I understand that specimen angler Tony Gibson wants changes at the very top of the Angling Trust and is looking to oust Mark Lloyd. However, while his intentions may be admirable, Mark Lloyd’s isn’t an elected post, but a position of employment.
There was a grave fear running through my mind when the Trust was first formed that it was being run by the same people who had so spectacularly failed to come to terms with running angling; namely the NFSA and NFA. Nice, well-meaning people, but in no way up to the job in hand.
The one angling-related group that had done well – from a job-done standpoint rather than a membership-numbers success story – was the ACA, so the obvious choice of leadership was the dream-team of Stephen Marsh-Smith, who without doubt had turned the fortunes of the ACA around, along with the campaigning skills of Mark Lloyd.
Mr Marsh-Smith carried the can for the shambolic state of the Trust’s finances and fell on his sword and Mark Lloyd has retained his own position. I don’t know what his job remit is, but the current words coming from ‘the Trust’ with regard to predation are not the views of most anglers who I come across and I am sure can’t be the views of the board – unless some senior members have had a sea-change of opinion. They are certainly not the views of the advisory group so warmly accepted by the Trust’s board less than a year ago, when it was skint.
Is it the job of the CEO to give his opinion and views when it comes to policy, or is it his job to carry the views of the board – and thereby the members of the Trust – to whichever body to which they require carrying?
If that is the trail that Mr Gibson is following, then the way forward is to demand the resignation of Mr Lloyd on the grounds of overstepping his responsibility to the detriment of angling, the Trust board and members. I assume that could only be done at the annual general meeting.
As Mr Lloyd is an employee, there are many employment rights that must be considered. And if Mr Gibson wants the job, then surely he would have to meet employment criteria and prove to be suitable to the board to carry out the massive responsibilities of a chief executive running a company.
There are interesting times ahead. Whether the current AT board has the bottle for a battle or not is a matter for conjecture. Whether the right people are in the correct jobs for their abilities and personalities is another.