[abarro81]

I have no actual clue on the substance of what is even being debated/presented.. and I would suspect that many (the majority?) are in a similar situation.

Imagine a tank with an input pipe and output pipe...

 

[shark]

I have no actual clue on the substance of what is even being debated/presented.. and I would suspect that many (the majority?) are in a similar situation.

Imagine a tank with an input pipe and output pipe...

 

  Glad you took it the right way.

Like energy systems the issues are hard to simplify and concisely describe. My best stab was on Facebook five weeks ago and it ended up being far longer than I intended:


I thought I would set down my thoughts on the current BMC constitutional crisis in the run up to the vote on 16 June.

The most liked comment on the recent UKC thread included: “This whole long-running pantomime is the very embodiment of why I don't give a tuppenny toss about the BMC anymore...The whole shambles is like a 70s TUC Conference, bogged down in unfathomable motions and opaque counter motions understood only by the truly committed and those who really need to get out more..."..

I also “liked” this post as I entirely agree with these sentiments. However,if the BMC has any hope of putting this “shambles” behind it then it is critical that there is the required 75% majority for the “Tier 3 resolution” . However, with the last major AGM vote eliciting only 2500 (out of 80,000 members) votes this required majority is far far from a done deal especially now that an opposing motion has been tabled.

I've interacted with the BMC as a Peak Area volunteer, former National Council member and for the last 17 months worked as a contracted employee in the post of Commercial Partnerships Manager so I have viewed things from a number of angles that have shaped my views on the subject.

In terms of the broad themes and what are likely outcomes of the vote the three of the most important elements for me are:

1. One of the purposes of the BMC is to be a unifying body and whilst there have been ructions and differences over the years other climbing organisations and clubs tend to work with the BMC as we are better and stronger together than apart. Therefore Climbing in the round can represent itself via the BMC to wide ranging government and non-government organisations which include major landowners. A key way this works is that the BMC makes a unified funding bid to Sport England not only for itself but also other climbing organisations notably Mountain Training, the Association of British Climbing Walls and the ABC Training Trust. To do this now requires the most highly rated level of constitutional governance which is Tier 3. If the vote is not carried we will be letting down our partners who value the BMC’s input and that particular unifying glue which binds us will become unstuck and BMC’s power and influence as a unified force working with other organisations will be diminished.

2. Whilst the BMC is a good organisation in general in my experience it is not the best at making clear decisions or indeed any decisions let alone devising and executing strategies. This has resulted in an organisation that has evolved rather than been planned and is now complex, difficult to understand and engaged in a very wide variety of work. It wasn’t part of a grand plan that we have become what we are which is both a reflection of how varied climbing has become and deficient strategy. This complexity is OK provided it is clear to those carrying out activity (staff and volunteers) where priorities and direction lie (and dare I say it have goals and targets). I contend that the split responsibility and accountability between National Council and the Board of Directors engenders slow or avoided decision making and a consequent muddled direction for the organisation. Tier 3 governance concentrates power and decision making with the Board and in the recommended resolution National Council becomes an advisory body with board representation and some retained powers to keep the Board on track and in check. To its great credit National Council itself recommends this change to Tier 3 governance even though it has the most to lose. However, it should be pointed out that it required an independent review (The ORG) to get it there as it was unable or unwilling to put its own house in order.

The potential empowerment of the Board to make and be accountable for decisions together with the phase 2 implementation of the ORG recommendations gives me hope that the BMC can become better at decision making making and strategy and move from good to great. (Obviously we need able people on the board to realise this - it doesn't just happen by itself!)

3. On a more pragmatic level if the Tier 3 resolution isn’t voted for then this (expensive) crisis will drag on and on and continue to disrupt and delay a return to business as usual. There will continue to be an inward focus rather than the external focus of doing the job of representing hillwalkers and climbers. There is also a danger that the organisation will tear itself apart and become an unresolved shadow of its current self.

There is an Open Forum on Tues evening in Manchester city centre. There are also Area meetings to discuss the recommendations in the run up to the AGM in Kendal on 16 June. Info on how to vote will be circulated shortly on the BMC website and by email to members. This year will include an online voting option. If you care about the BMC you should vote.

Thank you for reading if you got this far!

ps I should also mention a little more about the opposing resolution advocating the lower level of Tier 1 governance. This has been devised outside democratic processes and introduced out of the blue. It wasn’t subject to public scrutiny or widespread consultation unlike the Tier 3 recommended resolution proposed by National Council. The opposing resolution primarily seeks to preserve the status quo with National Council retaining policy making power (even though National Council no longer wants that!). It would not allow us to bid substantively and in concert with our other partners for Sport England funding with the knock-on effect of limiting the potential of the BMC and its future breadth of representation, growth and its influence. For me a vote for this tier 1 resolution is a reactionary vote that would stop the most important elements of the ORG’s modernising recommendations in its tracks.

HTH

[petejh]

There’s some good points in there shark. Not as good as ‘think of it as a tank with an inflow and outflow’ but...

But it still seems as short-sighted as everything else I’ve read to do with SE funding, if that funding is indeed supposed to cease a few years from now. Why not acknowledge this, if the funding is supposedly so important? It doesn’t make sense.

[shark]

There’s some good points in there shark. Not as good as ‘think of it as a tank with an inflow and outflow’ but...

  That’s ironic as the reason I posted on FB rather than here was that I don’t want to get into an interminable wrangle with you.

But it still seems as short-sighted as everything else I’ve read to do with SE funding, if that funding is indeed supposed to cease a few years from now. Why not acknowledge this, if the funding is supposedly so important? It doesn’t make sense.

There is no doubt that the £amount of money is more important to our partners (Mountaining Training, NICAS and ABC) than it is to the BMC. Nonetheless it is still important. There will be some tough decisions to be made in SE funded programmes and posts that are currently being funded by the BMC at a deficit.

I am unclear on the future of SE funding. The growing participation stats are in our favour but their policies have changed. I am not involved so am not confident to have a view on the potential of future funding.

[Offwidth]

I think the idea Sport England expect self sufficiency at some point in the future is a political one. Our nation gets fatter all the time and sport is one of the few bright spots that act to keep future health bills down. We can sensibly work with other bodies to put pressure on SE if they look to reduce funding to zero, with pretty much our full membership behind us. What we can't sensibly do is divorce them now assuming they will be unfaithful  at some point, after a few years. Its another of Bob's scare tactics in his project fear, that the money will go.

[Sidehaas]

Interesting that you would prefer a managed message. The way things have played out on UKC has offered those outside the inside circles a real insight as to what’s actually going on. I can understand that the organisation might want to leverage greater media control but I’m surprised that individual climbers would see that as a good thing even though the truth of what is going on can be ugly. No different to Westminster.

It's not so much that I want it (in an ideal world I don't) but that this crisis has shown that the BMC as an organisation needs it. My reasoning is along the same lines as others have already said - the many different lines of communication, interspersed with argument from the 'other side' just create an impression of disarray rather than getting any one important message across.

[Offwidth]

I agree a clearer relationship between NC and Board should help. It's more about better management than a managed message though, in my opinion. NC dithered with their power when we had 3 years to meet SE compliance and so the rather rushed final stages gave rise to a lot wider concerns in the membership than just those of Bob and chums. The compromise arrangement at the open forum a month back, which led to a much improved Option A, that a much wider group of the membership could support, was very important and should have resolved things. Unfortunatey Bob and chums don't back down and they sought to manufacture appearance of continued crisis, using misinformation, mainly in secret. Only Andy Say spoke in detail in public, avoiding answering straight questions and making veiled hints of support, Tier 1 status and member's primacy, that always seemed to me highly dubious. I still think its all a red herring for Bob and co,  who really want the end of the BMC as it currently is and the clock effectively turned back 40 years. They know they could never do this democratically so fake news and dirty tricks are the tools required. I don't want the BMC and this motion failing due to such undemocratic manipulation. It's analogous to me to the UK and the Brexit vote, that was probably only won thanks to the secret undemocratic manipulation, becoming more and more apparent, from UKIP leadership in cohoots with Cambridge Analytica and probably the Russians. I sometimes wonder if Bob visited the embassy as well.

I'd also say there are not really many BMC lines of communication but things are always complex in democratic organisations. The BMC as an organisation speak through Dave, Nick K, and Alex and use the webpage and Summit etc but they have to give fair access to different sides of any debate. The NC, Exec and ORG have a clear pro Option A view and Andy Syme is the IG negotiator and attempted peace maker.

I think some people are mistaking those, like me, who support the organisation as an 'offical voice', we are not. Bob and Andy certainly dishonestly painted us as BMC attack dogs and trolls. We do feel that Bob and co's communications could not just be ignored, nor the gaping holes in the logic of Option B.. We are just well informed individual members concerned about Bob's continued undermining of the BMC and we relied on leaks from clubs for our information on Bob. Decisions were made not to properly deal with 'the Bob problem' after the MoNC, probably in some fruitless attempt at reconcilliation, and some like me feel this was a mistake. The damage from these vexatious members isn't all done yet: as an example, I can see the Alpine Club threatening to separate from the BMC unless the more progressive part of the membership of that club call out this behaviour.

[abarro81]

I think we all get that you're well meaning members communicating in a non-official role, the problem is just that when I see threads filling up with long posts like that, full of discussion of NCs, Boards, Tiers etc I just start skimming (at best) or stop reading all together - I guess this is where some level of centralised communication might be of use.

[shark]

I think we all get that you're well meaning members communicating in a non-official role, the problem is just that when I see threads filling up with long posts like that, full of discussion of NCs, Boards, Tiers etc I just start skimming (at best) or stop reading all together - I guess this is where some level of centralised communication might be of use.

The centralised communication is available on BMC website for info and of course in Summit so best to go there to start with. Its not the BMC's fault that some go to discussion topics first. The threads may not be sanitised or pretty but have generated some extra awareness of governance and hopefully increased the vote even from you? 

Taking a bigger picture view I'm quite heartened at the raised level of interest in the BMC and its workings and future and gives me hope that this level of engagement (hate that word) has raised expectations so that the impetus to press on with the more interesting Phase 2 modernisation proposals for the BMC will be followed through at a good pace.

My worry is that after the vote the membership and exhausted activists will largely go back to sleep again (as they  seemed to be when I was on National Council) and the usual drags against change will take effect and the BMC won't realise its potential as a forward thinking (and acting) representative for body for us all. It is all we've got so we should try to make it the best it can be.       

[pigeon]

Hi

Yep, if we were a brand, it would be a bit random having all these informal communications on various forums, but it's not up to the BMC communications team to start telling volunteers (or Shark) what they can and can't post.

On the one hand, this is great - you can have open conversations with people - on the other, it can lead to confusing sprawling threads like that mammoth UKC one.

So, if anyone is confused and would like to vote, feel free to post their questions here and I'll attempt to give short, simple answers.

Voting closes at 1pm on Thur. The final voting email was sent this morning, so check your email / spam for an email from "Online Voting".

Alex Messenger, BMC.

[teestub]

Last Edit: Today at 08:47:12 am by shark, Reason: Changed mistake of B for A (twice) »

 

[shark]

Last Edit: Today at 08:47:12 am by shark, Reason: Changed mistake of B for A (twice) »

 

Think he needs a rest..

[petejh]

There’s some good points in there shark. Not as good as ‘think of it as a tank with an inflow and outflow’ but...

  That’s ironic as the reason I posted on FB rather than here was that I don’t want to get into an interminable wrangle with you.

But it still seems as short-sighted as everything else I’ve read to do with SE funding, if that funding is indeed supposed to cease a few years from now. Why not acknowledge this, if the funding is supposedly so important? It doesn’t make sense.

There is no doubt that the £amount of money is more important to our partners (Mountaining Training, NICAS and ABC) than it is to the BMC. Nonetheless it is still important. There will be some tough decisions to be made in SE funded programmes and posts that are currently being funded by the BMC at a deficit.

I am unclear on the future of SE funding. The growing participation stats are in our favour but their policies have changed. I am not involved so am not confident to have a view on the potential of future funding.

Yeah you wouldn't want anyone asking awkward questions of your opinion.

So according to the received wisdom put out by the BMC-  the SE money IS crucial to the BMC. And it's also not that crucial?

And there's a possibility the SE funding may dry up.

Pardon my not really understanding wtf this is all about, if it's not just about power games.

[sheavi]

The way I've understood SE funding is that it's crucial for the BMC's partners but not the BMC. Of course the SE money is very useful for the BMC but not crucial.  Surely that's quite simple to understand?

[abarro81]

The threads may not be sanitised or pretty but have generated some extra awareness of governance and hopefully increased the vote even from you? 

Good point, it's quite possible that I wouldn't have bothered voting without the online stuff bringing it to my attention, even if I'm not entirely clear what I'm voting for.

[shark]

Yeah you wouldn't want anyone asking awkward questions of your opinion.

Having got involved in the UKC thread I didn't particularly want to engage you on one front and Andy Say on the other. Also I saw the UKB threads as being less cluttered and more factual and was hoping they stayed that way.

So according to the received wisdom put out by the BMC-  the SE money IS crucial to the BMC. And it's also not that crucial?

And there's a possibility the SE funding may dry up.

Pardon my not really understanding wtf this is all about, if it's not just about power games.

Yes it is about how power is exercised (governance) which includes the allocation of resources (which includes money) and working collectively with allied partnership organisations. If Option A gets the vote and Roberts/Robinson get voted in then there is a mandate and the tools in place to follow through on the other ORG modernising recommendations to make it a better and more representative organisation.

     

[petejh]

The way I've understood SE funding is that it's crucial for the BMC's partners but not the BMC. Of course the SE money is very useful for the BMC but not crucial.  Surely that's quite simple to understand?

Of course that's simple to understand, if that's what was being said. But it wasn't.
The message that'd been put across in this debate or at least how I'd perceived it, was that SE funding is crucial for the BMC.

All I'm saying is the message is hardly clear about the facts of the matter. Instead it's a fuzzy 'vote for this because ummm it's the right thing'.

For some of us that isn't a satisfactory reason to vote for anything.

[shark]

^ This is it, in a nutshell.

Despite endless communications from the BMC and others in the debate I'm still unclear what difference either of the articles will make to anything. Except that one will result in sport england tier 1 and the other tier 3.

The amount of words that have been poured into this shit show by the BMC and by others without being able to make the issue clear, is proof in my mind that whatever this is about - and it seems to be about power - isn't worth my time trying to decipher.

The message that'd been put across in this debate or at least how I'd perceived it, was that SE funding is crucial for the BMC.

All I'm saying is the message is hardly clear about the facts of the matter. Instead it's a fuzzy 'vote for this because ummm it's the right thing'.

For some of us that isn't a satisfactory reason to vote for anything.

For some it will be enough ie we want the BMC to carry in what they are doing but without putting up subs. There is a clear message and call to action there.

The other stuff that is equally if not more important tends but is less eye catching and hard edged so tends to get skim read over so taking the following paragaraph I've highlighted the other stuff.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2018

Voting for Option A
This is the version formally recommended by the BMC’s National Council and Board of Directors. Their view is that the BMC will be stronger and better by focusing on being an umbrella body for all mountaineers with transparent and clear governance that allows members, volunteers and staff to work collaboratively to ensure the best outcomes for all members. It will clarify organisational decision-making, increase transparency and ensure we comply with company law. It will put in place a high standard of organisational governance (meaning that good decisions are made by, and for, members). Together with our partners in Mountain Training and the climbing wall sector, it will ensure we remain eligible to receive government funding under the Sport England Tier 3 funding stream: the highest level of funding available to us.

Although you might write this other stuff off it is my belief and experience that even in business (typically seen as hard nosed and just about the money) that this other cultural stuff in organisations is vital to their success and the same applies, if not more so, to a not for profit National body like the BMC.

[Offwidth]

I think we all get that you're well meaning members communicating in a non-official role, the problem is just that when I see threads filling up with long posts like that, full of discussion of NCs, Boards, Tiers etc I just start skimming (at best) or stop reading all together - I guess this is where some level of centralised communication might be of use.

If you want a simple message: stuff Bob and his dirty tricks and vote Option A. However, I've always been really impressed with this site's ability to mix (sometimes raucous) fun with serious and complex debate. On that subject of fun, on the muddled A and B I've always had a weird brain issue with alternatives (eg muddling left and right... a real pain for a guidebook worker) and seriously declining eyesight, where glasses give me eyestrain. I did the same A, B trick on UKC the day before.  I certainly deserved it pointing out though. Some fun links on the subject:

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/why-some-people-have-trouble-telling-left-right-and-why-it-s-so-important/

https://www.chron.com/life/article/If-you-can-t-tell-your-left-from-your-right-1752863.php

I actually need a rest from the grinding paperwork of exam board result processing and course change documentation at work, not BMC stuff.

[Oldmanmatt]

I think we all get that you're well meaning members communicating in a non-official role, the problem is just that when I see threads filling up with long posts like that, full of discussion of NCs, Boards, Tiers etc I just start skimming (at best) or stop reading all together - I guess this is where some level of centralised communication might be of use.

If you want a simple message: stuff Bob and his dirty tricks and vote Option A. However, I've always been really impressed with this site's ability to mix (sometimes raucous) fun with serious and complex debate. On that subject of fun, on the muddled A and B I've always had a weird brain issue with alternatives (eg muddling left and right... a real pain for a guidebook worker) and seriously declining eyesight, where glasses give me eyestrain. I did the same A, B trick on UKC the day before.  I certainly deserved it pointing out though. Some fun links on the subject:

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/why-some-people-have-trouble-telling-left-right-and-why-it-s-so-important/

https://www.chron.com/life/article/If-you-can-t-tell-your-left-from-your-right-1752863.php

I actually need a rest from the grinding paperwork of exam board result processing and course change documentation at work, not BMC stuff.

I’m alright with the whole right/left thing.


It’s Arse and Elbow I struggle with...

[Offwidth]

I'm struggling with that as well as well: my elbow currently hurts when I strain and is full of shit. Not being able to climb makes me a bit more prickly.

[Steve Crowe]

Vote Option A, just because.

[shark]

92% for Option A

 

[shark]

Lynn is president 

[Oldmanmatt]

Those numbers must surely be enough to shut the old farts up? For the second time, they have been squashed.

Any casualties or medical attention required when they realised their president has no penis?