BMFA Country Members

[Rich too]

Posted by Peter Christy on 09/01/2017 10:20:36:

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

I seriously applaud you for that - not many people (myself included) are prepared to do it.

However, I did not need to "put up with the bmfa" any longer, I simply moved over to the lma. Indeed, why should I stay with an organisation that is reputed to not support me, as a country flyer, going forward?

[Piers Bowlan]

Posted by GONZO on 09/01/2017 09:41:03:

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.

Good point Gonzo. Country members will cease to exist once EASA's regulations govenning UAVs become law, in three years time. Not a member of an affiliated BMFA club on a registered club site? Then you can't fly. Is there any incentive for the BMFA to look out for the interests of country members when we will all become club members in the fullness of time? The alternative is to become outlaws!

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Has anybody confirmed that BMFA country members wouldn't qualify as being members of a competent organisation and be able to register their flying site? I'm a club member - and very glad to be - but I do understand that it doesn't suit everyone.

[Rich too]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 09/01/2017 11:24:39:

Posted by GONZO on 09/01/2017 09:41:03:

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.

Good point Gonzo. Country members will cease to exist once EASA's regulations govenning UAVs become law, in three years time. Not a member of an affiliated BMFA club on a registered club site? Then you can't fly. Is there any incentive for the BMFA to look out for the interests of country members when we will all become club members in the fullness of time? The alternative is to become outlaws!

Country members will cease to exist IF EASA's regulations govenning UAVs become law, in three years time

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Christy]

Posted by Rich2 on 09/01/2017 11:21:48:

However, I did not need to "put up with the bmfa" any longer, I simply moved over to the lma. Indeed, why should I stay with an organisation that is reputed to not support me, as a country flyer, going forward?

That is, of course, your choice, and one you are perfectly free to make without criticism.

But I would point out that a lot of the work the BMFA does behind the scenes seems to be taken for granted. For example, it was the BMFA who got us the 35 MHz allocation back in the early 80s, when the hobby seemed doomed by the CB problem. Not only that, but they got us a far more generous allocation than any of our EU cousins enjoy.

Again, it was the BMFA who ensured we got access to 2.4 GHz, at a time when half of Europe wasn't permitting it because they couldn't understand their own regulations.

And today, it is the BMFA who are leading the fight against EASA's proposals on our behalf. Yes, I know the LMA is involved as well, but the BMFA is taking the lead here.

The BMFA isn't perfect. I know that only too well. But it is up to the *members* to improve it. And it can only represent our interests at national and international level if it retains a sizeable membership.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water!

--

Pete

 

Edited By Peter Christy on 09/01/2017 12:21:32

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Might it be fair to assume that the present apparent success of the LMA is partially due to its specialist nature in providing services for and administrating a relatively small - but very visible - sector of model flying i.e. > 20kg models in particular and larger models above the "norm" for the majority of flyers?

If those flying park flyers, 60" semi-scale warbirds, aerobatic models etc. were to leave the BMFA for the LMA in large numbers, wouldn't the focus be lost - or the needs of these "new members" not be served very well? As Peter has pointed out, the work of the BMFA is much more than that of providing (pretty good) insurance cover - and as a club officer, extra cover which is, if I'm not mistaken is unique to the BMFA, in my view essential.

I have no part (or particular interest) in competition organisation but this is an important part of validating the organisation as a serious regulating and organising body and the sometimes derided black tie events are a focal point in the year, held in conjunction with the AGM, costing the normal member very little if anything which I don't begrudge to those interested enough to make the effort.

Edited By Martin Harris on 09/01/2017 13:15:08

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Peter Christy]

Percy: Sadly, I'm afraid you are partly correct. Apathy rules, and many will stick with it even if they *don't* feel its a well run organisation. Those who leave will simply weaken it.

I would be much happier to see those who are dissatisfied standing up for election to promote change. They would certainly have my support, and I think they would be surprised at the amount of support they would get from within "the establishment".

It needs someone to start the ball rolling, and others to rally around that candidate.

I've lost track of whether its the Chairman or Vice-Chairman up for election this year, but I'm sure one of them is. Why doesn't one of the critics from here stand for the post?

--

Pete

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

This "Critic" supports and praises his organisation on a regular basis, this "critic" has no agenda, seeks to undermine no one, he has no political ambition, nor axes to grind, nor personal grudges, doesn't seek change that affects him personally, he had and has kept faith with the trust he left the EGM with, he's praised the BMFA at every step since, when he's been vocal there he gets a pat on the back. Your constant attempts at portraying myself and others as a rabble on a forum is par for the course and pathetic.

Seek change through the proper channels ? Bizarre in the extreme to make that comment, the need and the will to look at it came from our Chairmans mouth at the EGM, the "we've looked at it and we're doing nothing" is what disappoints me.

I applauded when we had the courage to allow a vote on the NFC, however 1/4 of our own members were left with no say, that's what brought all this about, you had the opportunity to ensure that wouldn't happen again, and you threw it away through cowardice/paranoia, shame on you.

John

[Peter Christy]

Percy: ....which is exactly my point!

I do think you over-estimate the power of the fellows, though. The couple that I know are quite wary about using their votes in the way that is suggested, ie: propping up the status quo. As I said earlier, any reformist candidate might find him (or her) self getting support from unexpected quarters.

A far bigger issue to my mind, is the total apathy of the membership. I don't know what you do about that! Having fought the good fight to get "One member, one vote" for the elected officers, I've been extremely disappointed not only by the very low voting figures, but also by the number of posts filled unopposed.

When no-one can be bothered to even stand for important positions, we deserve all that we get!

--

Pete

 

Edited By Peter Christy on 09/01/2017 15:24:11

[Peter Christy]

John S: One of the clinching factors that swung the "one member, one vote" argument a few years back, was that without it, country members (around 1/3 of the membership back then, IIRC) were completely disenfranchised.

The fact is that if the will is there to change things, it can be done. I've proved it!

If things don't get changed, it is because of the general apathy amongst the majority of the membership!

--

Pete

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Posted by Peter Christy on 09/01/2017 15:23:49:

Percy: ....which is exactly my point!

I do think you over-estimate the power of the fellows, though. The couple that I know are quite wary about using their votes in the way that is suggested, ie: propping up the status quo. As I said earlier, any reformist candidate might find him (or her) self getting support from unexpected quarters.

A far bigger issue to my mind, is the total apathy of the membership. I don't know what you do about that! Having fought the good fight to get "One member, one vote" for the elected officers, I've been extremely disappointed not only by the very low voting figures, but also by the number of posts filled unopposed.

When no-one can be bothered to even stand for important positions, we deserve all that we get!

--

Pete

Edited By Peter Christy on 09/01/2017 15:24:11

I understand your views Peter, much the same things are said by myself at club level, however overthrow of the current regime is not being sought, just a little progress on an item that was accepted as being in need of reform.

John

[Peter Christy]

Hi John,

Yes, I'm not suggesting a wholesale clear out. All these posts are filled by volunteers, of which we often lose sight! However, I do get frustrated when I hear so much enraged criticism by folks who seem unwilling to tackle the issue themselves. Brushing it off with "we'll never succeed" is simply defeatist.

Coming back to your point about little progress on promises made, perhaps apathy is contagious?

--

Pete

[Colin Leighfield]

I've got a bit of spare time at home today so logged into the BMFA site to see what is going on. Interested to see there is a questionnaire running asking country members if they are also in a club and which one. I filled it in.

Everyone contributing to this thread discussion is clearly motivated and well-intentioned. Personally though I struggle with some statements that are in effect accusing particular individuals of dereliction of duty, over-riding self-interest or incompetence, when those people aren't part of the discussion. Also,accusing other people of apathy is something that needs to be considered carefully. I am a country member that isn't concerned about my right to vote or not. I enjoy the benefits of membership of BMFA and of a good club. If I had any serious concerns about the performance of BMFA as it affects me I would do something about it, but I don't. Generally I am interested in what is going on, things like the NFC, but I don't have the time to actively work for BMFA or take a committee position in the club and I don't feel qualified to vote on issues I am not well-informed on, I'd rather leave that to those who put in a lot more effort than I do. This isn't apathy on my part, it is a positive decision. I doubt if I am the only one.

I can't see any advantage in deserting the BMFA for something else, I can certainly see the disadvantages though. If I wanted to join LMA for example, I would stay with BMFA as well.

Clearly you chaps are better informed than I am, you all have my respect, but that's how I see it.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Ah well, reply received from Manny, and another from elsewhere on another matter, so communication is good.

Baby out with bath water ? nah, disappointed though, but as the man says "if you want to change things get involved". looks like more emails/questions then.

John

Edited By john stones 1 on 09/01/2017 20:34:55

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[MattyB]

Posted by Peter Christy on 09/01/2017 14:25:59:

Percy: Sadly, I'm afraid you are partly correct. Apathy rules, and many will stick with it even if they *don't* feel its a well run organisation. Those who leave will simply weaken it.

Apathy is prevalent amongst members of the BMFA because the vast majority just want affordable insurance which allows them to fly at their club or public access flying site. This is a hobby or pastime for them, not a religion - they just want to be able to get on with it with minimal interference, and to the credit of the BMFA they have historically done a good job of protecting our rights. They have also not done anything that could rock the boat financially, meaning subscription and insurance have fees have only increased very slowly. Result - no need for any controversial votes until the NFC EGM, the Articles of Association remain mostly unread by members and everyone gets on with their day to day flying without worrying about governance.

That status quo could easily change though. Apathy from members will swiftly evaporate if the BMFA is unable to protect our rights against the threat of onerous new regulation from EASA, and/or the NFC project reaches a point where fee increases are needed to support it. There is no doubt the BMFA followed the letter of the Articles of Association in getting the NFC approved, but that process did not engage the members across the country in a way that built enthusiasm for the project, especially amongst the country members who did not get a say. If members are asked to fund the NFC through the membership fee some time in the future I would be very surprised if country members in particular do not rebel (though as some have observed there is a chance the regulations may mean country membership changes or disappears by that point, though no-one can really know until the EASA regs are formally agreed and we understand what the implications are).

Posted by Peter Christy on 09/01/2017 14:25:59:

...I would be much happier to see those who are dissatisfied standing up for election to promote change. They would certainly have my support, and I think they would be surprised at the amount of support they would get from within "the establishment".

It needs someone to start the ball rolling, and others to rally around that candidate.

I've lost track of whether its the Chairman or Vice-Chairman up for election this year, but I'm sure one of them is. Why doesn't one of the critics from here stand for the post?

I have two young children and a demanding job in a major company, and am already Secretary of one BMFA club and Treasurer of another. Even so I would be prepared to stand for one of these positions for 1-2 years if I believed there was a realistic chance of successfully reforming the governance of the BMFA. Unfortunately nothing observed in the past few years since the NFC was first mooted and the EGM called leads me to believe that is possible from within.

Peter, you suggest above we would all be "...surprised by the amount of support we would get for reform from "the establishment" if someone stood with the aim of reforming BMFA governance. Surprised? I would be absolutely amazed! If support for governance change really existed amongst the Exec surely those individuals would not have allowed the idea of reforming the voting system to be dismissed without at least consulting clubs or the wider membership on the topic? They consulted with members prior to moving ahead with the NFC feasibility study, so why not do so again now on the governance question? Couple that decision with the manner that the NFC EGM vote was called giving the bare minimum of time required by the AoA, and the only conclusion I can come to is that the BMFA Exec know the current system, they like it the way it works and have no interest in changing it.

I have no interest in spending huge amounts of my time and effort trying to push water uphill, so for that reason (in Dragons Den parlance ) I am out.

Edited By MattyB on 10/01/2017 10:59:24

[Peter Christy]

Percy: Can't argue with any of the comments you made there!

Matty: Again, I can't argue with much of what you've said. However, when I got involved in the original "one man, one vote" argument, I was surprised to find myself pushing at a (at least partially) open door! There was quite a lot of support for the argument at very senior levels. Yes, there were a few of the old guard with the "over my dead body" attitude, but they were very much in a minority.

The biggest difficulty was untangling a lot of stuff in the core constitution to make "one member, one vote" feasible in elections, without having to rewrite the whole lot. The BMFA is surprisingly good at minimising costs to the membership, and once you start getting into tinkering with article of association you run the risk of not only running up large legal bills, but also the "law of unintended consequences". Its best not to rush these things!

I suspect the reason for much of the delay that has been referred to, is that the "powers that be" have had their attention focused elsewhere. The EASA thing, not to mention the UK Government proposals, have the potential to be far more disruptive to us than anything else currently on the agenda, and I suspect that is where everyone's attention is currently focused.

However, back at the issue in hand, based on my experience, these things are just awaiting something to trigger them . I'm sure if someone stood on a reformist agenda, they would be surprised at the amount of support they would have. But I would expect it to take at least a couple of years from inception to delivery, for the reasons alluded to above.

--

Pete

[Keith Lomax]

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

The accounts were approved at the AGM in November. The late filing could be because the Company Secretary unfortunately passed away in December, however I understood from the CEO that it had been done - could be a backlog in processing at Companies House.

With regard to the audit, there are effectively two sets of accounts for legitimate reasons. The Statutory Accounts as filed on Companies House website are "truncated accounts" filed under the Small Companies Exemption regulations (under £5m turnover), which don't require an auditor but do include the auditor's comment as an "Independent Accountant". The more detailed accounts are contained in a "supplementary document" that is normally available from the AGM page on the BMFA website - however due to an error the accounts to 2015 were posted, and I have asked the webmaster to correct. The correct versions, however, were sent to the clubs before the AGM.

The Auditor who is appointed is a properly qualified and registered accountant (*). He reviews both the statutory accounts and supplementary document in detail each year in exactly the same way that he would if we were a larger company with a statory requirement to audit. Due to the diligence of our Accounts Manager, and oversight by the Council, the auditor has been satisfied with the documents as prepared, and it is several years since he has identified any discrepancies (which were down to minor recording errors, not fraud or control issues).

The accounts are also audited periodically by HMRC, which due to the nature of our activities is much more thorough than would be for a traditional business with comparable turnover. Again, they are always satisfied.

On top of that, whilst I am not a qualified accountant, I am an internal auditor with twenty seven years experience spread across four companies (currently employed by a multi-billion turnover financial leasing company), and I review the SMAE accounts before they reach the auditor.

(*) this is not the place to discuss the subtle differences, but there is a huge overlap between "accountants" and "auditors", such that for most purposes the terms are interchangeable. Most independent accountants are auditors and most auditors are accountants.

[Keith Lomax]

To address the issue of Country members and voting ...

If you look at the AGM minutes of an association such as the National Trust, who I believe have around 100,000 individual members and no comparable club structure, the majority of the votes cast are done in advance via proxy, which completely invalidates any discussions at the meeting. Total votes cast is in the region of 20%. You could conclude that most members don't care about the running of the organisation, they join to get access to visit the numerous properties. Not dissimilar to why many of our members join.

Even for a decision as significant as the National Centre, where clubs were consulted and lobbied to either attend or send proxies, total turnout was only about 20% of those entitled.

At a typical SMAE AGM we have 100 to 150 clubs represented. Of those, I suspect that they fall into three categories:

- those where the delegate has consulted his club members and discussed the upcoming proposals to garner their opinions

- those where the delegate has consulted his club committee and discussed the upcoming proposals to garner their opinions

- those where the delegate has consulted nobody and votes as he sees fit

I have no statistics available, but my guess is that the latter is probably the majority. When I was a club delegate and tried to involve them, my club used to say "you know about the BMFA, you decide".

[iqon]

What percent live to far away to vote !!! that should also be addressed......If anybody is up for the challenge...

one man one postal vote..

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Hi Keith

No amendments permitted at EGM because of proxies, so what discussion did we have ? other than all the very same points uttered before we got there. No axe to grind so i'll just say 1/4 of the membership left out of the decision making, wrong.

John

[Keith Lomax]

There has also been criticism in this thread of the status apparently afforded to "Fellows". These are individuals who have been recognised by the AGM for considerable service to the SMAE. I think there are currently around 30-35 still alive, of whom around half still play some involvement in the running of the Society. Around Eight are currently members of Council (including three out of nine members of the Executive). The rest are stalwarts of Area and/or Technical committees.

These individuals are entitled to five votes, but only in the event of a card vote at a General Meeting (which are rare; I can remember three such in all of my years of involvement). Even if all Fellows are present (or have sent proxies), and all vote the same way, then collectively they have the same voting strength as one large club.

FYI - the card votes that I can remember are the EGM in 2015; one time around 2012 when there was a proposal from the floor for a larger increase in subscriptions than I had proposed; and one in the mid 1990's that was a vote of no confidence in the elected officers of the day.