UKBouldering.com

Changing the BMC (Read 140284 times)

Andy Syme

Offline
  • *
  • newbie
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +4/-0
#250 Re: Changing the BMC
April 18, 2019, 11:46:22 pm
Steve

I'm fairly neutral on VPs; there are advantages and disadvantages.

Going back in time, the ORG were clear that VPs should go, partially I assume as in meeting SE requirements made VPs on the Board problematic.  As the members wanted ODG in 'spirit of the ORG' so the articles were changed.  There was no issue with 'losing' a President as we already had articles that cover that. 

Lynn brought up the issue of workload and the 'elected VP' at a very late stage in the articles change process.  There was a significant debate in the ODG and all the ODG members felt that we did not have time to consider all the issues/implications and change the articles in a way that ensured that we did not inadvertently introduce more issues.  Also there was not time to get candidates to volunteer and only allowing elections from the floor was seen as disadvantageous to the majority of members.  We could however see Lynn's point about needing support and, while she could always just ask for more support from NC members, felt it was reasonable to add the deputy role as a stop gap until the VP issue could be properly worked through or as a potential long term solution if VPs were to remain 'gone'.

I assumed that the Deputy would be pre-nominated at one of the 2 NC meets before the AGM, or elected in a special NC meeting straight afterwards, but this wasn't done hence the delay till June.

The VP issue does need looking at for next year and that is part of the NC reconstitution work that is being progressed at the moment.

JR

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 702
  • Karma: +22/-2
#251 Re: Changing the BMC
April 19, 2019, 01:23:29 pm
The "independent member reps" on the members' assembly as recommended in ORG could fulfil this. It was essentially left for the NC/MA/ODG to work this out. They don't necessarily have to be independent in the true sense of the word for SE, but it would be sensible to directly elect them from the members. How those roles are cut and named is totally up for debate. We (ORG) intentionally didn't call them VPs so they weren't confused with the existing structure, nor implied succession, but I know there are different schools of thought on how best to implement that, and it definitely needs discussion.

This is why I was keen to push the NC reconstitution work at a faster pace than some wanted (particularly these roles), as there are some of these gaps left as a result which has required some pragmatism to resolve in the short term. I know Mark is now very capably chairing this and moving things along.

The idea and principle I think we're all in broad agreement. As Andy said, it was raised as an issue at such a late stage. It was within ODG almost unanimously felt to be unimplementable in the form proposed in the time frame, and it actually became quite a distraction at a really busy time, where we'd already come to the pragmatic compromise of the NC internally sorting for a year, in advance. It would then give time to build the awareness of these roles.

I do think if support is needed, then people simply need to be asked. The level of workload taken on, in some respects, is a personal choice, and I know from my own experience of BMC volunteering folk are more than happy to help build a really supportive team and get their hands dirty.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#252 Re: Changing the BMC
April 19, 2019, 03:01:00 pm
I've merged the "BMC AGM 2019" thread with the earlier "Changing the BMC" thread

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#253 Re: Changing the BMC
April 19, 2019, 04:23:42 pm
I've merged the "BMC AGM 2019" thread with the earlier "Changing the BMC" thread

Are the words of both threads loosely the same but with different acronyms? 😂

user deactivated

  • Guest
#254 Re: Changing the BMC
April 19, 2019, 06:33:14 pm
You lads have clearly got your WTF’s mixed up with your WTAF’s, possibly needing more FYFI’s before GTFO’s

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#255 Re: Changing the BMC
April 19, 2019, 07:29:42 pm
Even I don’t know a couple (UCU and MA)

ODG is Old Dungeon Ghyll

user deactivated

  • Guest
#256 Re: Changing the BMC
April 19, 2019, 08:16:36 pm
ROFL

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#257 Re: Changing the BMC
April 19, 2019, 08:24:44 pm
ODG is Old Dungeon Ghyll

Thats what I thought.

Too many TLA's

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth
#258 Re: Changing the BMC
April 20, 2019, 10:15:25 pm
The "independent member reps" on the members' assembly as recommended in ORG could fulfil this. It was essentially left for the NC/MA/ODG to work this out. They don't necessarily have to be independent in the true sense of the word for SE, but it would be sensible to directly elect them from the members. How those roles are cut and named is totally up for debate. We (ORG) intentionally didn't call them VPs so they weren't confused with the existing structure, nor implied succession, but I know there are different schools of thought on how best to implement that, and it definitely needs discussion.

This is why I was keen to push the NC reconstitution work at a faster pace than some wanted (particularly these roles), as there are some of these gaps left as a result which has required some pragmatism to resolve in the short term. I know Mark is now very capably chairing this and moving things along.

The idea and principle I think we're all in broad agreement. As Andy said, it was raised as an issue at such a late stage. It was within ODG almost unanimously felt to be unimplementable in the form proposed in the time frame, and it actually became quite a distraction at a really busy time, where we'd already come to the pragmatic compromise of the NC internally sorting for a year, in advance. It would then give time to build the awareness of these roles.

I do think if support is needed, then people simply need to be asked. The level of workload taken on, in some respects, is a personal choice, and I know from my own experience of BMC volunteering folk are more than happy to help build a really supportive team and get their hands dirty.

I think you are asking way too much of the National Council members reps and their Board role would surely mean they could not in governance terms act as a DP. Irrespective, being on the National Council (NC) and representing that body on the Board is a shit load of work over the next year.  A  proposed Deputy/Vice President is, if similar to other equivalent Sport England Tier 3 bodies,  a non Board member but still an organisational figurehead. This is much more than 'support' for the President (despite the fact that as it is, she had to take a sabbatical to deal with the workload). It's simply normal to have 3+ VCs  in equivalent organisations of equivalent size so it seems to me the ODG needs to explain to members why the BMC needs to be so different. My guess is it was only brought up 'late' because it had seemingly been overlooked in ODG (as a VP could no longer be on the Board and this succession point you and Andy seem to be ignoring was said to be a big concern ). How can it even be 'late' if the original ORG report had a section on this.  I also fail to see why 'late' is now an issue as no one seems fussed with the pragmatic solution  that the NC elects the DP this year. I personally think the BMC needs more than one DP.

The original  November ORG recommendation in the President section (above section 34 on p.54) was  " The Members Assembly should agree a process to appoint a VP to act as the President's deputy in appropriate circumstances. However the VP should not be seen as, defacto, successor to the President"

Something that disappeared in the final modified ORG report version, with no public explaination as to why (unlike all the other changes)

Apologies to non BMC geeks for the acronymitis: MA is the ORG proposed BMC Members Assemby to replace National Council. UCU is the University and College Union (~120, 000 members, so of the same size order as the BMC). My apologies, as I  always try and define these as I've seen political charlatans misuse them too often for their own gain.

https://www.ucu.org.uk
« Last Edit: April 20, 2019, 10:46:13 pm by Offwidth »

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth
#259 Re: Changing the BMC
April 21, 2019, 07:32:15 pm
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Mountaineering Vol. V No. 6  Winter 1969 Price 3/-

" The 1969 Annual General Meeting of the BMC was punctuated by the interjections of some of those present,  who charged the organisation and management of the BMC with incompetence and being out of touch with present reality.  They demanded that the whole character of the BMC be drastically changed........  ..... the BMC now has a wider and growing membership looking to an expansion of its responsibilities,  it still sees its task as that of collective representation and the provision of services that are beyond the capacity of individual clubs,  while leaving intact the autonomy of clubs. This concept is now being put into question and  we are being asked to put a more authoritarian  BMC in its place. Is it necessary?  Is it practicable? "

(With many thanks to Peter Holden for spotting this)

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
#260 Re: Changing the BMC
April 21, 2019, 08:00:13 pm
Apologies to non BMC geeks for the acronymitis...

Offwidth I'd be surprised if anybody, except you four BMC geeks, is giving this thread any more than a cursory skim read, before dismissing as corporate governance TBoringDR and moving onto something more interesting - like the other random bullshit generator thread currently on the go! You may as well be in a meeting room together or have a conference call.  :)
Award for the thread with the most in-group jargon on UKB?
(no offence intended btw, keep up the good work.. I think?)

user deactivated

  • Guest
#261 Re: Changing the BMC
April 21, 2019, 08:26:53 pm
No, for Christ’s sake keep it up, I’ve just run out of night nurse

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth
#262 Re: Changing the BMC
April 22, 2019, 09:17:50 am
Apologies to non BMC geeks for the acronymitis...

Offwidth I'd be surprised if anybody, except you four BMC geeks, is giving this thread any more than a cursory skim read, before dismissing as corporate governance TBoringDR and moving onto something more interesting - like the other random bullshit generator thread currently on the go! You may as well be in a meeting room together or have a conference call.  :)
Award for the thread with the most in-group jargon on UKB?
(no offence intended btw, keep up the good work.. I think?)

We can't see viewed stats. Equivalent threads on UKC had way more than typical numbers of views.... the readership of a forum is much bigger than its regular posters.

I think the discussions here have always been much more civilised and sensible than on t'other channel.

I resent being called a BMC geek (as it has, very much against my better instincts, become true).... until a couple of years back my BMC contributions were very practical: initially in a student club, then many guidebooks, access, cleanups and festivals. My concerns in corporate governance are that if enough ordinary folk don't get involved, things are determined by those disconnected from the climbing and hillwalking masses...  highly political unrepresentative people (like those behind the Motion of No Confidence).

My Deputy President concerns are one of those very practical issues that risk getting buried in boring governance... the BMC had 3 Vice Presidents until last year and I know the important organisational level representative  work they have done over the last decade, alongside Presidents, and we have completely lost that right now. They lobbied government, they ran meetings, met the membership at events, provided good informal feedback routes, cross-covered when diaries were double booked or more.  We will hopefully get one Deputy President at some point following the June National Council meeting (although its still not clear even to a geek like me what sort of person or exactly how). For these reasons the governance reasoning behind this decision to have only one Deputy President seems wrong to me. Sure, VPs are no longer on the Board. Sure, some very odd people are concerned with perceived succession...yet if nothing else, if you have a lot of VPs it can only be a percieved succession for one of them!. I really don't think the National Council elected representatives can fill the orgainisational level representation gap we have (especially from their workload perspective..... people step up to help the BMC in exceptionaly generous ways .... so hey, why don't we get them to do even more work ???), and the Nominated Directors are too new and arguably too specialist.

If all else fails I'm at least helping Dan sleep.

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth
#263 Re: Changing the BMC
April 22, 2019, 10:19:52 am
I should have said we can't see the viewed stats on this latest section of discussion. Overall the thread has had 22, 000+ views so its hardly tumbleweed territory.

user deactivated

  • Guest
#264 Re: Changing the BMC
April 22, 2019, 08:46:20 pm
That’s just JR repeatedly reading his own posts.

danm

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 827
  • Karma: +112/-1
#265 Re: Changing the BMC
April 23, 2019, 04:18:54 pm
That’s just JR repeatedly reading his own posts.
Savage

user deactivated

  • Guest
#266 Re: Changing the BMC
April 23, 2019, 05:49:02 pm
It just popped out

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#267 Re: Changing the BMC
April 23, 2019, 10:25:27 pm
Sam sent me a link to Google Analytics and there has been 350 page views of which 301 were unique with an average of 2min 28secs time spent on the page per user since 18 April 

Andy Syme

Offline
  • *
  • newbie
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +4/-0
#268 Re: Changing the BMC
April 24, 2019, 01:17:55 pm
this succession point you and Andy seem to be ignoring was said to be a big concern
Steve

It's unfair to suggest things are being ignored.  Not sure where the 'Succession Point' is a big concern, except with you and Lynn obviously, as there is a clear process to elect Presidents and being a VP is not a pre-requisite. 

As I said, I'm neutral on VPs, they do no harm but equally they are not 'necessary' just to show 'status'.  If there is a clear role for them then that will I'm sure come out of the NC reconstitution work.  As an aside I am very concerned that the Presidents role is growing into a 'full time role' as that will just radically reduce the pool of candidates who can stand; those with enough money/resources to work full time and unpaid.  I think we need to look at getting the staff to step up and take more workload, reduce what we do so the workload reduces or get more staff, so that the Presidents role is about leading the organisation NOT managing the day to day workload of the organisation.  In fact that goes for most volunteer roles, we are becoming too reliant on goodwill of volunteers and this is right and proper to a point but has/is on the verge of going too far the wrong way at the moment.

Whatever the reason for the late proposed reintroduction of VPs, I was certainly not going to rush through a change to the 2019 articles at the last minute when almost everyone on the ODG had concerns about the potential impacts.  It will be reviewed this year and a consensus reached both within the ODG (meeting at the ODG might help things) and then via membership engagement.

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth
#269 Re: Changing the BMC
April 24, 2019, 03:58:35 pm
"It's unfair to suggest things are being ignored."

It's not unfair from my perspective. There is no current DP and worst case as far as I can tell if no one from the core NC group wants to step up there may not be one until late summer.. I know this is a partly a result of a very busy period last year with many unexpected and unplanned events, so I'm not blaming anyone but it is a reality and could have been better planned.

"Not sure where the 'Succession Point' is a big concern, except with you and Lynn obviously"

Obviously?   Succession perception was clearly part of that original Nov ORG recommedation (so why was that ?) ...and please remember Lynn speaks for herself and we are not of the same mind (I thought after her response to Jim Gregson's question at last year's AGM people got that). The time she currently spends is partly out of choice... in a busy year she wants signifcant stuff done that is visibly positive for the membership (ie more than just governance) as per her election statement.

"As I said, I'm neutral on VPs, they do no harm but equally they are not 'necessary' just to show 'status'. If there is a clear role for them then that will I'm sure come out of the NC reconstitution work. "   

Hardly sounds positive in the context of all the great work VPs did in the past and how most organisations have quite a few of them under their new SE compliant Board based constitutions and governance!?

"I think we need to look at getting the staff to step up and take more workload, reduce what we do so the workload reduces or get more staff, so that the Presidents role is about leading the organisation NOT managing the day to day workload of the organisation. "

I think the opposite: the staff impress me and often volunteer themselves. Their time could maybe be adjusted slightly but given the financial envelope significant extra input has to come from volunteers: luckily there are really good people who want to volunteer to help more who currently cant do as much as they want because of systems and support issues. I'd hate to speak for Lynn but she doesn't seem to me to be managing any day to day work.

"Whatever the reason for the late proposed reintroduction of VPs"

Again, it's not late, it's in the Nov Org report, as I copied above, and somehow mysteriously disappeared from the final report without reasons or enough people noticing and saying 'hang on a minute'....


« Last Edit: April 24, 2019, 04:25:01 pm by Offwidth »

Andy Syme

Offline
  • *
  • newbie
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +4/-0
#270 Re: Changing the BMC
April 25, 2019, 08:33:08 pm
To avoid boring the other readers with a 2 way conversation I'll try and keep this brief:
1.  There is no DP as the President hasn't asked NC elect one; could have been done as a pre nomination at either NC after Articles had been finalsied and before the AGM or via an election at an extraordinary NC since the AGM.  You'll need to ask Lynn why she has chosen not to do this.  I'm sure someone will step up if Lynn asks. 
2.  I am addressing you, not Lynn but my point was Lynn was concerned as she raised VP proposal, and you based on the numerous comments.  So obviously you are both concerned.
3.  I said I'm neutral, this does not denigrate the previous work of past VPs.  VPs have done good work in past but that doesn't to me mean VPs are a must in the future for the BMC.  I will listen to the arguments for and against when the NC reconstitution group have considered it.
4.  I'm not saying the staff don't work hard, BUT I disagree that our only option is volunteers need to do more.  We need to cut our cloth appropriately.  I have twice effectively worked full time (i.e. more than 35 hours a week) on BMC whilst also having a real job; I chose to do that but it is not a good model for the BMC generally.
5.  No idea why ORG changed their report; they will need to comment; but what was implemented in 2018 and 2019 AoA changes was the Mar ORG report intent, i.e. without VPs.  Adding them back in was suggested very late in the AoA approval process.

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth
#271 Re: Changing the BMC
April 26, 2019, 09:27:54 am
Breifly back

1. There were 2 VPs until April, the need was after that.
2. Nothing to add
3. My concern is what works and what the members mostly want, not what you and I or other policy wonks think. Any organisation of the BMC size and type seems to need multiple volunteer figureheads and no organisation seems to stuggle to fill them.
4. I still think you are completely wrong here and seem to have got the 'cutting of cloth' bit backwards. The staff workload is just the tip of the BMC work iceberg. There are hundreds of people putting in very significant volunteer time out of choice (I did similar to you for over 5 years on Froggatt) and I think over a thousand doing some work; new people ask how they can help all the time; there is simply no volunteer deficit in the BMC. Finances in contrast are tight and won't allow more staff (unless there is new money).
5. Fair enough that you can't answer this but I really think someone should. I thought VPs were in the final version as they were in the first version and no VP change was highlighted in the list of changes . I only found out it wasn't in the final version around Xmas 2018.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#272 Re: Changing the BMC
April 29, 2019, 07:20:21 pm
I've written an article for UKC covering many of the AGM issues already discussed here and a few more besides:

www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/the_bmc_agm_2019_-_an_alternative_perspective-11914

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#273 Re: Changing the BMC
April 30, 2019, 06:46:43 am
I've written an article for UKC covering many of the AGM issues already discussed here and a few more besides:

www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/the_bmc_agm_2019_-_an_alternative_perspective-11914

Good. I mostly understood that and it largely held my interest (despite my general dislike of all adminstrative and organisational). Thanks Simon.

Andy Syme

Offline
  • *
  • newbie
  • Posts: 17
  • Karma: +4/-0
#274 Re: Changing the BMC
April 30, 2019, 08:06:19 am
Breifly back

1. There were 2 VPs until April, the need was after that.
2. Nothing to add
3. My concern is what works and what the members mostly want, not what you and I or other policy wonks think. Any organisation of the BMC size and type seems to need multiple volunteer figureheads and no organisation seems to stuggle to fill them.
4. I still think you are completely wrong here and seem to have got the 'cutting of cloth' bit backwards. The staff workload is just the tip of the BMC work iceberg. There are hundreds of people putting in very significant volunteer time out of choice (I did similar to you for over 5 years on Froggatt) and I think over a thousand doing some work; new people ask how they can help all the time; there is simply no volunteer deficit in the BMC. Finances in contrast are tight and won't allow more staff (unless there is new money).
5. Fair enough that you can't answer this but I really think someone should. I thought VPs were in the final version as they were in the first version and no VP change was highlighted in the list of changes . I only found out it wasn't in the final version around Xmas 2018.

1.  But the DP could have been pre-nominated it was known the VPs were going and the DP role coming.
2.  Nothing to add.
3.  I am not sure that we know members want more figure heads, but ultimately if they do fine.  I'm neutral!  I'm sure there will be volunteers if VPs were resurrected.
4.  I think we are agreeing in many ways, but I think volunteers are best used to do the 'real stuff' (guides access etc) and oversight.  The core stuff of running and changing an organisation is best done by staff (with oversight) IMHO.
5.  Nothing to add.

Now off to UKC :-) 

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal