Chairman candidate hustings

[TerriZeferino]

There was a nominee but they turned her down as her husband sold plants, the same as the current chair Graham Charles sells plants & many other of us do.

Sadly, I despair for the current plight of the BCSS, but it can only get better ...surely?

not the way it going, you would need to ask Terri zeferino for the details but it does seem odd that she is turned down for a post because her husband sells plants at some events, I thought we wanted to encourage the hobby & need people to sell at events.

This sounds like an overzealous interpretation of the guidance on conflicts of interest of the financial type. So long as the conflict of interest is declared there should be no problem. Unless the BoT lose their collective marbles and decide to stop allowing plant sales at BCSS functions, I don't see any significant conflict likely to arise.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/managing-co ... -a-charity

It absolutely is an overzealous interpretation. I even advised them of mitigations that could be put in place to prevent any issues occurring but they have refused to even acknowledge these - only quote the Charity Commission guidance There is no more conflict of interests for me than there is for any member at either Branch or National level who either sell plants or have a collection

[TerriZeferino]

There was a nominee but they turned her down as her husband sold plants, the same as the current chair Graham Charles sells plants & many other of us do.

Sadly, I despair for the current plight of the BCSS, but it can only get better ...surely?

not the way it going, you would need to ask Terri zeferino for the details but it does seem odd that she is turned down for a post because her husband sells plants at some events, I thought we wanted to encourage the hobby & need people to sell at events.

yes sadly there seems to be one rule for me and another for everyone else who could have a conflict of interests

[TerriZeferino]

Hi Terri

On the contrary. The journal team realised that by the time journals arrived overseas (given the poor postal services we are all experiencing these days) and the ballot paper was returned, that it would possibly not get to back in time. Hence offering overseas members the chance to email their vote. This is not making things ‘as difficult as possible ’ for members but is the opposite.

For UK voting it was decided that a ballot paper and an envelope was the most secure way of doing it, and preventing fraud. Of course as some commentators have suggested, emailing could have been an option but the amount of man-hours checking to see if voters were actual members and were not voting multiple times was just not feasible. Nobody has that time to spare, so on balance, and after thought and discussion between a few (mainly the journal team) it was decided to proceed in this way.

BTW, speaking of fraud - since free membership for under 18s was introduced recently you’d be surprised how many 2-year olds have subscribed.

Terri, please believe me but there are a few of us who are passionate about the Society and are constantly trying our utmost to make things as easy as possible for members!

Al
Hi Al I don't doubt for one moment that there are many fab people in our society who are passionate about our plants and want so many more to share and be excited by our wonderful plants, however a few who seem to 'hold all the cards' appear to forget this on occasions - apologies if I have offended you or others - purely frustration overall with our BOT

and there lies one of the problems with our society - not forward thinking and making things as difficult as possible for the members
[/quote]
[/quote]

[TerriZeferino]

The BOT atm don't have a legal expert on the team so you could be right, a mistake in interpretation of the rules

Indeed they don't and when I asked them if they had sought legal advice as to their decision to decline my application - they chose to ignore this and not answer - along with all my other queries We also have to consider why so many of our friends and fellow hobbiysts chose to leave the society.

[Pattock]

Gov.uk guidance, step 4 lists the types of situation to manage the conflict of interest including ‘deciding not to appoint a conflicted person’. Interested in any thoughts

That is not Step 4. That comes directly after Step 4 but is clearly a separate section, under the title "What to do about serious conflicts of interest". Having a partner who will benefit from an increased interest in cacti and succulents and venues where they can sell them does not seem much of a conflict to me, certainly not serious. It actually seems to be totally in line with BCSS aims.

There will only be a conflict of interest if you vote against other BOTs in a way that benefits your partner. Your interest will have been declared and well-known, as the guidance suggests. Unless you vote to exclude anyone else from selling at BCSS functions or that those nurseryfolk are chosen for scarce positions in reverse alphabetical order of surname, there is no conflict.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/managing-co ... -a-charity

The in-depth guidance is clear:

Trustees’ personal and professional connections can bring benefits to the work of a charity and they often form part of the reason why an individual has been asked to join the trustee body. However, they can give rise to conflicts of interest, to which the trustees must respond effectively.

The existence of a conflict of interest does not reflect on the integrity of the affected trustee, so long as it is properly addressed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... y-trustees

To deny a volunteer who is desperately needed for the good of the Society on such silly grounds seems to be very much against the first rule: "All trustees have a legal duty to act only in the best interests of their charity".

[TerriZeferino]

I don't do zoom, so not a lot of use to me

Andy

If you can access the forum through a web browser, there isn't really a reason why you couldn't watch this "on Zoom", as they have a web browser interface - you just click on the link provided.

Many people didn't but please do give it a go - everyone's input is important

[TerriZeferino]

Gov.uk guidance, step 4 lists the types of situation to manage the conflict of interest including ‘deciding not to appoint a conflicted person’. Interested in any thoughts

That is not Step 4. That comes directly after Step 4 but is clearly a separate section, under the title "What to do about serious conflicts of interest". Having a partner who will benefit from an increased interest in cacti and succulents and venues where they can sell them does not seem much of a conflict to me, certainly not serious. It actually seems to be totally in line with BCSS aims.

There will only be a conflict of interest if you vote against other BOTs in a way that benefits your partner. Your interest will have been declared and well-known, as the guidance suggests. Unless you vote to exclude anyone else from selling at BCSS functions or that those nurseryfolk are chosen for scarce positions in reverse alphabetical order of surname, there is no conflict.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/managing-co ... -a-charity

The in-depth guidance is clear:

Trustees’ personal and professional connections can bring benefits to the work of a charity and they often form part of the reason why an individual has been asked to join the trustee body. However, they can give rise to conflicts of interest, to which the trustees must respond effectively.

The existence of a conflict of interest does not reflect on the integrity of the affected trustee, so long as it is properly addressed.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... y-trustees

To deny a volunteer who is desperately needed for the good of the Society on such silly grounds seems to be very much against the first rule: "All trustees have a legal duty to act only in the best interests of their charity".

I agree but they won't listen or agree to this they appear blinkered by their own importance

[Jim_Mercer]

For UK voting it was decided that a ballot paper and an envelope was the most secure way of doing it, and preventing fraud. Of course as some commentators have suggested, emailing could have been an option but the amount of man-hours checking to see if voters were actual members and were not voting multiple times was just not feasible. Nobody has that time to spare, so on balance, and after thought and discussion between a few (mainly the journal team) it was decided to proceed in this way.

It might be the more secure option and require less of someone's precious time but may mean I am unable to vote as I am denied the possibility of using email so need to find someone to post the envelope for me

[rcapra]

Unfortunately, I am unable to join the zoom meeting for my work. Do you think you have a recording that I can listen to again as it is a very important topic?
Ruggero

Please don't forget this, Tuesday 22 March.

Don't forget to ASK YOUR QUESTIONS to the two candidates,


BCSS ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
Members of the BCSS have the chance to choose between two candidates for BCSS Chairman. There will be a voting paper and details of the two nominees in the March Journal. If you are a UK member, please cast your vote by returning your completed voting paper in the pre-paid envelope provided. Only overseas members can vote by email.

The two candidates are Stirling Baker and Gregory Bulmer. They have agreed to participate in a Zoom hustings meeting on Tuesday 22 March to allow members to hear their views on Society matters. Please join the meeting, ask questions and get to know the candidates. This is your chance to learn more about the challenges faced by the BCSS and how the future Chairman proposes to address them.

Topic: BCSS Election
Time: Tuesday 22 March 2022 at 7.30pm GMT
Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87659998886?p ... tNd1lwZz09
Meeting ID: 876 5999 8886
Passcode: bcss

[Cactus Kid]

Also why is there no mention of the vacant secretarial position on the agm memo, don't all empty posts have to be voted on/in.

Presumably because the post became vacant at the last moment?
If there are no nominees for the postion, then you cannot vote anyone in.

Sadly, I despair for the current plight of the BCSS, but it can only get better ...surely?

Ah but the post was vacant as our BOT requested volunteers in the December journal. The interim Sec was just that - and has resigned twice in the last 6 months Having always helped out at Branch level but resisted getting involved at National level due to my perception (which is reality) about the un-necessary politics I decided to volunteer for the post of Secretary, believing I could make a positive difference. But who knew the powers that be (who we as members have voted in) decided in their ultimate wisdom that they would decline my application - and my 'crime' - I am married to a part-time nurseryman and they feel there could be a conflict of interests So I start to look at the BOT members and others associated to them and low and behold if we are talking 'conflict of interests' and it's a problem? there are many instances and so the battle commences After responding to the very bland, almost 'standard' reply I had to chase for, I asked numerous questions and provided examples of other 'conflicts of interest' and surprise, not one has been responded to - therefore I am being treated differently to everyone else (unfairly and unjustly) and when I suggest they are discriminating again me, they tell me that at the meeting of 5/2/22 'We can also confirm that this was a fair and democratic process without any discrimination. In the Charities Commission document, Managing conflicts of interest in a society – Gov.uk guidance, step 4 lists the types of situation to manage the conflict of interest including ‘deciding not to appoint a conflicted person’. I find it interesting that as a society (even though this now seems to be a huge issue? we don't even have our own conflict of interest policy - what does that say? Interested in any thoughts

Surely this is a 'Must ask' question for the candidates tonight.