert, when it was outwith the magazine with the junk on the smallest piece of paper possible.
 

Velcrobum

Well-Known Member
Joined
17 October 2016
Messages
760
Thanks TP, I found it interesting that your copy of the initial report/BHS response said that they would let attending members and proxy voters know the next steps. Surely all members should know? It reads as though they’ve not learnt anything about correct communications.

I love how they call it an insert, when it was outwith the magazine with the junk on the smallest piece of paper possible.
Exactly why folks are becoming increasingly frustrated - lack of communication and the smoke and mirrors/ evasive answers given to perfectly reasonable questions by people who actually care about some of the actions BHS has taken.
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
Exactly why folks are becoming increasingly frustrated - lack of communication and the smoke and mirrors/ evasive answers given to perfectly reasonable questions by people who actually care about some of the actions BHS has taken.
Smoke & mirrors, half truths and not even half truths, and sleight of hand (what was referred to the police and/or investigate 0 the alleged fraud or who wrote the anonymous letters?) What does that tell you people have to write anonymous letters?
 

PAK

Active Member
Joined
7 December 2018
Messages
275
Everyone who is still in the dark about what happened at the meeting, should read this - thoroughly. And any of your friends who are BHS Members should see it too.


Notes: on the General Meeting and strategy presentation by The British Horse Society board on the 5th January 2019
From Bob Milton gold member 263474

Dear All BHS members
The General Meeting was called to vote on a special resolution of the board to change a number of clauses of the Articles of Association of The British Horse society being a private limited company by guarantee without share capital and with charitable aims. It should be pointed out that the notice refers to The British Horse Society Constitution which does not exist

Prior to the meeting, which was attended by 105 voting members [see below for details] two thing happened:
  • Many of the proxy votes held by attending members were found to have been disallowed. This it seems was despite many of the proxies having been assured by phone or email that they would be accepted. Four of these were mine. Two because the posted forms were not validated until the 4th January with post marks in December. Two others which were on time and sent by email used electronic signature. Any thoughts on this point should be sent to the Company Secretary.
  • A letter of ‘no confidence’ in the board, properly signed within the present Article of Association of the company incorporated in July 2016. This was accepted by the Chief Executive and the meeting was opened without anything further said by the Chairman
The Chairman opened the meeting and members of the board spoke to a presentation of the salient changes of the ‘Constitution’. There were questions raised both during the presentation and the open question period. Minutes were recorded as well as filming of sessions.
In no particular order the questions and issues raised were;
  • Was this a general meeting in relation to a special resolution terms defined in the Company’s Act 2008 for changing the Articles of Association [ie 75% of members to vote in favour]. The Chairman responded that this was not such a special resolution but a written resolution, so a simple majority would apply. The calling papers do refer to the proposals as being a ‘special resolution’.
  • There were quite a number of questions and concerns raised about the proposed format of the new board how that might be abused in the future.
  • The potential for abuse was particularly aimed at the nominations committee in that it was seen to be biased, capable of manipulation and not independent or transparent.
  • The Fellows raised concerns following an explanation that their involvement in the nominations committee was only advisory and not as they had understood.
  • The issue of employees who were also members of The Society was raised after a substantial number entered the room just before the proposed vote. It was felt by a number of remarks made that this was not quite right as there could be a conflict of interest
  • The ability of the chairman who is coming to the end of his six-year tenure to be re-appointed for another six years was confirmed to be the case under the proposed changes and was not well received in the room.
  • The amalgamation of all the changes into one resolution was not well received by several members who wanted each article dealt with individually
This disquiet and animosity within what seemed a substantial portion of the room prompted me to act.
At the point when the Chairman was about to call for a vote and the employee members had entered the room, I got up to speak. I expressed in strong terms about the potential for abuse inherent in the proposed changes to the Articles of Association as well the issues raised by the floor which the Chairman had already agreed to seek clarification but had put to one side in seeking to get the resolution voted on. I had previously on the 27th December met with the Chairman and expressed my concerns which had been expounded on by the floor up to this point.
For the reasons set out above I invoked Article 25.6 and called for a vote to adjourn the meeting with a request that the board take notice of the floor and the members, withdraw the special resolution and enter into dialogue with members.
After much coming and goings with staff and the independent observer a poll was demanded and taken. No proxies being allowed even those that were general/open.
The voting having been checked by the independent observer was61 for the motion and 44 against. The meeting was closed. No date for reconvening was given.
On a personal basis I an extremely cautious of the reasons given by the Board relating to Sport England and the Charity Commission. Before supporting such major changes to our Articles of Association I would need written evidence from both of these bodies that they have required such changes and why.
The afternoon continued with a presentation of the strategy document for the next ten years. I have set out below my questions and/or comments on the 12 Areas of focus published in the document.
1.Public launch of our recreational qualification- Challenge Awards
Q. What is the definition of ‘recreational qualifications ‘and are they UKAS registered?
2.Increase participation through British Riding Clubs, Approved Centre and Changing lives.
Q. The legal position of British riding clubs and members seems still to be unresolved.
3.Launch a bridleways project in partnership with strategic partners (funding permitted).
Q. Funding from who, for what and by whom?
4.Revise our membership proposition and invest in new proposition development.
Q. Why and for whom
5.Develop a riding centre model which integrates education and membership
6.Further develop our effective lobbying resources
Q. What does this mean?
7.Increase voluntary income from fundraising
Q. Is this supposed to be self-financing, if so by when?
8. Expand The British Horse Society -International
Q. Which part of the BHS and should this be done as a separate company wholly owned by the BHS. What are the tax ramifications?
9. Review regional governance and structure
Q. what is wrong with what we have?
10. Obtain UKAS accreditation.
Q. Seems to have been a ‘focus’ for many years.
11. Champion key campaigns
Q. what constitutes ‘a key campaign’.
12. Invest in the marketing function and digital resources.
Q. What are the resources needed and what has been the return of money spent in the last six years.
Other issues and questions:
  • There are no Fellow provisions for those working in the Access and Welfare areas of the Society ie there are no NVQ or higher education qualifications.
  • There are no ‘breeding qualifications’ recognised or provided by the BHS
  • Should members who are employees be considered as having a legal interest and/or are connected persons.
  • Misleading terminology should be dispensed with e.g. constitution.
  • If the board is relying on legal advice or demands from outside organisations to make changes to the companies Articles of Association then these must be made available to the members.
  • There does not seem to be a list of members lodged annually with Companies House.
  • As a result of changes to the membership structure the definition of those legally allowed to vote and carry the company’s liability should be up dated.
I have made it clear to the chairman that I am happy to be involved in dealing with these and other issues raised at the meeting or as a result of the meetings adjournment.

Regards
Bob Milton
 
Top