The K's In Point

"The Board"

By Taimour (WeHateWombles)10/8/2023 22:18Thu Aug 10 22:18:21 2023

Views: 1187

I'm told there has been some discussion on Facebook about whether or not it's any longer correct to refer to "the Board" as an entity rather than simply the four shareholding Directors who comprise the Board, sorry, the committee formerly known as "the Board".

A Facebook post from the Supporters Club Chair stated "I have just checked with John Fenwick. It is the case that the club directors no longer call themselves a board of directors... they simply have directors meetings now... there is not now a committee called the board."

A reasonable question would be: why the change this summer after so many years?

If a Board is simply an executive committee running an organisation, what possible reason would there be to resist referring to themselves as "the Board"? The only one i can think of is that "the Board" (i'll henceforth put it in quotation marks) used to act collectively with a united front on decision-making, even when a vote had been split. That was certainly how KBH were expected to operate if we had been permitted to buy a shareholding. We were directly asked if we would sign up to collective responsibility of this kind.

If people don't know, the four-person "Board" currently has four shareholders but, despite unequal shares, it's one shareholder/Director, one vote. So Yiorgios (5% shareholding) has as much of a say on decisions as Fenwick (roughly 25%), Anderson (25%) or Hayward (15%) - nb. there is another shareholder who is not on the Board. Some votes are unanimous, others are not. We don't get to know.

Perhaps "the Board" no longer want to issue collective statements or act as a united body. The question then arises as to what they may be divided upon. If Hayward has indeed stepped away (while retaining his shareholding), and with Anderson also distant, perhaps they do not want to be automatically associated with decision-making made in their absence. Are they even attending Directors' meetings?

Further, what is the role of Ben Flatt in all of this? He was announced as a "non-executive director". Does that mean he has no shareholding, attends the Board meetings (sorry, the "directors meetings") but has no vote?

I think it would be appropriate for the Supporters Club to seek some answers as to the change. If it's purely cosmetic and there is no substantive reason, I rather think "the Board" should be busy enough as it is without indulging in empty gestures. Is it simply so they can respond to the chant "Sack the Board!" by saying "but there isn't one!"?