UKBouldering.com

the shizzle => get involved: access, environment, BMC => Topic started by: Will Hunt on March 04, 2017, 03:55:20 pm

Title: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on March 04, 2017, 03:55:20 pm
Has the wording of the no confidence motion been made public? I don't want to be a tease but somebody handed it to me today (they'd seen it through their club I think). I can post up here if it's of interest to people but no idea if it's confidential or not. I suppose if you're going to table a motion you have to expect that people might read it?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 04, 2017, 04:28:29 pm
I'm sure many people would like to know if you think it has any unexpected issues of substance other than just being about how the governance of the rebrand was handled. It's public that its Bob Petrigrew as the lead actor and that some forgot to sign (just listed  names: some of whom allegedly said they had nothing to do with it). Having been to an AGM I worry about how easy it would be to pack it with supporters of something daft and get a very unrepresentative motion through, so if it looks bad when I get my pack Ill be encouraging people to proxy vote if they can't go.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 04, 2017, 04:31:10 pm
Has the wording of the no confidence motion been made public? I don't want to be a tease but somebody handed it to me today (they'd seen it through their club I think). I can post up here if it's of interest to people but no idea if it's confidential or not. I suppose if you're going to table a motion you have to expect that people might read it?

Go for it
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on March 04, 2017, 05:00:59 pm
With the caveat that I haven't been sent this directly by any of the signatories.

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2866/33132448242_2de22fa5b9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/StNsxC)

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3718/32445130214_aef2fee235_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Rr4LQN)

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2862/32904991530_2da9c8ebcc_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/S8GFAb)

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2827/32904991380_8c976dc1c4_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/S8GFxA)


Pretty non-sensical if you ask me. Who are "the management, voluntary and paid, of the BMC"? Grimer who makes the nice guidebooks? Dan who advises people about gear? The access reps who work tirelessly for us? The national council members who give up their time to work in a voluntary capacity for their fellow climbers and walkers?
Sack o' shite.

EDIT / UPDATE
I'm happy for it to stay up but could you pop a note on that post explaining that it's a draft version? Just for the purposes of letting people know exactly what they're looking at.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 04, 2017, 05:23:03 pm
That is utter bollocks.
Haven't they anything better to do with their lives?
Nothing but semantics and sour grapes. How do I exercise my proxy Simon?



All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 04, 2017, 05:36:50 pm
Haven't they anything better to do with their lives?
Nothing but semantics and sour grapes. How do I exercise my proxy Simon?

 :lol: Im flattered you think I'd know.

Glad to hear you're a member now  :clap2:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: T_B on March 04, 2017, 05:54:38 pm
There are some well respected names on there.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on March 04, 2017, 06:32:01 pm
Slightly confused reading that list at first, honestly thought there were some people with Yeti as a surname.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 04, 2017, 06:41:39 pm
Slightly confused reading that list at first, honestly thought there were some people with Yeti as a surname.

Abominable
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 04, 2017, 06:58:19 pm
That's not a very good motion of no confidence imho. Surprised there wasn't a section about unsanctioned use of split infinitives...
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 04, 2017, 06:59:38 pm
There are some well respected names on there.

Is that important?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: cheque on March 04, 2017, 06:59:57 pm
So much to love about that, but the highlight has to be the "collusion with the Japanese" bit. It's like something from the days of rival nations fighting to be the first to plant their flag on top of unclimbed mountains.

Brilliant how their opposition of the Climb Britain name has forced them to use the term "mountaineering community" to try and describe the BMC membership too.

Still, if there's one thing the political events of the last year has taught us it's that the motion will stand, this lot will be appointed the new board and within 12 months we'll be resigned to fighting plans to debolt sport crags, use British tech grades for boulder problems and remove topos from guidebooks. ;)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: northern yob on March 04, 2017, 07:00:25 pm
There are some well respected names on there.

Which I have now lost a lot of respect for.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 04, 2017, 08:37:27 pm
So much to love about that, but the highlight has to be the "collusion with the Japanese" bit. It's like something from the days of rival nations fighting to be the first to plant their flag on top of unclimbed mountains.

Brilliant how their opposition of the Climb Britain name has forced them to use the term "mountaineering community" to try and describe the BMC membership too.

Still, if there's one thing the political events of the last year has taught us it's that the motion will stand, this lot will be appointed the new board and within 12 months we'll be resigned to fighting plans to debolt sport crags, use British tech grades for boulder problems and remove topos from guidebooks. ;)

What pisses me off, is being 46, having been climbing rock, mountains and "doing" Expeds for over 30 years and still listening to the same reactionary shit as I had to in the '80s.
This has sod all to do with respect for the outdoors, the sport, or even the BMC membership; it's a total narcissistic, navel gazing, ego trip.


All posts either sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek or mildly mocking-in-a-friendly-way unless otherwise stated. I always forget to put those smiley things...
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Teaboy on March 04, 2017, 08:38:23 pm
There are some well respected names on there.

There are, but now with a little less respect from me.

Seems every bit as pious whinging as we thought. That said I agree with the sport climbing thing but not sure of the significance nor whether it's anything to do with the BMC.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 04, 2017, 09:23:38 pm
Fucking awesome motion.

So just a couple of facts, and no not alternative facts.

The Japanese Mountaineering Association is in the middle of changing it's name to the Japanese Mountaineering and Climbing Association or something like that, the Japanese Alpine Club is a minor club, a bit like the AC in the UK.

The IFSC was formed in Feb 2007, so is not 15 years old as the "Motion" claims. And as Mark Vallance (apparently one of the signatories of the Motion) was there it seems a bit odd that he is making proposals against what he voted for, as BMC rep, a mere 10 years ago.

Where the hell is Lhose Hill Hall? Is it near Lhotse or is it near Castleton.

I am not always a fan of the BMC's management but this motion is so inaccurate and full of ambiguous BS that it should be kicked into touch at the earliest opportunity. I won't be at the AGM as I will be working at a comp in China bu I will definitely proxy someone to vote this down.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 04, 2017, 09:27:39 pm
There are some well respected names on there.

There are, but now with a little less respect from me.

Seems every bit as pious whinging as we thought. That said I agree with the sport climbing thing but not sure of the significance nor whether it's anything to do with the BMC.

Don't forget that for the rest of the world sport climbing (ie the UK definition of bolted climbing) is climbing. Hence the phrase sport climbing is generally recognised as meaning the sport of climbing ie the regulated activity of "competition" climbing.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Ru on March 04, 2017, 09:28:33 pm
Thats not the motion actually submitted.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 04, 2017, 09:33:54 pm
Thats not the motion actually submitted.

Can we see the motion Ru. As a member I would like to have the info.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: gme on March 04, 2017, 10:42:44 pm
I think this, and the list of names attached, goes a good way to answering the original topic question for me.
Same bunch of names were around when the whole anti bolting bullshit started in the 80s.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Muenchener on March 04, 2017, 11:05:36 pm
Don't forget that for the rest of the world sport climbing (ie the UK definition of bolted climbing) is climbing. Hence the phrase sport climbing is generally recognised as meaning the sport of climbing ie the regulated activity of "competition" climbing.

Not the whole of the rest of the world."Sportklettern" in German means pretty much the same as it does in English, "Alpinklettern" being what it's being distinguished from in this case.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on March 04, 2017, 11:19:27 pm
Thats not the motion actually submitted.

I did wonder whether this might be a draft given that it seems to be full of quite reactionary phrasing. As I said before, I don't know the provenance of it, only that it came through some club channel or other.

I'll take it down now but hopefully the motion will be revealed soon. If one has been submitted and we're going to be asked to vote on it we're going to need to have a look at it.

EDIT: I've taken the pics off my Flickr hosting thing but they still seem to be showing on this page? Could a mod knock them out, please?
Furthermore, Offwidth has mentioned on the other channel that some of the names featured in the list are not aware that they're on there, which strikes me as concerning!
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Johnny Brown on March 05, 2017, 08:39:57 am
There are some well respected names on there.

Which I have now lost a lot of respect for.

Are any of them under 60?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Neil F on March 05, 2017, 09:10:27 am
Furthermore, Offwidth has mentioned on the other channel that some of the names featured in the list are not aware that they're on there, which strikes me as concerning!

The 'signatories' who denied having seen, or that they supported the original motion submitted, are not included in the list of supporters on the document you posted earlier Will.

Even if it is a draft, the document you posted does, presumably, give a very real insight into the issues concerning Pettigrew et al, which led him to submit the formal motion in the first place.

As such, I think it is very useful for people to be able to read it and make up their own minds.

No reason for Mods to delete it, that I can see...

Neil
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 05, 2017, 09:12:04 am
Can we still keep it up Wil?

Dave Turnbull has referenced it on the ukc thread

Quote
In reply to Ian W:

Just to clarify a few things: the motion as published on UKB and in the link further up this thread is an earlier version of Bob Pettigrew's text from a few weeks ago; this version gives a flavour of the underlying issues but the motion formally submitted to the BMC on 16 Feb has been simplified to a more straightforward 'no confidence in the Executive Committee...' form of words, the accusation being that the BMC Exec (the Board of Directors) wilfuly and deliberately withheld 'future policy decisions' (presumably Climb Britain) from the AGM in April 2016. The BMC is still in correspondence with Bob Pettigrew on a few issues, in particular precisely who has formally signed up to the motion.

We should know by 9 March (the deadline for AGM submissions) exactly what is happening with this.

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: northern yob on March 05, 2017, 09:19:36 am
There are some well respected names on there.

Which I have now lost a lot of respect for.

Are any of them under 60?

That's no excuse. I plan to still be cool when I'm 70....
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: T_B on March 05, 2017, 09:29:06 am
There are some well respected names on there.

Which I have now lost a lot of respect for.

Are any of them under 60?

And? Some of those individuals have contributed a massive amount to British climbing and mountaineering. Just dismissing their obvious concerns about the way the BMC is run by effectively describing them as out-of-touch old gits is a bit pathetic.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on March 05, 2017, 09:31:53 am
Can we still keep it up Wil?

Dave Turnbull has referenced it on the ukc thread

Quote
In reply to Ian W:

Just to clarify a few things: the motion as published on UKB and in the link further up this thread is an earlier version of Bob Pettigrew's text from a few weeks ago; this version gives a flavour of the underlying issues but the motion formally submitted to the BMC on 16 Feb has been simplified to a more straightforward 'no confidence in the Executive Committee...' form of words, the accusation being that the BMC Exec (the Board of Directors) wilfuly and deliberately withheld 'future policy decisions' (presumably Climb Britain) from the AGM in April 2016. The BMC is still in correspondence with Bob Pettigrew on a few issues, in particular precisely who has formally signed up to the motion.

We should know by 9 March (the deadline for AGM submissions) exactly what is happening with this.

That's interesting if the stuff about "collusion" with the enemy has disappeared. Somebody must have mentioned to Bob that it sounded a bit nuts.
I'm happy for it to stay up but could you pop a note on that post explaining that it's a draft version? Just for the purposes of letting people know exactly what they're looking at.

I only posted it because I couldn't remember seeing it published online and it seemed unusual in this time of open letters that something had been proposed and the wording wasn't available for scrutiny. I certainly think people should be allowed to look at it before the AGM so they can be aware that they need to vote by proxy (or by post hopefully).
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: northern yob on March 05, 2017, 09:37:09 am
There are some well respected names on there.

Which I have now lost a lot of respect for.

Are any of them under 60?

And? Some of those individuals have contributed a massive amount to British climbing and mountaineering. Just dismissing their obvious concerns about the way the BMC is run by effectively describing them as out-of-touch old gits is a bit pathetic.

Exactly they should know better. Age or what/who they are counts for nothing, their views are no more relevant than anyone else's.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 05, 2017, 09:44:16 am
There are some well respected names on there.

Which I have now lost a lot of respect for.

Are any of them under 60?

And? Some of those individuals have contributed a massive amount to British climbing and mountaineering. Just dismissing their obvious concerns about the way the BMC is run by effectively describing them as out-of-touch old gits is a bit pathetic.
Actually, there is no reason to shy away from that argument. It is a perfectly valid position.

There is every probability that their view represents a minority view, of a reactionary nature.
Previous contributions do not confer Omniscience nor undue respect for political stances assumed in later life.

Or they may accurately represent a majority view, time will tell.

It seems unlikely, to be honest. It's not as if the views expressed here are supportive and most of the posters here would (rightly) be seen as "Old men" by the majority of practicing Climbers, Mountaineers or even Hill Walkers.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: mrjonathanr on March 05, 2017, 09:49:57 am
Regarding the likes of Molly, John Cleare, Doug Scott, Dennis Gray....
Quote
who they are counts for nothing
 

Really? Equal voting rights - one member, one vote, age and experience notwithstanding - yes, totally.

But you believe that level of experience and commitment to the sport is no more relevant than that of someone who might have started in the last 12 months? You're having a laugh. 
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on March 05, 2017, 09:55:51 am
Regarding the likes of Molly, John Cleare, Doug Scott, Dennis Gray....
Quote
who they are counts for nothing
 

Really? Equal voting rights - one member, one vote, age and experience notwithstanding - yes, totally.

But you believe that level of experience and commitment to the sport is no more relevant than that of someone who might have started in the last 12 months? You're having a laugh.

+1

Though I suspect people might be confusing this view with one that suggests that because these experienced old hands hold a view then it must necessarily be right.

On the face of it this seems like it boils down to the fundamental view that the people in the list don't like competition climbing, don't like climbing being in the Olympics, and don't like the BMC's involvement in these spheres. That's the debate that we should be having, if indeed we haven't already had it enough times God help us, not some reactionary challenge to the leadership.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: mrjonathanr on March 05, 2017, 09:57:00 am
Quite. Let me rephrase that...

Given the depth of experience of some of those names I wouldn't casually dismiss them as old gits. I'd pay them the respect of listening quite carefully.

And then I'd dismiss the argument if i didn't feel it stood up to scrutiny, but not before.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: JR on March 05, 2017, 09:59:20 am
A Saturday spent looking at annual reports, Sport England stats and writing about the BMC...

Is this the BMC's Corbyn moment?

https://johnroberts.me/outdoors/2017/03/is-this-the-british-mountaineering-council-bmc-corbyn-moment/
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: northern yob on March 05, 2017, 10:31:48 am
Regarding the likes of Molly, John Cleare, Doug Scott, Dennis Gray....
Quote
who they are counts for nothing
 

Really? Equal voting rights - one member, one vote, age and experience notwithstanding - yes, totally.

But you believe that level of experience and commitment to the sport is no more relevant than that of someone who might have started in the last 12 months? You're having a laugh.

thats a complicated issue, of course their experience and commitment to the sport is more relevant than someone new to the sport. Is their view more relevant than mine (25 years plus climbing) or many other people on here, yourself included no doubt? I don't believe it is. Who they are or what they have done means nothing to me. Do I respect them? I respect what they've done, does that make their views more relevant? No. In the same way that what you or I have done doesn't make our personal view more relevant than the other persons

And as you said its one member one vote! Its how democracy works... the tyranny of the masses. Fortunately I'm relatively confident they are in the minority. As I've already said on here I hope this makes the BMC become more progressive and move FORWARD.
 
A split will be a disaster in my view. The BMC has to move with the times or its gonna die a slow death.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 05, 2017, 10:52:38 am
I'm 46, now.
I started climbing when I was 8.
So, 1978.
I started climbing beside and with men (almost exclusively men, then) who wore big boots and Army surplus jackets. Men who thought chalk was cheating.
Some of them had fought in the war.
By the time I was a teen, I'd discovered sticky rubber (anyone remember the B4 boot?) and owned a bright pink chalk bag (Troll, still hanging by my fingerboard).

Now, most of those men knew, that their Parachute smocks, represented a break with their own parent's Tweed and knotted hemp; in much the same way my Lycra broke with their cammo. They smiled and the world moved on.

Some did not.

And, as is the way of humans, they dug in against the new. They clasped their acolytes close and said "Our's is the true way" or "Our's is the way it has always been".

A bit odd really. I mean, I knew men who would have called them upstarts and cheats, for wearing a harness...

And that's what this is.

Those figures, that show how unrepresentative of the realities of climbing in Britain today, that the BMC is; let alone that motion, are sobering.

Should the BMC fall to that motion, then it will fall to insignificance.

It must be apparent that the BMC has sod-all to do with the sport's increased participation.
That participation will continue to rise, regardless of the existence or otherwise of the BMC.
That to survive, it must represent the majority of climbers, members or not, because to recruit members it must be relevant!
That the view of the "newbie" of scant experience is every bit as important as that of the old dog; because the old dog is soon to be gone and that "newbie" might be influencing the direction of the sport for the next fifty years!

When will the old men learn, that you cannot dictate to the next generation?
When will they learn, that influence must be subtle, educational, inviting?

Answer:

As long as they are human?

Never.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 05, 2017, 11:48:39 am
Several  issues need looking at here.

Firstly, the BMC is in my view healthy and functioning. I don't buy into JR's analysis as it misses out the huge volunteer efforts that don't get costed. As an example  I've spent the vast majority of 2 decades of my spare time doing things that are directly BMC work or align very much with BMC aims and feed into local area meetings: in guidebooks, crag maintenance and access, with no funding or expenses. This overlaps with club efforts who look after other guidebook areas, as I witnessed where I helped the YMC team. There are people who do more than me (hugely more say for Henry F), lots like me and large numbers with smaller but very valuable contributions; this adds up to more than the paid staff by some margin. The really important offer the BMC can continue to make is to support its current volunteers and attract new people  to volunteer, based on their local concerns and to facilitate reports and action and where neccesary apply national pressure. JR does raise areas where the BMC need to think ...but doing this led to Climb Britain. Those attached to the no confidence motion seem inward looking and so likely to be very opposed to JR's suggestions. I agree the BMC should help all climbers and hillwalkers but focus is needed on specifics and these and the balance of the membership will always change with time. Like several posters here I'm not at all convinced we should be acting as a body to encouragd new participants....we currently represent those who choose and that's where I prefer it.

Next these old people. Their age is no issue to me;  experience is important but fully negated if they sign up to the mumbo jumbo that they did. Their power is real and important but from what they signed it is malign. Remember old experienced people also gave the youth of Britain brexit. Respect people on current issues for what they say and do now, not any admirable history.

A real problem the BMC has is with some big clubs as they have lost patriachal power and some in those clubs seem resent that. The big clubs always turn out in force for the BMC AGM and so get over-represented in my view (smaller clubs and University clubs with very different views don't really get a fair hearing).  A symptom of this is at the last AGM we had a plea to poverty on club fees. If this is a real concern (likely), the clubs should simply cross subsidise based on volunteer time for fee reduction. The BMC cannot make a loss and subsidise the majority who can afford things. The club membership get their BMC membership (with some reduced benefits) pretty much at cost. When I realised this years back, I immediately joined the BMC as an individual member ( despite being in a BMC club) but knowing my fee payments were tiny compared to time and petrol I gave. It's the famous  Kennedy plea writ backwards ask what the BMC can do for me me me. The same applies to clubs .. they do good work so members should ask what they can do for the club and so on for what the clubs can do for the good that is the BMC (as most clubs do).

I urge people to use their proxy vote to oppose any no confidence motion.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: JR on March 05, 2017, 12:03:35 pm
Several  issues need looking at here.

Firstly, the BMC is in my view healthy and functioning. I don't buy into JR's analysis as it misses out the huge volunteer efforts that don't get costed...


They do a huge amount of "off the balance sheet" valued work, it would be great to see more of course, but it's naive to think that increasing volunteers does not increase central costs.  Nor can all the work that needs to do be solely done that way.  Nor are volunteers always the right people for the job.


Like several posters here I'm not at all convinced we should be acting as a body to encouragd new participants....we currently represent those who choose and that's where I prefer it.


Nowhere have I said that it should actively do that and SE funding is no longer for that.  Only ignore participation trends, and don't act on it at risk of everything else.


JR does raise areas where the BMC need to think ...but doing this led to Climb Britain. Those attached to the no confidence motion seem inward looking and so likely to be very opposed to JR's suggestions.

The big clubs always turn out in force for the BMC AGM and so get over-represented in my view.


Exactly, activist capture.


I immediately joined the BMC as an individual member


Quite, you have an enormous sense of charity toward the BMC. One of the 0.1% of all climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers, unlike the 96%.  The 96% won't accept that value proposition.

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 05, 2017, 12:21:38 pm
I know volunteers are not always the right people for the job but most often they are and most BMC work is done by volunteers including a good bit of its organisational functions. You can't ignore that. Fee rises will cover the finance gap for this year. The BMC is cheap and numbers are increasing and access seems to me to be becoming more threatened given austerity.

Apologies about the representation bit being in the same paragraph,  I was adding my support to the idea, not responding to you (an idea especially important in a risk activity) .
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: northern yob on March 05, 2017, 12:29:54 pm
Is there a non selfish reason( less people at the crags) reason that increased participation shouldn't be encouraged? Am I missing something? I can't see how it can be a bad thing?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Johnny Brown on March 05, 2017, 12:36:13 pm
There are some well respected names on there.
Which I have now lost a lot of respect for.
Are any of them under 60?

And? Some of those individuals have contributed a massive amount to British climbing and mountaineering. Just dismissing their obvious concerns about the way the BMC is run by effectively describing them as out-of-touch old gits is a bit pathetic.

It was an actual question, not a rhetorical one. I was trying to establish if the old git label was accurate - lots of names there I don't know much about.

Whether or not they are respected is a bit moot, if I wanted to put together a credible motion I'd be looking to ensure there was a range of ages and disciplines represented.

And Yob, by 60 you might find you haven't much influence over whether you are cool or not.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: JR on March 05, 2017, 12:46:41 pm

Fee rises will cover the finance gap for this year.  The BMC is cheap and numbers are increasing and access seems to me to be becoming more threatened given austerity.


1) If fees are going up... then value perception is tested further
2) I think your perception of value is skewed here cf. the average climber and potential member
3) Numbers are increasing too slowly, and rate has slowed actually (82k now I'm told), relative to other measures
4) If access is threatened, then it's not a free job to tackle it
5) You get more volunteers to tackle that, by getting them as members first

Whilst I have an enormous respect for the work you do Offwidth, I think you're falling into the trap of only seeing it from the inside.

Re the other point, thanks for clarity.

Edit: SPG
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Johnny Brown on March 05, 2017, 12:51:20 pm
Given that the BMC's stated aim is to represent climbers and hillwalkers (as opposed to just their members) maybe they should be paying less attention to member surveys and more to participation stats?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: JR on March 05, 2017, 12:56:12 pm
Given that the BMC's stated aim is to represent climbers and hillwalkers (as opposed to just their members) maybe they should be paying less attention to member surveys and more to participation stats?

This... :agree:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 05, 2017, 01:57:57 pm
Is there a non selfish reason( less people at the crags) reason that increased participation shouldn't be encouraged? Am I missing something? I can't see how it can be a bad thing?

I think the way climbing is introduced can lead to problems where the inexperienced can end up injured (or worse) without fully realising the risk that was entailed. I think people need to make a conscious decision to take part in a risk activity, to want to climb despite the risk (usually pretty small). The BMC participation statement is spot on and organisations associated with many ewually risky activities (most sport in practice) are much less honest.  As for participation I think trad is in serious decline, The climbers are hotspotting more and yet the Stanage warden is saying that hottest if hotspots is getting quieter
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 05, 2017, 02:08:34 pm

Fee rises will cover the finance gap for this year.  The BMC is cheap and numbers are increasing and access seems to me to be becoming more threatened given austerity.


1) If fees are going up... then value perception is tested further

>Yes, a neccesary evil this year and something that needs resolving soon.

2) I think your perception of value is skewed here cf. the average climber and potential member

> Maybe, but remember my background was with students and ordinary hillwalkers and climbers... most I know seem very happy with the BMC and most didnt care much either way about Climb Britain. The ones I know from my BMC work and/or big club members are the ones who talking about value and getting upset with names. If I add up just the monetary value of things I get including BMC shop discounts my fee has a negative cost. The same applies to many club members for club fees if regularly using huts.

3) Numbers are increasing too slowly, and rate has slowed actually (82k now I'm told), relative to other measures

>See 1

4) If access is threatened, then it's not a free job to tackle it

> Again it wont get tackled at all witout the volunteers. Even if something bizzare happens and the organisation dies, the access and guidebook work won't stop. I'd rather people help access and other climbers than join the BMC, fan that I am and as much as I would prefer them to do both..

5) You get more volunteers to tackle that, by getting them as members first

>Most I worked with from my Nottingham student background were volunteers first.

Whilst I have an enormous respect for the work you do Offwidth, I think you're falling into the trap of only seeing it from the inside.

> I dont think so for the reasons above but I could be wrong. Even so I won't be doing any harm (like those behind this motion will)

Re the other point, thanks for clarity.

Edit: SPG
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: JR on March 05, 2017, 04:23:34 pm

Fee rises will cover the finance gap for this year.  The BMC is cheap and numbers are increasing and access seems to me to be becoming more threatened given austerity.

>Yes, a neccesary evil this year and something that needs resolving soon.


It plugs a gap in the short term, at the detriment of potential members more than current members.  Refactoring subscriptions should have happened earlier.


2) I think your perception of value is skewed here cf. the average climber and potential member

> Maybe, but remember my background was with students and ordinary hillwalkers and climbers... most I know seem very happy with the BMC and most didnt care much either way about Climb Britain. The ones I know from my BMC work and/or big club members are the ones who talking about value and getting upset with names. If I add up just the monetary value of things I get including BMC shop discounts my fee has a negative cost. The same applies to many club members for club fees if regularly using huts.


Again, you're not looking at it from the perspective of a non-member looking in. Plus all prospective members won't see or value the same benefits as you.


3) Numbers are increasing too slowly, and rate has slowed actually (82k now I'm told), relative to other measures

>See 1


As a result of not making the offering more attractive already. So why's that happened against a potential market size rising at a greater rate?


> Again it wont get tackled at all witout the volunteers. Even if something bizzare happens and the organisation dies, the access and guidebook work won't stop. I'd rather people help access and other climbers than join the BMC, fan that I am and as much as I would prefer them to do both..


Agree not in the short term, but it would not continue in the long without a some sort of core organisation. Unrealistic otherwise.  Again, I think you're looking at from the perspective that "I would continue, and I know other volunteers I work with would", not from the outside.


5) You get more volunteers to tackle that, by getting them as members first

>Most I worked with from my Nottingham student background were volunteers first.


The core route to increasing membership is not through getting people to volunteer first.  It could be by using volunteers (supporting a membership drive), buyt as much as I'd love to see more volunteers, simply more volunteers is not the key to a financial and organisational stability in the long term.


Whilst I have an enormous respect for the work you do Offwidth, I think you're falling into the trap of only seeing it from the inside.

> I dont think so for the reasons above but I could be wrong. Even so I won't be doing any harm (like those behind this motion will)


I just don't see what your medium/long term strategy is, other than more of the same, but not what Pettigrew wants?  Do you disagree that increasing membership is a key priority? And if so, what are the priorities?  What happens in 5 - 10 years?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: JR on March 05, 2017, 04:26:37 pm

As for participation I think trad is in serious decline, The climbers are hotspotting more and yet the Stanage warden is saying that hottest if hotspots is getting quieter


Maybe, maybe not, I think that needs qualifying with some actual participation stats before it provides the backbone to any strategy.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 05, 2017, 06:51:48 pm
Medium term I think the BMC has significant capacity to grow within the current participant base. This thread shows why: plenty òf good hearted serious climbers don't properly realise what the BMC does and why it important. The BMC needs some improved marketing and assistance of  the membership in this. Sadly a significant proportion of climbers do know but are too bloody mean or miserable, even at discount rates. I think politics will help recruitment.. people will get worked up as cash starved NPs start to struggle.  also think initiatives like Shark's job will help... imagine companies seiged with his single minded tenacity ;-)

I came to the BMC surrounded by non BMC members and quite a few followed and volunteered before they joined (their voluntary work being worth more than the fee profit).  I talk to young climbers indoors and all ages of hillwalkers at work or on the hill/in't pub. I think I have a good insight into the outside view and have convinced quite a few people to join.  I don't believe the good work combined with insurance and shop discounts are not currently attractive enough as a combination (discounts being most obvious benefit and only not valid if people are in some other club that gives the same discount level.. in which case I don't mind...other clubs and organisations do good work).

Maybe I'm a bit of an optimist. I remember how I started in the hills and see myself in the enthusiasm of the young.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: JR on March 05, 2017, 07:16:00 pm
I think we essentially agree in many respects then, except on perhaps how to alter value proposition.  It works both ways, the price can go down/stable if membership goes up enough and subscriptions re-factored correctly.  You're (rightly) arguing the corner for and from the perspective of a volunteer.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 05, 2017, 07:25:26 pm
I'm gonna launch a bid to become President of the BMC (POTBMC).

Because I want to make BRITISH MOUNTAINS GREAT AGAIN.

To make this happen - I'm gonna build a wall. Not just any old wall, but a massive (did I tell you I'm rich?) wall. Like a terminator uranium wall - and this wall, well its gonna keep out Sports climbers. You know why - you know why? well for years the last presidents have been letting these sports climbers come all over our mountains - they're a there raping and a bolting the hills. Chipping prize bits of our great outdoors - and they're bad guys. I mean these dudes are bad - and they smell (did I tell you my wife is fit?). And when we have this wall -I recon we can build it in 10 days - hell, a week - well then we're gonna round up all those sports climbers and THROW THEM INTO A GIANT CLIMBING WALL. WHERE THEY BELONG. And who's gonna pay for this wall? huh? I tell you, its Decathlon - yeah and they're French too.

And then folks, I'm tellin ya, we'll have our crags and outcrops to ourselves - no more 'send' or 'dab' shit - that's gonna be outlawed by executive order. TRUE.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on March 05, 2017, 07:34:09 pm
SAD!
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: jfdm on March 05, 2017, 07:44:01 pm
I'm gonna launch a bid to become President of the BMC (POTBMC).

Because I want to make BRITISH MOUNTAINS GREAT AGAIN.

To make this happen - I'm gonna build a wall. Not just any old wall, but a massive (did I tell you I'm rich?) wall. Like a terminator uranium wall - and this wall, well its gonna keep out Sports climbers. You know why - you know why? well for years the last presidents have been letting these sports climbers come all over our mountains - they're a there raping and a bolting the hills. Chipping prize bits of our great outdoors - and they're bad guys. I mean these dudes are bad - and they smell (did I tell you my wife is fit?). And when we have this wall -I recon we can build it in 10 days - hell, a week - well then we're gonna round up all those sports climbers and THROW THEM INTO A GIANT CLIMBING WALL. WHERE THEY BELONG. And who's gonna pay for this wall? huh? I tell you, its Decathlon - yeah and they're French too.

And then folks, I'm tellin ya, we'll have our crags and outcrops to ourselves - no more 'send' or 'dab' shit - that's gonna be outlawed by executive order. TRUE.
Brill Tomtom, how do I become a member of your nobel crusade?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: remus on March 05, 2017, 07:44:46 pm
I'm gonna launch a bid to become President of the BMC (POTBMC).

Because I want to make BRITISH MOUNTAINS GREAT AGAIN.

To make this happen - I'm gonna build a wall. Not just any old wall, but a massive (did I tell you I'm rich?) wall. Like a terminator uranium wall - and this wall, well its gonna keep out Sports climbers. You know why - you know why? well for years the last presidents have been letting these sports climbers come all over our mountains - they're a there raping and a bolting the hills. Chipping prize bits of our great outdoors - and they're bad guys. I mean these dudes are bad - and they smell (did I tell you my wife is fit?). And when we have this wall -I recon we can build it in 10 days - hell, a week - well then we're gonna round up all those sports climbers and THROW THEM INTO A GIANT CLIMBING WALL. WHERE THEY BELONG. And who's gonna pay for this wall? huh? I tell you, its Decathlon - yeah and they're French too.

And then folks, I'm tellin ya, we'll have our crags and outcrops to ourselves - no more 'send' or 'dab' shit - that's gonna be outlawed by executive order. TRUE.

Your twitter account awaits: https://twitter.com/potbmc
password: makebmcgreatagain
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 05, 2017, 07:50:58 pm
We're up and running! I'll set the alarm for 5am to give some NEWS.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 05, 2017, 07:53:07 pm
We're up and running! I'll set the alarm for 5am to give some NEWS.

You do know it is unpaid and also customary to be a member  :jab:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 05, 2017, 07:56:49 pm
POTBMC only responds through twitter.

@potbmc
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: remus on March 05, 2017, 08:13:04 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/KBQPJ0G.png)

This is the start of something GREAT folks.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Bonjoy on March 05, 2017, 11:17:05 pm
Is there a non selfish reason( less people at the crags) reason that increased participation shouldn't be encouraged? Am I missing something? I can't see how it can be a bad thing?
If there are ten routes at a crag, how many people can climb there at once and still have a worthwhile day? Five, ten, twenty, fifty? Different people will give a different number. Nobody will answer 'an infinite number' - that is to say the crag has a carrying capacity. Some crags are often not far off that e.g. Malham and Kilnsey. A large growth in climber numbers will make this more common, this may also lead to increased access problems and degradation of the crag and its environment and wildlife.
Climber numbers are already increasing at a steady pace and the current state of things is pretty fine and manageable. I would say concentrate on working with the current growth rate and maximising opportunity and enjoyment for people in the sport new and old. Climbing will keep growing whatever.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: mrjonathanr on March 05, 2017, 11:45:38 pm
Genuine question: why should we be concerned with growth? Participation in large numbers and pressure on the environment concerns me far more than a dearth of participants.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Muenchener on March 06, 2017, 07:09:44 am
I tried that argument a while back & was shot down for being elitist & selfish.

The altruists on here argue that we have great experiences climbing, and so we should wish that others also get to have these great experiences. Which is as maybe.

There are also arguments for more climbers being a good thing from a purely selfish perspective. Training facilities & kit are vastly better & more abundant than they were BITD. I've been travelling a fair bit with work lately, and can pretty much count on there a being a bouldering wall that is at least decent in any major town. Compare & contrast the early 90s, when I moved from Manchester to Liverpool because of work, and there was one (crap) climbing wall on the whole of Merseyside that was open one or two evenings a week, and was miles away on the Wirral. That knocked my climbing back significantly. My current shoes are also somewhat better than EBs. These great things wouldn't exist if there weren't enough people to make them viable.

Also more participation = louder voice in access issues etc.

The price of all this is, yes, crowds, polish, erosion & litter at a few easy accessible "honeypot" crags.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on March 06, 2017, 08:17:47 am
Yes walls are better and more abundant now, yes pads are better, yes boots are better, but do you honestly think our experience of climbing overall is that much better than 20 years ago? Was everyone 20 years ago just having a shit time all the time compared to now? Of course they weren't. People probably climbed a bit lower grade on average, but do we genuinely think the 7b climber is having that much less of a good time than a 7c climber?

It's pretty plain to see that an increase in participation, especially if extra numbers are seeping in from indoor walls with no background in responsible use of the outdoors, can only be a problem in the mid to longer term. There's always the argument that with increased participation you'll have more people to lobby on access issues etc. But this is a bit like saying you'd want a massive increase in car owners, because yeah the environment take a battering but hey there'll be more people to eventually switch over to electric cars.

The other thing that worries me going forward is if the BMC is going to go down more of a commercial sponsorship route then if we're talking about sponsors in the outdoors sector, gear manufacturers, walls etc, then those groups are going to benefit massively by increased participation. This then potentially creates a bit of a conflict of interest.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: northern yob on March 06, 2017, 08:42:25 am
Fair points bonjoy, but ultimately driven by a selfish want to keep the crags quieter for you and the other people already using them? I realise there are limits on the numbers crags can handle, but does that make it ok to not share the love, and grow the sport.

I think the majority of climbers in the future won't even want to climb outside. The BMC could double its membership this year without a new person even starting to climb, if it could engage with indoor users.

I don't know what the answers are, but I find it hard to think the BMC shouldn't be trying to increase participation and members. Unlike the people behind the motion, I think the BMC has to embrace the direction climbing is going in, and that ultimately means comps and indoor climbing.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: northern yob on March 06, 2017, 09:37:20 am

Quote
It's pretty plain to see that an increase in participation, especially if extra numbers are seeping in from indoor walls with no background in responsible use of the outdoors, can only be a problem in the mid to longer term. There's always the argument that with increased participation you'll have more people to lobby on access issues etc. But this is a bit like saying you'd want a massive increase in car owners, because yeah the environment take a battering but hey there'll be more people to eventually switch over to electric cars.

It's more like you leaning out of the window of your Range Rover sport telling pedestrians to not bother with cars as they fuck up the environment....
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on March 06, 2017, 09:53:31 am
Only if you view not wishing to encourage increased participation as a wholly selfish endeavour. If people stop going to stanage or raven tor overnight it's not going to directly benefit me in much of a tangible way, in fact it'd be to my detriment as I'm less likely to get a spot. In actual fact it's more about preserving what we have for use by future generations, making sure everyone who does climb outside, no matter how they come into climbing, they have access to the crags and that the crags are in a decent state.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Bonjoy on March 06, 2017, 10:19:23 am
Quote
Fair points bonjoy, but ultimately driven by a selfish want to keep the crags quieter for you and the other people already using them? I realise there are limits on the numbers crags can handle, but does that make it ok to not share the love, and grow the sport.
I think you are using that word as an easy label to discredit/dismiss the argument. Taken to its extreme it’s a question of some climbers enjoying a crag, or no climbers enjoying one - either because the experience is ruined for all, or the crag is banned. Is it selfish to want crags to be accessible and not trashed, for climbers, other crag users and wildlife, now and into the future? Is it not the acme of selfishness to prioritise climbers now and ignore the risk of crags being trashed, wildlife lost and access denied, thus leaving future generations with a spoiled mess?

Quote
I think the majority of climbers in the future won't even want to climb outside.
Undoubtedly so, but at the same time the number of outdoor climbers will still go up, even though they represent a smaller proportion of the total climbers.


Quote
The BMC could double its membership this year without a new person even starting to climb, if it could engage with indoor users.
I think we all agree on that. It’s a question of how.

Quote
I don't know what the answers are, but I find it hard to think the BMC shouldn't be trying to increase participation and members.
As you’ve just pointed out, the BMC doesn’t need to increase participation in order to increase membership. It needs to convince more existing (indoor) climbers to join.
Doubling climber numbers in order to double membership income is a self-defeating objective anyway if you double the problems in doing so, hence rendering the new money wholly inadequate to the new reality you’ve created.

Quote
Unlike the people behind the motion, I think the BMC has to embrace the direction climbing is going in, and that ultimately means comps and indoor climbing.
I’ve no argument with you on that at all.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: northern yob on March 06, 2017, 10:26:28 am
Only if you view not wishing to encourage increased participation as a wholly selfish endeavour. If people stop going to stanage or raven tor overnight it's not going to directly benefit me in much of a tangible way, in fact it'd be to my detriment as I'm less likely to get a spot. In actual fact it's more about preserving what we have for use by future generations, making sure everyone who does climb outside, no matter how they come into climbing, they have access to the crags and that the crags are in a decent state.

Fair point, I suppose I don't see preserving what we have, or keeping the crags in a decent state as directly linked to numbers, although at some point that is true, I don't see why we couldn't have increased numbers and have the crags in a decent state. It's about education.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on March 06, 2017, 10:38:06 am
No reason at all, in an ideal world, why we can't have both. BUT I still think increased numbers is going to make almost all other net positive initiatives (access work, sustainability, education) much more difficult.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: T_B on March 06, 2017, 11:00:55 am
I suspect it's inevitable that indoor climbers and comps will end up with a new representative body, separate to the BMC. It will be more commercially focussed, as the sponsorship opportunities associated with this new, mass audience are obvious. Indoor climbing is so far removed from mountaineering, hill walking and the outdoors, it seems artificial to me to pretend we're talking about the same user group. That will leave the BMC to focus on what its members want I.e. Access, without all this agonising over what their responsibility to comps/indoor climbing is. Indoor climbing will be even further removed from what we know as climbing in a few years as walls become a mix of climbing/gym/parkour etc.

I don't necessary agree, I think that as things stand it could well be the case but I think this is something the BMC should try to stop from happening. To paraphrase Northern Yob "Indoor climbing is the future if British climbing" is probably true to an extent. I was in the walls in London a few weeks back and chatting to people. One of the last Sats in January was the busiest day the Castle has had, think between 1,200 and 1,400 people through the door. That same day the other walls also had some of their busiest days. People estimated there were around 10,000 people climbing in Greater London that day. A lot of these people don't have a great interest in going outdoors but I don't think this is because they don't like the idea more that they don't really understand it. The walls themselves seem to do very little promotion of outdoor climbing (and why would they) and the BMC/local climbing clubs have an incredibly low profile at the walls. Is this a problem? I think it is for a couple of reasons: "...London mini bus arriving at plantation on a sat morning..." the (indoor/new) climbers who do find out about outdoor climbing tend to hear about the honeypots, they watch the online vids of Dave cruising the Joker and think "I'll have some of that", they don't necessary have the skills to go and do routes at Stoney/Almscliff/Cromlech let alone Gogarth, Scaffell, Pembroke... so these convenient, well documented and safe/bouldering venues get busier. At the same time there are probably fewer and fewer people learning to climb outside - as a kid I started climbing outside (my parents were climbers + pre the rise of indoor walls) but for kids/new climbers now the indoor walls will be a massive draw. More climbers climbing indoors, more climbers bouldering at Plantation etc, fewer climbers with trad skills and appreciation of getting shit scared, trad crags getting overgrown, routes dirty, more people going on bouldering trips to SA, fewer people going chossaneering on the Lleyn, Malham full to bursting point, insitue draws left all over the place, access issues due to overcrowding/insitue gear/litter/lamping sessions at all the popular crags from people who maybe lack the education on outdoor climbing. I would love to see more people at the more obscure trad crags (invested interest: I work for a gear manufacturer), love to hear about Aidean Roberts (insert next "the future" name here) onsighting all Caffs routes and declaring them piss, would love to hear about even more members of the BMC declaring access to crags being the most important thing. The future Houlding (and whoever the other 3 were) is undoubtedly in a climbing wall somewhere but if we're not carefull that's where they might stay. The BMC should engage with the wall culture, support comps but also promote the diversity of climbing, provide inspiration about trad, bouldering, winter climbing, sport... and most importantly provide a route for the young indoor climbers, who want to, to get climbing outside. What Caff is doing is great but it's only a tiny amount and he'll be working less next year.

Sure some crags are busy but a) encourage people to the crags which aren't and b) if you don't like lots of people there are plenty of crags you can go to which need more traffic.

Sorry, maybe had too strong a coffee

Great post Ben. I always cite the BMC youth trip to Font that I was a 'mentor' on 15 (?) years ago. Kids from the comp scene at the time. I think it was one of the first times that Leah C had climbed outside. Hazel F and her were kids, going for it. Tom '9a' Bolger and Jacob 'El Cap' Cook as well. Look at em now!

I was at the Works y'day afternoon and there was a kids GB Climbing team training 'thing' going on. All v professional with them playing jenga and throwing medicine balls at the floor (learning about aggression and how it can sometimes help in moves I think I overheard coach Tom saying?) 

Maybe you and Caff need to organise a Llyen youth meet  :)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 06, 2017, 01:53:37 pm


    "The BMC could double its membership this year without a new person even starting to climb, if it could engage with indoor users."

It could double it's membership if it could engage with outdoor climbers. The SE survey says over 100,000 climb outdoors yet there are only 50 odd thousand members*

* I am only counting Individual members
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: danm on March 06, 2017, 02:42:42 pm


    "The BMC could double its membership this year without a new person even starting to climb, if it could engage with indoor users."

It could double it's membership if it could engage with outdoor climbers. The SE survey says over 100,000 climb outdoors yet there are only 50 odd thousand members*

* I am only counting Individual members

Hang on. Total membership is about 80K. Would you say 80% market share is impressive, or not?  :P
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 06, 2017, 02:51:55 pm
As you well know though Dan the 80k figure includes duplicates eg members of multiple clubs and club/individual dual memberships  :smartass:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: danm on March 06, 2017, 03:05:22 pm
As you well know though Dan the 80k figure includes duplicates eg members of multiple clubs and club/individual dual memberships  :smartass:

Sorry, wrong Graeme (a bit like supporting Sunderland).

The headline figure is 82k or thereabouts, and that is separate people on the database without counting those with multiple memberships or club plus individual upgrade more than once. Give me free life membership of the works and I promise to stop showing you up. Deal?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 06, 2017, 03:31:17 pm
Well that has changed. The headline figure certainly used to include duplicates
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Paul B on March 06, 2017, 03:33:13 pm
b) if you don't like lots of people there are plenty of crags you can go to which need more traffic.

I still think this is a rubbish argument to ask people to support (perhaps that's selfish). You (and others) are saying pro-participation might make the venues you (/I) love less usable and that there are plenty of other less-loved areas we could go to instead. What this argument misses is that there aren't many unloved areas, 35 minutes from where I live, accessible after work with plenty of 3 star routes that I've had a love affair with since my mid-teens (Teaboy pointed this out much earlier in the thread in response to JB; it went unanswered). This is one of the parts of climbing I love and yes (to be clear), I'd prefer others to miss out if it's a them or me type situation. I'm certainly not selfless enough to want to fund someone else being introduced to the joys of such an area at my detriment.  :worms:

I have to say that having seen the behaviors of climbers at one of these so-called honeypot areas last year, and the BMC response I'm not wholly convinced that a lot more effort isn't required in the way these issues are managed if they are to become increasingly common. There was the distinct feeling (to me at least) that it 'was handled' and that was that. Personally I think the weather gods probably helped a lot by drying out some alternate venues and as Dave mentioned a few pages ago, I worry that the BMC could easily sleepwalk into much bigger access issues with wholly good intentions.

Interestingly to me at least, it seems like a large number of people in the Yorkshire sport-climbing 'scene' (whatever that word means) anecdotally, don't seem to be BMC members.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: T_B on March 06, 2017, 03:34:21 pm
Not my quote innit
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: T_B on March 06, 2017, 03:43:33 pm
I will add though...

The last time I went to Kilnsey was in 2014 and it was so busy I kinda didn't feel like going back (I also had a 'problem' with the noise from the road, something I didn't use to notice).

So, whilst I totally understand the draw of world class routes at the Yorkshire Big Three, you might actually find that as some climbers get a bit older/mellower and more 'experience' focussed, they will actually do what El Mocho suggests and go exploring. Folk like Jon Clark and of course Lovejoy have certainly developed new routes in the Peak away from the honeypots, which look worth seeking out e.g. https://vimeo.com/190584022
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Johnny Brown on March 07, 2017, 09:38:27 am
I think the sport crowding comes from a change in the way people go climbing. The majority used to just go cragging - choosing a crag based on the weather, exploring, seeing what happens. I suspect at the lower grades they still do.

However the norm now seems to be much more that folk always go out with a specific project in mind. You don't see boulderers out doing a big circuit so much; they warm up then camp out under their project. Even more so with sport - that's the nature of redpointing I guess. When choosing a route it's usual that folk will choose something they've heard about, plus you need to accommodate your partner's wants.

Quote
in the thread in response to JB; it went unanswered

Struggling to find time for forums at the mo, sorry. Remind me?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Paul B on March 07, 2017, 11:20:40 am
Not my quote innit

Sorry Tom, hasty response / quote fail.

I take your point that there are other places out there but I'm not sold that they're a solution to the problems I listed; Fury Road looks ace (although I'm always skeptical of people who know their way around a camera; things sometimes look better than they are in reality) and Bonjoys routes in Thor's Cave are a glaring omission from my time spent in Sheffield.

Struggling to find time for forums at the mo, sorry. Remind me?

Totally agree, indoor participation numbers are skyrocketing whereas (anecdotally) 'the crags are quiet'. Except on Saturday mornings at the Plantation when the minibuses from the London walls arrive.

And the major sport climbing crags in Yorkshire. Unfortunately, whilst there are plenty of good alternative bouldering venues to the Plantation (albeit with fewer problems) it's difficult to find routes of the quality found at the Yorkshire big three the equally mobbed Tor has some and not always accessible LPT and Diamond I suppose).
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Johnny Brown on March 07, 2017, 12:01:27 pm
Yeah well uk sport is shit so no wonder the few decent crags are mobbed. The only solution is somehow to make trad trendier than sport again, but I'm not sure how to do that.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 07, 2017, 12:02:44 pm
Yeah well uk sport is shit so no wonder the few decent crags are mobbed. The only solution is somehow to make trad trendier than sport again, but I'm not sure how to do that.

Bolt up the grit ;)



(please please please note the sarcastic smiley...)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Bonjoy on March 07, 2017, 12:05:05 pm
I think the sport crowding comes from a change in the way people go climbing. The majority used to just go cragging - choosing a crag based on the weather, exploring, seeing what happens. I suspect at the lower grades they still do.

However the norm now seems to be much more that folk always go out with a specific project in mind. You don't see boulderers out doing a big circuit so much; they warm up then camp out under their project. Even more so with sport - that's the nature of redpointing I guess. When choosing a route it's usual that folk will choose something they've heard about, plus you need to accommodate your partner's wants.


This ^

I imagine this post might illicit replies justifying why this is the case. I think a lot (not all) of these reasons boil down to prioritisation of performance/improvement over other factors. Maximising performance given limited time means choosing known quantities to avoid wasting time on things which prove to be at the ‘wrong’ level (usually means too hard), choosing goals near to things which make suitable goals for similarly motivated partners, and choosing targets with fairly reliable/predictable conditions to avoid wasted investment of effort.
I do think if climbers invest some effort in learning more about conditions and researching routes and boulder probs beyond the obvious, they can still feed the grade rat and enjoy a bit more variety.
Or try feeding a different rat now and then – not everyone’s cup of tea but I think putting in bit of time to resurrect lost classics is very rewarding. It ticks many of the gratification boxes of new routing but doesn’t require you to find hen’s teeth.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: cowboyhat on March 07, 2017, 06:50:09 pm
I think putting in bit of time to resurrect lost classics is very rewarding. It ticks many of the gratification boxes of new routing but doesn’t require you to find hen’s teeth.

Low hanging fruit that. Over the last few years I've been quite a few times to such esoteric venues as Stoney, Cratcliffe or Millstone only to find we have the crag almost to ourselves. Entire buttresses full of five star bangers with no one in sight.




Overall a very good discussion on this thread.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 07, 2017, 07:22:41 pm


Maybe you and Caff need to organise a Llyen youth meet  :)

As a strategy for reducing numbers participating in climbing by killing them off at a young age. Good plan.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: moose on March 07, 2017, 10:05:44 pm
Maximising performance given limited time means choosing known quantities to avoid wasting time on things which prove to be at the ‘wrong’ level (usually means too hard), choosing goals near to things which make suitable goals for similarly motivated partners, and choosing targets with fairly reliable/predictable conditions to avoid wasted investment of effort.

True.  I was a keen explorer of esocteric Northumrian bouldering venues when I was a Post-grad/doc - days trampling around desolate moorland to find that the crag lauded in the guide was 3ft high and covered in moss. 

These days, my time is limited and jealously husbanded - weekends only.  A sure day of climbing at Malham or Kilnsey, where I have lots of projects,  can always get a partner at short notice, and am  certain to be able to chat with friends, is the perennial easy / rational option .

 Some of my most satisfying days out have admittedly been somewhat off-the-beaten-track, but there has always been a "lightning in a bottle" feel to them - I love them for their rarety, and never  trust to rely.

My own solution to honey-potting - local crags for local people - outsiders have to be signed-in by a local ! Regards, Moose (has a house within 30-35 mins of Malham  and Kilnsey)!
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 08, 2017, 09:19:20 am
How do I exercise my proxy Simon?

Stumbled across where it is all explained here: www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-proxy-voting-explained_0

Quote
BMC AGM Proxy Voting explained

Posted by Tony Ryan on 18/02/2011

AGM voting - by hand or by proxy

We know that the majority of members don’t attend the AGM, but we would still like to encourage you to vote, which can be done by proxy.

A Proxy Voting form is included with the mailing of the Spring issue of Summit, which is distributed to all BMC members.

Proxy voting allows another member of the BMC to vote on your behalf at the AGM. You may appoint your Nominated Proxy or nominate the Chair to vote on your behalf. You can indicate on the form the direction of your vote on any of the agenda items; if you do not stipulate the direction of your vote, your Nominated Proxy can use your vote as they see fit.

If you have declined to receive Summit, or if your household includes more than one eligible voting member but receives only one copy of Summit, you can download additional copies from the BMC website. Alternatively, contact the BMC office and we will post additional copies of the form to you.

Proxy voting forms must be received by the CEO by ........48 hours prior to the AGM.

The AGM is at Plas Y Brenin and starts at 11am on Saturday 22 April.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Duma on March 08, 2017, 09:31:48 am
A Proxy Voting form is included with the mailing of the Spring issue of Summit, which is distributed to all BMC members.

When is/was this sent out? Can't remember receiving it but may well have been recycled by now

you can download additional copies from the BMC website.

Only ones I can find are for last years AGM (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/search?q=proxy%20voting%20form) - is there one for 2017 available?

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 08, 2017, 09:55:09 am
A Proxy Voting form is included with the mailing of the Spring issue of Summit, which is distributed to all BMC members.

When is/was this sent out? Can't remember receiving it but may well have been recycled by now

you can download additional copies from the BMC website.

Only ones I can find are for last years AGM (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/search?q=proxy%20voting%20form) - is there one for 2017 available?

They will come out in the March edition of Summit which you should receive towards the end of this month and similarly an online proxy voting process will be available around then too which will save on paper, postage and administration. A full article will be published explaining all this and I'll copy it at the start of a new thread when it appears. 
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Duma on March 08, 2017, 10:29:40 am
Thanks Simon
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: JR on March 08, 2017, 10:58:40 am

Total membership is about 80K. Would you say 80% market share...

You're right Dan. Ish. The BMC's own figures do bring that down to 57% market share (estimate) for the reasons here:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=659633&v=1#x8512207

In summary, because 74% of members said that they climbed outdoor, not 100%.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 10, 2017, 05:18:28 pm
 Latest:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-presidents-statement-2017
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on March 10, 2017, 06:12:48 pm
I see that they've removed the stuff about the Olympics. This seems like such an underhand motion. It is clearly about so much more than the rebrand exercise. It seems clear to me that the signatories are trying to use the outrage generated by Climb Britain to unseat the leadership and change the direction of the organisation.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 14, 2017, 03:30:08 pm
www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-agenda--motion

BMC AGM Agenda & Motion

Posted by Tony Ryan on 14/03/2017

In the run up to the 2017 AGM the BMC can now make available a number of relevant documents. Further supporting information (e.g. the annual report and annual accounts) will be added to this article in due course.

Available documents:

The AGM agenda (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1440)
 
The full wording of the motion referred to in agenda Item 9, including a detailed report by BMC Honorary Solicitor Martin Wragg in relation to the motion. (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1441)
 
The proxy voting card (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1439)

The card enables members who are unable to attend the AGM to use their vote.

Join us for the BMC 2017 AGM

The 2017 BMC AGM will be held on Saturday 22 April, at Plas y Brenin, the National Mountain Sports Centre in Capel Curig, North Wales.

READ MORE: Further information about the AGM (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2017)

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 14, 2017, 05:26:48 pm
Can someone confirm the proxy can be made electronically to the chair with the position on the motion pre selected on the proxy card as the chair.  This looks like the most convenient route for those who have already made up their minds.

If people want the debate to be heard first before voting, we could do with a volunteer proxy who will be attending the AGM. I don't feel I can do this as despite being one of the minority who has been sympathetic to some of the arguments Bob has made in the past, I am not independant enough here:  being completely against this no-confidence vote which, based on half truths and unrelated resentments very much looks, at best, an attempt to undermine the full democratic input of the membership, and at worst, an attempted coup (and as such to be taken very seriously indeed). This is especially as it's reported on UKC that Bob has been speaking in club meets to raise support without commenting publicly on the forums as yet.

I dislike the AGM as it shows up some of the worst parochial aspects of the BMC and the clubs  (I'm only going as Moff is getting a BMC gong... what should have been a very happy event very likely to be soured). Watching Ru's poker face slipping through rolling eyes was reassuring though. Also, as pro BMC as I am, I might be considering giving up the will to remain a BMC member if it looks like the motion is going to succeed. I'd like the BMC to remain supportive of all climbers,  not just some reactionary machiavelian  pensioners. In this, I sincerly hope some of my personal heros on that list have been duped by Bobs rhetoric and if the BMC legal argument can't be challenged publicly, to belatedly renounce the motion.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 14, 2017, 05:37:54 pm
Jesus - reading the proposal and the reply makes me think that this is all just a huge waste of peoples time...
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 14, 2017, 05:43:32 pm
It's potentially a loss of actual peoples jobs and some excellent volunteer input  and a complete refocus of democratically determined  organisational aims. Taking time to oppose such a threat is not a waste its very important.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 14, 2017, 06:59:45 pm
It really seems petty, aimed at the wrong people and wholly a cover for simple reactionary "Old-Fart-ism" of the lowest order.
I believe I'll be seeing you on the 25th in Brizzol Simon?
Though I guess you'll be unable tooffer an opinion on the matter...
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 14, 2017, 07:22:40 pm
It really seems petty, aimed at the wrong people and wholly a cover for simple reactionary "Old-Fart-ism" of the lowest order.
I believe I'll be seeing you on the 25th in Brizzol Simon?
Though I guess you'll be unable tooffer an opinion on the matter...

Yes I'll be at the SW Area meet to talk about Affinity Partnerships and Commercial endorsement. I have a BMC staff hat but don't have to wear it all the time -I'm a member too after all
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 14, 2017, 08:39:46 pm
It's potentially a loss of actual peoples jobs and some excellent volunteer input  and a complete refocus of democratically determined  organisational aims. Taking time to oppose such a threat is not a waste its very important.

I agree - sorry, didn't make my point very clearly...

I meant the whole no confidence vote is a waste of time and effort (thinking of the lengthy response to the notion that must have taken ages to draft..) that could have been spent doing something more constructive for the organisation.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: andy popp on March 14, 2017, 08:44:22 pm
That's how I read your post Tom.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on March 14, 2017, 11:02:13 pm
Do many people tend to vote by proxy? If Bob is marshalling votes then this could be another fucking Brexit/Trump fiasco.
I implore people to take the time to vote to oppose the motion.

What's the deal with affiliate members who are members through their club? Do they get a vote? May be able to drum up some votes that way.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Muenchener on March 15, 2017, 05:35:59 am
The whole thing stinks.

Having now seen the official proposers list as published by the BMC (linked from the other channel) - is there anybody on it who has climbed anything of note this century? The one person on it I know personally already hadn't tied a rope on* for years when I knew him in the 90s, and I suspect hasn't since either.

What I find especially obnoxious is the way this Pettigrew character appears to be sneaking around drumming up support from other old duffers at club AGMs instead of engaging in any public discussion of what he is trying to achieve and why. As Will rightly points out, there seems from my outsider perspective to be a very real danger he could win through procedural politics and block voting rather than through convincing a majority of the validity of his arguments. If indeed he has any.

* Metaphorical rope. Nothing wrong with hillwalking of course. Or bouldering
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 15, 2017, 08:34:42 am
Anyway, some wonderful old maps - that are mountain related...

From: http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-stunning-early-infographics-and-maps-of-the-1800s

(http://assets.atlasobscura.com/article_images/lg/39257/image.jpg)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: gme on March 15, 2017, 08:57:51 am
Do not click on the link tomtom just sent if you want to get any work done this morning. Brilliant.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Duma on March 15, 2017, 09:41:28 am
Quote
Can someone confirm the proxy can be made electronically to the chair with the position on the motion pre selected on the proxy card as the chair.  This looks like the most convenient route for those who have already made up their minds.

Anyone?

TT - that link is amazing, thank you!
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 15, 2017, 10:36:52 am
Quote
Can someone confirm the proxy can be made electronically to the chair with the position on the motion pre selected on the proxy card as the chair.  This looks like the most convenient route for those who have already made up their minds.

Anyone?


Just clarified. Members can print and complete the pdf of the voting card (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1439)  and return a scanned copy by email but it must be handwritten with signature, not typed as it otherwise it cannot be accepted. The procedure is limited by the articles apparently. It is not an online voting system.

Does that answer what you are after?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 15, 2017, 10:45:45 am
What about club affiliate members voting rights?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Johnny Brown on March 15, 2017, 10:45:59 am
Quote
The procedure is limited by the articles apparently

I hope updating the articles is on the cards. It is 2017 after all.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 15, 2017, 10:48:18 am
What about club affiliate members voting rights?

Sorry what is a club affiliate member? If you are a member of a club that is a BMC club then you are still a BMC member no?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 15, 2017, 10:50:55 am
For traditional pedants sometimes just changing 'an' article is impossible! ;-)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 15, 2017, 10:52:18 am
What about club affiliate members voting rights?

Sorry what is a club affiliate member? If you are a member of a club that is a BMC club then you are still a BMC member no?

Some club members who are not seperately individual members want to confirm they have a vote.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 15, 2017, 10:58:50 am
What about club affiliate members voting rights?

Sorry what is a club affiliate member? If you are a member of a club that is a BMC club then you are still a BMC member no?

Some club members who are not seperately individual members want to confirm they have a vote.

Yes. One member (club or individual), one vote.

Clubs no longer have a block vote.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Duma on March 15, 2017, 11:10:48 am
Quote
Can someone confirm the proxy can be made electronically to the chair with the position on the motion pre selected on the proxy card as the chair.  This looks like the most convenient route for those who have already made up their minds.

Anyone?


Just clarified. Members can print and complete the pdf of the voting card (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1439)  and return a scanned copy by email but it must be handwritten with signature, not typed as it otherwise it cannot be accepted. The procedure is limited by the articles apparently. It is not an online voting system.

Does that answer what you are after?

Yup. Can you confirm the email address to send it to please?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 15, 2017, 11:45:00 am
 office@thebmc.co.uk
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 15, 2017, 12:10:23 pm
Its only valid if you fill in the form whilst on a hanging belay.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on March 15, 2017, 12:12:50 pm
Just to clarify the point, a member of the Leeds University Mountaineering Club, who is not also an individual member, should have a vote, as they receive affiliate membership through their club? I'm not sure what constitutes a "BMC club" you see.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 15, 2017, 01:14:02 pm
It is the club that affiliates, not the club member. As Sharkey says a member of an affiliated club has the same voting rights as an individual BMC member.

A quick google shows a pdf list of Affiliated clubs and yes, LUMC is on the list.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 15, 2017, 02:57:42 pm
LMC too Will. You could vote twice ;)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 15, 2017, 02:58:39 pm
Actually - how the f*ck can the BMC verify these votes - do they have a list of the club members in the affiliated clubs to check em off against? (Suspect not...)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 15, 2017, 03:04:37 pm
Actually - how the f*ck can the BMC verify these votes - do they have a list of the club members in the affiliated clubs to check em off against? (Suspect not...)

Err, yes they do.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 15, 2017, 03:14:17 pm
That surprises me - ok it was 20 and a bit years ago I was part of the running committee of LUUMC - and things have changed since then of course but I don't remember any lists of members going to the BMC (of course there may have been loads of different ways of doing things back then - and they may not have been affiliated).
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 15, 2017, 03:24:05 pm
That surprises me - ok it was 20 and a bit years ago I was part of the running committee of LUUMC - and things have changed since then of course but I don't remember any lists of members going to the BMC (of course there may have been loads of different ways of doing things back then - and they may not have been affiliated).

I don't know how interactive the list is - when a club renews it's affiliation it send a list, the fees payable are determined by the size of the list. If you joined or left the club after the list is sent I doubt if the central database is updated.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Duma on March 15, 2017, 03:35:18 pm
thanks Simon.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 15, 2017, 07:59:31 pm
FFS

http://www.vagabondmc.com/news/background_information_to_vote_of_no_confidence

This is really mad stuff and the attempts to harvest proxy votes very real.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 15, 2017, 08:15:10 pm
That really is pants. What's this about natural rock competitions, by the way? Not heard that rumour.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 15, 2017, 08:35:28 pm
That really is pants. What's this about natural rock competitions, by the way? Not heard that rumour.

It is bullshit.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on March 15, 2017, 08:55:49 pm
Absolutely shameful. They say in that letter:

Quote
This undercover re-branding exercise cost the BMC
£25,000

This is a flat lie. They're gathering up proxies based on barefaced lies. Given how few vote in the AGM this is definitely going to go through if we don't mobilise people to vote it down.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 15, 2017, 09:03:13 pm
Also just out... how the BMC Bond villains took on the traditional AC defenders of all things honest and open:

http://www.vagabondmc.com/news/bmc_response
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Duma on March 16, 2017, 07:58:11 am
What an unmitigated crock of shit.

Proxy vote sent.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: highrepute on March 16, 2017, 08:50:20 am
Should discussion of the vote get split to its own thread to raise its profile.

Depressing BS this.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Teaboy on March 16, 2017, 09:33:54 am
If there is a case to answer it's certainly not made in that letter. It was just vague ramblings and the one thing of substance it did say was incorrect. I've still not seen one thing on what the proposed alternative is, if I was of the mind to seek change at the BMC I don't think I'd be hitching my wagon to this train.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: erm, sam on March 16, 2017, 09:40:13 am
If i joined the BMC now, would I be able to vote by proxy?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Johnny Brown on March 16, 2017, 09:56:42 am
I don't see why not.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Nails on March 16, 2017, 10:17:37 am
I've just joined online here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/membership

My previous membership had lapsed. If you're prepared to fill in a direct debit you get it for half price £15.72.

The confirmation email says that I'll receive my membership number within ten days with my membership card. I'm assuming that this will allow me to vote. If not then I'll have spent £15 on the BMC which I should have got around to doing anyway.

Needless to say, though I am not completely uncritical of the BMC, I think this whole no-confidence fandango is a pile of shite. Other than Steve Venables I don't think there's anyone on that list below 70 (indeed a number are in their 80s). I do have respect for some of them and their historical achievements, but they're hardly equipped to lead the BMC through the 21st century.

Make no mistake that if this no-confidence motion succeeds then it will effectively mean the dissolution of the current BMC management with no plan or even thought as to what to replace it with. It's effectively a vote to have no representative body for British climbing at all. How bizarre is that?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 16, 2017, 10:24:40 am

It's effectively a vote to have no representative body for British climbing at all.


Maybe the Alpine Club could resume it's position at the helm of British climbing.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Nails on March 16, 2017, 10:32:25 am
I've just confirmed with the BMC that joining now will enable me to vote at the AGM which can be done with the proxy voting card https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1439 (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1439)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Muenchener on March 16, 2017, 10:38:49 am
Maybe the Alpine Club could resume it's position at the helm of British climbing.

That does seem to be the real agenda.

And the future governance plan also becomes clear: future AGM voting to be limited however many people fit in the (pipe-) smoker's lounge at the P-y-G (residents only). Perhaps with some kind of concession to the pleb upstarts down the road at Helyg & Ynys Ettws.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on March 16, 2017, 10:53:54 am
I've just confirmed with the BMC that joining now will enable me to vote at the AGM which can be done with the proxy voting card https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1439 (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1439)

Might be worth noting here that for those of you like me who are too lazy to stop your car by a postbox on your way home from work you can in fact email in your proxy voting form to office@thebmc.co.uk
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Duma on March 16, 2017, 11:01:07 am
I've just confirmed with the BMC that joining now will enable me to vote at the AGM which can be done with the proxy voting card https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1439 (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1439)

Might be worth noting here that for those of you like me who are too lazy to stop your car by a postbox on your way home from work you can in fact email in your proxy voting form to office@thebmc.co.uk

this is what I've done, had a confirmation email confirming receipt promptly too.

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Nails on March 16, 2017, 11:01:42 am
Has to be handwritten signature though and scanned.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Duma on March 16, 2017, 11:12:49 am
yeah - just print form, fill it out, take pic on phone, email to bmc.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 16, 2017, 11:55:02 am

It's effectively a vote to have no representative body for British climbing at all.


Maybe the Alpine Club could resume it's position at the helm of British climbing.

Maybe in their fantasies. The real world of climbing, mountaineering and hillwalking has moved on. When the real democracy of full BMC membership is tested (let alone the views of the wider participant group), with the full facts in view, they will just lose votes on their position again. Given the potentially unrepresentative nature of the AGM and the scheming and misinformation from Bob and co, influencing many involved at club level who don't use internet forums (and may have taken views on trust that are infact untrue or highly distorted) and who may have already voted. Because of this there must be a strong argument to ignore a successful but marginal AGM no confidence vote and put the question to the full membership directly with arguments on both sides, to ensure a fair result. If no confidence wins and isn't challenged, good people will lose jobs, great volunteer experience will be burnt and the organisation will as a minimum lose focus (in difficult times) through the need to rebuild, with a risk the organisation as we know it could be lost entirely to be replaced by a shadow of its former self.

I urge people to use their proxy voting rights.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 16, 2017, 12:49:43 pm
While I agree with the sentiments that people use their vote/proxy vote or whatever it's called, is it too much to ask for there to be a simple and secure online voting system for BMC members to make their views known in important matters? Yes, I'm a lazy and easily-distracted product of my environment; but you've got to work with what you have and what you have is a lot of people who aren't members of 'the letter-writing generation' that Pettigrew et al come from. An online voting system would swing the balance right back in favour of the younger generation and away from the old-guard.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: jshaw on March 16, 2017, 12:51:41 pm
yeah - just print form, fill it out, take pic on phone, email to bmc.

Did this. Had a reply within the hour confirming receipt.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Teaboy on March 16, 2017, 12:57:00 pm
While I agree with the sentiments that people use their vote/proxy vote or whatever it's called, is it too much to ask for there to be a simple and secure online voting system for BMC members to make their views known in important matters? Yes, I'm a lazy and easily-distracted product of my environment; but you've got to work with what you have and what you have is a lot of people who aren't members of 'the letter-writing generation' that Pettigrew et al come from. An online voting system would swing the balance right back in favour of the younger generation and away from the old-guard.

I'm like you, though not as young, but I don't think there's anything wrong with these things requiring a bit of effort. It's probably how we got to this point in the first place, a lot of online outrage about Climb Britain emboldening the proposers but ultimately meaningless. If a view is worth being heard it's worth the originator spending a few minutes getting it out there.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on March 16, 2017, 12:58:40 pm
An online voting system would swing the balance right back in favour of the younger generation and away from the old-guard.

Now there's an thought.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 16, 2017, 01:05:16 pm
Ha, I know what you're thinking. I take it back! Will of the (old) peepull..
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Paul B on March 16, 2017, 01:22:55 pm
While I agree with the sentiments that people use their vote/proxy vote or whatever it's called, is it too much to ask for there to be a simple and secure online voting system for BMC members to make their views known in important matters? Yes, I'm a lazy and easily-distracted product of my environment; but you've got to work with what you have and what you have is a lot of people who aren't members of 'the letter-writing generation' that Pettigrew et al come from. An online voting system would swing the balance right back in favour of the younger generation and away from the old-guard.

 :agree: and in general supplying paper copies of bills etc. for proof of identity. Paperless billing is pretty standard these days!
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 16, 2017, 01:23:49 pm
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
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: galpinos on March 16, 2017, 01:26:06 pm
While I agree with the sentiments that people use their vote/proxy vote or whatever it's called, is it too much to ask for there to be a simple and secure online voting system for BMC members to make their views known in important matters? Yes, I'm a lazy and easily-distracted product of my environment; but you've got to work with what you have and what you have is a lot of people who aren't members of 'the letter-writing generation' that Pettigrew et al come from. An online voting system would swing the balance right back in favour of the younger generation and away from the old-guard.

Wasn't it mentioned upthread (or maybe on UKC) that the articles of the BMC currently forced this somewhat archaic system but they were in the process of being overhauled?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 16, 2017, 01:31:43 pm
Wasn't it mentioned upthread (or maybe on UKC) that the articles of the BMC currently forced this somewhat archaic system but they were in the process of being overhauled?

The Articles can only be changed at an AGM. Catch 22 perhaps?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 16, 2017, 01:44:53 pm
Well.. a great use of 25-grand would be to make this happen. It would be the single simplest thing that could change how the BMC interacts with and represents its membership. Writing letters and acting out some interpretation of a local council meeting has always seemed ridiculous to me for a body that represents something as trivial and left-field as climbing and mountaineering. When I occasionally used to go to local BMC meets even their debating-house protocol left me cold.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 16, 2017, 01:48:59 pm
Proxy forms will be available on the desk at The Works, we will post them all at an appropriate time.

I am sure that we can get a few filled in over the weekend  ;)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 16, 2017, 02:20:52 pm
Proxy forms will be available on the desk at The Works, we will post them all at an appropriate time.

I am sure that we can get a few filled in over the weekend  ;)
That's an idea.
Robbed!
Also at the Boulder Bunker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 16, 2017, 02:25:26 pm
It wasn't my idea  :)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 16, 2017, 02:29:48 pm
Proxy forms will be available on the desk at The Works, we will post them all at an appropriate time.

I am sure that we can get a few filled in over the weekend  ;)

Star. I owe you a pint.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 16, 2017, 02:39:14 pm
Have posted on the UK Climbing Walls FB page as well, that should get a few more signatures.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: gme on March 16, 2017, 04:49:35 pm
I just joined for the 1st time since 92. And voted.

I never stayed a member due to my perception of it being run by coffin dodgers with no interest in the bits of climbing i loved and now the action of the same group of coffin dodgers, that kind of prove my suspicions were right, have  made me join again.

Is this some kind of clever marketing thing Shark?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 16, 2017, 04:51:20 pm
Is this some kind of clever marketing thing Shark?

 :great:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 16, 2017, 05:06:53 pm
Is this some kind of clever marketing thing Shark?

 :ninja:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on March 16, 2017, 05:13:12 pm
The fightback is here. Vive le resistance!

Please join this event and share it with your mates. Full instructions on how to vote are included and we must mobilise those who may not be aware of what is going on and encourage them to vote.

https://www.facebook.com/events/219657878510461/
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 16, 2017, 05:22:03 pm
Joined and Shared
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 16, 2017, 05:22:59 pm
Should discussion of the vote get split to its own thread to raise its profile.

Good suggestion - now done
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Hugh on March 16, 2017, 05:41:05 pm
The fightback is here. Vive le resistance!

Please join this event and share it with your mates. Full instructions on how to vote are included and we must mobilise those who may not be aware of what is going on and encourage them to vote.

https://www.facebook.com/events/219657878510461/

Done and shared. Really pretty pissed off at this - have seen similar happen in other organisations and capture by a small subsection of the membership never ends well.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 16, 2017, 06:38:25 pm
Thanks Will. Another star and another pint.

It would be good if a few more comments went on the BMC article

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-agenda--motion

and on their Facebook page.

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 16, 2017, 07:08:53 pm
Done and done.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Nails on March 16, 2017, 08:58:34 pm
I just joined for the 1st time since 92. And voted.

I never stayed a member due to my perception of it being run by coffin dodgers with no interest in the bits of climbing i loved and now the action of the same group of coffin dodgers, that kind of prove my suspicions were right, have  made me join again.

Is this some kind of clever marketing thing Shark?
There is  a certain irony that the whole debacle has probably inspired various people to re-join the BMC. I tended to think of myself as too Punk Rock to be joining a club. But it's not 1977 is it? The proposers need to accept this too!
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: abarro81 on March 16, 2017, 09:12:39 pm
It's spurred me to  get off my ass and sort my lapsed membership
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: erm, sam on March 16, 2017, 09:50:15 pm
I have also joined so I can vote.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 16, 2017, 10:28:24 pm
Slippery slope.

You'll be National Council reps before you know it.

#putsomethingback
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: lagerstarfish on March 16, 2017, 10:38:59 pm
you bunch of sheep

I'm not joining until Carol Vorderman says it's cool
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 17, 2017, 11:33:02 am

I'm not joining until Carol Vorderman says it's cool

Ah Carol... the picture that filled many a thousand young conservative tissues.

"https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/feb/01/carol-vorderman-maths-conservatives"

If two score are due and a bakers dozen have fallen how many lashes are left boy....thwaaack.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: rich d on March 20, 2017, 05:27:05 pm
Summit turned up today and has the proxy voting form in it. However as I'm not a member of the BMC, this is the summit mag for someone who used to live at my house, several years ago. Next door say he was an old duffer when he lived here quite a few years ago. Should I vote for him against motion 9?
 :devil-smiley: :devil-smiley:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 20, 2017, 07:55:46 pm
Summit turned up today and has the proxy voting form in it. However as I'm not a member of the BMC, this is the summit mag for someone who used to live at my house, several years ago. Next door say he was an old duffer when he lived here quite a few years ago. Should I vote for him against motion 9?
 :devil-smiley: :devil-smiley:

Don't even joke. It's the sort of ammo these types would love to use to accuse the Exec of poor governance and the vote being rigged
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: rich d on March 20, 2017, 08:05:02 pm
Russians are probably hacking it anyway....
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Sidehaas on March 20, 2017, 08:11:23 pm
I've avoided most of the internet discussion on all of this as there is just too much crap going on in the world - I like my internet climbing reading to be more positive or at least less serious!  However, I've taken note today since Summit came through and with it the voting form.
I am instinctively opposed to the anti-change / stuck-in-the-past brigade in most walks of life, so my views on this were always likely to be in one direction. However,  having read Martin Wragg's summary of the situation that came along with the voting form, I just don't see how the proposers even think they have a leg to stand on.  Assuming we take his summary as the complete  truth (and as the BMC's legal advisor I think we must) then it completely clear that the reasoning given in Bob Pettigrew's motion is simply false, and the governance applied followed all the rules, therefore the motion as it stands should be thrown out. There doesn't seem much room for judgement,  regardless of your views on the broader direction of the BMC, branding etc.

As an aside I can't help feeling it is telling that this has come from an exclusive outdated club like the AC, but perhaps that has already been said.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 20, 2017, 09:47:39 pm
As an aside I can't help feeling it is telling that this has come from an exclusive outdated club like the AC, but perhaps that has already been said.

It appears that the AC Committee are against the motion (I talked with one of it's members) and that the whole thing is being pushed by one of the signatories but not the motion's proposer.

The question is who is the ogre in the room?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 20, 2017, 10:51:55 pm
Assuming we take his summary as the complete  truth (and as the BMC's legal advisor I think we must) then it completely clear that the reasoning given in Bob Pettigrew's motion is simply false, and the governance applied followed all the rules, therefore the motion as it stands should be thrown out.

I think I am correct in saying that Martin is also the Alpine Clubs legal adviser. The danger is that irrespective of the wording of the motion, many members who are disaffected in one aspect of the BMC or another may choose the opportunity to vote for the motion as a kind of protest vote.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: mrjonathanr on March 20, 2017, 11:01:38 pm
Quite. Look what happened last time.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Teaboy on March 20, 2017, 11:20:15 pm

The question is who is the ogre in the room?

I'd have guessed at him even without the clue! Hopefully he'll crawl down from his current position, possibly with the guidance of Bonners given his position.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: DAVETHOMAS90 on March 21, 2017, 02:53:53 am
having read Martin Wragg's summary of the situation that came along with the voting form

I'm not a fan of the BMC - although I respect and applaud the great contribution made by many staff members - and as such, I'm not a member.

Would it be possible for someone to post up details of the summary?

To me, the basis for the motion seems quite clear, irrespective of what people may want to read into it - WRT due process - or lack of it - on a point of governance.

The position may lack sufficient supporting evidence, but I think that a lot of the responses here are pretty defensive/irrational, not particularly addressing the basis of the motion with strong argument either.

It would be great to see additional information if that's possible - but heh, I'm not a member  ;)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Muenchener on March 21, 2017, 06:17:14 am
I'm not a BMC member either Dave. I haven't climbed regularly in the UK for twenty years and have no actual opinion on whether or not the BMC is well run. I have only actually met one of the proposers of the motion; it was a long time ago and I didn't know him well even then. So, having established my excellent credentials and wealth of insider knowledge:

The manner in which the proposers of the motion are going about their campaign is an attempt to drag the BMC kicking and screaming into the 1970s and therefore should be resisted tooth & nail.

The motion refers to "wilful and deliberate withholding of future policy decisions", and yet its proposers are engaging in wilful and deliberate avoidance of open public discussion in favour of - one hears - addressing meetings of the Oread, letters to the Vagabond etc. The whole thing looks like an attempt to stage a coup by drumming up enough club members to win an AGM vote, rather than to address serious issues via open discussion in the public forums that actually exist in this century.

I've been on climbing club committees and seen the type many times - people for whom petty committee politics have replaced climbing as their actual primary sport. They should be stopped.

That should hopefully be sufficiently subjective, impressionistic and fact-free for you  :)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Sidehaas on March 21, 2017, 07:07:14 am
having read Martin Wragg's summary of the situation that came along with the voting form



Would it be possible for someone to post up details of the summary?

To me, great to see additional information if that's possible - but heh, I'm not a member  ;)

You should join. Here it is:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx%3Fid%3D1441&ved=0ahUKEwiGneCxhOfSAhUqKcAKHfZ2CsIQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNHHg24aVwv9det-XZvv_PBelTSYgg
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 21, 2017, 04:09:38 pm
That report by Martin Wragg is informative.

So...

Firstly, in his conclusion he states that:  'There is no connection between the proposal to adopt the brand name Climb Britain and the inclusion of competition climbing in the 2020 Olympics'.

That may be what the BMC solicitor believes, but a great many people will find it much harder than he does to believe this.. For starters, it's surely impossible without having been present in the meeting rooms of the consultancies involved with the re-brand, to know the exact thinking and intentions. And it isn't difficult to see why the Climb Britain brand could be conflated with the inclusion of sport climbing in the olympics.. when you have the timing; and the similarity with other 'xyz UK' or 'xyz Britain' sports teams; and when you have media reports explicitly stating that the rationale for the BMC's re-brand is linked to the Olympics - http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1040189/japan-and-british-mountaineering-groups-set-to-change-names-to-reflect-climbing-being-included-on-olympic-programme

FFS  ::)  :-\
 
I'm not in favour of the old-fart's power games - they've had their day in the sun and they should disappear, and stop trying to tell the younger generation how to play the game. But people being told there was no link between the rebrand and the Olympics.. It doesn't add up to me and a lot of other people; and obviously some good governance would have pre-empted the obvious link with Olympics being made and they could have headed it off.. or better still, never gone down that Climb Britain road in the first place and saved everyone a lot of unnecessary hassle.

Secondly, he concludes:
'When a decision was made about a brand name it was made in accordance with the constitution.'

and

'Accordingly there is no governance issue arising from the brand decision.'

That isn't a very wide-ranging view of what constitutes good governance - 'as long as decisions are made within the constitution'. How about asking where was the good sense - which surely is a pre-requisite of 'good governance' - to realise that the membership should have been consulted early on in any re-brand proposal and not just 'National Council', who clearly voted out of step with the membership.

And finally..

'Unrelated governance issues have been identified and National Council resolved to set up a working group to review governance and report before BMC received notice of the No Confidence motion.'

So... on top of the poor governance (in spirit if not law) connected with the re-brand.. there has also been identified other poor governance.


So there was poor governance, just not (in the BMC's view) the poor governance that some people (don't) want. I'm not getting a warm feeling here BMC!

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 21, 2017, 04:23:55 pm

To me, the basis for the motion seems quite clear, irrespective of what people may want to read into it - WRT due process - or lack of it - on a point of governance.

The position may lack sufficient supporting evidence, but I think that a lot of the responses here are pretty defensive/irrational, not particularly addressing the basis of the motion with strong argument either.


I guess you can be forgiven coming late to this. The original draft of the motion was backed by some seriously big names (a few of whom claimed no knowledge of the motion when contacted) and a series of points of misinformation that has been challenged directly with the actual facts. This was followed by Leo's letter to the Vagabond, which was little better (now deleted but preserved on internet histories and copied on a UKC thread) . The actual motion has no clear details at all, other than being something to do with the rebrand (all governance issues critiqued in the BMC legal advice). It's all happening a year later than it should (an EGM should heve been called if its that important and Bob was serious) and with a complete refusal of any of the Signatories to debate publicly, other than Steve W (who said something different again to the motion).

Bob's been very busy collecting proxy votes and a whole load of people stand to lose their jobs/roles if this is not taken very seriously. In the meantime the organisation won't be as focussed as it should on repairing those aqueducts etc, you take for granted.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: galpinos on March 21, 2017, 04:30:10 pm
That report by Martin Wragg is informative.

.......

And finally..

'Unrelated governance issues have been identified and National Council resolved to set up a working group to review governance and report before BMC received notice of the No Confidence motion.'

So... on top of the poor governance (in spirit if not law) connected with the re-brand.. there has also been identified other poor governance.

So there was poor governance, just not (in the BMC's view) the poor governance that some people (don't) want. I'm not getting a warm feeling here BMC!

Ru responded to your second point on the other channel:

Quote
There was a recent attempt to rationalise the articles of association by making a matrix that specified which body (exec/NT/staff etc) was responsible for a long list of types of decision. This was abandoned when it was decided that the best draft didn't in fact accord with the articles. This is one of the reasons that a governance review has been initiated because squaring the articles with the companies act was very difficult when trying to make the matrix. I'm not aware of any decisions actually taken that do not accord with the articles.

and

Quote
Yes, that's the same thing I'm referring to. Martin is not saying that actual decisions were taken that weren't in accordance with the articles. Rather an attempt was made to define the split between the NC and the exec and this failed on its first attempt.

PS If you would like to pen an academic paper on the practical solutions to governance issues that arise when a membership organisation is constituted as a company limited by guarantee with specific reference to the tensions between the legal duties of a board of directors (as set out in the Companies Act 2006 and other places) and the desire for policy decisions to be taken by an elected council of member representatives, then the BMC would be most interested.

These responses were in this thread:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=659967&v=1
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 21, 2017, 04:44:50 pm
That's useful thanks.

The BMC's explanations for the whole Climb Britain re-brand I'm sure still don't add up for a lot of people. Whether or not it's a case of 'poor governance' - in spirit it seems to be; in law, god (or Ru) knows - it is a case of poor leadership and poor judgement. That much is obvious.

And whether or not that's a case for a no confidence vote ...
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 21, 2017, 04:47:07 pm
That report by Martin Wragg is informative.

So...

Firstly, in his conclusion he states that:  'There is no connection between the proposal to adopt the brand name Climb Britain and the inclusion of competition climbing in the 2020 Olympics'.

That may be what the BMC solicitor believes, but a great many people will find it much harder than he does to believe this.. For starters, it's surely impossible without having been present in the meeting rooms of the consultancies involved with the re-brand, to know the exact thinking and intentions. And it isn't difficult to see why the Climb Britain brand could be conflated with the inclusion of sport climbing in the olympics.. when you have the timing; and the similarity with other 'xyz UK' or 'xyz Britain' sports teams; and when you have media reports explicitly stating that the rationale for the BMC's re-brand is linked to the Olympics - http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1040189/japan-and-british-mountaineering-groups-set-to-change-names-to-reflect-climbing-being-included-on-olympic-programme

FFS  ::)  :-\
 
I'm not in favour of the old-fart's power games - they've had their day in the sun and they should disappear, and stop trying to tell the younger generation how to play the game. But people being told there was no link between the rebrand and the Olympics.. It doesn't add up to me and a lot of other people; and obviously some good governance would have pre-empted the obvious link with Olympics being made and they could have headed it off.. or better still, never gone down that Climb Britain road in the first place and saved everyone a lot of unnecessary hassle.

Secondly, he concludes:
'When a decision was made about a brand name it was made in accordance with the constitution.'

and

'Accordingly there is no governance issue arising from the brand decision.'

That isn't a very wide-ranging view of what constitutes good governance - 'as long as decisions are made within the constitution'. How about asking where was the good sense - which surely is a pre-requisite of 'good governance' - to realise that the membership should have been consulted early on in any re-brand proposal and not just 'National Council', who clearly voted out of step with the membership.

And finally..

'Unrelated governance issues have been identified and National Council resolved to set up a working group to review governance and report before BMC received notice of the No Confidence motion.'

So... on top of the poor governance (in spirit if not law) connected with the re-brand.. there has also been identified other poor governance.


So there was poor governance, just not (in the BMC's view) the poor governance that some people (don't) want. I'm not getting a warm feeling here BMC!

Nothing new and the counter arguments have all been debated here and on UKC.

It's possible the Marketing organisation partly duped the BMC (Moff and others were consulted as part of the survey and nowhere was a possible rebrand explictly brought up).

The rebrand was mainly about recruiting from non traditional areas like indoor walls ( the marking group again may dirty in this, the BMC more likely naive than Olympics-pushing Bond villains). You are right many members are suspicious... conspiracy theries are surprisingly popular. The BMC membership has voted numerous times at area meetings and AGM's to reject motions from Bob and others aimed at distancing the BMC from the Olympics. Yet it remains a live and divisive issue.

The BMC in the rebrand followed a process consistent with their articles and after mass feedback which was mainly negative quickly moved to review the decision. They apologised for their mistake and overturned the rebrand when area meeting input was obtained. The spirit of governance was clearly met, eventually.

Ru has discussed at length the very real legal difficulties in the complexity of the BMC constitution that make a workable governance model very tricky indeed, but they are having a look again (given what he says ... good luck on that).

Yes the BMC is imperfect (what organisation isnt)  but is this a heroic campaign or a disgruntled minority trying dirty tricks to remove an exec they don't like?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 21, 2017, 04:52:44 pm
Quote
The BMC membership has voted numerous times at area meetings and AGM's to reject motions from Bob and others aimed at distancing the BMC from the Olympics.

As evidence of the direction its membership wishes the BMC to take this is near to worthless. You and I know that the people who turn up at area meetings and AGM's are a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of the membership. A large strategical decision like aligning or not with the Olympics should be taken after consulting as many members as possible. This is the internet age, not the village committee age.

Quote
The BMC in the rebrand followed a process consistent with their articles and after mass feedback which was mainly negative quickly moved to review the decision. They apologised for their mistake and overturned the rebrand when area meeting input was obtained. The spirit of governance was clearly met, eventually.

Agreed.Eventually. But it's hardly difficult to predict some pretty major resistance to a quite radical re-brand of a long-standing brand. Hence why it's so difficult to understand why they didn't just consult the membership.... before?!?! Poor leadership. Not that I really care as much as it might seem - just call poor leadership what it is and don't try to pull the wool.


For sure the motion of no confidence reeks of grudges adn power games. I'm not in favour. But there is a case to be answered rather than let it get ignored in the stand against OAP alpinists.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 21, 2017, 04:55:51 pm
Firstly, in his conclusion he states that:  'There is no connection between the proposal to adopt the brand name Climb Britain and the inclusion of competition climbing in the 2020 Olympics'.

That may be what the BMC solicitor believes, but a great many people will find it much harder than he does to believe this.. For starters, it's surely impossible without having been present in the meeting rooms of the consultancies involved with the re-brand, to know the exact thinking and intentions. And it isn't difficult to see why the Climb Britain brand could be conflated with the inclusion of sport climbing in the olympics.. when you have the timing; and the similarity with other 'xyz UK' or 'xyz Britain' sports teams; and when you have media reports explicitly stating that the rationale for the BMC's re-brand is linked to the Olympics - http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1040189/japan-and-british-mountaineering-groups-set-to-change-names-to-reflect-climbing-being-included-on-olympic-programme

FFS  ::)  :-\
 
I'm not in favour of the old-fart's power games - they've had their day in the sun and they should disappear, and stop trying to tell the younger generation how to play the game. But people being told there was no link between the rebrand and the Olympics.. It doesn't add up to me and a lot of other people; and obviously some good governance would have pre-empted the obvious link with Olympics being made and they could have headed it off.. or better still, never gone down that Climb Britain road in the first place and saved everyone a lot of unnecessary hassle.


Pete,

The driver behind the Consultancy report funded by Sport England was to help prepare the BMC for cuts in Sport England funding. Similarly funded exercises were undertaken at numerous other Sporting bodies to help them prepare then in the same way. A re-brand was not an expected outcome - a tarting up of the logo was what was expected. However, after their research the consultants felt a re-brand was justified to reach a wider commercial audience (ie outside the Outdoor Industry etc)  and attract younger climbers for whom the British Mountaineering Council name was unknown and offputting. I have read the reports and can assure you that the Olympics was not the driver behind the re-brand.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 21, 2017, 04:59:58 pm
I think you (they, BMC, whoever) probably need to get that message out more clearly to more people then Simon.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 21, 2017, 05:05:11 pm
I think you (they, BMC, whoever) probably need to get that message out more clearly to more people then Simon.

They kept saying and everyone assumes otherwise. You doubted Martin Wragg who is a respected lawyer. Sometimes things are as they are stated and appear to be.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 21, 2017, 05:05:42 pm
Blame the articles that are difficult to change and that Bob is trying to exploit. Id love to see wider consultation (even to non members... the horror!).

Anecdotally the climbers I know are much more pro Olympic than the BMC members I know who are more pro Olympic than the  members who go to meetings. I think the Olympic format is a crock of shit so have no bias other than supporting the democracy that allows the organisation (I volunteer extensively for) to function. I'm also very suspicious of the likes of Schlerosis who end up gettting re-elected time and again to lead competitive sport organisations but I'm assured he is not as bad as Bob paints him (hard to be worse!)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 21, 2017, 05:21:58 pm
So there was poor governance, just not (in the BMC's view) the poor governance that some people (don't) want. I'm not getting a warm feeling here BMC!


This isn't my area but the governance dilemma as I understand it all stems from the National Council being responsible for policy (strategy) but being unaccountable for those policies and their consequences and the Board of Directors (the Exec) being responsible for carrying out policy as directed and then being legally responsible for the outcomes under company law even if they didn't devise those policies.

This has muddled along when there general agreement about matters but is viewed as problematic in terms of governance and also becomes problematic when the shit hits the fan over vexatious issues. Also defining what is and isn't policy and execution is also tricky and can be argued at length at National Council meetings. A matrix to allocate how it was all divvied up failed to reach a conclusion in November.

In most organisations the Board of Directors has the prime responsibility for making decisions as it has the prime accountability for the consequences. The BMC set up is a bit weird.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 21, 2017, 06:12:52 pm
Yeah no shit, when the setup of the BMC governance is explained in those term, it is very weird! And this is the best we can do? It's not that surprising balls-up happen.

Is it really that difficult to just make the policy(strategy)-making body also the legally responsible body? It can't be. Who stands to lose out?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 21, 2017, 06:40:02 pm
Yeah no shit, when the setup of the BMC governance is explained in those term, it is very weird! And this is the best we can do? It's not that surprising balls-up happen.

Is it really that difficult to just make the policy(strategy)-making body also the legally responsible body? It can't be. Who stands to lose out?

How do you get turkeys to vote for christmas?

(Speaking as a former turkey)

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 21, 2017, 07:10:07 pm
Pay them cash money. Simple.

BMC turnover 2.9million per year. Surely it could afford pay a board of directors.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 21, 2017, 07:25:42 pm
Pay them cash money. Simple.

BMC turnover 2.9million per year. Surely it could afford pay a board of directors.

Half of that goes on Sharks salary...
[emoji12]
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Ru on March 21, 2017, 07:34:25 pm
Is it really that difficult to just make the policy(strategy)-making body also the legally responsible body? It can't be. Who stands to lose out?

No, it's easy to do that. Just change the articles. But if you did that the board would not be obliged to run *any* decision past anyone. The whole point of the national council is that it represents the member's views so that BMC policy cannot be dictated by the board. Take the rebrand decision. Your "governance" issue with this decision is that the exec asked the member's representatives (the national council) what they thought (which is required by the articles), but not the members themselves (not required). And now you suggest the solution is to make it so that the board wouldn't even need to do that. So in answer to your question, the members would lose out. And as the BMC is a membership organisation, that is viewed as bad.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 21, 2017, 07:45:11 pm
The theory is that it represents Members but the practice is that National Council reps get very little direction from Areas let alone the wider membership. There is an avalanche of papers that is very hard to interpret unless you are a longstanding insider. As a NationalCouncilrep i felt very much like a bored cog in a needless machine that slowed up decision making and was costly to organise re venues and expenses.

There are alternative safeguards that can be put in place to rein in a Board or make it more accountable.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 21, 2017, 08:05:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Ru on March 21, 2017, 08:20:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 21, 2017, 08:35:42 pm
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..
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: DAVETHOMAS90 on March 22, 2017, 01:25:06 am
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  :clap2:  :clap2: except for Dan M - he's a slacker  :P  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.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 22, 2017, 07:52:44 am
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.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 22, 2017, 08:42:38 am
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.

Quote
BMC staff do a lot of great work  :clap2:  :clap2: except for Dan M - he's a slacker  :P  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.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 22, 2017, 08:57:56 am
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.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 22, 2017, 10:02:07 am
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.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on March 22, 2017, 10:10:10 am
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?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 22, 2017, 10:45:39 am
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!!! :blink:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 22, 2017, 11:25:27 am
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
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 22, 2017, 01:19:53 pm
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 (https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660614)

Seems quite lacking in substance to me.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 22, 2017, 01:27:35 pm
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 (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. 

Quote
“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″

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 22, 2017, 01:36:55 pm
Oh my...
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: galpinos on March 22, 2017, 02:00:37 pm
Quote
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.



Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 22, 2017, 02:52:44 pm
Shark - who posted Bob's missive on the CC Forum?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: cheque on March 22, 2017, 03:20:28 pm
Unless BP's prone to flashes of capslock rage that seems like at least two messages squodged together?!

Also:  :wank:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Neil F on March 22, 2017, 03:24:52 pm
...capslock rage


 :lol:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 22, 2017, 03:32:29 pm
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..'
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 22, 2017, 04:15:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 22, 2017, 04:21:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on March 22, 2017, 04:37:42 pm
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
Title: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 22, 2017, 05:16:15 pm
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).
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: IDW on March 22, 2017, 05:28:00 pm
Quote
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........
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Muenchener on March 22, 2017, 05:42:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: DAVETHOMAS90 on March 23, 2017, 12:52:20 am

Quote
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.

I'd say that the BMC probably supports it's members (with the er, obvious caveat) but I see it as a separate and private institution in that regard. Regarding things like crag access, there are many people that fight for access - well, there were. My own views on that are probably very often not in alignment with many others.. I like the idea of some crags having restricted access for instance.. but that's drifting way off topic. I find the way that the BMC get involved in some area disputes (for instance) is often not democratic. I could add other points.

My climbing is a very individualistic thing.
People come together to support their collective causes all the time, and in that way, they are self defined. When they are large enough, they often add monikers like "British" or "Britain".

I try to get involved with many issues, some of which may be related (in a very, very small way) to things like improving the crag environment, but I see that as an incidental part of trying to be more aware of my impact on the world around me. A lot of what gets done by the BMC will be a product of a large group of people sharing largely similar interests coming together. Whether it is "of" the BMC or not is an interesting claim.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 23, 2017, 07:28:45 am
I'd say that the BMC probably supports it's members (with the er, obvious caveat) but I see it as a separate and private institution in that regard......A lot of what gets done by the BMC will be a product of a large group of people sharing largely similar interests coming together. Whether it is "of" the BMC or not is an interesting claim.

Dave, It is not a claim it is a fact that the BMC is primarily a volunteering organisation where the paid staff support the BMC volunteers who are intrinsically a part of the organisation. The volunteers do the work in the name of the BMC and generally find it carries weight and is helpful to say they are representing the BMC when negotiating with Landowners, Derbyshire Wildlife etc and have backing (legal advice, literature etc) from head office. Maybe you perceive a bigger divide between the 'them' (paid staff) and 'us' (volunteers) than there actually is. I also contend that in the absence of an alternative it also represents all climbers and hillwalkers nationally when in contact with other national bodies such as the NT or with politicians working with other volunteering organisations on the all parliamentary committee
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 23, 2017, 10:41:58 am
Going back to the solicitor's report / background information leaflet that's been sent out to inform the debate.. There are still a few things that don't add up.

Martin states in his conclusion: ''at the time of the (2016) AGM ideas about brand were being discussed but no concrete proposals had been received and no decisions made.''

Further back in his report, in the timeline he says: ''Thinkfarm initially worked up ideas around a brand of ClimbGB in February/March 2016 with the involvement of several BMC staff, but this proved unworkable due to trademark issues [that URL is registered to Tom Hopper, a private individual] and the alternative of Climb Britain was proposed. ...''

and then:

''The first meeting of the Exec committee since January took place on 18 May when the brand proposal was discussed. The briefing paper for that meeting indicated there was still 3 name options for consideration, the first of which was no change i.e. remain as 'BMC'. ...''

So...
The Nominet record shows that the following domain names were registered by the BMC on 3rd March 2016:
'ClimbBritain.co.uk'
'ClimbBritain.uk'

(And on 6th July 2016: 'ClimbBritain.org.uk' was registered)

To get a clearer idea of how 'concrete' or not the ClimbBritain proposal was by the time of the AGM in April 2016 - which is what Bob Pettigrew's motion is all about - it would help to know what the third name option was. Remember Martin states in his report that there were still 3 name options for consideration at the Exec meeting in May: 'remain the same', 'ClimbBritain', and 'a.n. other', unnamed in Martin's report.

Did the 'other' brand name also have its URL registered by the BMC in March or early April before the AGM? If so this would support the BMC's position. Or was only ClimbBritain registered?

If you're going to give background information in an attempt to support a decision, then it would be helpful to give *all* the information to make an informed decision.


Two other points - Martin's report states Sport England offered a grant totaling £75,420 for the rebrand.
Why does all the information coming from the BMC state that the rebrand cost £25,000 of Sport England's money? Is this a mistake, where did the other £50,000 go?

He also states there was no connection between the rebrand and the olympics. Without a record of someone at BMC towers explicitly stating 'this rebrand is linked to the olympics becasue xyz', it seems to me impossible to prove or disprove this point. But I think people will use their own judgment on it.


Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: highrepute on March 23, 2017, 11:08:42 am
Two other points - Martin's report states Sport England offered a grant totaling £75,420 for the rebrand.
Why does all the information coming from the BMC state that the rebrand cost £25,000 of Sport England's money? Is this a mistake, where did the other £50,000 go?

The report actually says the £75k was to "pay consultancy fees with the objective of investigating methods of increasing commercial revenue and reducing dependence on public funding" and "B-focused was engaged to advise on increasing commercial revenue whilst Thinkfarm was contracted to provide advice on branding".

I would infer that B-fucused got 50k and thinkfarm 25k - the bastards.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 23, 2017, 11:18:12 am
It appears that the BMC have been busy registering domains for a few years

britishclimbing.co.uk was registered in 2013

https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=britishclimbing.co.uk#whois-results (https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=britishclimbing.co.uk#whois-results)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 23, 2017, 11:39:26 am
The report actually says the £75k was to "pay consultancy fees with the objective of investigating methods of increasing commercial revenue and reducing dependence on public funding" and "B-focused was engaged to advise on increasing commercial revenue whilst Thinkfarm was contracted to provide advice on branding".

I would infer that B-fucused got 50k and thinkfarm 25k - the bastards.

That would explain it. It would be good if it were made clear.


It appears that the BMC have been busy registering domains for a few years

britishclimbing.co.uk was registered in 2013

https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=britishclimbing.co.uk#whois-results (https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=britishclimbing.co.uk#whois-results)

Useful info. Was this the 'third option'? It would be good if it were made clear for the avoidance of doubt.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 23, 2017, 12:43:34 pm
I think you are being very kind to Bob and co with all this BMC doubt avoidance. What about doubts about their behaviour and scutiny of their facts? Why such a serious take on detail on a politically motivated rhetorical cloak and dagger campaign with so much misinformation, no concrete facts beyond the rebrand mess and all at least 6 months late, given when things happened and its importance.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on March 23, 2017, 12:45:56 pm
With regard to the domain name whois records, for all we know they could have been registered by the rebranding consultants as a precautionary measure then transferred to the BMC or something like that? Or possibly just someone at the BMC had a bright idea, given domain reg costs fuck all, to cover all possibilities in future. It's hardly unusual for companies to register domains they don't end up using.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 23, 2017, 01:05:00 pm
I think you are being very kind to Bob and co with all this BMC doubt avoidance. What about doubts about their behaviour and scutiny of their facts? Why such a serious take on detail on a politically motivated rhetorical cloak and dagger campaign with so much misinformation, no concrete facts beyond the rebrand mess and all at least 6 months late, given when things happened and its importance.

Why such a serious take - Because I'm being asked whether I have confidence or no confidence in something. I'd like to know the facts as best as possible before making a decision.

Dave - I agree. But it isn't helpful to have incomplete info - i.e. we've been told ClimbBritain was one of the names being considered and that it was registered as a domain name the month before the AGM. We've also been told another name was being considered, but we haven't been told what that name was, so can't know if that name was also registered as a domain name before the AGM.

Whether you agree with Pettigrew's motion or not it's information like that which would support or help refute his accusation of decisions being made/information being withheld from the membership at the AGM.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Johnny Brown on March 23, 2017, 01:39:09 pm
Quote
I would infer that B-fucused got 50k and thinkfarm 25k - the bastards.

This has been confirmed on the UKC thread by DT himself. Also:

Quote
The actual cost (i.e. over and above this and not including staff time) to the BMC was around £7k which covered trademarking and purchase of 28 relevant URLs (note: the URL purchases were made in three phases between 3 March - 6 July)

When I started our company I registered every domain name I could think of, including misspellings of my favourites. Given the response so far I can understand why you wouldn't release a full list, there'll be all kinds of shite in there.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 23, 2017, 02:09:23 pm
Quote
I would infer that B-fucused got 50k and thinkfarm 25k - the bastards.

This has been confirmed on the UKC thread by DT himself. Also:

Quote
The actual cost (i.e. over and above this and not including staff time) to the BMC was around £7k which covered trademarking and purchase of 28 relevant URLs (note: the URL purchases were made in three phases between 3 March - 6 July)

When I started our company I registered every domain name I could think of, including misspellings of my favourites. Given the response so far I can understand why you wouldn't release a full list, there'll be all kinds of shite in there.

I am pretty certain that Alex has been registering domains for years, partly for future proofing and partly defensive.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: lemony on March 23, 2017, 02:14:21 pm
I believe our company owns nearly a hundred domain names and uses... four.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 23, 2017, 02:21:45 pm
Hadn't read the UKC thread; just had a look and that clears up the £75k.

The domain names - Dave Turnbull has said 28 domain names were registered between 3rd March - 6th July 2016, in three phases.

3 of these were versions of 'climbbritain' - .org/.co.uk / .uk

Martin Wragg's (solicitor) report states that the notes from the Executive meeting on May 2016 stated that '3 options for rebrand were being considered: 'no change'; 'ClimbBritain' (URL registered on March 3rd) and 'a.n.other'.

So what was the other name up for consideration in May?
And what were the other 23 registered domain names, and when were they registered?

Knowing this would give a fairly good picture of what the thought process was and when, in relation to the AGM. Rather than just take one person's claim over another.

 
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 23, 2017, 02:27:08 pm
I think you are being very kind to Bob and co with all this BMC doubt avoidance. What about doubts about their behaviour and scutiny of their facts? Why such a serious take on detail on a politically motivated rhetorical cloak and dagger campaign with so much misinformation, no concrete facts beyond the rebrand mess and all at least 6 months late, given when things happened and its importance.

Why such a serious take - Because I'm being asked whether I have confidence or no confidence in something. I'd like to know the facts as best as possible before making a decision.


Maybe I'm old fashioned. It seems to me to run something as incredibly serious as a no-confidence vote Bob has to prove his case first, not those he accuses. The BMC information, since the rebrand problem,  has been timely, public and consistent. Bob has been late (why not an EGM last year?) , mainly hidden, inconsistent, and often factually wrong. I'm speaking as one of a minority in Peak area meets who had sympathy for some of his concerns over the years, as he lost democratic vote after democratic vote on subjects like tte BMC link with the Olympics. So where is your scrutiny of Bob whilst you nit pick on domain names (that I'd rather the BMC dont talk about for commercial reasons).
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Johnny Brown on March 23, 2017, 02:36:46 pm
I'd never heard of him a couple of weeks ago, but by God if I've learned something since it's that I've got no confidence in Bob Pettigrew. And Doug Scott, if it's him who's pulling the strings. Sad times.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 23, 2017, 02:53:31 pm
I'd vaguely heard his name from somewhere, probably a guidebook or news piece in some dusty corner of my mind. And Doug Scott - all I know is that a long time ago he crawled off a mountain and on to a speaking tour.


Offwidth - I don't disagree with you that Bob's facts need scrutiny and they're receiving exactly that from a lot of people.
But I'd like to know as much as possible about both sides of the story before deciding; and I don't get the sense that I've had as much information as I want from the BMC about who did and knew what and when. That report by Martin Wragg is incomplete.

And 'for commercial reasons'. Why?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 23, 2017, 05:38:37 pm
and I don't get the sense that I've had as much information as I want from the BMC about who did and knew what and when. That report by Martin Wragg is incomplete.

 :wall:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on March 23, 2017, 05:52:19 pm
I'd never heard of him a couple of weeks ago, but by God if I've learned something since it's that I've got no confidence in Bob Pettigrew. And Doug Scott, if it's him who's pulling the strings. Sad times.

Yes, I have difficulty squaring Doug Scott backing this motion and his current role of BMC Patron which is for people who have provided exceptional support and assistance to the BMC (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-patrons) :blink:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: duncan on March 24, 2017, 09:29:49 am
I don't see any significant governance issue here but that's not the point is it? As I said elsewhere, this is climbing's little Culture War.

The BMC is not above criticism but in my experience they can be sensitive to and act on suggestions without being threatened with the procedural equivalent of a sawn-off shot-gun.

Vote now!
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on March 24, 2017, 10:11:48 am
and I don't get the sense that I've had as much information as I want from the BMC about who did and knew what and when. That report by Martin Wragg is incomplete.

 :wall:


Is that a subtle reference to the importance of the BMC appealing to all segments of the climbing and hillwalking community, including the indoor wall segment?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 26, 2017, 12:28:24 am
Well, no support for the motion at the SW area meet, tonight.
Interesting that one of the supposed proposers at the meeting this evening, had in fact been shocked to discover his name on the list and had Bob remove it p.d.q.
I don't know how much of the conversation at that end of the table you could hear Simon, but there is no support for Bob from the Alpine Club. The analysis someone had knocked up of how the names had come and gone from the various draft versions and that those names remaining had an average of 44 years membership (making them almost all over 70), was quite interesting...
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: slab_happy on March 27, 2017, 09:49:03 am
Interesting that one of the supposed proposers at the meeting this evening, had in fact been shocked to discover his name on the list and had Bob remove it p.d.q.

Out of interest -- one of the supposed proposers from the final version of the motion, as circulated by the BMC? Or from one of the draft versions? I know there's previously been mention of the latter.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 27, 2017, 10:27:17 am
Interesting that one of the supposed proposers at the meeting this evening, had in fact been shocked to discover his name on the list and had Bob remove it p.d.q.

Out of interest -- one of the supposed proposers from the final version of the motion, as circulated by the BMC? Or from one of the draft versions? I know there's previously been mention of the latter.
He was clear his name did not make it to the final.

My impression from the conversation we had prior to the meeting is one of a group of old men, somewhat embarrassed by one of their own.
The Alpine Club are holding an EGM on the first, so that's going to be worth watching.
It is, officially, on a separate matter; that seems rather similar, but I'm told that's coincidence. Or something equally cryptic...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: match on March 27, 2017, 06:26:40 pm
AC President's statement in response to this motion, for info:

"President’s statement regarding Bob Pettigrew’s post on UK Climbing on 19th March and his Motion of No Confidence in the BMC Executive

There has been considerable speculation about the intentions of the Alpine Club on both the UK Climbing and UK Bouldering websites following a post of words by AC Member Bob Pettigrew which appeared on UKC on the 19th of March. In that post, Bob Pettigrew sets out a case that the AC should lead an ‘independent review’ of the BMC. This led to many defamatory statements against the Alpine Club, which are damaging to both our reputation and integrity. These threads continue, so I am therefore putting the record straight regarding the AC’s position.

The AC Committee has never considered that the AC should lead a review. Quite the contrary. We fully support the recent call by the BMC Executive for an independent review of governance, policy, and operations. The AC is not independent of the BMC. Like all Clubs affiliated to the BMC, we are a Member Club of the BMC and like all Clubs are deeply involved with the BMC, with many AC Members working as volunteers on shared initiatives. The AC, if requested, will offer appropriate support to any formal review, as other Clubs and individual members will hopefully also offer to do.

Turning to the Motion of No Confidence in the BMC Executive now lodged for discussion at the BMC AGM on 22nd April, the AC Committee respects everyone’s right to their own opinion and understand the intentions of AC members to seek a BMC fit for purpose for the coming years, which will inevitably be full of new challenges. However, in my opinion, should the Motion succeed it would mean a year of chaos before a new Executive could take over and bring some stability. In the meantime, opportunities such as the BMC acting as moderator between the IFSC and UIAA to sort out their governance roles and the joint AC/BMC initiative to provide advice and information to young alpinists would be lost. I also suspect that Competition Climbing would establish its own governing body. Whatever you think about Competition Climbing, it is better to keep it inside the broad remit of the BMC than to risk a fracture.

If you have not done so already, I strongly encourage all AC Members to vote in favour of the AC SGM motion in support of the BMC review. If you cannot attend the AC SGM on 1st April at 55 Charlotte Road, I attach herewith a proxy voting form. The deadline is 5pm today. If you agree with the Committee, please vote both in favour of the motion and ensure that the proxy for a vote on any amendments is with the AC President.

By voting in favour of the AC Committee’s Motion, you will help your Club to distance itself from the rumours circulating that the Club is trying to take over the BMC and is supporting the Motion of No Confidence. In the meantime, we will carry on without pause with a number of important joint AC/BMC initiatives and the excellent work AC volunteers are doing in partnership with the BMC.

John Porter

President"
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on March 27, 2017, 06:51:56 pm
It is a shame that haven't gone as far as to say 'Vote No' but I could see that to do this would be pretty hard as it would effectively being censuring many of their most prominent members. I would hope that there are some wrist being slapped behind the scenes.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: andy popp on March 27, 2017, 06:55:36 pm
And Doug Scott - all I know is that a long time ago he crawled off a mountain and on to a speaking tour.

Regardless of ongoing events, about which I know absolutely nothing, this is a very cheap and pretty unpleasant shot.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 28, 2017, 01:18:05 am
I wonder how much more evidence of devious and dishonest practice from members of their club they need in the face of so much potential damage before they formally recommend voting against the no-confidence motion.

We may all have a right to an opinion but the 30 don't have a right to stick peoples names in their motion without asking them first, lie and misinform in drafts letters and club meetings and leave a final motion with vague accusations of governance issues without detail, and refuse throughout to engage in public debate. Its a real shame that the AC can't call a spade a spade and in my opinion this will damage their reputation further.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: DAVETHOMAS90 on March 28, 2017, 01:44:29 am
I'd say that the BMC probably supports it's members (with the er, obvious caveat) but I see it as a separate and private institution in that regard......A lot of what gets done by the BMC will be a product of a large group of people sharing largely similar interests coming together. Whether it is "of" the BMC or not is an interesting claim.

Dave, It is not a claim it is a fact that the BMC is primarily a volunteering organisation where the paid staff support the BMC volunteers who are intrinsically a part of the organisation. The volunteers do the work in the name of the BMC and generally find it carries weight and is helpful to say they are representing the BMC when negotiating with Landowners, Derbyshire Wildlife etc and have backing (legal advice, literature etc) from head office. Maybe you perceive a bigger divide between the 'them' (paid staff) and 'us' (volunteers) than there actually is. I also contend that in the absence of an alternative it also represents all climbers and hillwalkers nationally when in contact with other national bodies such as the NT or with politicians working with other volunteering organisations on the all parliamentary committee

Hi Simon.

Some misunderstanding on a few points there.

One particularly concerns that of representation. There is more to representation than sharing the same words. Appointment is also important.

By "claim", I was referring to the question of what is or is not an intrinsic part of the BMC. Many climbers will at times share similar views. Allowing for that, what remains particular to the BMC?

How is the representation of interests assessed and governed? I have tried to refer to the difference between this and policy - nothing to do with paid/unpaid.

It seems that the motion is proposed on the former, and not the popularity or otherwise of the latter.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: duncan on March 28, 2017, 03:51:01 pm
(https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/17621843_10210621716291166_7139497680421418029_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoibCJ9&oh=e07b5759acbacca1977d01d9a8b9c761&oe=5961DDB0)

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on March 29, 2017, 11:13:03 am


Some misunderstanding on a few points there.

One particularly concerns that of representation. There is more to representation than sharing the same words. Appointment is also important.

By "claim", I was referring to the question of what is or is not an intrinsic part of the BMC. Many climbers will at times share similar views. Allowing for that, what remains particular to the BMC?

How is the representation of interests assessed and governed? I have tried to refer to the difference between this and policy - nothing to do with paid/unpaid.

It seems that the motion is proposed on the former, and not the popularity or otherwise of the latter.

Good points in normal circumstances but irrelevant in this context.

Bob and do are doing this 6 months late (a timely EGM is the way to deal with issues of such import) based on secret collection of proxys, using lies and misinformation (re-read, that draft and the letters on UKC). They refused the BMC formal requests for addional context material (twice) and refuse to debate ìn publìc web forums. They added names to the original draft without permission.  There is a clear hidden agenda (in evidence in the draft) around competition climbing. This is in a motion, ironically, who's only concrete issue of governance is a technical argument that the BMC 'went behind it's members' back' in the rebrand. Its as dirty and dishonest as anything I could imagine making the BMC AGM agenda. I'm furious that such a corrupt motion hasn't been stopped. The BMC have defended this as well as they can, fully in public.

The AC have put protecting reputations above dealìng with  clear dishonesty in not formally recommending a vote against. The actual words of the motion must become irrelevant in the evidence of the behaviour around it, all now  visible in the public domain.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Duma on April 22, 2017, 03:42:49 pm
Just seen on fb: The results are in. Huge thanks to everyone who voted against the motion of no confidence. 2100 people voted against it, 359 for.

But in a dramatic finish, BMC President Rehan Siddiqui resigned, after months defending against this "politically motivated attack to take control of BMC" takes its toll.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Johnny Brown on April 22, 2017, 07:31:57 pm
A relief, but I must admit that's a lot more for votes than I'd have guessed. Worrying.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on April 23, 2017, 10:52:03 pm
Is it really a surprise when the likes of Doug Scott, Bob Pettigrew and Leo Dickinson (that we know of for certain from the 30... there may be more) were recuiting proxy votes in secret based on documents containing lies and misinformation and no cogent facts beyond the rebrand. It should have been at an EGM as soon as the rebrand issues were clear not delayed to this AGM. It was obvious from Bob's speech to the AGM its all back to the Olympic decisions...  democratically decided across our area meetings years ago.  Joe Brown was even dragged into it in Bob's speech ..the new no.30 he said when someone dropped out (you can't add names like that under the rules). Leo and others were furious and heckled Rehan's resignation speech (Rehan was in tears ... his wife had to read it) but unlike the motion it was verifiable. Masses of time was wasted, huge stress was caused, Rehan has gone, there is a huge work backlog and I suspect more damage to come as Bob seems completely unapologetic and likely ready to restart old grudges as soon as he can. I simply cannot understand how people with BMC honours can behave in this dishonest and highly damaging way (not the motion.. thats democracy... the secrecy,  lies, the timing and refusal to back down).

Ru was really impressive responding for the BMC given the high emotions and the fact he didnt know what Bob was going to say until he said it... another disgrace that some of Bob's lies and misinformation could not be presented and fairly challenged in public (in Summit at least).
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: DAVETHOMAS90 on April 24, 2017, 02:59:17 am


Some misunderstanding on a few points there.

One particularly concerns that of representation. There is more to representation than sharing the same words. Appointment is also important.

By "claim", I was referring to the question of what is or is not an intrinsic part of the BMC. Many climbers will at times share similar views. Allowing for that, what remains particular to the BMC?

How is the representation of interests assessed and governed? I have tried to refer to the difference between this and policy - nothing to do with paid/unpaid.

It seems that the motion is proposed on the former, and not the popularity or otherwise of the latter.

Good points in normal circumstances but irrelevant in this context.

Really? Surely the motion would have been thrown out? My post is partly a reference to, and an attempt to add clarity to my previous post.

"Bob and co are doing this 6 months late (a timely EGM is the way to deal with issues of such import) .." As above. None of that represents a challenge to the claimed basis of the motion.. and anyway, there was a vote..

But..

"recuiting proxy votes in secret based on documents containing lies and misinformation and no cogent facts beyond the rebrand." etc etc

A lot of claims there - especially of lying. Reads as something of a point scoring exercise, which is also worrying.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: DAVETHOMAS90 on April 24, 2017, 07:07:10 am
What I sense with the motion, is a group of people who want the BMC to remain a representative body, with affairs being conducted in a way that allows that to happen.

There seems to be a sense of steering towards vested interests, which on the face of it, seemed to be a question which needed asking/answering - the sense of changing the organisation from within, to serve certain ends on a selective basis.

As an onlooker, I still don't think the detail of that has been adequately addressed - or perhaps the challenge particularly well presented.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on April 24, 2017, 08:31:50 am
Firstly Dave, my points on lies and misinformation are all verified in the public domain here and on UKC. Please don't go all post truth on us.

On the EGM, if the issues in the minds of the presenters are real, serious and urgent (as they claimed) you simply don't wait 6 months.

I hope in future the rules can be changed such that any future vague, catch-all MoNC (feel free to bash the BMC with almost any loosely related personal beef you have), with no real detailed information provided on the MoNC for the wider membership (to be posted on the website and in Summit etc) , can be thrown out. Its a governace process fault such motions are currently allowed. The motion was bounced first time as it wasn't signed and when checking this it was discovered that several climbers (like Frank Cannings) who absolutely did not support the motion, had been dishonestly included by Bob, which on such a serious issue is an absolute disgrace and I'm surprised no-one considered legal action. The 350 or so proxy votes for the motion (there were only about 10 people at the AGM for it) never had access to fact checking on the reasons why they were persuaded to vote, almost certainly many of then had been plain duped.

I was one of a few at my area meets who had had time for Bob on genuine issues of debate (never again...boy was my naivety exposed), I've shared or sympathised with many of his previous concerns, I've joined democratic process to change quite a few things in the BMC I disagreed with (most recently several issues from the BMC guidebook committee...and this as an ex BMC co-editor) . You simply don't deal with real issues by this type of dishonest behaviour, bypassing appropriate democratic process and with no thought for the certain damage it would cause. This was a nuclear option based on secrecy, misinformation and lies and the BMC have lost masses of organisational time and have a backlog of work, in addition a guiltless good volunteer President has resigned based directly on the personal stress this motion caused (whom we now need to replace). The real issues are still real but what you forget to say is that other groups who are members of the BMC have different real issues and Bob and co never at any time in this shabby MoNC expressed their concerns openly and honestly.  Bob and co are a group of members in a clear minority position in the organisation who have lost vote after vote and Doug lost his bid for President. It's disgusting they claim the BMC lacks openess and honesty, having done what they have done.

Finally on the subject of addressing the very real governance issues a complex legal structure like the BMC has (as repeatedly pointed out here by Ru): this is being looked at in a governance review chaired by an independant judge and this has been known for some time now. Those leadng the MoNC could and should have withdrawn it when this was clear and would have been welcomed to make formal input. Given the damage caused by continuing this motion in the way it was continued, there would be uproar now if such dishonesty was rewarded by formal inclusion in such a review. Incidently most of the issues being looked at in this review have little to do with the concerns of the 30, as far as I can tell from any of the dishonest letters, emails or speeches made on the subject.

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on April 24, 2017, 08:37:23 am
Was chatting about this to a mate yesterday, one thing came up - if the individuals such as BP and other other main players in the MoNC thing have brought so much disrepute and been so damaging to the BMC, can't they simply now be refused membership? I.e. kicked out of the club. I had not thought of this but to be honest it seems fair game.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on April 24, 2017, 09:08:17 am
What I sense with the motion, is a group of people who want the BMC to remain a representative body, with affairs being conducted in a way that allows that to happen.

There seems to be a sense of steering towards vested interests, which on the face of it, seemed to be a question which needed asking/answering - the sense of changing the organisation from within, to serve certain ends on a selective basis.

As an onlooker, I still don't think the detail of that has been adequately addressed - or perhaps the challenge particularly well presented.

Did you attend any of the area meets where this was discussed?

I did, and spoke with CC and AC members (at least one of which were coopted into the "30" against their will).

Offwidth is spot on in his assessment.

Was this about the Olympics? Absolutely.
Was it about the BMC remaining a "representative body" as you put it ?
Exactly the opposite.
It was about a group, fronted by a (possibly senile) old man, who sought to grab control of an organisation they no longer understood, that represents a participating population they no longer recognise. Even their modus operandi was dated and ineffective (I don't think their failure to engage on public forums was a sinister move, rather one of inability to use said fora).




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on April 24, 2017, 09:32:27 am
One of the problems with this motion and the sides for and against, is that in many places it has degraded into being about personalities rather than focusing on the issues.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: galpinos on April 24, 2017, 10:12:30 am
One of the problems with this motion and the sides for and against, is that in many places it has degraded into being about personalities rather than focusing on the issues.

It was quite hard to focus on the issues when they were so opaque though. The wording of the MoNC was pretty vague and the governance points seemed to be being dealt with, the BMC offer to include the 30's justification for the MoNC with Summit and the voting card was turned down and in addition to that, the cloak and dagger approach of private letters and appeals to sympathetic clubs lead to rumour and no substance.

it didn't start out about personalities, but the argument that despite the lack of justification, the status of the proposers gave the motion weight meant that personalities got involved.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on April 24, 2017, 10:17:10 am
One of the problems with this motion and the sides for and against, is that in many places it has degraded into being about personalities rather than focusing on the issues.

It was quite hard to focus on the issues when they were so opaque though. The wording of the MoNC was pretty vague and the governance points seemed to be being dealt with, the BMC offer to include the 30's justification for the MoNC with Summit and the voting card was turned down and in addition to that, the cloak and dagger approach of private letters and appeals to sympathetic clubs lead to rumour and no substance.

it didn't start out about personalities, but the argument that despite the lack of justification, the status of the proposers gave the motion weight meant that personalities got involved.

Absolutely. Just a bit sad that it turned out like that and that Rehan felt he had to resign (and be heckled during his read out speech - which sounds really shitty...)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on April 24, 2017, 10:22:30 am
One of the problems with this motion and the sides for and against, is that in many places it has degraded into being about personalities rather than focusing on the issues.

It's pretty hard to focus on detailed issues when we didn't know what Bob was going to say at the AGM until he said it. In the BMC response Ru had to guess where the main thrust would be (and it was the Olympics).

Bob refused several times to provide written detail to the BMC for inclusion on the website and in Summit, to properly inform the debate to the membership; Bob, Doug and Leo had no such qualms in providing (mis)information when writing to clubs where they felt sympathy for their cause would be stronger... Its hard to keep personality out of it when consistent dishonesty, secrecy and disproportionate use of rules, on this scale and with this level of damage occurs. Good people have had their lives upended and the organisation has been unable to function in the way it should.  I still have no idea if all the 29 agreed with what Bob presented and I am convinced many of the 350 proxys will have voted based on lies and misinformation, trusting such figureheads as Doug,  Leo and Dennis.

On Matts point, several of the 30 have used social media well enough in the past (often for causes I support). They are highly intelligent and experienced politicians in the mountaineering field, not so doddery they are seriously lacking their faculties. Bob and Doug and Leo  in particular knew exactly what they were doing.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on April 24, 2017, 11:47:30 am
Good grief, even more lies!

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/04/23/tearful-bmc-president-rehan-siddiqui-resigns-despite-defeating-no-confidence-call

"They didn’t give me the opportunity to put my side when Summit [the BMC’s quarterly membership magazine] was published with this hysterical call to ‘save our BMC’."

The BMC contacted him several times for further information to inform better debate in Summit for the vast majority of members unable to attend the AGM. He also ignored a specific request for his Peak local area meeting with no apology or written submission to the meeting (he claimed at the AGM, he had to be elsewhere dealing with Scolaris!).
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on April 24, 2017, 02:40:55 pm
I think Offwidth's analysis is spot on. I think we also came close to seeing the motion passed. Given that there were so many votes in favour of the motion (I suspect that many of these were recruited by letters sent or visits made to various clubs), and given that so few are able to actually attend the AGM and people do not normally bother to vote, if there hadn't been such an outcry on UKC then the required number of proxies to defeat the motion may not have been submitted.

When I started the Facebook event to encourage people to vote I wrote this text and had it fact checked by a couple of knowledgeable people:
NSFW  not NSFW, but long:
Quote
***Your vote is needed to defeat an attack on the BMC's leadership!***

 WHAT’S HAPPENING: A motion of no confidence has been brought against the Executive Committee of the BMC. The Executive Committee is comprised of the paid CEO (Dave Turnbull) and a group of volunteers who give up their own time to work on behalf of climbers and hillwalkers - if the motion is passed, these people will be forced to give up their positions.


 WHY IS THIS HAPPENING: The motion has been brought by Bob Pettigrew and is ostensibly a reaction to the BMC’s recent attempted Climb Britain rebrand. The final motion is quite brief and accuses the BMC of “the wilful and deliberate withholding of future policy decisions” at the last AGM and “poor governance”. The rebranding exercise, which the BMC halted when it became clear how unpopular it was with the membership, caused some controversy at the time, and it is this disapproval which the proposers are seeking to harness in order to pass their motion.

 However, a draft of the motion has been posted online, as has a letter from one of the proposers (Leo Dickinson) to the Vagabond Mountaineering Club, and these documents make it clear that there is much more to the motion than is being let on. You can see these documents by following the links below and make up your own mind, but this appears to be much more about the proposers being against the BMC’s involvement in competition climbing.

 Draft motion: http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27926.msg546309.html#msg546309

 Letter from Leo Dickinson: http://www.vagabondmc.com/news/background_information_to_vote_of_no_confidence


 WHY IS THIS A BAD THING: The BMC, its staff, and its volunteers work tirelessly for us. They support the production of magical guidebooks which otherwise wouldn’t be financially viable, they maintain access to the crags and hills which we hold so dear (the BMC is currently in the process of buying Crookrise in order to secure access into the future), they organise volunteer clean up days at under-loved crags, they support those strong lads and lasses coming through on the competition scene, and they support conservation initiatives (see the recent Mend Our Mountains campaign).

 The Climb Britain rebrand proposal was not popular by any stretch of the imagination, but the organisation admitted that a mistake was made, consulted the membership, and rowed back. This action by a tiny minority of members is a complete overreaction and a terrible way to repay the BMCs hard work.

 If the motion is successful and a new Executive is put in place, this could lead to a change in direction in the organisation. Whether you are interested in competition climbing or not, climbing is going to be an Olympic sport in 2020 - it is inescapable. Indoor climbing is growing ever more popular and is the most popular way for new climbers to get into the sport. The BMC can choose to bury its head in the sand and remain static, or it can choose to adapt, stay relevant, and thrive. This is my personal view and, regardless of whether you agree with it, I hope you do agree that a motion of no confidence is an inappropriately heavy-handed approach to take.


 BUT NOBODY SUPPORTS THIS MOTION, SO IT WON’T PASS: BMC AGMs are not particularly well attended. With a membership of roughly 80,000, it’s hardly surprising that not everybody turns up. For better or worse, not many people vote at the AGMs either. Last year, roughly 540 people voted on each motion - about 0.6% of the total membership. With so few votes, it’s easy for an organised group to hijack the proceedings, and the proposers to appear to be organised. It’s been reported on UKC that Bob Pettigrew has been to speak at a meeting of the Oread Mountaineering Club and, as seen above, Leo Dickinson has written to the Vagabond Mountaineering Club. From reading some of what is being said, it appears that the proposers of the motion are not above telling outright lies in order to secure their votes. Leo Dickinson’s letter states “This undercover re-branding exercise cost the BMC £25,000”. Any small amount of reading around the subject will inform you that this is absolutely untrue. The letter also states “The International Federation of Sport Climbing is an organisation which Scolaris invented of which he is its first and apparently lifelong President”. Again, this isn’t true. The IFSC Statutes state that elections for the Exec Board (including the President) take place every 4 years, the last election was on the 11th March 2017. Marco Scolaris was unopposed and has just started his 3rd term.


 WHAT CAN I DO: The only way to defeat this motion is to vote. If you are a member of the BMC, you have a vote! If you are a member of an affiliated club (most mountaineering clubs, including most University clubs), you have a vote!

 You could attend the AGM in person, but if you receive Summit magazine the easiest way to vote is probably to wait until the next edition lands on your doormat. Each issue will come with a voting slip that can be posted free of charge to the BMC. You will have to nominate the chair of the meeting to be your “proxy”, since you won’t be there in person.

 Alternatively, if you don’t get Summit magazine (i.e. if you’re a member of an affiliated club) you can print and complete the pdf of the voting card (available here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1439 ) and return a scanned copy by email but it MUST be handwritten with a handwritten signature. Typed returns won’t be accepted, and don’t forget to nominate the Chair as your proxy.

 If you intend to vote by proxy YOU MUST GET YOUR VOTE RETURNED BEFORE 11AM ON THE 20TH APRIL.

 If you are not a member of the BMC but wish to join in order to vote, there is still time! Once you've joined online it normally takes 10 days to receive your membership number by post.


 Thank you for taking the time to read this, and remember, ROCK THE VOTE!



 Further reading:
 BMC's response to the motion:
http://www.vagabondmc.com/news/bmc_response

 Full wording of the motion and the legal report to the BMC on the motion:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1441

 President's statement about the motion:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-presidents-statement-2017

I don't think this is personal or about personalities, but I'll admit that I did become very angry later on when the saga unfolded and Bob's (in my view) dishonesty became more and more transparent. He was asked on a number of occasions to make the reasoning behind his views public, but declined. All the information, bar a couple of posts from Steve Woollard on UKC, that we have on their reasons for bringing the motion has been leaked from private communications to private persons or private clubs, or what Bob stated at the AGM. Since he is willing to bring such a destructive motion to the table, but not to debate it openly or even set out publically why he supports it, it's clear to me that he holds the wider membership and the area meetings of the BMC in complete contempt. I believe he wants decisions to be made by those select few who can attend the AGM. The most beautifully transparent move he made was when he suggested that it be the Alpine Club who should conduct the governance review.

Should he be stripped of his honorary membership? Had he explained his reasoning for the motion to the wider membership and not just those at the AGM then I would say absolutely not. Individuals who criticise and organisation should not be ejected. However the issue that I have is that the way in which he has gone about this has been wholly undemocratic. If a group of individuals felt strongly enough about this to put a motion to the next AGM to remove his honorary membership then I would definitely consider voting for it.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on April 24, 2017, 03:39:19 pm
Keep your friends close...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: IDW on April 24, 2017, 03:40:39 pm
It'll be on the agenda at the June national council meeting, as will a proposal for honorary membership to be given to Rehan.

 
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on April 24, 2017, 04:08:31 pm
An unrepentantly partisan report on UKC:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item/71062/bmc_motion_of_no-confidence_defeated

Of particular note:
Quote
It was also reported that an unnamed Peak Area Secretary poured a pint over Mr Pettigrew, marking the end of a memorable weekend.

So that would be Becky Hammond or Rob Greenwood? Or an ex-secretary? Did it ACTUALLY happen?!
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: 36chambers on April 24, 2017, 04:25:46 pm
An unrepentantly partisan report on UKC:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item/71062/bmc_motion_of_no-confidence_defeated

Of particular note:
Quote
It was also reported that an unnamed Peak Area Secretary poured a pint over Mr Pettigrew, marking the end of a memorable weekend.

So that would be Becky Hammond or Rob Greenwood? Or an ex-secretary? Did it ACTUALLY happen?!

pour foam
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Catcheemonkey on April 24, 2017, 04:34:56 pm
pour foam

 :lol:

That only works if you talk like Leslie Phillips.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/22/1408707114723_wps_11_English_actor_Leslie_Phil.jpg)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on April 24, 2017, 06:50:49 pm
From Rehan's speech:
"Climbing is far too important for democracy" - Doug Scott.

Well that about sums that up then. Bastards.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on April 24, 2017, 08:34:30 pm
An unrepentantly partisan report on UKC:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item/71062/bmc_motion_of_no-confidence_defeated

Of particular note:
Quote
It was also reported that an unnamed Peak Area Secretary poured a pint over Mr Pettigrew, marking the end of a memorable weekend.

So that would be Becky Hammond or Rob Greenwood? Or an ex-secretary? Did it ACTUALLY happen?!

There was an altercation in the bar when Bob was rude to someone questioning him about why he had declined to respond to communcations. I didnt see the actual event but did see the aftermath and the beer glass in question shortly before,  The quantity of beer was less than a quarter pint and the person (and others in the vicinity) walked away seemingly covered in wine from Bob.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on April 24, 2017, 08:38:26 pm
An unrepentantly partisan report on UKC:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item/71062/bmc_motion_of_no-confidence_defeated

Of particular note:
Quote
It was also reported that an unnamed Peak Area Secretary poured a pint over Mr Pettigrew, marking the end of a memorable weekend.

So that would be Becky Hammond or Rob Greenwood? Or an ex-secretary? Did it ACTUALLY happen?!

There was an altercation in the bar when Bob was rude to someone questioning him about why he had declined to respond to communcations. I didnt see the actual event but did see the aftermath and the beer glass in question shortly before,  The quantity of beer was less than a quater pint and the person (and others in the vicinity) walked away covered in wine from Bob.

I think we all got covered in whine from Bob.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on April 24, 2017, 09:26:34 pm
Can we start a crowdfunding account for the person who's a quarter of a pint out of pocket?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Pewtle on April 25, 2017, 02:03:01 pm
Can we start a crowdfunding account for the person who's a quarter of a pint out of pocket?

I'd chip in  :beer2:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on April 25, 2017, 05:31:33 pm
Can we start a crowdfunding account for the person who's a quarter of a pint out of pocket?

No one stops anyone buying Area volunteers a whole pint from time to time as a thank you for all their hard work.

For what its worth the purchaser of the drink may even have been me (partly why I noticed.. I was considering getting a top-up) and people in these roles just don't go round doing things like that without serious insult, so until I know exactly what happened I will give them the benefit of the doubt and see it as no loss whatsoever. Bob has plenty of form on inappropriate insults... in the AGM he managed to get a near universal hiss when he said Scolaris had a middle name of Maria and I've seen him combine being patronising, rude and sexist at other times.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on April 26, 2017, 12:32:38 pm
Official write up https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bombshell-at-bmc-agm

At 11am on Saturday 22 April, the sun beat down on the Welsh mountains, yet it was standing room only in the large lecture room at Plas y Brenin. The promise of a BMC AGM does not normally draw in the crowds – especially on a bluebird day – but this was no normal year.

The 170 climbers and walkers had turned their backs on the crags and hills to make their voice heard in a debate aiming straight at the heart of British mountaineering. The marathon four-hour session would see passionate views, informed debate, conspiracy theories and – in an unexpected finale – the resignation of current BMC President Rehan Siddiqui.

The AGM weekend started on Friday night, when the room first filled for a BMC TV session, culminating in Hard Rock and a toast to the late Ken Wilson, before BMC ambassador James McHaffie took everyone on a dizzying tour of hard ascents and big walls.

The first Saturday session started at 9.30 with an hour-long Question Time, a chance to informally raise any questions or issues, before the AGM itself started at 11.00. The first agenda items were quickly rattled through (minutes, annual report and annual accounts approved), and votes were cast for re-elections (President Rehan Siddiqui and Vice Presidents Nick Kurth and Emma Flaherty). The next step was voting in the new candidates for the Executive Committee: Graham Richmond (Treasurer); Roger Fanner, Wil Kilner and Rik Payne (National Council Representatives); and Independent Directors Simon McCalla and Matthew Bradbury.

For the vacant Vice President position, Lynn Robinson and Fiona Sanders were proposed from the floor with a show of hands to decide on the spot. Both were highly impressive candidates, with Lynn narrowly pipping Fiona 80 to 74.

Next up was the only agenda item that usually causes controversy: a membership subscription increase of £2.50/year for individuals and £1 for club, U18, student and unwaged members. With membership prices level for five years and the proposed increase “less than a cake or half a pint” as one member pointed out, the vote was in favour (1,664 to 520).

But this room wasn’t so busy on such a warm day to hear about minutes, annual reports and subscription rises, a large proportion had only come for one thing: to vote on the proposed motion of no confidence.

Prior to an AGM, BMC members can get together to submit items for inclusion. This year, Bob Pettigrew, Doug Scott, Dennis Gray and others had submitted agenda item 9 (a “motion”) calling for a vote of no confidence in the Executive Committee of the BMC – our voluntary board of directors.

Before this Saturday, their exact reasons were unclear. They had cited “wilful and deliberate withholding of future policy decisions from the members in attendance at the 2016 Annual General Meeting,” and it was understood that the “future policy decisions” related to the Climb Britain rebrand issue last year. Today was Bob Pettigrew’s chance to explain exactly what the issue was.

For this section of the meeting, very ably chaired by Rik Payne of the BMC London Area, Bob would get 15 minutes to present his case, followed by the BMC case presented by Rupert Davies. Rik set out the terms of the debate: it would continue for as long points were adding to the discussion, rather than summarising it, and then a show of hands vote would be taken. After voting, this would be added to the over 2,100 proxy votes already submitted and the final results calculated.

Bob – dressed in his Wayfarer’s Club tee-shirt for the occasion – was first to the lecturn, clearly keen to share his views. However, his exact argument for the motion of no confidence remained unclear. The first five minutes of his speech detailed the background to the motion, his fellow proposers and various club connections before he delved into the “hidden agenda of enormous consequences” inferring that the IFSC had requested both the name change of the Japanese Mountaineering Association and the BMC in pursuit of Olympic reward. He was clearly passionate about mountaineering but held historic issues with the world body for mountaineering (the UIAA) and its competition climbing offshoot (the IFSC). His core concern came at the end: “this Olympic kind of disease.”

BMC Vice President Rupert Davies then presented the case for the BMC or, rather, the case against Bob Pettigrew’s allegations. He explained that the Executive is a voluntary board, brought in on a three-year basis, and that there are “no real benefits from being on the Executive, very little thanks and often a lot of criticism – not only for their decisions, but for decisions that were made years before that Executive came into power. But the benefits of such a system is that it constantly allows members to have a say”

“Bob has kept his powder dry until today as to what underlay the motion. My notes today about what may be brought up are diverse, but until we got here today, no-one knew that it was the “Olympic disease” that was underlying the motion. And, although this has been made clear to the members of this room, it has not been made aware of the other 80,000 members of the BMC who have had to decide on this well in advance of coming here.

"This wasn’t an attempt to positively influence to the direction of the BMC"

Simply put – it is inappropriate to vote on a motion where the membership as a whole itself has not had an opportunity to consider what underlies it. If it has been a desire of the proposers that different BMC members are on the Executive moving forward, it would have been possible for these members to stand themselves. As such, this is not a positive proposal. This wasn’t an attempt to positively influence to the direction of the BMC.”

I would now like to give some confidence moving forward. We are instigating a ground-up review, it will be independent, it will be arm’s length and it will ensure that the decision-making structures are fit for purpose and reflect the desires of the members.”

Following the two cases, it was time for a discussion then vote. Around 15 members spoke in detail about their feelings and concerns, with one younger member even drawing some – hopefully good natured – boos, when he observed that:

“There is a process of modernisation and this is really just a reaction and a complaint against that. I understand the complaint against a mass member organisation that perhaps doesn’t cater towards the original idea of a mountaineering council, but that’s not a world we live in anymore and there is a responsibility on the Executive to make the sport reflect everyone and I think they’re doing a very good job.”

After 45 minutes, Rik Payne asked the floor if it was ready to conclude and a show-of-hands vote was taken – the results would be revealed very shortly.

The AGM had now concluded, and it was time to thank the outgoing members of the Executive Committee who had reached the end of their terms: Brian Smith, Colin Knowles, John Simpson and Rupert Davies. Our thanks go to all four of them for very dedicated service during a difficult time.

Attentions started to wander, eyes glancing at the blue skies outside the windows, but this AGM was about to see an unexpected twist. President Rehan Siddiqui took the stage to read a statement, but, overcome with emotion, his partner Louise read it out for him.

In the powerful address, Rehan detailed that this “motion of no confidence by Bob Pettigrew , Doug Scott, Dennis Gray and supporters has been a targeted politically motivated attack to take control of the BMC, effectively an attempted coup. This has been to impose their views regarding their dislike for the Olympics, competition climbing, the International Federation of Sport Climbing, promoting and attracting membership from hill walkers”

“Although the motion of no confidence has not been successful, The BMC faces significant challenges going forward.  Executive Committee and National Council have agreed that a review of governance is required and the best way forward on this is to have an independently chaired review group which will report to National Council and the Executive Committee. This effort is also supported by major clubs such as the Alpine Club, Climbers Club and others.  This review is likely to lead to recommendations for major changes to the articles of association. Today’s BMC is much larger than when the current Articles of Association were written. “

He went on to explain the work this created for the voluntary BMC Executive: “The Executive Committee is not composed of long-standing, entrenched members. The Executive (with exception of the salaried CEO) is actually composed of hard-working volunteers who are highly respected in their various professional fields. The work load on the President and members of the Executive Committee is significant and regularly goes way beyond what is reasonable for voluntary unpaid roles. The motion of no confidence has added to the existing pressure and I have been consumed in BMC matters from dawn to late into the night for extended periods of time."

It is essential that the review group looks at the roles, responsibilities and time commitments of the volunteer Executive to ensure that the BMC has the capability to recruit as wide-a-range of talent as possible. The BMC needs to be able to attract current professional people to Executive positions as well as retired individuals."

"By having a balanced and inclusive approach based on consultation and consensus, we are collectively stronger"

My theme as BMC President has been to encourage the wide and diverse range of activities that the BMC is involved with. The BMC is rightly proud to promote the rich heritage of British mountaineering and traditional climbing values. It is the representative body for traditional climbing and mountaineering, hill walking, sport climbing, bouldering, clubs et al as well as acting as the governing body for competition climbing. By having a balanced and inclusive approach based on consultation and consensus, we are collectively stronger."

After successfully leading the BMC through the biggest challenge to its existence in its entire history, I have decided that the time is right to stand down as President of the BMC. The last few months in particular have been very difficult and I have been frustrated that the motion of no confidence has meant that energy and focus of both volunteers and staff has been directed away from the many positive areas which members benefit. I have a business to run and a young family to provide for and cannot reasonably make such a huge sacrifice anymore."

A member summed up the feeling of the room when she said: “I think you have handled this fantastically, you deserve lots of recognition for your achievements and I would like it if you changed your mind.”

With the surprise of Rehan’s announcement, the reason that everyone was here was momentarily forgotten. However, with the mood in the room, the final result didn’t come as a surprise to anyone: 2,100 against, 359 for and 62 abstaining.

It was a bittersweet victory for the BMC: the motion had been defeated but the organisation has lost a very inclusive, dedicated and energetic president. However, the BMC itself remains as vibrant as ever, with 82,700 members, nearly 2,500 of whom were passionate enough to vote and 170 dedicated enough to visit the AGM (100 more than usually attend).

"Despite any differences, we believe that British climbing, mountaineering and walking are stronger together"

With a steadily growing and increasingly diverse membership, it’s very healthy to encourage debate, but, despite any differences, we believe that British climbing, mountaineering and walking are stronger together. As Rehan himself said in his resignation speech:

“Aristotle said ‘The whole is greater than the sum of its parts’.  I firmly believe that by being inclusive enables us to educate our younger generation of the rich heritage of British climbing, traditional values and protecting the environment.  I also believe that it is important that we embrace youth, support competition climbing on artificial structures and find ways to engage with users of climbing walls.”

I have immense pride in the BMC and utmost respect for the excellent and hard-working fellow executives and BMC staff that I have had the pleasure of working with. I will not leave the organisation leaderless and will stay on in the role until a new President or acting President can be appointed.”
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Fiend on April 27, 2017, 10:04:38 am
Useful post and report.

Sounds like Bob did a bit of "wilful and deliberate withholding of the reasoning behind the motion of no confidence from the majority of BMC members not in attendance at the 2017 Annual General Meeting"  :shrug:
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Drew on April 30, 2017, 11:35:04 pm
Next up was the only agenda item that usually causes controversy: a membership subscription increase of £2.50/year for individuals and £1 for club, U18, student and unwaged members. With membership prices level for five years and the proposed increase “less than a cake or half a pint” as one member pointed out, the vote was in favour (1,664 to 520).

Said member must have travelled up from London. Half a pint £2.50?!

I'm glad to see the motion was rejected so strongly.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on October 04, 2017, 06:25:41 pm
Please no more   :-(

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-article-bob-pettigrew-reply?s=5
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: GraemeA on October 04, 2017, 08:10:00 pm
So the motion references the review that came about after the AGM. Bob's been hitting the claret again.

How do we go about proposing a motion to strip him of his honorary membership. I would quite happily propose it as he probably doesn't like me anyway!
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on October 04, 2017, 08:56:32 pm
The motion he sets out in his letter is not the same as the motion he tabled at the AGM. And the arguments he made in support of the motion bore little resemblance to the motion.

No point wasting breath arguing with someone who changes position from one minute to the next.

What's his real objective ?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: lagerstarfish on October 04, 2017, 09:12:10 pm
the man just wants some attention - can someone introduce him to social media and maybe take him out climbing?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Doylo on October 04, 2017, 09:24:22 pm
The old cunt needs to get a life.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 04, 2017, 09:55:40 pm


What's his real objective ?

Blithering.

With a spot of the Maybot’s conference speech...
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on October 04, 2017, 09:58:55 pm
the man just wants some attention - can someone introduce him to social media and maybe take him out climbing?


Indeed. MySpace would be a good place to start...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on October 04, 2017, 10:39:39 pm
To coin a phrase; shove it back in his face, and tell him to fuck off.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread
Post by: DAVETHOMAS90 on October 05, 2017, 01:20:46 am
Nice response folks :-( You may not understand or agree with what he has to say, but why attack him for it? His views, his opinions.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on October 05, 2017, 02:42:31 am
Because he is abusing a position of privilege to force everyone to take note of his views (even if it’s just reading this thread - let alone the pdf rant..)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread
Post by: Offwidth on October 05, 2017, 05:41:08 am
Nice response folks :-( You may not understand or agree with what he has to say, but why attack him for it? His views, his opinions.

Which views and which opinions, as they change every time we look at them (what version of the motion are we on now?). Why attack him? Well, at the serious end he has done massive damage to the BMC (including the retirement of a good president and unrecoverable huge losses of time and energy from many key volunteers and paid officials).and he did this based on spreading lies and misinformation amongst secret mailing lists of pals and avoiding the many public places he could and should have used by those with genuine concerns.  He is really rude for example making sexist, racist tinged jokes in  the AGM  (wow! some Europeans have middle names that in other countries are normally for the opposite sex) and a whole load of other nastier stuff that I'm aware of, that isn't public yet, where legal threats were made.

I for one started off respecting his views and concerns, when I first met him, years back, but never again. I still respect the views of many others who share his concerns for example about the involvement of the BMC in Olympic climbing.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on October 05, 2017, 01:07:47 pm
I understand ISIS are now claiming responsibility for Bob Pettigrew.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on October 05, 2017, 01:49:40 pm
I understand ISIS are now claiming responsibility for Bob Pettigrew.

Vice Versa is equally plausible ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on October 06, 2017, 01:48:43 pm
He's very welcome to his opinion, it's the incessant lying that I've a problem with.

I'd very happily vote for a motion to remove his honorary membership.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on October 16, 2017, 10:53:05 am
So I had this dream last night. I was heading out of the BMC (though it wasnt the building) we are now in and there was an old man at an adjacent entrance looking confused and I realised it was Bob Pettigrew so I showed him the proper entrance. Once inside he made a request for some information and Dave then undertook a frantic search for a scrap of paper in all these old abandoned rooms. Then I woke up
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Wood FT on October 16, 2017, 10:55:02 am
So I had this dream last night. I was heading out of the BMC (though it wasnt the building) we are now in and there was an old man at an adjacent entrance looking confused and I realised it was Bob Pettigrew so I showed him the proper entrance. Once inside he made a request for some information and Dave then undertook a frantic search for a scrap of paper in all these old abandoned rooms. Then I woke up

Probably frantically searching for the plot as Bob appears to have lost it
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: DAVETHOMAS90 on October 19, 2017, 02:09:05 pm
I'm an outsider, looking in on this. I don't know Bob, but I do agree with some of the points raised, especially those in the further letter. I don't think it's ever helpful when things descend into something vitriolic and hateful.
I responded to the survey, with some comments as a (currently) non member, and some of my concerns were similar to those raised by Bob P. They seem pretty important, but unfortunately in disputes of this nature, it becomes partisan. I think it would be great if we could separate the arguments from the abuse, and perhaps ask about how others who aren't BMC members perceive the organisation.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: tomtom on October 19, 2017, 02:21:56 pm
ask about how others who aren't BMC members perceive the organisation.

:)

https://youtu.be/uS4LLAKPwyk?t=1m30s
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 19, 2017, 03:04:26 pm
Shark, I’m assuming you’ve seen the results of the ABC research?
It is, I think, another indication of how far out of touch people like Bob are; and to a lesser extent, the BMC.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on October 19, 2017, 03:34:48 pm
Shark, I’m assuming you’ve seen the results of the ABC research?
It is, I think, another indication of how far out of touch people like Bob are; and to a lesser extent, the BMC.

Yes - presented by Graham Atkins himself. Our recent poll tended to back up his findings. Yes (most) of us know where things are and the trends. Even some unlikely senior figures are cottoning on albeit viewing it through their own peculiar prism.

Quote
In the focus group meeting with the current patrons and past presidents of the BMC, Sir Chris Bonington, Doug Scott, Dr. Charles Clarke, Rehan Siddiqui, Dave Musgrove and Mick Fowler all unanimously agreed, that indoor competition climbing should be included. The young indoor climber of today, or the young fell walker of today, may become a mountaineering star of the future. The young men and women who are members ( or potential members ), of the BMC are its life blood and vital to the continued success of the organisation. (http://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-organisational-review-group-newsletter-august-2017)

 
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: danm on October 19, 2017, 05:07:45 pm
, and some of my concerns were similar to those raised by Bob P. They seem pretty important, but unfortunately in disputes of this nature, it becomes partisan.
I agree Dave - one of the saddest things about this has been that Bob and friends approached this in such an awful and destructive way, that important views which include concern about the possible effects of commercialisation on climbing might become marginalised.

I heard at one area meeting that one reason some people had voted for Bobs motion was because they'd been told that when climbing goes into the Olympics and the BMC becomes a governing body, then recreational climbers would become subject to drug testing like other athletes. That level of distortion and simple lack of attachment to the real world has done lots of damage.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: DAVETHOMAS90 on October 19, 2017, 06:34:51 pm
Hi Dan.

Cheers, I think it works both ways though, otherwise you get people responding to the sense of being attacked, too much posturing/grandstanding; the debate gets lost.

Maybe it was down to inherent structural problems, that it came to this. It certainly looked as though the BMC was going in the direction that certain people wanted.

When any organisation claims to be representative, one would expect it not to be partisan, otherwise it ends up imposing a (climbing) world view of it's choice.

As for references to the BMC becoming a "governing body", I don't think that's much different from the BMC deciding what climbing "is", and on what basis it might choose to represent it.
For some people, climbing is about turning up at the crag, putting on the ghetto blaster, and smoking a nice fat doobie; no max sets though  :punk:

There have been times when the BMC has seemed more like a personal club, which then becomes selective in what climbing values that that group of people want to protect. However anyone feels about any of the methods/tactics employed, it does look as though that's what the signatories to the motion wanted to address.

Look at the range of opinions about things like the bolting of Horseshit (sorry, that was predictive text). I've heard from so many people that they can't believe Gary wasn't one of the first to be approached. I don't know the full details, so please correct me.

Commercial partners etc, there are consequences which affect others in what they might feel is an unrepresentative way.

I think that when people talk about the BMC being out of touch, they're trying to say that the BMC doesn't include them. I think it's that lack of inclusion which BP and others are reacting to. Hopefully that can be considered before laying claim to blame over who is causing damage.

Anyone got any skins btw?
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: danm on October 19, 2017, 07:08:00 pm
I couldn't work there Dave if I didn't think that climbing in all it's different forms, and all the different ways that people get something from it, was valued. You misunderstand the bit about governing body, I think. That's a term used within competitive sport, where you might need to apply sanctions and have rules to determine who can and can't compete, and what they have to abide by when they do. That will have no bearing on the long history of anarchy and self determination around which climbing thrives. It's a governing body for competitions, and most definitely not one for other forms of climbing. If you want to solo at your limit, no one is going to stop you and you won't need to pass a belay test to climb at Stanage.

Regarding Horseshoe - the only fair thing to say is that since starting the work, I've become more convinced than ever that the LMG took the right decision to use a contractor for the job.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: DAVETHOMAS90 on October 20, 2017, 02:46:08 am
Hi Dan.

I didn't misunderstand the point about Governing body. I was making the point that some of the other decisions may inadvertently have the same effect, as if the BMC were to become a governing body, in the sense misunderstood by some.

You may feel assured in yourself that the BMC is representative across the board, but I don't think that's born out by some of the sentiment often expressed. As for Horseshoe, I do find your own comments a bit "we're happy that we've done the right thing".  :wall: Well there are a lot of people who disagree.

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on October 20, 2017, 08:36:41 am
Well there are a lot of people who disagree.

Those people should join and hence have some leverage on the situation and the shape and direction of the BMC as a whole, and be informed about what is going on, and turn up to area meetings to discuss it and put their point across.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: danm on October 20, 2017, 11:20:35 am
Hi Dan.
I didn't misunderstand the point about Governing body. I was making the point that some of the other decisions may inadvertently have the same effect, as if the BMC were to become a governing body, in the sense misunderstood by some.
I don't understand what you mean here Dave. Could you give a specific example of what sort of thing you are concerned about? Because the things I've heard people say so far, like the example I gave above, are not based on reality. I'm sure that there are some real potential areas of conflict, which have not been considered, so if you know of any, I'd love to hear them.
Quote
You may feel assured in yourself that the BMC is representative across the board, but I don't think that's born out by some of the sentiment often expressed. As for Horseshoe, I do find your own comments a bit "we're happy that we've done the right thing".  :wall: Well there are a lot of people who disagree.
Again, examples please! You also misunderstand me on Horseshoe. The decision to use contractors was made by the LMG, nothing to do with me. I, however, independently have come to agree with the decision, based on evidence which I've already said I don't want to go into detail in public. I guess you'll have to trust me on it unless you want to chat about it over a brew.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 20, 2017, 11:41:44 am
Nothing to do with the OP but this seems like a decent place to post this:

Big thanks to Jon Gartside MTE officer at the BMC for support when I dropped by to ask for SPA related advice. He couldn't have been more helpful.

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on October 20, 2017, 01:12:49 pm
Well there are a lot of people who disagree.

Those people should join and hence have some leverage on the situation and the shape and direction of the BMC as a whole, and be informed about what is going on, and turn up to area meetings to discuss it and put their point across.

Dave that's mildly bollocks.
'Joining the BMC' doesn't equate to having any leverage on what the BMC decides to do.

And 'going to your area meeting' seems to be the go-to answer to anyone any time they raise a concern about something the BMC has chosen to do - 'well go to your area meeting then'... Sorry, again bollocks. Area meetings are an outdated throwback and a third rate format for debating an organisation's decisions and taking the temperature of member's options. They have serious limitations as a format for raising concerns for three obvious reasons -

One that should be obvious is that a lot of people don't want to have to stand up in a room full of people and try to debate a topic coherently in the fleeting few minutes allowed for debating it. A lot of people hold valid views but might not be good at expressing them to a group of relative strangers in a meeting room. A point related to this is - a lot of climbers are often quiet folk. The sort of people who enjoy blowing off in area meeting debates aren't necessarily representative.
A second is the above mentioned understandable time constraints in area meets, this severely limits any useful lengthy debate on a particular topic.
A third is.. hardly anyone goes to area meets, relative to number of BMC members (and non-BMC members who are active in the scene and making things happen, yes I know they'd be welcome to turn up but they don't either).

There's effectively no other way to raise concerns with something the BMC has chosen to do other than wait until a few minutes window of debate opportunity opens up in a meeting weeks or months down the line; where there'll maybe be another 20 people, most of whom likely aren't directly involved in the issue being discussed.
Following this substandard method of sharing views.. the national council representative goes away with 'a consensus' from the meeting and it informs policy. It isn't really any surprise the BMC manages rubs people up the wrong way. It's a second (third?) rate format for taking the temperature of members' opinions.

Most obviously - there wasn't even a second-rate debate in area meets before the BMC decided to, you know, change it's name...?!
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on October 20, 2017, 01:15:12 pm
Nothing to do with the OP but this seems like a decent place to post this:

Big thanks to Jon Gartside MTE officer at the BMC for support when I dropped by to ask for SPA related advice. He couldn't have been more helpful.

Ah it was you! It caused a bit of surprise in the office - we don't get many walk-ins  :(
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on October 20, 2017, 01:25:09 pm
Pete, how many area meetings do you actually go to, to know all this? If you've got a genius idea about a better format then don't be shy, get in contact with the BMC to let them know. Volunteer to help set up whatever this mystery perfect platform is. Assuming you are in fact a member.

Funnily enough this situation seems to be rather reminiscent of the EU - as an organisation it's not perfect yet certain individuals would rather not be in it and be able to comfortably sit in armchairs on the sidelines chirping and moaning about stuff, pointing out all flaws, to minimal effect rather than actually be a part of the solution and taking any tangible steps to make things better or come up with an alternative. All the time undermining the status of the organization and directly or indirectly jeopardizing all the often-unseen great work that goes on. Sorry but I've got no time for those people.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Will Hunt on October 20, 2017, 01:54:23 pm
And 'going to your area meeting' seems to be the go-to answer to anyone any time they raise a concern about something the BMC has chosen to do - 'well go to your area meeting then'... Sorry, again bollocks. Area meetings are an outdated throwback and a third rate format for debating an organisation's decisions and taking the temperature of member's options. They have serious limitations as a format for raising concerns for three obvious reasons -

One that should be obvious is that a lot of people don't want to have to stand up in a room full of people and try to debate a topic coherently in the fleeting few minutes allowed for debating it. A lot of people hold valid views but might not be good at expressing them to a group of relative strangers in a meeting room. A point related to this is - a lot of climbers are often quiet folk. The sort of people who enjoy blowing off in area meeting debates aren't necessarily representative.
A second is the above mentioned understandable time constraints in area meets, this severely limits any useful lengthy debate on a particular topic.
A third is.. hardly anyone goes to area meets, relative to number of BMC members (and non-BMC members who are active in the scene and making things happen, yes I know they'd be welcome to turn up but they don't either).

There's effectively no other way to raise concerns with something the BMC has chosen to do other than wait until a few minutes window of debate opportunity opens up in a meeting weeks or months down the line; where there'll maybe be another 20 people, most of whom likely aren't directly involved in the issue being discussed.
Following this substandard method of sharing views.. the national council representative goes away with 'a consensus' from the meeting and it informs policy. It isn't really any surprise the BMC manages rubs people up the wrong way. It's a second (third?) rate format for taking the temperature of members' opinions.

Most obviously - there wasn't even a second-rate debate in area meets before the BMC decided to, you know, change it's name...?!


Now, don't get me wrong, I like to disagree with Pete as much as anybody else here, but he does have a point about the area meetings.

I don't get to all of them, but I do go when I can. The last one I went to was the Yorkshire one where Paul and I did a bit of chat about Unknown Stones. The turnout was really high and the convener thought this was down to there being a talk after the usual business of the meeting.
During the meeting there were a few things that came up. Other than the usual access updates, there was something or other about some decision that had to be made. I think it was something like reducing the number of people to sit on such and such a panel or committee from 3 to 2.
Everybody muttered their assent into their pints, longing to skip to the good bit at the end of the meeting. It occurred to me that I had no idea whether the mooted change was important (presumably it is to someone or they wouldn't have put the decision to National Council). I didn't really understand it. Who knows, perhaps in 5 years time we'll all be moaning about the decision and someone will utter the immortal words "it was agreed at the area meeting".

Having said that, the issues are listed on the agenda beforehand, so anyone with an opinion can plan to come down and raise it with the meeting. Perhaps it should be more incumbent on the chair to outline what they believe to be the possible consequences of a decision and the pros/cons either way?

For stuff like the re-brand and the Horseshoe bolting, there's clearly going to be more interest here and the area meetings are a decent forum. That said, some sort of online discussion wouldn't go amiss, for all the points that Pete raises. I would support this on a platform where people had to use their real name as their moniker, as it might avoid the sort of trolling and obtuse misinformation that the likes of gallam1 come out with.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: petejh on October 20, 2017, 02:06:27 pm
Pete, how many area meetings do you actually go to, to know all this? If you've got a genius idea about a better format then don't be shy, get in contact with the BMC to let them know. Volunteer to help set up whatever this mystery perfect platform is. Assuming you are in fact a member.

I used to be an individual member, I'm now a club member through the CC. I've been to I think 4 meetings, plus one agm (to vote for area rep).
The make-up of the meetings consisted, with a few exceptions, mostly of older people. Hillwalking and 'snowdon policy' was well represented. Which is fine. Any debate was time-limited, which is understandable. Not many people spoke other than the chair, the access rep and the usual opinionated old guy who makes everyone's eyes roll..

As for suggesting a better format, I mentioned in the first meet I ever went to that the format was prohibitive to quieter people wanting to take part (standing up in front of a crowd and speaking etc..) and suggested live streaming conference meets a la investors conference calls where the CEO, CFO and CMO (thinjk Chair, access rep, other rep) usually say their parts, then open up the call to pre-arranged questions from investors. This could be done at the same time as having people who want to physically attend. This was met with blank eyes. I'm not suggesting this is a perfect format or even a viable one, but I made the effort to think about it which I think is more than anyone else has bothered to do.


Funnily enough this situation seems to be rather reminiscent of the EU - as an organisation it's not perfect yet certain individuals would rather not be in it and be able to comfortably sit in armchairs on the sidelines chirping and moaning about stuff, pointing out all flaws, to minimal effect rather than actually be a part of the solution and taking any tangible steps to make things better or come up with an alternative. All the time undermining the status of the organization and directly or indirectly jeopardizing all the often-unseen great work that goes on. Sorry but I've got no time for those people.

Rubbish. I just said that 'joining the BMC' or 'going to area meetings' is not some panacea for influencing the BMC, as you implied. I pointed out that the only way to make your opinion heard by the BMC is through an outdated quarterly area meeting, with all the limitations this format has outlined above, and that hardly anyone attends (relative to climbers in the scene).

Care to argue my points?

Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: dave on October 20, 2017, 02:27:22 pm
Care to argue my points?

If I must.

Quote
'Joining the BMC' doesn't equate to having any leverage on what the BMC decides to do.

No but you have more chance and more clout as a member.

Quote
And 'going to your area meeting' seems to be the go-to answer to anyone any time they raise a concern about something the BMC has chosen to do

That's because they are most obvious easy grass-roots chance to be involved. To hear others talk, to stick your oar in, or just sit back and be better informed.

Quote
Area meetings are an outdated throwback and a third rate format for debating an organisation's decisions and taking the temperature of member's options. They have serious limitations as a format for raising concerns for three obvious reasons

Again, come up with a better alternative. Put up or shut up.

Quote
One that should be obvious is that a lot of people don't want to have to stand up in a room full of people and try to debate a topic coherently in the fleeting few minutes allowed for debating it.

As mentioned above, attending meetings is not about talking to the room. Sitting and hearing and being better informed is as important, and in many cases of the naysayers on here regarding the horseshoe thing would have avoided a lot of the subsequent online debate and gnashing of teeth.

There's other ways to have your voice heard at meetings should you want to - vote on issues being presented for a vote for instance. Or submit something written to be read out etc etc.

And if you think everything is only debated fleetingly then you've obviously never attended a Peak area meeting....

Quote
A third is.. hardly anyone goes to area meets, relative to number of BMC members

How you think not attending is going to improve this is beyond me. "I'm not going cos nobody goes" is self-fulfilling. Also sounding off online about how shit meetings are and generally being extremely negative at every given chance online about anything the BMC does is not likely to encourage others to get involved and turn up. Plenty of folk have, at the Peak ones, done stuff to improve attendance, like generally spreading the work on social media, changing venues, sorting out free food, giving lifts, helping out with newsletters, putting on slideshows and talks afterwards, running quizes etc. Some areas are not doing this clearly, but the precedent and example is there to be set. You know your local area best, you know the demographics and where the best venues are, make it happen.

Quote
There's effectively no other way to raise concerns with something the BMC has chosen to do other than wait until a few minutes window of debate opportunity opens up in a meeting weeks or months down the line;

Well that's quote clearly not true. As I say, nobody is saying area meets are perfect or a panacea the be all and end all, but they are better than not having them, in the absence of an alternative. They are an obvious starting point, and conveniently dismissing them just seems like a cop-out. If you have that magic alternative, still waiting to hear it. A degree of put-up-or-shut-up required here.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Johnny Brown on October 20, 2017, 02:33:13 pm
Quote
The make-up of the meetings consisted, with a few exceptions, mostly of older people. Hillwalking and 'snowdon policy' was well represented. Which is fine. Any debate was time-limited, which is understandable. Not many people spoke other than the chair, the access rep and the usual opinionated old guy who makes everyone's eyes roll..

I've only ever been to the Peak ones, which have been nothing like this in the forty or so I've attended in the last 10+ years. 40-100 people, good range of ages and interests, lively debate open to all. About the only criticism we've had in that time was when a BMC staff member cried 'elitism' over a top climber turning up to speak against his trad-lite/retro-bolt agenda.

If people can't make it questions are often emailed through to the chair. This could be more widely used and promoted.

I understand the Peak area is something of an exception, but as Dave says good or bad attendance is likely to perpetuate itself.

Personally I think forum threads can be an excellent tool for debate too, maybe official BMC threads might be an idea.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 21, 2017, 12:01:00 pm
That's blunt ;)

Sorry if I interrupted work Simon, I was in the area and thought face to face would be easiest to talk. And I got a hundred leaflets for school, so it worked out well :)
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: Offwidth on October 21, 2017, 01:32:21 pm
I've commented on UKB and UKC threads and got feedback from BMC officers (and sometimes debate items included on area meeting agendas throught this). I've commented  on the BMC website and had replies from the BMC and others have done so on the Facebook page. Like JB I've witnessed mainly excellent debate and fair voting at the Peak Area (with the exception of a one year decline due to poor local leadership) including where wrtitten submissions and forum items were raised when appropriate and where non members are welcome (grooming ya know). I've emailed the BMC direct and got replies; and even Bob's 'blood on vellum' dishonest privte attack letters to various Exec members apparently got replies. I've 'knobblled BMC officers during their leisure time at the crag. The AGMs I've attended (in moments of madness) were lively debates on motions submitted and issues raised in the meetings. I've talked to the BMC at Kendal and various other Festivals and at Crag Clean ups. There is Summit available in all sorts of places as well as posted to members. But apart from all that, the BMC are obviously completely shit at communication with its members on real issues (or to non members in the areas under their remit).

Its your right to hold concerns about what you regard as a precedent but its not something shared by anything like a majority and the answers to your views from people with equivalent experience seem logical to me as someone who works closely with access experts.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on October 21, 2017, 01:57:08 pm
That's blunt ;)

Sorry if I interrupted work Simon, I was in the area and thought face to face would be easiest to talk. And I got a hundred leaflets for school, so it worked out well :)

You misunderstand. The sad face was because it would be nice if more members dropped in on spec (Tomtom excepted of course). Sorry it was ambiguous.
Title: Re: BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread)
Post by: shark on October 21, 2017, 05:43:34 pm
I have split the recent posts about Horseshoe out and merged them with the existing topic on the subject BMC pays rope access contractor for re-equipping work. (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,28318.msg558637.html#msg558637)
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal