British Fencing's Review of World Class Programme

[Paul N-M]

Paul, I think you are missing the point and Ray hit the nail on the head.
It is right that we have some non elected board members and we take full advantage of their expertise just because they have not been elected does not mean that their opinions and skills are worth less than that of those who are elected and their vote at board meetings should be just as important.
A small number of non elected but experienced is a very useful addition to a board.
Being elected doesn't always make you the best qualified people to run an organisation - just look at the government!

I don't have a problem with non elected board members at all for all the reasons you and others have said. None whatsoever, in fact its a good thing, thats why many boards have non exsecs! I am just uncomfortable in principle with these positions being held by major funders who potentially come with a significant (disproportionate?) amount of influence.
I wish the new board every success, I would just be happier if Mr. Pitt was an external advisor due to his unique position, but obviously BF are happy to do otherwise.
As RV said, lets wait and see.

Paul N-M

[ED_R]

The circumstance we should really fear is when a major sponsor stops engaging with the sport. More involvement is surely good news.

[munkey]

Much as I enjoy the debate about the appointment of Mr Pitt as a director of BF, this really has nothing to do with the Review of the WCP. I'd be more than happy to see a new thread about BF Governance and the appointment of non-elected Directors since it is one of the things that our funding bodies (UK Sport and Sport England) are very insistent that we need to build into our Articles of Association. If you're a proper fencing nerd like me you'll have already found Sport England's "Things To Think About" document for sports governing bodies and its a document that UK Sport have adopted wholesale. It is clear from that that any NGB that wants to be funded needs to have a process in place to ensure that its Board have ALL the skills and experience SE and UKS consider essential for good management and that failure to have or introduce a process for addressing any shortfall of skills will result in the loss of funding. Simples!

[munkey]

Here http://www.sportengland.org/support_...work_tool.aspx if you can't be bothered to Google it. Have a look at Governance (Sections 2.3 and 2.8 in particular). I know this is a sign I have too much time on my hands...

[graham paul]

Much as I enjoy the debate about the appointment of Mr Pitt as a director of BF, this really has nothing to do with the Review of the WCP. I'd be more than happy to see a new thread about BF Governance and the appointment of non-elected Directors since it is one of the things that our funding bodies (UK Sport and Sport England) are very insistent that we need to build into our Articles of Association. If you're a proper fencing nerd like me you'll have already found Sport England's "Things To Think About" document for sports governing bodies and its a document that UK Sport have adopted wholesale. It is clear from that that any NGB that wants to be funded needs to have a process in place to ensure that its Board have ALL the skills and experience SE and UKS consider essential for good management and that failure to have or introduce a process for addressing any shortfall of skills will result in the loss of funding. Simples!

Sean,

You are correct in that British fencing is working to bring its organisation within the guidelines set by the funding bodies and this includes ensuring the Board has the required skills. Before appointing Mr Pitt, a skills analysis of the current Board was carried out.

British Fencing received an Audit report in August 2012 and the Board have made changes and are currently working on further improvements that we are required to make to satisfy the funding bodies.

Graham

[Coup Lance]

Board governance has been a hot topic for some years with many lots of NGBs struggling to find the balance between their old representational structures, often with regional representatives making up their board, and skills driven boards with directors appointed/elected based on their expertise for the role.

The Sport and Recreation Alliance (formerly CCPR) have a couple of interesting case studies here http://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk...it-fit-purpose

I remember a research presentation on sports governance structures from across the world which could basically be summarised as "There are lots of structures and none are perfect but some are a lot worse than others'.

Tristan

[Ronald Velden]

I have to say that I was surprised that the Board have made a decision to fill the remaining coopted place before the forthcoming elections in March/April.

However, I can see the merit of this appointment, because Mr Pitt is Head of Marketing and Communications at Beazley and enjoyed previously a similar role at Lloyds. Therefore he is clearly well connected in the City.

Personally I am not concerned about his connection with the BFA's major sponsor. This is quite normal in many walks of life. Let us be clear British Fencing is a grossly underinvested sport and the priority over the next decade apart from improvement of organisation and performance will be infrastructure. That needs money.

At the moment the sport is overdependent on Sports England and UK Sport for its funding. That has its plusses
and minuses.

Whilst I want to see control of decision making remain in the hands of the elected members of Board I do see the value of a couple of Coopts provided they add value. This is entirely different to the proposal made in the
Change of Articles earlier this year where there would have been up to six coopts [if you factor in an additional 2 to be compliant with anti discrimination legislation.]

[munkey]

British Fencing received an Audit report in August 2012 and the Board have made changes and are currently working on further improvements that we are required to make to satisfy the funding bodies.

Graham

Presumably this audit is only for BF Board consumption? I think that if the membership had a better understanding of what is required to satisfy the funding bodies and why, they would be far more inclined to accept change to Articles and other processes that produce such outrage on the forum and the chattering classes of the BF (including me!). The rationale for the proposed amendments to the BF Articles of Association that were so unceremoniously postponed at the EGM was so poorly presented that at the time I would have voted against them too. With a very little investigation, I've been able to find the rationale is extremely simple: BF's current structure leaves us exposed to the possibility/risk of us having a Board that doesn't have the skills and experience to run the sport effectively. We should be worried about this and wanting to change our Articles to address it. However BF have managed to present the case for this so badly that any proposals for constitutional change (which I suspect have to happen within the next 12 months if we are to retain our SE and UKS funding) will be greeted with a vast amount of suspicion by the relatively small numbers willing to attend an EGM and vote in or reject any proposals.

Let's hope Mr Pitt and the new Board members are able to bring some clear thinking and fresh ideas to how the BF Board communicate its important decisions and strategic plans to the membership so that we (the great unwashed) are willing to support them.

Regards

Munkey

P.S. Just over a week until UK Sport is due to announce its funding for the 2013-17 cycle for all Olympic sports, in case anyone still gives a

[DSSabre]

Sean,

I'm sure once it does there will be another reason for a delay in the review we have all been waiting for. Perhaps in the hope that we will all forget about it.

DS

[JohnL]

Sean,

I'm sure once it does there will be another reason for a delay in the review we have all been waiting for. Perhaps in the hope that we will all forget about it.

DS

Perhaps because they want to do a thorough review and make thought out recommendations rather tan an incomplete review and a knee jerk reaction.

[DSSabre]

Perhaps because they want to do a thorough review and make thought out recommendations rather tan an incomplete review and a knee jerk reaction.

I would like to think 3 months would have been enough time to carry out a full review. Especially as we have now been told we are waiting for the funding to be determined before the review can start. Not asking for a knee jerk reaction but some progress in 3 months would have been nice.

DS

[RIchardn]

Couldn't agree more johnl

[graham paul]

Presumably this audit is only for BF Board consumption? I think that if the membership had a better understanding of what is required to satisfy the funding bodies and why, they would be far more inclined to accept change to Articles and other processes that produce such outrage on the forum and the chattering classes of the BF (including me!). a

Sean,

You make a good point here, and I will look into it. I would hope that the document can be made available to members. The report does explain the reasons for many of the changes the Board has been making and will be continuing to make.

Graham

[munkey]

Sean,

You make a good point here, and I will look into it. I would hope that the document can be made available to members. The report does explain the reasons for many of the changes the Board has been making and will be continuing to make.

Graham

Thank you Graham. I would certainly like to see it and I'm sure many others would too for exactly that reason. I think that making this kind of report available to members would help us to understand and support BF Board decisions.

Regards

Sean

[Keith.A.Smith]

Would be good to see it. Also interesting to see how it has changed over the past few months.

If it is clear exactly what UKS insist on for funding, it will make it transparent to all what the Board will have to do and what fencers can expect. Indeed I understand elected Boards are not totally in favour with funding bodies.

[DSSabre]

So what were the outcomes of this i assume it must have happened by now?? Anyone?

DS

[munkey]

1 month on from the announcement of UKSport funding for BF's World Class Programme, more than 5 months on from the Olympics and still no sign of the Review of the WCP. The first senior World Cups of the season have taken place, the men's foil squad are training together and the holding message on the WCP page of the BF website is still there. Does anyone else think BF are dragging their feet a bit on this and that we should have a clearer idea of where the WCP is going by now? Many other NGBs have published their reviews and put in place their elite performance plans. Why the delay?

[hokers]

I'm interested to see who exactly it is doing the reviewing here.
Is it really the PD reviewing her own program's performance, or is anyone else involved?

[coach carson]

I suppose we should be addressing these concerns with the executive.