On Wednesday 6th June from 12-2pm, we will be hosting a live Q&A session in our forum with Andy Syme, chair of the BMC Yorkshire Area and member of the BMC National Council, ahead of BMC AGM on 16th June.
Have you got BMC AGM confusion? No time to wade through the longer threads on the topic with people who seem to know all the details? No problem: Andy is here to help. He's been working as a volunteer to implement the proposals of the recent organisational review report.
Feel free to ask Andy anything AGM-related, from "What is an AGM and why is it important?" all the way to technical details about the proposed constitutional changes that will be voted on.
Taking part is simple: keep an eye out for the UKC forum post titled 'LIVE Q&A: Andy Syme on the BMC AGM' and post your questions in a forum comment. Andy will be present to answer your questions promptly during the 2 hour session.
Comments
We're live! Post your questions to Andy on this thread and he'll answer them.
Have you got BMC AGM confusion? No time to wade through the longer threads on the topic with people who seem to know all the details? No problem: Andy is here to help. He's been working as a volunteer to implement the proposals of the recent organisational review report.
Feel free to ask Andy anything AGM-related, from "What is an AGM and why is it important?" all the way to technical details about the proposed constitutional changes that will be voted on.
Looking forward to some lively debate. Will do best I can to answer what I can immediately, or will provide an answer back later if I don't have an immediate response on a specific issue
The key issue is the proposal to change the Articles of Association (the rules on how the BMC runs). This has been needed for awhile but 'stuff' kept putting it back. So the National Council and Exec, with support from others have produced a new set of articles (Option A) which we are asking members to vote on.
These do change the relationship with the NC and Exec (which would be renamed the Board), but we have worked to ensure the checks and balances are in place and believe these represent a significant improvement in how we will operate in the future. They will also allow us to implement the other changes the ORG recommended in an effective way.
What fall-out might we expect were neither of the two options to receive sufficient support?
There is also a contested Presidential election which hasn't happened for a few years. Something which I think is good for our 'democracy'.