BMFA Country Members

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Much simpler than personal differences for me,was stated it needed looking at and it would be, so where are we ? disappointing that some of the usual voices have no comment to make also.

John

[Colin Leighfield]

Although I am a member of a BMFA affiliated club, I renew my membership directly and so am a Country Member. I don't recall any detailed conversations between club members at any time about BMFA or discussions on voting matters, although that might just mean that I haven't been around when the conversations take place.

I'm not personally worried about having no voting rights as a Country Member. If I was unhappy about BMFA related issues I would speak to the club secretary about it, but I've never felt the need to do that yet. I do follow what BMFA is doing and personally I've never had any complaints. If Country Members were given voting rights I wonder how many would bother anyway, or even know what was going on for most of the time.

[Rich too]

Be that as it may Colin, that's not the point!

[Andy C]

I joined the BMFA last year before I joined my club. This year, I renewed on line directly. The main reason I did this was to save effort at my club, as it was one less membership they had to worry about. I didn't know it would make any difference, and to be honest after reading this thread I still don't understand. I also don't know what I now should be doing!

It does seem like the customer experience has been forgotten/not considered in this case.

[Peter Jenkins]

At the last AGM (Nov 16), the Chairman stated that the issue of voting rights for Country Members was reviewed by the Executive. It was decided that giving Country Members a vote would give them a greater say than a normal Club Member. Remember that it is the Clubs that are members of the BMFA and have a vote and to be a member of the BMFA all members of that Club must be members of the BMFA as well. All Clubs belong to an Area. The Area holds regular meetings to discuss issues that Clubs have, decide whether to put a proposal to BMFA Council and instruct their Council Representative on how they would like them to vote. It is a fact that very few Clubs choose to attend Area meetings and so their members' interests are not represented.

Remember that the vast majority of work done by the BMFA is done by unpaid volunteers - just like those who run Clubs - and they are only too happy to have input from Clubs and their members - if the Clubs/members choose to do so. The Area Representatives have a seat on Council and in that respect, Clubs and their members are represented. Country Members can choose to attend Area Meetings and will always be allowed to speak although again only Clubs have voting rights. Any Club member can put their name forward (provided they have a proposer and seconder) to fill the posts on the Area Committee - some Areas struggle to get sufficient officers and often have to double or treble hat to fill posts.

This structure is all set out in the BMFA's Articles of Association on their website (see here). Unlike a Club, the BMFA, or rather the SMAE (BMFA is the trading name) is a Company Limited by Guarantee and as such is governed by Company Law. The Board of Directors is the Council and the Area Representatives are therefore Directors of the SMAE.

The majority of Country Members are members of affiliated Clubs. Were they to join via one of the Clubs to which they belong, their vote would count - but only if the Club takes the time to attend Area meetings to find out what is going on - or else to read the agenda before hand the minutes after the meeting - and thus to provide their views. Incidentally, voting at the AGM is limited to Clubs. If the Chairman calls for a poll, then each Club is credited with the number of votes that equates to the number of members affiliated through that Club to the BMFA some 2 weeks prior to the AGM.

If you are miles away from any Club then I can recognise that you don't have any other option than becoming a Country Member. However, if you are a member of one or more Clubs then by choosing the Country Member route you are excluding yourself from your ability to be like other Club members and vote in your Club for any BMFA motion. The only "one member one vote" situation relates to the election of the BMFA Executive Committee and the Technical Committees when there is more than one candidate for the position or the number of openings for general committee members.

By the way, all of the above is fact and not my opinion.

[Colin Leighfield]

So you say Rich 2, but I don't agree with you. I'm quite sure that most country members don't even know that this conversation is taking place in this forum and aren't particularly interested anyway. I can understand perfectly well why it isn't a practical or useful idea for Country Menbers to have a vote that most wouldn't do anything with anyway.

I'm perfectly happy with Peter Jenkins' explanation. If ever I feel the need to change my membership mode I will, but I don't.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Thanks Peter, i appreciate the update.

John

[Cuban8]

Posted by Andy C on 08/01/2017 18:01:33:

I joined the BMFA last year before I joined my club. This year, I renewed on line directly. The main reason I did this was to save effort at my club, as it was one less membership they had to worry about.

TBH, I'd say that joining through your club will actually be easier for them. Although checking on BMFA membership status is much simpler now via the web portal for membership secs, it's another task that has to be completed to make sure all flyers are insured as they claim.

We used to have a few chaps that always arranged their own BMFA as  country members, but this year the final 'lone wolf' has sent in his BMFA subs to join en-bloc with the rest - couldn't really ever understand the reasoning behind not joining via the club (didn't really make that much difference to us, except as I've mentioned).

 

Edited By Cuban8 on 08/01/2017 19:28:39

[Rich too]

Thanks for taking the time to post Peter. Interesting that the accounts for 2016 are now overdue at Companies House, and more importantly the Mem & Arts require that the accounts are audited. I've checked back three years and the accounts have not been audited. Even though the directors report refers to the auditors - there is no auditors report attached to the accounts. And I would expect with a £1m turnover, the accounts should be audited.

 

Edited By Rich2 on 08/01/2017 19:32:31

[Rich too]

Posted by Colin Leighfield on 08/01/2017 19:09:01:

So you say Rich 2, but I don't agree with you. I'm quite sure that most country members don't even know that this conversation is taking place in this forum and aren't particularly interested anyway. I can understand perfectly well why it isn't a practical or useful idea for Country Menbers to have a vote that most wouldn't do anything with anyway.

I'm perfectly happy with Peter Jenkins' explanation. If ever I feel the need to change my membership mode I will, but I don't.

The BMFA is supposed to represent its members, however, I am no longer a member

[Colin Leighfield]

There you go then!

[Flyer]

Posted by Rich2 on 08/01/2017 19:32:00:

Thanks for taking the time to post Peter. Interesting that the accounts for 2016 are now overdue at Companies House, and more importantly the Mem & Arts require that the accounts are audited. I've checked back three years and the accounts have not been audited. Even though the directors report refers to the auditors - there is no auditors report attached to the accounts. And I would expect with a £1m turnover, the accounts should be audited.

 

Edited By Rich2 on 08/01/2017 19:32:31

Whilst I agree that the accounts for 2016 are overdue (should have been filed by 31.12.16) you are incorrect with your statement regarding the audtited accounts. The Auditors report is shown on the 2015 accounts, filed at Companies' House. I would be more interested in why the latest Accounts have not been filed, and who will be picking up the filing penalty? (which incidentally will increase if they are not filed promptly).

And, for the record, my day job involves dealing with Company's filing Accounts.

Edited By Flyer on 08/01/2017 20:01:09

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Find the answer not surprising but depressing myself, looks like an association that's petrified of any change whatsoever, and has no confidence in itself, and sees it members as a threat instead of an asset.

Find the reasoning bizarre also "would give them a greater say than a normal club member" same thing applied on the NFC vote (in reverse) and nothing was done about it.

Whether some would choose to use a vote is irrelevant, having the right to choose is the point.

My opinion ? wrong and cowardly decision.

John

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I concurr 100% John. In my view this answer amounts to

"there is a democratic deficit for all members. This deficit is extreme in the case of country memberts (ie no voting rights at all - not even by representatives). But fixing it for coutry memberts would expose the remaining deficit for club members - ie the lack of a simple 'one member, one vote' democracy. So we are going to perpetuate the unfairness all round so as to avoid that embarassment"

In my personal opinion,....inadequete and disgraceful. When will this organisation join the 21st Century and understand that this form of paternalistic governance with limited true influance is no longer acceptable in the modern world. Heavens - even Trade Unions (that some would describe as dinosaurs) have understood this and abandoned such practices by and large! What exactly are BMFA afraid of that they won't allow 'one member, one vote'?

BEB

[Andy C]

2 questions:

1. With the increase in accessibility to RTF planes and more father son flying up the park, and also drones/multi rotors in all their guises, is there not still the need for different types of membership, maybe even voting on different things?

2. Why doesn't the BMFA explain any of this on their website to new and renewing members like me? They give you different options but then don't explain what the result in? (Or did I miss it?

[Rich too]

Posted by Flyer on 08/01/2017 19:53:26:

Posted by Rich2 on 08/01/2017 19:32:00:

Thanks for taking the time to post Peter. Interesting that the accounts for 2016 are now overdue at Companies House, and more importantly the Mem & Arts require that the accounts are audited. I've checked back three years and the accounts have not been audited. Even though the directors report refers to the auditors - there is no auditors report attached to the accounts. And I would expect with a £1m turnover, the accounts should be audited.

 

Edited By Rich2 on 08/01/2017 19:32:31

Whilst I agree that the accounts for 2016 are overdue (should have been filed by 31.12.16) you are incorrect with your statement regarding the audtited accounts. The Auditors report is shown on the 2015 accounts, filed at Companies' House. I would be more interested in why the latest Accounts have not been filed, and who will be picking up the filing penalty? (which incidentally will increase if they are not filed promptly).

And, for the record, my day job involves dealing with Company's filing Accounts.

Edited By Flyer on 08/01/2017 20:01:09

That's not an audit report - it's headed "independent accountants report", and the first line states "unaudited accounts"! That's interesting because I'm an auditor! 

 

Edited By Rich2 on 08/01/2017 20:38:12

[Flyer]

Posted by Flyer on 08/01/2017 20:39:04:

Posted by Rich2 on 08/01/2017 20:33:36:

Posted by Flyer on 08/01/2017 19:53:26:

Posted by Rich2 on 08/01/2017 19:32:00:

Thanks for taking the time to post Peter. Interesting that the accounts for 2016 are now overdue at Companies House, and more importantly the Mem & Arts require that the accounts are audited. I've checked back three years and the accounts have not been audited. Even though the directors report refers to the auditors - there is no auditors report attached to the accounts. And I would expect with a £1m turnover, the accounts should be audited.

Edited By Rich2 on 08/01/2017 19:32:31

Whilst I agree that the accounts for 2016 are overdue (should have been filed by 31.12.16) you are incorrect with your statement regarding the audtited accounts. The Auditors report is shown on the 2015 accounts, filed at Companies' House. I would be more interested in why the latest Accounts have not been filed, and who will be picking up the filing penalty? (which incidentally will increase if they are not filed promptly).

And, for the record, my day job involves dealing with Company's filing Accounts.

Edited By Flyer on 08/01/2017 20:01:09

That's not an audit report - it's headed "independent accountants report". That's interesting because I'm an auditor!

Edited By Rich2 on 08/01/2017 20:34:24

Edited By Rich2 on 08/01/2017 20:36

The accounts, for the year ended 31st March 2015, for the SMAE Limited (T/A BMFA) include an audit report, which is 'unqualified'. (I've looked under 'filing history at Companies House- dated 12th December 2015)

Are we looking at the same things Rich? Also, you will be aware that an 'Independent examination' would suffice as the turnover is well below the statutory limits. But, I do agree that the 2016 accounts ( audited or not) have not yet been filed in an acceptable format. (although the membership 'can' request an audit. The main reason for 'an independent examination' is the reduction in Audting fees. The Accounst still should be prepared 'properly'

One would expect a National Organistion to keep its own affairs in order............. My only concern is that whoever caused the late filing, should suffer the financial penalty imposed by Companies House.

[iqon]

1 man 1 vote many wont use it but it`s their choice at least it should be.Time for change

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by Andy C on 08/01/2017 20:30:59:

2 questions:

1. With the increase in accessibility to RTF planes and more father son flying up the park, and also drones/multi rotors in all their guises, is there not still the need for different types of membership, maybe even voting on different things?

2. Why doesn't the BMFA explain any of this on their website to new and renewing members like me? They give you different options but then don't explain what the result in? (Or did I miss it?

Andy

I would be so bold as to say that you missed it. On the BMFA Website on the top menu there is a heading right next to Home called The BMFA. If you click on that the top of the sub menu is "About Us" and this describes how the BMFA is set up with a link to the Articles of Association on the 2nd line.

There are many who never go to the BMFA website because they are not interested or feel its boring. The BMFA magazine is the primary way in which the BMFA communicates with members yet some throw their copy in the bin without reading it. So, what ever information is put on the website or sent out with the magazine would appear to be disregarded by a great many Clubs and their members.

BEB and John Stones - I do feel that your comments of "inadequate", "disgraceful" and "cowardly" are out of line. Clubs are able to make proposals to change things if they do not like them. Have there been any? That's the way the system works. You might as well say that a relatively small but vocal group on this forum should have the power to run the BMFA and then a whole lot of others will start complaining on another forum.

There is a system in place that allows Clubs to propose changes. Why don't you use it instead of expecting someone else to do so on the basis of a discussion on this forum. It will need a properly constructed argument and not just simple denigration of "the BMFA" to achieve that though.

[MattyB]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 08/01/2017 20:15:52:

I concurr 100% John. In my view this answer amounts to

"there is a democratic deficit for all members. This deficit is extreme in the case of country memberts (ie no voting rights at all - not even by representatives). But fixing it for country members would expose the remaining deficit for club members - ie the lack of a simple 'one member, one vote' democracy. So we are going to perpetuate the unfairness all round so as to avoid that embarassment"

Exactly. The Exec committee are probably correct that giving votes to country members would give them more influence than an individual club member if the current block voting system was retained for clubs, but chucking out the whole idea of reform on that basis is ridiculous when their concern could easily be addressed.

I agree that OMOV for every decision is probably not logistically practical for BAU decision making in a volunteer driven association like the BMFA. However there are other options which are practical and would still be more democratic. For example we could retain the current club block voting system for BAU decision making, but for the really huge items (such as changes to the articles of association or spends over 25% of the Associations value, as was the case for the NFC) use OMOV for everyone irrelevant of membership type (decisions that qualify for a OMOV process would of course have to be predefined in the Articles upfront of course). Alternatively country members could be represented within the block voting system as a "club" of their own; they elect regional representatives in biennial elections as per other elected BMFA positions, and these people cast their votes as a block at AGMs or EGMs. Perfect systems? Definitely not. Better than what we have already? In my view and I suspect that of the vast majority of club and country BMFA members, yes.

At this point the voices of the BMFA will no doubt suggest these ideas are taken up through the current governance - in fact Peter has done just that in a post above. Interestingly I tried that around 12 months ago following the NFC EGM. My area were supportive of achieving reform in the governance model, and when we took our concerns around the lack of representation of country members up through the tiers were told there is a group working on it, to send our ideas in and that we would hear back "soon". We never did.

I had hoped that following the NFC EGM the BMFA would consult with members of all categories to establish whether they wanted governance reform and if so what the model should look like. They could have done this online as they did in the early stages of the NFC project, and/or as an additional questionnaire with the next AGM voting pack. Doing so would have shown an openness to change and that they took the discontent on the topic of country member voting at the EGM seriously. Instead it seems an Exec committee meeting was held where they decided not to progress the idea, full stop. But then turkeys don't vote for Christmas either, so I'm not going to waste my time being surprised.

Can't think what this all reminds me of...

Edited By MattyB on 09/01/2017 01:51:28

[Rich too]

Posted by Flyer on 08/01/2017 20:47:56:

Posted by Flyer on 08/01/2017 20:39:04:

Posted by Rich2 on 08/01/2017 20:33:36:

Posted by Flyer on 08/01/2017 19:53:26:

Posted by Rich2 on 08/01/2017 19:32:00:

Thanks for taking the time to post Peter. Interesting that the accounts for 2016 are now overdue at Companies House, and more importantly the Mem & Arts require that the accounts are audited. I've checked back three years and the accounts have not been audited. Even though the directors report refers to the auditors - there is no auditors report attached to the accounts. And I would expect with a £1m turnover, the accounts should be audited.

Edited By Rich2 on 08/01/2017 19:32:31

Whilst I agree that the accounts for 2016 are overdue (should have been filed by 31.12.16) you are incorrect with your statement regarding the audtited accounts. The Auditors report is shown on the 2015 accounts, filed at Companies' House. I would be more interested in why the latest Accounts have not been filed, and who will be picking up the filing penalty? (which incidentally will increase if they are not filed promptly).

And, for the record, my day job involves dealing with Company's filing Accounts.

Edited By Flyer on 08/01/2017 20:01:09

That's not an audit report - it's headed "independent accountants report". That's interesting because I'm an auditor!

Edited By Rich2 on 08/01/2017 20:34:24

Edited By Rich2 on 08/01/2017 20:36

The accounts, for the year ended 31st March 2015, for the SMAE Limited (T/A BMFA) include an audit report, which is 'unqualified'. (I've looked under 'filing history at Companies House- dated 12th December 2015)

Are we looking at the same things Rich? Also, you will be aware that an 'Independent examination' would suffice as the turnover is well below the statutory limits. But, I do agree that the 2016 accounts ( audited or not) have not yet been filed in an acceptable format. (although the membership 'can' request an audit. The main reason for 'an independent examination' is the reduction in Audting fees. The Accounst still should be prepared 'properly'

One would expect a National Organistion to keep its own affairs in order............. My only concern is that whoever caused the late filing, should suffer the financial penalty imposed by Companies House.

The accounts for company number 457067 dated 31 March 2015 do not include an audit report. Whilst I agree that one is not necessary, the company's constitution requires one - in the same way as it appears that country members do not get a vote - and that was my point. I would also prefer an audit for that type of organisation with that turnover.

The accounts are also very poor in that they refer to "auditors" - very misleading.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 08/01/2017 23:17:33:

BEB and John Stones - I do feel that your comments of "inadequate", "disgraceful" and "cowardly" are out of line. Clubs are able to make proposals to change things if they do not like them. Have there been any? That's the way the system works. You might as well say that a relatively small but vocal group on this forum should have the power to run the BMFA and then a whole lot of others will start complaining on another forum.

 

That comment reveals better than any argument I could advance just how little the "old guard" of the BMFA understand the point we are making! You see there is a fundamental difference between those in power in the BMFA and those of us raising these objections - we don't have power and we don't seek to have it; we seek to give the power away! To give it to the members of the organisation!

You keep saying "go through the mechanism" - can't you see the whole point is that the "mechanism" is stacked against change, a point Matty demonstrates above when he tried to work through the "mechanism. A point John has made when he tried and is the trigger of this entire thread. We are just "fobbed off". Do you know what the comment "work through the existing mechanism" sounds like to us? Paraphrasing, it amounts to "You have your little bit of representation via your club, which we'll ignore - now go away and stop bothering the important people"!!

Why are you and those in power in the BMFA so afraid of democratic change? Why are you so challenged by the simple concept that all members should have equal rights and all members should have one vote on any major issues? It is the basis on which just about every other society and organisation works in this day and age. I have news for you, Victorian Paternalism is dead, only the BMFA doesn't seem to have noticed!

The stalwarts of the BMFA can carry on down the route you choose - what will happen is the steady drift of members to other alternative organisations. Or you can embrace the present, take the concerns of members regarding the governance of the organisation seriously and act on them. The lesson of history is that in all such cases the forces for democratisation have always won out in the end so maybe you would be better grasping the nettle now!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 09/01/2017 09:09:37

[GONZO]

I endorse the OMOV whole heartedly. But, lets face it if things go the way I think they will and EASA have their way then the argument over country members and votes is a non entity. There will be no such thing as a 'country' member flying outside of a club environment. We will only be able to fly legally at a registered club site. We should be pushing for OMOV for club members now. Otherwise, when the BMFA have the strangle hold on legal flying from affiliated club sites dissention could be punished by dis-affiliation and thus withdrawal of ones legal right to fly. Just the implied threat of such possible action would probably be enough to make the vast majority tow the line and settle for the status quo.

[Peter Christy]

Many years ago, I had a run-in with the BMFA over something I felt was seriously wrong with the way it was run. The details are unimportant now, but I was told that if I wanted to change anything the tools were there to do it.

Firstly, I got the support of my club to be their representative on the Area Committee. The Area Committee then nominated me as their representative on the BMFA Council. It didn't happen overnight, but it wasn't decades either, before I was able to persuade the Council that "One Member, One Vote" was the only way to run the BMFA's elections.

And that is why each member now gets voting slips every year to elect people to the various important posts within the BMFA.

The vast majority of members do not even read the candidates C.V.s, and put the voting slips straight in the bin. Perhaps if some of the vocal critics here were to do as I did, and stand for election, they might achieve the desired result.

I had hoped that following my early success, the "democratisation" of the BMFA would snowball. Sadly it hasn't. But no amount of spouting off on this forum will make the slightest difference.

If you are serious about making a difference, do as I did and stand for election. Put in your manifesto what it is you want to achieve. But don't just sit here shouting because "somebody else" won't do the job for you. If YOU want change, YOU will have to work for it.

As I discovered, the tools are there, and you might find you have support from some surprising quarters!

--

Pete

[Peter Jenkins]