The advert for the 3 Nominated Director positions was posted for about a week and the interviews took place about a week after that limiting. Why were the time scales so compressed ? Does the Board agree the short timescales were unreasonable for three senior posts and will have limited the number of applicants and made the process look rushed? Was it in fact rushed and did this contribute to mistakes and poor process?Was there a written procedure at the outset for how the selection of candidates, the interviews and the post interview actions? If so can this document be publicly disclosed in its original form for member scrutiny. If there wasn’t a written procedure at the outset why not? nb this was answered by Andy Symes on the UKC thread - there was no documented procedure Can you confirm that the interview panel was comprised only of Gavin Pierce Chairman, Lynn Robinson and Mick Green of National Council and clarify how the members were decided. Was anyone else on the Nominations Committee but not on the interview panel?Is it true that the original terms of reference for the Nominations Committee required an Independent Director to participate in the interviews yet not only did this not happen but also that the terms of reference were changed after the interviews took place that removed the requirement for Independent Directors to participate?In terms of deciding the specialist requirements for the three pools of candidates is it true that determining the pools were largely carried out by Lynn Robinson and Dave Turnbull and if so was that part of any written procedure and does that mean Dave Turnbull was on the Nominations Committee?Is it true that the candidates statements were made up of a section of the Nomination Committee comments and the candidates own comments and if so why wasn’t that made clear that was the case in the candidate statements presented to members?Is it the case that candidates were initially asked for referees rather than a proposer or seconder? Was this a mix up or were referees not required or were both required and they did not need to be the same people? How clearly and in what way was this communicated to candidates and the mooted referees? Were any of the referees/proposers/seconders contacted or approached for validation or references?Is it true that at least one of the successful nominated candidates was not informed the election would be contested? Was this communication just verbal or was it made in writing and by whom? Was the same manner and content of communication made to all the candidates?Was it clarified to candidates that they would or wouldn’t be expected to present at the AGM? How was this communicated?Overall how clear and consistent were communications with the candidates and were they up to the Boards expected standards? Where lessons not learnt from the issues arising from Amanda Parshall’s on the importance of correct procedure?At the AGM Lynn Robinson made clear to the audience that candidates would not be speaking (unlike at previous AGM’s). When was it decided this would be the case and by whom and why wasn’t that stated in AGM papers?At the AGM in response to audience protest Lynn Robinson used Chair discretion to change that decision and asked the candidates to speak. Was that a reasonable Chair decision? Was it fair to candidates? Was it also fair to proxy voters who had already cast their votes?Prior to making that decision the BMC solicitor from Womble Dickenson counselled from the floor that letting candidates speak would put the elections at risk to legal challenge. Was the Chair right to overrule this counsel and how serious is the legal risk?With regard to discretionary voting the Chair typically holds a lot of discretionary votes. Is it a conflict of interest that this person is also a member of the Nominations Committee and on the interview panel?On reflection does the Board believe that the number of discretionary votes held by the Chair at the 2018 AGM represent an unreasonable concentration of individual power?At the end of the AGN Phil Simister (one of the Nominated Director candidates) asked from the floor whether discretionary proxy voting numbers would be made available. Lynn Robinson replied that they would be made available at the end of the meeting and published online. This did not happen. Why?Why was the precedent from the 2018 AGM when a proxy voting decision and the numbers was disclosed immediately after a Director vote not followed at the 2019 AGM?Why has further member requests to the Office and the President for disclosure of discretionary proxy votes by the Chair been refused? Was this a Board decision prior to the AGM? Is it right that this information is withheld? If so how is that balanced against openness and transparency?Regarding the AGM report published on the BMC website - why was it delayed for so long?Is it true that whilst the report was drafted in the Marketing department it was circulated for review for editing to Lynn Robinson and others? If so who was it circulated to and what amendments were made?Given that a number of complaints have been levelled in person and online after the AGM why has there been no public acknowledgement of these concerns from the President, Chair or Board?Have all or any of the candidates who participated in the process including any who withdrew been approached for feedback by the Nominations Committee? If not will they?
Yeah, whilst I'm very much in agreement with Simon about tranparency being important, I was so angry with him for what he said that I had to force myself not to respond with some equally shitty comments.
Back to the discussion, the idea that SE money has all been targeted at youth and indoors is complete bollocks. So is the idea that climbing is dangerous or has poor health outcomes.
If I was at Sport England and viewing curry eating trad climbers at one end and sport climbers pushing the limits of low body mass at the other I would be sceptical of the particular health contribution climbing makes especially when the range of activities has an obvious risk of death and hospitalisation which isn’t healthy at all. There is a case but it isn’t as glaringly obvious as you suggest but fortunately SE’s remit isn’t just health.The healthiest and safest activity with the highest participation covered by the BMC is probably hillwalking where we get no SE funding or ever have done to my knowledge. I am guessing that most of current and probably historical SE funding for the BMC goes on Talent Development which is mainly indoor and youth based.
Quote from: shark on ukcIf I was at Sport England and viewing curry eating trad climbers at one end and sport climbers pushing the limits of low body mass at the other I would be sceptical of the particular health contribution climbing makes especially when the range of activities has an obvious risk of death and hospitalisation which isn’t healthy at all.
If I was at Sport England and viewing curry eating trad climbers at one end and sport climbers pushing the limits of low body mass at the other I would be sceptical of the particular health contribution climbing makes especially when the range of activities has an obvious risk of death and hospitalisation which isn’t healthy at all.
If you can't see the impending crisis in Public Health and the fantastic way that SE funded BMC activities can really help some people, with great value for money, then I'm not really sure what to say.
but the average trad climber is certainly going to be healthier than the 40% of the population that are physically inactive https://www.bhf.org.uk/-/media/files/research/heart-statistics/physical-inactivity-report---mymarathon-final.pdf and as such climbing deserves support in terms of health benefits.
Statistically, climbing is less dangerous than driving to the crag (for you especially, I've heard about your driving )
I said there is a case for all this but also a need for proportion. My wife is involved in a health intervention programme for diabetes patients and £ for £ I reckon it is better spent in that direction than through the BMC in terms of value for money for better health outcomes.
Bit of a strawman here, I don't think anyone is suggesting taking money off diabetes programs to give to the BMC!
I also recognised the concerns about her being on the Nominations Committee and holding institutional proxies and agreed with Andy it needs looking at, but also pointed out there is no easy solution (in particular the BMC chair is also on the Nominations Committee). I see discretionary proxies as a legal requirement and I think it important that the President elected by the members, can vote unconstrained on behalf of those members.
Sorry Simon I have been clear about my conflict of interest wrt Lynn
By your pal I meant Gron, not JR
... you have written that he claims stuff happened in the ND process that I just can't see could possibly be true.....I'm certainly not accusing you of being a liar (just in case you think I am), nor him
"My experience of putting myself forward as a candidate for the post of Director, Finance was not of the professional standard I would have expected in comparison to my past experience of being appointed a Director of public companies. The communication about the process was particularly poor. I was asked to provide two referees and provided Simon and Rehan Siddiqui having first cleared it with them. At no point was it made clear to me, or them, that in fact a proposer and seconder was required. Furthermore, when I was informed that I had been successful after interview it was not explained that it was a contested election. I only found out because Simon and Rehan told me.In a public company a single candidate is nominated by the Nominations Committee and that is then ratified by vote at an AGM. I suggest that this process of single nominations is one that should be considered by the BMC going forward. I am similarly concerned by the lack of transparency about the discretionary voting.As a member of the Finance Committee, my primary motivation to join the Board was to properly understand the financial workings of the BMC as the information provided to me whilst on the BMC Finance and Audit Committee was not clear and insightful, which I found frustrating.My experience has left me with a poor opinion of the current workings of the BMC and led me to tender my resignation from the Finance and Audit Committee the day after the AGM."
Or go climbing together and chat civilly about all this afterwards over a pint. You could short rope Si on the Oak and get called a cunt, then he could belay you on some gruesome wide crack where you complain that the guidebook grade is wrong, and if you can jam it's only Mild Hard Severe 4a.