You may recall that we were asked to vote on the UKA’s proposals following up the Foster Report. This note explains how we came to our conclusions. Many thanks to Charles Lescott who took the time to analyse the proposals in depth and on whose text the following is based.

First, thanks to the people who responded direct to me and to other committee members. It’s great that you take an interest in the governance of athletics.

Background

The Foster report was commissioned in response to the Government’s Modernisation programme through the Sports Councils which fund athletics. Its purpose was to make recommendations to improve the structure of athletics in the UK with a view to improving the delivery of its objectives. These are 1) to encourage participation; 2) to develop potential; and 3) to create opportunities to compete. In deciding whether we should support the four proposed changes we considered how they would meet these objectives as well as how they would impact on the club.

Q1 Does your club support the proposals for decentralisation of
athletics delivery?

A1 YES

In dealing with modernising the organisation of athletics the report states various principles which are important to the structure, the most important of which are:- viewing athletics as a whole system; devolution; flat structure; and clear separation of structure. In order to deliver these principles an overall body, English Athletics, was proposed taking the responsibility of England away from UK Athletics allowing it to concentrate on UK wide issues. Below that nine regional bodies, or “hubs” are proposed which reflect the government system for delivery of funds through the regional assemblies, although the report envisages most funding being top down through UK Athletics. It would be the first contact point for all athletics activity in that region from competitor to official and coach. Regions would have a club development strategy and will play a key role in modernising the provision of competition. It is not clear how this would affect races and the existing county structure although it is unlikely to change greatly in the near future. It seems likely, however, that the athletics leagues would be rationalised along regional lines which would make them more manageable and could lead to greater participation.

Those that responded gave a luke-warm yes. The overriding
reason for this change is to fit into the government’s desire for
modernisation in order to win funding. It will also assist UK Athletics in its further objectives (below). There was some concern over the future of counties but, at least in the short term, these will continue to carry out their existing function.

Q2 Does your club support the proposed accountability plans for athletics in the UK?

A2 YES

This question follows on from question of decentralisation and wasn’t covered specifically in the report. A UK Supervisory Board is proposed to replace the UK Athletics Council. It will connect the English regions and other UK nations for the first time. Members will include Chairs of each national association which is seen as allowing grassroots a voice. It will oversee the direction of UK Athletics approving the appointment of Directors, annual report and accounts, and auditors.

As well as the Board accountability will run down to national and
regional level within English Athletics and its nine regions. The Chair of English Athletics will be elected and the councils will have an elected majority. This is seen as giving a pathway of accountability through clubs, regions, England and finally to the UK.

We are content that the level of accountability is satisfactory and that as a large club we will have an adequate say should we have any concerns. There are some additional proposals for example the regions getting involved with amalgamating clubs. There was general approval from those in the club who expressed an opinion.

Q3 Does your club support the proposed financial direction for athletics in the UK?

A3 YES

All these proposals are driven by the prospect of