[Wil]

Another confusing conspiracy laden ramble. Contained within all of this are some genuine complaints which might be valid, but the whole thing is just failing to accept that the world changes. That he can't even get the facts right about Sport England's funding priorities...

I'm baffled by the "dirtbag climbers" comment. Firstly I don't regard it as an insult, and more importantly I've never heard it mentioned in regard to the generation that he's from.

[webbo]

It's pretty funny how so much of the thing revolves around the toilet blocks

Especially given the author.

[Oldmanmatt]

I gave up.

Reading it, I mean.

It was a bit like a phone call to my (mostly Italian) mother. Nibs could better illustrate the ability of Italian mothers to ramble on about sweet FA. Anyway, basically, no matter how many attempts I made to read it; I kept having to go back a couple of paragraphs, as the words went in through my eyes and evaporated before reaching the brain.

I’m too old for that shit. If I get that bad (I know, almost, already) will one of you just shoot me?

[shark]

Latest insights on what is going on behind the scenes with changing the BMC can be found in the latest National Council minutes - summary below - questions raised detailed in the minutes

Organisational Development Group update

The ODG structure, comprising 8 work streams, four of which are Board led (strategy & vision; ops & finance; culture, leadership & management; corporate structure),and four of which are National Council / Member led (governance; policy;partnerships; member engagement). Terms of Reference have been developed and other work completed; current focus is on governance work
stream.

A website for hosting ODG documentation has been established odg.thebmc.co.uk. The site includes an online feedback form, and the ability for members to sign up for updates and follow particular documents when new versions are released. It is also possible to email comments (to
ODG@thebmc.co.uk).

Articles of Association changes:

Four significant changes, to the following Articles:
6.2 (ensuring the rules for payment to directors are appropriately defensive for the BMC);
11.7 (updating the threshold for members to raise a resolution or requisition a General Meeting);
19.4.4 (appointment periods for directors appointed by National Council) and 28.5 (to prevent continual job swapping of area officer and representative roles).

Memorandum of Understanding

The MoU is in advanced draft stage. The next step is to align it with the ToR for the Board and National Council. When both are happy with the draft, it will be shared with members, and the intent is to have the MoU agreed by the Board and National Council before the AGM in March 2019.

National Council reconstitution

A working group has been established. Questions to be addressed include: the number of votes per Area; specialist committee votes; and the make-up of partner organisation representation.

[shark]

Summary of Board meeting for 9th Jan here:
www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-board-of-directors-january-2019-meeting-summary
Full minutes here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1731

October's Board meeting full minutes still not up!

ORG Jan update here:  https://odg.thebmc.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/360015680554-Organisational-Development-Group-update-Jan-19

Areas and members are asked for feedback, review, and questions on any of the documents available, or any aspect of the ODG. 

However, at this stage, they’d specifically like any feedback on:

Interim National Council Terms of Reference. Next step: vote at NC meeting, 9th Feb
https://odg.thebmc.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/360015887673

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Next step: vote at NC meeting, 9th Feb
https://odg.thebmc.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/360015774234

Articles of Association.  Next step: feedback, review, then vote at AGM 2019
https://odg.thebmc.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/360015886913

Board Terms of Reference.  Next step: feedback, then review and agree at Board, 11th Feb
https://odg.thebmc.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/360015873813

[shark]

Papers are now up for the AGM

The deadline has passed for any motions of no confidence etc.

Key items to vote on are the £6 rise in subs, the amended constitution and 5 new Board appointments.

Regarding the Board appointments, three are contested positions which is interesting as I was under the assumption that the Nomination Committee nominated a single person for election. Nominating two and even three candidates seemingly indicates a worrying lack of decisiveness.   

Regarding the choices for the nominated Director of Finance there is Gron Davies and Huw Jones. He was proposed by Rehan Siddiqui (ex BMC President) which I seconded. I have known Gron for 30 years and has held a number of Finance Director roles as well as being commercially switched on. He has also been on the BMC Finance and Audit Committee and I think would be an excellent appointment filling a key weak area for the BMC. I don't know Huw but he looks a good candidate in the write up.

Next up is Phil Simister and Jonathon White. Phil revitalised the West Midlands Area meetings and I knew him from when I was on National Council. He dropped in my estimation at the last AGM when he tried to try to wriggle out of responsibility for voting for 'Climb Britain' saying he only half raised his hand  Jonathon was the more acceptable face of the BMC 30 clique and their chief negotiator on the constitutional changes. Still comes across as arrogant (even by my standards) but gets my vote.

Finally there is the Nominated Director for Fund Raising and there are 3! candidates to choose from but in my mind only one real choice. John Roberts is the current VP but that role won't exist any more so he has to stand again after only being 12 months on the Board - which led him to resign his Chairmanship of the ABC. He has worked incredibly hard on the ORG and now the ODG. It would be a crime if he wasn't appointed even though he is a lanky bastard.     
 

[Offwidth]

I'd advise people to read the prospective nominated director profiles and make their own minds up.

The BMC wasn't indecisive: the process is that which was decided:  the BMC should interview to determine who is 'above the line' in terms of role suitability and the members then vote to ratify if there is only one candidate for a role and elect if more than one. It's very healthy so many good candidates applied and that we have 3 elections.

[user deactivated]

Jeez, whatever little interest I had in the BMC has slowly been ground down by this complete pile of bollocks. Pages of unintelligible ramblings, double speak, management style euphemisms, and underhand politics. It’s like a public sector upper middle management get together. Id be curious to know if anyone here apart from those involved actually understands or gives a shit what the BMC cronies are up to.

[tomtom]

Is this all about the ‘two pad rule’?

:D

[user deactivated]

The thread or my rant? Because I’ve no idea what the thread is about. There’s nowt ‘doublespeak’ about the two pad rule man, quite the opposite.

[tomtom]

The thread or my rant? Because I’ve no idea what the thread is about. There’s nowt ‘doublespeak’ about the two pad rule man, quite the opposite.

The BMC... because sometimes its operation appears to be satire, W1A style

[user deactivated]

Satire is dead. The age of instagram based hypersensitivity has made sure of it. Climbing, and it’s associated left wing wears a public mask. Where tearful kinder-esque climbers spill with remorse Bill Clinton style.

[Oldmanmatt]

Jeez, whatever little interest I had in the BMC has slowly been ground down by this complete pile of bollocks. Pages of unintelligible ramblings, double speak, management style euphemisms, and underhand politics. It’s like a public sector upper middle management get together. Id be curious to know if anyone here apart from those involved actually understands or gives a shit what the BMC cronies are up to.

Oh the irony...

I really enjoy your posting/writing, but are you not aware that your style is more obscure and obtuse than my worst rambling, that you employ excessive euphemism (more earthy/hippy, less management/corporate) everybit as impenetrable to the uninitiated, whilst musing on esoteric intangibles? Disputing and debating the clearly subjective? Seeking an underlying truth, system of ethics and guiding principles?

[user deactivated]

I appreciate the compliment of course Matt, and now feel strangely anxious I can’t live up to the role of providing euphemistic esoteric contradictory hippy ramblings in the future. Still the BMC ppppfffftttt

[Oldmanmatt]

I appreciate the compliment of course Matt, and now feel strangely anxious I can’t live up to the role of providing euphemistic esoteric contradictory hippy ramblings in the future. Still the BMC ppppfffftttt

I didn’t say contradictory.
Entertaining and thought provoking.

BMC-wise, think of it as learning a second language, then it sorta makes sense...

Sorta.

[spidermonkey09]

Satire is dead. The age of instagram based hypersensitivity has made sure of it. Climbing, and it’s associated left wing wears a public mask. Where tearful kinder-esque climbers spill with remorse Bill Clinton style.

Is that some sort of piss take that my mind is too feeble to understand on a Wednesday morning, or is it actually unintelligible bollocks as Matt alludes to?

Regarding the BMC, I understand that this stuff is impenetrable at first glance. My contention would be that running an organisation with 75,000 members necessitates adherence to rules and regs with the associated legalese and bureaucracy this entails. I don't like it either, but don't see an option beyond disbanding it which I don't think many actually seriously think is a good idea. Anyone suggesting it should be otherwise is operating in a 'jumpers for goalposts' nostalgic past that actually never existed.

What the BMC is actually up to, as someone who goes to meetings, is attempting to secure access, secure funding for youth development and elite support, insuring everyone who is a member, alongside loads of other things I can't be bothered to name. I do find lazily slagging it off on online forums quite tiresome, but perhaps thats just me. If I have spectacularly missed the point I of course apologise.

Rant over; back to work!

[shark]

Jeez, whatever little interest I had in the BMC has slowly been ground down by this complete pile of bollocks. Pages of unintelligible ramblings, double speak, management style euphemisms, and underhand politics. It’s like a public sector upper middle management get together. Id be curious to know if anyone here apart from those involved actually understands or gives a shit what the BMC cronies are up to.

I can sympathise with this viewpoint and probably would have shared it fifteen years ago.

I started the thread as I thought it would be useful to track what was going on and to have an outlet for commentary and information that was outside official BMC comms. I have tried to communicate in plain english on this thread for those who might have a passing interest but it is a tortuous topic. 

With a view to trying to make the subject a bit more accessible for the lay member I have just submitted an  article for the Peak Area newsletter which is a personalised overview of why I think the BMC matters, what has been happening and the direction we are heading. A preview can be found here

Feedback welcome as there is potentially a couple of days before the deadline to make edits.

 

[spidermonkey09]

Thanks Simon, I thought that was a very fair and even handed analysis that corresponds pretty well with my own understanding.

[danm]

I've just read the papers (OK, skim read) and submitted my online proxy vote. That in itself is a victory for democracy. I agree that all the paperwork and management speak is very tedious - but the alternative is a return to the old school way of 30 crusty old farts deciding everything behind closed doors. I mean seriously, do you write off parliamentary democracy because you watched PMQs on TV and found it boring?

[abarro81]

Oh the irony...

I really enjoy your posting/writing, but are you not aware that your style is more obscure and obtuse than my worst rambling, that you employ excessive euphemism (more earthy/hippy, less management/corporate) everybit as impenetrable to the uninitiated, whilst musing on esoteric intangibles? Disputing and debating the clearly subjective? Seeking an underlying truth, system of ethics and guiding principles?

  

Now if someone can just tell me who/what I'm supposed to vote for that's what I really want (a bit like Simon's post). Please footnote all posts with details of your default political preferences, views on Brexit, views on Corbyn and views on the merits of boulder triples vs long boulders as the most effective ancap routine when training for onsighting, so that I can weight opinions accordingly.

[tomtom]

Do any of the documents contain the words "frictionless" or "strong and stable"? 

[user deactivated]

Someone once described the NHS to me as a bit like a ‘bad back’. All bulging and degenerative.

I’d say the BMC appears somewhere between a hernia and jock itch

[user deactivated]

Ps What have the Romans’ ever done for us?

[shark]

Thanks Toby

Yes I do have stronger specific recommendations but didn’t want to impose them in an introductory general article of the direction we are heading and I know for a fact that some of my recommendations won’t fly anyway - at least in the medium term.

I will tighten it up though. Thanks for the response

[user deactivated]

Thanks Simon, that was interesting and well written. The ‘changing landscape’ generated a tinge of sadness. I grew up climbing with my feet in both camps, but eventually climbing became as much about the opportunity to enjoy an illusory secure place away from the ideas of establishment and pressure of community as anything else. This was lost over the past 10 years with ideas promoted by the changing landscape. Progression, popularity, competition, wider appeal, athleticism and commoditisation. These days I pretty much have a visceral reaction to these ideas on a grand scale. I understand the bmc needs to move with the times, as well as the incredible amount they do behind the scenes. Politics wise it reminds me a bit of Blair’s new labour.