Quite. The exercise is to do with numbers not names with a view to understanding whether there was an unacceptable concentration of discretionary power.I am specifically interested in whether this led to JR coming bottom despite being manifestly the strongest candidate with respect to his BMC track record and relevant experience of Sport England funding and governance.
Understand your point Shark (fwiw, I voted for JR too!) but this shouldn't be principally framed as a crusade for JR (nice bloke that I'm sure he is!).
this is an inexact science and taking a view on the most competent candidate fundamentally comes down to opinion.
More gobbledegook
BMC AGMSunday 31 March 2019Item 7.e Election of Nominated Director with skills and experience relating to fund- raising and grant applicationsCandidate Name: JONNY DRYProposer: Wendy Matthews, Individual member and member of Climbers’ Club and Leeds MC Seconder: Oli Maskrey, member of the Mountaineering Club of North WalesFactual StatementWorking as a film director, writer and producer has required Jonny to attract diverse funding streams to support his film work. He’s written funding applications to the Wellcome Trust, academic institutions and regional grant giving bodies in support of his film work, and developed the necessary personal connections with potential funding partners to help secure backing.Having climbed throughout the UK, Jonny has been a BMC member since 2012, been elected president of his university climbing club and qualified as a Mountain Leader in 2018, utilising the qualification in a voluntary capacity educating young people about the mountain environment, access and its protection. He is also a competitive fell runner and membership secretary of Kendal Athletics Club, engaging the club’s membership and liaising with UK Athletics amidst a long-standing culture of Sport England funding.Alongside his research at Lancaster University into mountain literature, heritage and culture in the 20th century, Jonny also works freelance across a range of organisations, including writing for the BMC, marketing for Mountain Heritage Trust and Mount Everest Foundation, and communications for the Alpine Club. Such work has led to an excellent understanding of the BMC’s recent organisational review and its varied activities from a multitude of perspectives.Personal StatementA hooked climber ever since my Dad took me up Flying Buttress, I am a firm believer in having young voices on boards and committees. The under 35 age group make up 31% of the BMC’s membership yet the average age of board members is traditionally far higher and under 25 engagement often falls short. Yet young contribution is essential to helping deliver on the many desires from the organisational review; modern thinking on diversity, environmental campaigning, support for young people and education in Britain’s culture, ethics and mountain history.My film industry background brings a diverse set of skills to the board; a creative head and an unwillingness to compromise is coupled alongside my work with many of the bodies and disciplines the BMC represents. I have seen the organisation from the perspective of clubs, indoor climbing, rock climbing; I’ve seen it from a mountain heritage and outdoor instruction perspective; and I’ve seen it as an external contractor, environmental advocate and student. I bring all these experiences to the role, adding to the board’s skill-set whilst bringing its work to a greater audience and ultimately showing young people that the BMC’s Board has the potential to truly reflect them.-End-
People need to respect the election rules, and if issues arise they need to ask the BMC to look if rule changes are required, not claim the system is broken.
• The Board decides what Nominated Director roles are required, trying to keep a balance of various factors in a skills matrix, alongside other required governance factors, according to the Articles.. A “Job Spec” was created for each Nominated Director role and this was advertised and suitable candidates invited for interview.• Its not clear from the BMC site but I think the Chair, President, an NC rep and the Independant directors are normally on the Nominations Committee.• The Nominations Committe produced a short list of appointable candidates following interviews, which was then ratified at Feb Board to put to AGM elections.
Aside from the link above, John is the probably the best person to report on ODG as chair (and presumably the main reponsible Director last year, alongside the CEO and President who led 4 out of 8 worksteams each. This was all presented to the AGM. Andy might also be able to comment being involved in some worksteams.
I fondly remember when climbs were my main topic of discussion on climbing forums.
It was the first two points that lead to my questioning as I remembered an advert coming out for three Nominated Director roles coming out but there were no actual defined roles, which I thought at the time seemed quite odd. When I was voting, I couldn't really see how the "fundraising director" candidates aligned with the role and was was confused as to why there didn't seem to be a director heading up the ODG. Did they re-advertise then for the three nominated director roles as decided upon or were the candidates who had applied for the thee undefined roles assigned the roles created by the board (I'm hoping this was not the case as that does not seem like the way to get the best people in the best roles)
I don't know Jonny especially well but I do know he is well respected in his work with Mountain Heritage, The Alpine Club and the BMC Office (who had no part in the selection process).
Well observed!
I've been informed that there was one job spec and the election pools were decided after the Nomination Committee interviews. The other identified desired skill areas of competitions and indoor climbing and access and conservation disappeared as a requirement after that.
I think going forward a statement from the Nominations Committee justifying why they put each candidate forward would be a welcome inclusion in the process rather than us having to guess why. Also some steer on weighting as to how much the general value as a Director vs Specialist contribution would be helpful.
I agree. Hopefully those involved in the process don't see this as a witch hunt, just a desire for more clarity and openess about the process, in order to improve it.