UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => get involved: access, environment, BMC => Topic started by: JR on May 01, 2018, 06:48:18 pm
-
A group of BMC members, including Bob Pettigrew, have launched a counter set of articles of association to the ones that many volunteers of the BMC have been working extremely hard on for the past 12 months, proposing that the BMC should not seek to be the tier 3 Sport England national representative and governing body for climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering. This will have a detrimental effect on the organisation and the sport as a whole.
In order to give a clear message to members, and to define the direction of travel for the BMC, we have proposed the motion below that will be sent to the BMC before the deadline tomorrow, which will go along side the new "official" articles of association to be voted on at the AGM.
It has already achieved more than the number of signatures required to be put forward and voted on at the AGM, however, we want to show the BMC that it has the support of its members to implement these changes, be the umbrella organisation for climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering.
If you are a BMC member, and support the huge amount of work that volunteers have done over the past 12 months to get this to AGM, then please add your signature and we will deliver this to Dave Turnbull in the morning with as many more signatures as possible.
https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-submission-of-ordinary-resolution-to-the-bmc-agm-2018
Please sign and share to your BMC member climbing friends and colleagues, and feel free to share the facebook post here: https://www.facebook.com/johnrobeds/posts/10156567004549658
-
I will sign literally anything if it gives Bob Pettigrew a hard poke in the eye. Done.
-
Canny move John. ;D
Signed.
-
That bloke is a fucking halfwit. Signed.
-
Are Bob's proposals publicly accessible? Or are they as "perfectly clear" as last years objectives?
-
They really need to improve the the security at Petigrew’s “sheltered housing”, that old fart just keeps wandering off the reservation and straight into 1952...
-
Are Bob's proposals publicly accessible? Or are they as "perfectly clear" as last years objectives?
Pettigrew’s proposal here: https://sites.google.com/view/bmc-rr/source-documents?authuser=0
-
proposing that the BMC should not seek to be the tier 3 Sport England national representative and governing body for climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering.
Their motion says governing and representative body status to be maintained, are they wrong?
-
I think they suggest being a Tier 1 body.
-
Ah I see now, ‘detrimental effect’ as in not >£1mill funding, in fact <£250k funding.
-
Deadline is 1pm today.
Be cool to get it to 500+ signatures
-
Agree with poking Bob in the eye.
However the site was very keen for me to connect to Facebook. I'm very keen not to connect anything to Facebook nowadays to be honest. Had already shared via twitter.
-
Thanks Adam,
I know what you're saying about Facebook. Sorry about that.
I was in a rush to get to work (it was actually posted from the train at 200mph) and we needed a platform asap to help it go public and grow. But it worked, twitter, facebook, email, word of mouth...
We just hit 500!
-
Would someone mind explaining the upshot of this as regards the AGM please? I think (correct me if I'm wrong) there are now three proposals on the table: 1) do nothing 2) carry out ORG recommendations 3) carry out alternative recommendations from Pettigrew etc. This petition is to be presented at the AGM in support of 2, I think.
Whats the threshold needed to pass something at the AGM? I keep reading 75%; is this the threshold needed to kill it once and for all and stop it coming back further down the line? Would a simple majority be good enough to get things moving in the right direction? Appreciate a brief exposition of the various potentialities; cheers!
-
I know this subject is terribly dull, and complex, so here goes.
At the AGM (currently) there will be:
1) An "official" set of articles put forward from National Council based on the ORG recommendations (not strictly in line with, but in the spirit of), and tier 3 SE governance compliance.
2) A "counter" set of articles put forward by another group based around tier 1 SE compliance and implementing some of the ORG's recommendations.
To change the BMC's articles requires a special resolution, which needs a 75% vote to be passed.
This is a high bar, and if neither pass, there is "no change" to the articles and stalemate.
3) I have proposed an ordinary resolution (with support of over 700 signatories) which will need a 50% vote to be passed. It doesn't change the articles, but defines the direction of travel as: seeking to achieve tier 3 SE governance compliance, and implementing change in line with the spirit of the ORG recommendations.
If there is stalemate for whatever reason, (3) commits the BMC to seeking to achieve (1) in future, and signals to dismiss (2).
In the case of (1) not passing, and regardless of whether (3) passes, or indeed, if (2) is successful, the BMC's funding from SE will be restricted, and the current whole sport bid application (which includes the partners like Mountain Training) will be rejected.
The whole sport bid, which goes via the BMC as the SE recognised NGB, is still being written, and needs to be approved by SE, but even if it was successful in terms of its content, it will be rejected on the basis of the BMC not having achieved the required standard of governance.
Tier 1 is a lower standard of governance, and tier 3 is required of SE recognised NGBs, so basing a set of articles on tier 1 is rather a moot point. See this statement from SE:
The tier decision for an organisation is dependent on a number of factors. These include: amount of funding; length of relationship with the partner; nature of the relationship with the partner and type of organisation. The amount of funding is one factor but certainly not the deciding factor. All of the National Governing Bodies who we’ve previously funded, and who we continue to fund, have been assessed as Tier 3 of the Code, regardless of their size or level of investment.
To put it into context, the charity that I chair (ABCTT), which receives funding through the whole sport bid, is tier 1, moving to tier 2. It is a tiny organisation (c. 2 FTE staff, and c. 150k revenue).
The BMC is over 10x the size, and rightly needs to meet higher standards of governance in order to help it make good decisions and use its resources and funding properly (whether public grant money or from membership fees). It's about good governance (and that's governance in how decisions are made by and for members, not governance of the "sport" in terms of "rules"). As you can see the BMC is having a very tricky time making those decisions at the moment, because it's not entirely clear in the current constitution and articles who decides what.
Very few people will read the full set of articles proposed, and I can understand why, they're dull as dishwater, but many volunteers (including me on the ORG) have put in the hard yards getting this all to place where it can get put forward to AGM.
Essentially, if you support (3), you should, in my view, support (1).
-
Would someone mind explaining the upshot of this as regards the AGM please? I think (correct me if I'm wrong) there are now three proposals on the table: 1) do nothing 2) carry out ORG recommendations 3) carry out alternative recommendations from Pettigrew etc. This petition is to be presented at the AGM in support of 2, I think.
Whats the threshold needed to pass something at the AGM? I keep reading 75%; is this the threshold needed to kill it once and for all and stop it coming back further down the line? Would a simple majority be good enough to get things moving in the right direction? Appreciate a brief exposition of the various potentialities; cheers!
OK. (some guesswork involved)
There are two special resolutions requiring 75% - the National Council recommended constitution (based on ORG recommendations) and the alternative constitution (opposing ORG recommendations). These would (probably) be separate items as opposed to one either/or/neither vote. It would be ridiculous to vote in favour of both constitutions but that option might be possible.
There is now an ordinary resolution ie what started this thread that requires 50%. The main reason for JR instigating this resolution was in the eventuality that no constitution is carried but members have an opportunity to vote on whether they are generally in favour of ORG recommendations (not all of which are constitutional) therefore indicate the direction of travel they want (which I would characterise generally as regressive or progressive).
Hope that is clear? :geek:
-
Thats great, thanks JR and Shark.
Stupid question, but I presume the special resolution requires 75% of the total votes cast, including abstentions, rather than 75% of the total membership?! I know the answer to this but just double checking!
How is the vote structured? Does everyone vote on the Tier 3 resolution from National Council, then vote again on the Tier 1 Resolution, then again on the ordinary resolution in the event of stalemate? (Sorry Sharkl, just saw you answered this. Presume it would have to be seperate rather than an either or)
75% seems reasonably likely from my point of view if there is a strong campaign beforehand. What was the last special resolution to succeed at an AGM?
-
So to ask the obvious..
What does the BMC need to do to meet tier 3, versus what does it need to do to meet tier 1?
In simple language please.
Surely that's important to know (if you really care)?
Can I assume among the tier 3 requirements is a requirement to 'promote participation'. Or is that too cynical of me?
-
So to ask the obvious..
What does the BMC need to do to meet tier 3, versus what does it need to do to meet tier 1?
In simple language please.
Surely that's important to know (if you really care)?
Can I assume among the tier 3 requirements is a requirement to 'promote participation'. Or is that too cynical of me?
Nothing to do with participation. The main requirement is that policy making lies with those who carry out policy so there is legal accountability for the outcomes ie policy decision making and execution should all lie with the Executive board of Directors whereas currently it is split with National Council.
Tier 1 might make allowances for such a split of responsibility and accountability but Tier 3 compliance definitely doesn't. .
-
Has the 'promoting growth in participation in all activities the BMC represents' statement made it into either set of articles?
-
Has the 'promoting growth in participation in all activities the BMC represents' statement made it into either set of articles?
No it isnt included because it isn't a constitutional matter - its an as yet undecided policy statement.
Potentially it will be up for debate in the round two implementation of the ORG recommendations - that's assuming we ever get through round one!
-
What irks me the most about this situation, is that Petigrew et al, have not run a direct campaign to achieve election to BMC office; or attempted to win over the majority with a policy of reform (as they see it). They do not attempt to convince the membership at large of the wisdom of their views. They wheedle and connive, through petty procedural quirks, to stall and obstruct. They fly in the face of the vast majority of the membership.
They are well aware that they are not in sync with the membership, that they cannot win over a majority. They simply think they are superior too and more important than, the actual members. It is as if they’re primary goal is to prune away all those who don’t conform to their world view.
Very much a “If I can’t have it, no one can” attitude that reeks of the worst kind of despotism.
-
I do agree there appears to be a tone of patronising arrogance - but despotic is taking it a little far!
I understand that there will be a nomination for President that somewhat represents their views. Certainly they have lobbied hard (but legitimately) as members to gain changes to the National Council proposed articles (then submitted an alternative anyway). Some of the signatories are participating in discussions on UKC and of course there is Crag (Caradoc) Jones' "independent" :lol: website.
There is an open forum that takes place 15 May in Manchester which will be streamed and they will no doubt be broadcasting their views to the membership.
-
I do agree there appears to be a tone of patronising arrogance - but despotic is taking it a little far!
I understand that there will be a nomination for President that somewhat represents their views. Certainly they have lobbied hard (but legitimately) as members to gain changes to the National Council proposed articles (then submitted an alternative anyway). Some of the signatories are participating in discussions on UKC and of course there is Crag (Caradoc) Jones' "independent" :lol: website.
There is an open forum that takes place 15 May in Manchester which will be streamed and they will no doubt be broadcasting their views to the membership.
Act , scene 1:
The Broken Record 30: “Do this thing! Or we shal all die a most heinous death”.
Membership: “Eh?”
The Broken Record 30: “Look, all these exulted luminaries agree! It is the end of days”.
Some of the Exulted Luminaries: “Eh? I never said that, that’s not my signature. What?”
The Broken Record 30: “ Ignore the man behind the curtain! We will send secret communiques to our chosen ones and you, the members, must take their superior judgment as law!”
Membership: “Ok, we’ll have a vote, yeah? Sort it all out, discus it and debate it all over the aether and in regional meetings everywhere. You know, put it to bed and all that. Deal?”
Act 1, scene 2: “The Vote”.
Poor Bugger what done take all the flak: “It’s all too much! It’s personal attacks and underhand rumour mongering, fake news and dodgy emails. I quit!”
The Broken Record 30: “Let us (me, actually, for I am legion, Alpha and Omega) lay it all out in it’s glorious (and often irrelevant) detail! For, lo, shall ye see the truth of my words and my light shall shine upon the waters”.
Membership: “Um, yeah, uh, thanks but no thanks. Like decisively, clearly, no; you’re alright mate, we got this. Ta and all that”.
Act 2, scene 1:
The Broken Record 30: “Yea! For we are risen again! Hear our word and be blessed in mine eyes!”
Membership: (mumbling) “Oh FFS!”
The Broken Record 30: “But we have a plan! Such is our truth that it shall not be denied! Verily shall we bring forth a motion that shall muddy the waters and split the vote! Because we know that this will almost certainly bring about the holy stalemate! And lo, upon the barren fields shall fall the seeds of of commities, board and membership’s efforts and trials. And we shall win! Without even actually achieving any sort of consensus! For we care not what the members asked for last year, only for our rarified dreams of glories past!”
Membership: “WTF? I thought we’d done this shit last year? Aren’t we just supposed to be approving, or not, the proposals we asked the big boys and girls to make? I don’t have time for this shit! How many farking pages? You know what? Fuck it! That’s what. I cannot be arsed. Let someone else do it.”
The Broken Record 30: “Yyyyeesssssss, we loves it, my preciousssss.” (licks lips and fondles lose change in trouser pocket).
-
What irks me the most about this situation, is that Petigrew et al, have not run a direct campaign to achieve election to BMC office; or attempted to win over the majority with a policy of reform (as they see it). They do not attempt to convince the membership at large of the wisdom of their views. They wheedle and connive, through petty procedural quirks, to stall and obstruct. They fly in the face of the vast majority of the membership.
They are well aware that they are not in sync with the membership, that they cannot win over a majority. They simply think they are superior too and more important than, the actual members. It is as if they’re primary goal is to prune away all those who don’t conform to their world view.
Very much a “If I can’t have it, no one can” attitude that reeks of the worst kind of despotism.
It is an example of Brexitism(R)
(yes you heard it here first folks..)
-
What irks me the most about this situation, is that Petigrew et al, have not run a direct campaign to achieve election to BMC office; or attempted to win over the majority with a policy of reform (as they see it). They do not attempt to convince the membership at large of the wisdom of their views. They wheedle and connive, through petty procedural quirks, to stall and obstruct. They fly in the face of the vast majority of the membership.
They are well aware that they are not in sync with the membership, that they cannot win over a majority. They simply think they are superior too and more important than, the actual members. It is as if they’re primary goal is to prune away all those who don’t conform to their world view.
Very much a “If I can’t have it, no one can” attitude that reeks of the worst kind of despotism.
It is an example of Brexitism(R)
(yes you heard it here first folks..)
I'd like to chip in that we who voted against Bob are also engaging in Leaver behaviour - you lost the vote so now you should shut up.
As Ian Hyslop said - even after the vote, you continue to make the argument in order to temper the final outcome.
-
The Open Forum (http://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-constitution-the-way-ahead) took place last night. It was livestreamed and the footage is here:
https://youtu.be/Am3Keh9plv4
Quite frankly I found the whole thing bizarre and unedifying and am not sure if I am fully reconciled to whether I was witnessing member democracy in action or realpolitik given the amount of horse trading that had evidently gone on.
The two protagonists at the front were Andy Symes who is the National Councils designated head of the Implementation Group who is finalising the National Council tier 3 based constitution and Jonathan White who was one of the signatories of the opposing teir 1 constitution. Tony Greaves was Chairing. Dave Turnbull also there in case facts need clarifying in a neutralish capacity and Crag Jones on the end for god knows what reason.
Rather than seperately arguing their cases Andy and John had clearly spent a lot of time together and Andy had made revisions to the Tier 3 motion to meet many of the criticisms of Jonathons group to extent that Jonathon said that he was sufficiently satisfied to recommend to the other signatories to withdraw the opposing motion. However, to what extent he was able to speak for the group was unclear and made more doubtful when another of the signatories in the room, Rodney Gallagher stood up and stated that both motions should be withdrawn :wall:
I was extremely uneasy that a group of BMC members operating outside the normal democratic structures (area meetings, national council etc) have been able to exert so much influence on whatever the proposed constitution turns out to be, However, if this means that their proposal is withdrawn then I guess it was expedient and the ends justified the means to bring this whole protracted situation to a close.
However, if the new constitution means that the limitations exacted by National Council on the Executive are so onerous that the Board Directors have to ask permission to fart then it doesn't really matter if they have primacy or not as their decision making capacity will be so fettered that nothing substantive will have changed and the BMC will continue muddling along much as before.
-
You seem to be objecting to the fact that the consultation period actually involved some consultation rather than the one and only proposal being waived through without question.
-
You seem to be objecting to the fact that the consultation period actually involved some consultation rather than the one and only proposal being waived through without question.
The ORG consulted extensively via the largest and most comprehensive survey commissioned to date and meeting extensively with stakeholder groups including the BMC30 and outside affected partners such as Mountain Training etc. That was the consultation period.
The ORG made their recommendations on the most suitable constitutional changes to meet company law, Sport England requirements and best practice governance in an initial report. Consultation following the initial report then led to a few further changes.
The report and recommendations were then handed over to the National Council to do as they saw fit and NC set up an Implementation Group to carry out the constitutional aspects of the recommendations with an explicit brief to meet SE's tier 3 requirements. At this point a small pressure group was able to use influence to gain further concessions to their viewpoint using a tabled counter motion as a bargaining tool.
-
I'm happy with the horsetrading if it all comes off OK. The BMC has had enough damage from disruption and stalemate and the prospect of going into the AGM with a serious chance that the democratically formulated BMC Implementation Group (IG) position on the ORG recommendations, as ratifed by the democratic elected National Council (NC) on the new Articles might not reach the 75% vote required was very worrying (last year was the highest vote numbers in AGM history but only 5% of the full membership). Like Shark, I wouldn't want to see the proposed new Board tied in knots such that it couldn't function properly but the proposed changes were pretty much putting the intent wrt the membership body (the new NC and new form of President), holding the board to account (from the perspective the IG expected) into black and white in the newly proposed Memorandum of Understanding. It also puts any Independant Director candidates who meet the required skill set for the Board to an AGM member vote (rather than a board selected best candidate put to the AGM for ratification). I see both these particular changes as positive and only possible as the BMC/IG team have negotiated a bit of movement from Sport England as well as from negotiations with the sensible Tier 1 people, like Jonathon and Crag.
Some of the less sensible Tier 1 people at the meeting (not just Rodney) wanted more delay to be 'ultra-democratic'. However this is in the context of a 2 year process started in 2015 and already given an exceptional extra year extension. Sport England rightly expect a decision this summer. The delays are because the NC left things to drift (yes those member reps with primacy that the Tier 1 folk wanted to retain most of their power and who also voted in the Climb Britain rebrand). I want to be clear these things happened in NC with no ill intentions but the NC do seem a bit detatched at times from ordinary member views and a bit slow at times to repond to externally set timetables: a situation that should go away with a board and the full membership (plebs) having a right to watch at AGM. The new structures have much improved direct pleb input (much to the horror of some of the highly experienced activists who exploited their power and influence in the past) like Live streaming and electonic voting at the AGM and areas. There are also proposals for a couple of direct member elected reps from the whole UK and a proper club rep (currently an observer). Also better codes of practice similar to best practice in modern organisations, that would prevent some of the worst abuses we have seen in the secret distribution of misinformation that were leaked (on which point I can show some folk at the Peak Area next week some of these letters that are not available openly online, if you ask me there)
I can't see all the old troublemakers backing down from Tier 1 (so their motion might legally stand for an AGM vote) but if the sensible end of the Tier 1 vote, led by Jonathon White and Crag Jones, leave the motion the rest look pretty stranded to me. People still do need to vote or as it looks pretty certain those with undemocratic intent will try and scupper the Tier 3 plans; it will be much easier with electronic voting, but that applies on both sides. The leaked letters from the remnants of the BMC 30 don't indicate any sign of peace: the most recent ones speculate on the upcoming Presidential contest and slip back into the same patronising, sexist attitudes we have sadly got used to. This is because, since the acting President is standing down, Lynn, as a current VP, has volunterered to wear the traditional BMC asbestos as the exec linked candidate to face the other candidate, Les.
BTW for people with a life considering watching the BMC TV YouTube film of the Open Forum, it's 2hours and a bit long, so if you want a quick view, start watching at 1.58.00 to get a sense of the compromise and what needs doing next.
-
The latest from Andy Syme.... the rump of the opposition Tier 1 proposal is now down from 42 to 13 (there were 11 of the 42 from the leadership of the BMC 30, with a few missing, as away on expeditions) . So already well below the 25 formally required for a motion.
https://m.facebook.com/pg/BMCYorkshireArea/posts/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=1