[petejh]

Exactly what Shark said - there are ways to rein in a board of directors.

The current setup seems absurd - it seems to me (with very little knowledge of the internal politics of BMC) that the block to effective governance is the National Council, not the exec. It seems well-intended, but unworkable. Like Shark says the Nat council has very little connection with the membership - because the membership has very little connection with the area meetings.

If directors can be voted in and out then there's some control. You can also model it on the German board system that has 'workers' (unpaid members) sitting on the board, in effect acting as the current 'national council'.

Anyway, I prefer not to care. Climbing is bigger than the BMC. Not the other way around.

[Ru]

Exactly what Shark said - there are ways to rein in a board of directors.

The current setup seems absurd - it seems to me (with very little knowledge of the internal politics of BMC) that the block to effective governance is the National Council, not the exec. It seems well-intended, but unworkable. Like Shark says the Nat council has very little connection with the membership - because the membership has very little connection with the area meetings.

If directors can be voted in and out then there's some control. You can also model it on the German board system that has 'workers' (unpaid members) sitting on the board, in effect acting as the current 'national council'.

Anyway, I prefer not to care. Climbing is bigger than the BMC. Not the other way around.

The BMC board is already composed of unpaid members.

[petejh]

I meant unpaid members on a board that has policy-making power as well as the legal obligations. Rather than a split of legally-obliged board and national council for policy. Anyway enough, it makes my head hurt thinking of all those committees..

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Some good further discussion, but I don't see that the motion - the technicality of the case - has anything to do with the direction of climbing, rebranding, use of chalk or otherwise.

The motivation behind it may very well do, but that's a whole different COW - as is the question of whether the proposers would demonstrate any better governance if tables were turned.

BMC staff do a lot of great work    except for Dan M - he's a slacker    but I have great reservations about how it's run - as with many largely self appointed bodies.

The BMC is a large group of other climbers, but I stop short of saying it represents me in any way.
I'm happy to remain sceptical.

Dave.

[tomtom]

The context is important Dave for the direction of climbing. The 'original' draft motion was full of other stuff - and the octogenarian nature of the signaturies also adds to this.

[shark]

Some good further discussion, but I don't see that the motion - the technicality of the case - has anything to do with the direction of climbing, rebranding, use of chalk or otherwise.

The motivation behind it may very well do, but that's a whole different COW - as is the question of whether the proposers would demonstrate any better governance if tables were turned.

Hi Dave

The full motion is here:

‘That this motion of No Confidence is brought against the Executive Committee of the BMC and in
particular because of the wilful and deliberate withholding of future policy decisions from the
members in attendance at the Annual General Meeting held at Lhosehill Hall, Castleton,
Derbyshire on Saturday 16th April 2016.
Further, this withholding of key and vital information to its membership is an example of very poor
governance by the Executive Committee in their role as Company Directors, in a registered
company limited by guarantee, and does not conform with the recently published Sport England
Code for Sports Governance.’

The motion isnt explicit but it is essentially a claim that the plan to re-brand was withheld from members at the AGM.

No doubt at the AGM the proposers will endevour to 'prove' that the Directors (Dave, Ru et al) where derelict in their duties and persuade the room that they are not fit to hold their posts and should resign, which is what a vote of no confidence is generally held to be.

BMC staff do a lot of great work    except for Dan M - he's a slacker    but I have great reservations about how it's run - as with many largely self appointed bodies.

The BMC is a large group of other climbers, but I stop short of saying it represents me in any way.
I'm happy to remain sceptical.

It is healthy to have reservations about institutions. Climbers are perhaps more individualistic than most and perhaps more likely to have more reservations.

Institutions tend to acquire a life of their own. Some are great, some were once great and some have the potential to be great. I believe the BMC is a good institution and has the potential to be great one.

When you say the BMC doesn't represent you, what do you really mean by that? Off the top of my head in terms of your local patch the BMC Peak Area volunteers are doggedly representing climbers interests with crag access, wildlife initiatives, crag clean ups, mending footpaths, petitioning against quarrying and working with other landowning bodies, environmental groups and other sporting bodies (ie mountain bikers) to keep the climbers and hillwalkers agenda and interests up there. At a National level we influence government on similar issues.

[Offwidth]

Indeed. We can't let healthy scepticism grow to dominate our lives.

What other bodies do a better job? I've had personal experience of governance at the top of my institution and my trade union and know people in similar positions in organisations public, private and voluntary; most of these are far less complicated legally speaking in their governance arrangement than the BMC. Most bodies have representatives for stakeholders that can never truely represent the exact mix of those they represent. My experience of the spirit of governance of the BMC exec and the genuine efforts of  NC reps (hardly hotly contested posts) right now is as good as any I'm aware of. Time and time again the natural inclination at the top is avoid or cover up. Admitting and resolving mistakes publicy and quickly  is rare. Bob seemigly wants to smash this to go back to a past where things were a lot worse.

[shark]

Well, I was either going to wait until I saw Shark in Bristol or pm him, or something (like forget or prevaricate).
But I can make it a little bit of a statement of support, instead.

Simon, does the BMC have promotional materials (posters etc) which I can put up around the wall?
Because I think I'd actually like to actively promote membership amongst my customers and particularly amongst the hordes of teenagers here, who probably think the BMC just make "Warm up!" Posters or "Holds may spin" signs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Matt,

Sorry - only noticed this yesterday. Thanks for the idea and offer. I have made a couple of enquiries and there doesn't currently appear to be any promotional material that currently fits the 'bill' but it is something that Alex is interested in getting produced.

One thing that you might be interested in is a trial that we will be running with a couple of local walls where climbing wall users have free entrance for a session if they sign up as a BMC member involving clever stuff with the ipads at the Walls and then there is some form of rebate to the Wall owner. I don't know the full details yet, and the relevant person who is managing the project is on holiday. Presumably if it is a success then we will extend the scheme nationally in which case it would be great if you participated.

[dave]

IDEA: Maybe a BMC promotion to appease both the old guard and the new upcoming urban millennial hipster crowd is free beard comb with every new membership?

[petejh]

Well, I was either going to wait until I saw Shark in Bristol or pm him, or something (like forget or prevaricate).
But I can make it a little bit of a statement of support, instead.

Simon, does the BMC have promotional materials (posters etc) which I can put up around the wall?
Because I think I'd actually like to actively promote membership amongst my customers and particularly amongst the hordes of teenagers here, who probably think the BMC just make "Warm up!" Posters or "Holds may spin" signs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Matt,

Sorry - only noticed this yesterday. Thanks for the idea and offer. I have made a couple of enquiries and there doesn't currently appear to be any promotional material that currently fits the 'bill' but it is something that Alex is interested in getting produced once some alterations to the logo have been approved.

'Changing the wording to Clim... '

It's a conspiracy!!!

[Oldmanmatt]

Well, I was either going to wait until I saw Shark in Bristol or pm him, or something (like forget or prevaricate).
But I can make it a little bit of a statement of support, instead.

Simon, does the BMC have promotional materials (posters etc) which I can put up around the wall?
Because I think I'd actually like to actively promote membership amongst my customers and particularly amongst the hordes of teenagers here, who probably think the BMC just make "Warm up!" Posters or "Holds may spin" signs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Matt,

Sorry - only noticed this yesterday. Thanks for the idea and offer. I have made a couple of enquiries and there doesn't currently appear to be any promotional material that currently fits the 'bill' but it is something that Alex is interested in getting produced once some alterations to the logo have been approved.

One thing that you might be interested in is a trial that we will be running with a couple of local walls where climbing wall users have free entrance for a session if they sign up as a BMC member involving clever stuff with the ipads at the Walls and then there is some form of rebate to the Wall owner. I don't know the full details yet, and the relevant person who is managing the project is on holiday. Presumably if it is a success then we will extend the scheme nationally in which case it would be great if you participated.

Business card/A6 handouts and posters!

Like the sound of para 2, let me know.
Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GraemeA]

Neil Foster has just posted a response of kinds from Bob Pettigrew on t'other channel

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660614

Seems quite lacking in substance to me.

[shark]

Neil Foster has just posted a response of kinds from Bob Pettigrew on t'other channel

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660614

Seems quite lacking in substance to me.

I have just been sent a document (presumably the same) that was put together by the self-named "THE BMC Thirty", which was on the CC club forum. 

“BMC A.G.M. AT PLAS Y BRENIN, SATURDAY 22 APRIL 2017
MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE B.M.C.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE “BMC THIRTY”

THIS PAPER REPRESENTS MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS WHICH I SHALL PUT BEFORE
THE “BMC THIRTY” AS A WAY FORWARD.
OUR AIM IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND COMPLIES WITH GOOD SPORTS GOVERNANCE
IT IS TO RESTORE DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURES TO THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
(AGM) OF THE BMC, NOW AND HENCEFORTH.

IF OUR MOTION WERE TO BE CARRIED THEN IT IS FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS, TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION ACCORDING TO THEIR LEGAL
DUTY UNDER COMPANY LAW.

OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WOULD BE TO SET UP AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW BY ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERTS IN THE FIELDS OF
MOUNTAINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION DRAWN FROM A BROAD SPECTRUM OF THE SPORT.

WE ARE NOT WRECKERS SO WE WOULD ADVOCATE THAT THE MAIN OPERATIONAL
DIVISIONS OF THE BMC CONTINUE TO SERVICE THE MEMBERSHIP DURING THE
INTERIM BY STRICKLY ADEHERING TO ESTABLISHED POLICIES AND WORK
PROGRAMMES UNTIL THE REVIEW IS COMPLETE AND IMPLEMENTED.

IF OUR MOTION WERE TO BE DEFEATED THEN IT MIGHT HAVE SERVED ITS PURPOSE
IN REMINDING THE GRASS ROOTS MEMBERSHIP THAT, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE  AGM
OF THE BMC, THEY ARE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY TO WHICH THE EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE STANDS ACCOUNTABLE ONCE A YEAR FOR ITS FUTURE POLICIES,
PROGRAMMES AND EXPENDITURE.

QUI CUSTODIET CUSTODES – WHO IS IT THAT GUARDS THE GUARDS THEMSELVES?
JUVENAL A.D. 60 –c.130
IN OUR CASE – IT IS THE  AGM SERVICED BY A FULL AGENDA OF FUTURE
POLICIES AND WORK PROGRAMMES PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL BY THE EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE NATIONAL COUNCIL THROUGH THE AREA
MEETING NETWORK – WHICH I KNOW HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME BECAUSE OF MY
OWN LONG EXPERIENCE OF THE VOLUNTARY WORK OF THE AREA ACTIVISTS, AMONGST
WHOM I STILL HAVE MANY FRIENDS.

ROBERT PETTIGREW – 19.03.17

BMC AGM 22ndAPRIL 2017 at PLAS y BRENIN NATIONAL MOUNTAIN CENTRE.

I am Robert Pettigrew, one of thirty listed proposers of the Motion of
No Confidence in the Executive Committee of the British Mountaineering
Council.  Because I am entrusted with the Moving of the Motion, I have
become the first among equals for this considered action.
Since I shall open the debate as the Mover of the Motion, supported by a
Seconder of the Motion, I believe that fellow members of the BMC are
entitled to know our reasons for this step, and the aims and objectives
of my co-signatories and many other supporters of the Motion so that
they are better equipped with the background to form an opinion and
either turn up, participate in the debate and cast their vote in person,
or, if unable to attend, cast a proxy vote before the time limit of
Monday 17th April next.

For my part I am a former president of the Loughborough University M.C.,
the Oread M.C. and the British Mountaineering Council, of which I am an
Hon. Member and holder of the George Band Award.   I have also served as
chairman of the Training Committee, the South West and Southern Area
Committee, and the North East Committee of the BMC.   I have also served
as chairman of the former Mountain Leadership Training Board for England
and Wales.  In addition I was chairman of the CCPR/SRA, the Standing
Forum of 320 NGBs (Governing Bodies of Sport and Recreation} as a
mountaineering representative, following my distinguished forbears, Lord
Hunt of Llanvair Waterdine, and Sir Jack Longland.

Like so many of my contemporaries in the BMC, I have had a deep passion
for the mountains since I was a schoolboy and became steeped in the
mountain literature which is surely unsurpassed in range and content of
any sport in the world, and gives our sport a spiritual and
philosophical content like no other.  This I have shared and enjoyed
with fellow members of the A.C., the CC, the Wayfarers, and the
Himalayan Club over the years.

I have had the good fortune, and with good companions, to make a number
of first and second ascents in the Lyngen Alps of Arctic Norway and in
the Indo-Tibet (China) border region of the Punjab Himalaya (Himachal
Pradesh).   All my expeditions are recorded in the Alpine and Himalayan
Journals of the period, and”Lyngsalpene” Universitetsforlarget. All were
great adventures with loyal companions and a lot of fun, even in
retrospect, the broken limbs!

By profession I served as an Inspector of Schools in the Further
Education Divisions of the counties of Hampshire and Cleveland.
My aims and objectives in proposing the Motion of No Confidence in the
Executive Committee of the BMC is to restore the democratic process of
accountability to the grass-roots membership of the BMC in the
governance process.   It is undeniably the very essence of the
democratic process and it must be restored and maintained.

I have attended every one of the BMCs AGMs since I had the honour to
serve as president of this great institution and I have observed with
growing dismay the diminishing of the AGM in form and content so that
the opportunity to hold to account the Executive Committee and the
National Council (formerly the Management Committee), and a better
title, has also dwindled – to be replaced by an Open Forum – in other
words a “Talking Shop” with no constitutional imperatives, and whatever
is proposed disappears into the ether with no consequent action of the
measures advocated.

  I personally regard Open Forums as an improper and cynical device to
inhibit debate and advocate their removal from the annual programme of
events.  That would give members more time to discuss and comment on
major policy issues – of which there are many.
This deplorable decline in the democracy of the BMC reached its nadir at
the AGM of last year, the 16th April 2016, when external events, such as
the admission to the Olympic Games of Competition Climbing were reaching
a climax.

Both Mark Vallance, a distinguished former president and alpinist and me
were given leave by President Rehan Siddiqui to make speeches warning
that momentous changes in our sport were impending due to external
forces, for which the BMC must make provision, but the debate was
curtailed by what has since been revealed as an hidden agenda known only
to the Executive and a privileged few.

  I emphasise that the bulk of the grass-roots membership assembled in
Losehill Hall, Castleton, Derbyshire on Saturday 16 April, 2016, were
kept in total ignorance of the momentous events about to evolve.
On a lighter note I was even persuaded to buy a T shirt with the BMC
logo, when the decision had already been taken to change the name of the
BMC!   Was anticipated old stock already being sold off? However – all
is well since I can still wear it with pride!

I had my first intimation that something was badly wrong when a member
of the Executive Committee who had listened to my speech came up to me
at tea and said:” We don’t want to rock any boats, do we?” Did he really
mean – “We don’t want to upset the International Olympic Committee, do
we?”   We shall probably never know.
It occurred to me then that some momentous changes in the BMC were in
the making without the knowledge of the grass-roots membership, or any
process of consultation with that membership in the democratic process
of an AGM when the elected members and paid staff stand accountable for
the implementation of policies and strategies and financial probity
according to the Code of Good Governance laid down by the Department of
Culture, Media and Sport.

Subsequent to the AGM of 16 April 2016, a series of revelations about
proposed momentous changes in the status, name, international relations,
commercial projects, and Olympic ambitions of the BMC began to emerge,
none of which had been sanctioned by the grass-roots membership, but all
of which had been conceived, planned and developed by the Executive
Committee in secret over a time period of several months prior to the
AGM of 2016.

FOR EXAMPLE THE MOMENTOUS NAME-CHANGE FROM BRITISH MOUNTAINEERING
COUNCIL TO CLIMB BRITAIN  – THUS JETTISONING 75 YEARS OF HISTORY, WAS IN
PLANNING FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AND ACTUALLY MADE ON 3 MARCH 2016, MORE THAN
A MONTH BEFORE THE AGM AT CASTLETON ON 16 APRIL 2017, AND AT A COST OF
£75,500 – NOT£25,000 AS PREVIOUSLY STATED (SEE THE BMC “RECENT HISTORY”
BY MARTIN WRAGG – SOME OF WHICH IS INACCURATE!)
MR WRAGG IS HOIST BY HIS OWN PETARD!  IN HIS REPORT HE CLEARLY STATES
THAT THE EXTRAORDINARILY EXPENSIVE RE-BRANDING WAS NOT A CHANGE OF
NAME.   SINCE RE-BRANDING INVARIABLY MEANS A CHANGE OF NAME  NAME –  HE-
HE GOES ON TO  STATETO STATE IN HIS REPORT THAT A CHANGE OF NAME WOULD
NEED THE APPROVAL OF AN AGM!

WHY THEN DID THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WITHHOLD FROM THE AGM AT CASTLETON
IN 2016 NOT ONLY THE CHANGE OF NAME (ALREADY MADE IN MARCH 2016 – THE
PRECEDING MONTH) BUT A RAFT OF OTHER MEASURES SUCH AS THE INEVITABLE
CHANGE OF STATUS OF THE BMC FROM A REPRESENTATIVE BODY TO A GOVERNING
BODY OF SPORT AND RECREATION?

FORTUNATELY  THETHE AREA COMMITTEES SAVED THE DAY AND CAME INTO THEIR
OWN WITH A MASS REVOLT
WHICH FORCED AN HUMILIATING CLIMB DOWN BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AT
LEAST OVER THE ILL-FATED NAME CHANGE.  BUT HAS THE LESSON BEEN LEARNED?
WHAT OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF THE BMC ARE
YET TO BE REVEALED?
PROOF THAT THE NAME-CHANGE WAS IMPLEMENTED ON 3RD MARCH, 2016 CAN BE

My fellow proposers and I then determined that the time had come to
bring matters to a head and seek a full debate at the AGM to demand
transparency and accountability to the membership in the future
operations of the BMC.     The BMC is a company limited by guarantee and
is governed by an Executive Committee, so the conventional process of a
Motion of No Confidence in the Executive Committee, is intended to
initiate a debate on the Executive Committee’s corporate failure to seek
a mandate for its future policies and work programmes from the
membership at the annual general meetings, now a chronic annual failure.
Should the Motion succeed and become a Resolution I would further
propose that an Independent Review of the Structure and modern purpose
of the BMC should be set up with the aim of making the BMC fit for purpose.
Since the Alpine Club is not only the senior club in the world, it is
also the founder of the BMC and has the corporate philosophy and
expertise to advise on the personnel able and willing to conduct such a
Review under an independent chairman I and my fellow proposers would
recommend that it is invited to undertake the review.
If on the other hand, the Motion falls, I sincerely hope it will at
least have restored the central importance of the Annual General Meeting
as the principal agency of governance of the BMC where future policies,
strategies, work programmes, staff structures and finances, are openly
debated and endorsed or amended by the membership assembled at the AGM.

Robert  Pettigrew – on behalf of the “BMC THIRTY”
19th March, 2017″

[tomtom]

Oh my...

[galpinos]

Since the Alpine Club is not only the senior club in the world, it is
also the founder of the BMC and has the corporate philosophy and
expertise to advise on the personnel able and willing to conduct such a
Review under an independent chairman I and my fellow proposers would
recommend that it is invited to undertake the review.

Who'd have thought it, Bob and his chums at the AC are the perfect people to undertake this review. Maybe they should just run the BMC as they seem to be the steady hand on tiller that's required, they did "create" it after all.

[GraemeA]

Shark - who posted Bob's missive on the CC Forum?

[cheque]

Unless BP's prone to flashes of capslock rage that seems like at least two messages squodged together?!

Also: 

[Neil F]

...capslock rage

 

[petejh]

Before anyone else does, I'm bagsy-ing 'The BMC Thirty' as a new route name..

'..featuring moves which feel very on/off on holds which inspire no confidence..'

[Offwidth]

There is a bit missing after the last capitalised block (yes the capitals are Bob's):

"PROOF THAT THE NAME-CHANGE WAS IMPLEMENTED ON 3RD MARCH, 2016 CAN BE FOUND AT:

https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=climbbritain.co.uk "


Yeah right... more like the BMC got the name just in case.

[Offwidth]

Before anyone else does, I'm bagsy-ing 'The BMC Thirty' as a new route name..

'..featuring moves which feel very on/off, on holds which only require confidence to win over, despite illusory first impressions they inspire no confidence..'

Fixed that for you. The latin misquote, 'capsrage' and various other joys give scope for quite a lot of fun with new route names this spring.

[tomtom]

Well I'm a member now. I popped into BMC towers (to check out Sharks new corporate helicopter) and was subject to a very smooth sales policy and left feeling a bit woozy, clutching a membership folder, a few ££ lighter and my trousers around my ankles*...

So I am now fully entitled to say what a load of shite from the dirty thirty...



*I made that bit up

[Oldmanmatt]

Jeezzu f'n Christo wankbuckets! Did he actually cite his "distinguished forebears"?
(Or did I read it incorrectly?)

This is utterly bizarre. His intent is nothing more than turning the BMC into the military wing of SAGA holidays.

If they take over the BMC it will be dead within five years. I'm an old codger compared to the vast majority of the sports participants and find almost his entire missive abhorrent and old fashioned (in the extreme); nobody under the age of fifty will be remotely interested in the BMC they envision.
(Sorry Simon, should I have made that "over 65" [emoji12]).

I mean, seriously, the rejection of open forum?

The AGM is,or should be, irrelevant. It is something that can be accomplished entirely on-line and as a consequence be far more democratic.
Even allowing for the desire for a "personal touch", the actually meeting should only be adjunct to the principle vote and the proxy system needs to be absolutely revamped to allow much easier participation (without a printer).

[IDW]

Since the Alpine Club is not only the senior club in the world, it is
also the founder of the BMC and has the corporate philosophy and
expertise to advise on the personnel able and willing to conduct such a
Review under an independent chairman I and my fellow proposers would
recommend that it is invited to undertake the review.

Who'd have thought it, Bob and his chums at the AC are the perfect people to undertake this review. Maybe they should just run the BMC as they seem to be the steady hand on tiller that's required, they did "create" it after all.

Well if the AC take over, perhaps some other interested party could form an alternative organisation that could encompass all forms of climbing, including even competitions, call it ,er, lets say, "Climb Britain", employ some motivated and experienced officers who might suddenly become available, and let the AC continue in their parallel world........

[Muenchener]

I'm all for rocking the IOC boat, vile bunch of corrupt scumbags that they are, but I suspect - as a climber who turns 56 this week - that's probably the only point I have in common with Bob. Apart from that, what Matt said.