the shizzle > get involved: access, environment, BMC

Signatories needed by BMC members for resolutions at the 2024 AGM

(1/6) > >>

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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page