At the recent National Championships Bowls England held three workshops to give an overview of the early amalgamation between Bowls England and the English Indoor Bowling Association (EIBA). Twenty Seven Counties had a representative at the three workshops
We asking for ALL clubs to try and fill in the survey, the link is below
https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/BOWLS25
When asked to indicate how far you agree with the following statement:
My initial reaction to the proposal of merging Bowls England and the EIBA is positive. The vast majority of those who attended responded that they: Strongly agreed / Agreed When this was revisited at the end of the sessions, this viewed was largely unchanged
Reassurance was provided that the survey is an initial temperature check only. You will have ample opportunity through the process to provide feedback. This is just the start of the process
The benefits of a merger You largely agreed with the listing provided, i.e.
✓ Having a well governed sport, providing clarity on roles and responsibilities, a common set of policies and procedures, and any activity that can help volunteers were all consistently cited as key benefits
✓ Making the sport more appealing – for funders, for new players – was welcomed
✓ A joined up all-year-round competitions and events programme in principle was said to make sense but would need working though
✓ Merger gives you the opportunity to review some aspects of the sport that currently niggle (the voting arrangements on national matters) and will support your continued modernisation (e.g. your approach to governance) The extent of the benefits depends on the scope of the merger – there are obvious benefits at an organisation level from the get-go (e.g. a more efficient and streamlined leadership on one organisation) but the extent of benefits beyond that (for the individual player or a club for example) depends on other factors – i.e. investment in systems or changes to the playing structures
The barriers to a successful merger You largely agreed with the listing provided, noting that anything that increased the ask on volunteers would be challenging.
You mentioned:
➢ Good communication (frequent, using different channels, different methods etc.) was missing
➢ Bringing together two very different governance systems would take time to work through. Initial proposals as to what this could look like would be provided at the Counties sessions in November. This would be followed by a roadshow (details to be worked up) that would gauge reaction to the initial options. Good consultation was considered to be key to a successful merger
➢ Some felt the timeline was too extended (going to the vote in 2027), others too quick. It was explained the project would probably be in phases, with the first phase focused on bringing together the two different organisations. The extent to which counties, for example, would be mandated to merge indoor and outdoor provision was yet to be determined.
➢ The process of change would need careful management – the role of the appointed consultants, Campbell Tickell, would be key in this
➢ Some groups thought that not involving the other bowling bodies in the sport was an opportunity missed. It was explained the primary focus was on sorting flat green bowls and the funding for the project was specific to this
Appointed v Elected Chair
Views overwhelmingly positive for the proposal for BE to move to an Appointed Chair. The move forms part of the efforts to adopt best practice governance. This decision will go the BE membership at an SGM in November
The Chair appointment process
Pros of moving to an Appointed Chair
Access to the widest pool of skills and experience – members can still apply
A chance to publicise bowls externally
An opportunity to see a more diverse range of candidates
People are more likely to participate in a process that is discreet, and they can test their appetite and the fit
Chance to assess competencies through the recruitment process – bowls understanding is one of those
Greater alignment with the expectations of funders
Cons of the existing Elected Chair approach
Limit the pool of candidates
Quite difficult for members to make a judgement
Some members can be uninterested in voting for people they don’t know
The risk of a popularity contest rather than selecting the skills most needed by the Board
Risk of electing people who know how to speak to their known audiences but not others
Next steps:
• Steering Group starts to meet – representatives of both board
• Digest consultation sessions and quantitative research • Form a stakeholder forum – a critical friend
• Develop and deliver project framework
• Further discussions at, and around, the County Conference, with proposals, beginning to be fleshed out
• Preparation for November SGM including proposed revised Articles