Can the BMC stop referring to comps as INDOOR competition climbing. If I remember rightly the BBC was outdoors and things like the DWS in the SW are outdoor. The key thing is that comps take place on Artificial Climbing Structures.
Can the BMC stop referring to comps as INDOOR competition climbing. If I remember rightly the BBC was outdoors and things like the DWS in the SW are outdoor. The key thing is that comps take place on Artificial Climbing Structures.Fake Climbing Comps OK with you then Graeme? :tease:
"There are some impressive and experienced people on the review group and John Roberts" just spotted this.... hope JR gets a suitable revenge ;-)
The on-line survey software needs sorting out. I loaded the page then went back to read the summary report, then went back to the survey and it said I'd already completed it. Tried a different browser and it's the same story.
The on-line survey software needs sorting out. I loaded the page then went back to read the summary report, then went back to the survey and it said I'd already completed it. Tried a different browser and it's the same story.
The extension of the timetable gives you, the members, more time to consider the proposed ORG recommendations, with a period of almost five months prior to the AGM, when a vote will be required on the general principles, and then a further period of reflection of five months, prior to the vote on the new Articles of Association in November 2018.
Anyway - as far as I understand the situation - it’s going to take 18-24 months to act on the review that’s taken place (think local authority/bbc style buerocracy operating at snails pace).
Which is fine - all should be done right etc. Blah blah. But in the meantime the BMC will not get half a million £££’a year...
Anyway - as far as I understand the situation - it’s going to take 18-24 months to act on the review that’s taken place (think local authority/bbc style buerocracy operating at snails pace).
Which is fine - all should be done right etc. Blah blah. But in the meantime the BMC will not get half a million £££’a year...
Why not get a paper written on that on Crag's site.
...meanwhile we are likely to continue trading with a 6 figure deficit whilst potential grant money from Sport England goes down the toilet. Furthermore many projects or work that is ambitious/contentious will be stalled or slowed down whilst issues remain unresolved and the attentions of (currently risk averse) decision makers are elsewhere.
Does the BMC have the coffers to support such a deficit, or will there be cuts to programmes/jobs/mountain mending whilst this is being sorted?
...meanwhile we are likely to continue trading with a 6 figure deficit whilst potential grant money from Sport England goes down the toilet. Furthermore many projects or work that is ambitious/contentious will be stalled or slowed down whilst issues remain unresolved and the attentions of (currently risk averse) decision makers are elsewhere.
I’m not surprised that the BMC don’t want to do anything (further) contentious and that they are risk averse, they’re a governing body, not hedge fund managers after all.
...meanwhile we are likely to continue trading with a 6 figure deficit whilst potential grant money from Sport England goes down the toilet. Furthermore many projects or work that is ambitious/contentious will be stalled or slowed down whilst issues remain unresolved and the attentions of (currently risk averse) decision makers are elsewhere.
Does the BMC have the coffers to support such a deficit, or will there be cuts to programmes/jobs/mountain mending whilst this is being sorted?
I’m not surprised that the BMC don’t want to do anything (further) contentious and that they are risk averse, they’re a governing body, not hedge fund managers after all.
... hence the large cash reserve all kept in mainstream deposit accounts earning bugger all interest you may be pleased to hear.
The more I read from the so called BMC30 and their chums, the less inclined I am to listen to their arguments. They've already discredited themselves by lying and trying to mislead people to get their own way, so why would I trouble myself with trying to pick through their ramblings to find anything of substance. It's a shame because there might be the odd shred of sense lurking here and there.
I know it might upset you that people go sport climbing and indoor climbing and bouldering nowadays, but nobody's going to make you do that stuff if you don't want to, Crag.
You read my mind TT.
..wait a minute..... :-\
I know it might upset you that people go sport climbing and indoor climbing and bouldering nowadays, but nobody's going to make you do that stuff if you don't want to, Crag.
I know it might upset you that people go sport climbing and indoor climbing and bouldering nowadays, but nobody's going to make you do that stuff if you don't want to, Crag.
Will. I think you might have the wrong guy. I spend half my life sport climbing and indoors. Can't boulder for toffee though! My kids competed continuously for 2 years. I get the competition thing; do it myself in downhill mountain biking all the time. But I don't like the idea of a bunch of self appointed 'directors' telling the rest of the world what's good for me or you with neither of us having any effective way to object or change that; and that's what's on the table. Nice tin hat by the way. Send it on.
Will. I think you might have the wrong guy. I spend half my life sport climbing and indoors. Can't boulder for toffee though! My kids competed continuously for 2 years. I get the competition thing; do it myself in downhill mountain biking all the time.
Answered my own question. The list of MONC signatories is here (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1441)
Crag Jones isn’t on it
I can't stand this "BMC30" label. It makes them sound like some official body, or a notorious group of heroic rebels, when actually they're just twats.Actually, to me, it conjures up some awful ‘80s New-Ro band...
Anyhow point taken, I'll put up a bit more beta and make an 'About' page on the web-site so that any contributors can do that as well.
In the meantime, excuse the 'cut and paste' job until I have a bit more time.11) In summary "my ticklist is your wishlist"
The reason this issue is of paramount importance is that the argument is not about a particular decision,
IT’S ABOUT HOW DECISIONS ARE MADE AND BY WHOM
Please forgive the capitals, but that’s the nub of it. Those proposed changes will inevitably affect all future decisions, drastically reducing the scope for member input. That’s what all the fuss is about.
The ORG proposals are highly contentious in both respects in that:
a) they are saying that a board of directors should be primarily responsible for taking future decisions not membership bodies.
b) also that a high proportion of that board is ‘appointed’, not elected, and furthermore, those appointees can then go on to make further appointments, further reducing members potential to influence the course of the BMC.
"Give us your money and we'll decide what's good for you and whilst we're at it, we'll decide who 'we' are as well." sums it up really.
To add insult to injury, all this has come out of an Organizational Review that was meant to address the lack of accountability. Their conclusions are exacerbating the problem not alleviating it. They review did not engage the membership or be honest with them about alternative options or why the favoured outcome was pursued.
Even as we speak the already contentious proposals are being re-written so the need for the board to seek members ‘approval’ is being further reduced so they only need to ‘consult’ and ‘consider’ the membership. Beyond that a largely unelected body can do what it wants.
There has been a lot of stuff written on this. Please see:
https://sites.google.com/view/bmc-rr/reviewdocuments (https://sites.google.com/view/bmc-rr/reviewdocuments)
before the turkeys vote for Christmas!
Look what you've done now. I've actually gone and read that bloody report. I can't really see anything wrong with it.
Another resource on this subject. Dave T's thoughts to the Feb NC meeting:
You haven't outlined your relationship with the BMC 30 though you do confirm you are an Alpine Club member above.
The Alpine Club appears (externally at least) as highly bound up with the BMC 30 given Pettigrew (and I assume most of the others) are members too though I gather the Alpine Club did not itself back the MONC..
There is a lot of baggage and history with the Alpine Club over the BMC and I have seen it described as the "Senior Club" (no idea what that means or entails) and that it could have effectively become the BMC but turned the opportunity down at the time (with some members regretting that ever since). As I understand it the website was initiated in order not to clog up the Alpine Club online discussions - is that right?.
Can you join up the dots please.
I thought the BMC was not in compliance with the companies act? Which is illegal?
Also, I no-longer understand Sport England’s objection to the reserve matters (proposal 1c). I understood that they objected to any matters being reserved for “members”, and that such would be “non-compliant”, yet isn’t there clear provisions for exactly that within the act? Doesn’t Part 4 state that directors powers can be limited by constitution and member resolution? And aren’t we all “members” as defined in Part 8, Chapter 1?
My head hurts.
The content of the pre-AGM Summit magazine has gone to the printers today. Normally this issue would include the AGM agenda and associated papers as appropriate.
However there has been a considerable amount of dialogue over the past few months since the publication of the final Organisational Review Group (ORG) Report. National Council has resolved on an early implementation of those ORG recommendations relating to governance, and to defer the remainder into a second phase to enable further consultation with members. Implementing the governance changes required for this initial phase has involved drafting a brand new set of Articles of Association for consideration at the June AGM.
These Articles have gone through several iterations over a short period of time, in response to member feedback both directly and through the Area meetings. The final changes were agreed and approved by National Council on 28 April, and importantly contain significant differences, and National Council believes improvements, from the version that was available to the Area meetings in April.
Whilst the proposed new Articles themselves will be released within the next few days, in order to ensure that members have sufficient time to view and consider this latest version it has been decided to extend the deadline for the submission of resolutions until 5pm on 16 May 2018. As a result the AGM agenda will not be finalised and circulated until 18 May 2018. The deadline for nominations for election of officer posts remains unchanged.
This extra time will provide additional opportunity for debate and discussion, and to further this we are hosting an Open Forum in Manchester on 15 May (see here for details (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-constitution-the-way-ahead)). This will be live-streamed for those that can’t attend in person, and we hope that as many members as possible will participate.
Further information about the AGM will be available in Summit magazine, as well as on the BMC website.
David Stanley (don’t know who he is) has been appointed Project Manager (part time paid role). The two volunteer members are Paul Evans and Roger Murray. Paul is an active volunteer who supplies a lot of photos for guides and was also active on UKC and Crag Jones’ site debating the minutae of the constitutional changes. Roger I think was the gent who spoke knowledgably at the AGM on the difficulties of implementing cultural change. So two excellent additions IMO. :2thumbsup:
The Implentation Group is now known as the Organisational Development Group. Hmmm. :-\
This suggests that they are less tied to implementing the ORG recommendations than before. To me this removes some of the task related urgency which is never a good thing with tortoise BMC. Also given the extent of consultation and work the ORG entailed I hope the ORG recommendations and difficult decisions highlighted by the report aren’t substantively strayed from, watered down, delayed or obfuscated. :worms:
The work is divided in two between those areas led by the Dave Turnbull CEO and those led by Lynn Robinson President with John Roberts VP and the Project Manager coordinating between the two and filling the gap in the middle. I see Roger Murray is specifically supporting Dave on Strategy, Vision, Operations and Finance which is a good thing too as he is lacking in these areas.
An update is promised for the November area meetings. No word yet on the appointment of a Chairperson. Made the mistake of referring to it as Chairman when I last spoke to Lynn :spank:
You also forgot to mention there are numerous other volunteers involved in the various workstreams (several in each)
most of the sign off will probably be in 2020 and some areas with a lot of member feedback and/or AGM rejection might take longer than that.
:wall:
The work to assess .... options for competition climbing structures are underway and both are expected to take a longer time to resolve than the other work in progress;
The work to assess .... options for competition climbing structures are underway and both are expected to take a longer time to resolve than the other work in progress;
This stands out as especially disappointing. There is a golden opportunity to make the most of the run up to Tokyo 2020 with regard to securing future public and private funding. Currently UK Sport Olympic funding is channeled through the UK Institute of Sport because the BMC is not fit to manage it. By the time the structures are sorted out the Olympics will have come and gone.
Most opponents of comp climbing and also supporters of comp climbing were in favour of a launch of a separate comp subsidiary as mooted in the ORG report. Nonetheless there is fear in some quarters that a split would overall be 'bad' for climbing with the usual example cited of the IFSC splitting from the UIAA and that it is best to keep all factions under one roof. Why it was 'bad' isn't clear to me as the IFSC as separate body was entirely successful in its prime purpose of getting climbing in the Olympics. It is only bad as far as I can see because the UIAA's power and influence has diminished as a consequence not bad for the sport as a whole. That is not a good reason for the BMC to retain Comp Climbing in house IMO.
It seems that the BMC both wants competition climbing and doesn't want it. This isn't good for competition climbing which would have more chance of flourishing with a sense of purpose outside an organisation that has never been wholeheartedly behind it and is currently deadlocked on the issue.
If asked what image “Chairman” instantly conjures up I would, sad to say, that it is a white older grandee type (as they mainly currently are). “Chairperson” instantly mixes that gender bias up whereas Chair conjures up a four legged wooden object...
I thought we might get this from you ;-). The MoU is part on an ODG worksteam and we can't pre-define the outcome of this work nor the democratic outcomes of any minor tweeks to the articles they might recommend. I'm speaking as someone who agrees with your concerns and, without second guessing myself, would need convincing that the current articles need adapting.
Lynn's role in this is to represent the membership, not easy in times of change, but her willingness to get out and about and face real concerns is very obvious.
Lynn's role in this is to represent the membership, not easy in times of change, but her willingness to get out and about and face real concerns is very obvious.
“Representing the membership” on this topic would most obviously be interpreted as being in favour of additional mechanisms, influence or power that the NC can have over the Board’s decision making such as 1.2.1 quoted above.
Also when Lynn says the MoU will be used to hold the Board to account she is of course a member of the Board and party to decision making and able to report back.
Getting acceptance of 1.2.1 might be seen as a victory for the membership but it would also be a loss for the organisation in terms of decision making and good governance in my view.
What does holding to account mean anyway in practical terms ? That there is a way of punishing the board by summoning them and sacking members if they do things that NC don’t like?
Looking at the MoU Group's Terms of Reference I am really surprised that it was endorsed by NC as it is a real hotch potch.
In Dennis' s day in charge if the BMC, by reporting such handbags to the police climbers would have been laughed out of the organisation.
Especially given the author.
It's pretty funny how so much of the thing revolves around the toilet blocks
The thread or my rant? Because I’ve no idea what the thread is about. There’s nowt ‘doublespeak’ about the two pad rule man, quite the opposite.
Jeez, whatever little interest I had in the BMC has slowly been ground down by this complete pile of bollocks. Pages of unintelligible ramblings, double speak, management style euphemisms, and underhand politics. It’s like a public sector upper middle management get together. Id be curious to know if anyone here apart from those involved actually understands or gives a shit what the BMC cronies are up to.
I appreciate the compliment of course Matt, and now feel strangely anxious I can’t live up to the role of providing euphemistic esoteric contradictory hippy ramblings in the future. Still the BMC ppppfffftttt
Satire is dead. The age of instagram based hypersensitivity has made sure of it. Climbing, and it’s associated left wing wears a public mask. Where tearful kinder-esque climbers spill with remorse Bill Clinton style.
Jeez, whatever little interest I had in the BMC has slowly been ground down by this complete pile of bollocks. Pages of unintelligible ramblings, double speak, management style euphemisms, and underhand politics. It’s like a public sector upper middle management get together. Id be curious to know if anyone here apart from those involved actually understands or gives a shit what the BMC cronies are up to.
Oh the irony...
I really enjoy your posting/writing, but are you not aware that your style is more obscure and obtuse than my worst rambling, that you employ excessive euphemism (more earthy/hippy, less management/corporate) everybit as impenetrable to the uninitiated, whilst musing on esoteric intangibles? Disputing and debating the clearly subjective? Seeking an underlying truth, system of ethics and guiding principles?
Thanks Toby
Yes I do have stronger specific recommendations but didn’t want to impose them in an introductory general article of the direction we are heading and I know for a fact that some of my recommendations won’t fly anyway - at least in the medium term.
I will tighten it up though. Thanks for the response
The ‘changing landscape’ generated a tinge of sadness. I grew up climbing with my feet in both camps, but eventually climbing became as much about the opportunity to enjoy an illusory secure place away from the ideas of establishment and pressure of community as anything else. This was lost over the past 10 years with ideas promoted by the changing landscape. Progression, popularity, competition, wider appeal, athleticism and commoditisation. These days I pretty much have a visceral reaction to these ideas on a grand scale. I understand the bmc needs to move with the times, as well as the incredible amount they do behind the scenes. Politics wise it reminds me a bit of Blair’s new labour.
These days I pretty much have a visceral reaction to these ideas on a grand scale. I understand the bmc needs to move with the times, as well as the incredible amount they do behind the scenes. Politics wise it reminds me a bit of Blair’s new labour.
Is it true that those working one tier below the BMC politburo were called commissars?
Is it true that those working one tier below the BMC politburo were called commissars?
I believe that on Burton Road the membership are always referred to as The Serfs.
Or you could try engaging constructively.
Shark, with regards your piece for the newsletter, my comments are:
A few more commas needed in some sentences of the last paragraph, and in the "Remaining Relevant" section there's an instance of "increasingly" which should just be "increasing".
It's quite long and most of it, bar the last section, feels a bit like simple statement of fact (albeit very nicely and plainly written). You're up against the gossip column here! If you want people to keep reading you need to promise them some juice up front, chop about half off the first sections, and double the size of the last bit. Most people who read this are going to be engaged in the BMC in some way, and don't particularly want to revisit the last two years in great detail. If you have really insightful comment about the future, and I'm sure you do, then you should just say it. For instance, I've seen you make criticism of the slowness of the organisation many times. Could you give a particularly frustrating example which might illustrate this and make us all take the point seriously? Against your background as a business man, it looks like the grumble of someone who wishes the BMC could be more autoratic, less democratic and, well, more businesslike. This is probably quite a pragmatic thing to want, but most people will challenge quite hard against anything they perceive as the BMC becoming less democratic and more like a for-profit company.
Or you could try engaging constructively.
Simon, I heard you were there. Anything to report?
Up now
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2019-report
Simon, does this mean your concerns have been addressed?
Simon, that aligns with the concerns I had already heard voiced.
So, if I read this correctly, the current President was the chair, and they could then use these proxy votes (number uncertain) to effectively (if the proxy number was large enough) vote for the board they wanted?
That doesn't sit right with me.
What's a discretionary vote in BMC terms, I'm assuming not mandated proxies?
Voting numbers up on the BMC website which adds a little more info here (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/AGM/2019/BMC%20AGM%202019%20Final%20results%20sheet.pdf)
For the Funding Director post which was contested by three candidates there is a note:
“After the first round no candidate had over 50.01% of the votes. Therefore the votes for the losing category (abstain) were reassigned to their next highest preference and this provided the outcome: percentage of votes for Jonny Dry – 55%”
:blink:
Thanks Andy. Glad it’s in the to-do list to change the rules.
Given the circumstances what is your view on keeping the number of discretionary proxy votes used by the Chair secret?
It seems to me the most odd factor in this election, irrespective of any discussion of chair's discretionary votes, is what the round 1 score for JR tells us. The number is a bizzarly low proportion of what was a low turnout (I count 2297 total round 1 votes in this item) for a Director as a VP, with all that great work he's done on ORG and ODG and his links to partner organisations. The key message to me from this is way more members needed to vote.
More gobbledegookGobbledegook as in you don't understand the words or just bored of subject. I did try to use short words :-) :-)
Just had the urge to say gobbledygook
Re proxy votes I'm not sure that it is right to disclose them any more than anyone else's votes. Even if they were declared then what?
Just had the urge to say gobbledygook
Haha cheers for the ‘stern parental’ advice and the negative Karma lads. Just had a flash back to middle school and the arsehole headmaster ‘billy’ the goat Butlin.
I was under the impression that childish heckling was a valid part of the political process. Along with fraud, sexual deviancy and general hypocrisy.
Childish. If you aren't interested (the thread is called BMC AGM so its fairly clear you wouldn't be) then butt out.
Quite. The exercise is to do with numbers not names with a view to understanding whether there was an unacceptable concentration of discretionary power.
I am specifically interested in whether this led to JR coming bottom despite being manifestly the strongest candidate with respect to his BMC track record and relevant experience of Sport England funding and governance.
Understand your point Shark (fwiw, I voted for JR too!) but this shouldn't be principally framed as a crusade for JR (nice bloke that I'm sure he is!).
this is an inexact science and taking a view on the most competent candidate fundamentally comes down to opinion.
More gobbledegook
BMC AGM
Sunday 31 March 2019
Item 7.e Election of Nominated Director with skills and experience relating to fund- raising and grant applications
Candidate Name: JONNY DRY
Proposer: Wendy Matthews, Individual member and member of Climbers’ Club and Leeds MC Seconder: Oli Maskrey, member of the Mountaineering Club of North Wales
Factual Statement
Working as a film director, writer and producer has required Jonny to attract diverse funding streams to support his film work. He’s written funding applications to the Wellcome Trust, academic institutions and regional grant giving bodies in support of his film work, and developed the necessary personal connections with potential funding partners to help secure backing.
Having climbed throughout the UK, Jonny has been a BMC member since 2012, been elected president of his university climbing club and qualified as a Mountain Leader in 2018, utilising the qualification in a voluntary capacity educating young people about the mountain environment, access and its protection. He is also a competitive fell runner and membership secretary of Kendal Athletics Club, engaging the club’s membership and liaising with UK Athletics amidst a long-standing culture of Sport England funding.
Alongside his research at Lancaster University into mountain literature, heritage and culture in the 20th century, Jonny also works freelance across a range of organisations, including writing for the BMC, marketing for Mountain Heritage Trust and Mount Everest Foundation, and communications for the Alpine Club. Such work has led to an excellent understanding of the BMC’s recent organisational review and its varied activities from a multitude of perspectives.
Personal Statement
A hooked climber ever since my Dad took me up Flying Buttress, I am a firm believer in having young voices on boards and committees. The under 35 age group make up 31% of the BMC’s membership yet the average age of board members is traditionally far higher and under 25 engagement often falls short. Yet young contribution is essential to helping deliver on the many desires from the organisational review; modern thinking on diversity, environmental campaigning, support for young people and education in Britain’s culture, ethics and mountain history.
My film industry background brings a diverse set of skills to the board; a creative head and an unwillingness to compromise is coupled alongside my work with many of the bodies and disciplines the BMC represents. I have seen the organisation from the perspective of clubs, indoor climbing, rock climbing; I’ve seen it from a mountain heritage and outdoor instruction perspective; and I’ve seen it as an external contractor, environmental advocate and student. I bring all these experiences to the role, adding to the board’s skill-set whilst bringing its work to a greater audience and ultimately showing young people that the BMC’s Board has the potential to truly reflect them.
-End-
People need to respect the election rules, and if issues arise they need to ask the BMC to look if rule changes are required, not claim the system is broken.
• The Board decides what Nominated Director roles are required, trying to keep a balance of various factors in a skills matrix, alongside other required governance factors, according to the Articles.
. A “Job Spec” was created for each Nominated Director role and this was advertised and suitable candidates invited for interview.
• Its not clear from the BMC site but I think the Chair, President, an NC rep and the Independant directors are normally on the Nominations Committee.
• The Nominations Committe produced a short list of appointable candidates following interviews, which was then ratified at Feb Board to put to AGM elections.
Aside from the link above, John is the probably the best person to report on ODG as chair (and presumably the main reponsible Director last year, alongside the CEO and President who led 4 out of 8 worksteams each. This was all presented to the AGM. Andy might also be able to comment being involved in some worksteams.
I fondly remember when climbs were my main topic of discussion on climbing forums.
It was the first two points that lead to my questioning as I remembered an advert coming out for three Nominated Director roles coming out but there were no actual defined roles, which I thought at the time seemed quite odd. When I was voting, I couldn't really see how the "fundraising director" candidates aligned with the role and was was confused as to why there didn't seem to be a director heading up the ODG. Did they re-advertise then for the three nominated director roles as decided upon or were the candidates who had applied for the thee undefined roles assigned the roles created by the board (I'm hoping this was not the case as that does not seem like the way to get the best people in the best roles)
I don't know Jonny especially well but I do know he is well respected in his work with Mountain Heritage, The Alpine Club and the BMC Office (who had no part in the selection process).
Well observed!
I've been informed that there was one job spec and the election pools were decided after the Nomination Committee interviews.
The other identified desired skill areas of competitions and indoor climbing and access and conservation disappeared as a requirement after that.
I think going forward a statement from the Nominations Committee justifying why they put each candidate forward would be a welcome inclusion in the process rather than us having to guess why. Also some steer on weighting as to how much the general value as a Director vs Specialist contribution would be helpful.
I agree. Hopefully those involved in the process don't see this as a witch hunt, just a desire for more clarity and openess about the process, in order to improve it.
You really are being ornery on this thread.
JR is still in his 30’s so not ancient.
First off I'm clear no 'rules' were broken deliberately or accidentally. However the outcome doesn't look good, and there are some underlying reasons for that IMHO:
1. The ND process was not implemented how it had been envisaged when the articles were written. I did suggest a runbook being written at the time to go into some of the nuances that weren't appropriate for the Articles but it never happened (not sure why probably no one saw it as a must do then and it just slipped off everyone's radars). I only became aware of how it was done after the advert went out. Ultimately IMHO the process leading to the advert caused a problem that was fixed by post interview grouping, but this had it's own unforseen consequences. We can do it better next time.
2. Block discretionary votes are a feature of AGMs but probably have more impact now with low physical attendance and ease of lodging proxy votes. I would rather they didn't exist but I understand that legally they must. I think Offwidth was right in saying we need to encourage people to vote and not use discretionary options; an alternative being the proposal to spread them out; but ultimately they do exist and we have to assume a discretionary vote is used in good faith. Maybe people should declare their voting intents before being given discretionary votes, but that has issues to. Bottom line is there is no easy fix for 'misuse' but equally it doesn't need fixing if people act in good faith.
3. ODG really worries me at the moment as JRs continued leadership is at risk and I haven't seen anyone else with the understanding, desire and drive to deliver the ORG aligned ODG that people voted for in 2018. Lets hope someone is willing/able to take that mantle if necessary.
Finally I will say that JR not being on the Board is a real loss to the BMC. He might come across as a pain in the arse to some people at some times, me included, but after 18 months of regular discussion and argument his intent and rational were always very much focused on doing and delivering the right thing for the members. Losing him will weakened the Board until one of the other Directors takes on that role.
Another Board 'forgotten issue' that I see as way more serious is what happens if the President isn't available, resigns, or worse....the BMC right now has no Vice President....Steve
Out of interest, why do you legally have to have the option for discretionary votes?I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it you can't force someone to vote rather than give their vote to their chosen proxy to decide on the day based on the outcome of discussion at the AGM.
I think the nub is what purpose the AGM has and what members are used to and expect. Some expect lively debates and soap boxes and voting on the day but this befits a smaller organisation than the BMC has now become.
If the majority of votes are cast prior to the AGM then ideally there should be no new information that occurs at the meeting that would have otherwise swung their vote.
A member giving their vote away to a proxy to do as they wish means they either trust the proxy’s judgement more than their own and/or expect the AGM proceedings to have a material impact on voting.
In a modern organisation that supplies all the relevant info followed by a well run AGM there should be no surprises that lead to these sort of material differences.The BMC is part way there.
By comparison I went to the CC AGM the other day. There is no proxy voting so only the members in the room can vote. Clearly the wider membership were supplied the agenda and motion info prior so are able to judge if anything is suitably important / contentious enough to motivate them attending.
The discussion here encapsulates quite nicely why I don't think I will ever seek a volunteer position of any responsibility whatsoever with the BMC.
The discussion here encapsulates quite nicely why I don't think I will ever seek a volunteer position of any responsibility whatsoever with the BMC.
I really doubt anything in that meeting swung the vote.
Gareth (Board Chair) has committed, subject to formal Board approval, to discuss the outcomes of the NC discussions at the Board in July and then to commit to addressing the issues as we can in time to ensure there are fewer questions/issues at the next AGM.
The discussion here encapsulates quite nicely why I don't think I will ever seek a volunteer position of any responsibility whatsoever with the BMC.
Most positions aren’t political roles so hopefully wont put you off being an Access rep, helping with local climbing festivals, crag clear-ups, belaying and judging at comps or campaigning against institutionalised tallism
In the final analysis, it is between you and God. Climb faster.
In the final analysis, it is between you and the Campus board. They'll never do 1-5-8 anyway.
I always say you can't change how people react to your actions, only how you react to their's. If you always try to be transparent and honest it's much harder to engender valid critisism and easier to ignore invalid critisism.The discussion here encapsulates quite nicely why I don't think I will ever seek a volunteer position of any responsibility whatsoever with the BMC.
Most positions aren’t political roles so hopefully wont put you off being an Access rep, helping with local climbing festivals, crag clear-ups, belaying and judging at comps or campaigning against institutionalised tallism
Almost any position is open to fire now.
The discussion here encapsulates quite nicely why I don't think I will ever seek a volunteer position of any responsibility whatsoever with the BMC.
Which is a real shame... Aside from other roles which Shark rightly points out are less political, the BMC does need to transparently review the Nominated Director process, not to change any past results, but to ensure that in future volunteers who are willing to put their head above the parapet, and challenge the status quo, are not disenfranchised by poor process.
Thanks to Andy Syme for pushing on with gathering feedback on these issues so they can be tackled at NC (and assumedly local areas too)I really doubt anything in that meeting swung the vote.
For me, this is less about the outcome of the vote, than it is some of the behaviours that were present in the lead up to the AGM (and somewhat present at the AGM), that led to the process not going as it should have done both for the Nominated Directors, the accounts and other issues prior too. I'd agree other things probably affected the vote more than anything on the day itself, although I suspect abstaining from giving a husting speech (as did Kaye) didn't help guide a significant block of discretionary proxy votes in either Kaye or my direction!
Of course, when an organisation starts to implement better governance practices, it starts to peel away the layers and reveal historical practices underneath. This is a good thing, but only when dealt with in a transparent way to members.
Transparency and good governance are natural bedfellows, and they both lead to greater accountability, which is a good thing in any organisation, but particularly so in a members' organisation. My personal view is that all positions of leadership need to accept that. As the BMC is in a governance transition period, decisions need to be made with real care and thought looking to the longer term likely outcomes from the ODG work, rather than risking setting precedents, or possibly undoing some of the good work that's gone before. We also need to be careful with new rules and regulations, as they might not be perfect and need an iteration here or there.
Here's some facts as they lie now:
• As a Director at the time of the AGM I abstained from the vote on the accounts
• As a Director at the time of the AGM I voted against the auditors
• The ODG MoU wasn't signed at the AGM (it was minuted at Board to happen)
• An excellent Nominated Director female candidate (Rebecca Ting - I have checked she's happy to be named) for fundraising dropped out before the AGM papers were released. It almost led, but perhaps regrettably didn't, to my own withdrawal from the process.
• The number of AGM voters dropped from > 6000 in 2018 to around 2000 in 2019
• There was no, or very little, social media or ongoing membership engagement push about voting until the day of the proxy voting deadline
• The BMC board is now 25% female, which is short of the 30% SE gender diversity target in order to meet the SE code. This is actually a backward step for the BMC who has had > 30% for the last 2 years, and was essentially a requirement in 2017. I'm unaware as to whether this will affect SE funding again.
Genuine mistakes happen, and that's absolutely fine, but there is a line between individual responsibility and Board collective responsibility. Humility, accountability and transparency are values that I'd like to see more of, and help fix errors properly to build a better BMC for everyone.Gareth (Board Chair) has committed, subject to formal Board approval, to discuss the outcomes of the NC discussions at the Board in July and then to commit to addressing the issues as we can in time to ensure there are fewer questions/issues at the next AGM.
Likewise, hopefully a positive outcome from this, and thanks to those involved. Obviously the thoughts above are higher level issues than any more specialist concerns with respect to ODG which is on the whole is progressing well (with a few twists and turns and blockages...) thanks to the committed team of volunteers.
And, for the absolute governance geeks, there's an excellent article in The Governance Institute magazine this month, that describes the process British Cycling to improve its governance and meet the SE/SRA codes. Obviously British Cycling is a different beast to the BMC with respect to participation/competitive nature, but the parallels of the issue faced with respect to improving its internal governance are remarkable.
Transparency in company governance means something different to its normal meaning in English. There are numerous acceptable exceptions where company information does not need to be disclosed and plenty of clear advice on what does. I think the BMC goes beyond standard transparency governance requirements, as a membership organisation should. I see no serious issues of Transparency in governance terms from the outside and if you saw this from the inside I would be asking what you did about that?
As an well connected outsidier, I'm really perplexed why you would abstain from voting for the accounts and also that you would say that in public here. Ditto wrt voting against the auditors. This is serious stuff (although I would understand if you feel its not appropriate to comment further).
If there were gender issues that seriously concerned you in the ND elections why didn't you push for a gender reserved ND post, and if that was refused by the Board (something that would seem weird to me) resign from the election? I simply don't understand your gender percentages for the Board. Emma has now left and Fiona has gone in so there is no gender balance change I can see since the last AGM. At the 2018 AGM Amanda came onto the Board.. at that time adding an extra woman). I'm not aware the BMC has ever had >30% female representation (4+ board members).
I assumed the MOU wasn't signed was because the meeting hit the end time before completion of the agenda.
Finally some news articles showing British Cycling had really serious governance issues and why these regular comparisons with the BMC look bizzare to me.
the need to agree non Board replacements for the VPs (the choice in the current articles being a single Deputy President...
I've merged the "BMC AGM 2019" thread with the earlier "Changing the BMC" thread
ODG is Old Dungeon Ghyll
The "independent member reps" on the members' assembly as recommended in ORG could fulfil this. It was essentially left for the NC/MA/ODG to work this out. They don't necessarily have to be independent in the true sense of the word for SE, but it would be sensible to directly elect them from the members. How those roles are cut and named is totally up for debate. We (ORG) intentionally didn't call them VPs so they weren't confused with the existing structure, nor implied succession, but I know there are different schools of thought on how best to implement that, and it definitely needs discussion.
This is why I was keen to push the NC reconstitution work at a faster pace than some wanted (particularly these roles), as there are some of these gaps left as a result which has required some pragmatism to resolve in the short term. I know Mark is now very capably chairing this and moving things along.
The idea and principle I think we're all in broad agreement. As Andy said, it was raised as an issue at such a late stage. It was within ODG almost unanimously felt to be unimplementable in the form proposed in the time frame, and it actually became quite a distraction at a really busy time, where we'd already come to the pragmatic compromise of the NC internally sorting for a year, in advance. It would then give time to build the awareness of these roles.
I do think if support is needed, then people simply need to be asked. The level of workload taken on, in some respects, is a personal choice, and I know from my own experience of BMC volunteering folk are more than happy to help build a really supportive team and get their hands dirty.
Apologies to non BMC geeks for the acronymitis...
Apologies to non BMC geeks for the acronymitis...
Offwidth I'd be surprised if anybody, except you four BMC geeks, is giving this thread any more than a cursory skim read, before dismissing as corporate governance TBoringDR and moving onto something more interesting - like the other random bullshit generator thread currently on the go! You may as well be in a meeting room together or have a conference call. :)
Award for the thread with the most in-group jargon on UKB?
(no offence intended btw, keep up the good work.. I think?)
That’s just JR repeatedly reading his own posts.Savage
this succession point you and Andy seem to be ignoring was said to be a big concernSteve
I've written an article for UKC covering many of the AGM issues already discussed here and a few more besides:
www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/the_bmc_agm_2019_-_an_alternative_perspective-11914
Breifly back
1. There were 2 VPs until April, the need was after that.
2. Nothing to add
3. My concern is what works and what the members mostly want, not what you and I or other policy wonks think. Any organisation of the BMC size and type seems to need multiple volunteer figureheads and no organisation seems to stuggle to fill them.
4. I still think you are completely wrong here and seem to have got the 'cutting of cloth' bit backwards. The staff workload is just the tip of the BMC work iceberg. There are hundreds of people putting in very significant volunteer time out of choice (I did similar to you for over 5 years on Froggatt) and I think over a thousand doing some work; new people ask how they can help all the time; there is simply no volunteer deficit in the BMC. Finances in contrast are tight and won't allow more staff (unless there is new money).
5. Fair enough that you can't answer this but I really think someone should. I thought VPs were in the final version as they were in the first version and no VP change was highlighted in the list of changes . I only found out it wasn't in the final version around Xmas 2018.
The advert for the 3 Nominated Director positions was posted for about a week and the interviews took place about a week after that limiting. Why were the time scales so compressed ?
Does the Board agree the short timescales were unreasonable for three senior posts and will have limited the number of applicants and made the process look rushed? Was it in fact rushed and did this contribute to mistakes and poor process?
Was there a written procedure at the outset for how the selection of candidates, the interviews and the post interview actions? If so can this document be publicly disclosed in its original form for member scrutiny. If there wasn’t a written procedure at the outset why not? nb this was answered by Andy Symes on the UKC thread - there was no documented procedure
Can you confirm that the interview panel was comprised only of Gavin Pierce Chairman, Lynn Robinson and Mick Green of National Council and clarify how the members were decided. Was anyone else on the Nominations Committee but not on the interview panel?
Is it true that the original terms of reference for the Nominations Committee required an Independent Director to participate in the interviews yet not only did this not happen but also that the terms of reference were changed after the interviews took place that removed the requirement for Independent Directors to participate?
In terms of deciding the specialist requirements for the three pools of candidates is it true that determining the pools were largely carried out by Lynn Robinson and Dave Turnbull and if so was that part of any written procedure and does that mean Dave Turnbull was on the Nominations Committee?
Is it true that the candidates statements were made up of a section of the Nomination Committee comments and the candidates own comments and if so why wasn’t that made clear that was the case in the candidate statements presented to members?
Is it the case that candidates were initially asked for referees rather than a proposer or seconder? Was this a mix up or were referees not required or were both required and they did not need to be the same people? How clearly and in what way was this communicated to candidates and the mooted referees? Were any of the referees/proposers/seconders contacted or approached for validation or references?
Is it true that at least one of the successful nominated candidates was not informed the election would be contested? Was this communication just verbal or was it made in writing and by whom? Was the same manner and content of communication made to all the candidates?
Was it clarified to candidates that they would or wouldn’t be expected to present at the AGM? How was this communicated?
Overall how clear and consistent were communications with the candidates and were they up to the Boards expected standards? Where lessons not learnt from the issues arising from Amanda Parshall’s on the importance of correct procedure?
At the AGM Lynn Robinson made clear to the audience that candidates would not be speaking (unlike at previous AGM’s). When was it decided this would be the case and by whom and why wasn’t that stated in AGM papers?
At the AGM in response to audience protest Lynn Robinson used Chair discretion to change that decision and asked the candidates to speak. Was that a reasonable Chair decision? Was it fair to candidates? Was it also fair to proxy voters who had already cast their votes?
Prior to making that decision the BMC solicitor from Womble Dickenson counselled from the floor that letting candidates speak would put the elections at risk to legal challenge. Was the Chair right to overrule this counsel and how serious is the legal risk?
With regard to discretionary voting the Chair typically holds a lot of discretionary votes. Is it a conflict of interest that this person is also a member of the Nominations Committee and on the interview panel?
On reflection does the Board believe that the number of discretionary votes held by the Chair at the 2018 AGM represent an unreasonable concentration of individual power?
At the end of the AGN Phil Simister (one of the Nominated Director candidates) asked from the floor whether discretionary proxy voting numbers would be made available. Lynn Robinson replied that they would be made available at the end of the meeting and published online. This did not happen. Why?
Why was the precedent from the 2018 AGM when a proxy voting decision and the numbers was disclosed immediately after a Director vote not followed at the 2019 AGM?
Why has further member requests to the Office and the President for disclosure of discretionary proxy votes by the Chair been refused? Was this a Board decision prior to the AGM? Is it right that this information is withheld? If so how is that balanced against openness and transparency?
Regarding the AGM report published on the BMC website - why was it delayed for so long?
Is it true that whilst the report was drafted in the Marketing department it was circulated for review for editing to Lynn Robinson and others? If so who was it circulated to and what amendments were made?
Given that a number of complaints have been levelled in person and online after the AGM why has there been no public acknowledgement of these concerns from the President, Chair or Board?
Have all or any of the candidates who participated in the process including any who withdrew been approached for feedback by the Nominations Committee? If not will they?
Yeah, whilst I'm very much in agreement with Simon about tranparency being important, I was so angry with him for what he said that I had to force myself not to respond with some equally shitty comments.
Back to the discussion, the idea that SE money has all been targeted at youth and indoors is complete bollocks. So is the idea that climbing is dangerous or has poor health outcomes.
If I was at Sport England and viewing curry eating trad climbers at one end and sport climbers pushing the limits of low body mass at the other I would be sceptical of the particular health contribution climbing makes especially when the range of activities has an obvious risk of death and hospitalisation which isn’t healthy at all.
There is a case but it isn’t as glaringly obvious as you suggest but fortunately SE’s remit isn’t just health.
The healthiest and safest activity with the highest participation covered by the BMC is probably hillwalking where we get no SE funding or ever have done to my knowledge. I am guessing that most of current and probably historical SE funding for the BMC goes on Talent Development which is mainly indoor and youth based.
Quote from: shark on ukcIf I was at Sport England and viewing curry eating trad climbers at one end and sport climbers pushing the limits of low body mass at the other I would be sceptical of the particular health contribution climbing makes especially when the range of activities has an obvious risk of death and hospitalisation which isn’t healthy at all.
If you can't see the impending crisis in Public Health and the fantastic way that SE funded BMC activities can really help some people, with great value for money, then I'm not really sure what to say.
but the average trad climber is certainly going to be healthier than the 40% of the population that are physically inactive https://www.bhf.org.uk/-/media/files/research/heart-statistics/physical-inactivity-report---mymarathon-final.pdf and as such climbing deserves support in terms of health benefits.
Statistically, climbing is less dangerous than driving to the crag (for you especially, I've heard about your driving ;))
I said there is a case for all this but also a need for proportion. My wife is involved in a health intervention programme for diabetes patients and £ for £ I reckon it is better spent in that direction than through the BMC in terms of value for money for better health outcomes.
Bit of a strawman here, I don't think anyone is suggesting taking money off diabetes programs to give to the BMC!
I also recognised the concerns about her being on the Nominations Committee and holding institutional proxies and agreed with Andy it needs looking at, but also pointed out there is no easy solution (in particular the BMC chair is also on the Nominations Committee). I see discretionary proxies as a legal requirement and I think it important that the President elected by the members, can vote unconstrained on behalf of those members.
Sorry Simon I have been clear about my conflict of interest wrt Lynn
By your pal I meant Gron, not JR
... you have written that he claims stuff happened in the ND process that I just can't see could possibly be true.....I'm certainly not accusing you of being a liar (just in case you think I am), nor him
"My experience of putting myself forward as a candidate for the post of Director, Finance was not of the professional standard I would have expected in comparison to my past experience of being appointed a Director of public companies. The communication about the process was particularly poor. I was asked to provide two referees and provided Simon and Rehan Siddiqui having first cleared it with them. At no point was it made clear to me, or them, that in fact a proposer and seconder was required. Furthermore, when I was informed that I had been successful after interview it was not explained that it was a contested election. I only found out because Simon and Rehan told me.
In a public company a single candidate is nominated by the Nominations Committee and that is then ratified by vote at an AGM. I suggest that this process of single nominations is one that should be considered by the BMC going forward. I am similarly concerned by the lack of transparency about the discretionary voting.
As a member of the Finance Committee, my primary motivation to join the Board was to properly understand the financial workings of the BMC as the information provided to me whilst on the BMC Finance and Audit Committee was not clear and insightful, which I found frustrating.
My experience has left me with a poor opinion of the current workings of the BMC and led me to tender my resignation from the Finance and Audit Committee the day after the AGM."
Or go climbing together and chat civilly about all this afterwards over a pint. You could short rope Si on the Oak and get called a cunt, then he could belay you on some gruesome wide crack where you complain that the guidebook grade is wrong, and if you can jam it's only Mild Hard Severe 4a.
the Womble Dickenson solicitor
The advert for the 3 Nominated Director positions was posted for about a week and the interviews took place about a week after that limiting. Why were the time scales so compressed ?
Does the Board agree the short timescales were unreasonable for three senior posts and will have limited the number of applicants and made the process look rushed? Was it in fact rushed and did this contribute to mistakes and poor process?
Was there a written procedure at the outset for how the selection of candidates, the interviews and the post interview actions? If so can this document be publicly disclosed in its original form for member scrutiny. If there wasn’t a written procedure at the outset why not?
Can you confirm that the interview panel was comprised only of Gavin Pierce Chairman, Lynn Robinson and Mick Green of National Council and clarify how the members were decided. Was anyone else on the Nominations Committee but not on the interview panel?
Is it true that the original terms of reference for the Nominations Committee required an Independent Director to participate in the interviews yet not only did this not happen but also that the terms of reference were changed after the interviews took place that removed the requirement for Independent Directors to participate?
In terms of deciding the specialist requirements for the three pools of candidates is it true that determining the pools were largely carried out by Lynn Robinson and Dave Turnbull and if so was that part of any written procedure and does that mean Dave Turnbull was on the Nominations Committee?
Is it true that the candidates statements were made up of a section of the Nomination Committee comments and the candidates own comments and if so why wasn’t that made clear that was the case in the candidate statements presented to members?
Is it the case that candidates were initially asked for referees rather than a proposer or seconder? Was this a mix up or were referees not required or were both required and they did not need to be the same people? How clearly and in what way was this communicated to candidates and the mooted referees? Were any of the referees/proposers/seconders contacted or approached for validation or references?
Is it true that at least one of the successful nominated candidates was not informed the election would be contested? Was this communication just verbal or was it made in writing and by whom? Was the same manner and content of communication made to all the candidates?
Was it clarified to candidates that they would or wouldn’t be expected to present at the AGM? How was this communicated?
Overall how clear and consistent were communications with the candidates and were they up to the Boards expected standards? Where lessons not learnt from the issues arising from Amanda Parshall’s on the importance of correct procedure?
At the AGM Lynn Robinson made clear to the audience that candidates would not be speaking (unlike at previous AGM’s). When was it decided this would be the case and by whom and why wasn’t that stated in AGM papers?
At the AGM in response to audience protest Lynn Robinson used Chair discretion to change that decision and asked the candidates to speak. Was that a reasonable Chair decision? Was it fair to candidates? Was it also fair to proxy voters who had already cast their votes?
Prior to making that decision the BMC solicitor from Womble Dickenson counselled from the floor that letting candidates speak would put the elections at risk to legal challenge. Was the Chair right to overrule this counsel and how serious is the legal risk?
With regard to discretionary voting the Chair typically holds a lot of discretionary votes. Is it a conflict of interest that this person is also a member of the Nominations Committee and on the interview panel?
On reflection does the Board believe that the number of discretionary votes held by the Chair at the 2018 AGM represent an unreasonable concentration of individual power?
At the end of the AGN Phil Simister (one of the Nominated Director candidates) asked from the floor whether discretionary proxy voting numbers would be made available. Lynn Robinson replied that they would be made available at the end of the meeting and published online. This did not happen. Why?
Why was the precedent from the 2018 AGM when a proxy voting decision and the numbers was disclosed immediately after a Director vote not followed at the 2019 AGM?
Why has further member requests to the Office and the President for disclosure of discretionary proxy votes by the Chair been refused? Was this a Board decision prior to the AGM? Is it right that this information is withheld? If so how is that balanced against openness and transparency?
Regarding the AGM report published on the BMC website - why was it delayed for so long?
Is it true that whilst the report was drafted in the Marketing department it was circulated for review for editing to Lynn Robinson and others? If so who was it circulated to and what amendments were made?
Given that a number of complaints have been levelled in person and online after the AGM why has there been no public acknowledgement of these concerns from the President, Chair or Board?
Have all or any of the candidates who participated in the process including any who withdrew been approached for feedback by the Nominations Committee? If not will they?
Furthermore the actual candidate recruitment process was poor. Gron Davies approached me to act as a referee which I agreed to. He then contacted me to say that he had been successfully nominated. I was expecting a reference request which I never received. I was then surprised to see that it was publicised as a contested election with my name as seconder and Rehan as proposer. Neither of us were consulted about this change of status from private referee to public proposer and seconder. Furthermore, Gron only knew that it was contested when Rehan and I told him. He was never officially informed that it was contested. In addition he was not forewarned to make a presentation but had to do one on the hoof at the AGM when Lynn bowed from pressure from the floor despite the Womble Dickenson solicitor advising otherwise. Clearly Kaye Richardson and John Roberts took a stand on this and refused to give a presentation maybe to their detriment.In terms of the actual statement I took from Gron and included that was at a very late stage of the article being written (23rd April) I had last spoken to him at the AGM and contacted him for feedback in case he wanted to add anything to the article. By this stage he had resigned from the Finance Committee. It is notable that despite his resignation that the only person that had contacted him from the BMC since was Alan the Office Accountant.
The 2019 AGM was Chaired by Lynn Robinson, BMC President. She is also a member of the Nominations Committee. When we reached the contested Director elections Robinson declared that in the interests of fairness that candidates would not be addressing the audience i.e. there would be no hustings. Unsurprisingly, this was met by some protests from the floor as at previous AGM's candidates were expected to speak and there was nothing in the AGM papers to indicate a change in this practice. In response, Robinson backtracked and asked the candidates to do a short presentation despite the BMC's paid legal adviser counselling otherwise.
Personally I don't begrudge paying an extra £6 a year, but I do begrudge money being wasted. I would be wholly supportive of the subs increase if I thought that the BMC had an iron grip on its finances and placed the use of (members') money as a greater priority than it currently seems to be. The fact that the accounts were restated due to numerous narrative errors and the subscription recommendation was repeatedly changed in the run up to the AGM are just two clues that financial management could be greatly improved.I noted that in previous posts you referred to the minor changes to the Accounts mooted at the AGM. What I am referring to in my article is the more extensive narrative changes that took place before the AGM that led to the AGM papers being amended.I agreed with Dave Musgrove that the more minor amendments presented to the AGM did not need warrant updating till next year’s submission and voted in favour of that motion. The subscription recommendation changes are also a matter of public record.
There was scarcely any ODG discussion at the AGM, which hopefully does not reflect it diminishing in importance. However, there was a handout listing all 51 of the ORG recommendations. Disappointingly only 7 of those 51 recommendations had been ticked as completed. Furthermore 5 of the 7 had already been completed by the 2018 AGM. Therefore, on the face of it, not much has been achieved by the ODG since its inception.
Whilst Robinson has shown herself to be an outstanding President at the Public Relations and ambassadorial elements of her role, she appears to have been less adept and enthusiastic with respect to the nitty gritty detailed ODG work of governance and policy changes…….. I think it would be an impressively brave and humble move (rather than a weakness) if Robinson acknowledged her strengths and shortcomings by making way for someone else to manage her half of the ODG workstreams. This would allow Robinson to concentrate on her real strengths as a superb ambassador for the BMC. Given that she has already voiced that the workload of the role of President is too big for one person this also seems a practical step in making the workload more manageable.This is obviously close to home for you so please remember the article is an opinion piece and I am stating opinions not fact. I didn’t state it as fact that Lynne isn’t adept and enthusiastic at the nitty gritty of governance and policy but that that she appeared to be. That appearance is based on her postings on social media and conversations and with her in person where her focus has been far more on being invited to be a judge at Banff and similar than possessing a zeal for reform. Her likely lack of backing for John Roberts, the ODG Chair, who has generally been praised for his contribution and commitment to reform adds to the jigsaw of facts and appearances strongly indicate that it isn’t where her passion and priorities lies.
7.c.3 There was a discussion about the nomination process which had selected the candidates, and whether they had experience of BMC finances. A request, from the floor, was made for the candidates to tell the meeting about their relevant experience and backgrounds; initially this request was rejected by the chair, but following a brief discussion and advice from the BMC solicitor that it was up to ‘the chair’s discretion’ as to whether candidates should speak, the request was accepted. Emma Moody cautioned that members who had already voted by proxy had not had that opportunity, although she did accept the argument that members at the meeting might wish to ask questions about the candidates.
Is this actually going anywhere? Maybe just settle it in the street like gentlemen?
Ah well, hope u enjoy my ‘MaD StuFf’. It’s a deep irony that over the past month I’ve been called a boring, tedious attention seeking tit, my sanity questioned, etc etc. Yet people seem to be taking this BMC feud seriously. ThaT is the TrulY mad stuff.
I imagine it's a perverse type of light entertainment - like your guff but for policy wonks. Personally I'm enjoying the '101 in arcane political words that nobody ever says', from Steve.
AGM Concerns – Simon Lee 30.5.18
Having attended the BMC AGM on the 31st March I was very concerned about several things relating to the recruitment of Directors that took place which I would like to make the Area Meeting aware of.
In the week following the AGM I wrote to the BMC Office requesting disclosure of the number of discretionary proxy votes held by the Chair but the request was declined. In the same week I escalated my concerns separately with the Senior Independent Director, Simon Mccalla and the President, Lynn Robinson.
I then wrote an article for UKClimbing called The BMC AGM 2019 – An Alternative Perspective
The article covered the AGM widely, but my chief concerns are focussed on the Directors recruitment and election rules and processes. Conscious that the Board might respond in a way that didn’t fully address gaps in information and questions I sent a list to Simon McCalla, Senior Independent Director which was circulated to the rest of the Board and formed part of their discussions at the Board meeting that took place on 8th May
I contacted Simon Mccalla after the Board meeting and he said that it had been passed to the Chair, Gareth Pierce to prepare a response and Simon hoped that a response would be published the following week on the BMC website. It is now 3 weeks after the Board Meeting and the response still hasn’t been published!
The Board meeting summary was posted on the 25 May and says this on the matter:
a. Matters arising from the AGM: In addition to the AGM-related items listed below, it was agreed that the Board should respond through the BMC website to the perspectives being shared elsewhere in relation to the AGM, this needing to include correction of some errors in that material. It was also agreed that the Board would set up a Governance working group that would include some members of National Council to review a range of matters including Nominations Committee and Nominated Director processes, this to be completed during 2019.
Despite repeatedly following up it is not clear to me at the time of writing when the Board will officially respond and to what level of depth. It is also unclear whether the discretionary proxy votes held by the Chair will be disclosed let alone which way the Chair cast the discretionary proxy votes.
Information has been supplied to the Board demonstrating that other National Governing Bodies disclose this information as a matter of course. I understand that The Institute of Company Secretaries indicated that it is normal practice and good practice (re good governance, openness and transparency) to disclose discretionary proxy voting numbers particularly if requested to do so by members who are effectively shareholders.
In the light of all this it seems extraordinary to me that the BMC hasn’t disclosed the numbers. The slowness in providing an official response is also, I believe, poor.
I get the impression the only two people taking the BMC feud seriously are Simon and Steve. To everyone else I imagine it's a perverse type of light entertainment - like your guff but for policy wonks. Personally I'm enjoying the '101 in arcane political words that nobody ever says', from Steve.
Irrespective of all of this, if the BMC Board made a decision not to release this information, based on legal and governance advice, as I assume is the case here...
Simon is an Independant (sic) director but not so independant (sic) on this subject as he also holidays with JR and shares many of his views (but will be limited by Board confidentiality from public comment).
there are governance bodies who recommend it for PLCs where financial consequences for shareholders are more serious
I have no interest in this being a directly personal issue, so I'm going to refrain from responding to most of this, but on 3 specific points.
Do you know if the Board have held a vote on this, and/or made a minuted decision not to release it? If so, one would assume that will appear minuted at some point along with some kind of rationale.
Climbers go climbing together - had a great time skiing/climbing in Cham with a Board colleague, although we're hardly married! But seriously, on the basis that Simon probably isn't going to comment publicly on here, I think it's only fair to point out that he did declare himself Conflict of Interest on the Nominated Directors process (as minuted).
Are you a member of ICSA? Or are you referring to another body?
You have not taken public issue on Gron... however why on earth should we trust you on that not being a private major motivation? Plenty of people when playing 'sour grapes' games use proxy targets (if you excuse the pun) to try to extract revenge whilst (dishonestly) trying to look detached from the voting concern.
I'll pay each of you a tenner which you can use to go and get tanked up and have a fight in a flat-roof pub car park, IF neither of you posts on this topic again.
Paypal me the money Will, it's the Peak area meet next week. Although I am wondering if twenty will be enough, I mean Shark looks like a two-pinter but I'm not sure about offwidth. Anyone else want to chip in? bmcgrudgematch@hotmail.com Footage to follow obvs...
it's the Peak area meet next week.
£5 bonus if they can spell independence correctly.
Paypal me the money Will, it's the Peak area meet next week. Although I am wondering if twenty will be enough, I mean Shark looks like a two-pinter but I'm not sure about offwidth. Anyone else want to chip in? bmcgrudgematch@hotmail.com Footage to follow obvs...
I'd like to see a single example of an organisation like the BMC that does it.
I'd like to see a single example of an organisation like the BMC that does it.
The BMC is a breath of fresh air to a governance cynic like me, as although they do make mistakes they are genuinely open where they should be, more than any organisation that I know well, and try to apply the principles (and apologise and do it right next time when they fail) and they bend over backwards to be kind to troublesome members other organisations would have long ago put through discipline processes and booted out.
Offwidth, the BMC may seem like this to you, but as someone who has only recently started getting involved/caring they don't currently look "genuinely open where they should be". Also, as someone with no background in these kind of organisations or procedures, the lack of clarity of the nominations process and the fact it would appear, from the outside, that no-one's vote bar the President's mattered looks decidedly wrong.
The BMC is a breath of fresh air to a governance cynic like me, as although they do make mistakes they are genuinely open where they should be, more than any organisation that I know well, and try to apply the principles (and apologise and do it right next time when they fail) and they bend over backwards to be kind to troublesome members other organisations would have long ago put through discipline processes and booted out.
Offwidth, the BMC may seem like this to you, but as someone who has only recently started getting involved/caring they don't currently look "genuinely open where they should be". Also, as someone with no background in these kind of organisations or procedures, the lack of clarity of the nominations process and the fact it would appear, from the outside, that no-one's vote bar the President's mattered looks decidedly wrong.
All this seems a shame as the BMC seemed to be heading down the right track after a turbulent couple of years and this impression undermines all the good work that they do.
the fact it would appear, from the outside, that no-one's vote bar the President's mattered looks decidedly wrong.
All this seems a shame as the BMC seemed to be heading down the right track after a turbulent couple of years and this impression undermines all the good work that they do.
On the elections none of us know if the outcomes would have changed if Lynn's average discretionary votes were stripped out from the numbers (seemingly round 700 but varying from motion to motion). Anyone can look at the voting total numbers we have and it seems very unlikely to me
I think if you really cared about openess and transparency you would have dealt with this like a proper journalist
All of this is in the context that JR admits upthread that he didnt campaign as he really wanted a woman to win the vote.
I'd like to see a single example of an organisation like the BMC that does it.
British Canoeing at 2019 AGM voted that proxy votes be disclosed as part of the show of hands, as well as disclosed for polls. (item 11.2)
Seriously folks...
CYCLING UK IS A TRADING NAME OF CYCLISTS’ TOURING CLUB (CTC) A COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE
It’s on the website and companies house.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/about-ctc/policies-and-procedures/ctcs-structure
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00025185
Incorporated 1887
Steve
BCU - look for 2019 AGM pack. They are changing their articles to disclose Proxies in order to comply with companies is their justification, though I'm not sure that's right.
I don't think that the President or any board member or person in a position of significant power should have the authority to assign large numbers of proxy votes, particularly if they can do so anonymously.
I think if you really cared about openess and transparency you would have dealt with this like a proper journalist
People who aren't professional journalists have no obligation to act like professional journalists. The average member would have no problem with the opinion piece Shark wrote for UKC in his capacity as a 'concerned member.' If the BMC hierarchy objected to it they could have put a speedy statement out correcting what they deemed to be wrong, which they are capable of given their commendably swift response to the wild camping farrago detailed on UKC/BMC website. They didn't do this for some reason.
I shouldn't worry too much, Steve. This stuff is all so boring that precious few people are paying any attention. I think I tried to read Shark's article but my lungs kept collapsing and my heart kept stopping as my body impulsively tried to shut down and give me the easy way out.
The best solution in my opinion is to get members to understand that a chair's discretionary proxy is given trusting the Chair will use it in the best interests of the organisation. That's part of why we elect a BMC President. If voters are unsure the President will vote the way they want they should give their discretionary proxy to someone else.
It shows how out of touch many are on this subject as (anonymity aside) this proxy facility has to happen for the AGM chair by company law. Issues around anonymity are also not as simple as you believe but big PLCs are now releasing chair proxy splits ( a pretty recent change) but I'm not aware of any other membership organisations with an AGM run under company rules that currently do this (this doesn't mean there are none).
I recognise this release of chair proxy breakdown is probably where we will end up
.... ICSA: the Governance Institute (professional body for governance and company secretaries), of whom I'm a member.....
wrote the guidance on this back in august 2004: https://www.icsa.org.uk/knowledge/resources/disclosing-proxy-votes
.....I'm personally not aware that the BMC Board had a strict position on post AGM proxy vote number release specifically prior to the 2019 AGM.......
I recognise this release of chair proxy breakdown is probably where we will end up
Well that’s encouraging and you will know better than most
How do you know the BMC have got the information.
I'm already sick to death of BMC Presidents leaving early 'punch drunk' and this will add more pressure.
Can you show me any clear example of a membership organisation AGM based on company law that is already run with Presidents proxys declared, motition by motion, in public?
Such AGMs run under slightly different rules to company AGM rules.
That summary statement on the ICSA link says it applies to proxies used in show of hand votes and says nothing about polls (the fundraising ND election was a poll, so no vote is known unless declared).
Hardly encouraging as its only based on my cynicism on how easy it is to wind people up about misuse of power on something which is in fact a legal requirement. If JR had won, the opposite faction would have been making this fuss. Future full disclosure of proxy breakdowns will just give angry activists another way to bash the AGM chair.
Can you show me any clear example of a membership organisation AGM based on company law that is already run with Presidents proxys declared, motition by motion, in public?
CTC/Cycling UK have been doing this prior to them achieving charitable status (2011/12), in fact they disclosed proxy votes on the vote(s) over the 2 years of AoA changes.
There was me thinking an accommodation was possible.
C’est la vie
It seems you are one of the few who wishes to not to join with this in a spirit of cooperation, as you want more
Hmmm...
Good luck to them getting anyone to volunteer for that viper’s nest.
Hmmm...
Good luck to them getting anyone to volunteer for that viper’s nest.
Given that part of the plan is “facilitated sessions to both reduce the frictions within the Board and between the Board and staff“ you can interpret that the people who had the bust up are still in post and the people who departed weren’t prepared to put up with an unworkable situation. :worms:
Does Council have ability to dismiss board or throw it to the membership (assuming the members act as shareholders)?
Or, basically, can anything be done, or are the members hostage to the whims of the belligerents?
The BMC has dramatically announced that 3 Directors have resigned.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/update-bmc-board-11-august
The causes are unclear but appears to have been infighting that got out of hand. There is further comment by Andy Syme (Deputy President) on a thread on UKC (https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/bmc_announces_four_board_resignations-723329?v=1&fbclid=IwAR388muu4dFxyuJSeBju652VtVFqAy-fTrA4biDc_i9rNJE9U-BXtkyEXnw#x9267634) which reproduces an email sent on behalf of National Council to the Board regarding this breakdown.
The Chair of the Board also offered his resignation to National Council and it was agreed that he will leave after a replacement has been found.
This is a further disappointing derailment of the modernisation process. Ironically the Board was given greater power (primacy) so decision making could be more effective.
An undisclosed plan to recover the situation has been proposed by the Board and has been endorsed by National Council.
Simon, what sort of budget does the BMC run on? Presumably in the millions, quite a bit of it derived from the government? In which circumstances lax or informal governance is clearly unacceptable. It is - or should be - as simple as that.
From the disinterested outside, this looks like an excellent example of the challenges of organisational culture change. Someone should write a teaching case-study on it.
Simon, what sort of budget does the BMC run on? Presumably in the millions, quite a bit of it derived from the government? In which circumstances lax or informal governance is clearly unacceptable. It is - or should be - as simple as that.
From the disinterested outside, this looks like an excellent example of the challenges of organisational culture change. Someone should write a teaching case-study on it.
Circa £3million, £2million of which is membership fees, £300-400k from insurance and £200-£300k Sport England.
Andy, I may be wrong here as I completely lost interest in this a long time ago, but I think the ongoing restructuring was a necessary step to allow more government funding to come to the BMC.
Shark, to what extent are these issues due to attempting to be a very broad church, from hillwalking to the Olympics, and would it have made more sense to split off the indoor/Olympic side of things. Or is that an entirely different issue.
Andy, I may be wrong here as I completely lost interest in this a long time ago, but I think the ongoing restructuring was a necessary step to allow more government funding to come to the BMC.
Shark, to what extent are these issues due to attempting to be a very broad church, from hillwalking to the Olympics, and would it have made more sense to split off the indoor/Olympic side of things. Or is that an entirely different issue.
I think the current issues are due to some of the current board/staff struggling with the implementation of a more rigid structure and the associated procedures and scrutiny that comes with it and the reformers have given up/been pushed out. The comp side is nothing to do with it, though I do wish they had chosen the independent subsidiary route.
I gave up trying to understand it long ago, but it seems pretty shambolic at the moment. As an outsider you wonder if it'd be better to pull most of the high-level stuff apart and start again!
I wouldn’t be sharing that thread around if I was you Shark. In the mildest possible terms you come across terribly!
However the now removed ultimatum in the ukc thread really doesn't come across well to an outsider like me.
I really dont think a public forum is the best place to deal with it when it becomes too personal and id try to get the answers in a slightly more diplomatic and private way.
Also if I was your climbing coach I would tell you to take a step back - it must be some wasted mental energy much better spent getting up the oak!
Just be grateful you don't work in the civil service!
Rather than judge on appearances take a look at the last liquidators report on Companies house for Cornerstone Training Solutions (https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07213929/filing-history) and scroll down to item11 and bear in mind that Huw was the sole Director at the time of insolvency and tell me it doesn’t make alarming reading and demands questions of Huw.
However the now removed ultimatum in the ukc thread really doesn't come across well to an outsider like me.
Just to be clear I never made an ultimatum. That would have been David Lanceley’s postQuoteI really dont think a public forum is the best place to deal with it when it becomes too personal and id try to get the answers in a slightly more diplomatic and private way.
I totally accept that - in theory!
After the 2019 AGM I made private enquiries relating to the shoddy practices in the recruitment and elections of Directors at the 2019 AGM and got stonewalled by Lynne and partial answers from others. I then wrote a fairly diplomatic article for UKC (https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/the_bmc_agm_2019_-_an_alternative_perspective-11914) (toned down from initial drafts) detailing the shortcomings of the processes and following on from that wrote a letter to Simon McCalla the Senior Independent Director at the time with a list of questions (https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/the_bmc_agm_2019_-_an_alternative_perspective-703985?v=1#x8984887). He admitted he didn’t know all the answers but would like to and committed to respond.
When Simon left the letter was picked up by the Governance Working Group to answer those questions. You know what? - it remains an uncompleted item on their agenda over a year on.
Forgive me if I lost patience this time around but getting straight answers out of the BMC hierarchy is typically like getting blood from a stone. At least we successfully got answers from Huw. It remains to be seen if they are wholly truthful.
she is no figurehead 'good egg'.
I read barely half of that article. Life is too short to continue reading responses which don’t answer the question.
An inquiry was started into some questionable practices. At the same time the Board was suffering interpersonal clashes.
Two directors resigned and the Chair offered his resignation. Then the Director conducting the investigation resigned stating that he was being obstructed. Then the Chair did resign along with another Director.
It has subsequently transpired that the Board have not been communicating openly with National Council - the body supposed to represent members' interests. Also two of the resigning Directors were NC appointees thus reducing their influence over the board.
The whole saga has been notable for the lack of information actually provided to the members and questions have been raised about the extent to which the President and others felt able to represent the membership.
It's thrown up a lot of associated issues....!
The BMC Board has decided to divide the role of CEO and Head of Access, Conservation and Environmental Sustainability into two separate positions. This follows a review of the BMC senior leadership team.
The BMC and the world in which we operate is changing: climbing, hill walking, ski mountaineering and indoor climbing are rapidly growing, competition climbing is now an Olympic sport and the challenges of Covid-19 have forced us all to think differently about how we work.
At the same time, the realities of climate change mean that we must focus more resources on access, conservation and environmental sustainability.
The BMC has undergone significant organisational change following the Organisational Review Group report in 2018 and the subsequent work the Organisational Development Group has taken this forward. It is only right that the BMC’s leadership continues to evolve to ensure we have the expertise and experience to deliver on our strategic goals.
Following a review of the current make-up of the senior leadership team, the BMC Board has decided to divide the role of CEO and Head of Access, Conservation and Environmental Sustainability into two separate positions.
The original combined role has significantly expanded in recent years and it is no longer viable to have one person fulfil both sets of responsibilities. Separating the roles will enable us to increase the resources behind our access, conservation and environmental work, and create a more tightly defined CEO role to lead the organisation. It will also allow the Board to step back from day-to-day operations, and focus on strategy, effective governance and oversight.
It has been agreed that Dave Turnbull will retain his role as the Head of Access, Conservation and Environmental Sustainability, whilst the current Interim Executive, Paul Davies, will temporarily take on the CEO role.
This change will take place on 1 December 2020, the Board will start the recruitment process with the aim to appoint a new CEO by early next year.
This change will allow Dave to focus his substantial experience on the BMC’s wide-reaching Access and Conservation work across England and Wales. No other issue is more important to our members, and this structural change will allow the BMC to simultaneously accelerate our Access and Conservation work, whilst also ensuring that our broader strategic goals and on-going organisational development can be achieved. Dave has an access and environmental background, has been CEO for 18 years and has steered the organisation through many challenges over this time. Most recently and notably, during COVID-19 where the BMC worked with multiple agencies, partners and stakeholders to ensure government advice was clearly interpreted and effectively communicated to members and the general public. We are immensely grateful for Dave’s contribution as CEO and look forward to his continued leadership as Head of Access, Conservation & Environmental Sustainability.
QuoteAt the same time, the realities of climate change mean that we must focus more resources on access, conservation and environmental sustainability.
Access is my main reason for joining the BMC but I’m uneasy about this statement. To an extent climate change has knock on secondary effects to climbers and hillwalkers but not primary effects. I hope that the BMC has not been hijacked by the climate change lobby to the extent that direct and tangible initiatives for climbers and hillwalkers are not trumped by nebulous hard to measure global climate change campaigns.
I’d favour money spent on tangible outcomes like mending footpaths which it can do over mending the weather which it can’t.
I’d love to attend a local meeting but won’t be doing so until all the ORG tedium is sorted out. The last one I went to had about 10 mins rush on everything else inc access and the remaining 2-3 hours was the governance stuff.
I’d love to attend a local meeting but won’t be doing so until all the ORG tedium is sorted out. The last one I went to had about 10 mins rush on everything else inc access and the remaining 2-3 hours was the governance stuff.
I know the feeling. Planning on trying to enforce 10 minutes max on ORG stuff next year unless there are compelling reasons not to!
I know the feeling. Planning on trying to enforce 10 minutes max on ORG stuff next year unless there are compelling reasons not to!
Didn’t realise you’d been appointed Yorkshire Chair. Belated congratulations.
:clap2:
I know the feeling. Planning on trying to enforce 10 minutes max on ORG stuff next year unless there are compelling reasons not to!
Didn’t realise you’d been appointed Yorkshire Chair. Belated congratulations.
:clap2:
Are you moving Spidermonkey, or are you like one of these absentee MPs? 😄
Congratulations, or maybe commiserations!
It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it...
Good effort for getting involved, our volunteers really are our best asset.
Is it any wonder when staff who stand up to bad behaviour end up with unfair and barely disguised public attack in resignation statements (having done nothing wrong in any internal disciplinary terms). That such a letter still sits on the website is a blight on both good governance and duty of care for staff.
One of the great (and worst) aspects of social media and the internet, is the ability of the “anonymous poster/mole” to blow a quite loud whistle on dodgy practices, naming names and releasing details.
Quite surprising we haven’t had a BMC ‘rebel staffer”.
One of the great (and worst) aspects of social media and the internet, is the ability of the “anonymous poster/mole” to blow a quite loud whistle on dodgy practices, naming names and releasing details.
Quite surprising we haven’t had a BMC ‘rebel staffer”.
What type of dodgy practices do you believe a staff member has reason to blow a whistle about? There aren't any that I'm aware of.
Ha ha ha.
No clue, there might not be any.
I’m just “amused” by the infighting and silliness going on. The organisation will fold or at least, experience a significant decline in membership and support if they carry on.
Constant hints at dirty deeds and Machiavellian goings on, loaded resignation letters, secret proxy votes that sway most decisions (in the internet era? Really?) and so on and so forth.
It’s all a bit Eastenders, isn’t it?
Tragic, not really entertaining, dull and unrepresentative of most people’s needs and expectations.
The “Handforth Council” of UK Sports governance. Where’s Jackie Weaver when you need her, eh?
Long-standing ordinary member. I have no idea what is going on. I have no idea what has happened previously, apart from arguments. I have no interest in finding out.
What I do think is
1 the BMC should be directing energy towards access and conservation
2 this petty nonsense impedes its role. Is the organisation losing relevance to normal climbers?
I think we need a virtual BMC where people can fantasize about running an organisation how they think it should be run - and have an actual BMC that gets on with promoting having fun in the outdoors, sorting out access issues and all that stuff that makes a positive difference to people's lives.
Offwidth, I know you are more "in the know" than the average membner but these rants are doing no-one, especially the BMC any good.
For those* who seem to believe that the BMC is some inwards looking petty political fetish club, let me put your mind at rest.
Offwidth, I know you are more "in the know" than the average membner but these rants are doing no-one, especially the BMC any good.
For those* who seem to believe that the BMC is some inwards looking petty political fetish club, let me put your mind at rest.
Seconded, from my position as an area volunteer I do not recognise the picture Offwidth paints of a 'political fetish club ' :lol:
If it is going on its pretty localised and isnt filtering down very far.
Over the last few years the BMC has been striving to improve its governance. I would make it my personal mission to see these changes through to a conclusion as swiftly as possible. With my extensive work on the constitutional changes to date I believe I am uniquely well equipped to take a leading role to ensure this happens and help the BMC to return focus to its core purposes of serving the hill walking, climbing and mountaineering communities to the best of its abilities.
For those of us who aren't really in the loop with BMC stuff, is there anything worth voting on?
Given that only a small % of the membership vote I’d say it’s important to vote otherwise voting is dominated by a small interested minority who can wield too much power.
Unfortunately no one has applied for the same role representing Indoor Climbers.
Unfortunately no one has applied for the same role representing Indoor Climbers.
Do you mean the same role or is there an equivalent role for indoor climbers?
Unfortunately no one has applied for the same role representing Indoor Climbers.
Do you mean the same role or is there an equivalent role for indoor climbers?
AGM is on Saturday 15th May - full details here (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2021-how-to-vote?)
No one is contesting Andy Syme for President. Also notable is that Offwidth (Steve Clark) is standing uncontested for the new position of NC rep for rock climbing which has put the cat amongst the pigeons in some quarters. Unfortunately no one has applied for the same role representing Indoor Climbers.
Paul Davies the Interim CEO has been appointed permanently to the position (https://thebmc.co.uk/paul-davies-appointed-new-bmc-ceo?)This looks like a good appointment.
This is on the back of the appointment of a new Head for GB climbing (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/gb-climbing-hires-new-head-of-performance-lorraine-brown)
They seem to have ditched the slightly faffy Eventbrite registration. If you're on the mailing list there should be a Zoom link there. If not Tony Ryan - tony@thebmc.co.uk – might get you the local link (if not too late).
To someone like me access is the sole reason I'd get BMC membership, the redunancies are a reason not to get membership...
I get that competition climbing is growing and honestly power to the BMC and the British team on that front but access to the UK as a climber/walker/outdoors focused person is the only thing of interest to me that the BMC can offer.
I get that my views won't be reflective of much of the membership, but I imagine there are a fair few who agree or at least feel access is important enough to something which cost cutting from should be avoided.
Would be interested to know how many keen outdoor boulderers/ general climbers on here aren't members. Anecdotally I know of a lot of people who climb a lot outside, care about access but aren't BMC members.
I had recently been considering if membership was something I should get
Does this mean we’re not buying Kilnsey?
Perhaps. But it's a transaction non the less and if the cost of the transaction is set by the body at a price which I don't feel the transaction is close to worthwhile then why would I choose to do it?
I can appreciate that something is better than nothing, but realistically if you're asking me to spend money on that something, it has to reflect enough of my needs otherwise I'll look elsewhere or consider being a free rider in the situation because I don't feel the alternative is good enough.
On a separate note my partner has just said she feels that the advertising is sub optimal for BMC membership, she's worked at 2 walls, had BMC membership herself and still feels she doesn't know what they're doing/how they're benefiting her needs.
The major drivers behind my decision were based on what has happened SINCE the CCPG review has been delivered to the board i.e.
There is effectively an open letter from 38 parents declaring the plans for the English talent pathway as *pointless*.
There is effectively an open letter from the commercial elite coaches declaring 2023 selection events as *not fit for purpose*.
Several children have incurred injuries at this year’s selection events due to GB Climbing NOT following guidelines.
None of the above are being adequately reported by GB Climbing to CCPG and ultimately to the board.
Cost overruns within GB Climbing due to simple mistakes such as spending £27k on hire cars in Innsbruck despite public transport being free and then expecting to recover such fees from athletes.
Despite the additional funding from SE and UKS GB Climbing have then selected far fewer athletes this year into the team & squads as compared to last year (117 in 2023 down from 163 in 2022).
If you look at the most recent European competition events then GB Climbing is this year fielding on average one athlete per category compared to other major European countries fielding three of four despite the fact that athletes and parents entirely fund themselves.
Until last month the safeguarding documentation was NINE years out of date and still quoted Rob Adie as the contact.
Parents & athletes continue to live in fear of speaking out.
Retired athletes have spoken out:
https://www.facebook.com/100044639040139/posts/501441251353839/?d=n
Coaches have spoken out:
https://www.climbingcoachingconversations.com/post/climbing-is-not-swimming
Partners are clearly not happy:
https://www.climbscotland.net/move-on-up/competitions/ycs---scottish-talent-squad-eligibility-statement.
The most recent proposals to take CCPG forward now suggest REDUCING the number of members on CCPG to the extent that there would only be one person with real world climbing experience that being the rep from Climb Scotland (Jamie).
The most recent proposals to take CCPG forward also suggest the complete REMOVAL of the ABC rep despite the fact that Freddie is currently leading on the 2024 selection policy in order to overcome some of the recently incurred problems. It would therefore be fair to assume that ABC are not happy.
Much of this is not covered by the CCPG review but the review pretty much predicted the outcome and it is now unravelling.
In summary, it had reached a point where, as a member of the Board sitting on CCPG I was in a position where I could potentially be legally responsible for something that was clearly not being managed properly and NOT being reported to the board and I HAD to resign.
I am a member, largely because of access. But I do also like that they put money into supporting comp athletes
I am a member, largely because of access. But I do also like that they put money into supporting comp athletes
Interesting divide on the comp thing. I share Yetix's view that them supporting comps makes me even less interested in a membership. Comps are just something I couldn't care less about and place no value in.
That's not suggesting i'm right and you're wrong, obviously.
Does this mean we’re not buying Kilnsey?
Does this mean we’re not buying Kilnsey?
I heard a very interesting rumour about the kilnsey sale recently. If it’s to be believed it’s been sold to an interesting buyer…. Not the bmc!
This is no slight on any of you as individuals but it does make me roll my eyes when I read you aren't members, for all the reasons Shark and Remus listed and more. There is no alternative to the BMC, access would be miles worse without them. Ita letting perfect be the enemy of good for me. To reiterate none of the above is meant personally.
letting perfect be the enemy of good for me
This is no slight on any of you as individuals but it does make me roll my eyes when I read you aren't members, for all the reasons Shark and Remus listed and more. There is no alternative to the BMC, access would be miles worse without them. Ita letting perfect be the enemy of good for me. To reiterate none of the above is meant personally.
There's only so many causes you can spend your money on. Take the example I used earlier of organic food. I'll make the assumption that you care about animal welfare, environmental impacts and/or the ongoing viability of the soil for growing food, perhaps more so than access to crags. But if you're anything like me, then I imagine not every single food item you buy is organic either? I'm not suggesting that I can't afford BMC membership, but there's a lot of things I care about that I can afford and still don't pay for. This is hypocritical behavior, but it's universal too. Eye rolling seems a little naive.
I don't have BMC membership for the good of others, so unlike Liam and yetix I don't view it as a charitable donation or like buying the fair trade option - I view it as self interest!
Things not good from the GB Climbing side either. Carl has clarified his reasons for leaving.
(NB the CCPG is the Climbing Competitions Performance Group which oversees GB Climbing and reports to the Board and the ABC is the Association of British Climbing Walls - effectively a trade body.)Quote from: Carl Spencer on BMC Watch on FacebookCost overruns within GB Climbing due to simple mistakes such as spending £27k on hire cars in Innsbruck despite public transport being free and then expecting to recover such fees from athletes.
I am a BMC member, and for me their role in lobbying for and being a contact point for negotiations regarding access is my principal reason for remaining so.
I’ve no issue with the BMC spending money on competition climbing, but I often wonder: what proportion of BMC members see themselves as principally indoor/competition climbers? (not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don’t know if this has ever been surveyed).
Things not good from the GB Climbing side either. Carl has clarified his reasons for leaving.
(NB the CCPG is the Climbing Competitions Performance Group which oversees GB Climbing and reports to the Board and the ABC is the Association of British Climbing Walls - effectively a trade body.)Quote from: Carl Spencer on BMC Watch on FacebookCost overruns within GB Climbing due to simple mistakes such as spending £27k on hire cars in Innsbruck despite public transport being free and then expecting to recover such fees from athletes.
How long were they in Innsbruck to spend £27k on hire cars :o
Yetix, if it was a US situation where there was an Access Fund with comps separate, would you be happier to throw some cash in their direction then?
I’m amazed to learn that money would be diverted from access (the absolute prime purpose of the BMC as far as I’m concerned) to cover comp climbing’s shortfall.
This is no slight on any of you as individuals but it does make me roll my eyes when I read you aren't members, for all the reasons Shark and Remus listed and more. There is no alternative to the BMC, access would be miles worse without them. Ita letting perfect be the enemy of good for me. To reiterate none of the above is meant personally.
There's only so many causes you can spend your money on. Take the example I used earlier of organic food. I'll make the assumption that you care about animal welfare, environmental impacts and/or the ongoing viability of the soil for growing food, perhaps more so than access to crags. But if you're anything like me, then I imagine not every single food item you buy is organic either? I'm not suggesting that I can't afford BMC membership, but there's a lot of things I care about that I can afford and still don't pay for. This is hypocritical behavior, but it's universal too. Eye rolling seems a little naive.
I remain pretty convinced that if you're a keen climber at any level it is shooting yourself in the foot not to be a BMC member. As Barrows says its a self interest thing as much as anything else. I do not see it as a donation. Organic food is a poor comparison for me. This is a climbing forum and many of those posting on it are complete obsessives about climbing. Seems incredibly counterintuitive not to be a member of the body that ensures access to crags even if you have issues with their governance and operations.
BMC member for 20+ years, largely due to the access work it does. Look at the access situations in the USA and Australia for comparison. For much of this time I effectively paid twice through an individual and a club membership though I have stopped this donation as money is tighter than it was five years ago.
Things not good from the GB Climbing side either. Carl has clarified his reasons for leaving.
(NB the CCPG is the Climbing Competitions Performance Group which oversees GB Climbing and reports to the Board and the ABC is the Association of British Climbing Walls - effectively a trade body.)Quote from: Carl Spencer on BMC Watch on FacebookCost overruns within GB Climbing due to simple mistakes such as spending £27k on hire cars in Innsbruck despite public transport being free and then expecting to recover such fees from athletes.
How long were they in Innsbruck to spend £27k on hire cars :o
Yetix, if it was a US situation where there was an Access Fund with comps separate, would you be happier to throw some cash in their direction then?
Yes
I might be completely wrong and nowhere have I seen any evidence, but I don’t think competition climbing costs the bmc anything….. the national governing body of an Olympic sport receives funding from sport England to help finance comps.
I might be completely wrong and nowhere have I seen any evidence, but I don’t think competition climbing costs the bmc anything….. the national governing body of an Olympic sport receives funding from sport England to help finance comps.
You are completely wrong, I’ll write a longer answer later but the annual reports are pretty clear. In 2021 £327k was spent on comps and £453k on access. In previous years it was much narrower, 2020, £268k to £283k
That's not strictly true Liam. I've corresponded with you regards hold stabilisation and access at Hawkcliffe and Panorama. I did mention I was BMC access officer. Plus others on UKB are part of the BMC as volunteers, as I was for 10 years before I joined the staff. My point is that these interactions aren't always obvious, just like the benefits of the BMC's existence aren't always obvious.Would be interested to know how many keen outdoor boulderers/ general climbers on here aren't members. Anecdotally I know of a lot of people who climb a lot outside, care about access but aren't BMC members.
I'm not a member. Not for any particular reason, I've just never given it any thought, it's never been mentioned by any of my climbing mates, I've never had any interaction with them, etc. I'm sure if I went and read up on what they do it would make me feel guilty about not being a member, like when I buy food that's not organic.
I'd split any indoor climbing involvement out of the BMC to the ABC and let walls run indoor climbing and the BMC run outdoor climbing....
That's not strictly true Liam. I've corresponded with you regards hold stabilisation and access at Hawkcliffe and Panorama. I did mention I was BMC access officer. Plus others on UKB are part of the BMC as volunteers, as I was for 10 years before I joined the staff. My point is that these interactions aren't always obvious, just like the benefits of the BMC's existence aren't always obvious.Would be interested to know how many keen outdoor boulderers/ general climbers on here aren't members. Anecdotally I know of a lot of people who climb a lot outside, care about access but aren't BMC members.
I'm not a member. Not for any particular reason, I've just never given it any thought, it's never been mentioned by any of my climbing mates, I've never had any interaction with them, etc. I'm sure if I went and read up on what they do it would make me feel guilty about not being a member, like when I buy food that's not organic.
I'd split any indoor climbing involvement out of the BMC to the ABC and let walls run indoor climbing and the BMC run outdoor climbing....
Even if they wanted to as a Trade Body with commercial interests it would be highly unusual for them to become a National Governing Sporting Body - unique even?. I suspect Sport England and GB Sport wouldn’t allow it on governance grounds / conflicts of interest.
fund sport climbingYou mean comp climbing presumably?
What access issues are you thinking about in the US Duncan? I've generally thought of access as quite good there in the National Parks and on BLM land and the Access Fund as a very proactive body in other cases.
In some ways US climbers have a more challenging starting point. Much climbing or potential climbing in the US is on private land and the cliffs are completely off limits. There is no right to roam and the second amendment makes civil disobedience unattractive.
There are many national parks where, as you say, access is theoretically protected but these are frequently governed by entry fees, permits, and labyrinthine bureaucracy including regulations around fixed gear. Their European counterparts have generally managed to avoid all these.
For all its faults supporting a strong and influential representative body that owns crags and has successfully maintained access at so many crags is a good idea. We are better off in this respect than most countries. Withholding membership isn’t going to improve matters.
This is surveyed but I can't remember the date of the last one. As far as I remember, access has always been the BMC's most important role as far as its members are concerned. Competitions have been one of the least important.I very much agree with this and don't like the sound of the last bit.
The cut in access funding and increase in funding of competitions appears to be going directly against the views of the membership. This may or may not be related to a new-ish CEO who is from a competitive sport administration background, doesn't climb, and appears invisible to members like me.
(I actually came on thread to post that first stat as I remember Andy Say mentioning it.) That sounds like a yearly IMPROVEMENT in the access vs comp funding balance?? If that trend can continue...I might be completely wrong and nowhere have I seen any evidence, but I don’t think competition climbing costs the bmc anything….. the national governing body of an Olympic sport receives funding from sport England to help finance comps.
You are completely wrong, I’ll write a longer answer later but the annual reports are pretty clear. In 2021 £327k was spent on comps and £453k on access. In previous years it was much narrower, 2020, £268k to £283k
:lol: Quite probably true, and probably why they still CAN'T PUT TWO SODDING FANS IN THE DEPOT MANC TRAINING ROOM.I heard a very interesting rumour about the kilnsey sale recently. If it’s to be believed it’s been sold to an interesting buyer…. Not the bmc!
Its being turned into Depot yorkshire?
There are some more positive examples of access groups working with land owners too I think, isn't quite a bit of RRG on private land? Maybe I've misunderstood that.
It turns out as well that the latest issue of Summit - which was skin-crawlingly dire - makes a good emergency resource when loo roll runs out.It's never been particularly good. I guess rock climbers, particularly keen boulderer/sport types who use ukb make up a tiny minority of BMC membership and the magazine content will never be reflective of us, but even so a lot of the articles are fairly bland and feel a bit 'dumbed down' to me. I think there is a real possibility to make Summit better, there must be loads of BMC members who could contribute a good article and photos. If the BMC emailed out all members asking for contributions I think they would get a load of good stuff
BMC member for 20+ years, largely due to the access work it does. Look at the access situations in the USA and Australia for comparison. For much of this time I effectively paid twice through an individual and a club membership though I have stopped this donation as money is tighter than it was five years ago.As an employee it wouldn't be right for me to get into a discussion about some of the things quoted that I believe to be misrepresentations, but I will chime in on this one - I climbed with the CEO last week. This non-climber trope is wheeled out regularly, use your own judgement to consider why.I am a BMC member, and for me their role in lobbying for and being a contact point for negotiations regarding access is my principal reason for remaining so.
I’ve no issue with the BMC spending money on competition climbing, but I often wonder: what proportion of BMC members see themselves as principally indoor/competition climbers? (not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don’t know if this has ever been surveyed).
This is surveyed but I can't remember the date of the last one. As far as I remember, access has always been the BMC's most important role as far as its members are concerned. Competitions have been one of the least important.
The cut in access funding and increase in funding of competitions appears to be going directly against the views of the membership. This may or may not be related to a new-ish CEO who is from a competitive sport administration background, doesn't climb, and appears invisible to members like me.
Yeah honestly I think Summit is pretty poor. I don't like it personally and I think it's only of interest to a tiny segment of climbers due to essentially being UKTrad/UKAlpine: The Magazine
Probably a symptom of how thinly the BMC is spread across divergent scenes: all it can give is the lowest common denominator of each.
As an employee it wouldn't be right for me to get into a discussion about some of the things quoted that I believe to be misrepresentations, but I will chime in on this one - I climbed with the CEO last week.
Only if it gets me up West Side Story! We had a team trip out where I introduced our new EDI Manager to trad, a few others joined included the CEO. Our EDI person started indoor bouldering when he took up his post and was instantly hooked by it, but doing a trad climb blew him away. To quote him "I think that might be the coolest thing I've ever done".As an employee it wouldn't be right for me to get into a discussion about some of the things quoted that I believe to be misrepresentations, but I will chime in on this one - I climbed with the CEO last week.
Sycophant.
Want to borrow my ladder?
As a linked aside, anyone else have an issue on their phone where if they try to open any BMC website links (was just lookin up the reciprocal discount card for huts), it opens the RAD app? PITA.
As a linked aside, anyone else have an issue on their phone where if they try to open any BMC website links (was just lookin up the reciprocal discount card for huts), it opens the RAD app? PITA.
As a linked aside, anyone else have an issue on their phone where if they try to open any BMC website links (was just lookin up the reciprocal discount card for huts), it opens the RAD app? PITA.
Yes, the same for me. I thought it had fixed but turns out I'd deleted the RAD app and not reinstalled it. Still happening now reinstalled. I'll try and work out who at BMC is best to message about this.
Think this is a phone thing not a BMC thing? I get prompted Chrome or RAD when I open the app, and I click chrome. Maybe you clicked RAD "always" once and now it just keeps doing it?
Not sure what the fix is, but fairly sure it's not for the RAD app to fix?
Would be interested to know how many keen outdoor boulderers/ general climbers on here aren't members. Anecdotally I know of a lot of people who climb a lot outside, care about access but aren't BMC members.
Christ alive! This thread reminds me of the current Sun story about a certain BBC presenter, as the facts come out it’s still potentially bad, but nothing like the initial scandal. Simon appears to be playing the role of Victoria Newton with the BMC mimicking the BBC by making no official statement and fuelling the fire of speculation.
On the face of it, this seems very disappointing. I was unsure about the way the BMC set up GB Climbing but still think having the NRB and the NGB under the same umbrella benefits both roles, but with maybe the financial separation many of us were keen to see intially.
I am, as ever, disappointed in the BMC Comms side of this. All I have to go on is screenshots in Facebook groups and hearsay on here, with numbers and stories that seem somewhat inconsistent. Why they let the rumour mill run away like this is beyond me, they must have seen this coming? Hopefully the promised “official statement” will give us the “other side of the story”.
On a personal note, I will continue to be a member, continue to volunteer and continue to attempt to influence and affect change from “inside the tent”.
As an employee it wouldn't be right for me to get into a discussion about some of the things quoted that I believe to be misrepresentations, but I will chime in on this one - I climbed with the CEO last week. This non-climber trope is wheeled out regularly, use your own judgement to consider why.
Simon is saying two gone from access and more scalps being sort, Dave says one person has handed in their notice and believe there is another being sort. Who knows what is correct?Just on this - Dave says one has been handed their notice, not has handed in their notice. So the gap between the two statements is not that wide
Just on this - Dave says one has been handed their notice, not has handed in their notice. So the gap between the two statements is not that wide
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the BMC here, despite the fact I am a member, do volunteer, and think they are an essential force for good I am pissed off with them and want them to get their act together.
And get rid of the discounting the first year of membership. You want lifelong members. Fair, transparent pricing. You’re not selling Broadband. Never understood why they do that.
The IT team are aware, and looking into this, but apparently to begin with they were unable to replicate the fault and therefore track the problem and fix it. They are having another try though!Think this is a phone thing not a BMC thing? I get prompted Chrome or RAD when I open the app, and I click chrome. Maybe you clicked RAD "always" once and now it just keeps doing it?
Not sure what the fix is, but fairly sure it's not for the RAD app to fix?
When you publish an app there's you can configure it in combination with a website you own to open certain links. In essence, the app says "I know how to open links like https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/RAD/View.aspx?id=1589", and you upload a special file to your website to say "I know about the BMC app, if it wants to ope links like https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/RAD/View.aspx?id=1589 then you can let it".
I assume somewhere along the line the RAD app/BMC website has been misconfigured, so instead of just intercepting RAD links it's intercepting all links to the BMC website.
ed: just done a little digging and it looks like the website side is configured correctly, so I think the problem is in the app.
The IT team are aware, and looking into this, but apparently to begin with they were unable to replicate the fault and therefore track the problem and fix it. They are having another try though!
our commitment to the work ACES delivers remains as strong as ever and we guarantee retaining a higher level of resource than in recent years.
That did not actually contain any information to address the concerns raised, did it?
“We are growing but not as fast as predicted and so must reduce our current (not future, planned for) staffing.”
Ok, what did you gamble on that didn’t pay off?
“COVID!!!”
Really? That’s the first time that one has been trotted out, isn’t it? I don’t think I’ve seen it mentioned in all the posts and counter posts. How, exactly, is covid to blame for this restructuring?
“All areas of the BMC”
Why? Were all areas equally part of the bad gamble? Were there not specific areas that failed to meet expectations? I’m trying to imagine culling from my own operation here, equally, across the board, thereby reducing our overall ability to perform in all areas, rather than identifying and addressing specific short comings and strategic errors. Frankly I’m glad I only have to justify such things to my CEO, not even shareholders, these guys are meant to be justifying these decisions to the members, really should be consulting with before taking action, yet it seems opaque.
Sorry, I read a lot of words that amounted to “trust us” with no justification of why I should or reason to believe that the interests of the members are being served.
How about a straight forward:
We committed X resources to areas A,B and Q, however, those areas did not return as expected; we believe/can show that was because of £, @ and $.
To address this we propose G, H and W on the basis that thingy and doobry can be reasonably expected, going forward.
Further, since A, B and Q, have been shown to be less (Profitable? Productive? Needed?) than expected, we will be reducing the allocation of resources in those areas until such time as the situation/demand requires a change in strategic position.
All other areas of operation remain unaffected (because, if not, if you really need to reduce across the board, doesn’t that indicate a much deeper issue than you are admitting too?)
Anyway, I’m a member, despite not really deriving anything from it for the foreseeable. I was happy to let it ride based on assumed benefit to the community at large and access to venues and preserved opportunity to partake, if and when I return.
Reconsidering. I’m quite pro comp climbing, but no one aspect of the total should trump the others. That appears to be the case and no effort has been made to dispel that impression in this statement, despite quite loud allegations. This just gives the impression of not wanting to actually address those specific allegations and so I wonder why?
That did not actually contain any information to address the concerns raised, did it?
“We are growing but not as fast as predicted and so must reduce our current (not future, planned for) staffing.”
Ok, what did you gamble on that didn’t pay off?
“COVID!!!”
Really? That’s the first time that one has been trotted out, isn’t it? I don’t think I’ve seen it mentioned in all the posts and counter posts. How, exactly, is covid to blame for this restructuring?
“All areas of the BMC”
Why? Were all areas equally part of the bad gamble? Were there not specific areas that failed to meet expectations? I’m trying to imagine culling from my own operation here, equally, across the board, thereby reducing our overall ability to perform in all areas, rather than identifying and addressing specific short comings and strategic errors. Frankly I’m glad I only have to justify such things to my CEO, not even shareholders, these guys are meant to be justifying these decisions to the members, really should be consulting with before taking action, yet it seems opaque.
Sorry, I read a lot of words that amounted to “trust us” with no justification of why I should or reason to believe that the interests of the members are being served.
How about a straight forward:
We committed X resources to areas A,B and Q, however, those areas did not return as expected; we believe/can show that was because of £, @ and $.
To address this we propose G, H and W on the basis that thingy and doobry can be reasonably expected, going forward.
Further, since A, B and Q, have been shown to be less (Profitable? Productive? Needed?) than expected, we will be reducing the allocation of resources in those areas until such time as the situation/demand requires a change in strategic position.
All other areas of operation remain unaffected (because, if not, if you really need to reduce across the board, doesn’t that indicate a much deeper issue than you are admitting too?)
Anyway, I’m a member, despite not really deriving anything from it for the foreseeable. I was happy to let it ride based on assumed benefit to the community at large and access to venues and preserved opportunity to partake, if and when I return.
Reconsidering. I’m quite pro comp climbing, but no one aspect of the total should trump the others. That appears to be the case and no effort has been made to dispel that impression in this statement, despite quite loud allegations. This just gives the impression of not wanting to actually address those specific allegations and so I wonder why?
All of what you’re asking for would actually require them to know what they’re doing or what is happening, which from the sounds of it they have no fucking clue themselves lmao.
Reconsidering. I’m quite pro comp climbing, but no one aspect of the total should trump the others.
Frankly, bringing new members, with a low cost buy in, isn’t an answer unless you retain those members over the long term. How much of the lack of growth is attributable to atrophy over failure to attract?
Do leadership teams not learn that this kind of bullshit non-statement just pisses people off?
''The BMC is delighted to announce that it has successfully bid for UK Sport’s Progression and Podium Athlete funding to channel investment into the GB Climbing Performance Pathway.
This funding increase is a boon for both our elite and talent pathway athletes and will also give those grassroots participants whom are just starting their journey, with hope of one day competing on the international stage, a clear pathway to Olympic success.
Developing GB Climbing has been a priority for the BMC during 2020. This year our staff team have made significant progress towards an athlete-focused talent schedule, whilst also encouraging participation in the pathway from across the UK. The new funding from the UK Sport Progression Bid will help further develop this structure in three key areas:
- Evolving and transforming the GB Climbing Performance Pathway
Developing, aligning and embedding elite coaches at pivotal stages in the pathway
Delivering a world-class domestic competition structure
The UK Sport Podium Athlete funding will allow GB Climbing, in partnership with the English Institute of Sport, to continue to support Shauna Coxsey to Tokyo and beyond.
Today’s announcement is the third commitment of support to GB Climbing by UK Sport, building upon the previous Aspiration funding and the more recent Continuity funding.
Thanks to the UK Sport Aspiration Fund, GB Climbing was able to create a High Performance Training Facility at The Climbing Works, Sheffield, which allowed our elite athletes and coaches to continue to train this year despite Covid-19 restrictions. This fund also enabled Will Bosi and Molly Thompson-Smith to prepare for, and be supported in, competition at the recent IFSC Moscow European Championships.
The UK Sport Continuity funding will allow GB Climbing to deliver Covid-secure training for the Home Nation and National Talent squads and several Covid-secure competition opportunities (including a Paraclimbing event). In total, the UK Sport investment into GB Climbing will be £450,000 over the next 12 months.
This work will be delivered through close collaboration with the BMC’s partners: Mountaineering Scotland, Climb Scotland, Mountain Training, the Association of British Climbing Walls, as well as liaising with Mountaineering Ireland. GB Climbing is also committed to ensuring that solid, effective structures can also be built for the other competitive areas under the BMC’s umbrella, such as GB Paraclimbing, GB Ice Climbing and Ski Mountaineering.
“I’d like to thank UK Sport for its continued investment in GB Climbing. There’s a lot of work coming next year in the lead up to the rescheduled Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games to make sure we have done everything possible to give GB Climbing athlete Shauna Coxsey her very best shot at securing one of the first ever Olympic medals for climbing.
“It’s not only our elite athletes – including Will Bosi, Molly Thompson-Smith and more – that will be supported by this funding either. We’re excited of the potential it brings to evolve our Performance Pathway and help develop the best British competition climbing talent and coaches. It will ensure that our athletes have the best support from top coaches and access to the best training facilities, using the latest techniques all the way.
“We are also looking forward to transferring our knowledge to our other elite teams – the already highly-successful Paraclimbing, Ice Climbing and Ski Mountaineering teams – to ensure athletes in all sports and disciplines are nurtured in their journeys to medal success.”
With the help of UK Sport, Sport England and our other partners, the BMC aims to use the funding to put the athletes at the centre of a blueprint to enable them to reach their potential dreams of Olympic or Paralympic participation.
The BMC will receive expertise, support and an investment of £2,790,875 of government and National Lottery funding from Sport England to co-deliver the ambitions of its 10-year Uniting the Movement strategy.
As part of the funding award the BMC will work in collaborative partnership with the Association of British Climbing Walls (ABC), Mountain Training UK & Ireland, Mountain Training England and the National Indoor Climbing Award Schemes (NICAS). Using our shared knowledge, leadership, and position of influence to create the right conditions for participation in our activities by all members of society – establishing a truly inclusive community of participants.
The BMC will be supported to continue to focus on leadership in governing and oversight*; in raising the profile of the sport of climbing, and in supporting the sport’s growth and ongoing development. The participant experience will be at the core with a system of coaches, clubs, and venues to ensure minimum standards are met in safeguarding, anti-doping, facilities, and coaching provision.
Finally, the award will enable the BMC to transform and establish an England talent pathway with multiple transition points, appropriate to athlete age and development. Holistic athlete planning supports positive athlete experiences, preparing them equally for life as a performer and for life beyond the competitive arena. Creating a broader infrastructure of grassroots talent provision, working in partnerships to develop accessible competitions and environments through the establishment of talent clubs and hubs.
Paul Davies, CEO of the BMC, said: “The BMC is at an important cross-roads with increasing participation across all the disciplines that we represent and exciting developments in the sport of competition climbing. We have a responsibility to ensure that everyone can participate responsibly, safely and that they supported to achieve their potential.
“Under the ‘Uniting the Movement’ strategy and support of Sport England, and alongside our partners we will create an environment where participants, volunteers, and administrators will be reflective of the nation’s demographic, creating a better future for climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers.”
I do think some people in this forum are surprisingly financially illiterate or feigning financial illiteracy somewhat.
I do not think the BMC are blameless nor, perhaps, as transparent as one might wish, but:
Your desires for what the BMC does is inherently biased compared with the cohort the BMC wish to have as members. Remember this. (And, before anyone tries it, respondents to the BMC survey are also a biased sample.)
Usually, announcements about funding refer to the total value of funding over the entire period. Frequently they also include existing funding. Bear in mind, the real terms value of that funding has decreased massively over the last 2 years as we’ve gone from ~2% inflation to ~8% inflation. Most (if not all) of the promised money will likely not be inflation adjusted. This money is also often tied to certain activities and some may not be used for operational costs (pay) but only capital costs. £3M/10 = £300k pa not outrageous sums.
A person’s gross pay is about half their cost to an employer. Inflation increases both staff costs, material and energy costs.Gov grant funding is unlikely to go up, there will also be a reluctance to pass through costs to members (also facing inflation pressures) to avoid lowering membership numbers.
This is a problem that many membership organisations are facing.
Clearly, there are a lot more hillwalkers than climbers. I imagine the BMC are trying to attract more hillwalkers to become members (better than cheapskate climbers!). Access for hillwalkers is, generally, less of an issue as - unsurprisingly- it is usually practiced on upland environments.
If you want to help the BMC spend more on access, you’d prob be better trying to get your hillwalking mates to join the BMC rather than threatening to stop paying your membership subs but whatever…
I do think some people in this forum are surprisingly financially illiterate or feigning financial illiteracy somewhat.
I do not think the BMC are blameless nor, perhaps, as transparent as one might wish, but:
Your desires for what the BMC does is inherently biased compared with the cohort the BMC wish to have as members. Remember this. (And, before anyone tries it, respondents to the BMC survey are also a biased sample.)
Usually, announcements about funding refer to the total value of funding over the entire period. Frequently they also include existing funding. Bear in mind, the real terms value of that funding has decreased massively over the last 2 years as we’ve gone from ~2% inflation to ~8% inflation. Most (if not all) of the promised money will likely not be inflation adjusted. This money is also often tied to certain activities and some may not be used for operational costs (pay) but only capital costs. £3M/10 = £300k pa not outrageous sums.
A person’s gross pay is about half their cost to an employer. Inflation increases both staff costs, material and energy costs.Gov grant funding is unlikely to go up, there will also be a reluctance to pass through costs to members (also facing inflation pressures) to avoid lowering membership numbers.
This is a problem that many membership organisations are facing.
Clearly, there are a lot more hillwalkers than climbers. I imagine the BMC are trying to attract more hillwalkers to become members (better than cheapskate climbers!). Access for hillwalkers is, generally, less of an issue as - unsurprisingly- it is usually practiced on upland environments.
If you want to help the BMC spend more on access, you’d prob be better trying to get your hillwalking mates to join the BMC rather than threatening to stop paying your membership subs but whatever…
Holy fucking shit.
I rarely feel “angry” at a post here, but to call Pete or myself “financially illiterate “ is just extremely condescending and fucking, plain, wrong. I’m certain we all understood everything you wrote. Absolutely fuck all to do with the budget allocations of the organisation nor does it address any of the legitimate points and questions raised.
Reconsidering. I’m quite pro comp climbing, but no one aspect of the total should trump the others.
I disagree. Access is essential; everything else is desirable. ie Access should trump the other sides.
I just feel that there are very knowledgeable people who are writing that they can’t comprehend this sort of performance when, really, it is not such a stretch to comprehend.
I have been a member of organisations that are run by committee and they are terrible, nothing happens. Direct democracy is dreadful.
I did write that the BMC is not as “transparent as one might wish.” But, I can imagine there are circumstances that limit their openness and setting a low bar for full transparency leads to a hiding to nothing.
It is not the case that the BMC’s boss is it’s members and climbers - especially UKB climbers - are not it’s only customers.
If Climbing comps bring in a sizeable portion of the BMC money then they support a sizeable portion of the overheads. Two small organisations are unlikely to be as efficient (overall) as one larger organisation.
On this, I think having an organising/governing body for comp climbing is essential, if not just for the safeguarding provision as well as all the other admin there must be (how many sports are there where there aren't child abuse scandals? Why would we expect climbing to be different?). Whether or not that should be done within the BMC or some other organisation is debatable.
There may well skeletons in the closet. It may take someone to become one before it comes out.
Reconsidering. I’m quite pro comp climbing, but no one aspect of the total should trump the others.
I disagree. Access is essential; everything else is desirable. ie Access should trump the other sides.
On this, I think having an organising/governing body for comp climbing is essential, if not just for the safeguarding provision as well as all the other admin there must be (how many sports are there where there aren't child abuse scandals? Why would we expect climbing to be different?). Whether or not that should be done within the BMC or some other organisation is debatable.
4. “It’s what the membership want”, this might be true but I don’t think the membership realise how much it’s costing them. If someone as well connected as Northern Yob is unaware what about everyone else? Not helped by a certain amount of chicanery on UKC threads like throwing Heritage in with Access funding, claiming volunteer time and charity money as BMC contribution (I appreciate it is managed by the BMC).
For me the lack of transparency in where money goes is a massive turn off plus the lack of real perks other than the ground work. I’m subbed to national trust due to things like free parking which I feel bmc should also look into.
I really agree with Pete. It feels like the two halves kind of disrupt each other and a split would be preferable, then either side can really focus and hone in on the work.
Don't even mention it as a joke, Pete. In thinking about which organisations would be able to take over access work from the BMC the obvious candidate seemed to be the CC. If people think the BMC is overly bureaucratic and slow to make decisions then I'd say you ain't seen nothing.
I don't understand why the BMC couldn't continue as it is but with an additional funding mechanism of donations which is ring-fenced for let's say access if people wish to go down that route? People can choose to be members, others can choose to just donate to the access team if that's what's important to them. The access team can then get a portion of funding that's from BMC memberships like it does now and also get donations.
The 2 income streams would be no different to how GB Climbing is funded with some income coming from membership and another portion coming from Sport England which is ring-fenced.
Perhaps exploring new ways of attracting engagement and funding from the public is something the BMC should be considering. It seems pretty clear there are an alarming number of people such as myself that are happy to donate to access and don't really want or need anything else that the BMC has to offer.
I don't see why it has to be Membership or an Access Fund style model, rather than considering a hybrid. Clearly many people who are members, former members or have never been members don't like the current approach and dismissing or ignoring that isn't working. Has this even been entertained before?
Basically I think there is a very obvious ceiling to what a comparatively small membership organisation can do and people seem to want an awful lot for their 40 quid a year.I just want it all to go towards access and sandwiches. Is that okay??
But you'd continue to get the membership in a current fashion because they'd still get a portion of the membership? Unless you anticipate that they'd loose a large portion of membership as a result of giving people a choice?
If there's governance issues then why weren't there when donations came to help fund the purchase of Longridge?
Genuinely just trying to understand because it seems that people concerns and rationale for not being a member or choosing to no longer be a member is simply dismissed because you can't understand their perspective. This offers a solution to that which doesn't involve either lots of people leaving due to not being represented well or the BMC splitting which are 2 things which are continuing to be raised whether rightly or wrongly. I've spoke to many people recently about this topic and not met many who feel represented by the BMC in its current state which is surely alarming?
Perhaps, if that's not a viable path the BMC should be considering other pathways because currently it seems pretty clear that many members and potential members are unhappy with what's going on in terms of the access team.
I'd appreciate if rather than being quick to dismiss you perhaps look to offer new suggestions because what's there isn't working and that seems pretty clear?
administered properly,
Sorry I dont mean to be dismissive, I guess my view is that the current setup, administered properly, is probably the best option of a set of suboptimal ones.
An access fund sounds like an extremely good idea.
…. I bet the CEOs/directors haven’t cut their pay have they.
But, fundamentally, if you want a well run organisation it is logically inconsistent to think that an organisation should not pay a reasonable (comparable to other similar bodies) salary to its CEO.
On this, there appears to be an interesting piece of information in 'British Canoeing's' AGM minutes that's very relevant to the situation the BMC is about to find itself experiencing. It looks obvious to me that the BMC will split based on this.
Split competitions off and you'll reduce the tiny number of climbers interested in the BMC close to zero, unintended consequences. But what the BMC can offer Josh and Emily down the wall is likely a different question.
… as proved by surveys.
I’ve read william faulkner novels with more punctuation :lol:
I’ve read william faulkner novels with more punctuation :lol:
Could this be UKB's most ironic post?
I'm with Jim; I thought the language there was fine. Reading it critically (I give engineers a hard time over their written work for a living so I'm well practiced), there were one or two places I'd have liked an extra comma, but on the whole it was perfectly readable. Given that people always complain of the management speak it was also very straightforward.
Think of the grammatical atrocities committed by McCarthy: people called him a genius!
I’ve read william faulkner novels with more punctuation :lol:
Could this be UKB's most ironic post?
I'm with Jim; I thought the language there was fine.
Having this course correction plan in place at the outset was good governance, especially in challenging times as we are all experiencing at the moment. However, we have still found ourselves in a position where additional savings were required and regretfully, we had to instigate a restructure plan.
Reading it critically (I give engineers a hard time over their written work for a living so I'm well practiced)
I'm also not convinced it includes other items such as a fair apportionment of support staff costs which are shared such as IT, HR, Marketing and Communications or an apportionment of Management costs and expenses such as the CEO attending an IFSC Conference in Salt Lake City.
CFO’s are generally expensive, say 0.5CFO = 0.75-1 ACES officer (supposing you’d get a CFO that P/T). What’s your preference?
Not overspending on the comp budget in the first place. tbh
Simon:
- You said redundancies, there was one (voluntary) redundancy? This may seem irrelevant but it implies a certain tone to your post.
- Office costs allocated to areas - There seems to be criticism of not adding the office costs to the GB Climbing Budget. They don't do it with any other "slice of the pie", why should they do it with GB Climbing? (Genuine question, it is a sperate line item in the annual report and has been for the last three reports in the "new format".).
- I may not be impressed with how the Ratho budget was managed but I can understand why it would not be "GB Climbing" spend in the accounts, even though that might ruffle the feathers of the anti-BMC/anti-COMP crew. I doubt it was a GB Climbing idea, more a leadership team decision to raise the BMC profile/attract sponsors etc. It is there in the annual report, though in it's grouping it a bit disingenuous!
The scaremongering about redundancies and the access team based on social media gossip didn't age well. Is it really helpful pulling more random figures out the air?
There’s a lot of talk about cutting GBC loose and having it as a separate entity. I was very much an advocate of this last time…. And I’m 100% sure that in the long run that would be better for GBC. However I find the view that it’s ok to just jettison it as it’s the reason for the BMC budget deficit hard to swallow.
In my view GBC is 100% the BMC, the mess they are in is 100% the BMC’s making. Do people really think it’s ok to run something so badly and just be able to cut it loose without any sense of responsibility or kickback?
It seems to me like there is a fundamental problem with the culture of the organisation as a whole not just GBC and that cutting out the cancer that is GBC isn’t going to save the body as a whole. The Access stuff the BMC does is amazing but exactly what else are we actually getting and are we happy with it? How many full time staff are at the BMC? Whilst I get that it’s not as simple as straight numbers in departments etc and there is crossover work between lots of it, do people really feel that without GBC the BMC is a well oiled machine?
From what I can gather(I don’t actually care enough or have enough time to look into it properly) the work JR and others did a few years ago to come up with various recommendations for the future has been to some degree ignored/not adopted… it stinks of the kind of shit our various inept governments like to do with independent reports because ultimately all they are bothered about is staying in power.
The responsibility for the Mongolian clusterfuck that is the BMC in my view lies with the people at the Top. They are the ones who should be held responsible and be worried about their jobs, not the minions at the coal face.
From what I can gather(I don’t actually care enough or have enough time to look into it properly) the work JR and others did a few years ago to come up with various recommendations for the future has been to some degree ignored/not adopted… it stinks of the kind of shit our various inept governments like to do with independent reports because ultimately all they are bothered about is staying in power.
I disagree, the political analogy is daft and although ORG did some fantastic work it was far from perfect, in particular it had way too little information on planning the implementation of the recommended changes and the likely costs of those.
Are we just delaying the inevitable/ burying our heads in the sand by getting rid of GBC? Is it time to take it back to the bare bones and rebuild from the bottom?
The responsibility for the Mongolian clusterfuck that is the BMC in my view lies with the people at the Top. They are the ones who should be held responsible and be worried about their jobs, not the minions at the coal face.
Are we just delaying the inevitable/ burying our heads in the sand by getting rid of GBC? Is it time to take it back to the bare bones and rebuild from the bottom?
The responsibility for the Mongolian clusterfuck that is the BMC in my view lies with the people at the Top. They are the ones who should be held responsible and be worried about their jobs, not the minions at the coal face.
Jason, what is it you think isn't working at the BMC? What is the mongolian clusterfuck mentioned above? What should the BMC doing that they are not? Genuine questions by the way, I see a lot of "the BMC are awful" posts, especially on the other channel, but the reasons that they are awful is rarely/never articulated*.
*I am discounting those who are using the current lack of budgetary control as an excuse to attempt to purge comp climbing from the BMC for ideological reasons.
Are we just delaying the inevitable/ burying our heads in the sand by getting rid of GBC? Is it time to take it back to the bare bones and rebuild from the bottom?
The responsibility for the Mongolian clusterfuck that is the BMC in my view lies with the people at the Top. They are the ones who should be held responsible and be worried about their jobs, not the minions at the coal face.
Jason, what is it you think isn't working at the BMC? What is the mongolian clusterfuck mentioned above? What should the BMC doing that they are not? Genuine questions by the way, I see a lot of "the BMC are awful" posts, especially on the other channel, but the reasons that they are awful is rarely/never articulated*.
*I am discounting those who are using the current lack of budgetary control as an excuse to attempt to purge comp climbing from the BMC for ideological reasons.
Bit of an update:Well that's gonna help my "reduced sarnie / reduced chips" diet at least.
- the BMC has informed the local areas that they won’t be funding expenses for in person local area meetings for the rest of the year due to further financial pressures ie the Locsl Areas will have to fund their own if they want to hold in person meetings
How many people typically attend the Peak Area meetings? I.e. how big a venue is required?
“Unspecified incidents” has a rather ominous tone. Is that your phrasing Simon, or the BMC’s?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2241207952632038/permalink/6440203509399107/
More to the point, the real scandal is that there have been several significant incidents of concern since the review has been delivered including the safeguarding of junior athletes.
I cannot comment on those as they are subject to other investigations.
OK. I have a venue next to the Foundry. It’s where we run our pre expedition weekends so has a high quality projector in situ. Not the Peak tho but available. I’m sure the Riverside could rustle up some chips.
As Neil Foster points out on UKC, amongst other things, the Area meetings are a good breeding ground for volunteers. It’s certainly how I got sucked in..
a couple of the “UKC Fact Checks” aka “You’re telling fibs” are startling.
a couple of the “UKC Fact Checks” aka “You’re telling fibs” are startling.
Based on your quote, I thought this was going to a thrilling expose of incredible financial malpractice.
Alas the “fact checks” amount to:
2. The BMC’s website is a bit sh1t and not everything has been updated - shocker.
a couple of the “UKC Fact Checks” aka “You’re telling fibs” are startling.
Based on your quote, I thought this was going to a thrilling expose of incredible financial malpractice.
Alas the “fact checks” amount to:
1. the BMC didn’t get everything they wanted from IFSC and they disagree about what had been on the table. (Paul doesn’t say the IFSC didn’t honour what was agreed but was disappointed with what was agreed.)
2. The BMC’s website is a bit sh1t and not everything has been updated - shocker.
3. I don’t even understand the 3rd fact check: it sets out the reporting responsibilities of the CCPG (ie to the Board) and then says that it was minimally discussed at the Membership Council (ie not the Board), given it is not related to a reserved matter - shock, horror, again.
I kind of agree overall, but not on this point. As an org the BMC interacts with a lot of potentially vulnerable people. Having an up to date version of their safeguarding policy and contact details for their safeguarding officer publicly available is pretty low bar, and not meeting that low bar is negligent.
Seriously though, the article was both concerning and an anticlimax after Simon’s intro, but I’m surprised you find so banal. I do feel you are working hard to maintain your original anchorage, in a rather stiff gale of opposing (if inconclusive) evidence. No smoke without some sort of reaction, which may or may not be fire.
‘Confrontational’ is a rational approach when trying to get information from people/organisations who after multiple opportunities refuse to be transparent.
It can’t be a good outcome for a grassroots member organisation that represents the mundane world of mountaineering hillwalking and climbing if, after reading the CEO’s replies to UKC’s questions, my overriding instinct brings to mind Jeremy Paxman’s famous sentiment (https://blogs.bl.uk/thenewsroom/2014/07/why-is-this-lying-bastard-lying-to-me.html) on interviewing political subjects: ‘why is this lying bastard lying to me’. :shrug:
* although I didn’t think those fact checks came across as particularly confrontational
I kind of agree overall, but not on this point. As an org the BMC interacts with a lot of potentially vulnerable people. Having an up to date version of their safeguarding policy and contact details for their safeguarding officer publicly available is pretty low bar, and not meeting that low bar is negligent.
Except that’s not really what has occurred. A safeguarding policy can be years old but not out of date. That they named the wrong member of staff is hardly likely to impact how the organisation, in practice, deals with any notification. I’m not sure how many safeguarding notifications you have dealt with but, I can tell you most notifications that I am aware of have been passed to an organisation’s safeguarding lead via other members of staff. What is important is that all members of staff in an organisation are aware of their responsibilities and who they need to report any issues to.
You seem to have misunderstood what I …..
I am for giving the relatively recently installed CEO a fair crack at resolving issues.
There are very many organisations that do not publish any such policy (who knows if they even have one)?
Any group dealing with children should have a safeguarding policy in place, and contact details for the person responsible.
Any group dealing with children should have a safeguarding policy in place, and contact details for the person responsible.
Err, kinda. Technically, they must have such a policy if they regularly work with children (in England, probably the same in Wales, no idea about Scotland and NI).
But they are not required to publish it and unless they are providing educational services or some other specifically regulated services they will not be audited. So, as I wrote, who knows if they actually have one.
There are many things organisations are meant to do (even required to do) but many a time in court cases or ICO rulings, etc., it seems many don’t.
It is true Tony, there is no limit, you have demonstrated it repeatedly in this thread; though I’m surprised you are so ready to admit your stupidity. Blind obedience and trust unquestioning or simply a desire to troll? Not sure, but you are not worth debating, are you? Intransigence is your only talking point.
It is true Tony, there is no limit, you have demonstrated it repeatedly in this thread; though I’m surprised you are so ready to admit your stupidity. Blind obedience and trust unquestioning or simply a desire to troll? Not sure, but you are not worth debating, are you? Intransigence is your only talking point.
Sorry you feel that way Old Man. But if you’d like to construct an actual argument rather than regurgitate tripe I’d be happy to respond.
Are you for real, or do you not read what you post.Any group dealing with children should have a safeguarding policy in place, and contact details for the person responsible.
Err, kinda. Technically, they must have such a policy if they regularly work with children (in England, probably the same in Wales, no idea about Scotland and NI).
But they are not required to publish it and unless they are providing educational services or some other specifically regulated services they will not be audited. So, as I wrote, who knows if they actually have one.
There are many things organisations are meant to do (even required to do) but many a time in court cases or ICO rulings, etc., it seems many don’t.
Are you for real, or do you not read what you post.
Further, I assume then, that there is no question of the BMC or it’s authorised representatives; having regular contact and/or responsibility for minors?
Odd.
You can say "oh it's not technically breaching what they're required to do" until you're blue in the face and I wouldn't give a shit, that stuff should be all correct and in place at all times, because safeguarding is very important in youth sport.
We have recently simplified our reporting processes and we encourage anyone who has a safeguarding concern to report these to the BMC using https://bmc.vissro.com/public/bmccase.nsf/safeguarding-report.
UKC Fact Check
Until the board meeting of May 2023, the child safeguarding documentation was nine years out of date and still quoted a former staff member as the contact, despite being identified as a concern by the CCPG Review in December 2022. UKC checked internet archive history to confirm this and also found one current BMC safeguarding webpage with an old link to the previous 2014 document.
A safeguarding policy can be years old but not out of date. That they named the wrong member of staff is hardly likely to impact how the organisation, in practice, deals with any notification. I’m not sure how many safeguarding notifications you have dealt with but, I can tell you most notifications that I am aware of have been passed to an organisation’s safeguarding lead via other members of staff. What is important is that all members of staff in an organisation are aware of their responsibilities and who they need to report any issues to.
Will you not admit that this important act might be made slightly harder if the wrong person is documented as being in charge of safeguarding.
Will you not admit that this important act might be made slightly harder if the wrong person is documented as being in charge of safeguarding.
You:
“Hello, I’d like to speak to Brian”
They:
“Brian no longer works for the organisation. What does your call relate to?”
You:
“I’d like to report a safeguarding concern.”
They:
“Oh, I’ll transfer you to our safeguarding officer, Briony”
Desperately more difficult, possibly a whole sentence longer. Do you actually know how a telephone works?
Your attitude seems to reflect the attitude of the BMC in general “screw the opinions of the plebs, we’re in charge and they’re too stupid to understand “.
Your attitude seems to reflect the attitude of the BMC in general “screw the opinions of the plebs, we’re in charge and they’re too stupid to understand “.
I certainly don’t represent the BMC. I neither argue for the BMC or against the BMC. I am for sensible arguments and reasoned perspectives (yes, Nails, would you like to make an actual point?).
It is, of course, your right to do what you think best. I would not argue against that. You could (maybe you do) lobby your club to press for greater/faster reporting/reform from the BMC.
I think people should just consider what it is they want and how they think it is best to reasonably get there.
If you want to effect useful change, perhaps it is better to be in it pissing out than out pissing on it? (Not the standard idiom but…)
“Unspecified incidents” has a rather ominous tone. Is that your phrasing Simon, or the BMC’s?
Something to do with junior safeguarding. taken from the resigning Director's post on the BMC Watch Facebook GroupQuotehttps://www.facebook.com/groups/2241207952632038/permalink/6440203509399107/
More to the point, the real scandal is that there have been several significant incidents of concern since the review has been delivered including the safeguarding of junior athletes.
I cannot comment on those as they are subject to other investigations.
Also heard on the grapevine there has been recent cock ups with failing to make grant applications and entering people into the wrong competitions.
Thanks. Noted, but these are hardly hard facts. One can't draw conclusions from 'the grapevine' or a Facebook group.
Without more information its pretty hard to make a judgement.
It’s from the statement of a resigning BMC director. Not just rumours.
as well as seeing the staff happier and with renewed vigour and focus, the BMC pictured in the posts is not the one I see on a daily (well, weekly) basis.
[...]
Having said all the above, I have zero interaction with GB Climbing
I get the impression GB climbing might be much more dysfunctional than the other parts
.
If you read back over the last couple of pages here, you will note there is zero support for your position.
Blind obedience and trust unquestioning.
That the BMC published a policy that has the wrong “contact name” (contact details may or may not have worked) is a records management issue. … I don’t think it’s indicative of very much else. But that’s an opinion.
The only “power” left to me, are my feet, with which I shall vote, by leaving.
your defence of it merely serves to lower my already historically low opinion of you, a man on the Internet who I do not know and do not care to ever interact with again.
I’ll just have to believe your middle class stories about chatting with an unnamed safeguarding lead over a Prosecco (plebs, eh?).
Any group dealing with children should have a safeguarding policy in place, and contact details for the person responsible.
Err, kinda. Technically, they must have such a policy if they regularly work with children (in England, probably the same in Wales, no idea about Scotland and NI).
But they are not required to publish it and unless they are providing educational services or some other specifically regulated services they will not be audited. So, as I wrote, who knows if they actually have one.
There are many things organisations are meant to do (even required to do) but many a time in court cases or ICO rulings, etc., it seems many don’t.
Spidermonkey, you asked where this safeguarding discussion came from, I pointed you at the origin. It was, as I said a dead end.
I do think it significant that a resigning director cited these matters as contributing to his resignation, not at all clear on why that should be any less significant because he did so on FB? It seems unlikely that he has “made it up”. Anyway, not the main issue.
a pressure group on Facebook which is, at the least, extremely sceptical of the BMC at the best of times and downright hostile at others
I’ll just have to believe your middle class stories about chatting with an unnamed safeguarding lead over a Prosecco (plebs, eh?).
This seems unnecessarily personal, and detracts from whatever point you're trying to make.
Your attitude seems to reflect the attitude of the BMC in general “screw the opinions of the plebs, we’re in charge and they’re too stupid to understand “.
Any group dealing with children should have a safeguarding policy in place, and contact details for the person responsible.
Err, kinda. Technically, they must have such a policy if they regularly work with children (in England, probably the same in Wales, no idea about Scotland and NI).
But they are not required to publish it and unless they are providing educational services or some other specifically regulated services they will not be audited. So, as I wrote, who knows if they actually have one.
There are many things organisations are meant to do (even required to do) but many a time in court cases or ICO rulings, etc., it seems many don’t.
This Tony, and only really this, in the safeguarding issue.
Everything else is about the overall situation.
My gripe with you is that you persist in insisting there is no issue (safeguarding sideshows aside).
I leave the BMC because I can and want to.
I’m afraid your intransigence in what you think I think seems to have led you to believe that the “they” in my response to SA referred to the BMC, it did not. I rather thought the broader context and my later response to you made this clear. Clearly not clear enough. Clear?
what are you actually seeking to achieve in exercising this power?
I leave the BMC because I can and want to.
a pressure group on Facebook which is, at the least, extremely sceptical of the BMC at the best of times and downright hostile at others
I’m all for it in theory and the current/ recent BMC management situation seems to have elements of a shitshow to me but that group is so dominated by people who seem angry that the BMC even exists and eager to unconstructively slag it that I just couldn’t be bothered with it any more.
The final straw was when a bloke posted a picture of the current BMC office staff proudly captioned “The BMC: overstaffed, overpaid and over here” ::). I just felt like I was on a Facebook group where old blokes moan about the EU or something :wank:
Ignoring the fervent rambling, I think (it’s quite hard to tell) your response to my querywhat are you actually seeking to achieve in exercising this power?
IsI leave the BMC because I can and want to.
Which in no way sounds reminiscent of the comment a small child might make when throwing a hissy fit.
The final straw was when a bloke posted a picture of the current BMC office staff proudly captioned “The BMC: overstaffed, overpaid and over here” ::). I just felt like I was on a Facebook group where old blokes moan about the EU or something :wank:
a pressure group on Facebook which is, at the least, extremely sceptical of the BMC at the best of times and downright hostile at others
I’m all for it in theory and the current/ recent BMC management situation seems to have elements of a shitshow to me but that group is so dominated by people who seem angry that the BMC even exists and eager to unconstructively slag it that I just couldn’t be bothered with it any more.
The final straw was when a bloke posted a picture of the current BMC office staff proudly captioned “The BMC: overstaffed, overpaid and over here” ::). I just felt like I was on a Facebook group where old blokes moan about the EU or something :wank:
100% this, which is a shame as the idea behind it is sound. It makes Lancashire Rock Revival look forward thinking.
The final straw was when a bloke posted a picture of the current BMC office staff proudly captioned “The BMC: overstaffed, overpaid and over here” ::). I just felt like I was on a Facebook group where old blokes moan about the EU or something :wank:
Sorry got a bit lost with the recent discussion. Are you talking about BMC Watch? If so I can’t remember anyone posting that.
the vast majority of posters are either currently or have been BMC volunteers who are knowledgable about the organisation some of whom have been badly treated or became exasperated.
Politics innit.
Report Conclusion
The ‘Purpose’ of CCPG, as drawn from its current Terms of Reference, are:
Purpose
The purpose of the CCPG should include, but not be limited to:
• Advise and report to the Board
• Support and challenge GB Climbing
• Develop its strategy and long term aims
• Advise GB Climbing on the management of resources at their disposal
• Exercise the delegated authority of the Board in accordance with these terms of
reference
• Assess the performance of the CCPG and GB Climbing against set criteria to
ensure that competition climbing is being governed in the best possible manner
We have not seen any evidence that would lead this Review to conclude that any of
the above criteria have been met.This is clearly a breach of the operating mandate
which CCPG and GB Climbing were duty bound to deliver, and a failure to comply with
the Terms of Reference which were set out and agreed by the BoD and for which they
are accountable.
In the absence of a proper answer I did my own rough calculations and if you take the admin costs not directly funded by either SE or UKS of approx £1.3M and apportion them to GBC by ratio of income at approx 25% then GBC should be absorbing approx £325K in overheads.
Alternatively, you could apportion the overheads by ratio of headcount and that would be approx 45% of £1.3M = £585K
Somewhere in between would seem to be fair and given that we have a new funding model then maybe also a sliding scale over five years might seem appropriate. After all, the overheads have not increased that much since the BMC only had to support itself.
Conversely, we have agreed to fund GB Climbing to the extent of 15% match funding minimum but I have not seen any mention of where overheads might be included in that.
Given that some other Olympic sports are not supported by membership models and are significantly funded by both SE and UKS and… have much greater funding and admin costs than the BMC/GBC I cannot believe that their overheads are not included in their respective calculations.
QED - it is a fair question to ask whether we are overpaying for GB Climbing and what are we actually receiving for the money?
Given that NONE of the funds included those calculations make it to the athlete and we are now sending LESS athletes to overseas competitions (117 this year compared to 163 last year) what are we actually getting for the money?
Moreover, given that athletes, parents and coaches are deeply unhappy with the strategy being adopted by GB Climbing it would seem (at least to me) that GB Climbing exists for only one purpose and that is feed a gravy train for self appointed staff that have NO experience in climbing and no interest in the athletes or the sport but simply want to collect their award from HRH when we might one day win a medal
that’s actually quite a difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons:
1. It was a moving target and one that moved very fast.
2. The ToR’s for CCPG allowed for 4 meetings x 2 hours minimum and there was deep resistance to having more meetings despite my repeated requests that the work could not be covered within 8 hours per year.
3. Some of the CCPG members contribute very little but I will not expand on that. In essence CCPG is too small but the future proposals now suggest that it should be smaller.
4. The remainder are overworked even if that work is simply questioning what the heck is going on.
5. As soon as the SE contract was awarded GB Climbing started recruiting and spending before consulting with CCPG or partners.
6. In fact GB Climbing started spending money in areas that *might* be a partners area of responsibility before the partners had received their respective sub-contracts from SE.
7. Three of the four partners were pretty upset (understatement) this time last year with one stating that the only way it would be resolved would be a certain person being gifted a P45.
8. A number of the board (myself included) were totally overworked trying to recover the relationship with partners.
9. Many of the concerns were relayed to the CCPG review team but they were told that it was outside of the scope of the review based on time i.e. 2 years from its inception.
10. There was then deep resistance to the CCPG review even taking place to the extent that “BMC” office staff tipped us off that certain members of GB Climbing we’re digging up dirt on anyone connected to the review in order to derail, undermine or simply cast doubt on its findings.
I could go on….
The numbers given by the CEO to the Peak area meeting on GB Climbing overheads seem much more consistent with what I'd expect (after core overheads are removed from the split allocated to teams).
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/statement-from-the-board-of-directors-regarding-bmc-ceo-paul-davies
Paul Davies, BMC CEO, has sadly resigned and decided to pursue new avenues for a variety of personal reasons, including the unsustainable rigours of his commute and time away from his family.
We are grateful to Paul for his hard work during his three years as Chief Executive Officer for the BMC. We are sure that you will join us in wishing him all the best for the future.
Roger Murray, BMC Chair and BMC Board of Directors
To: Roger Murray, Chair of BMC Board of Directors Andy Syme, BMC President
Laura Needham, BMC Director
cc: Natalie Berry, UKC Paul Ratcliffe, CCPG
20th September 2023
Open letter: Loss of confidence in GB Climbing's Leadership
We are athletes, parents and coaches representing the breadth of those participating in and supporting Competition Climbing in the UK, including 73% of the 2023 GB Climbing Team (lead and boulder).
We are writing to inform you that the signatories of this letter have lost confidence in the leadership of GB Climbing. Under the current leadership, we do not feel that GB Climbing is fulfilling the British Mountaineering Council's remit and responsibilities as a National Governing Body as set out by Sport England and UK Sport.
For clarity, our loss of confidence is in the strategic and operational leadership of GB Climbing and not in the volunteers serving on the Competition Climbing Performance Group (CCPG). We acknowledge the efforts of Paul Ratcliffe, Chair of CCPG, and other volunteers to try to make up for the deficiencies in leadership within GB Climbing. However, it is also clear to us that relying on volunteers to deliver activity that leadership are proving themselves incapable of is ultimately unsustainable.
The failings of the current GB Climbing Leadership have been set out by the recent CCPG Review published on the BMC website. However, throughout this season we have seen no action to improve the experience of Competition Climbing for athletes, parents or private coaches as set out in the Review.
As a group with wide ranging experiences across the breadth of all GB Climbing activity, we would like to raise the following concerns:
Failure to establish, or adhere to, a consistent selection policy for junior and senior athletes leading to adverse consequences which penalise individuals' attempts to be selected to represent GB Climbing.
Failure to attend enough competitions to build strength in depth through international experience, a failure to register athletes for international competitions in a timely manner and a failure to fill quotas available at events that GB Climbing attends.
Athlete numbers © UKC News
A demonstrable lack of understanding of their own selection policies in consultation with athletes, parents and private coaches.
Failure to honour elements of the 2023 Athlete Contract, specifically the provision of GB Climbing Kit (Section 4.1(e)) [Athlete Agreement 2023].
Failure to provide regular or clear communication on policy updates to athletes, parents or private coaches, respond to queries or deliver action in accordance with their own deadlines.
Failure to consistently apply policies vital for athlete health protection (e.g. accepting athlete medical fitness sign-off from non-medically qualified individuals) [IFSC Medical Screening rules]
Failure to develop athlete monitoring protocols for RED-S as encouraged by the International Federation for Sport Climbing (IFSC) Athlete Health Screening Policy and Procedures. [IFSC Medical Screening Rules]
Insufficient coaching provision for GB Climbing Para Team and selection of venues which create barriers to attendance and prevent equal opportunities for access for some GB Para athletes.
Multiple failings in accessing/providing individual support which athletes are entitled to.
The continued failure of GB Climbing to adhere to its own rules and deliver on basic responsibilities has not only directly impacted upon athletes' individual sporting performances but has also diminished the legitimacy of the National Governing Body in the eyes of its members, the wider climbing community and international stakeholders such as the IFSC.
The current version of the proposed 2024 selection policy will significantly reduce the number of senior athletes at the national trials at a time when our highest-performing seniors will be participating in the Olympic Qualifier Series. On the men's team, this will leave GB Climbing's allocation at both World Cup and European Cup 2024 events unfilled. With future allocation of places dependent on place finishes in the current season, not fielding a team will see the current allocation reduced in 2025. The result is these policy decisions create a clear block in the talent pathway for athletes to progress in their competitive careers.
To be clear, the signatories to this letter are current GB Team athletes (junior, senior and para teams), former athletes, aspiring team members, junior athletes in the talent pathway, parents of junior athletes and athletes' coaches who are proud to compete for GB Climbing or to support those who do. We largely self-fund to attend domestic and international competitions and as athletes, parents and coaches we commit physically, financially and emotionally to have these opportunities. We support the strategic aim of GB Climbing to become 'a world-class climbing nation by 2032' but we need a more effective strategy and clearer actions by our National Governing Body to fulfil that vision.
Due to the continued failures by GB Climbing to meet its obligations as our National Governing Body, we have lost confidence in the leadership of GB Climbing and feel collectively the need to write to you to request immediate and urgent action. We urge you and the Board, in the strongest possible terms, to take all necessary action to address our concerns.
Signed in confidence,
77 signatures of whom 30 are athletes or parents of athletes on the current GB Team (lead and boulder)
If BMC were a publicly listed company I'd be selling or shorting here.Have you forgotten that we can’t criticise because we’re “financially incompetent “?
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/ccpg-review-board-statement
The initially suppressed CCPG Review has now been publicly published along with its recommendations (documents linked at bottom of article).
The extent of the issues are pithily summed up in the concluding paragraph of the report.
The article outlines the subsequent steps that are being taken to address the issues raised in the report.
It is clear that something is seriously broken. Do you have any thoughts on how to fix it?
Hydraulic Man: I have no idea what you're actually trying to say here?
“As part of the work in resetting the budget earlier this year a budgeting error was discovered which the FAC are looking into. This work will take some time to complete but the FAC and Board will provide an update to the MC on 24 Oct. Once any impacts of the error are clarified an update on the error and any corrections will be provided to members; until then please allow FAC to undertake their work to provide the Board and MC with the facts which can be then actioned.
Whatever the outcome of this work the headline is that while the BMC finances are under pressure they are fundamentally OK; membership still raising, albeit on same trajectory as last year, and the Board and MC have no concerns that the BMC will 'go bust'.”
Processes are further complicated by the departure of the CEO.
This work is complex and is taking significant time and volunteer effort to complete; ensuring that we have a clear and consolidated set of reports. Once the impacts are clarified an update and any necessary corrective actions will be provided to members;"
The Volunteers have now completed the listening sessions with stakeholders and we would like to thank the staff, coaches, volunteers, climbers and parents for their positive engagement and honest feedback. An initial summary has been provided to the Board on 23 Oct and the team will feedback the headlines on what they heard to those involved in sessions over the next couple of weeks.
The Board will be considering the options available for addressing issues that have been raised at the next meeting on 1 Nov.
Finally, the award will enable the BMC to transform and establish an England talent pathway with multiple transition points, appropriate to athlete age and development. Holistic athlete planning supports positive athlete experiences, preparing them equally for life as a performer and for life beyond the competitive arena. Creating a broader infrastructure of grassroots talent provision, working in partnerships to develop accessible competitions and environments through the establishment of talent clubs and hubs.
I think you're right about Olympic funding, but much of the funding comes from Sport England, which isn't the same.
The nearly £3m from Sport England was supposed to achieve this:QuoteFinally, the award will enable the BMC to transform and establish an England talent pathway with multiple transition points, appropriate to athlete age and development. Holistic athlete planning supports positive athlete experiences, preparing them equally for life as a performer and for life beyond the competitive arena. Creating a broader infrastructure of grassroots talent provision, working in partnerships to develop accessible competitions and environments through the establishment of talent clubs and hubs.
Creating a broader infrastructure of grassroots talent provision, working in partnerships to develop accessible competitions and environments through the establishment of talent clubs and hubs.
Thanks Wil for clarifying that.
I'm still a bit puzzled though about the gripe athletes had with reduced numbers being sent to European comps.
I can see how the sport England remit means that there should be lots of opportunity for people across the country to get involved in competition climbing. But does it extend to sending a big team off to European comps under a team-GB banner? Not doing that was a key gripe wasn't it?
QuoteFinally, the award will enable the BMC to transform and establish an England talent pathway with multiple transition points, appropriate to athlete age and development. Holistic athlete planning supports positive athlete experiences, preparing them equally for life as a performer and for life beyond the competitive arena. Creating a broader infrastructure of grassroots talent provision, working in partnerships to develop accessible competitions and environments through the establishment of talent clubs and hubs.
What, exactly, is ‘this’ in plain language, beyond management jargon? And the last section is not a sentence. Is it an intention, aspiration, already in train?
My take on this is that GB Climbing has gone down an expensive road of empire building but without covering the basics first and in the process loaded cost and risk on the BMC it can’t bear. This seems likely to be the real root cause of the worsening financial position at the BMC. Furthermore it is a strategy that has been implemented by stealth.
Furthermore it is a strategy that has been implemented by stealth.
Additionally grant money earmarked to cover shared administrative costs incurred by the BMC to support GBClimbing has been diverted to spend directly by GB Climbing.
Is this what the latest issue is? It struck me as odd that Andy Syme was saying £115k (?) of the grant funding for comps from UK Sport / England was an allocation for shared BMC costs but the annual report showed no such income for 'other' BMC and 100% of all grants going straight to GB Climbing. I assumed there was just not enough detail in the report and the transfer took place by some other means.
Based on the associated revelations around BMC (mis)management (especially on the comp side), I’d suggest that “strategy” in the above sentence would indicate a competence that was manifestly absent.
The problems around over-inflated membership income and the loss of a month's insurance sales are a matter of record. The issues around errors in estimation of funding for GBC are still being investigated. So, at this stage, there are no 'numbers' that can be shared; they haven't been bottomed out
It is intended that more information will be provided to members next week with an on-line open forum being planned where members can directly ask questions
Over the past year, the Competition Climbing Performance Group (CCPG) has navigated challenging situations, which has seen them going beyond typical volunteer duties related to the oversight of GB Climbing (GBC).
Recognising the need for a deeper understanding, the CCPG members conducted 'listening sessions', engaging with key stakeholders as part of their role to check, challenge, champion and support the work of GBC. The CCPG were clear that the listening sessions were not aimed at public reporting but at understanding the concerns and opportunities in the summer competition climbing space. They are now feeding back to all relevant staff and climbers. They will provide a short overview to members on the themes once this work is completed.
Key recommendations to the Board were the refocusing and clear communication of a “Climber First” approach, including clarification of roles; improving communication and cooperation (with climbers, their personal coaches and Partners); implementing an athlete management system; and prioritising international training camps and other 'value add' activates that GBC can best deliver. This has been agreed in principle by the Board, and GBC are working on providing a clearly documented delivery plan, matching the resources available and with oversight by CCPG, to implement the recommendations. The first step being that the recommendations have already been worked into our initial Los Angeles 2028 Olympics (LA28) performance strategy and UKS LA28 cycle Investment submission.
The Board and CCPG recognise that significant work lays ahead of us as we evolve GBC as our performance department, and will prioritise transparent communication, rebuilding trust as we establish a world-class performance program. Despite the challenges highlighted through this process, the CCPG remains optimistic on the future of competition climbing, including summer sport climbing, para, ice and ski-mo racing, within the BMC; drawing from universal positive feedback on operational coaching staff and a shared vision for an improved culture.
2023 has, as for many organisations particularly in the outdoor community, been a challenging one for the BMC, coming through a period of economic uncertainty, resetting from the impacts of the pandemic and continuing our longer-term significant period of organisational change with the growth of sport (competition) climbing and our role as a National Governing Body. Throughout this period, we have also made significant changes within the finance function in the BMC including the introduction of a new accounting system.
Year-end target position:
The BMC had targeted a budget deficit of £72k in 2023. This plan included some ambitious membership growth targets with pre-set ‘course corrections’ planned if these growth targets were not being met. It became clear at the end of Quarter 1 that we needed to trigger the ‘course correction’ process. This took time to work through, these were agreed and implemented by July, with some additional planned activity removed and a small staff restructure.
Travel Insurance income reduction:
In July we also had to react to challenges with our travel insurance offer where, following compliance reviews of our delivery model, administration changes were required from our long-term underwriter. This resulted in a period of 4 weeks where we had to make updates to our travel insurance administration and were unable to offer our travel insurance policies to members.
While we worked hard to quickly address the issues and bring the scheme back on line, this occurred during one of the busiest months of the year and as a consequence we lost out on circa £45k of budgeted income. This period of uncertainty was a stark reminder of the value our members place in our market-leading travel insurance product; far from being a commodity it is a valued gateway to the world of adventure for our members.
As a consequence of limitations placed on us by our incumbent underwriter there are still some issues with more niche cover requirements (particularly expeditions over 4000m) and we are in the process of migrating our underwriter partner which will be implemented at the start of December with a wider policy coverage.
Income profiling error 2023:
As part of the routine financial reviews done in August a budgeting error was found which had overstated our grant income to GB Climbing (GBC) in 2023 by circa £200k. Consequently, we have incurred an overspend of the BMC contribution of circa £150k within the GB Climbing department across funded and non-funded activities.
The Finance and Audit Committee (FAC) have investigated the causes and impact of the error, and the key conclusions were:
This was a genuine error and the overstated grant income number went into the GBC budget.
The error was undiscovered because there were no specific checks by the staff, the FAC, CCPG or the Board to identify a grant income forecasting error of this type.
The UK Sport (UKS) funding model is very complex and the knowledge of the funding system was not sufficiently widespread amongst staff and volunteers to enable them to identify the error in the budget.
The new accounting system had not been appropriately applied in GBC so not all budgets were being appropriately managed. We are still working through the impact of this with UKS due to the complex funding model with some ring-fenced income.
Impact on BMC deficit
As a result of the above points, the planned year-end deficit of £72k will increase by the overspend within the GB Climbing department, plus the insurance scheme projected income loss and some other smaller variances. Noting we still have two months remaining in the financial year the current projection will be a year-end deficit of circa £250-300k (£178-228k over budget), which is manageable within our reserves but will impact future budget planning.
As a result of the 2023 year-end deficit our long-term budget planning will be discussed and reviewed by the Board to decide on the 2024 budget after consultation with the Finance and Audit Committee.
GBC budget in 2024 and beyond
GBC is a department of the BMC with mixed funding, comprising grant funding from UKS and Sport England (SE), and direct BMC costs. To access UKS grant funding the BMC is required to contribute some funds to UKS programme of activities. The GBC department is also responsible for delivering non-funded activities across our domestic competitions and non-funded other discipline support (Para Climbing, Ice Climbing, Ski-Mo etc).
Domestic competitions comprise of our programme of grassroots competitions such as the Youth Climbing Series and our National Championships across multiple disciplines.
Expenditure within GBC department activities in 2024 will be clearly broken down by our funded activities and our non-funded activities (Domestic Competitions and other disciplines), and will require significant cost control and a net reduction in BMC funded expenditure versus 2023. We are committed to developing our domestic competition infrastructure but must ensure we are doing this in a sustainable way, supporting participation in indoor climbing for the grassroots. We are working through this as we build the budget for 2024 and will be providing further updates on our plans for 2024 in December.
I think it’s now time for a full on boycott of GB Climbing. It’s reached a point where every aspect of the community is against the strategy that GB Climbing are adopting and the board are fully aware of this but seem unable to deal with it.
Athletes, parents, partners, coaches, walls, members council and even core staff have all voiced their concerns.
We’re now 12 months on from the CCPG Review and 3 months on from the listening sessions and still no visible action.
I tried to tackle it from the inside but it rapidly became clear that certain key people were brazen enough to just ignore the board and pursue their own agenda. Some of those people still remain and are continuing to pursue the same strategy.
This makes a complete mockery of the very governance structures that we were compelled to adopt in order to protect the organisation (and the tax payer).
The question now is which collapses first: GB Climbing or the board? Hopefully not the latter as I really do believe that they are trying but are probably overwhelmed by the combination of “corruption” and incompetence.
Interesting feature on BBC News 24 Sport today explaining the growth in paddle tennis and mentions that the top 2 (might be more) GB players are funded by the UK Sport performance pathway to reside and train in Spain as, apparently their facilities are better. That’s worthy of a debate itself but the key point is that those athletes are directly funded despite the fact that paddle tennis is not an Olympic sport.
Meanwhile… in the world of climbing you have to be a serious contender for a medal before receiving any support and they certainly wouldn’t fund you to reside and train overseas.
It has become very clear that GB Climbing serves one purpose only and that is to keep the administrators in a job as well as fund their international jollies.
How we can go from supporting 163 athletes in 2022 to 117 in 2023 despite much additional funding is beyond me. That is not what the members voted for in 2017.
Charlie Munger died this week: ‘Show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcomes’.Some sports bodies thrive with UK Sport funding don't they?
Been saying it for years, the incentives changed the day the BMC took the UK Sport funding path and set up GB Climbing in its current format.
There are two bodies namely Sport England and UK Sport.Sorry and thanks for the explainer.
Sport England’s funding is to increase participation in sport in the general population whilst UK Sport’s funding is to towards the elite getting Olympic medals.
Good point. I’ll ask CarlPeteJH here was saying the incentives caused the situation.
A Members Open Forum was announced in the November update (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/november-update?)and takes place next weds 13th from 6.30pm. To register go here (https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_f2XWEAuLQEykj0bYgeSC5w#/registration)
“As part of our ongoing commitment in creating new opportunities for members to keep up to date with BMC news and activities our first Members Open Forum webinar will take place on Wednesday 13 December 2023 from 18:30-20:00. This webinar presents an opportunity to engage in a Q&A session with BMC President, Andy Syme, and Chair of the Board, Roger Murray.
To register for the Members Open Forum please click here.
Upon regstering you will be asked to enter:
First name
Surname
Email address
Membership Number
If you wish to submit questions in advance, please email events@thebmc.co.uk.The deadline for submitting questions is midnight on Monday 11 December. We strongly encourage submitting any questions you may have beforehand. This allows us to provide you with the most up-to-date information and helps us adhere to our schedule. Live Q&A will commence once all pre-submitted questions are addressed”
How this came about has obviously been looked at in great detail.
Thanks Shark, your efforts to inform on this are very much appreciated.
In summary; it was a complete waste of time and a whitewash event. No new information and no new plans. Limited time for answering questions and many of the embarrassing questions not answered and not published.
They’re clearly waiting for a robust CEO to fix it for them. That might be possible but based on the capabilities of the previous CEO that is a very high risk strategy.
The section covering GB Climbing was a complete joke with the board doubling down on what they know is a complete mess. Martyn clearly reading verbatim from what had been put in front of him and probably supplied by the very people that are failing. Within some of his statements their were clear untruths backed up by some highly dubious statistics.
It is then interesting that the listening sessions produced a consistent theme but if it was that “consistent” then why not deal with that single issue now?
It is now only a matter of time before there is a MONC. When the wider membership wake up to the fact that they have been defrauded of £300k in favour of a strategy for GB Climbing that is not working and has never shown any sign of working with every aspect of the competitions community voicing their concerns and now 3(?) letters of concern it will be a complete mess ahead of the AGM.
These open forums are far from “open” and fully intended to avoid the need for an open face to face AGM like this year which became deeply embarrassing.
The President and the ultimate members champion is defending the indefensible and has to go now.
Thanks Shark, interesting stuff, just checking MONC =?
How this came about has obviously been looked at in great detail.
So how did it come about?
He seems like a perfectly good candidate to me who now needs to be given a chance to make the changes needed. I think you're asking for the moon on a stick a bit Davo, as you acknowledge that would be very hard to achieve.Indeed I am and you may be right!
I hope he has what it takes.
I guess the problem with requiring a candidate for CEO of the governing body of a niche sport to also participate in that sport frequently is you drastically reduce the pool of candidates with the skills to do the job
I guess the problem with having a climber is that they wouldn't have experience of mis-managing an olympic talent pathway.
The current public estimate for the 2023 deficit/loss has now moved up to £397,000
Fair enough, that explains a very likely inadvertent mistake. As well as the larger costs you won't have included significant savings and extra income of over £100k.
. At which point Roger intervened angrily and said that Paul had provided a “realistic set of figures” and I would “just have to live with it” which shut down the conversation.
If Paul or Roger misunderstood what I was asking or saying or vice versa then I apologise. I know someone who has a transcript which I could probably get hold of if you want a more accurate account but that was my recollection.
If anyone else reading this who attended had a different recollection of this exchange let me know.
Fair enough, that explains a very likely inadvertent mistake. As well as the larger costs you won't have included significant savings and extra income of over £100k.
That doesn’t make sense. I was very clearly talking about the deficit. Any savings and extra income would be included to arrive at the deficit estimate.
Fair enough, that explains a very likely inadvertent mistake. As well as the larger costs you won't have included significant savings and extra income of over £100k.
That doesn’t make sense. I was very clearly talking about the deficit. Any savings and extra income would be included to arrive at the deficit estimate.
The 2023 deficit included in the report to Council included extra costs compared to the budget (as per your numbers) minus extra income and savings in predicted spending. The 2023 deficit was within the range predicted by Roger. It's nothing to celebrate but not as bad as it could have been.
I have been generally following the BMC threads here and on UKC and although I disagree with the idea of having GBClimbing as a separate entity I really do agree with the need for greater transparency and better communication in terms of finances. Yours and Simon’s debate here around what the actual level of the deficit is, was and should be just highlights this for me.
If the finances were open and communicated more clearly then there wouldn’t be the need for a discussion about how much the deficit actually was, this would just be a fact.
This is why I have signed the petition for more openness and transparency for finances.
On the subject of having a subsidiary, nothing I have read has altered my viewpoint on this that it is a bad idea. I really think we need to endeavour to keep as much of the climbing and mountaineering activities in the UK within the remit of the BMC. I genuinely fear that by making it a subsidiary this makes it much easier for it to be completely separated at some stage in the future when the board of the BMC decides it really doesn’t understand competitions and doesn’t want to be responsible for them.
Just my thoughts as a BMC member
Dave
I believe the best solution is for the BMC to remain both representative and governing body, but I signed both petitions because I’d like the issue discussed for this reason: the BMC currently does not look capable of being the NGB. Does it have the capacity to remedy this?