[shark]

If you signed the petition for the BMC resolutions can you email me your membership number and postcode to: simon@simonleeconsulting.co.uk

Whilst we have sufficient numbers signed up to include the resolutions (ie over 382) the BMC Office was unable to verify a substantial number from the Change petition info as being BMC members so I need this additional info for the unverified signatories. The deadline is April 27th.

I have also sent a further new 29 new signatories for verification today. If you’d like to add yourself to the list the petition is here:

https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2

This will give the membership the opportunity to vote at the online BMC AGM.

[shark]

Update

Quote by me on UKC

I sent the details of 411 signatories for the subsidiary resolution and 461 signatories for the financial disclosure resolution and was completely confident that at least 382 but I’m told that for the subsidiary signatories only 151 were verified, 45 came up with a match but weren’t current members and a staggering 195 weren’t matched at all. Similarly for the financial disclosure only 177 were verified, 50 came up as match but weren’t current members and 214 weren’t matched at all. I’ve requested further info from the office to try to understand how it went so wrong.

So in terms of what went wrong I now understand that the Change location isn’t as exact as I assumed it was as it was often drawn from the IP address and often comes up with a nearby post district. I have asked that given this that the verification by location is relaxed more ie member name matches approximate location but this isn’t seen as acceptable.

Of the 45 ‘non members’ I have received emails from 7 of them so far including our famous alpinist. I don’t know whether their middle name is on the database or not. I don’t know the reason for the other six being counted as non members. I have agreed with the Office to park that for the time being.

Thank you to everyone who has emailed me. This has enabled me to gather the membership numbers of 62 signatories for both resolutions who were classified as non members or no matches in the verification process. Keep the emails coming.

Additionally there are 58 new signatories for both resolutions of which I have the membership numbers of 20 of them. Please sign the petition if you haven’t already.

I have chased those I know via Facebook and will email those in the CC handbook who I can name match.

I wanted to publish a list of the 200 or so names of the unverified signatories so others can chase them for member numbers on my behalf but that appears to conflict with GDPR and a post I made on UKC to that effect was pulled.

I will submit the updated back to the Office on the 27th which is the deadline. I have made a request that if the verification thresholds aren’t met that the Office sends out emails to the unverified to see whether confirmation can be ascertained that way

I’d like to thank Arun, Josh and Thom for the work they have carried out so far and the further work that is heading their way. We are working in less than ideal circumstances to unclear rules. I’d like to stress that I believe they are working diligently as neutral parties.

I won’t be able to devote as much time to this as I have recently in the run up to the deadline as I have a significant birthday tomorrow and off to Kalymnos on Monday.

Thank you everyone who has supported me and the campaign so far.

[shark]

I have just submitted updated verification info to the Office for many of the unverified signatories as well as the details of 71 new signatories for both resolutions.

The total number of signatories stand at 512 for financial disclosure and 462 for the subsidiary.

It remains to be seen whether the signatories that are validated exceed the required threshold (382) for either or both resolutions. Therefore, I have formally confirmed I wish to progress the resolutions through Members Council as well (requiring only 25 signatories, validated number already well exceeded) whilst the validation process is taking place.   

For reference the resolutions are:

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.

Thank you everyone who signed and in particular everyone who took the trouble to dig out and send me their membership number (150+ people)

Simon

[shark]

Back from Kalymnos but off on my travels again later today and weather permitting will have no signal from tomorrow till Sunday 12th

I was told that the Peak MC reps were gagged at Weds evening’s meeting. It was pointed out to me this was a missed opportunity by MC as the article: 11.8.2 MC includes "may refer the resolution to members through area meetings for discussion & feedback" prior to accepting or rejecting.

Certainly a primary role of MC reps is to feedback from Council meetings and this was pointed out pointedly by at least one attendee from what I heard.

I gather one of the reps said that the published rebuttal document wasn’t endorsed/approved by Members Council despite the article saying it had been.

I chased Andy Syme again for feedback on MC’s position last night by email and he replied this time saying he would provide a formal response today. I’ll share when I get it.

Regarding verification I requested when I submitted the updated spreadsheets that the criteria was relaxed in light of the better understanding of how Change worked such that if there was a unique name on the BMC database that matched the Change list and the person was in the vicinity of the postcode or part postcode then that person should be approved. I also requested if the threshold wasn’t hit then a email was sent out to any no match names to ask whether they had signed the petition.

I’m told that the deadline for supporting papers is the 27th May. I’ve done a lot of work already on a paper detailing about the background to previous recommendations at the BMC for a subsidiary and how it might work. If I can find time I’ll do a rebuttal to the published rebuttal document*. I’ve already indicated some of the flaws it contains online.

I will also be away weather permitting with no signal 18-26 May so won’t be able to attend the Open Forum on the 21st May. I encourage everybody to go particularly if you have questions on the resolutions process, the finances and the published rebuttal document.

At the suggestion of the CEO a few/couple of weeks ago I had agreed to having an Open Forum just for the Resolutions but have heard nothing back on this since.

Finally it has been confirmed that the BMC has sought and received legal advice on whether the subsidiary was a special (75% majority required) or ordinary resolution (50%). As I have always said and contrary to that stated by Andy Syme, Offwidth et al it is in fact Ordinary albeit with a couple of caveats which I’ll explore if it gets on the agenda. Good to see sense has prevailed here too. It has been in short supply.

*Rebuttal paper

[shark]

It’s all over.


Dear Simon

The BMC Staff have now validated the member votes in support for your 2 resolutions as detailed below. Validation of membership is an important part of the integrity of this process; Article 11.11 allows the board to verify that all signatories are valid voting members. To ensure this the BMC have spent a considerable amount of staff hours and resource ensuring the validation is accurate. 

 Resolution 1

Validated Members 320

Validated not Members 42

Unvalidated 146 

 Resolution 2

 Validated Members 279

 Validated not Members 39

 Unvalidated 140

In both cases the resolutions failed to reach the threshold defined in Article 11.8.1 that would require them to be raised at the AGM.

The Members’ Council understand that the subject areas are important to you and others and appreciate the effort made to go through this process.   I also thank you for taking the time to present your proposal to Council on 28 April, having written formally to the Council on 26 April 2024, to review your proposal under Article 11.8.2.  

The Council have considered your resolutions at the Council meeting on 28 April and reached the following conclusions:

Resolution 1

Council fully supports the principle of transparency of accounts both in line with our legal obligations and to ensure members understand where money they contribute, or the organisation receives, is used.

The 2023 accounts and 2024 budget will be published before the AGM and the Board has already committed to providing a clear explanation to members of the GBC and wider financial position as part of the AGM paperwork.  In addition, the members will have opportunities to discuss any concerns further at the Open Forum in May or at the post AGM ‘Drop-In’ Discussions already advertised.

The 2022 accounts have already been finalised and posted in the 2022 financial audit.  The Council accepts the opinion of the CEO and Chair of the Board that it would be an unacceptable cost in staff and volunteer time to re-open and restate the accounts to provide the information required, and such effort would not move the BMC forward or be a use of BMC resources that would benefit Members. 

The Council therefore rejected the proposed resolution.

Resolution 2

The Council recognise the need to discuss the future of GB Climbing within the wider BMC structure.  This has already started, is being facilitated at the current round of Area Meetings, as well as in the Open Forum in May and will be discussed with staff and stakeholders and at the post AGM ‘Drop-In’, which we encourage you to be part of. 

The proposal made would, in the opinion of Council, be very detrimental to a significant section of our membership.  Holding a vote at this time could also significantly damage the BMCs reputation with partners and potentially further jeopardise the funding we receive.  This would not be in the interests of the BMC or its members.  As is detailed in the implications paper.

The Council fully supports the proposals and process of consultation outlined by the Chair and President in the statement published on 28 April https://thebmc.co.uk/bmc-member-update .

The Council therefore rejected the proposed resolution.

In line with Article 11.8.2 (b) “The decision of the Council is final in this regard and the proposed resolution, or materially similar resolutions, may not be raised again under Article 11.8.2 until at least 12 months have elapsed since the date of the submission of the first resolution to the Council under this Article 11.8.2.” The date of submission is recorded as 26 April 2024; i.e. the date you sent the email requesting Council review.

Whilst recognising you may be disappointed with these decisions Council hopes that you can agree that we have followed the processes defined in the Articles and made our decisions based on what we collectively believe are the needs of the whole of our diverse community of Members and participants across our range of activities.

kind regards

Andy

Andy Syme ‑ President​​​​

Email: President@thebmc.co.uk

Web: https://thebmc.co.uk

Working for Climbers, Hill
​Walkers
​& Mountaineers since 1944

Manchester

M20 2BB

[shark]

Thank you everyone who voted and gave other support. I don’t have anything else to say at this point