.JPG)
14/09/19
As the club haven't as yet posted (as they promised to do) to their website, a record of Wednesday's, the first of the Members' Consultation Evenings, here is the gist of the "minutes".
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY
CRICKET CLUB GOVERNANCE CONSULTATION MEETING WEDNESDAY 11 SEPTEMBER 2019 IN THE
DEREK RANDALL SUITE
The ‘Top Table’ consisted of
Derek Brewer (DB), Penny Huggett (PH), Richard
Tennant (RT) & Jeff Moore (JM)
There
is a need for change in the governance of the club so that they are represented
with the correct skills.
PH
who works in Governance stated that changes to sports governance were required
to create a strong platform that is fit for the future.
The
club has been waiting for a series of national initiatives and fitness for
purpose from the ECB. There is a three tier ranking for this.
JM
stated that the current Nottinghamshire Board (also known as the committee) is
not very diverse, although it does have a good transparency in order to get
onto the current committee. There are lots of accountants, but some skill sets are
missing. There is no ceiling on how long members can sit on the committee and
this is not a very good practice. With regards to the length of time served on
the committee JM stated that the aim is to restrict committee membership to
three terms of three years. After that only if there is an absence of a special
skill set then an additional year may be granted.
JM
continued on what makes an ideal committee member, and stated the number of
directorships he personally holds, and that is the potential calibre for future
committee representatives. The committee wish to vet all future applicants to
join them to ensure the high standards are retained. He also gave his opinion
as to how good the current committee are with respect to communication skills.
He did state that with everything there is always the need to improve things.
There
is currently in place an Audit & Risk committee which has been in existence
for two years. This group includes committee members Paul Ellis, Kate Davies,
Jeff Moore and used to include the late Ray Dawson.
DB
gave the view of the ECB and spoke about the County Partnership Agreement (CPA)
which is a legally binding agreement covering the period 2020 – 2024 and covers
all the Counties. There are 26 prime activities; of which 22 of them need to be
delivered within the county network and Governance will be the key priority.
This sets out the standards required to receive ECB funding. There are two
funds that the counties can bid for, namely Funding Infrastructure, and
Community Investment. Both of these funds are large. DB requested that the
approximate figure available in each fund should not be reported, although the
first fund will be larger than the second.
RT
went into more detail about the future breakdown proposed for the committee,
and the changes to the existing format. Currently the committee are elected on
three year terms with no time limits. The proposals were to have eight members
elected by ballot and the other four to be appointed without any voting by a
Nominations Panel. This will provide skills and diversity to the committee. All
future committee nominations must increase diversity, each member being vetted
by 2 club members, 1 committee member, 1 non-member and the club chairman. He
repeated the information stated above by JM and also stated that any chairman
would only be allowed to stand for a maximum of six years.
In
addition a potential committee member currently has to have been a member for
at least two years, the club plan to change this to one month.
They
also planned to remove the age limit of 70 from the committee and to change the
club rules so that any resolutions discussed at the AGM must have received the
prior written support of 100 members. Members would still be allowed to ask
questions at the AGM.
The
club were also investigating the possibility of allowing members to vote
online.
RT
then had a dialogue with Lisa Pursehouse who confirmed that the aim was to
produce a final draft of the governance proposals after consultation with the
members and to have the results ratified at the AGM. Currently there are
approximately 6,500 members who can vote, but of these the club does not have
email addresses for about 1,500 of them.
There
was a question about the transparency over the committee structure and how will
the club increase gender ethnicity of the committee if suitable candidates did
not apply.
RT
confirmed that the committee will use the nominations committee for two members
in 2021, one in 2022 and one in 2023.
Currently
the club membership is approximately 76% men and 24% women, the committee will
try to work to plug the skills gap via the Nominations Committee.
DB
stated that by 2022, the funding detailed above and the framework will be in
place. He is currently an ‘Independent Reviewer’ working closely with
Gloucestershire who have recently appointed two people aged in their thirties,
into key posts within the club.
A
question was asked whether the ECB would help with filling missing skills sets
on the committee. DB confirmed that the ECB had a database of people waiting to
join County club committees and that this would be used to help the counties
recruit, if they so required.
Another
question was asked whether the club was going to remain as a ‘Members Club’,
and has any recent governance review state that the committee are current
working at best practice.
This
was jointly answered by RT & JM stating that there is no longer a Cricket
Committee because the Committee no longer needed it. The committee very rarely
need to have a vote because most decisions are reached via reasoning.
The
committee agreed to consider the feedback from this meeting and the similar
meeting next week and would aim to formally put forward their proposal to
change the structure of the committee prior to the club AGM in late February
2020. The membership would vote online/paper to decide whether they agree or
did not agree with the proposals to change the committee restructure. This
would take the form of a simple YES/NO vote.
JAG
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo insult was intended directly at Ms Huggard nor Futures, just the relevance of her professional experience to the running of a professional cricket club, be it as a member or a supporter.
DeleteSpotted Penny Huggard at the Birmingham Botantical Gardens today
DeleteThe issue of 'Governance' is far wider than just cricket - it is an attempt to make Organisations more 'open' and 'transparent' by including 'Independent' members on the Boards / Committees. It is, though, unhelpful, if we do not receive some solid information in advance of the Meetings.
ReplyDeleteThat's what the consultation presentation is supposed to be about... although the information will be less than solid as the ECB haven't yet published their own plans, plans which the counties are meant to dovetail with.
DeleteApparently there have been some communication problems - seems anyone who wishes can attend tomorrow's Session. Not everyone received either original notification or subsequent confirmation - the Club really has to work on making its communications more effective.
ReplyDeleteTonight - Derek Randall Suite. 6-15pm or 15 minutes after Close of Play - whichever is the LATER. 'Later' because there may well be those who travel in especially, not having been at the Match (i.e. those coming from work).
ReplyDeleteWell, Consultation No. 1 duly completed to the apparent satisfaction of most Members - but not myself!!! Ms. Huggard virtually said nothing. Derek Brewer was careful in his comments - after all he advises the 'powers that be' - from my own personal perspective IF we could look at the ECB with confidence that they were promoting cricket in the way many of us would like then perhaps I could have more confidence and elss scepticism BUT I believe that the 'devil' will be in the detail and most of us will either have little interest or little motivation to really study it in detail. I am opposed to a Nominations Committee (most members tonight weren't of the smae opinion as myself) as I believe that it removes a democratic RIGHT that I believe that we should retain as Members to OURSELVES nominate who we wish to OUR Committee. Also, I am opposed to a maximum 9-year possible continuous membership of the Committee (3 x 3 years) with no abaility to stand again at any time in the future - so a 30-year-old COULD serve 9 years and then for the next 30 years be ineligible to again stand no matter how outstanding he/she might have been - is this fair and democratic? I would favour something more like a maximum of 2 x 3 years with a mandatory break of at least 3 years but then again become eligible. I was also almost flabbergated to hear our beloved Chairman give as a reason for not having a Cricket Committee that the exisiting Committee are so passionate about the Side's performance that a separate sub-Committee is not required!!! - well, that's the Committee that have seen another dismal performance today and ocver the past 3 Seasons - so are they really the 'experts' and best placed to deal with the current crisis the Club is facing? They apparently have faith in the exisiting Director of Cricket and Head Coach and Captain and see no reasons to make any changes - so do they represent how YOU feel?
ReplyDeleteI urge Members when the final Proposals are circulated to look 'behind the scenes' and ask themselves 'Are these really Proposals that the ECB have demonstrated are clearly for the benefit of the Game and our Club?' - my deep suspicion is that they will be to increase the centralised hold over the Game and the Clubs that the ECB already has and that financially they will be in a position of power over us. Trust the ECB at your peril!!!
Well, this has really got members excited!!!
ReplyDeleteIf the club eventually does what it said it will do, publish the consultation on the website, wider circulation might stimulate conversation. As for your hobby horse Phil, the explanation about the age limit for committee members, under the current constitution, was fair enough. I know that that wasn't what you had hoped for. Under the proposed amendments, you still have hope eh!
DeleteOK - so it hasn't!!! Whilst it may be one of those 'dry' areas of interest it has quite profound implications on the future direction of both the Game and the County Championship Clubs. Given the awful state of things playing-wise at Trent Bridge what is it that prevents many Members being prepared to stand for the Committee? Why is there a preponderance of Accountants on the Committee? Why do there appear to be hardly any 'ordinary' / working class members on the Committee?
ReplyDeleteThe new proposals will not, in my opinion, address any of these issues - rather, I fear that they will promote the 'elite' of society only either putting themselves forward or being Nominated by the equally 'elite' Nominations Committee. Maybe cricket reflects society in general - the 'top' / most influential people are not from the State-educated / non-home-owning / 'working class' sector. We are a divided society and the Notts Committee seems to reflect that. We need the likes of 'mags' on the Committee with his wealth of knowledge and passionate interest; 'Notts Viewer' for initiating this wonderful Site which enabales 'ordinary' supporters to express their opinions; 'jagella/JimG' who seems equally enthusiastic; 'Stonewall' for attending many 2nd 11 Matches and having an equally matched depth of knowledge and interest and so I could go on - we do not lack those with real care about the Club but there is something which holds them back from being prepared to seek to become Committee members.
So, PLEASE, is there a positive way forward which will ensure that the likes of Ms. Peasey and Mr Stevenson can become the majority voices on our Committee?
It was staed that there will a panel to decide on and appoint 4 Unelected Committee Members. The panel is to consist of 2 Committee members (one of which is the chair), 2 club members and 1 non-member. Who decides on the panel's composition? Out of 6.5K members which 2? Out of 7+ billion non-members which one? Will it be the same panel for each vacany of Committee member or will it be tailored to the kind of Committee member, with the skill-sets required?
ReplyDeleteIt was stated...
Delete... each vacancy...
DeleteYou ask very pertinent questions 'Dave G' - I am convinced that the 'hand' of the CEO / Director of Cricket will be firmly evident in these Appointments - why would they Chairman want anyone who disagreed with himself and the DoC/CEO? Perhaps we could have the CEO's hairdresser - after all 'she runs a business' or the Chairman's Garage Owner - the possibilities are endless!!! The issue of 'Skill Sets' need to start with someone who knows how to run a successful Division 1 Championship side and how to communicate with Members.
ReplyDeleteCan any future (if changes are approved by the membership) Chair be an Appointed Committee Member?
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. Middlesex went down this ECB route and certainly 'diversity' seems non-existant - about helf of the Board are / were in Finance with some 3 ex-players and just 1 female. No Black or ethnic minority representation. If Notts adopt these same Proposals then I am firmly of the view that nothing would change and the Committee may become even more 'elite.'
DeleteFirstly, a comment after the Governance meeting from someone who OUGHT to be on the Committee and who has done a great deal for Notts - "I don't feel worthy" "I'm not a businessman" and has not been on the Boards of Rolls Royce etc. and isn't an Accountant. The 'message' seemed loud and clear - Millionaire businessmen and high financiers only please.
ReplyDeleteProof? Let's look at Middlesex who have gone down this new ECB-induced Governance Route - Women? - just the one. Black and ethnic Minority representation? - NONE. Accountancy / Finance? 4. Lord? 1. OBE? 2 - Expanding 'diversity'? - who is kidding who?
Hearing 1 Committee Member regale us with his CV made some of us feel very insignificant - and, yes, 'unworthy' to aspire to such high office - what would we possibly have to offer? Some of us wouldn't even need a parking space!!!
So, whilst Nomination may seem straightforward it isn't - the Nomination Form clearly indicates what 'qualities' - or rather professional attainments - are required. It is nothing but exclusive / selective and I would say discriminatory. And then, you will need to be interviewed by The Chairman and if successful need to agree to the Committee's own SECRET CODE OF CONDUCT.
Having said all of the above, I would encourage others to stand and not be ashamed of your lack of professional stature / high business achievements / influential connections etc. IF you care passionately about Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club - and I don't say that our Committee don't care but we know that not all are regular attendees at Matches at either 1st 11 or especially 2nd 11 levels and even less at Away Matches.
So 'unknown' thank you for that reminder - but what if potential applicants don't have 'services in the public areana' or have held 'Business or Administrative Posts' in the 5 years following retirement? Does this sound right under Equal Opportunities legislation?
Am I bitter - you bet!!!
I AGAIN attended tonight's Consultation Meeting - very few members there but a good 'conversation' took place.
ReplyDeleteWhat is very clear is that there is a tremendous amount of work undertaken by the Club which many Members are unaware of - especially that involving reaching out to certain Disability groups as well as youngsters in different areas - enabelling a connection to be made with the Club which never existed before.
What is also equally clear is that very many Members (particularly those in the Senior age group) desperately want to see Red Ball cricket not only retained but promoted and expanded. Today made the point of how 'fortunes' can change during a Game and the benefits of playing a Match which is not limited to 20 Overs where nearly all the players can play a fuller role - certainly in respect of time fielding. Bowlers are not limited to just 4 Overs etc. and the whole ethos is so completely different - it is the 'purist' form of the Game which we lose at our peril.
Notts CCC, though, has to look seriously towards the future and have in place some clear Strategies to attract more young people into Cricket as a sport as well as to attract a wider range of spectators - these are huge and difficult challenges.
Of the 7000+ members why have probably less than 150 attended the Consultations? We have no right to moan and complain if we don't actively engage with the Club and seek to find out a lot more about what is happening and what we agree with and what we disagree with. As I have said many times we are a MEMBERS CLUB - and WE HAVE THE POWER. If we CHOOSE not to exercise our rights to be involved then we have little to moan about and the ECB will continue to 'lord' it over us.
So watch out for the Consultation information which will come to every Member in due course; watch out for the AGM Consitutional Changes and see if they really are what you want to happen; VOTE for NEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS; vote for those Constitutional Changes you FAVOUR - don't leave the decisions to others - BE PART OF THE PROCESS - it is (Y)OUR Club.