[galpinos]

Simon, what sort of budget does the BMC run on? Presumably in the millions, quite a bit of it derived from the government? In which circumstances lax or informal governance is clearly unacceptable. It is - or should be - as simple as that.

From the disinterested outside, this looks like an excellent example of the challenges of organisational culture change. Someone should write a teaching case-study on it.

Circa £3million, £2million of which is membership fees, £300-400k from insurance and £200-£300k Sport England.

[andy popp]

Simon, what sort of budget does the BMC run on? Presumably in the millions, quite a bit of it derived from the government? In which circumstances lax or informal governance is clearly unacceptable. It is - or should be - as simple as that.

From the disinterested outside, this looks like an excellent example of the challenges of organisational culture change. Someone should write a teaching case-study on it.

Circa £3million, £2million of which is membership fees, £300-400k from insurance and £200-£300k Sport England.

Thanks; about what I would have guessed, though less from Sport England than I would have guessed. More than enough for governance and accountability to really matter.

[teestub]

Andy, I may be wrong here as I completely lost interest in this a long time ago, but I think the ongoing restructuring was a necessary step to allow more government funding to come to the BMC.

Shark, to what extent are these issues due to attempting to be a very broad church, from hillwalking to the Olympics, and would it have made more sense to split off the indoor/Olympic side of things. Or is that an entirely different issue.

[shark]

Andy, I may be wrong here as I completely lost interest in this a long time ago, but I think the ongoing restructuring was a necessary step to allow more government funding to come to the BMC.

Shark, to what extent are these issues due to attempting to be a very broad church, from hillwalking to the Olympics, and would it have made more sense to split off the indoor/Olympic side of things. Or is that an entirely different issue.

Its a different issue. Grant money has been used for lots of non-comp stuff including the salary of a Hill Walking officer for example.

I do think a partial split makes sense. It was meant to be an independent subsidiary but now is going to be a discrete internal department at the Office,

[galpinos]

Andy, I may be wrong here as I completely lost interest in this a long time ago, but I think the ongoing restructuring was a necessary step to allow more government funding to come to the BMC.

It was a necessary step to allow continued Sport England Funding but it's worth noting this extract from the ORG Report text that stated:

These are the requirements* that we were asked to meet in making our recommendations.  We do not consider them to be overwhelming, unobtainable or unsuitable for the BMC and believe that they simply reflect good governance practice.  Their implementation will improve the governance, decision making and representative nature of the BMC, and as a result, the service it provides for its members.

* Sport England’s Tier 3 governance requirements

It is also worth noting that the BMC applies for Sport England funding, as the NRB, for/on behalf of, its partners such as Mountain Training.

Shark, to what extent are these issues due to attempting to be a very broad church, from hillwalking to the Olympics, and would it have made more sense to split off the indoor/Olympic side of things. Or is that an entirely different issue.

I think the current issues are due to some of the current board/staff struggling with the implementation of a more rigid structure and the associated procedures and scrutiny that comes with it and the reformers have given up/been pushed out. The comp side is nothing to do with it, though I do wish they had chosen the independent subsidiary route.

[teestub]

Thanks both

[Offwidth]

I think the current issues are due to some of the current board/staff struggling with the implementation of a more rigid structure and the associated procedures and scrutiny that comes with it and the reformers have given up/been pushed out. The comp side is nothing to do with it, though I do wish they had chosen the independent subsidiary route.

There may be some truth to struggling with structures but if the resignations were linked to ORG/ODG (or other serious differences in ideology) the resigning (modernising) independent directors would have said so. I've not noticed any serious push back from the Directors on ODG (and the the majority of work is already done). I'm sure some might disagree on detail on some specific ORG recommendations and the world has moved on a bit since ORG was published. The new ODG chair after JR left ( both also ex ORG), seemed to think the paid project manager (whom I was very impressed with) was no longer needed at the end of 2019.

Rab, also ex ORG, is chairing the committee dealing with the new competition arrangements.

On the subsidiary option my main concern was always the extra expense of this. I didn't see it as appropriate without firm sponsorship income to back it up (a potential future option but not a current one). Given the covid hit on finances it's a lucky break they chose what they did.

[shark]

Further Director resignation

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/resignation-from-the-board

I’ve been closely involved with this having questioned Huw on UKC and then escalated background information and questions on Huw’s track record as a Director of other business and his accountancy qualification last week to the Board via Jonathan White who said he would look into it. Therefore I am almost certainly one of the members cited as “undermining the good work of the Board and National Council”. Needless to say I am deeply unhappy with the tone and content of the article.

I know this stuff is understandably a complete turn off to most on UKB but it would be remiss of me not to update the thread.

The relevant threadon UKClimbing has been locked for the weekend by Alan and it is not clear it will be reopened.

Probably the best forum for continuing discussions is an open group I started a while ago called BMC watch on Facebook which is
here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/2241207952632038

[abarro81]

All this stuff with the board, council, reform group thing or whatever it's called seems so impenetrable that I guess most people have no clue what's going on? I gave up trying to understand it long ago, but it seems pretty shambolic at the moment. As an outsider you wonder if it'd be better to pull most of the high-level stuff apart and start again!

[shark]

I gave up trying to understand it long ago, but it seems pretty shambolic at the moment. As an outsider you wonder if it'd be better to pull most of the high-level stuff apart and start again!

Calling a General Meeting would be the mechanism do that allowing the remaining Directors the opportunity to put their case and put themselves up for re-election if they wished and other people to put themselves up for election. It is also a practical measure in that the 4 vacant Director positions need to be filled - 5 if you include the Chairman who has said he wants to step down.

[abarro81]

The problem with BMC elections/votes is that it's a bit like student elections - no-one has a clue who anyone is or what they stand for. I vote for whoever promises to not be shambolic. Which I guess is everyone.

[shark]

There was a clear roadmap with the ORG report then the Organisational Review Group was meant to add the detail and implement it. The end result of its implementation should have been a better run BMC.

It has taken a long time and key recommendations on culture, leadership and management haven’t been implemented over two years on and other recommendations have been eroded or overturned. The members at Peak Area meetings are bored and fed up with ORG stuff understandably. I think this view is widespread and also kills momentum for change.

I think that the plan was sound but the leadership on the Board in totality was lacking the conviction, experience, grasp of detail or whatever to collectively drive it through in lockstep to overcome typical bogging down which is a feature of entrenched BMC culture. 

[teestub]

I wouldn’t be sharing that thread around if I was you Shark. In the mildest possible terms you come across terribly!

[shark]

I wouldn’t be sharing that thread around if I was you Shark. In the mildest possible terms you come across terribly!

I’ll take your word for it. If it subsequently transpires that him and the Board have falsely claimed Huw to be a qualified accountant would you revise your opinion?

Rather than judge on appearances  take a look at the last liquidators report on Companies house for Cornerstone Training Solutions and scroll down to item11 and bear in mind that Huw was the sole Director at the time of insolvency and tell me it doesn’t make alarming reading and demands questions of Huw.

[kac]

Hi Simon, I can see why your annoyed/surprised by that latest statement by the bmc. Seems that either they know something not yet in the public domain or its another example of incompetence. However the now removed ultimatum in the ukc thread really doesn't come across well to an outsider like me.  I really dont think a public forum is the best place to deal with it when it becomes too personal and id try to get the answers in a slightly more diplomatic and private way. Anyway ive found it fascinating -although in the same way that car crashes are! Hope the climbing went well!

[teestub]

In business, as in climbing and life, style is important Shark. You could have easily got the answers you were looking for without taking the tack you did.

[shark]

However the now removed ultimatum in the ukc thread really doesn't come across well to an outsider like me.

Just to be clear I never made an ultimatum. That would have been David Lanceley’s post

I really dont think a public forum is the best place to deal with it when it becomes too personal and id try to get the answers in a slightly more diplomatic and private way.

I totally accept that - in theory!

After the 2019 AGM I made private enquiries relating to the shoddy practices in the recruitment and elections of Directors at the 2019 AGM and got stonewalled by Lynne and partial answers from others. I then wrote a fairly diplomatic article for UKC (toned down from initial drafts) detailing the shortcomings of the processes and following on from that wrote a letter to Simon McCalla the Senior Independent Director at the time with a list of questions. He admitted he didn’t know all the answers but would like to and committed to respond.

When Simon left the letter was picked up by the Governance Working Group to answer those questions. You know what? - it remains an uncompleted item on their agenda over a year on.

Forgive me if I lost patience this time around but getting straight answers out of the BMC hierarchy is typically like getting blood from a stone. At least we successfully got answers from Huw. It remains to be seen if they are wholly truthful.

[kac]

I get the frustration and totally respect the way the way you have stuck your head above the parapet. To me it is David lanceleys post that has now gone too far. Unfortunately you will be associated with his behaviour which although unfair will probably not help the cause. Also if I was your climbing coach I would tell you to take a step back - it must be some wasted mental energy much better spent getting up the oak!

[shark]

Also if I was your climbing coach I would tell you to take a step back - it must be some wasted mental energy much better spent getting up the oak!

Word!

I’ve taken to handing my phone to my climbing partner with strict instructions not to let me have it back till we are packing up.

I hate that I’ve been sucked back into this but the recent events and inadequate communication is infuriating.

I want the organisation to be led and run competently. The constant mini cock ups is a regular reminder that all is not well. The slow pace of the ORG stuff is also a constant niggle . As a friend of mine said offline: “It doesn't need more committees it needs the right skill set and a degree of openness and honesty. If there is too much to do say so. If it's delayed say why. If you say you are going to do something bloody well do it.“

[kac]

Just be grateful you don't work in the civil service!

[shark]

Just be grateful you don't work in the civil service!

 

[Johnny Brown]

Rather than judge on appearances  take a look at the last liquidators report on Companies house for Cornerstone Training Solutions and scroll down to item11 and bear in mind that Huw was the sole Director at the time of insolvency and tell me it doesn’t make alarming reading and demands questions of Huw.

Having had to deal with similar c*nts in business I think Shark was absolutely right to raise questions. Huw's replies on UKC were pointless denials with no supporting information. This is the first I've heard of this guy but he shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near such a role the BMC without some serious explanation, the fact that he was seems to be perfect illustration of why governance needs improving.

One of the BMC's greatest strengths has always been the calibre of the volunteers, but perhaps too much trust has been placed in them and there needs to be a little more scrutiny. Assuming everyone to be a good egg rather leaves you vulnerable to those that might be not be. Having had a fair bit of involvement with the BMC over the years I'd always considered NC etc to be something I'd be interested in putting myself forward for at the point I felt competent to do so. The last couple of years have made me lose any motivation for that entirely, so I do think changes need to be swift so more engaging topics can be resumed.

[shark]

Thanks Adam. Not surprised you’ve been turned off the prospect of being an NC rep which is a shame as you’d be a good ‘un.

UKC thread has been unlocked and David and I have set the ball rolling again

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/bmc_directors_resignations_etc-724145

[Offwidth]

However the now removed ultimatum in the ukc thread really doesn't come across well to an outsider like me.

Just to be clear I never made an ultimatum. That would have been David Lanceley’s post

I really dont think a public forum is the best place to deal with it when it becomes too personal and id try to get the answers in a slightly more diplomatic and private way.

I totally accept that - in theory!

After the 2019 AGM I made private enquiries relating to the shoddy practices in the recruitment and elections of Directors at the 2019 AGM and got stonewalled by Lynne and partial answers from others. I then wrote a fairly diplomatic article for UKC (toned down from initial drafts) detailing the shortcomings of the processes and following on from that wrote a letter to Simon McCalla the Senior Independent Director at the time with a list of questions. He admitted he didn’t know all the answers but would like to and committed to respond.

When Simon left the letter was picked up by the Governance Working Group to answer those questions. You know what? - it remains an uncompleted item on their agenda over a year on.

Forgive me if I lost patience this time around but getting straight answers out of the BMC hierarchy is typically like getting blood from a stone. At least we successfully got answers from Huw. It remains to be seen if they are wholly truthful.

You did indeed seek private words in the proxy issue and then when you didn't get what you want, you posted aspects of that in public which might explain why Lynn doesn't: trust you anymore.   Lynn stonewalled as the exec, based on legal advice and governance advice, had a majority position that proxy vote details should not be released retrospectively (standard practice where this is the status quo). However Lynn did acknowledge some potential conflicts and the matter is now being worked on as a major item in the Governance Working Group (the GWG that both of us have made input to in the last year).  I agree the AGM and other events highlighted now 'known unknowns' that ORG missed.

I also know I'm biased as her husband but it looks to me your continued attacks on Lynn seem very personal, as you take every opportunity to exaggerate the importance of minor issues and to paint her (and the CEO) in a bad light.... even speculating the current bust up was probably because Lynn and the Chair were conspiring with the CEO to thwart ORG. The NC reps at the Peak area said this was categorically not the case and you refuse to apologise for what was a pretty serious accusation. Your past criticisms of Nom Conn  imply incompetence in the Independent Directors and the dead straight and experienced National Council member. You make negative public statements on the CEO you know he cannot defend as a BMC employee.

That UKC article of yours dressed up many of your political opinions as fact and presented normal democratic change (like the bulk of the meeting clearly demanding short presentations from candidates.... as the chair making stuff up on the spot...in the context that votes in the room would barely have made any difference as most members used directed proxy's in advance). As another example:

"John Roberts was by far the most experienced of the three candidates and I was shocked when the votes were announced stating he had come last. How this came to pass has shone a spotlight not just on the recruitment rules and processes, but also on the use of discretionary proxy votes that are carried by the Chair and (typically) BMC Club luminaries."

Actually it showed no such thing, that's just your view. It did show that in a membership that voted overwhelmingly to support the modernisation agenda, JR was the least popular candidate in actual individual members votes for that post.  Imagine an alternative past where proxy votes were public and Lynn (who knew no details of votes elsewhere) voted for JR such that the bottom candidate had won based on what would be painted by the BMC 30 as clear bias.

You claim on UKC that the 2018 accounts issue, where Lynn drove to Manchester on the deadline day, to check and sign the accounts was a mistake that shows she doesn't follow process. You conveniently ignore the whole Board collective fault in not setting up any process suitable for the new structure of the BMC in the first place, such that the accounts were viewed by all well in advance  and the signatories defined.

People accused Lynn this weekend of still being 'missing' when we has been back on BMC work for two weeks and NC have been clear due to being conflicted she is not leading on NC communication (and under the new structure, the Board Chair leads on Board comms, albeit some recently are co-signed by Lynn). The same was said of the CEO who has been back at work for a month.  Directors have suffered health issues as a result of this shitty politics and few had expressed concerns on that. Lynn took an unpaid sabbatical from work .. she is no figurehead 'good egg'... she has worked way over a normal working week on BMC matters large and small (including at least 10 hours a week on the governance related committee areas) with her last holiday being a week in early Nov.  She took a few weeks break so she didn't, passing over any duties correctly. This wasn't just the BMC we fear all four of our parents are at high risk from covid and many close friends (you might think from some critics covid never happened).

Our democratic NC have formulated a plan with the Board that the acting chair of NC said was supported by all of them. In contrast, you with your supposed experience suggest a General Meeting (that  costs tens of thousands and would create more knock-on stasis for innocent staff and volunteers on committees doing essential work) that would act as a reverse beauty contest, where all Directors defend their post, one by one!? What modern governance manual does that come from?

[Johnny Brown]

she is no figurehead 'good egg'.

Just to be clear Steve that was not directed at Lynn at all, nor did I mean to suggest being a 'good egg' implied a lack of competence or diligence. I just meant that all the volunteers I have met are in it for the right reasons. This as a marked contrast to another organisation I'm involved with where volunteers are generally viewed (quite rightly) with a little suspicion as they are mostly only ever interested in their own advancement.