BSA calls Extraordinary General Meeting

by **MediaSlut** » Wed May 23, 2007 6:15 pm

Following recent disagreements between the Executive Committee and the National Director of the British Surfing Association, the BSA Exec. have called an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM).
This is scheduled for 6.00pm on Saturday, 30th June 2007 at St. Michael's Church Hall, Newquay.
Any agenda items for inclusion should be forwarded to the BSA office at Fistral Beach

by **MediaSlut** » Fri May 25, 2007 6:00 pm

All - It looks like it's all out in the open now. See the updated article on: below...

This is a 'warts and all' account of what's been happening according to Dave Weight, and well worth the read even if you aren't a member of the BSA.

Statement from the Chairman of the BSA
David Weight. Chairman. BSA. 25th May 07.

I joined the committee a year and a half ago, mainly to promote environmental issues. Over many years I have campaigned to save beaches from environmental degradation from coastal engineering, and promote reefs as an alternative. This year should see the reef being built at Bournemouth, and a proposal as a reef for coastal defence and surfing has received approval for Borth in West Wales.

Increasingly, I got drawn into other matters, and while the BSA as a business continues to prosper, I became concerned about ethics, no more so than with regard to the UKSP (previously known as the BPSA). There is some history here, and the National Director, Karen Walton does have some grievances, particularly against Dave Read. My view was that if Karen's allegations were provable, we should consider legal action, but otherwise, draw a line under it, forget the past and negotiate a peace treaty with UKSP. The rest of exec felt similarly, and in an exec meeting in March, we agreed that a sub-committee progress this matter.

Whilst we felt that the name "British Professional Surfing Association" was cheeky as it could lead to confusion, but it was not until a year or so that we found that the use of the words "British" and "Association" were used illegally. Dave and John later agreed to change their name to "UK Surf Promotions". (I don't think that they had realised that the name was illegal). Karen then bought the name "British Professional Surfing Association Ltd".

A few days after the March meeting, a confusing "merger statement" was released by Karen. This was contrary to our wishes, and a complete shock to all of us. In essence, a merger was announced between the BSA and BPSA. The statement was strictly true but misleading and confusing, especially since it included pictures of Dave and John and their logo! This could have given rise the legal action, but UKSP relented, instead trusting us to deal with Karen.

There was unanimous demand from the committee to withdraw the merger statement from the BSA web-site. I called Karen, asking her to apologise and withdraw the statement, but it stayed there for a number of days.

Far from reconciliation, the rift widened when Karen sent an inflamatory e-mail to UK Surf promotions, undermining negotiations between the two groups.

The rift lead to a disciplinary hearing. Up to this point, the committee had been at one, but the ex-chairman, Dominic Bolletta backed Karen in trying to thwart the disciplinary hearing by "pulling rank". This is to misunderstand the role of chairman, which is to represent the committee, or otherwise step down. Other than a couple of absentees, the rest of committee were unanimous in wanting the disciplinary hearing. Karen did not attend the hearing, but the committee overwhelmingly agreed to send a warning letter to Karen, and a vote of no confidence was passed on the chairman Dominic Bolletta. Dominic resigned immediately by phone, and confirmed later by e-mail. Robert (Minnow) Green and I were voted co-chairmen. Dom later attempted to withdraw his resignation! The situation was obvious to everyone except Karen and Dom, and we had to spend BSA's money on legal fees to investigate to confirm the obvious. Despite all this, Karen and Dom insist that Dom is chairman to this day!

I have always ensured that on all the major issues, I have represented the majority of the committee in any case. Since the disciplinary hearing, there have been numerous matters of misconduct as Karen has disobeyed the committee.

Our solicitors advised us to suspend Karen in early May pending a disciplinary hearing without us even having to meet first, but we decided defer and put the matter to a second disciplinary hearing on 19th May. Again, Karen did not attend, though did agree later by phone to a Q & A session later in the day with her husband in attendance. I'm sorry to say that this session was farcical and made no progress whatsoever. (We had to miss the FA cup-final for this!) Our solicitors had advised that we would be entitled to dismiss Karen without fear of legal reprisals. However, the notice of an EGM two days before, did take the wind out of our sails and we felt that if we had a properly run EGM with a fair agenda, the members would see sense in any case and back us.

Some members and clubs, including the RAF club and Christian Surfers notified an EGM which was notified on Thursday 18th. This call was respected by the exec, but was not a valid because it did not name a venue or a date and therefore was not a binding notice, (since it did not state these things in accordance with the requirements of the constitution). The exec agreed and announced and set the date, and Karen was informed. It stands as 6pm Saturday, 30th June at St. Michael's church hall, Newquay. Some say that this is not sufficiently neutral, so we could still consider another location, but if so, feel that it should be a surfing location, like Bude, Croyde or Woolacombe.

For the exec, legally, it is our call. We could have a "composite" EGM meeting with an agreed agenda and neutral chairman, or two separate meetings. However, we are being asked to go along with Karen's plan which is:

1. Have the meeting to suit the RAF club. (Try looking up "RAF training Exeter" in Google). It is an RAF training centre.
2. Exclude items that we and many members want on the agenda. This is against the constitution and we believe, illegal.
3. Arrange the sequence to prevent understanding of the underlying issues before passing judgement on people
4. And I suspect - fly in Dom (ex-chairman) from Jersey to run the meeting to her agenda and sequence.

We have proposed a neutral chairman. I cannot pretend to be independent any longer. Dr Malcolm Findlay has offered. We have agreed, as has Phil Williams of Christian Surfers.

Finally, I must deal with some issues which Karen has publicised widely:

1. Executive meetings need 21 days notice. Disciplinary hearings have to be held soon after the misconduct. The BSA constitution makes no mention of disciplinary hearings, so general employment law and common sense applies. It is obvious that, following such a hearing, executive decisions are required immediately. Otherwise, the effect would be neutralised.
2. Like many people in the surfing industry. Ester Spears, as a photographer and journalist with Carve, works for competing clients. Just because he covers UKSP events and well as BSA events, does not mean that he has a conflict of interest. I think that Karen is alone in her view on this. Ester is a most valued member of the exec with great wisdom, experience and integrity. It is worth noting that Ester abstained in the vote on Dom.
3. The free membership for BSA exec members was brought in under Dominic's chairmanship. I didn't even know about it until after I joined and nor did John Baxendale. In any case, it's a trivial perk for all the hard work.

For a long time, I was entirely trusting of then National director, and were it not for working hard on the exec, I, like many members, would suspect that the exec had got it wrong.

I didn't ask for the job of chairman, but accepted a unanimous vote last week.

I hope that this message will help people to understand that the exec does a lot of hard work on their behalf. We know that as a business, the BSA has done well under Karen, but the BSA is a national governing body, not a business, and we have to be concerned about ethical standards as well as things like turnover and profit. If you agree, please support the executive.

It concerns me that if we are voted off, who, other than weak "Yes" men would be willing to apply some restraint and scrutiny to the National Director, especially when they know that they could be at the receiving end of abuse such as that sent out by Karen to members?