[shark]

Summary: A petition to include resolutions at the 2024 BMC AGM to disclose withheld financial information and set GB Climbing up as an independent subsidiary. Petition link here: https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2 2

Background: The BMC is expected to make a record loss of more than £300k in 2023. Most of that loss has arisen from subsidising the growth of GB Climbing and covering its overspending. GB Climbing has been loss-making for years and now those losses have ballooned.

In order to help protect the BMC from the increasing financial, legal and reputational risks presented by GB Climbing I believe that GB Climbing should be set up as a separate independent subsidiary of the BMC.

This arrangement would mean that GB Climbing is still part of the BMC but the BMC is better safeguarded from the risks. It would also place ownership for strategic, operational and financial decisions squarely with the subsidiary Board of GB Climbing in a more transparent and accountable way. Importantly, GB Climbing would then have the discipline of needing to work within the constraints of its own bank account. Furthermore, the demands, culture and character of elite competition climbing are at odds with the rest of what the BMC does so it makes sense that it is managed separately by a Board that understands and is excited by the sport.

Having GB Climbing as an independent subsidiary of the BMC is not a new idea. It was a key recommendation of the 2017 Organizational Review Report. However, the Board overturned that recommendation four years ago and instead set up a new oversight body (the CCPG). The CCPG has failed in every respect in meeting its responsibilities* and the competitions community has published an open letter of complaint**.

Finally, the BMC has not been open and transparent about the costs of GB Climbing and how grant funding has been allocated even when it has been repeatedly requested. Withholding this sort of information from the membership and the culture of secrecy that currently pervades the BMC needs setting straight and is addressed in the second proposed resolution.

Therefore, I am seeking support for the following resolutions to be included in the upcoming 2024 AGM.

The Resolutions:

1.The Board is required to publicly disclose a full and detailed breakdown of the finances for GB Climbing for the financial years 2022 and 2023 and its budget for 2024 within 6 weeks of this AGM and is urged to be more open and transparent in its affairs and more responsive with specific requests for information

2. The Board is required to set up GB Climbing as a financially independent body that is no longer subsidised by the BMC. It would also be desirable if the Board made any subsidy, loan or bailout to this new body subject to a reserved matter that is included in the articles.

Because neither of these resolutions require article changes, they will be presented as ordinary resolutions which require 50% of voting members to pass it (as opposed to 75% if classed as a special resolution).

For these resolutions to be included in the AGM there is a requirement for it to be supported by 0.5% of the BMC membership (i.e. about 450 BMC members).

To register your support for the inclusion of these resolutions please can you add your name publicly to this petition. Please note, you must be a British Mountaineering Council (BMC) member to sign this petition.

Thank you.

Simon Lee

* https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/CCPGReview2022FinalReport_v1_b.pdf 1

**https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2023/09/open_letter_gb_climbing_athletes+parents_cite_loss_of_confidence_in_leadership-73446

[Davo]

Hi Simon

I’m a BMC member and am not against your idea here. However my only concern is that it might be possible in the future to completely separate (sell off?) GB Climbing from the BMC and therefore the BMC would no longer have control (and also the ability to represent) competition climbing. I generally feel more comfortable with the idea that all facets of climbing should be represented and governed by one body. There are many reasons for this but mainly I just think it gives the BMC  more clout and also it means that the worlds of competition climbing and climbing in general stay connected.

Dave

[Stabbsy]

Do you need to be a “full” member or would it include people who are members via CC membership?

[Stu Littlefair]

I would consider signing subject to a couple of caveats.

1. I don't like the phrase "and is urged to be more open and transparent in its affairs and more responsive with specific requests for information." It's actually meaningless ('urging' the BMC has no force if passed) and "more responsive with specific requests for information" is too broad and open to abuse.

2. Can you clarify what is meant by "It would also be desirable if the Board made any subsidy, loan or bailout to this new body subject to a reserved matter that is included in the articles"? Again, "it is desirable" is meaningless, so if you want this, why not change to "the Board shall"?

[petejh]

I thought the same as Stu on those two wordings. But I signed as I agree with the main thrust of the 2 points.

But the petition would be better and more focussed on what's most important, if you removed from points 1 & 2 the two sentences Stu highlights and moved them to a paragraph below.

Alternatively ditch those supplementary requests lest they leave wiggle room, and stick to the important basics.

[shark]

Hi Simon

I’m a BMC member and am not against your idea here. However my only concern is that it might be possible in the future to completely separate (sell off?) GB Climbing from the BMC and therefore the BMC would no longer have control (and also the ability to represent) competition climbing. I generally feel more comfortable with the idea that all facets of climbing should be represented and governed by one body. There are many reasons for this but mainly I just think it gives the BMC  more clout and also it means that the worlds of competition climbing and climbing in general stay connected.In summary the BMC doesn't have the capacity, structure and dexterity to keep the whole show together in a capable way IMO. 

Dave

I can see that argument but the BMC has proven itself over stretched in trying to control and understand GBC. Given the Board is composed of people with backgrounds which aren't comp climbing world this perhaps isn't surprising.  At the current run rate of losses the BMC is likely to be looking at assets to sell off unless major cuts are made. Grant funding can be cut at short notice too. The risks aren't just finance. Anorexia/RedS in athletes is a current elephant in the room along with other issues shared with comp sports.   

[shark]

Do you need to be a “full” member or would it include people who are members via CC membership?

Club membership is definitely full membership! and yes has the same voting rights as individual members

[shark]

I would consider signing subject to a couple of caveats.

1. I don't like the phrase "and is urged to be more open and transparent in its affairs and more responsive with specific requests for information." It's actually meaningless ('urging' the BMC has no force if passed) and "more responsive with specific requests for information" is too broad and open to abuse.

Yes the first part is specific. The second is just a rebuke and reminder.

2. Can you clarify what is meant by "It would also be desirable if the Board made any subsidy, loan or bailout to this new body subject to a reserved matter that is included in the articles"? Again, "it is desirable" is meaningless, so if you want this, why not change to "the Board shall"?

I'd love to but that would require a change of articles (ie the insertion of a reserved matter clause) which in turn would require it to be a special rather than ordinary resolution and therefore a 75% majority rather 50% majority which is too much of an ask. Assuming the resolution gets carried and the subsid is set up then if the Board didn't get the hint about the reserved matter there's always the option to pitch in again at the 2025 AGM via Members Council or with member support for a special resolution of this type.

[shark]

Further to feedback on BMC Watch and ukc I've set up two further petitions for those who want to separately support one of the two resolutions.

Here are the links:

BMC Resolution: Disclosure of finances for GB Climbing

https://chng.it/DztL4x2KyV

BMC Resolution: Set GB Climbing up as a separate subsidiary:

https://chng.it/XPMn2xybGF

[Davo]

Hi Simon

I’m a BMC member and am not against your idea here. However my only concern is that it might be possible in the future to completely separate (sell off?) GB Climbing from the BMC and therefore the BMC would no longer have control (and also the ability to represent) competition climbing. I generally feel more comfortable with the idea that all facets of climbing should be represented and governed by one body. There are many reasons for this but mainly I just think it gives the BMC  more clout and also it means that the worlds of competition climbing and climbing in general stay connected.In summary the BMC doesn't have the capacity, structure and dexterity to keep the whole show together in a capable way IMO. 

Dave

I can see that argument but the BMC has proven itself over stretched in trying to control and understand GBC. Given the Board is composed of people with backgrounds which aren't comp climbing world this perhaps isn't surprising.  At the current run rate of losses the BMC is likely to be looking at assets to sell off unless major cuts are made. Grant funding can be cut at short notice too. The risks aren't just finance. Anorexia/RedS in athletes is a current elephant in the room along with other issues shared with comp sports.

Thanks for the reply Simon. I haven’t got anything to counter your concerns above and I suspect it is a case of which is the least bad option.

[Wellsy]

Is there the option to sign one but not the other? I absolutely want the BMC to be more transparent but I don't want it to make GB Climbing a more independent subsidiary.

[spidermonkey09]

....two posts up

[dave k]

Whilst I appreciate the concerns about the BMC finances and all the problems that have been going on with GB climbing I don't see why we would want to create a situation where competition climbing was EVEN more poorly funded.

I get it that most BMC members are outdoor climbers, and until recent years (now having an 11 year old comp daughter who is climbing stuff I can't -a couple of v8s outdoor on the grit last season when she was 10) I didn't have interest in it either. But in recent years I have taken an interest and do like to see Brits like Shauna a few years back and Toby more recently doing well. And also enjoy following the news of X GB althletes like Will, Aidan and Buster, who arguably wouldn't be crushing as hard had it not been for the structure provided during their youth comp GB years.

How can the Germans, French, Swiss, Austrians, Americans and Japanese fund their national squads so well - most fully funded, where as GB althletes are having to self fund most of their training, coaching and travel?

Maybe this idea of separation of GB will somehow bring about a different funding mechanism for GB climbing, but I expect not.

[shark]

Whilst I appreciate the concerns about the BMC finances and all the problems that have been going on with GB climbing I don't see why we would want to create a situation where competition climbing was EVEN more poorly funded.

I don’t think you do. The current state of finances is critical. I don’t know if the reserves policy minimum will be hit for the end of the financial year or not but if not it will be a close miss. GBC is haemorrhaging the BMC’s cash. That’s not my adjective but that of an involved insider. The BMC is spending close to or possibly exceed £1m. Saying it is poorly funded is ludicrous. Saying it is misallocated then you have my attention.

I get it that most BMC members are outdoor climbers, and until recent years (now having an 11 year old comp daughter who is climbing stuff I can't -a couple of v8s outdoor on the grit last season when she was 10) I didn't have interest in it either. But in recent years I have taken an interest and do like to see Brits like Shauna a few years back and Toby more recently doing well. And also enjoy following the news of X GB althletes like Will, Aidan and Buster, who arguably wouldn't be crushing as hard had it not been for the structure provided during their youth comp GB years.

The dad of one of the cited has been repeatedly reported as saying their offspring’s achievements have been despite of, not because of, the BMC

How can the Germans, French, Swiss, Austrians, Americans and Japanese fund their national squads so well - most fully funded, where as GB althletes are having to self fund most of their training, coaching and travel?

I don’t know. You tell me

Maybe this idea of separation of GB will somehow bring about a different funding mechanism for GB climbing, but I expect not.

Living within their means? Spending where it has most effect? We can but dream

[Wellsy]

....two posts up

So it is! Signed accordingly

[shark]

Thanks Wellsy

[petejh]

Whilst I appreciate the concerns about the BMC finances and all the problems that have been going on with GB climbing I don't see why we would want to create a situation where competition climbing was EVEN more poorly funded.

Think it through. GBC. Current = crap*, costs a fortune. Worst case outcome: still crap, costs way less.

Unlikely to be worst case though, but even the above worst case would be an improvement compared to current status.

How can the Germans, French, Swiss, Austrians, Americans and Japanese fund their national squads so well - most fully funded, where as GB althletes are having to self fund most of their training, coaching and travel?

You're making an argument for financial transparency and GBC department accountability. Which is what Shark is pursuing. So you should sign at least part 1 of the petition.


* cover-all word for brevity, I know it isn't all bad

[Davo]

I’ve signed for better financial transparency. I’m afraid I remain unconvinced that separating GB Climbing from the BMC is the best option for us as climbers and mountaineers in general.
I do take the concerns raised here seriously and could be convinced if there was something in the set up of a separate GB Climbing that ensured it was always under the auspices of the BMC.

Dave

[tomtom]

I’ve signed. Whilst I’m in the ‘meh’ category wrt the BMC in general, financial transparency and discussing the changes to GB climbing etc.. strike me as being important.

[Offwidth]

I’ve signed for better financial transparency. I’m afraid I remain unconvinced that separating GB Climbing from the BMC is the best option for us as climbers and mountaineers in general.
I do take the concerns raised here seriously and could be convinced if there was something in the set up of a separate GB Climbing that ensured it was always under the auspices of the BMC.

Dave

Good.

A decision was made on GB Climbing in the organisational change after the ORG review and discussing the wisdom of that is now academic. In practical terms, of what next: quite a few people over the last few years have discussed with Simon why setting up a separate entity for GB Climbing would now be costly, disruptive and slow (probably starting around summer 2025 earliest, as it requires Articles changes with a supermajority). It also wouldn't remove overall BMC financial liability and I think it would weaken governance (currently it is under the main BMC system where Local Areas and Council still have significant formal influence under the BMC Artcles).

The first motion shouldn't be needed, as the the BMC Board should have ensured it was done it already and pressure has been on them for a while now. We almost got there last autumn.  Adding pressure from the wider membership now, on transparency of GB Climbing spending, can only help hurry the Board up.

Part of the bigger problem is not enough experienced people volunteer to help the BMC on governance. We often struggle to fill Local Area officer posts. Council has some long standing vacancies. AGM attendance barely meets quorate levels. I also feel sorry for staff and key volunteer post holders who have done good and important jobs under significant pressure for quite a few years now (and don't forget when critics take pot shots at individuals, those below Board level simply don't have a right of reply).

[shark]

I don’t know where you are getting this ‘quite a few people over the last few years’ and it is also not obvious or proved it must require article change as a subsidiary body.

GBC operating separately with their own bank account will lower the future risk of the type of egregious overspending GBC has been indulging and further protection is possible with the inclusion of a special matter clause as recommended (but not required) in my proposed resolution.

[Offwidth]

I don’t know where you are getting this ‘quite a few people over the last few years’ and it is also not obvious or proved it must require article change as a subsidiary body.

GBC operating separately with their own bank account will lower the future risk of the type of egregious overspending GBC has been indulging and further protection is possible with the inclusion of a special matter clause as recommended (but not required) in my proposed resolution.

Online threads, conversations at the Peak Area etc; including: the President, Directors, Council members, specialist commitee members, an audit specialist, the parents rep on CCPG. etc. You say an article change isn't needed and I simply can't see how that can be.

The costs of change and the disruption are patently obvious, and doing this extra difficult thing in the middle of a financial crisis when everyone is stressed is far from ideal;  even if some people do think it might be a good idea under better circumstances.

[Offwidth]

I don’t know where you are getting this ‘quite a few people over the last few years’ and it is also not obvious or proved it must require article change as a subsidiary body.

GBC operating separately with their own bank account will lower the future risk of the type of egregious overspending GBC has been indulging and further protection is possible with the inclusion of a special matter clause as recommended (but not required) in my proposed resolution.

I should add the overspend is only recent (all previous spends were signed off through democratic governance) and misunderstanding complex UKS contractual requirements isn't something I would call egregious. If it had happened in your proposed seperate unit (I see no reason they would have been more equipt to spot the issue) the BMC would still be liable for any deficit.

You also in your background effectively blamed the CCPG for the oversight failure. This is very unfair: as volunteers they took the issues seriously and tried to get something done on behalf of athletes, parents and other stakeholders and made sensible recommendations to the Board.

[steveri]

I’ve signed. Number 1 is easy, transparency is essential after recent wrong footedness. They can’t carry on with late information and post hoc justification.

Point 2 more a warning shot, ‘this can’t carry on’. Nobody is happy with GBC except possibly people on the payroll. If athletes aren’t happy, that says plenty. Listening isn’t the same as fixing.

I do feel sorry for the people trying to reform the BMC in their spare time.

[shark]

Thank you everyone who has signed in support of the resolutions. 🙏🏻

The petition has been running for 3 days and so far 87 people have signed in support of the BMC disclosing details of the finances of GB Climbing and 78 who have signed in support of the resolution for GB Climbing to be set up as an independent subsidiary of the BMC.

This is an encouraging start but we need ~400 signatories for each of the resolutions for them to be included in the BMC AGM.

To reach this figure please spread the word! 📣 Share on social media where you can and discuss with other BMC members about these resolutions and why members should have the opportunity to vote on them at the AGM.

The links are:
To sign in support on the disclosure of finances https://chng.it/DztL4x2KyV
To sign in support of the subsidiary https://chng.it/XPMn2xybGF
To sign for both https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2 

[Offwidth]

I’ve signed. Number 1 is easy, transparency is essential after recent wrong footedness. They can’t carry on with late information and post hoc justification.

Point 2 more a warning shot, ‘this can’t carry on’. Nobody is happy with GBC except possibly people on the payroll. If athletes aren’t happy, that says plenty. Listening isn’t the same as fixing.

I do feel sorry for the people trying to reform the BMC in their spare time.

How many warning shots that force fomal action have no cost, especially when money is tight and morale low ? Why is Simon not pushing for resolution of what parents, athletes and other stakeholders asked for through CCPG and instead using the problems to back his wishes for a structure with claimed benefits that are unevidenced and backed by misrepresentation in his background information.

I've copied my response from the other channel below:

>Resolution 1 is long overdue 'apple pie'. I hope the Board sees sense and publishes more transparent member costs of GB Climbing soon (as Paul Davis promised back in the autumn).... before the organisation has to spend time and energy dealing with motions asking for something they should already have done.

>I strongly urge members not to support resolution 2. It is based on misinformation in the background Simon wrote and is unclear to an extent in the motion itself.

>Misinformation was the main reason I was so opposed to the way the motion of no confidence was presented a number of years back.... democratic disagreement is a right of BMC members but misrepresentation to garner support isn't.

>There really is no evidence whatsoever the governance problems that led to the letter from parents and athletes (nor the misunderstanding of complex UKS contracts, that led to a genuine overspend) would have been avoided by GB Climbing being an independent structure. How many organisational scandals like the Post Office and Maturnity units do we need to demonstrate structure isn't the key issue in preventing governance failures?.... important people in reasonable structures should have done their job properly but didn't !?! A separate GB Climbing unit would be more expensive due to having to seperate and duplicate admin and some new governance (and other factors) to give independent budgets etc. The change to such a structure now would take over a year (it requires a BMC Articles change, being democratically contentious, despite Simon repeatedly claiming otherwise), it would be expensive and very disruptive... at a time when money is really tight. Any liability for failure of such a unit would still be the responsibility of the BMC to resolve, worst case using significant BMC expenditure, including income from members subs (whilst having reduced governance control to prevent problems arising). The parents and athletes reps are not the ones asking for this resolution and it will almost certainly distract from resolving the issuse they raised through CCPG. We have no clear idea how the grant awarding bodies would react to such a structure. I also see it as disrespectful and dismissive to our members who compete and our small army of volunteers who give up so much time to make the youth comp system work (I know as I've volunteered to help several times).

>The CCPG oversight committee for GB Climbing is formed from volunteers (including athletes and parents) who worked hard to raise stakeholder concerns respectfully to the Board in a difficult situation.  The new incoming CEO of the BMC is the chair of CCPG. Simon says "The CCPG has failed in every respect in meeting its responsibilities" yet fails to consider why a review position (that he misrepresents) came about or how on earth such a failure would lead to a promotion for its chair.

>Prior to the misunderstanding of complex UKS contracts (sometime after autumn 2021) GB Climbing wasn't running at a loss for years, as Simon claims. Jonathan White posted the 2021 situation which was agreed democratically and was on budget.

>How would a (proposed new) reserved matter have helped, given reserved matters give power to Council, yet Council formally approved the Ratho spend by a large majority (to be fair: at a time when the seriousness of BMC finances wasn't obvious, nor were most of the GB Climbing stakeholder concerns)? Aside from CCPG, Council members have been the ones most strongly supporting action on behalf of GB Climbing stakeholders in BMC governance structures; Jonathan White in particular.

>The BMC is in the middle of a financial crisis with other major issues unresolved....and staff and volunteer morale is hardly great... and the last thing the BMC needs now is more manipulation by members using a crisis to push their line on single issues. Simon (Shark) was always strongly opposed to the ODG agreed GB Climbing structure from the beginning.... a valid democratic view .... but please let's not see manipulation of information to help back a resolution based on unproved (ie unevidenced) assertions that  as a minimum will cause even more cost and disruption to the organisation with no guaranteed improvements.