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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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).
there are governance bodies who recommend it for PLCs where financial consequences for shareholders are more serious
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 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.
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...
it's the Peak area meet next week.
I'd like to see a single example of an organisation like the BMC that does it.