TOPIC:

From the grassroots

I have had the pleasure of living in this fair city for over 40 years, and have seen it change from a dirty, dishevelled, bomb site to a World Heritage city. When I arrived here in the early 1970's, The 'Buchanan Plan,' had just been defeated by the 'Save Bath campaign' a grass roots organisation that saved the city from destruction by the forces of so called modernisation. The plan had been to drive a motorway through the heart of the city, demolishing Walcot Street and The Bell in the process.
At the eleventh hour, this madness was stopped, and Walcot Street gradually became the' Artisan Quarter', a council derived label for the odd-balls, squatters, artists, musicians, thespians and trades peoples who built a vibrant community from the blighted land, the social hub and watering hole of which was, yes !... The Bell Hotel.

Fast forward to the 21st century

The Bell has now become a co-operative of share-holders who have joined together, in good faith, to save the Bell from the ravages of capitalism, because it was recognised that this unique institution is much, much more than just figures on a profit and loss sheet, It's where we come to play, drink and enjoy a unique social ambience that is second to none.
This venerable institution is now run as a cooperative who annually elects a board, that, in turn, hires (and fires) a management team. So far, so good.

It has come to my attention that only three members of the board can be replaced annually, Is this so? ,then why! I would prefer that ALL board members are available for the shareholders scrutiny, and the election process, annually.

I would hope that the board is made up of regular patrons of the Bell, It would be abhorrent if board members were to occupy 'vanity' positions, that look good on their political CVs, but have no business being within our community if they are only there for self-serving reasons.

The Bell has always run at a reasonable profit, I do not wish for it to exist as a cash cow for it's shareholders. In a Cooperative,maximising profit is NOT the name of the game, Inclusivity of all who come through its doors, regardless of their social status, has to be the main objective.

In conclusion, board-members have to bear in mind that their position is entirely dependent on their performance, and their understanding that they hold a position of trust within our community.


All comments on these observations welcome, lets have engagement and transparency please!

I believe it is (roughly) so. Rule 76 of "The Rules of The Bell" says:

"Retirement Cycle
76. At the first annual general meeting all Directors shall stand down. At every subsequent annual general meeting one-third of the Board of Directors, or if their number is not a multiple of three then the number nearest to one-third, shall retire from office. The Directors to retire shall be the Directors who have been longest in office since their last election. Where Directors have held office for the same amount of time the Directors to retire shall be decided by lot. A retiring Director shall be eligible for re-election."

I am not sure exactly how to read this rule but I suspect that it means "at least" three a year, rather than "only" three a year. At least three of the nine must retire or seek re-election every year. It could be more if a lot of directors want out, or are ill, or whatever.

This means that on a board of nine, every member will be subject to a vote within three years of their latest election. This year I guess the three will be chosen by drawing lots. That's more frequent voter scrutiny than, for instance, UK parliaments, local councils, or indeed independence referendums. Additionally, Rule 103 sets out other ways of getting rid of a director, in extremis. The nine Nazgul never had to deal with that kind of voter oversight.

I don't see a problem with this system. You have to balance continuity against turnover. It seems to me there's something to be said for a measure of continuity. A constitution that allows the whole board to change every year could lead to sudden shifts in policy, excessive drama, and loss of experience. I'm sure it takes more than a year to learn how to do the job well.

I don't see a problem with a limited number of directors up for renewal each year ... that is the norm in public companies and provides the board with the continuity it needs for everyone to work together.

I also don't see any sign of any of the current board using their positions for self-agrandisement.

Simon.

thankyou Spine for your concise and thorough reply, I understand that continuity is essential for efficient administration and am happy that the board has sufficient accountability to the shareholders. My post was prompted by an after hours discussion with concerned individuals and your reply goes a long way towards alleviating those concerns.

Alistair - the Buchanan Tunnel scheme would only have demolished Chatham Row had it been put into practice, and the net result of the suggestion was that it blighted the properties there to such an extent that I have many friends who own its houses, having bought them for as little as £600 in the 1970s. The Bell would have stayed.

You must remember that all of the Board Members have taken on a considerable amount of unpaid work (they have been shocked at how much) on top of their already heavy workloads, and most of them are so well-established in their own fields that they do not need to mention their membership on The Bell Board on any C.V.s. In fact, most don't need to show anyone a C.V. at all - they are too far down the road for that now.

You seem to be worried about 'feathering of nests' when it comes to Board membership, but I cannot see any why anyone would want to sit on the Board for any other reason than the good of The Bell. If a Board member attends a meeting, they have allowed themselves the luxury of one free drink, and many of them don't even take that.

As far as accountability and transparency is concerned - in relation to performance - I think that has been taken care of by Spine, but there has only been one AGM so far, and there is much more experience to be clocked-up by The Board before anyone can start blaming them for poor performance.

The last few months has been spent mainly in finding a new General Manager, and this has obviously taken up a great deal of their private time. Now Arron is in that post, much of the day-to-day running of the pub is taken away from the shoulders of the staff and Board, as Arron is a highly experienced pub-manager, which not all of the others are.

This means that they now have a bit more time to sort out some of the other pressing issues (toilets?! ), but just remember that it is their own time they are spending on them, and we voted them in.

Thanks Alistair for raising this, and thanks to Bushy and others for the replies, but I wish there were a few more.

For geographical reasons I can't get to the pub often and so this forum is my main means of keeping up to date with what is going on, but I am continually surprised by how little interest there seems to be in the discussions here, seeing as 500 or so of us have invested quite a lot of money in the hope of the venture succeeding!

I was also concerned to hear someone (Bushy?) reporting that at least one board member doesn't consider it their role to reply to queries raised on this forum. I think that's a pity, I'm sure our elected board is doing a great job and working very hard for us without being paid, but I personally don't know much about what they are doing for us. I wonder if they would like to let us know in a few words why they don't participate in these discussions?

John