[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

Now amended - principally the last 4 paragraphs. Link  here

[Offwidth]

Some comments on your paper Simon, but firstly I have to declare an interest as I could almost be described as being married to the organisation having a President as my partner. Much of my volunteering this year has been alongside Lynn as she travelled the UK and got involved with events, staff and volunteers whilst 'getting to grips' with the size and complexity of what is done at the BMC 'coal face' and listening to the views of many of the thousand plus volunteers and members. For me even the Roman's joke misses the point as by far the majority of BMC work is voluntary.

It's best to link the AGM paper on 2018 that efficiently and clearly summarises most of the organisation in the last year (but frustratingly could do with a diagram and summary of linked partner work.. and it underestimates volunteer numbers again albeit not as bad as before), as it includes important activities you miss, like the three internal charities. It is to be found here:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1754

The membership is approaching 85, 000 with about 25, 000 club members and significant membership from those involved in mountain training and comps.

I think the BMC complexity is hard to get away from without seriosuly pissing off sub sections of membership who do BMC work. Hence the ODG work to deal with governance change has risks as well as gains. I too favour a Board run BMC but The Board have to convince the membership. Strategy, member communication and member defendable budget allocations do need to improve.  However, in improving all this, governance work is seen as dull by most, so the organisation is lucky to have those it has and had working hard on such things. I expect it to go mostly well but If they do get big things wrong (as in Climb Britain wrong) the membership will very suddenly shift from 'meh' to 'wft'.

The risks are bigger than they might have been as a lot has needed to be done in short time scales (nearly all members would take a dim view of some '5 year plan' eating BMC  time and energy). So mistakes will happen:  my view on the signed off and member agreed 2018 Articles is they were necessary and the change to a Board was needed, but in fine detail they are sometimes  a bit of a mess compared to Articles of other similar bodies, even taking into account the complexity of the BMC. Some tidying up will be be needed in the next year or two. Also I'm not convinced eveyone involved in ODG knows the whole BMC well enough... so I'm glad the two key players, Lynn and Garath (the quietly impressive new BMC chair) have been meeting as many in the organisation as possible and using this to sense check things. Lynn has decided to take a sabbatical to do this, as best she can, as it was obvious soon after she was elected the role from  2019 into 2020 was huge.

On politics there is a new change most BMC members still don't realise. The member reps, including Lynn,  are 'political' appointments elected by members, working with Board appointments based on management needs, and both alongside the employed staff led by the CEO. The Board now 'runs' the BMC,  so a good balance is important. We must also remember that the BMC when it proposed Climb Britian was MORE member controlled: National Council was 'in charge' and  decided to go ahead with this, not a Board. The Board who are now 'in charge' still have to take members with them in any change.

On  'BMC 30' and 'Option B' politics, my concern was not about the political opinions, it was about the dirty tricks (private distribution of  dishonest letter and hoping to convince enough of the small minority who bother with the AGM) . Their concerns remain valid as there ARE good and bad ways for the BMC to be more 'corporate' with sadly too little good practice to emulate in UK organisations at present.  They were assuming a bad outcome to having a Board ... my perspective so far is nearly all good with any problems being due to the neccesary quite speedy changes.

From my experience this year attending several BMC organised comps and talking to staff and volunteers  I completely disagree it would be better in an independant subsidiary any time soon. I do think clearer guidance, structures and rules are required but given how much is done by volunteers the BMC might struggle to run comps from a subsiduary (especially if anything goes wrong) and the costs of doing in practical terms would be much higher (subsidiary staffing could not be provided on the current officer and admin budget). Cycling is a terrible comparison both as it's had all sorts of governance issues and it gets huge funding compared to competition climbing. 

I think you have rose tinted specs on bouldering and commercialisation. They started seriously in the 1980s. The big recent change is the explosion in numbers of bouldering walls: worrying as outdoor bouldering is much more sensitive than outdoor climbing (bouldering erosion is already terrible in some places and access is more complex). If the indoor bouldering 'hordes' move outdoors, as some will,  the need of the BMC (especially local access volunteers) at this interface has arguably never been greater.

[shark]

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.

With the professionalisation of the sport should come a professionalisation of our National body which is a point I've just added to the article.There is also much to celebrate about the development of the sport notably how many strands of climbing there are to enjoy now (or ignore) and the rise in standards.   

Institutionally the BMC has to move with the times but as individuals we don't have to. We are largely rooted in our formative years and it is still an option to wallow in the past and climb the neglected and obscure but still hard routes at Stoney ;-)

[Offwidth]

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.

You clearly haven't talked much to you local volunteers , area reps, or key BMC officials. You are putting a false image on the people involved based on the wording neccesary to run what is, after all, a company. I see it as the opposite of New Labour... not enough talking about the good stuff done and too much on the organisational 'mechanics'.  Your vision of what your climbing means to you is hardly different from what most would say about thier climbing and walking

[user deactivated]

85,000 members! Crikey all you need to do is arm and mobilise them and you’ve got Coup d’etat. You aren’t producing documents called ‘manifesto’s’ are you

[Yossarian]

“Whoever wants to know a thing has no way of doing so except by coming into contact with it, that is, by living (practicing) in its environment. If you want knowledge, you must take part in the practice of changing reality. If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself. If you want to know the theory and methods of revolution, you must take part in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience.”

I think it’s time you volunteered comrade...

[user deactivated]

I must apologise for my actions comrades. I have been suitably smited by a general from the inner party. I now see more clearly and have my double think in check. I shall return to the ranks of the proletariat and await my fate.

[tomtom]

Is it true that those working one tier below the BMC politburo were called commissars?

[Duma]

Or you could try engaging constructively.

[Will Hunt]

Shark, with regards your piece for the newsletter, my comments are:

A few more commas needed in some sentences of the last paragraph, and in the "Remaining Relevant" section there's an instance of "increasingly" which should just be "increasing".

It's quite long and most of it, bar the last section, feels a bit like simple statement of fact (albeit very nicely and plainly written). You're up against the gossip column here! If you want people to keep reading you need to promise them some juice up front, chop about half off the first sections, and double the size of the last bit. Most people who read this are going to be engaged in the BMC in some way, and don't particularly want to revisit the last two years in great detail. If you have really insightful comment about the future, and I'm sure you do, then you should just say it. For instance, I've seen you make criticism of the slowness of the organisation many times. Could you give a particularly frustrating example which might illustrate this and make us all take the point seriously? Against your background as a business man, it looks like the grumble of someone who wishes the BMC could be more autoratic, less democratic and, well, more businesslike. This is probably quite a pragmatic thing to want, but most people will challenge quite hard against anything they perceive as the BMC becoming less democratic and more like a for-profit company.

[Will Hunt]

Is it true that those working one tier below the BMC politburo were called commissars?

I believe that on Burton Road the membership are always referred to as The Serfs.

[tomtom]

Is it true that those working one tier below the BMC politburo were called commissars?

I believe that on Burton Road the membership are always referred to as The Serfs.

There are very few Serfs left around Burton Road. Gentrification Max+.

[tomtom]

It’s an easy fix for the Doc Shark. Just do a find replace and swap members for comrades.

[spidermonkey09]

Or you could try engaging constructively.

What Duma said...!

[shark]

Will - did you read the revised version? Also I’ve submitted it now

[spidermonkey09]

Shark, with regards your piece for the newsletter, my comments are:

A few more commas needed in some sentences of the last paragraph, and in the "Remaining Relevant" section there's an instance of "increasingly" which should just be "increasing".

It's quite long and most of it, bar the last section, feels a bit like simple statement of fact (albeit very nicely and plainly written). You're up against the gossip column here! If you want people to keep reading you need to promise them some juice up front, chop about half off the first sections, and double the size of the last bit. Most people who read this are going to be engaged in the BMC in some way, and don't particularly want to revisit the last two years in great detail. If you have really insightful comment about the future, and I'm sure you do, then you should just say it. For instance, I've seen you make criticism of the slowness of the organisation many times. Could you give a particularly frustrating example which might illustrate this and make us all take the point seriously? Against your background as a business man, it looks like the grumble of someone who wishes the BMC could be more autoratic, less democratic and, well, more businesslike. This is probably quite a pragmatic thing to want, but most people will challenge quite hard against anything they perceive as the BMC becoming less democratic and more like a for-profit company.

I'd be quite interested in reading a passionate polemic against BMC slowness, even if confined to UKB rather than distributed at meetings, as I've heard similar sentiments expressed privately by prominent volunteers and already felt the sentiments myself despite only having been involved for a year or so!

[user deactivated]

Or you could try engaging constructively.

Is that doublespeak for ‘stop being a knob’ comrade?

[thekettle]

Thanks for the update Shark, votes cast.
Incidentally I only found the electoral reform voting email hiding in my spam folder (on Gmail) today after seeing this thread. A fair quantity of the 85,000 potential votes may be lost this way!

[shark]

Nice one John.

Even for the Motion of No Confidence at the 2017 AGM and the surrounding publicity only 2500 votes were cast and that was considered good!

You should get a letter in the post too.

[Offwidth]

It was considered good as it was a massive increase on anything before and last year was another massive increase in voting numbers. The BMC has never seen as much democracy as it has in the last two years.  UKB massively helped with that as did other web sites and social media. There is no need for excessive cynicism; just read the AGM stuff and vote (if nothing else appoint someone you trust as a proxy).

[reeve]

Does anyone know what happened at the BMC AGM this last weekend? There's nothing on their website or Facebook as far as I can see. I posted on the FB page last night but no reply as yet. Seems a bit odd that there's been no communication by now.

Simon, I heard you were there. Anything to report?

[galpinos]

 

[shark]

Simon, I heard you were there. Anything to report?

In terms of the main items the subs rise and the amends to the Articles of Association got voted through. The contested elections were won by Huw Jones (Finance) Jonathan White (Clubs) and Jonny Dry (Grants).

About 100 people in attendance. The meeting was well mannered and was chaired by Lynn. Apparently Pettigrew was in the audience but didn't speak up at all  There was relatively little dissent from the floor.

There were certain things I am very concerned about regarding some of the processes and rules which had from my perspective unintended and very negative consequences but I'm trying to gather some info to see whether my assumptions are correct. Once I've got my facts straight Ill report further if there is an issue. 

Overall vote breakdown here:

[reeve]

Nice one, thanks Simon.

Worrying to hear about your concerns, obviously it would be good to hear more but happy to wait until you are ready to say more.

Any idea why there is no information about it on the BMC website or anywhere else? Seems a bit weird that they haven't publicised the outcome of a members vote.

[shark]

Up now

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2019-report