Saturday, 3 July 2010

Thursday, 1 July 2010

BCS EGM Results & Thanks

Dear all,

I just wanted to thank you all for the support and encouragement you have given me and the other signatories to the EGM held today. In particular I wanted to single out for a special thank you to Conrad Taylor, the webmaster of the wiki site that we used to provide news and updates. He had a very difficult job in listening and dealing with our many revisions.

The EGM was a long, interesting and intense meeting that, by and large, was held in the professional manner that anyone would have hoped for, where lots of feelings where aired before the final votes were taken.

I was approached after the meeting by various members, including a number that had opposed the original motions, who said that the results had shown that there were issues that needed to be listened to.

At the conclusion of the meeting a number of the EGM signatures met with various Trustees and Council members to discuss ways forward and it was agreed before the discussion closed that a joint statement would be produced as soon as possible on that way forward.

With all that and the short meeting after the EGM I am hopeful of a more positive future

In case you have not seen the results of the votes here are the numbers for and against of each motion.

Motion 1 – For 3271 – Against 10662

Motion 2 – For 3174 – Against 10613

Motion 3 – For 5557 – Against 9217

Motion 4 – For 11050 – Against 3051

Motion 5 – For 10567 – Against 3439

Motion 6 – For 10475 – Against 3354

The Special Resolution to increase the number of members required to call an EGM was withdrawn from the EGM by the Chairman of the Meeting, the President.

As far as I am aware this is the highest vote there has been in the history of the BCS and does show it is not just 52 fuddy duddys.

One thing is certain this is not the end of the process and to paraphrase it may not be the beginning of the end but it is perhaps the end of the beginning.

Your servant

Len Keighley

Thursday, 17 June 2010

Changing Your EGM Vote

It appears that a number of BCS members who have now had chance to see both sides of the debate wish to change their vote.

The Electroral Reform Society, the independent body running the voting on behalf of BCS, have therefore provided he following information.

"Should someone wish to alter their vote, they should notify us by emailing We will be able to reset a person’s security codes and they will then be able to login again and resubmit their proxy form. Similarly, we can also re-issue a paper ballot and remove the original from the count."

Support for EGM Motions Posted on BCS Web Site

These are comments raised in response to the live BCS Webinair on Thursday 10th June.

Wednesday, 16 June 2010

Support from Former BCS Specialist Group

I have just picked up on the current round of BCS ‘transformations’ and your call for an EGM.

I am the chairman for the British APL Association who were forced to leave the BCS about 2 years ago after their previous round of membership changes. At that time our group had a very large overseas membership (60%) and a high number of retired professional members (25%). The BCS insisted that all group members had to become full BCS members etc. Etc. This was of no interest to our membership and combined with many other effects of the new rules caused us to call an EGM at which of our own only 1 person out of 652 voted for us to stay in the BCS – subsequently we left. To say the least our members were furious.

We have since (and remain) in conflict with the BCS over the position they left us in. Our funds, including specific gifts, have been absorbed by the BCS who refuse to return any of it. They can give no evidence to our exact membership status as a group or to the terms in which we were originally signed up. The acceptance of the BCS rules were never agreed to. I suspect however that this is not new as my discussions with some other groups have indicated similar issues and a concern that they too may have to leave.

The BCS have shown themselves to be highly un-professional and deliberately obstructive. The Finance department have never returned any of our communications and any communication with the membership departments has fallen on deaf ears. After saying that Judith Taylor has been somewhat more helpful in recent times. We have been left with the view that actually the BCS do not care about the membership only their own internal processes and procedures and we would agree that the BCS is operating outside of their Royal Charter and in some instances against the Charity Commission guidelines.

After our AGM last month it was decided that we would be writing to the Trustees of the BCS to indicate, in more forceful terms, our position and that we will consider a legal challenge to their currently held position if our questions cannot be satisfactorily answered or funds returned.

In our experience the BCS priority is most certainly not its members.

I am not sure if any of this helps you with your campaign but we wish you every success; if only to give the BCS a well deserved ‘kick up the backside’ and a reality check. If they carry on the way they are going they will lose what little credibility they currently have and become the ‘Golden Wonder’ of the IT world; Good idea, Good product but just not good enough.

Best regards

Paul Grosvenor