[andy popp]

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.

[Offwidth]

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.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

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.

[duncan]

[Offwidth]

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.

[Duma]

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

[Johnny Brown]

A relief, but I must admit that's a lot more for votes than I'd have guessed. Worrying.

[Offwidth]

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).

[DAVETHOMAS90]

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.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

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.

[Offwidth]

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.

[dave]

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.

[Oldmanmatt]

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

[tomtom]

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.

[galpinos]

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.

[tomtom]

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...)

[Offwidth]

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.

[Offwidth]

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!).

[Will Hunt]

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:

***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.

[Oldmanmatt]

Keep your friends close...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IDW]

It'll be on the agenda at the June national council meeting, as will a proposal for honorary membership to be given to Rehan.

 

[Will Hunt]

An unrepentantly partisan report on UKC:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item/71062/bmc_motion_of_no-confidence_defeated

Of particular note:

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?!

[36chambers]

An unrepentantly partisan report on UKC:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item/71062/bmc_motion_of_no-confidence_defeated

Of particular note:

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

[Catcheemonkey]

pour foam

 

That only works if you talk like Leslie Phillips.

[Will Hunt]

From Rehan's speech:
"Climbing is far too important for democracy" - Doug Scott.

Well that about sums that up then. Bastards.