Could some nice person copy and paste the response please :smile: ?
CPSA Statement regarding Joe Kitson’s resignation from the Board
Joe Kitson tendered his resignation from his position as a CPSA director by notifying the Chief Executive in an email late on 5th March 2016, attaching an undated and unsigned letter. Following a request, a signed and dated print out of the letter was received at the CPSA offices on Tuesday 8th March. No directors, West Midlands Regional Committee or Staffs County Committee members (listed on the letter) appear to have received a copy direct yet late on the afternoon of Sunday 6th a copy of the unsigned letter was posted on social media.
As his resignation letter has been published in this way, and in view of its nature, the Board believes it is necessary to correct some of the inaccuracies in it, and respond to the complaints he makes.
Joe complains that he was advised, correctly, that all CPSA directors are obliged to make decisions based on the best interests of the CPSA (the company). This should, of course, benefit the membership as a whole rather than just a particular part of it.
He also records being “very unhappy with some of the decisions made by the majority of the board.” That is, of course, how Boards work. When the directors make a decision that is a decision of the Board as a whole, even if it is passed by a majority of the directors. This is a prerequisite for any board to function effectively.
He was refused a copy of the audio recording of a Board meeting, which he had requested ‘for his records’. The official record of the meeting, the minutes, were published using the recording for reference. He now admits that, contrary to what he said at the time, he wanted to pass the recording to his solicitor to take action against another director, an act that would no doubt have led to further disruption and costs for the CPSA.
Joe alleges ‘interference’ from the Chairman and CEO in his new role as chairman of the ESK sub-committee. The true position is that the CEO had to step in and pick up the pieces of the fallout caused when Joe excluded two of the Regional Committee nominees, and the England Team Manager (all permanent positions on each of the discipline sub-committees) from the group. This led to a series of complaints from members and Joe’s resignation, within a couple of months of taking up the post. Although Joe is correct that the committee has not met since his departure, that is only because it has carried on its business in other ways, largely by email, to save time and cost.
Joe’s suggestion that the rules or guidelines were not followed in respect of his appointment as team manager of the England Skeet Team is incorrect. The provision of an assistant was arranged to help to ensure a viable fall-back position should Joe be unable to continue for medical or other reasons.
Joe incorrectly states that Terry Bobbett was ‘voted off by the membership as chairman’. Terry Bobbett stood for the National Director vacancy when his three year term expired alongside Michele Conway in 2014 and Michele won the ballot. There was no vote by the members to remove the Chairman. CPSA Article 15 provides that the directors appoint the Chairman. When a vacancy subsequently arose in the south-west region Terry put himself forward and was the only member to do so. When he returned to the Board, the directors were asked to choose a new chairman as David Jellicoe said he could no longer devote the necessary time to the role and Terry was voted in with no one voting against him and two abstentions.
Part of the letter refers to a recent disciplinary case, in which the member was found guilty of serious misconduct by an independent disciplinary panel, and this decision, and the sanction, was unanimously upheld by the directors hearing the appeal. It is true that the CPSA was put to significant cost by the behaviour of the member concerned (although not the sum stated by Joe), but Joe makes no criticism of this.
Joe complains that Mr Moorhead’s firm was instructed to represent the CPSA in those disciplinary proceedings. Firstly, it was necessary for the CPSA to be advised and represented in the matter (the member concerned had chosen to be represented by a Queen’s Counsel). Secondly, Edward Wheen is a solicitor with significant relevant experience and was a good choice to help the CPSA with this He had advised the Association previously. Thirdly, there was never any secret that Ben Moorhead was senior partner of Moorhead James (he had properly declared his interest), nor any need for him to absent himself from Board meetings where this disciplinary matter was discussed.
