[petejh]

I get the impression the only two people taking the BMC feud seriously are Simon and Steve. To everyone else I imagine it's a perverse type of light entertainment - like your guff but for policy wonks. Personally I'm enjoying the '101 in arcane political words that nobody ever says', from Steve.

[Offwidth]

Ah well, hope u enjoy my ‘MaD StuFf’. It’s a deep irony that over the past month I’ve been called a boring, tedious attention seeking tit, my sanity questioned, etc etc. Yet people seem to be taking this BMC feud seriously. ThaT is the TrulY mad stuff.

Thats what boring people say Dan. Its better to create than be a critic.

I'm not sure that many people take this seriously and a few might be our common friends worried about us rather than more BMC politicians.

[tomtom]

I imagine it's a perverse type of light entertainment - like your guff but for policy wonks. Personally I'm enjoying the '101 in arcane political words that nobody ever says', from Steve.

Ive been copying and pasting the lot, re-arranging and selling online to desperate students 😂 just substitute a key word from the essay title where BMC is mentioned and it keeps the punters happy 😂

[shark]

The Board has finally issued a response to the concerns expressed by me and others over the AGM

www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2019-reflections-and-the-future

Disappointingly, the Chair's number of discretionary proxy votes and where those votes were cast still remains a secret.

In general terms it is a good piece drafted mainly by Jonathan White and ruminates on the issues, acknowledges concerns and provides some context and points to how things will be improved in the future.

One thing to note is that there is obfuscation in not clarifying the legal difference and obligations of a Chair’s responsibility and those of other proxy holders in the room. As Chair (and Director) there is surely an obligation to be more open about decisions made on behalf of members which are in turn are legitimately open to public scrutiny – this is what you sign up to in public office. These obligations apply to a much lesser extent to other proxy holders in the room but the response appears to conflate the two.

I’ve submitted a paper for the next Peak Area meeting to discuss concerns arising from the BMC AGM 2019 and the lack of disclosure, openness and transparency or indeed any formal response to those concerns in the two months since the AGM

I have also set up a public Facebook Group called BMC Watch to share info, discuss issues and promote the BMC becoming a modern organisation

https://m.facebook.com/groups/2241207952632038

[shark]

A copy of the paper for the Peak Area meeting is copied below. It was written and submitted before the BMC response was published but all the points still apply.

AGM Concerns – Simon Lee 30.5.18
Having attended the BMC AGM on the 31st March I was very concerned about several things relating to the recruitment of Directors that took place which I would like to make the Area Meeting aware of.
In the week following the AGM I wrote to the BMC Office requesting disclosure of the number of discretionary proxy votes held by the Chair but the request was declined. In the same week I escalated my concerns separately with the Senior Independent Director, Simon Mccalla and the President, Lynn Robinson.

I then wrote an article for UKClimbing called The BMC AGM 2019 – An Alternative Perspective   
The article covered the AGM widely, but my chief concerns are focussed on the Directors recruitment and election rules and processes.  Conscious that the Board might respond in a way that didn’t fully address gaps in information and questions  I sent a list to Simon McCalla, Senior Independent Director which was circulated to the rest of the Board and formed part of their discussions at the Board meeting that took place on 8th May

I contacted Simon Mccalla after the Board meeting and he said that it had been passed to the Chair, Gareth Pierce to prepare a response and Simon hoped that a response would be published the following week on the BMC website. It is now 3 weeks after the Board Meeting and the response still hasn’t been published!

The Board meeting summary was posted on the 25 May and says this on the matter:
a. Matters arising from the AGM: In addition to the AGM-related items listed below, it was agreed that the Board should respond through the BMC website to the perspectives being shared elsewhere in relation to the AGM, this needing to include correction of some errors in that material. It was also agreed that the Board would set up a Governance working group that would include some members of National Council to review a range of matters including Nominations Committee and Nominated Director processes, this to be completed during 2019.

Despite repeatedly following up it is not clear to me at the time of writing when the Board will officially respond and to what level of depth. It is also unclear whether the discretionary proxy votes held by the Chair will be disclosed let alone which way the Chair cast the discretionary proxy votes.   

Information has been supplied to the Board demonstrating that other National Governing Bodies disclose this information as a matter of course. I understand that The Institute of Company Secretaries indicated that it is normal practice and good practice (re good governance, openness and transparency) to disclose discretionary proxy voting numbers particularly if requested to do so by members who are effectively shareholders.

In the light of all this it seems extraordinary to me that the BMC hasn’t disclosed the numbers. The slowness in providing an official response is also, I believe, poor.

[Offwidth]

Hi Simon

Thanks for the Facebook group. I'm sure it will be useful but I won't be contributing there as I only use Facebook  'on receive' as a moral stopgap, given I'm not a fan of that company.

It really is not common for organisations like the BMC (a Company based membership organisation under Sport England Tier 3) to release numbers of discretionary proxies held by the chair and the positions voted for. It is, I would agree, fairly common for charities (including many membership organisations) and there are governance bodies who recommend it for  PLCs where financial consequences for shareholders are more serious. I'd like to see a single example of an organisation like the BMC that does it. I do agree the BMC should consider that possibility,  amongst others, when it reviews this later in the year,  even though I am against it. I think it will lead to sour grapes attacks on the chair by the politically aligned of those who lose election votes, and it fails to recognise that the AGM chair, as a Director, has to operate in the best interests of the organisation and for a company, given that inevitably involves confidential Board information that cannot be disclosed, it removes the ability of the chair to robustly defend their position outside of the Board... a bad idea in the days of social media. There are some specific issues in ND elections that do need resolving.

Irrespective of all of this, if the BMC Board made a decision not to release this information, based on legal and governance advice, as I assume is the case here, then the Board will need to reverse that for that retrospective information to be provided, with the legal complications that could ensue with such retrospective changes. It really is a bad idea to do this as an organisation, unless there is no other choice.

I'm glad the article has finally put up the idea common for those who are familiar with governance that the chair splitting discretionaty proxy votes can be regarded as 'destroying' votes. This is a serious issue for those who really do intend their proxy discretionaries to be used by the chair on behalf of the best interests of the company. The BMC does however need to ensure those who give a discretionary proxy to the chair really mean that: if they have no idea what they mean, they should proxy direct an abstention. I'm also glad the different positions on poll votes and shows of hands has been clarified: I really hate shows of hands as, in my academic union Congress, I've seen shows of hands change on a recount as people live tweet and text reminders of policy positions to far left colleagues... pretty much voter intimidation. People do sometimes look and scowl at the BMC AGM. This really is an issue of the organisation better informing the membership on voting and I prefer all ballots to be secret, and if technology allows, live vote for members watching who cannot attend. 

If JR and Gron hadn't both lost the election I don't believe any of this particular fuss from you would be happening (although I know JR's enemies planned their own fuss if he had won). This attack behaviour after elections needs to stop and the BMC need policy on this, as other organisations have, in best practice terms. Simon is an Independant director but not so independant on this subject as he also holidays with JR and shares many of his views (but will be limited by Board confidentiality from public comment). You are a close friend of Gron and support JR. I am married to President Lynn. We are all conflicted on this subject; we agree on many things but do disagree on this subject.  However, I would hope that in looking forward to the review and the future, that all of us focus on whats best and not damage the organisation in petty squabbles about the past. There are issues that need looking at but it's complicated and making best efforts for the future will need to avoid such distractions and need to be inclusive of views that we both disagree with... eg those of the BMC 30.  You made the point that JR was by far the best candidate... this is an opinion stated unfairly as fact. I think he was one candidate of three standing for a fundraising focussed Board post who were all appointable, despite voting for JR. I will admit that if Rebecca hadn't stood down I would have voted for her as she was also ORG and a fundraiser in her day job.  JR admitted himself that he was reluctant to campaign as he wanted a woman to win the vote, but most of those who voted for him (at the very most only a paltry 365 of us, despite all his good work) didn't seemed to know that.

I have very different worries from the AGM that I see as more important. Moans about subs I hear way more commonly from the membership. The subs issue is where the votes were closest and many are still unhappy with the outcome (especially in clubs). In terms of Director behaviour I am way more  worried that JR publicly stated that as a Director he voted against an agreed Board position and abstained from one. He's not the first to do this but going on the public record is very unwise. Board collective responsibility is an important company position.

A lot of these complications arise because the BMC is a company and not a charity. I would prefer the BMC to reconsider this decision at some point in the future. If so, this recent period wont be the biggest governance change ever.

[SA Chris]

I get the impression the only two people taking the BMC feud seriously are Simon and Steve. To everyone else I imagine it's a perverse type of light entertainment - like your guff but for policy wonks. Personally I'm enjoying the '101 in arcane political words that nobody ever says', from Steve.

Quite. Also wondering if there is a BMC Safety Statement regarding the swinging of handbags.

[Offwidth]

Dan has tested handbag straps by rubbing them on gritstone and discovered that, unlike slings, they are not weaker then than if cut half through. It would also be an unfair fight.. Simon's would have a heart of oak.

On the subject of handbags I think this is more aggressive dancing around them. Simon is right to be annoyed but should have just been a lot more careful about what he said in public:  I could have respected that and not needed to have been so oppositional. For true handbags: I've faced these much of my working life and from opposite quarters as I became a union rep early on. I always believed in standing up and opposing gross unfairness. The managers I blocked in their attempted  unfair actions were sometimes seriously nasty and the far left of my union hated me as I faced off their bullying behaviour and dishonest presentation of their version of "facts", which were too often just opinion, and I stood successfully many times for election against their candidates on behalf of ordinary fairly apolitical members, including nearly a decade on national executive councils. I have also had about 20 years on my Uni academic board. I'm not a lightweight in governance terms even if at BMC meetings I would (before Lynn led me to assume bodyguard status) prefer 'to buy a pint discuss guidebooks' with Grimer, when governance came up in the area meeting. It was all just too similar to nasty shit at work and obsessive climbing was my escape from that.

[JR]

I have no interest in this being a directly personal issue, so I'm going to refrain from responding to most of this, but on 3 specific points.

Irrespective of all of this, if the BMC Board made a decision not to release this information, based on legal and governance advice, as I assume is the case here...

Do you know if the Board have held a vote on this, and/or made a minuted decision not to release it?  If so, one would assume that will appear minuted at some point along with some kind of rationale.

Simon is an Independant (sic) director but not so independant (sic) on this subject as he also holidays with JR and shares many of his views (but will be limited by Board confidentiality from public comment).

Climbers go climbing together - had a great time skiing/climbing in Cham with a Board colleague, although we're hardly married!  But seriously, on the basis that Simon probably isn't going to comment publicly on here, I think it's only fair to point out that he did declare himself Conflict of Interest on the Nominated Directors process (as minuted).

there are governance bodies who recommend it for PLCs where financial consequences for shareholders are more serious

Are you a member of ICSA? Or are you referring to another body?

[shark]

It’s ridiculous equating a climbing partner with a married partner in terms of conflict of interest. Quite frankly Simon Mccalla was being overly cautious categorising it as a material conflict of interest. Dave Turnbull must be 100% conflicted as he’ll climb with just about anybody and everybody.

[Offwidth]

I have no interest in this being a directly personal issue, so I'm going to refrain from responding to most of this, but on 3 specific points.

Do you know if the Board have held a vote on this, and/or made a minuted decision not to release it?  If so, one would assume that will appear minuted at some point along with some kind of rationale.

Climbers go climbing together - had a great time skiing/climbing in Cham with a Board colleague, although we're hardly married!  But seriously, on the basis that Simon probably isn't going to comment publicly on here, I think it's only fair to point out that he did declare himself Conflict of Interest on the Nominated Directors process (as minuted).

Are you a member of ICSA? Or are you referring to another body?

You seem really weirdly up and down in your understanding of how organisations work. Boards can make lower level decisions in ad hoc meetings without formally minuting them.  If a Director is concerned about such they can ask to formalise.

Many in the BMC know you and Simon M are really good friends and some cruel folk (climbers are renowned for humour in such areas) even joke about you seeming more married than some actual married couples. There is nothing wrong with this as long as its doesn't unfairly influence decisions. I didn't know Simon had declared on ND but assumed he would have, as unlike Shark he gets the fact that its actually ridiculous to compare levels of being conflicted in an organisation: if you are, you are and you should declare. When trying to deal with what happened to you,  Simon is quite simply the least appropriate person on the Board.

No I'm not a member of any of such governance body.... firstly you nearly always have to pay and secondly I think many look a bit parasitic with seemingly a business model designed to cover up shit governance with a veneer of process. My information comes from friends and colleagues who are directors, trustees or company secretaries, and from conferences and academic experts (although I'm an academic Engineer I've also been lucky enough to have been involved as an independent experienced validation panel member in quite a few MBA overseas multi-day course validations alongside real world expert practioners). I've said before that governance is a modern day obsession and almost a full on industry because so many organisations were (and many still are) failing in the basic principles. The BMC is a breath of fresh air to a governance cynic like me, as although they do make mistakes they are genuinely open where they should be, more than any organisation that I know well, and try to apply the principles (and apologise and do it right next time when they fail) and they bend over backwards to be kind to troublesome members other organisations would have long ago put through discipline processes and booted out.

[shark]

Where is the ‘interest’ ? An interest represents a legal or business connection and a conflict of interest is something that could lead to material gain.

At FinCom meetings I declared that my ownership of UKB was a potential conflict of interest as the BMC is an advertiser. I did not also declare my friendship with Dave Turnbull and the fact we climb together and our respective partners go running together represented a conflict of interest. Was I wrong not to do so 

Clearly Simon McCalla felt he had a conflict of personal loyalty. Not the same thing as a conflict of interest. That’s his call if he wants to call it a conflict of interest but I think it was lame - as an independent director he should be confident of his even-handedness and dispassionate in the boardroom.

[Offwidth]

It was according to JR formally declared on the ND vote you are complaining about and as such you should have been told to contacted the Board Chair or another Independant Director. The level or lameness of that declaration is frankly irrelevant. I guess the 'lame' concept is important so you don't need to state your relationship with Gron when you introduce your paper at the area meeting next week.

It seems to me you have achieved your main stated aims in the original article. The concerns are now widely known and there will be a BMC working group to look into it. This will take valuable volunteer time and some expenses costs. There is a formal BMC response (more valuable volunteer time), there are formal routes to make comment on the ODG section of the BMC website. If you really are independant and fair you should now just let the organisation get on with its work in this area (knowing that really the vast majority of members would prefer that this volunteer time and money should have been focussed on core access work and similar). I'm pretty sure the group recommendations will lead to changes that will reduce future levels of discretionary proxy votes, but also that this could have been achieved more efficiently by a private communication to the Board chair.

There are very real political groupings amongst the BMC AGM and Area meeting regulars and its worrying to me for people to pretend independance that isn't real, like some of the BMC 30 did, when forgetting to mention what they had they signed when supporting it on social media. When such groups put their ideology above the organisation, what I see as possibly happening again here, I think that is dangerous. The pragmatic need to get governance changes that wereTier 3 Sport England compatible was necessary to from a financial perspective and beneficial for modern good governance; the political conflict between so called, 'modernisers' and 'traditionalists' have at time  been depressingly damaging and exceedingly wasteful.

It would be good if  you could be open and transparent and answer the question would you be doing all this if Gron and JR  had won? If you were dispassionate on the voting and really cared about the BMC you should be happy now, for it to be looked at for next time. Instead you play the 'Pettigrew card' spreading concerns to strengthen your weak and divisive remaing objective on the release of proxies (which even if fairly agreed for the future, given the rather fractious insider politics, some groups will certainty use to attack the President and the BMC, whichever way they vote). You could also have fact checked all those things you got wrong in your original article and subsequent posts (that you have to 'read between the lines' in the BMC response, to realise they were actually wrong; a response which has been pretty kind to you).

[shark]

I have not taken issue with Gron not getting the Directorship but I do think the process was handled poorly.

Yes I wouldn’t have sought to peer under the car bonnet if I hadn’t sought to uncover how JR failed to get re-elected. I now know far more about the rules and process. Before ignorance was bliss.

Also the ongoing withholding of a reasonable request for proxy information is becoming as big a worry than the outcomes of the AGM. It signals that the Board as a whole is not fully committed to openness and transparency and member scrutiny which is not in the spirit of the ODG.

[Offwidth]

You have not taken public issue on Gron... however why on earth should we trust you on that not being a private major motivation? Plenty of people when playing 'sour grapes' games use proxy targets (if you excuse the pun) to try to extract revenge whilst (dishonestly) trying to look detached from the voting concern.

[Will Hunt]

I'll pay each of you a tenner which you can use to go and get tanked up and have a fight in a flat-roof pub car park, IF neither of you posts on this topic again.

[shark]

You have not taken public issue on Gron... however why on earth should we trust you on that not being a private major motivation? Plenty of people when playing 'sour grapes' games use proxy targets (if you excuse the pun) to try to extract revenge whilst (dishonestly) trying to look detached from the voting concern.

 

[shark]

There goes my tenner 

[Johnny Brown]

I'll pay each of you a tenner which you can use to go and get tanked up and have a fight in a flat-roof pub car park, IF neither of you posts on this topic again.

Paypal me the money Will, it's the Peak area meet next week. Although I am wondering if twenty will be enough, I mean Shark looks like a two-pinter but I'm not sure about offwidth. Anyone else want to chip in? bmcgrudgematch@hotmail.com Footage to follow obvs...

[shark]

Joking aside if me responding to Offwidth with a straight bat and soaking up abuse (calling me dishonest amongst other things) makes this look like a grudge match that is utterly unfair.

It is also worrying because there are genuine issues here on openness, transparency and potential derailment of modernisation that he shouldn’t deflect folk from.

[SA Chris]

Paypal me the money Will, it's the Peak area meet next week. Although I am wondering if twenty will be enough, I mean Shark looks like a two-pinter but I'm not sure about offwidth. Anyone else want to chip in? bmcgrudgematch@hotmail.com Footage to follow obvs...

Sure you can get enough Buckfast with that much, fight fuel of Weegie champions.

[SA Chris]

it's the Peak area meet next week.

[mrjonathanr]

Paypal me the money Will, it's the Peak area meet next week. Although I am wondering if twenty will be enough, I mean Shark looks like a two-pinter but I'm not sure about offwidth. Anyone else want to chip in? bmcgrudgematch@hotmail.com Footage to follow obvs...

£5 bonus if they can spell independence correctly.

[Andy Syme]

I'd like to see a single example of an organisation like the BMC that does it.

British Canoeing at 2019 AGM voted that proxy votes be disclosed as part of the show of hands, as well as disclosed for polls.  (item 11.2)

[Andy Syme]

I'd like to see a single example of an organisation like the BMC that does it.

Cycling UK looks like they do.  See comment by Cycloloco
"Electronic voting at the AGM this year organised by Electoral Reform Services didn't always work first time but seemed OK in total. The postal and proxy votes were shown before the votes at the meeting were taken making it clear to attenders that their votes were largely useless."

https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?t=113397&start=90#p1127929

Without wasting much more time searching there is certainly a precedent in sports governing bodies too.