[shark]

Gavin Pierce appointed as Chair. More info on him here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/gareth-pierce-new-chair-board-of-directors

No knowledge of him other than what is in the article but whilst the info provided shows a lot of third sector experience though doesn’t strike me as him being a heavy hitter with a track record substantive Chair roles under his belt which is disappointing as I think this is the level required for a new Chair role with a major organisation going through substantive change.

Be delighted to be proved wrong. Wish him well obviously and no doubt his Welsh experience will be useful with some of the changes going in.

[Offwidth]

Gavin was obviously the best person to apply and apparently comfortably met the role criteria. There was also a rumour he was incredibly well self briefed from the BMC website.. no mean feat. I'm glad he have him as I think that the BMC needed an appointed (rather than acting) chair to get on with things properly. His CV looks completely appropriate to me, especially
being supportive of BMC aims, CEO and governance experience and wrt to his working and negotiating with UK and  Welsh governments. I  not sure what type of person you think might have applied and even a weaker candidate who met the appointment criteria would have deserved being given a chance.

On your comments  further up I think its important to say that the BMC only wasn't fit to take the Olympic money as it came before the AGM voted in the required governance changes. I can't see what the BMC could do much faster on the subsiduary idea as its in a key ODG workstream and I think its pretty obviously going to face the most divided member views  of the remaining ODG areas. The delays are unfortunate but all stem from the idiocy and disruption of the last two years.

[shark]

On paper I would have set the bar at someone who had Chaired a listed company or a large public body - ideally both - stewarding it through a period of change and therefore lead from experience rather than someone learning on the job.

[A Jooser]

Shark, I was just about to give a wad point for the correct use of English in your earlier post, then you edited it! 

If asked what image “Chairman” instantly conjures up I would, sad to say, that it is a white older grandee type (as they mainly currently are). “Chairperson” instantly mixes that gender bias up whereas Chair conjures up a four legged wooden object...

Thank heavens for the Chair of Board title, it's sure to challenge those stereotypes.



In all sincerity, best of luck to the new Chair I'm sure they'll do the job to the best of their abilities. (If that sentence makes no sense, please don't blame me.)

[shark]

There was a presentation at the BMC Peak Area meeting last night by the National Council rep Alison Cairns and some words from Lynn Robinson President that suggests there has been a lot of hot air from some on the issue of the "Memorandum of Understanding" and that this MOU can be used in some way to hold the Board to account above and beyond other mechanisms.

I looked into this when Pete Sterling was promising to negotiate hard on the wording of the MOU at the Manchester Open meeting prior to the AGM (then promptly resigned!) as I thought it represented a risk to subvert Board primacy by the backdoor (not good governance!)

The new Articles of Association are quite clear on the purpose and limitations of the MOU which is: "The National Council and the Board will agree a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to ensure communications between both bodies are timely and appropriate to allow both bodies to understand the proposed actions and intent of each party."

To agree an MOU that exceeds this description would be unconstitutional  and an amendment to the AoA to allow a stronger MOU would be an erosion of Board primacy / good governance.

If any of the protaganists happen to read this then please stop wasting your time and breath on this topic and concentrate on the real work of reforming the BMC.

Rant over.     

[Offwidth]

I thought we might get this from you ;-). The MoU is part on an ODG worksteam and we can't pre-define the outcome of this work nor the democratic outcomes of any minor tweeks to the articles they might recommend. I'm speaking as someone who agrees with your concerns and, without second guessing myself, would need convincing that the current articles need adapting.

The BMC latest information on this subject is summarised here:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-organisational-development-group-update-november-2018

Which includes the follwing briefings on the MoU:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1682
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1683

[shark]

I thought we might get this from you ;-). The MoU is part on an ODG worksteam and we can't pre-define the outcome of this work nor the democratic outcomes of any minor tweeks to the articles they might recommend. I'm speaking as someone who agrees with your concerns and, without second guessing myself, would need convincing that the current articles need adapting.

Having now had a look at the ORG MoU Group’s terms of reference I can see where Lynn got the notion of using the MoU to hold the Board to account from. It indicates the desired use of the MoU has expanded far beyond the remit enshrined in the new articles i.e.

1.2.1. The MoU will form the control by which the National Council are able to hold the Board to account when they believe the Board is acting outside the agreed Object, strategy and policies of the BMC, or the intent of the Membership.

Why does this matter? Because the BMC has been hopeless at overarching decision making leading to an organisational clusterfuck of disparate activities sometimes at odds with each other and lacking clarity and purpose.

A small and confident Board should be able to provide Leadership and make decisions on priorities that are in the overall interests of the Membership but unpopular with some segments.

There is a danger that we will take a step backward if the MoU becomes a mechanism that allows the NC to meddle and micro manage the Board and subvert its primacy.

[Offwidth]

Its a democratic organisation and article changes are never easy unless the proposers convince most of those voting. In the unlikely circumstances that the ODG recommend something similar to what Pete Stirling said (in that May forum, and that so worried both of us) and the Board then bizzarely approve that (they have the authority now, so why would they give it away?) and the NC vote to support it, think on how a campaign that matches your views might work (in the context of you describing the BMC as a clusterfuck of disparate activities etc).  I'm confident the ODG recommendations in this area won't be as worrying as you think whilst recognising it probably also won't be your ideal.

The new formulation of the NC will greatly improve that group (better defined scope, better democratic links to membership, almost certainly reduced area votes from 2 to 1 per area, and new members from other BMC specialist areas and some elected from across the whole membership).

I'd say the importance of the newly agreed Board primacy needs to be regularly stated (if only because many still don't realise the change has happened) but on the detail let's wait and see, and deal with what is presented.

Lynn's role in this is to represent the membership, not easy in times of change, but her willingness to get out and about and face real concerns is very obvious.

[shark]

Lynn's role in this is to represent the membership, not easy in times of change, but her willingness to get out and about and face real concerns is very obvious.

“Representing the membership” on this topic would most obviously be interpreted as being in favour of additional mechanisms, influence or power that the NC can have over the Board’s decision making such as 1.2.1 quoted above.

Also when Lynn says the MoU will be used to hold the Board to account she is of course a member of the Board and party to decision making and able to report back.

Getting acceptance of 1.2.1 might be seen as a victory for the membership but it would also be a loss for the organisation in terms of decision making and good governance in my view.

What does holding to account mean anyway in practical terms ? That there is a way of punishing the board by summoning them and sacking members if they do things that NC don’t like?

[Offwidth]

Lynn's role in this is to represent the membership, not easy in times of change, but her willingness to get out and about and face real concerns is very obvious.

“Representing the membership” on this topic would most obviously be interpreted as being in favour of additional mechanisms, influence or power that the NC can have over the Board’s decision making such as 1.2.1 quoted above.

.....I'm sure anyone with a view on this will interpret this in the way they want but I'd say in Lynn's role definition it should be more like keeping an open mind for the moment on behalf of all members. I was pleasantly surprised how many voting members gave the Board freedom to manage in last year's vote: 92% support for the current articles, on by far the biggest voting turnout in the history of the organisation, was pretty impressive, with fierce and sometimes dishonest opposition from the Option B group (with their 6% vote fraction) .....

Also when Lynn says the MoU will be used to hold the Board to account she is of course a member of the Board and party to decision making and able to report back.

...yes, and on reporting back I'm sure she will when decisions are made, and if necessary (articles changes required) they need to be voted on. You want the Board to decide, with their new powers, so let them get on with it.....

Getting acceptance of 1.2.1 might be seen as a victory for the membership but it would also be a loss for the organisation in terms of decision making and good governance in my view.

..... strawman?... or are you really giving up on your views, that I'm sure will have wide support, before any votes on any potential changes ?

What does holding to account mean anyway in practical terms ? That there is a way of punishing the board by summoning them and sacking members if they do things that NC don’t like?

.... no one could know yet and if what the Board actually decide needs a vote (if that key articles phase on the MoU requires a change) it will be decided by the membership.....

[shark]

Clause 1.2.1 is a statement which is claimed to be "agreed and shared widely" prior to 2018 AGM yet goes far beyond what went into the current Articles voted in at the 2018 AGM. It seems obvious to me that anything agreed in an MoU that is in the spirit of 1.2.1 will either require an article change or will be unconstitutional.The November update shows no articles changes are currently mooted with respect to the MoU clause in the linked draft of article changes for the 2019 AGM.       

As an aside I don't think that the membership and NC voted for greater freedom for the Board per se - they voted for a set of articles that got the BMC out of a funk and made it compliant with generally recognised standards of good governance of which greater Board freedom (primacy) is a product. There was much talk of there being a "democratic deficit" which gained traction.

It seems hardly a great start to NC and Board relations if the NC is already lobbying for getting power back again that the Board is unlikely to agree to on good governance and legal grounds. The issue  also seems to already be demanding attention and consternation when there are so many other things to get stuck into.   
 

[shark]

Looking at the MoU Group's Terms of Reference I am really surprised that it was endorsed by NC as it is a real hotch potch. Terms of Reference should be a model of clarity to limit misinterpretation and scope creep and sets the boundaries of the work to be done. Including a list of things at the outset that was "agreed and shared widely" (by who to whom?) prior to the 2018 AGM is weirdly misleading and obfuscates the scope. Does this list constitute part of the ToR or not ?

[Teaboy]

Looking at the MoU Group's Terms of Reference I am really surprised that it was endorsed by NC as it is a real hotch potch.

Maybe there's a MoU to back up the ToR for the group creating the MoU?

[shark]

Quite.

I’m told that you can provide feedback to ODG@thebmc.co.uk so I’ve done just that and encourage anybody else that has a view to do the same.

[tomtom]

Has Dominic Raab been freelancing at the BMC?

[shark]

Thought has crossed my mind.

Having dealt with one of the people involved (who claims to be the voice of reason) I can well imagine how he would strangulate a document like this to meet his world view and it would get rubber stamped through just to shut him up.

Pure speculation obviously.

[shark]

I have had an impressively swift response from the ODG which confirmed that 1.2.1 was for background information only to acknowledge pre-AGM discussions that had taken place and categorically not a statement of intent in the drafting of the MoU.

Therefore, the MoU will not be used to “hold the Board to account” as stated which set me off in the first place.

I was also assured that there are no plans to change the clause in the articles relating to the MoU and that the draft MoU will focus on communication between NC and the Board as circumscribed by the current clause in the current articles.

Therefore all is good from my perspective.

As you were…

[shark]

I gather that at the Alpine Club AGM at the weekend that there was a vote to disaffiliate from the BMC and was voted against by about 10 to 1.

Many of the principal Tier 1 agitators and BMC30 signatories are AC members so such a large defeat will be personally crushing for the likes of Doug Scott, Dennis Gray and Bob Pettigrew and hugely undermines their machinations.

[shark]

A long, rambling piece from Dennis Gray in the wake of his Alpine Club disaffiliation motion defeat.

https://footlesscrow.blogspot.com/2019/01/dirt-bag-climbers.html?m=1

[tomtom]

Ten minutes of my life skim reading it that I won’t get back. 😃

[Offwidth]

It's not only rambling it yet again drags up 'beergate' and repeats the lies about it.

Bob got the dregs of a pint of shandy (the physical assault) after making sexist insults and insulting the position of an area rep. Bobby immediately retaliated with a glass of red wine.... it seemed to me he didn't come off any worse. This was witnessed by many people in the bar (in contrast to Bobs version that was supported by one witness who was never cross examined and who contradicted all the other witnesses). As Bob subsequently reported it, the police became involved (a waste of public money) and the matter was eventually settled with agreement from both sides, an apology and a dry cleaning bill for his cravat covered;  and most importantly there was no formal caution (so it was clearly not regarded as criminal assault by the police).  In Dennis' s day in charge if the BMC, by reporting such handbags to the police climbers would have been laughed out of the organisation. Some climbers back then broke laws on a regular basis (brawls and shop thefts) and some of those even wrote it into their published memoirs.

[cheque]

Someone needs to tell him that "dirtbag climbers" isn't an insult.

It's pretty funny how so much of the thing revolves around the toilet block at Harrisons Rocks.

[Yossarian]

It is quite a nice toilet block...

[spidermonkey09]

 In Dennis' s day in charge if the BMC, by reporting such handbags to the police climbers would have been laughed out of the organisation.

This to me is the most unedifying thing about the whole farrago. To get the law involved for throwing a drink (not the glass!) seems to me completely laughable. I'm not sure I could look at myself in the mirror! Worse happens in every student nightclub every night of the week...

[Offwidth]

To me it's the sheer sociopathic nastiness behind the manufactured scandal in beergate and over the whole no confidence vote that is so worrying. The thing upsetting the area rep involved in beergate the most, and why they wanted at least a sign of regret from Bob, was that Mark Vallance was left trying to put the position of the 30 to the local area and was unable to do so, with his verbal disability.

I know its just sour grapes but the list of bullshit in such blog posts goes on and on. The irony in what they say in these blogs is also palpable. The BMC wasn't really a guilty party in the Harrison's toiletgate and the lack of a super fast response was partly down to the complex democratic structures that had primacy at the time.  Dennis Gray himself was in charge when the BMC started to support competion climbing. Sport England only fund participation activities (and then, that actually spent in the BMC, is mostly on indoor climbing and hillwalking); elite funding comes from another separate branch of UK sport funding. The recent (June 18) governance changes are to what are regarded as best modern practice in governance by independant experts;  it seems fair to me that Sport England requires something like such when spending taxpayers' money . Climb Britain was triggered by democratic elected NC reps voting agreement in the old structure that Dennis, Bob and co wanted to keep.

The internet has been the main source of news and statements made on the BMC in these areas. I think such  posted information and opinion on UKC and UKB was the most widely cross-examined  for accuracy and honesty. These nameless 'trolls'  like Shark and  myself (I'm struggling for the moment to think of other major players who didn't directly use their own name) are pretty easily identifable from our profiles (certainly no internet experts are required) and we outed distribution of private letters amongst club climbing friends of the 30 that were completely full of misinformation and some outright lies. In contrast the 30 mainly posted through pseudonyms that were genuinely hard to identify and in one case even used their son's logon account. Only Andy Say (not one of the 30) in the Option A vs B debate was commonly and formally posting against the BMC exec line and always named and open.