Tuesday 18 February 2020

Proposed Governance Changes


Deadline to cast your vote is this Saturday.

https://www.trentbridge.co.uk/governance/?utm_content=Facebook%20logo&utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=11317050_Final%20reminder%20Annual%20Report%2C%20AGM%20%26%20Governance%20Vote


Vote however you see fit, but remember that the proposed changes will lessen any remaining democratic processes left with the running the club and in all likelihood increase the number of nodding yes men/women, who run to the chair's and the CEO's every call, on the board.


19/12/2019

You will have received your own Email possibly but in case you didn't:

Proposed changes – General Committee elections

The General Committee would still consist of 12 members but the nomination and election process would alter;
  • Eight members would be proposed and elected by the membership
  • The remaining four positions would be appointed by a newly created Nominations Panel

The above proposals would guarantee that the majority of the General Committee are nominated and elected by the membership, whilst introducing measures to ensure that the club’s decision-making body has the requisite skills, experience and diversity.

Proposed change – the inauguration of a Nominations PanelOne Club Chair, one additional committee member, two members' reps, one non-member
A newly created Nominations Panel comprising the Club Chair, one other serving member of the General Committee, two club members and one non-member would be formed. Its role would be to;
  • Select the four Nominated Members from a pool of interested candidates and interview all prospective General Committee nominees
  • Monitor the mix of skills, diversity and experience within the General Committee
  • Consider succession planning for upcoming General Committee vacancies
  • Ensure a formal and transparent election process
Proposed changes – terms of office
  • The initial term of office would remain at three-years but, if re-elected, a General Committee member would serve a maximum of three terms – nine years in total
  • In exceptional circumstances, one additional year could be granted by the Nominations Panel
  • If unforeseen General Committee vacancies arose, an individual could be co-opted following a recommendation by the Nominations Panel. This would be subject to approval by the General Committee with the co-opted person then required to seek re-election should they wish to continue their service beyond the next AGM.
  • The 70-year age limit would no longer apply to any individual wishing to stand for General Committee
The above proposals would be introduced to define a time limit that all individuals may serve. This mechanism would drive an adequate influx of new members and is recommended as best practice to provide churn in new talent, skills, experience and thinking.  
Proposed changes – the role of Chair
  • The Chair would still be elected or re-elected on an annual basis by the General Committee
  • The maximum period a committee member could serve as Chair would be six years
  • Extensions to the maximum nine-year term on the General Committee could be granted by the Nominations Panel and sanctioned by the General Committee, in order to fulfil a six-year term as Chair. This would be limited to a maximum of three additional years. 

Next steps

A final version of recommended changes to the club’s governance will be put forward to the membership ahead of the 202o AGM and all eligible adult members will have the opportunity to vote.

Voting will primarily be online with postal voting provided for those we aren’t able to contact by email. Full details will be distributed in January, along with the Club’s Annual Report and Accounts and the agenda for the AGM.
   
We will require online votes to have been cast, and physical ballot forms to have reached their destination at the offices of our auditors by no later than Saturday 22 February. The result be revealed at the AGM on Monday 24 February.

22 comments:

  1. Richard Tennant (Chairman)19 December 2019 at 22:10

    If we are to remain a leading and sustainable County Club, I cannot emphasise how important it is that we meet the standards of governance that are not only required by our governing body and Sport England, but are designed to better serve Nottinghamshire in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Puts a lot of power and influence into the hands of the Chair. Yes the Chair is elected each year but that is by a General Committee that the Chair can influence the make-up of.

    No clear procedure for creating the influential Nominations Panel.

    In my opinion,to get support for these changes, trust in those at the top must be regained with the general (caring) Membership (or at least my support anyway). The steam-roller approach will no doubt prevail however; the support it or Notts lose funding argument, very much like the Hundred - which is where my trust in the club hierarchy left the building...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thank the Chairman, genuinely , for posting on here .It is healthy and good that he does so. Having said that, I am struggling to see any tangible, measurable or defined benefit from the changes. The down side is a curtailment and reduction of democracy within the club. However I wish him and all on here and Harry of course a Merry Christmas and a Healthy and Prosperous New Year

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry Rich, he didn't post it, it's copied from the Email to members

      Delete
  4. Still digesting the news of signing Trego to get my little bonce around anything else at the moment

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You could say, currently PT isn't universally loved but we have time for that the change for the better hopefully. Whereas, Chairman Richard has set his deadlines and you will support his proposals, or else!

      Delete
  5. Can someone please elucidate the PROs and CONs of the proposals ?
    I can see both sides of the argument .
    But what is best for the Club and the Members in the long term ?
    Could it lead to an abuse of power and nepotism ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Taking even more say away from the faithful over a period of time?

      Delete
  7. What Members need to be very aware of when the Nominations come out for the 2020 Committee is that they ought NOT to vote for any of the exisiting Committee who are seeking re-election BECAUSE in all probability THEY voted against allowing both myself and another Member standing for Committee who fell fowl of the UNLAWFUL and UNCONSTITITIONAL 70 year age restriction Rule - SUE ME IF YOU LIKE NOTTS IF YOU CAN JUSTIFY YOUR SEEMINGLY CLEAR ACTIVE AGE-DISCRIMATION AGENDA!!! Of course our Nominations wouldn't be allowed because we just might have dislodged a couple of the exisiting Committee - CONFLICT OF INTERESTS or just SHEER NASTINESS? Shame on the Committee.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The other matter for the 2020 Committee Nomination is for members to ONLY VOTE FOR YOUR PREFERRED CANDIDATE AND NO-ONE ELSE - so if you are trying to get a specific Candidate onto the Committeee ONLY vote for him/her and no others as that increases the chances of success.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Example:

    100 Members can vote for 3 Candidates.

    Candidate A: 70 Votes - ELECTED
    Candidate B: 60 votes - ELECTED
    Candidate C: 45 Votes - ELECTED
    Candidate D (who we would like to be Elected) : 40 Votes - NOT ELECTED

    BUT 20 Members who Voted for more than 1 Candidate INSTEAD voted just for Candidate D:

    Candidate A: 50 Votes: Elected
    Candidate B: 40 Votes: Elected
    Candidate C: 35 Votes: NOT ELECTED
    Candidate D: 40 Votes: ELECTED

    So TACTICAL VOTING shuld be considered. It can change outcomes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A reminder to everybody who has not voted, to vote on the issue.

    A vote for a change in governance would ensure the committee could elect all their friends and further damage the club.... so please vote against this proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anyone braver than me, although I have asked questions in the past, want to ask the top table how come when we've had 3 out of the last 4 awful, embarrassing, pathetic seasons of many capitulations in red ball cricket, no one has been accountable for these shocking performances. A few seasons ago at a members forumns the Teflon suited Myopic Mick nearly burst into tears when a member had the audacity to ask why the team were underachieving.Peter Moores then comes in, he somehow is made cricket supremo and the rest is history.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Surround yourself with 'yes' people and you have nothing to fear - so Mick and Lisa are safe until the Members decide to flex their collective muscles and do something. I think this years's AGM will be very difficult for the 'top table' but just watch Members in the audience come to their rescue.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Further, in the 2019 Annual Report and Accounts at pages 51-52 what right does the Club have to sell part of the Radcliffe Road Development to a private individual - '...The third party was merely the owner of an asset within the development...' without the full agreement of the Members. My understanding is that Members OWN the Club and that INCLUDES the Ground and all properties within it.

    Also, Item 8 is to 'Propose amendments to the Club Constitution' - have Members been circulated with these proposed amendments and had opportunity to vote on them or submit amendments to them?

    I trust that the Club's solicitors will be present at the AGM to respond to these issues.

    ReplyDelete
  14. And to reiterate the fact that preventing 2 Members aged 70 or over from standing for the Committee was unConstitutional - so, in reality, you already have a Committee which is not prepared to work to the exisiting Constitution - so what hope that they won't seek to continue to do exactly what they want regardless of any legalities?

    ReplyDelete
  15. In reality the Club has a Constitution which allows the Committee to do just about anything - see Rules 2.2.1 - 2.2.12 & 6.8 - 6.9.

    Also, in relation to Agenda Item 8 of this year's AGM Rule 8.1 clearly states that '...28 days prior to (the AGM) written notice must be given to members entitled to vote...giving details of any resolutions to be considered at the meeting' - and 8.3.2. 'any proposed amendments to resolutions shall be submitted in writing ...not less than 14 days prior to the meeting. Any further amendments to resolutions shall only be allowed by the chairman of the meeting after approval by the members present.' - SO, MEMBERS can exercise their rights as they wish.

    Above everything else though it must be the overall wellbeing of the Club that predominates. Cricket is in a period of momentous change which the Club, through its membership, can seek to have some positive influence over.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Note to PJ
    You obviously have read this years Annual Report and discovered some interesting points that could easily be swept under the carpet .
    Lets hope you are attending the AGM tomorrow night to ruffle a few feathers .
    After another year of pretty poor performances by the Notts first eleven we dont want the TOP TABLE to have an easy ride (as in previous years )
    Some things HAVE TO BE SAID
    Some things HAVE TO BE ASKED
    Some things HAVE TO BE PROPERLY EXPLAINED !
    The impression given is that too many people associated with the Club are just cosily "coasting along".
    Its quite evident that a shake up needs to take place in order to change things round a little .
    I hope that tomorrow night at County Hall we hear some positive news and not too much self congratulation and back slapping .
    Self praise is no praise at all .
    Lets face face it - 2019 WAS A BAD YEAR FOR NOTTS CRICKET - that is from the average long suffering Members viewpoint .
    No doubt there will be a few unsatisfied Members intent on getting proper answers to probing questions .?

    ReplyDelete
  17. The 'devil' is in the detail - so the Link at the very top of this Section makes available the Proposed Changes and Reasons for them - BUT have all Members been sent this information and been able to vote on all of the proposed Changes? - legally it is my understanding that ALL proposed Constitutional changes have to be notified to be able to voted on by Members in advance of the AGM. I am led to believe that at least 1 Member submitted Constitutional Amendments which have not been circulated to Members.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So, who actually voted for the Governance changes? - most of the Members who did vote!

    ReplyDelete

Please share your thoughts...