England Handball Association

Transcription

1 England Handball Association National Executive Committee meeting 18 March am 2.30pm, Tennis Centre Seminar Room 3, Loughborough University Agenda Item Minute and Action Responsible Action 1. Attendanc e and welcome Board members: Chair Mike Briers (MB), Clare Henderson (CH); Chris J Smith (CJS); Ed Simpson (ES); Sue Whitehead (SW); Marc Fayemi (MF); Geoff Woodall (GW) via telephone for part of meeting. Staff: David Meli (DM) a) MB welcomed everyone to the board meeting. After opening the meeting, MB asked to make a statement regarding his conduct in a conversation with GW, BB and SW. He apologised unreservedly to all three for his intemperate comments. There had been repeated telephone and conversations over a lengthy period of time and frustration. He offered his sincere apologies to GW, BB and SW. SW voiced her concerns about the recent recruitment process for internal candidates at risk of reducndancy, and it was noted that GW and BB agreed with SW s views. After a discussion it was agreed that Peninsula should undertake a review of the relevant policies and procedures and how they had been applied in this case, and report its findings to the board. It was noted that it may be necessary for DM and other relevant personnel to be trained on the recruitment policies, and that the policies may need to be updated. The board noted SW s suggestion that no one who had not been properly trained on the Association s recruitment policies should be involved in recruitment. MB reported that he had received a letter from Chris Smith (Finance Director) resigning as a director with immediate effect.

2 b) Apologies: Bill Bailie (BB), Chris Smith (CS) c) Declarations of interest there were none. d) Confirmation of quorum. 2. Minutes of Previous Meeting a) Review and Approval of Minutes: The Minutes of the last meeting were reviewed and accepted as a true record, subject to the amendments noted below. In addition, DM ran through the minutes from the previous meeting, and any matters arising: Protocol for incidents involving referees remains outstanding; it has yet to be published. There is still some uncertainty as to where this sits and who takes this on disciplinary committee or competitions and events committee. CJS asked for an amendment to the Minutes EHA should not think that clubs are waiting for them to take action. When using the term escalator CJS meant developing CPD, upscaling the workforce with higher levels of attainment. ES asked for an amendment to the Minutes the removal of the sentence regarding some of the roles being redundant. ES did not meant roles would be redundant, but that the Board structure needed to reflect the new strategy and skills, and that should be reflected in Board roles. MF, CJS and DM had met. CH has collated bullet points re: board structure. DM confirmed there is still funding available from SE in the recruitment of a new Chair. ES has drawn up the proposal for the EGM. DM reported that the general consensus at club meetings was that they have yet to understand the true benefit of the new proposal. DM has suggestions for the plan for spending see later in the meeting. Job descriptions were reviewed. DM had circulated the dates for future board meetings. b) Matters Arising not otherwise on the Agenda none. c) Identification of any items of AOB: CH requested the Board s position regarding trust in DM in light of the harsh criticism of DM and the Board not robustly defending is undermining his position and perhaps a statement or clarification is required. MB asked DM if he felt questioned? DM said that in this role, there are always ups and downs. CH suggested it Action: to follow up on which committee the referee protocol site with.

3 3. Main strategic discussion topics was almost like fake news lots of people making comments then undermines DM and the Board. DM said he appreciated the sentiment and is paid well for the role, and there will always be some decisions that are difficult and he gets paid to do both the easy and more tricky work. He advised that he does the role to the best of his ability, and should the Board think he needs support or to be retrained, he would do so. GW joined the meeting via Webex. The board noted the allegations of bias and discrimination made by Radu Miclaus in connection with his application for the Competition and Events position. It was agreed that ES would respond on behalf of the board after reviewing the process and Mr Miclaus s application, and taking advice from Peninsula. DM confirmed that part of the contract with Peninsular was that if they provide advice and it is followed by EHA, there is legal cover available. a) Board Structure discussion. CH outlined the suggestion to align board roles with the new strategy, with four elected, four appointed board members, one non-exec and the CEO. (See CH s document provided for Board meeting). ES suggested the four appointed roles could bring in the external expertise that would help support the board. A discussion took place regarding which roles could be elected and which could be appointed. One suggestion was to build on the regional areas that were to be developed in line with the strategy rather than specific areas that align with the strategy. DM suggested he talks to other governing bodies, within sport, and find out their key roles as a comparison, as he has a meeting with colleagues on Monday. MB suggested that for clubs and membership, a dynamic person was required to increase numbers and clubs as there is still a wealth of talent missing. ES asked if the drive should come from the clubs rather than EHA? CH commented that 50% of members are lost year on year, so perhaps focus should be on supporting clubs to maintain membership, or encourage volunteering, refereeing, etc. MB asked the reason for such a drop out. GW said there were many foreign players who played in clubs for a season or two, and then returned home. CH commented that it was British as well as foreign players with whom there are issues with retention. DM said there was an element of transience. There is a funnel situation, and when clubs meet maximum capacity, what then happens? Should stronger clubs support new clubs to emerge to create more capacity for retention of members. Action: ES to discuss with DM/Peninsula and write a response on behalf of EHA. Action: DM to discuss with other governing bodies key roles on their board.

4 CH said the feedback from club meetings was that the Board was not very well connected with the membership, so this role would help with engagement. DM said the aim is to keep people engaged, on and off the court. CH suggested the structure needed to correlate with operational accountability. CS said there were 10 times more clubs in education, yet they are not seen in the membership. CH suggested they could be included in the role descriptor. ES asked which roles would be best suited to elected roles. In Triathlon, the elected are representative members from the regions East/West/North. The role as an elected director is to represent the membership. DM confirmed this could tie in with the three regions EHA planned to build on. ES said the key area for the strategy was to bring in fresh thinking, have more external people with key skills. This is the opportunity to bring someone in who has run a talent pathway or membership elsewhere. There followed a break for the EGM. b) Recruitment process for Chair following EGM vote. Following the vote which did not approve the proposal put forward by the Board, ES had re-read the Articles of Association and said the Chair does not have to come from the members, only ratified by the members. The question would be whether an external candidate would want to participate in the recruitment process, and yet possibly not be ratified by the membership at the final stage. Perhaps if the membership was involved in an ongoing consultation, and it was a formal transparent process, it might be an alternative option. SW commented that this was what she was hoping for that the membership have a say. DM raised concerns that it would become a popularity contest. If the recruitment process took place, there should only be one person put forward to the AGM for the membership to ratify. It should be a yes/no process. The membership could be involved in the decision process. MB asked if the person put forward should have to present at the AGM? SW suggested it should be a written presentation circulated in advance. DM also said that if it was left to a presentation on the day, only the few who attend would hear it and it should be opened up to as wide a group as possible. Then having digested the presentation, the membership could offer their approval. ES said the Board had always upheld the membership should have their vote. The idea is to present a person to the membership who has been through a formal transparent appointment process,

5 with the membership engaged and informed, to make their decision. SW commented that if it was to be down to an appointments panel, the membership would need to have confidence in the panel. If there were two genuine equally able candidates, they should be put forward. ES said the panel should decide the preferred candidate; it would be incumbent on the panel to make the recommendation. CH asked whether if external recruitment was to take place, was it likely to be completed in time for the AGM in June? Would candidates also come forward from the membership? ES said he could review the job specification for the role of Chair in the next week, so that the role could be advertised. CJS asked what the impact of losing the vote today was? DM replied that a Chair is not a requirement for governance for SE. During the meeting, DM circulated the current job specification for Chair. ES replied that once this had been reviewed, the process could start, it could be advertised to the membership, the usual websites used for recruitment. Next an appointments committee will need to be developed, with membership involvement. It could include one or more of the elected directors, who represent the membership. CH asked whether members could put themselves forward. DM said that perhaps they would need to outline their skills and expertise to be on the appointments panel. ES suggested that the members get involved, put themselves forward and say why they are appropriate qualified to be part of the panel. ES said a remit for the panel would be required, and the desired outcome. To put forward to the AGM a suitable candidate or anyone who matches the job specification? DM suggested the appointments panel should be trusted to recruit a suitable person to put forward to the membership. It will be important to engage with the membership, so that they feel confident in the process. Action: DM to check when the proxy vote was sent out. SW asked what would happen if the membership reject the person put forward? ES advised that the Board would nominate an interim Chair and the process would be repeated. The AGM is on 17 June, so there is approximately two months to identify candidates, because their presentation would have to be circulated with the AGM papers in advance. It was suggested a possible three week deadline for the advertisement, although it could include the Easter period. CH asked whether the candidate needs to be whittled down by 18 May and whether the papers relating to the election of a new Chair could be circulated separately? DM said the notice can go out advising members of the papers to follow. CH said it was important to ensure everything was carried out legally. DM commented that

6 it was important to allow the membership time to digest all the information before making their decision. CH asked if it was possible to have an EGM? ES replied that it could be possible to do at the AGM in June, but if because of circumstances it wasn t possible, the Board should not feel obliged to put someone forward. The Board could notify the membership that they are still looking for a candidate, and will call an EGM when a preferred candidate has been through the process. SW asked the latest date proxy votes could be included in the vote. DM replied it was 4pm the day before the vote. 5. Business Directors Reports a) Finance: CS & DM have pulled together the budget for 2017/18 following confirmation of the continued SE funding. It was being presented to the Board for approval. It follows the same format as last year. CH asked DM if there were concerns. DM said that the SE funding was fixed income, but other streams were more fluid. There is no plan to increase membership fees, although increase of members would help. The AASE programme s replacement is still to be finalised, following its extension for two more years. DM will be working hard to protect this stream of revenue and has accepted the role of Chair for a committee to work on a replacement for the AASE scheme. The budget was approved by the Board. DM circulated some suggestions for utilising the surplus from 16/17 which were discussed. It was agreed that they could be used to support and incentivise the membership. E.g. referee courses, safeguarding courses. DM asked if the Board was comfortable with the concept, and everyone agreed. EHA has been approached by ISC (a commercial agency) following the recent commercial review, offering to help source and generate commercial revenue streams in return for a monthly retainer. DM negotiated with them and agreed a monthly retainer, and an agreed commission rate payable once income of over 30,000 had been generated. CH confirmed that some of the unutilised budget from the commercial role not being filled was being used. A review date has been set for eight months time, when tangible results should start to be emerging. SW asked if there were any risks to this. CH said that ISC had worked to understand EHA s current situation, and their pitch was realistic. DM said it was in their interests to make it work. He has also spoken with counterparts for feedback. Action: Board members to

7 Upskilling the workforce is another area that can benefit from the surplus, which may also include regional academy coaches. Another suggestion was funding the offset of drop in hours for an employee for one year until the AASE replacement programme is finalised. SW commented that the success of the AASE programme wasn t down to one person, it was also down to the tutors too, and wasn t sure about identifying one person to benefit. DM agreed this could be looked at and asked Board members to offer any additional suggestions to him as soon as possible. send suggestions to DM ASAP. SW asked what would happen after that one year. DM replied that he hoped to know more about the replacement for the AASE programme, the level of funding and numbers, so that a decision can be made. b) Marketing & Commercial: CH apologised for the lack of report. CH highlighted the cup final plans which would be similar to last year, with an improvement and increase in streaming, some pre-match recording, special guests. c) Governance & Legal: SE s letter of intent from Sport England also includes a matrix that compares EHA board compliance with the governance code. An action plan will be needed, including how EHA plans to tackle diversity on the Board, a formal succession plan, an externally facilitated governance review, staff survey amongst other things. The plan needs to be in place by 19 April There are 15 points raised. Two thirds have been dealt with in the EHA response to SE. The remainder do not have to be completed by 19 April, but the plan must be in place. SE are moving to quarterly payments, based on compliance with the plan submitted to SE. Diversity will be the hardest one to tackle. It can be written into policies, and EHA can ask SE for input and guidance. d) Discipline & Appeals: Nothing raised. e) Refereeing & Officiating: This item has now been removed. CH asked if CC would feed into the Competitions and Events committee. MF said this could be discussed. Refereeing is still an issue, so it would seem sensible. CC sent MF a list of points to raise. CH commented that the Board recognises refereeing might not be vital to every Board meeting, but should be recognised in the committees.

8 6. Portfolio Directors Reports a) Workforce Development: No questions or comments. Miriam is collating the information as requested. b) Performance & National Teams: No questions or comments. c) Handball Development: SW apologised for the lack of report due to lack of information. DM to follow up. Action: DM to investigate. d) Competitions & Events: MF apologised for the lack of report; it was drafted, but he was locked out of his flat, so could not access it to upload it to the drive. He will do so. MF updated the Board verbally on what is currently being worked on Fit For Purpose criteria, sanctions, list for competitions, rules and regulations for next season, proposed amendments, calendar for next season, a review of the junior league and the structure for next year. A special task is going to be assigned to each member of the committee, allocated by expertise, to make things more efficient. The addition of CC could be a benefit. There are various issues to be addressed regarding disciplinary process, as MF outlined in the operational call previously including the consistency of sanctions, appeals, review of cases, audit of the process. CH commented that it was clear at club meetings that many were unhappy that the process wasn t as transparent as it could be. It seems there is a procedure and process issue. The Board does nto have accessibility or transparency. There has not been a report to the board for some meetings. It was agreed the Board should know numbers of disciplinaries, the number resolved, sanctions, etc. DM suggested the statistics could be useful to look at recurring trends, see what could be reduced. MF agreed there should be a clarity on responsibilities and the process should be reviewed. CH outlined the bigger concern was a lack of efficient and professional responses. MF suggested an independent review of the process. CH asked if the information was on the website. MF said there were some listed, some were missing and there were some inaccuracies. SW asked if the cases are on the website. DM replied they was a list of individuals or teams with sanctions applied, but there is no report, no dates. MF wants to initiate the process for next season so that clubs can be confident in the process. Action: MF to send information to CH as vice chair to discuss with GW. CJS asked if the fact the EHA relies on volunteers hampering the process and should it be part of workforce. DM replied that it needs to be thought out

9 carefully, but it should be independent. He also commented that there were issues which were not being handled correctly current. Clarity is needed. 7. Risk Manageme nt a) Review of Risk Matrix DM confirmed he had updated the risk matrix with new comments in orange. It was suggested that with the new funding cycle, it might be a good idea to reconsider the matrix and risks and update. b) Actions to mitigate identified risks None 8. Any Other Business DM advised interviews took place on Thursday 16 th March for the Competitions & Events Manager position there were six candidates and the panel consisted of MB, MF and DM. They are meeting on Tuesday 21 March to review the interviews and try to appoint. It was going to be a difficult decision, in a positive way. There were 52 applications. SW asked why it was taking so long? DM said the three of them wanted to review their notes, scores and ensure the right person was appointed, as two or three candidates were quite evenly matched. Because of funding cuts in other governing bodies, there were many who had been made redundant from the governing bodies, hence the high number of applications. ES raised the issue of the double booking of the Copper Box. EHA had booked it for Cup Finals, but Copper Box are now trying to ask EHA to change their booking. ES advised EHA could insist the contract is honoured. Alternatively, they could seek considerable compensation. MB asked where else the event could be held. ES replied if EHA decides it is appropriate to move, the date or the venue, adequate recompense would be vital. There would be significant consequences. DM is to look at options available. BB suggested the Soccer Dome in Manchester. Nottingham or Worcester are other options, but floors would need to be laid, adding to the cost. There could only be 200 spectators at the Soccer Dome. There is lots to consider and in the response, EHA does not want to give any indication they will be prepared to move. A reminder was that the date for the next operational call will be in April.

10 9. Date of next meetings 13 May 2017.