UKBouldering.com

the shizzle => get involved: access, environment, BMC => Topic started by: shark on June 08, 2017, 11:41:50 pm

Title: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 08, 2017, 11:41:50 pm
The Independent Review that has been initiated is now underway and there will be a consultation of the membership via a questionnaire and other means.

Ultimately the review will conclude with recommendations on how decisions are made in the BMC and the most suitable organisational structure. These recommendations will most likely to be voted on at the April 2018 AGM. The latest update on the review groups work is here: www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-governance-review-group-newsletter-may-2017 and the review group are committed to keeping the membership updated on progress.

Given how complicated the BMC has become the review group has a big job on its hands to both fully grasp how everything works at the moment and devise effective changes. This a major undertaking and well done to those volunteers who have stepped up to the plate. There are some impressive and experienced people on the review group and John Roberts  :jab:

It is great that fundamental change has been initiated. I hope the recommendations err towards being bold rather than expedient and lead to an organisation which is clearer in its purposes and simpler in structure which facilitates operational decisions to be made more quickly. From a commercial point of view I also hope that any structural legal and tax changes that are recommended are also financially the most effective ones.
 
This may seem an arcane, technocratic topic (I could see a few nonplussed faces at last night's area meeting when Rab was talking) but I anticipate the review will have a major impact on the future of the BMC which is why I think it is important to get involved by participating in the questionnaire and area meeting discussions and of course any voting when that comes round. I know its early doors but wanted to flag up what was going on.

   
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: fatneck on June 13, 2017, 01:00:47 pm
I think this is a good thing!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: dave on June 13, 2017, 01:04:53 pm
What this country needs is a strong & stable BMC.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: andy_e on June 13, 2017, 01:13:09 pm
Nah, the BMC are bolt sympathisers!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 10, 2017, 11:45:45 am
Expect a questionnaire in your inbox in the near future..

www.thebmc.co.uk/how-bmc-members-contribute-to-organisational-review

Over the last two months, work has been carried out in order to determine if changes should be made to the BMC. But why do we need change, and how can BMC members get involved?

We wanted to keep BMC members updated on the review process. To inform us, we asked Ray Wigglesworth QC, chair of the BMC Organisational Review Group (ORG), why the BMC organisation needs to be reviewed.

Ray said: “The BMC’s written constitution has not been updated in over 25 years. Since then, many changes have been made to company law, codes of governance, and the ways in which BMC members communicate and interact with the organisation. The BMC ORG was formed to investigate and research whether the articles of association should be updated, in order to change the democracy and governance of the BMC. The ORG has the capacity to recommend significant changes, but it’s incredibly important that BMC members take part in the process.

“Feedback from members will be gathered via the membership survey, the focus groups, feedback on the ORG monthly reports, through the Area Meetings in September, November, and February, and ultimately the AGM.

“After getting all the feedback from BMC members, the ORG will then be able to assess and comment on the governance structure of the organisation and how it compares to other sporting organisations. Until then, there are no indications on the likely direction of any outcomes.”

READ: Our interview with Ray for more details about the process (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/ray-wigglesworth-chair-bmc-review-interview)

The Membership Survey is fully independent from the BMC. To find out more, read our interview with the members of the ORG in charge of collating feedback:

Who is running the survey and why were they chosen?

The review has been split into working groups. The lead on member research and stakeholder focus groups has been taken by John Roberts, Fiona Sanders, and Rab Carrington. We’ve commissioned an independent market research company, 20|20 Research, to carry out the member research survey. 20|20 Research has worked with a number of similar organisations and the managing director, Bob Peters, is an active hillwalker.

The ORG engaged with a number of different providers including existing BMC members, volunteers, and commercial sports consultancies. As a group, we felt that 20|20 Research could support the BMC independently, represented value for money, and could do so with the level of rigour required to ensure the member research was well designed, analysed, and reported on in the timeframes required. The research will be run in line with Market Research Society guidelines.

How will the survey be executed?

Over the coming weeks, the survey will be released to the membership via email and social media. It’s been designed to be mobile friendly and quick to fill in, whilst gathering the wide range of information we need to make informed and data driven decisions on the BMC’s future supported by members’ responses. The survey will be open until mid-August and then results will be analysed by 20|20 Research and collated into a report, which will be passed back to the ORG. We aim to communicate the results of the survey in early September.

What are the key aims of the membership survey?

We’re looking to gather the views of a broad range of members and stakeholders of the BMC, including recently lapsed members. As a democratic membership organisation, it is critical that all recommendations are based on responses from a statistically significant sample of the BMC membership. We’re looking to understand:

Why climbers, hillwalkers, and mountaineers, join the BMC,
How they feel about the democracy and governance of the BMC,
The priorities members feel the BMC should have,
How effective the BMC is against those priorities.

Who wrote the questions in the survey?

The survey was designed by 20|20 Research following a comprehensive brief and a number of design sessions and drafts. The questions were written by the team at 20|20 Research and reviewed by the member research working group and the ORG iteratively and in conjunction with a few core members of staff, who have significant experience in gathering BMC members’ views, to ensure we can reach as many members as possible.

Who will get the survey?

The survey will be sent to all members by email and will be promoted on social media channels.

The survey will be online, however, those members requiring an accessible version of the survey can request a paper version, or to fill in the survey over the phone.

The survey will be anonymous, however, there will be a random prize draw for 3 x £100 cash prizes for those who complete the survey and pass on their details.

How important will the feedback from the survey be for the recommendations you ultimately make? And why?

In conjunction with the survey, we are running a number of focus groups with a variety and wide-reaching set of different stakeholders, including the Executive, National Council, patrons and past presidents, affiliated organisations (Mountain Training, ABC, etc), and more. This will also form an important part of our research.

These focus groups, coupled with the output from the survey, a full review of the articles of association, and a review of governance against current good practice guidance, will allow the group to make recommendations which enable the BMC to move forward democratically, and in the best interests of the membership.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 01, 2017, 11:10:24 am
Latest update from the Review team:

www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-organisational-review-group-newsletter-august-2017?s=5

The August newsletter from the independent BMC Organisational Review Group, featuring some results from the focus groups that have already taken place and thoughts on the organisational structure of the BMC.

We are still waiting for the data from the membership survey and there are two outstanding focus group meetings due to take place on 31 August, one with the clubs and a meeting with Mountain Training and other organisations which are linked to the BMC.

The focus group meetings have already provided us, however, with a huge amount of useful information and feedback, which we will use to form the basis of our recommendations. In addition to the views expressed by the persons who have attended our meetings, we have also received some written submissions from a number of persons, including Doug Scott, Dennis Gray, Pat Littlejohn, Stephen Venables, Rodney Gallagher and others.

Some persons have argued that the BMC should be an elite organisation, representing those who push forward the boundaries and frontiers of traditional mountaineering but the majority view is that the BMC should be an all inclusive representative body. In the focus group meeting with the current patrons and past presidents of the BMC, Sir Chris Bonington, Doug Scott, Dr. Charles Clarke, Rehan Siddiqui, Dave Musgrove and Mick Fowler all unanimously agreed, that indoor competition climbing should be included. The young indoor climber of today, or the young fell walker of today, may become a mountaineering star of the future. The young men and women who are members ( or potential members ), of the BMC are its life blood and vital to the continued success of the organisation.

The organisational structure of the BMC

Part of the work we have carried out, in the Review Group, has included looking at the history of the BMC. The present day BMC is a much more complicated and complex organisation, than it was in the 1993 when the first written constitution was drafted. During the 1970s and 1980s there was a gradual development of area and specialist committees. These committees, run mainly by volunteers, do extremely important work on behalf of the larger organisation. Some of the sub committees are small and operate autonomously within their own particular field. In the focus group with the chairs of the sub committees, one of the chairs expressed the view that the BMC was operated from the grass roots, rather than from the top, down. In theory this idea appears attractive but in practice, it may be important to have a nerve centre, at the top of the organisational structure, where all the information is fed and important day-to-day decisions can be made.

It will be important for the membership of the BMC to debate and reach agreement on a detailed and comprehensive aims and mission statement. This would include support for the old traditional values of mountaineering and support for greater contact with the UIAA and other international representative bodies. But it will also include support for the new breed of indoor climbers, who have opened a new chapter in the history of the BMC.

So long as there is a clear “Aims and Mission Statement”, which has been debated by the membership and approved, then the executive has a mandate to work in a particular direction. If the executive want to change direction, away from the agreed mission statement, they must first obtain the views of the membership.

These are all matters which the Organisational Review Group are debating and considering with a view to making recommendations as to how the constitution of the BMC might be changed and how the interests of the members can best be protected.

We have done our legal research and looked at the best practice in modern codes of governance. Now we are simply waiting for the data from the members survey and the results from the two final focus groups and then we should be in a position to complete our report.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: GraemeA on September 01, 2017, 03:54:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: SA Chris on September 01, 2017, 05:25:14 pm
Surely as climbing competitions are not allowed to take place on rock in the UK, they don't need to be differentiated as anything other than that name?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on September 01, 2017, 05:40:52 pm
"There are some impressive and experienced people on the review group       and John Roberts"  just spotted this.... hope JR gets a suitable revenge ;-)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Muenchener on September 01, 2017, 06:15:16 pm
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.

See also Munich, Vail, Arco, Imst. The new one in Innsbruck too?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: danm on September 01, 2017, 06:24:04 pm
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:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 01, 2017, 06:33:03 pm
"There are some impressive and experienced people on the review group       and John Roberts"  just spotted this.... hope JR gets a suitable revenge ;-)

It was my revenge for him doing a gratuitous downward dog in my face at the Depot
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 19, 2017, 03:20:50 pm
The Independent Organisational Review Group presented to National Council at the weekend.

A copy of the slide deck is here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6FGauUewgZjbFlsRzJKWTJwanM/view?usp=sharing)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on October 29, 2017, 04:17:12 pm
Latest from Organisational Review group. They are still not giving much anything away. The big reveal is at Kendal on Sat 18th followed by a roadshow to all the Area Meetings:

www.thebmc.co.uk/organisational-review-november-area-meeting-presentations

How to have your say in the future of the BMC

Climbing, hill walking and mountaineering are changing, and the BMC needs to adapt to meet future challenges. A major review of our work is underway, and we need your help to shape the future of the organisation.

What is the BMC Organisational Review?

The BMC Organisational Review Group was formed this May. Its role is to look at the way the BMC currently works – in terms of organisation, governance, and decision-making structures – and evaluate how this reflects current best practice in governance, whilst continuing to act in the best interests of the membership. The group will also recommend new ways to increase engagement and consultation with all BMC members on key issues.

What’s happened so far?

Headed by independent chair Ray Wigglesworth, an eminent QC and climber, the review group volunteers have gathered views from an online survey (with over 5,000 responses), focus groups and individual feedback from across the BMC. They are now balancing these views against information on best practice in sporting organisational structures and modern codes of governance to produce their iniitial report.

What’s the next step?

The review group will launch their initial report at Kendal Town Hall at 2.45pm on Saturday 18 November, as part of Kendal Mountain Festival. All members are invited, look out for more details soon. As soon as the report is public, we will be uploading it to the BMC website and emailing all our members.

Then it’s your turn

The review group will be making various recommendations, but it is your feedback that will help make them reality. We’re asking all BMC members to download the report and then send us your feedback through a quick online survey. The online consultation period will run from 18 November – 22 December, then the final recommendations will go to a vote at the BMC AGM in April 2018.

Don’t miss: your local BMC area meetings

If you’d like to discuss the recommendations in detail, then head to your local BMC area meeting. The next round of area meetings will be attended by two members of the Organisational Review Group, who will present the group’s findings and recommendations. This is an important opportunity for you to discuss the findings and provide feedback to help shape the final recommendations, which will eventually go to a vote at the BMC AGM in April 2018.

Please do take the time to get involved and have your say in the future of the BMC. As Ray Wigglesworth remarks: “We believe that we have conducted the process objectively, dispassionately and independently. We also believe that if the members adopt our proposals then the BMC will have a bright future.”
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 16, 2017, 09:24:27 pm

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/whats-the-future-of-the-bmc-report-launch-kendal-mountain-festival

Join Steve McClure, Mary-Ann Ochota, key volunteers, BMC staff and the organisational review team at Kendal Mountain Festival to discover the future direction of the BMC.

If you’re heading to Kendal Mountain Festival this year, then don’t miss the launch of the independent BMC organisational review report. This is the culmination of a major review of our work and will be your first chance to view the results and recommendations.

The launch is taking place at 2:45pm at Kendal Town Hall on Saturday 18 November, and is open to all BMC members.

The organisational review team will be there to answer your questions, as well as BMC staff, key volunteers and BMC ambassadors.

The launch is a relaxed event, taking place in the fully-stocked Eden Brewery bar, and copies of the report will be available to take away.

The launch will run from 14:45 – 15:30 and includes time for a QnA session, which can be extended until 17:00 if required. It marks the start of a consultation period which will last until 22 December.

Watch the livestream

We will also be filming and livestreaming (dependant on 4G) the launch. The film will be uploaded to BMC TV the following week.

Please book your place, so that we can plan for the right size of audience.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 19, 2017, 11:09:52 am

www.thebmc.co.uk/whats-the-future-of-the-bmc-report-launch-kendal-mountain-festival


The BMC Organisational Report was launched at Kendal Mountain Festival and is now available to download

Full report here (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20ORG%20Review%20Full%20Report.pdf)

Summary here (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20ORG%20Report%20Summary.pdf)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: A Jooser on November 19, 2017, 06:14:36 pm
Shark, I do have some concerns re. the recommendations but didn't want to :worms: so have hopefully sent you a PM. I may bring the questions raised to my Local Area Meeting, but it's next weekend and about 300 miles away so probably won't manage it. If you are happy for the issue I brought up to be publically aired, please feel free to post my message here.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 19, 2017, 07:19:53 pm
Hi A Jooser

What you raise is something I can escalate if you'd prefer not to do so yourself.

On p46 of the full review you can see there is scope to create a sub group or subsidiary which could address the risk/problem you raise.

Feedback doesn't have be just at an Area Meeting

Simon
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: A Jooser on November 21, 2017, 01:34:11 am
Yeah, for me this recommendation of a 'clearly defined sub group' (presumably that's a sub group of the BMC although that's not how it's worded in the report) or 'subsidiary within the BMC' does raise some questions. Wouldn't the BMC ultimately be responsible for any legal obligations associated with this sub group or subsidiary? The full extent of such obligations yet to be determined it seems.

I certainly have more questions than strong opinions on this, but the consultation Q&As are only at the National Council meeting or area committees. AA Route Planner says my Local Area meeting is a round trip of over 377 miles and six and a half hours drive so I'm not planning to go. I've seen mention of a 'members consultation survey' but have no idea where to find it. Will this be an online survey or do I need to check my junk mail?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: danm on November 21, 2017, 11:56:33 am
As well as the area meetings, there will be an online survey where members will be able to make their views heard. It isn't live yet, but it should be soon.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: cofe on November 22, 2017, 09:53:37 am
It's live now.

For anyone who does support the area meetings (I do), and our Peak one is particularly good, I just spotted this:

'Local Areas will have a single vote each at the Members’ Assembly (where previously they had two votes per area).'
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: T_B on November 22, 2017, 11:56:55 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 22, 2017, 03:01:07 pm
Also the (previous, online) Membership Research Survey results which formed "the backbone to the ORG report" now up:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20Organisational%20Review%20Member%20Survey%20Report.pdf
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on November 22, 2017, 03:47:45 pm
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.

Will ask 2020 and see what's going on with that...

What you can do is try this (although you'll need to add more member verification info as it's a public link): https://www.warpsurveys.com/bmc2?id=sm211&s=1
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on November 23, 2017, 11:02:57 am
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.

Should be sorted now.  Thanks T_B
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on January 25, 2018, 11:13:45 am
www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-organisational-review-group-newsletter-january-2018

BMC Organisational Review Group Newsletter: January 2018
Posted by Ray Wigglesworth on 25/01/2018
 
The January newsletter from the independent BMC Organisational Review Group proposes a revised timeline for consideration and adoption of the group’s recommendations.

Since the launch of the Organisational Review Group (ORG) report in Autumn last year at the Kendal Mountain Festival, the ORG has continued to work, together with the membership, in an ongoing debate on the pros and cons of the recommendations contained within the report.

We have attended area meetings in all ten BMC areas, organised a further members’ survey, and held focus group meetings and discussions with National Council, in order to obtain feedback on our proposals for change to the organisational structure and governance of the BMC. In the main, the groundswell of opinion from the members is in favour of our recommendations.

We have received some constructive criticism, and taking this into account, we are going to change some of the detail and produce an addendum to the report which will be available at the beginning of March.

We are also conscious of the fact that some members were concerned about the timescale and so we are proposing adjourning the AGM and moving the date back from April 2018 to June 2018. At the AGM in June there would be a simple resolution to vote for some of the general principles contained in the ORG Report. If this resolution is approved then a new set of Articles of Association for the BMC could be drafted and form the basis of a Special Resolution to be placed before a second General Meeting of the BMC in November 2018.

PROPOSED EXTENDED TIMELINE
January / February Area meetings
17 February National Council meeting
2 March Addendum to ORG report published
April Area meetings
28 April National Council meeting
May / June Area meetings

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.

After we have published our addendum to the report, in March 2018, the ORG will begin to take a back seat in the debate, handing over the job of implementation to the president, the Executive and National Council.

It is now of the utmost importance that the membership and National Council get behind the president and the Executive, in support of the general principles set out in the ORG report recommendations. The old Articles of Association are out of date, contain conflicting provisions and are not fit for purpose for the BMC in the 21st Century.

The ORG has prepared a briefing paper to support discussions at the January / February round of area meetings.
DOWNLOAD: January 2018 BMC ORG Local Areas Briefing Paper (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1564)  
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on January 25, 2018, 11:17:23 am
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.

 :tumble:

 :wall:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on January 25, 2018, 07:55:18 pm
... when there will be a meeting to discuss the possibility of arranging a meeting , to review the previous meeting and debate the pros and cons of preparing a report on the viability of the conclusions of the previous report and establish a format for a meeting, where the membership can review the review and...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on January 25, 2018, 09:15:15 pm
Clearly Simon's just impatient to have his bonus signed off for luring in Cotswold and that a.n.other outdoor brand whose name I've already forgotten to 'commercially partner' with him; before Wrigglesworth notices it was all an elaborate white collar scam to fund a huge purchase of 5.10 Blancos for the next 10 years of Oak attempts. 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 04, 2018, 11:41:43 am
A website has been set up by Crag Jones which hosts a few letters and articles relating to the ORG review with a view to inviting further letters and opinion pieces and discussion.

It includes a couple of more recent letters from Bob Pettigrew and an opinion piece from Phil Bartlett who previously wrote a similar polemic for Grough (https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/10/09/the-death-of-mountaineering-one-climbers-view-of-the-recent-british-mountaineering-council-turmoil) .

How partisan this turns out to be remains to be seen but gives an insight into the sort of lobbying going on behind the scenes. A piece of me died reading the letters.

https://sites.google.com/view/bmc-rr/introduction







 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on February 04, 2018, 12:14:20 pm
Honestly, I did not find Phil’s piece to be on the same wavelength as “the letter”.

He seemed to clearly grasp that the Pettigrews are just the expressing of a personal preference and conflating it with a deep (almost spiritual) orthodoxy; that (in truth) never existed.
He points out that (like many “Traditional national dress costumes” and even “national traditions”) the ethos they cling to is merely the passing fashion of their formative years.

He even recognised those things in his own attitudes.

“Death of British Mountaineering”?

To use the modern idiom:
WTF?
(Was That Facetious?)

I wrote this on Gaz P’s thread discussing Shauna’s success (excuse me as I quote myself 😝):

“Look, I’m a mountaineer/exped leader etc etc. (Pretty much retired now, so “was”). I love the mountains. I have “been” all the different types of climber you can be (except dry tooling (wtf!)).
How do you realistically expect Mountaineering to attract public funding in the modern world? Is it cutting edge exploration? (No, hardly a peak that hasn’t had hundreds stood atop it). Is it record breakingly heroic stuff of epic daring do? (Well, in a way, yes. But frankly “we’re going to climb the same mountain we did last year, but 20 mtrs to the right of last years route, because it’s a bit harder, and we’ll be wearing clown shoes” does not excite the populace).
People understand “Sport”. They can get behind a competition and it’s competitors, even if they have only the vaguest notion of what’s actually going on.
And this is “people’s “ money, not “climbers” or “mountain lovers” or (even) the BMC’s.
If you think this money would be better spent on conservation and access issues, then you are barking up the wrong budget tree.
And, if that’s what you think, you should be arguing to de-fund the entire Olympic/UK Sport effort and redirect the lot to your chosen cause. Why should competitive climbing not be funded if Gymnastics is?”

So slightly to the right of the topic, but relevant.

I’ll pinch another comment from that thread, in summation:

“It’s not you Phil, it’s the argument. It has some merit, but I find it flawed. A quick reckoning over lunch (before I go back to painting my new “Top out” boulder), I’ve been listening to this same line of reasoning for ~40 years...
And yet, the crowds at Stanage are still the same few Uni clubs as 30 years ago (in fact, I think there are less of them than in the late80s and 90s). Bosigran is not a bolted sport climbing Mecca and the sods on the catwalk are still better than me.
And Simon still hasn’t climbed the Oak. All quiet on the Western front and normality reigns...”
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on February 04, 2018, 04:42:39 pm
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...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 02, 2018, 03:44:14 pm
ORG Final report now out

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/organisational-review-final-report

The final report from the BMC Organisational Review Group (ORG*) was published this morning and has now been formally handed over to the BMC to determine the next steps.

Over the last nine months the ORG has put enormous time, effort and thought – literally 1,000s of voluntary hours – into the range of recommendations it suggests are necessary to modernise and improve the operation of the BMC for the future.

The recommendations will now go to the BMC National Council and Area Meetings to work out how to proceed from here. The BMC AGM originally planned for 28 April will now take place on 16 June (Castle Green Hotel, Kendal) to enable discussion at the April Area meetings.

The final report includes some significant amendments compared to the original document, including:

Greater recognition for the role of clubs within the BMC;

DOWNLOAD: ORG Amended Recommendations Report (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1569)

An ‘independent’ discussion site (https://sites.google.com/view/bmc-rr/introduction) has been set up by former BMC vice president Crag Jones to enable interested members to share their views on the ORG recommendations.

The immediate next steps are that an additional National Council meeting is being held on 10 March to discuss the revised recommendations and begin working out the specific proposals to be put to the April Area meetings. An ORG Implementation Working Group was set up at the 17 February National Council meeting and this group is now taking the lead on the issue.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on March 03, 2018, 12:14:14 pm
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. There were clear concerns expressed at the Peak Area meeting on the delays and the implications of that, not just on funding (some funded posts have already gone) but on volunteer support ... that going to hillwalking especially... and the morale (and genuine worries for the future) of BMC staff (especially those on fixed term contracts and those in the exec who are constantly under attack from some quarters). I can hardly find any ordinary climbers or hillwalkers (ie those who have no contact with the BMC other than their membership and general support of the good work the organisation does) who are concerned at all about governance,  as long as its legal and not all going to explode again in 5 minutes.  Going to the NW area meeting (taxi driver for Lynn in her new exec duties) was like travelling to a parallel area meeting universe, half those there (of about 15 voting members) looked like governance wonks. Debate was good (excepting some paranoia from Jim Gregson of the BMC 30) but the thrust seemed to me to be completely detached from the concerns of the average BMC member and the implications of further delay on the organisation (aside from a few including the only woman voting and the only other voting person under 50) . If their concerns continue and dominate the agenda the process will take much longer than if the clear message is: get on with it, ease the pressure on BMC employees  and ensure that and the volunteers can get back to as close to 11 on the scale of the good work they normally do in less troubled times.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 03, 2018, 04:23:24 pm
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.

You can sign it as coming from the 'UKB Furtive'
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on March 10, 2018, 06:08:16 pm
Here's a short (ish) blog summarising some of the subsequent discussion and next steps, a place to download the reports, and in some ways a signing off from the ORG.  Now is the time for the members to really get behind the discussions.

https://johnroberts.me/outdoors/climbing/2018/03/what-next-bmc-org-governance-sport-england
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 11, 2018, 02:21:20 pm
Hi John,

Thanks for the write up and the exceptional amount of work I know you put in as part of the ORG team - duly wadded.

The report is essentially an ambitious programme of modernisation which I hope isn't significantly watered down in the horse trading that may now go on to appease a minority of highly engaged reactionaries. Trouble is a 75% vote is required to get through the constitutional changes through and given that only 2,500 out of 84,000 members voted on the well publicised "motion of no confidence" proposal the influence of this minority is proportionally high. Online voting might partially help redress the imbalance.

In defence of the 81,500 that didn't vote on the MOM (and largely are likely not to vote on constitutional amendments) they didn't sign up as BMC members to learn about and become embroiled in governance issues and however you dress it up governance is about as dry a subject as it gets - an example where importance is indirectly proportional to interestingness.

It is frustrating that the BMC failed to reform itself and needed this external input of the ORG to catalyse change. It would have been far better if a lot of the thorny political and constitutional issues had been sorted out largely out of the public eye years ago (in the way that club block voting was addressed under Mark Vallance) rather than festering until a crunch point and crisis was reached and the lid of Pandora's box was blown off. For example, governance issues on primacy have been raised by Sport England for years but there was no leadership drive to deal with that when I was on National Council. 

My main overall bugbear is that all of this is entirely inward looking rather than what the BMC should be doing which is be outward looking - doing the job of representing and promoting the interest of members, climbers etc.

Whilst some introspection is healthy this has gone way, way beyond that. The timelines have been extended for making decisions and 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.   

However, we are where we are and have to deal with it.

Next step - Let's see what emerges from yesterday's National Council meeting. 

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on March 11, 2018, 08:59:39 pm
Thanks Simon. There’s very little, if anything, to disagree with there.  Governance is as dry as gorilla grip, but wider engagement in policy decisions is almost as much about governance as voting at an AGM is, it avoids the crunch points in future.  At least with a greater “turnout” everyone has a greater confidence in the validity of the decision.

As chair of ABCTT (NICAS), I’m acutely aware of the funding issues and frustrating timelines. The pace has to pick up, it’s totally possible to resolve with the right motivation, risk taking, leadership and by picking the battles carefully.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on March 11, 2018, 09:51:19 pm

...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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 11, 2018, 10:52:41 pm

...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?

Yes we have a substantial cash reserve and the office is unmortgaged. I sometimes think that this strong financial position has given the BMC the luxury of not having to make hard decisions on priorities or a drive for value for money.

Quote
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.

Sorry that wasn't clear. I was alluding mainly to the risk of criticism. The BMC is so interconnected with other organisations and special interest groups that it is hard not to change something without upsetting one group or another. Rest assured the Finance Committee is very prudent - hence the large cash reserve all kept in mainstream deposit accounts earning bugger all interest you may be pleased to hear.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on March 12, 2018, 04:46:44 am

...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.

(http://www.mining.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/grundeinkommen-vault-coins-gold-900.jpg)

http://www.kickassfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/The-Wolf-of-Wall-Street.jpg[/img]](http://www.kickassfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/The-Wolf-of-Wall-Street.jpg) (http://[img)

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 12, 2018, 07:43:22 am
Less of that insurbordination. Teestub said we are a governing body. That makes you my bitch.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on March 12, 2018, 04:50:18 pm
... hence the large cash reserve all kept in mainstream deposit accounts earning bugger all interest you may be pleased to hear.

I like the idea of you having a monthly meeting with the head honchos, attempting to get them to get their money to 'work harder for them', the first slide of which is always 'this is not a pyramid scheme' :-)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 13, 2018, 09:07:36 pm
I've split the discussion on the participation recommendation to a new thread here (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,28736.0.html)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on March 13, 2018, 10:13:33 pm
Shark, will the ORG stuff go to vote at the AGM as a single package, or split into separate issues? Seems like there is stronger feeling in some areas than others!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 13, 2018, 10:39:51 pm
My understanding is that the current mood on National Council is to split it, with the aspects relating to constitutional changes taking priority with a vote just on that in the short term.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Crag Jones on March 28, 2018, 10:38:09 am
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!


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on March 28, 2018, 11:39:52 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: highrepute on March 28, 2018, 11:51:14 am
Couldn't agree more Will.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on March 28, 2018, 12:10:39 pm
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.

Spot on Will, and remarkably polite about the so called BMC 30. Statesmanlike in comparison to my word choice!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on March 28, 2018, 12:15:17 pm
I think its time for this image...

(http://lynncinnamon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/tinfoilhat.jpg)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on March 28, 2018, 12:41:25 pm
You read my mind TT.

..wait a minute..... :-\
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on March 28, 2018, 01:02:29 pm
You read my mind TT.

..wait a minute..... :-\

:D

this is SO true...

(http://cdn2-www.mandatory.com/assets/uploads/2016/08/man_file_1113981_2_youtube_conspiracy_theories.jpg)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Crag Jones on March 28, 2018, 02:31:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 28, 2018, 03:36:21 pm
+1 to Will...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on March 28, 2018, 07:51:19 pm
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.

Fair enough, I must have mistaken you for a Pettigrite. My point still stands about the scepticism I hold for these contrary views. They sound like all the lies we've heard before which have been painstakingly discredited and discounted. Especially given the very reasonable response that Shark gave you on the other channel.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 28, 2018, 09:23:05 pm
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.

In that case your wiki entry (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caradog_Jones)needs a major update as it doesn’t give that impression at all

I don’t have a list of the BMC30 but like Will assumed you were on it or at least closely in step with them. I think you should make a disclosure on your site given that you claim it is independent about your background and interest in setting up the site. I’d also suggest that you add that info to your UKC user profile.- in the spirit of openness, disclosure and transparency and all the things typically demanded of the BMC Exec, National Council etc.

Letters on your site are signed as coming from the collective 30 so I think there should be a list of who they are for those not in the know.

Simon Lee
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on March 28, 2018, 09:45:44 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 28, 2018, 10:13:09 pm
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
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 29, 2018, 12:18:57 am
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

Nice climbing though.

Hi Crag, I did Paget and Roots in ‘92.
Tough territory, left a bit of my foot there.

Still +1 to Will though. This change is for the better and the position of the 30 built on sand and misinformation.

Edit:

There doesn’t appear to be anything very controversial about that wiki, Simon. Plenty of us here have indulged in various aspects of “buggering around on varying sized lumps of rock and/or verycold water”. It doesn’t make you a hard-core Pettigrite. (Liking that word).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 29, 2018, 12:31:25 am
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...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Crag Jones on March 29, 2018, 09:55:28 am
Guys, the Wikipedia entry is a complete f*up. Despite some assertions I had nothing to do with it in the first place. Secondly one of my antagonists on UKClimbing decided to start radically lopping off any of the good bits everytime I wrote something he did not like to try and make me look like as much of a prat as possible. It's hilarious really. Have a look at the edit history and 'talk' page. I had not written up any profiles etc because I was trying to concentrate on the issues rather than give the impression of self-aggrandisement etc. 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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 29, 2018, 10:34:02 am
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.

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Crag Jones on March 29, 2018, 10:56:30 am
In the meantime, excuse the 'cut and paste' job until I have a bit more time.
Caradoc 'Crag' Jones.

Climbing since ~ 1972, First Alpine Season 1975. Regular on-going rock climbing, winter mountaineering and expeditioning (2018).

Karakoram: 1st  Ascent of Hunza Peak and 1st  British Ascent of Biblomotin. Africa: Kilimanjaro via new route 'The Stiff Upper Grip' TD,  Mt. Kenya, 1st  Solo ascent of Diamond Couloir. Torres del Paine: 1st Ascent and solo of E. Wall of Peneta (not to summit) and ascent of North Tower. South Georgia: 1st Alpine ascent of Mt Paget the islands highest peak via new route and 1st ascent and solo of Three Brothers, 1st ascents of Mt. Pelagic, Mt Baume, Mt Ashley and Starbuck Peak during various ski mountaineering traverses, 1st Ascent of Mt Nordenskjold, the 2nd highest peak on the island. Antarctica: Mt. Italia – Weinke Island 2nd ascent via new route. Himalayas: Solo ascents of lmjaTse and Pokalde, Everest  via N. ridge non guided from Tibet (5th British Ascent of this route and the first Welsh ascent of Everest), Winter traverse of Zanskar Gorge. Western Nepal reconnaissance expedition x2 with JFA. E.Greenland: 1st Ascents of S.Ridge of Ritterknegten and W. Wall of Faushorn. N. America – Rockies: Lotus Flower Tower, One day traverse of Tetones. Alps: Croz Spur, Dru Couloir,  NE Pillar Direct of Courtes and assorted classic routes and 4000m summits. 

Rock climbing to E4 and Scottish ice VII. (Led early ascents of Fly Direct, Labyrinth Direct, Gemini. Solo ascents of Zero, Smiths Route (Ben Nevis) etc. Best clean leads on UK rock eg Il Duce Tintagel, Godspell at Blackchurch, America at Carn Gowla; Zukator, Cream and Silly Arete at Tremadoc. Amanita Muscarina and Think Pink at Avon, Grand Alliance in the lakes. Many first ascents on rock and ice in UK from Dover Chalk right up to Orkney and Shetlandic Odysseys.

I am chairman of the South Georgia Governments Expedition Advisory Panel which advises that government on the suitability and preparations of expeditions applying to visit that sub-Antarctic island.

Current Club affiliations: Alpine Club.

Others:
UCNW Bangor Mountaineering Club ex Leader (=President)
North London Mountaineering Club ex Journal Editor and ex President
British Mountaineering Council – ex Vice President and Company Director, with special responsibility for the Youth and Access and Conservation Committees.

Background:

Born and brought up in rural mid Wales. 1958
School at Tregaron County Secondary . 1970- 77
Studies at :University College of North Wales at Bangor for joint honours in
Marine Biology and Oceanography 2(i) 1978 - 1982
University of York, MSc Biological Computation 1990
Married, with two children (boy -14, girl-17, as of 2018).
I have worked long stints as a lumberjack, labourer, climbing shop sales assistant, newspaper reporter, television presenter, interspersed with periods of climbing and travel. More in the career sense (see attached CV) I have worked both as a fisheries researcher / inspector and lately as a self employed IT specialist in various fisheries research and management roles. These have included long periods of work in the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. I have completed several television series for S4C with Alun Hughes where I was the presenter for all of the various climbing / travel programmes. More recently involved in the development of online database systems for medical project management.
Languages: English, Welsh and Spanish 
Television Productions:

1) An ascent of the Totem Pole, Tasmania
2) A winter traverse of the Zanskar Gorge in the Indian Himalayas. This was winner of the Patagonia’s Best Environmental Film award at the Kendal Mountaineering Film Festival.
3) First ascent of the South Ridge of Ritterknegten, East Greenland.
4) An ascent of the Rabado Navarro route on Naranjo de Bulnes, Picos de Europa, Spain,
5) An ascent of Silly Arete, Tremadoc, Wales.
6) Two programme series on an ascent of the Lotus Flower Tower, Cirque of the Unclimables, NW Territory, Canada.
7) Six part series ‘Summer Midst Winter’ on South Georgia, the voyage there, its wildlife and history and the first ascent of the ‘Three Brothers’.
8) Two part series on the wildlife of the Torres del Paine including rare footage of Pumas in their natural habitat there.
9) ‘On Top of the World’ a Leo Dickenson Film featuring the first (1995) Welsh ascent of Everest.
10) Numerous short programmes and interviews.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on March 29, 2018, 11:21:41 am
Blimey Crag... a holiday to UKB. You do realise that this site is said to be "Dire at every level; ugly, primitive, juvenile and offensive". Good on you...  I welcome recruitment here to boost numbers at the NW BMC area meeting.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: SA Chris on March 29, 2018, 11:59:22 am
In the meantime, excuse the 'cut and paste' job until I have a bit more time.
11) In summary "my ticklist is your wishlist"
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Crag Jones on March 29, 2018, 12:01:42 pm
Well, slap me buttocks with an alpenstock! I've instructed my taylor to make me a hoodie so I can get down with you and the bros for a jolly spiffing time. 1st things 1st - what's a boulder?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 29, 2018, 01:07:00 pm
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.


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on March 29, 2018, 01:13:49 pm
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.

In order for the BMC to function we must give some authority to a senior group of people, in this case the board of directors. Those directors will be accountable to the membership through the President who will be elected by the members. I get the impression that some people want the BMC to be run as an anarchy, with every issue, down to what variety of teabags to have in the office canteen, being decided by a majority vote after two months of vitriolic debate on UKC. The votes would presumably be taken once a year at the AGM, which would last several weeks to get through the backlog of unmade decisions.

Could you point out a specific hypothetical circumstance which worries you, Crag? Presumably you are concerned that the board will make a decision which is not supported by the membership. Could you describe a scenario in which the fail-safes that the review recommends don't function and a decision by the board leads to a significant compromise of the members' wishes and the values of the organisation? Could you also describe what better system you might adopt which also complies with the Companies Act (bearing in mind that the way in which the BMC is currently governed is in breach of the law - presumably we are members of a criminally run organisation).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on March 29, 2018, 01:20:02 pm
I wondered what those people with 'no to PG tips' placards were doing parading outside the old church on Burton Road were up to...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 29, 2018, 01:29:56 pm

Look what you've done now. I've actually gone and read that bloody report. I can't really see anything wrong with it.


There's no turning back now - you are fated to become a National Council Assembly rep.

Here's the latest  minutes (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1568)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on March 29, 2018, 01:38:15 pm
That looks a little bit like this to me.
(http://ukbouldering.com/board/userAvatars/avatar_668_1473150755.png)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on March 29, 2018, 04:41:44 pm
Another resource on this subject. Dave T's thoughts to the Feb NC meeting:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RA9dAK9sjsPWWjdOMavQdidqjWR7_BBK/view :popcorn:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 29, 2018, 04:52:10 pm
Another resource on this subject. Dave T's thoughts to the Feb NC meeting:

I thought you meant Dave Thomas for a second  :o
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Crag Jones on March 29, 2018, 08:08:14 pm
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.

See ol-'Green-Eyes' above + I can let you borrow my cat's tin hat, but you'll have to bring your own gaffa-tape. x.

more later.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 07, 2018, 11:12:52 am
BMC implementaion group papers for recommended actions on the ORG review available now.

https://thebmc.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/360003298814/ORG_Review_Implementation_Proposal__V1.pdf

The site and the documents in it are a bit untidy in places but thats not unsurprising given the short timespan taken to produce this. I think the key document to read first would be this one:

https://thebmc.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/360003298814/ORG_Review_Implementation_Proposal__V1.pdf

The proposal seem to be split in two parts ... resolve legal governance positions in June (either with or without SE compliance requirements) and pick up the remaining ORG recommendations next year.

(Apologies for the cut and paste from t'other channel)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 09, 2018, 03:15:55 pm
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-organisational-review-april-update

The Organisational Review is reaching a crucial phase and the BMC is now seeking feedback on the proposals to go to the AGM on 16 June; the proposals will be discussed at the forthcoming (11-19 April) round of Area Meetings and include some extremely important issues to the future of the BMC.

At its meeting of 17 February the BMC’s National Council considered the proposal by the Organisational Review Group (ORG) to hold two General Meetings in 2018 (June and November) and opted to seek approval for the high level governance changes required to ensure ongoing Sport England funding (and importantly the BMC’s position as the government recognized umbrella body for climbing and hill walking) by June. The BMC has been part funded by Sport England (and UK Sport at times) for the last 30+ years and the current total funding to the sector (BMC, Mountain Training and the climbing wall industry) amounts to c.£380-470k per year (projected income for 2018-21). The 17 February meeting set up an implementation working group* to liaise with legal advisors and Sport England and develop the draft documentation to go to the April Area Meetings (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/upcoming-bmc-area-meetings).

Following publication of the second ORG report in early March an additional National Council was held on 10 March to agree the specific recommendations to be taken forward by the working group. The past four weeks has been a frantic period for the working group and a significant voluntary effort has been put into the package now presented to members for discussion.

The proposed changes have been driven by a combination of factors in particular:

A general need to update, modernise and reformat the BMC’s constitution to bring it in line with contemporary good practice and the Companies Act. The constitution was produced in 1990-93, pre-dates the internet and has never been subject to a comprehensive review. There is a strong case that this is needed.
 
National Council’s desire for the BMC to continue to be recognised by government as the umbrella body for climbing, hill walking and mountaineering. Funding is part of this equation but there are more important issues including the potential loss of influence and stature across government agencies and partner organisations, and the fragmentation of the way the climbing and hill walking sector engages with government.
The documents include two key proposals as follows:

Proposal 1: updates to the BMC’s constitution (Memorandum & Articles of Association) considered necessary for the BMC to comply with the Companies Act and the necessary governance requirements to enable the BMC, Mountain Training (MTE, MTUK) and the climbing wall sector (ABC & ABCTT) to continue qualifying for Sport England funding.
 
Proposal 2: a commitment to make a detailed assessment of the costs and benefits of the remaining ORG recommendations and deliver them in a timely manner with proposals for any further constitutional changes to go to the 2019 AGM.

Overview of Proposal Documents

(https://imgur.com/a/y5Mrh)

How to get involved


National Council is encouraging all members to read the proposals, attend the April round of area meetings, and share their views via the online mechanisms listed below. All views expressed will go directly to working group, which will then present amended proposals to National Council on 28 April. Subject to changes and National Council’s approval, resolutions will then be presented to the AGM.

The working group has published several related papers, of which the key documents are:

Briefing Paper (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1583)

Questions & Answers (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1582)

Background Paper (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1584)

A mini-site has been set up to host all the documentation. The site includes a Q&A facility, where members can submit questions directly to the working group: Visit the ORG Review Implementation Proposal mini-site (https://thebmc.zendesk.com/hc/en-us)

Specific responses can also be submitted to the working group via a Google Form.  (https://goo.gl/forms/WCTewELiZWLAFwIi2)

* Members of the National Council Implementation Working Group:

Andy Syme – Yorkshire Area Chair and National Council Rep – Group Chair
Rik Payne – Executive member. London & SE Area Chair and National Council Rep
Will Kilner – Executive member, South Wales Area National Council Rep
Andy Say – North West Area National Council Rep
Les Ainsworth – BMC Honorary Member (NW Area)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on April 14, 2018, 09:19:36 pm
Well, the SW area meet voted overwhelmingly in favour of the four proposals.
Only proposal 1c really raised any eyebrows. I think that comes down, principally, to confusion over the wording. Lots of nit picking over the wording of this, that, and the other etc; but as I said, no votes against any of the proposals.

Valid point from a legally minded individual, given in response to a somewhat “hippy” objection to the use of the term “good governance”; that currently the BMC is (technically) operating illegally in terms of the NC/Board split in authority.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 15, 2018, 12:26:27 am
Thanks Matt. Illegal is a bit strong but certainly legally vulnerable.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on April 15, 2018, 03:59:06 pm
I thought the BMC was not in compliance with the companies act? Which is illegal?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 15, 2018, 08:50:41 pm
I thought the BMC was not in compliance with the companies act? Which is illegal?

Rupert can can answer better as it is not really my bag but as I understand it the companies act covers the status of “shadow” Directors ie individuals not on the Board but who in effect making Board type decisions. Shadow Directors could be held legally liable for decisions they make for the organisation. National Council members might be deemed to be shadow Directors without being covered (currently) by BMC Directors insurance. So whilst the set up isn’t illegal of itself NC members are legally vulnerable from the provisions of the Companies act if the organisation is sued for negligence, inadequate child protection, corporate manslaughter or whatever.

It is therefore considered that it is best practice that the Board has responsibility for decision making as well as carrying it out ie “primacy” and I buy that. The current set up with National Council setting policy muddies where legal responsibility lies. For governance wonks and legal bods who are dominating the debate this is all terribly important and can made to be sound so.

From my POV from an entrepreneurial small business background where you tend to take risk in your stride I largely view it all as being irrelevant bollocks 99.9% of the time and far less important than having good leaders and organisational direction ie the cultural stuff which to be fair the ORG also addresses but is off the table till till the governance stuff is settled. However, the current very practical implication of all this is that if don’t restructure than we can’t claim government grant funding for ourselves and related organisations we assist.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on April 15, 2018, 11:07:19 pm
I believe the reference (by the legally minded individual I mentioned earlier) is to The Companies Act 2006,Part 10, Chapter 2, Article 173.
But I’ve just read it...
(The whole bloody act (well; skimmed. I’m not a complete nerd)).
I’m not sure I understand the issue. Para 2b of that article seems to provide a get-out for that.
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on April 16, 2018, 06:36:26 am
You should form a new rival group within the BMC.

So we have council,

The OldGits32 (or whatever they’re called)

And now:.

The Legally Confused 7.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 16, 2018, 08:18:13 am

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.

Sport England will be benchmarking against their good governance guidelines rather than legislation.

The Sporting Recreational Alliance (trade body of Sport NGB’s) provides guidance on good governance which the ORG used to form their recommendations and it aligns with SE requirements and is quite readable: https://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/pages/principles-of-good-governance
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 28, 2018, 07:41:42 pm
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-constitution-the-way-ahead

BMC Constitution: the way ahead

Members Open Forum 7.00pm, Tuesday 15 May 2018

BMC members are invited to an Open Forum event in Manchester on 15 May to debate the proposed constitutional changes to go the AGM on 16 June. The Forum will be chaired by BMC Patron Lord Greaves and attended by senior representatives from the BMC, clubs and the wider membership. All interested members are very welcome to attend. The format will include a presentation of the proposed changes / Q&A and a ‘Question Time’ session to allow members to quiz the panel on the direction of travel and the detail of the new constitution. The event will be livestreamed with a facility for real time questions to be submitted by remote viewers.

Event information

Venue: St Thomas Centre, Manchester, M12 6FZ. More detail can be found here.

Logistics: free parking after 6.00pm, 10-minute walk from Manchester Piccadilly train station, light buffet / tea & coffee provided.

Supporting information: National Council meets on 28 April to discuss the proposed changes in detail; relevant documentation and supporting information will be added to this article as soon as it is available.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 03, 2018, 12:35:15 pm
BMC members (and others on email list) should have received the below:

Quote
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.






 
 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 30, 2018, 10:02:30 am
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/volunteers-needed-for-bmc-implementation-group

The BMC is seeking two to three volunteers from the membership to join the Implementation Group overseeing the roll-out of the recommendations of the BMC’s Organisational Review.

In April 2017 the BMC commissioned a QC led independent review of the governance, structure and management of the organisation. Phase I culminated at the BMC AGM 2018, in acceptance of the recommendations, in the spirit of the ORG’s work, and the adoption of a modern set of Articles of Association defining a new governance structure for the organisation, aligned with contemporary best practice in sports governance.

The BMC is now addressing Phase II of the Review, namely the development and implementation of around 40 wide ranging, and interlinking, recommendations. The overall organisational change it recommends is likely to take several years to fully complete. The recommendations include a review of the organisational strategy and development of key policies, structures for managing competition climbing, the BMC’s presence in Wales, commercial activities, new strategies for supporting and engaging members, key partner organisations, volunteers, indoor climbers, hill walkers, and clubs, alongside a range of HR and internal management improvements.

READ: BMC Organisational Review final report (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/organisational-review-final-report)

About the Implementation Group

An implementation group (IG) made up of senior staff, volunteers including the BMC’s National Councillors and others from the membership will oversee the roll-out of the recommendations; the IG has recently been set up and we are now looking for others to join our group.

The IG comprises the following members:

IG Chair: Vice President (John Roberts)
President (Lynn Robinson)
CEO (Dave Turnbull)
1 x Independent Director (Amanda Parshall)
2 x National Council members (Andy Syme & Fiona Sanders)
2 - 3 x ‘Independent’ BMC Members (from outside of National Council)
IG Project Manager (part time paid role – currently in recruitment)

About the independent member roles
The independent BMC members we are seeking should have significant experience in one or more of the following areas to support the BMC’s organisational change:


The roles will involve monthly meetings in Manchester, ongoing weekly communications and further work in partnership with staff and other volunteers. Reasonable travel expenses are payable.

How to apply
If you are interested in contributing to this important process, or have any questions, please email recruitment@thebmc.co.uk  giving an outline of your background, skills and motivation for getting involved.

The deadline for this Expression of Interest is 9.00am, Monday 10 September 2018.

Appointments will be made shortly thereafter, for a period of at least 12 months.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on October 20, 2018, 09:52:11 am
Latest update https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-organisational-development-group-update-october

The vacancies mentioned in the previous post have now been filled.

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:





Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on October 21, 2018, 12:45:45 pm

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:

David, Paul and Roger are all impressive in my view. David is a good quality professional project manager. Roger has a lot of executive experience across sectors: I had a long conversation with him at the AGM dinner and am very pleased he volunteered. There are other members as well:  Fiona and Andy for National Council and Amanda as a Independent Director.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-organisational-development-group-update-october

You also  forgot to mention there are numerous other volunteers involved in the various workstreams (several in each)

I'm glad its not an Implementation group. Firstly it avoids confusion with the previous group of that name. Secondly, we had to go through all the contention of last year to get a Board and by definition a Board implements (as approved by the AGM when it affects the articles).  This group is working for the Board on ORG recommendations to put them to membership for feedback as soon as they can (National Council, Area meetings and the broader membership). In a democratic organisation they might have to go round the loop again on issues that prove to be contentious (or tweak those which are not, but have sensible suggested changes). Finalised items have to be put on the AGM agenda for a membership vote.

The group has only just been formed and has a lot of work to do, so even as someone who agrees with you about avoidable delays, 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.

All of the work is led by the Group. John Roberts chairs this and David works across all areas with his project mangement  There are 8 workstreams and  as you say, Lynn and Dave lead on half each, alongside several different volunteers in each of the 8.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on October 21, 2018, 01:00:22 pm

You also  forgot to mention there are numerous other volunteers involved in the various workstreams (several in each)

Why forgot?  I was commenting on the new developments in the update highlighting including the new kids on the block joining those who have been involved and up to their necks in it for some time in one capacity or another. 

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:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on October 21, 2018, 01:04:27 pm
Asking for a friend.. is it now Insect Overlords or Insect Overpeople?

😃
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on October 21, 2018, 01:38:10 pm

 :wall:

As I said  I agree with you with a need to proceed as fast as possible given the democratic constraints but  having been with Lynn on her travels,  I've heard many BMC volunteers at 'ground level'  doing a lot of great work in many BMC areas  say after the last two years they want the BMC to focus back on what's important to them (mainly access support, or volunteer support) Very few of these volunteers seemed to be expressing concerns about the timing of the remaining ORG recommendations. I suspect most members won't even know the main details of the  recent governance change.

In practical terms there are not many area meetings or NC meetings before the AGM in March. Hence, 2020 was always going to be where a good number of ORG recommendations would be resolved into BMC changes. I think we should trust the group to do their stuff and prioritise sensibly what can be done and when.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on October 21, 2018, 03:23:02 pm
I’m not so concerned about the actual governance changes either. What I am concerned about is the governance changes are an enabler for good decisions to be made and carried through based on a clear direction and purpose that enables time and money to be garnered, prioritised and allocated efficiently and effectively.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 14, 2018, 11:04:41 am
Organisational Development Group update: November 2018

www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-organisational-development-group-update-november-2018

An update on recent progress made by the Organisational Development Group (ODG) in its oversight of the work required to take forward organisational change within the BMC, and a request for feedback from members.

Leading on from the October ODG update, the group has made the following progress:

Work has begun on the National Council reconstitution, the Memorandum of Understanding between the Board of Directors and the National Council, and the proposed updates to the Articles of Association;
The restructuring of the Board of Directors is underway with appointment of a Chair close to being complete;
The proposed plan for the Strategy Review has been published; in outline it is an Interim Plan to address the BMC’s immediate priorities complete by April 2019. After this the Strategic Plan and Business Plan will be created by April 2020;
The work to assess options to support the BMC’s work in Wales and 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 stream focussing on Partnerships has agreed its terms of reference and is recruiting a team of volunteers and staff who can contribute to the work in its scope; and
A key part of the ODG’s work is Membership Engagement, which is underway with a series of meetings with key contacts complete. The aim of this work is to increase engagement of the BMC membership in local, national and policy issues, and to develop volunteering and volunteers across the organisation.

Member feedback requested

The ODG has published a detailed update, to enable members to discuss the group’s work at the upcoming round of BMC Area Meetings (19-29 November), so that each Area’s National Council representatives can report to the next National Council meeting in December.

READ: ODG update to Local Areas: November 2018 (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1680)

The November Area Meetings will also include discussion of a framework for developing the BMC’s strategic planning process.

READ: BMC Strategic Planning process 2018-2020 (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1679)

Additional information
For members who wish to see further detail on recent work by the ODG, a number of supplementary documents are available:

Work stream 5: Governance

Terms of Reference (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1681)
Memorandum of Understanding sub-group – Terms of Reference (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1682)
Member update on Memorandum of Understanding (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1683)
Reconstitution of National Council sub-group – Development Paper (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1688)
Draft BMC Articles of Association (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1687)
Briefing on proposed changes to BMC Articles of Association (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1686)

Work stream 7: Partnerships

Terms of Reference (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1684)

Work stream 8: Membership Engagement

Terms of Reference (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1685)

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 14, 2018, 11:52:34 am

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.

     
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on November 14, 2018, 02:39:19 pm
Any news on when it might be safe to go back to area meetings without being bored to sleep?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on November 14, 2018, 03:38:25 pm

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.

   

Wasn't splitting off comp climbing into a separate organisation a large part of what the other lot were campaigning for in the recent motion of no confidence vote? And weren't the BMC claiming something along the lines of it being better kept in-house to secure sport england funding? It's all a haze now.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 14, 2018, 04:39:34 pm

No and no.

The basis of the no confidence vote was mainly around the aborted rebrand though certainly Pettigrew referred to the Olympics as a disease in his speech and railed against the IFSC President which seem rooted in grievances against a former friend of his - Alan Blacksomething and the split from the UIAA. The Sport England funding issue centred around having suitable governance which required changes to the constitution. 

The relevant recommendations in the final ORG report are:

Recommendation 15: The BMC should give clarity to members, partners and stakeholders on its level of support for the Olympics

This recommendation has not changed. However, based upon the feedback the ORG received, it was felt necessary to clarify to members that this recommendation is not about whether or not the BMC should support climbing as an Olympic sport. This recommendation asks the BMC to communicate to its members, partners and stakeholders the extent to which it supports, and intends to support, both the inclusion of climbing in the Olympic Games, and British athlete participation in them.

Recommendation 24: The BMC should create a joint subsidiary for competitive activities in partnership with Mountaineering Scotland and other relevant home nation governing bodies for the purposes of managing competitive activities and to support elite level competitive activities such as Team GB

Following the member consultation and discussions with Mountaineering Scotland, the ORG felt compelled to strengthen and amend this recommendation. The ORG recommends that a joint subsidiary should be created, in partnership with Mountaineering Scotland and where appropriate, other recognised UK governing bodies for relevant competitive activities.  This is required to ensure transparency of decision making in relation to all aspects of the Olympics and competitions across the home nations.
In light of the BMC’s recent acceptance as the governing body for ski mountaineering and the UK’s representative to the International Ski Mountaineering Federation (ISMF), the ORG notes that ski mountaineering will be an activity within the competitive activities covered in this recommendation. 
The ORG recommends that the BMC set up a working group as soon as possible to consider how best to implement this recommendation.  This working group should include representatives of Mountaineering Scotland to involve them in the strategic development of this recommendation and ultimately in the governance, and relevant committees related to this subsidiary.  The working group should also consider engaging with other home nation governing bodies for competitive activities within climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering as they see fit.  This could include Mountaineering Ireland.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on November 14, 2018, 04:58:03 pm
Ah right. Clear as.. :blink:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 14, 2018, 05:25:21 pm
You did ask
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 19, 2018, 10:21:26 am
Gavin Pierce appointed as Chair. More info on him here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/gareth-pierce-new-chair-board-of-directors

No knowledge of him other than what is in the article but whilst the info provided shows a lot of third sector experience though doesn’t strike me as him being a heavy hitter with a track record substantive Chair roles under his belt which is disappointing as I think this is the level required for a new Chair role with a major organisation going through substantive change.

Be delighted to be proved wrong. Wish him well obviously and no doubt his Welsh experience will be useful with some of the changes going in.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on November 19, 2018, 12:13:30 pm
Gavin was obviously the best person to apply and apparently comfortably met the role criteria. There was also a rumour he was incredibly well self briefed from the BMC website.. no mean feat. I'm glad he have him as I think that the BMC needed an appointed (rather than acting) chair to get on with things properly. His CV looks completely appropriate to me, especially
being supportive of BMC aims, CEO and governance experience and wrt to his working and negotiating with UK and  Welsh governments. I  not sure what type of person you think might have applied and even a weaker candidate who met the appointment criteria would have deserved being given a chance.

On your comments  further up I think its important to say that the BMC only wasn't fit to take the Olympic money as it came before the AGM voted in the required governance changes. I can't see what the BMC could do much faster on the subsiduary idea as its in a key ODG workstream and I think its pretty obviously going to face the most divided member views  of the remaining ODG areas. The delays are unfortunate but all stem from the idiocy and disruption of the last two years.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 19, 2018, 12:33:44 pm
On paper I would have set the bar at someone who had Chaired a listed company or a large public body - ideally both - stewarding it through a period of change and therefore lead from experience rather than someone learning on the job.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: A Jooser on November 19, 2018, 02:25:36 pm
Shark, I was just about to give a wad point for the correct use of English in your earlier post, then you edited it!  :slap:

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...

Thank heavens for the Chair of Board title, it's sure to challenge those stereotypes.

(https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/images/gareth%20pierce%20headshot.jpg)

In all sincerity, best of luck to the new Chair I'm sure they'll do the job to the best of their abilities. (If that sentence makes no sense, please don't blame me.)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 22, 2018, 09:22:27 am
There was a presentation at the BMC Peak Area meeting last night by the National Council rep Alison Cairns and some words from Lynn Robinson President that suggests there has been a lot of hot air from some on the issue of the "Memorandum of Understanding" and that this MOU can be used in some way to hold the Board to account above and beyond other mechanisms.

I looked into this when Pete Sterling was promising to negotiate hard on the wording of the MOU at the Manchester Open meeting prior to the AGM (then promptly resigned!) as I thought it represented a risk to subvert Board primacy by the backdoor (not good governance!)

The new Articles of Association are quite clear on the purpose and limitations of the MOU which is: "The National Council and the Board will agree a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to ensure communications between both bodies are timely and appropriate to allow both bodies to understand the proposed actions and intent of each party."

To agree an MOU that exceeds this description would be unconstitutional  and an amendment to the AoA to allow a stronger MOU would be an erosion of Board primacy / good governance.

If any of the protaganists happen to read this then please stop wasting your time and breath on this topic and concentrate on the real work of reforming the BMC.

Rant over.     
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on November 22, 2018, 11:12:52 am
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.

The BMC latest information on this subject is summarised here:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-organisational-development-group-update-november-2018

Which includes the follwing briefings on the MoU:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1682
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1683
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 24, 2018, 05:51:08 pm
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.

Having now had a look at the ORG MoU Group’s terms of reference (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1682) I can see where Lynn got the notion of using the MoU to hold the Board to account from. It indicates the desired use of the MoU has expanded far beyond the remit enshrined in the new articles i.e.

1.2.1. The MoU will form the control by which the National Council are able to hold the Board to account when they believe the Board is acting outside the agreed Object, strategy and policies of the BMC, or the intent of the Membership.

Why does this matter? Because the BMC has been hopeless at overarching decision making leading to an organisational clusterfuck of disparate activities sometimes at odds with each other and lacking clarity and purpose.

A small and confident Board should be able to provide Leadership and make decisions on priorities that are in the overall interests of the Membership but unpopular with some segments.

There is a danger that we will take a step backward if the MoU becomes a mechanism that allows the NC to meddle and micro manage the Board and subvert its primacy.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on November 25, 2018, 11:36:54 am
Its a democratic organisation and article changes are never easy unless the proposers convince most of those voting. In the unlikely circumstances that the ODG recommend something similar to what Pete Stirling said (in that May forum, and that so worried both of us) and the Board then bizzarely approve that (they have the authority now, so why would they give it away?) and the NC vote to support it, think on how a campaign that matches your views might work (in the context of you describing the BMC as a clusterfuck of disparate activities etc).  I'm confident the ODG recommendations in this area won't be as worrying as you think whilst recognising it probably also won't be your ideal.

The new formulation of the NC will greatly improve that group (better defined scope, better democratic links to membership, almost certainly reduced area votes from 2 to 1 per area, and new members from other BMC specialist areas and some elected from across the whole membership).

I'd say the importance of the newly agreed Board primacy needs to be regularly stated (if only because many still don't realise the change has happened) but on the detail let's wait and see, and deal with what is presented.

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 25, 2018, 04:27:18 pm
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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on November 26, 2018, 09:01:01 am
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.


.....I'm sure anyone with a view on this will interpret this in the way they want but I'd say in Lynn's role definition it should be more like keeping an open mind for the moment on behalf of all members. I was pleasantly surprised how many voting members gave the Board freedom to manage in last year's vote: 92% support for the current articles, on by far the biggest voting turnout in the history of the organisation, was pretty impressive, with fierce and sometimes dishonest opposition from the Option B group (with their 6% vote fraction) .....

Quote
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.

...yes, and on reporting back I'm sure she will when decisions are made, and if necessary (articles changes required) they need to be voted on. You want the Board to decide, with their new powers, so let them get on with it.....

Quote
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.

..... strawman?... or are you really giving up on your views, that I'm sure will have wide support, before any votes on any potential changes ?

Quote
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?

.... no one could know yet and if what the Board actually decide needs a vote (if that key articles phase on the MoU requires a change) it will be decided by the membership.....



Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 26, 2018, 02:04:48 pm
Clause 1.2.1 is a statement which is claimed to be "agreed and shared widely" prior to 2018 AGM yet goes far beyond what went into the current Articles voted in at the 2018 AGM. It seems obvious to me that anything agreed in an MoU that is in the spirit of 1.2.1 will either require an article change or will be unconstitutional.The November update shows no articles changes are currently mooted with respect to the MoU clause in the linked draft (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1687) of article changes for the 2019 AGM.       

As an aside I don't think that the membership and NC voted for greater freedom for the Board per se - they voted for a set of articles that got the BMC out of a funk and made it compliant with generally recognised standards of good governance of which greater Board freedom (primacy) is a product. There was much talk of there being a "democratic deficit" which gained traction.

It seems hardly a great start to NC and Board relations if the NC is already lobbying for getting power back again that the Board is unlikely to agree to on good governance and legal grounds. The issue  also seems to already be demanding attention and consternation when there are so many other things to get stuck into.   
 

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 26, 2018, 03:04:10 pm
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. Terms of Reference should be a model of clarity to limit misinterpretation and scope creep and sets the boundaries of the work to be done. Including a list of things at the outset that was "agreed and shared widely" (by who to whom?) prior to the 2018 AGM is weirdly misleading and obfuscates the scope. Does this list constitute part of the ToR or not ?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Teaboy on November 26, 2018, 03:24:58 pm
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.

Maybe there's a MoU to back up the ToR for the group creating the MoU?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 26, 2018, 04:57:06 pm
Quite.

I’m told that you can provide feedback to ODG@thebmc.co.uk so I’ve done just that and encourage anybody else that has a view to do the same.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on November 26, 2018, 05:21:30 pm
Has Dominic Raab been freelancing at the BMC?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 26, 2018, 05:25:01 pm
Thought has crossed my mind.

Having dealt with one of the people involved (who claims to be the voice of reason) I can well imagine how he would strangulate a document like this to meet his world view and it would get rubber stamped through just to shut him up.

Pure speculation obviously.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 26, 2018, 09:05:31 pm
I have had an impressively swift response from the ODG which confirmed that 1.2.1 was for background information only to acknowledge pre-AGM discussions that had taken place and categorically not a statement of intent in the drafting of the MoU.

Therefore, the MoU will not be used to “hold the Board to account” as stated which set me off in the first place.

I was also assured that there are no plans to change the clause in the articles relating to the MoU and that the draft MoU will focus on communication between NC and the Board as circumscribed by the current clause in the current articles.

Therefore all is good from my perspective.

As you were…

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 28, 2018, 12:57:12 pm
I gather that at the Alpine Club AGM at the weekend that there was a vote to disaffiliate from the BMC and was voted against by about 10 to 1.

Many of the principal Tier 1 agitators and BMC30 signatories are AC members so such a large defeat will be personally crushing for the likes of Doug Scott, Dennis Gray and Bob Pettigrew and hugely undermines their machinations.



Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on January 04, 2019, 09:59:08 am
A long, rambling piece from Dennis Gray in the wake of his Alpine Club disaffiliation motion defeat.

https://footlesscrow.blogspot.com/2019/01/dirt-bag-climbers.html?m=1
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on January 04, 2019, 10:13:19 am
Ten minutes of my life skim reading it that I won’t get back. 😃
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on January 04, 2019, 11:48:30 am
It's not only rambling it yet again drags up 'beergate' and repeats the lies about it.

Bob got the dregs of a pint of shandy (the physical assault) after making sexist insults and insulting the position of an area rep. Bobby immediately retaliated with a glass of red wine.... it seemed to me he didn't come off any worse. This was witnessed by many people in the bar (in contrast to Bobs version that was supported by one witness who was never cross examined and who contradicted all the other witnesses). As Bob subsequently reported it, the police became involved (a waste of public money) and the matter was eventually settled with agreement from both sides, an apology and a dry cleaning bill for his cravat covered;  and most importantly there was no formal caution (so it was clearly not regarded as criminal assault by the police).  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. Some climbers back then broke laws on a regular basis (brawls and shop thefts) and some of those even wrote it into their published memoirs.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: cheque on January 04, 2019, 12:03:46 pm
Someone needs to tell him that "dirtbag climbers" isn't an insult.

It's pretty funny how so much of the thing revolves around the toilet block at Harrisons Rocks.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Yossarian on January 04, 2019, 12:10:26 pm
It is quite a nice toilet block...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on January 04, 2019, 12:32:39 pm

 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.


This to me is the most unedifying thing about the whole farrago. To get the law involved for throwing a drink (not the glass!) seems to me completely laughable. I'm not sure I could look at myself in the mirror! Worse happens in every student nightclub every night of the week...

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on January 04, 2019, 02:53:10 pm
To me it's the sheer sociopathic nastiness behind the manufactured scandal in beergate and over the whole no confidence vote that is so worrying. The thing upsetting the area rep involved in beergate the most, and why they wanted at least a sign of regret from Bob, was that Mark Vallance was left trying to put the position of the 30 to the local area and was unable to do so, with his verbal disability.

I know its just sour grapes but the list of bullshit in such blog posts goes on and on. The irony in what they say in these blogs is also palpable. The BMC wasn't really a guilty party in the Harrison's toiletgate and the lack of a super fast response was partly down to the complex democratic structures that had primacy at the time.  Dennis Gray himself was in charge when the BMC started to support competion climbing. Sport England only fund participation activities (and then, that actually spent in the BMC, is mostly on indoor climbing and hillwalking); elite funding comes from another separate branch of UK sport funding. The recent (June 18) governance changes are to what are regarded as best modern practice in governance by independant experts;  it seems fair to me that Sport England requires something like such when spending taxpayers' money . Climb Britain was triggered by democratic elected NC reps voting agreement in the old structure that Dennis, Bob and co wanted to keep.

The internet has been the main source of news and statements made on the BMC in these areas. I think such  posted information and opinion on UKC and UKB was the most widely cross-examined  for accuracy and honesty. These nameless 'trolls'  like Shark and  myself (I'm struggling for the moment to think of other major players who didn't directly use their own name) are pretty easily identifable from our profiles (certainly no internet experts are required) and we outed distribution of private letters amongst club climbing friends of the 30 that were completely full of misinformation and some outright lies. In contrast the 30 mainly posted through pseudonyms that were genuinely hard to identify and in one case even used their son's logon account. Only Andy Say (not one of the 30) in the Option A vs B debate was commonly and formally posting against the BMC exec line and always named and open.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Wil on January 04, 2019, 03:19:27 pm
Another confusing conspiracy laden ramble. Contained within all of this are some genuine complaints which might be valid, but the whole thing is just failing to accept that the world changes. That he can't even get the facts right about Sport England's funding priorities...

I'm baffled by the "dirtbag climbers" comment. Firstly I don't regard it as an insult, and more importantly I've never heard it mentioned in regard to the generation that he's from.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: webbo on January 04, 2019, 06:00:07 pm


It's pretty funny how so much of the thing revolves around the toilet blocks
Especially given the author.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on January 04, 2019, 06:32:30 pm
I gave up.

Reading it, I mean.

It was a bit like a phone call to my (mostly Italian) mother. Nibs could better illustrate the ability of Italian mothers to ramble on about sweet FA. Anyway, basically, no matter how many attempts I made to read it; I kept having to go back a couple of paragraphs, as the words went in through my eyes and evaporated before reaching the brain.

I’m too old for that shit. If I get that bad (I know, almost, already) will one of you just shoot me?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on January 17, 2019, 06:07:51 pm
Latest insights on what is going on behind the scenes with changing the BMC can be found in the latest National Council minutes (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1720) - summary below - questions raised detailed in the minutes

Organisational Development Group update

The ODG structure, comprising 8 work streams, four of which are Board led (strategy & vision; ops & finance; culture, leadership & management; corporate structure),and four of which are National Council / Member led (governance; policy;partnerships; member engagement). Terms of Reference have been developed and other work completed; current focus is on governance work
stream.

A website for hosting ODG documentation has been established odg.thebmc.co.uk. The site includes an online feedback form, and the ability for members to sign up for updates and follow particular documents when new versions are released. It is also possible to email comments (to
ODG@thebmc.co.uk).

Articles of Association changes:

Four significant changes, to the following Articles:
6.2 (ensuring the rules for payment to directors are appropriately defensive for the BMC);
11.7 (updating the threshold for members to raise a resolution or requisition a General Meeting);
19.4.4 (appointment periods for directors appointed by National Council) and 28.5 (to prevent continual job swapping of area officer and representative roles).

Memorandum of Understanding

The MoU is in advanced draft stage. The next step is to align it with the ToR for the Board and National Council. When both are happy with the draft, it will be shared with members, and the intent is to have the MoU agreed by the Board and National Council before the AGM in March 2019.

National Council reconstitution

A working group has been established. Questions to be addressed include: the number of votes per Area; specialist committee votes; and the make-up of partner organisation representation.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on January 22, 2019, 02:13:55 pm
Summary of Board meeting for 9th Jan here:
www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-board-of-directors-january-2019-meeting-summary
Full minutes here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1731

October's Board meeting full minutes still not up!

ORG Jan update here:  https://odg.thebmc.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/360015680554-Organisational-Development-Group-update-Jan-19

Areas and members are asked for feedback, review, and questions on any of the documents available, or any aspect of the ODG. 

However, at this stage, they’d specifically like any feedback on:

Interim National Council Terms of Reference. Next step: vote at NC meeting, 9th Feb
https://odg.thebmc.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/360015887673

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Next step: vote at NC meeting, 9th Feb
https://odg.thebmc.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/360015774234

Articles of Association.  Next step: feedback, review, then vote at AGM 2019
https://odg.thebmc.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/360015886913

Board Terms of Reference.  Next step: feedback, then review and agree at Board, 11th Feb
https://odg.thebmc.co.uk/hc/en-gb/articles/360015873813


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 24, 2019, 08:29:10 pm
Papers are now up for the AGM (http://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-weekend-2019)

The deadline has passed for any motions of no confidence etc.

Key items to vote on are the £6 rise in subs, the amended constitution and 5 new Board appointments.

Regarding the Board appointments, three are contested positions which is interesting as I was under the assumption that the Nomination Committee nominated a single person for election. Nominating two and even three candidates seemingly indicates a worrying lack of decisiveness.   

Regarding the choices for the nominated Director of Finance there is Gron Davies and Huw Jones. He was proposed by Rehan Siddiqui (ex BMC President) which I seconded. I have known Gron for 30 years and has held a number of Finance Director roles as well as being commercially switched on. He has also been on the BMC Finance and Audit Committee and I think would be an excellent appointment filling a key weak area for the BMC. I don't know Huw but he looks a good candidate in the write up.

Next up is Phil Simister and Jonathon White. Phil revitalised the West Midlands Area meetings and I knew him from when I was on National Council. He dropped in my estimation at the last AGM when he tried to try to wriggle out of responsibility for voting for 'Climb Britain' saying he only half raised his hand  ::) Jonathon was the more acceptable face of the BMC 30 clique and their chief negotiator on the constitutional changes. Still comes across as arrogant (even by my standards) but gets my vote.

Finally there is the Nominated Director for Fund Raising and there are 3! candidates to choose from but in my mind only one real choice. John Roberts is the current VP but that role won't exist any more so he has to stand again after only being 12 months on the Board - which led him to resign his Chairmanship of the ABC. He has worked incredibly hard on the ORG and now the ODG. It would be a crime if he wasn't appointed even though he is a lanky bastard.     
 


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on February 26, 2019, 08:46:34 pm
I'd advise people to read the prospective nominated director profiles and make their own minds up.

The BMC wasn't indecisive: the process is that which was decided:  the BMC should interview to determine who is 'above the line' in terms of role suitability and the members then vote to ratify if there is only one candidate for a role and elect if more than one. It's very healthy so many good candidates applied and that we have 3 elections.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on February 26, 2019, 09:14:26 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on February 26, 2019, 09:52:42 pm
Is this all about the ‘two pad rule’?

:D
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on February 26, 2019, 10:01:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on February 27, 2019, 06:49:58 am
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.

The BMC... because sometimes its operation appears to be satire, W1A style :)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on February 27, 2019, 07:07:18 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on February 27, 2019, 07:21:06 am
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?


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on February 27, 2019, 07:57:22 am
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
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on February 27, 2019, 08:10:28 am
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

I didn’t say contradictory.
Entertaining and thought provoking.

BMC-wise, think of it as learning a second language, then it sorta makes sense...

Sorta.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on February 27, 2019, 09:35:01 am
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.

Is that some sort of piss take that my mind is too feeble to understand on a Wednesday morning, or is it actually unintelligible bollocks as Matt alludes to?

Regarding the BMC, I understand that this stuff is impenetrable at first glance. My contention would be that running an organisation with 75,000 members necessitates adherence to rules and regs with the associated legalese and bureaucracy this entails. I don't like it either, but don't see an option beyond disbanding it which I don't think many actually seriously think is a good idea. Anyone suggesting it should be otherwise is operating in a 'jumpers for goalposts' nostalgic past that actually never existed.

What the BMC is actually up to, as someone who goes to meetings, is attempting to secure access, secure funding for youth development and elite support, insuring everyone who is a member, alongside loads of other things I can't be bothered to name. I do find lazily slagging it off on online forums quite tiresome, but perhaps thats just me. If I have spectacularly missed the point I of course apologise.

Rant over; back to work!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 27, 2019, 09:50:36 am
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 can sympathise with this viewpoint and probably would have shared it fifteen years ago.

I started the thread as I thought it would be useful to track what was going on and to have an outlet for commentary and information that was outside official BMC comms. I have tried to communicate in plain english on this thread for those who might have a passing interest but it is a tortuous topic. 

With a view to trying to make the subject a bit more accessible for the lay member I have just submitted an  article for the Peak Area newsletter which is a personalised overview of why I think the BMC matters, what has been happening and the direction we are heading. A preview can be found here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y6JMS8KG7ObYM6gl4dr-7Ak7lDLjiw3eYPVMemZa_eo/edit?usp=sharing)

Feedback welcome as there is potentially a couple of days before the deadline to make edits.

 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on February 27, 2019, 10:26:33 am
Thanks Simon, I thought that was a very fair and even handed analysis that corresponds pretty well with my own understanding.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: danm on February 27, 2019, 10:39:36 am
I've just read the papers (OK, skim read) and submitted my online proxy vote. That in itself is a victory for democracy. I agree that all the paperwork and management speak is very tedious - but the alternative is a return to the old school way of 30 crusty old farts deciding everything behind closed doors. I mean seriously, do you write off parliamentary democracy because you watched PMQs on TV and found it boring?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on February 27, 2019, 10:43:15 am
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?

 :lol:  :agree:

Now if someone can just tell me who/what I'm supposed to vote for that's what I really want (a bit like Simon's post). Please footnote all posts with details of your default political preferences, views on Brexit, views on Corbyn and views on the merits of boulder triples vs long boulders as the most effective ancap routine when training for onsighting, so that I can weight opinions accordingly.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on February 27, 2019, 10:56:02 am
Do any of the documents contain the words "frictionless" or "strong and stable"?  :)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on February 27, 2019, 06:12:56 pm
Someone once described the NHS to me as a bit like a ‘bad back’. All bulging and degenerative.

I’d say the BMC appears somewhere between a hernia and jock itch
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on February 27, 2019, 06:13:46 pm
Ps What have the Romans’ ever done for us?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 28, 2019, 08:16:54 am
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
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on February 28, 2019, 09:44:52 am
Thanks Simon, that was interesting and well written. 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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 28, 2019, 12:10:52 pm
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

Now amended - principally the last 4 paragraphs. Link  here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZEoq4u9kV35Gm5XRNmFtPaqWf_4VaJq9qyeeyOZJKTU/edit?usp=sharing)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on February 28, 2019, 12:16:49 pm
Some comments on your paper Simon, but firstly I have to declare an interest as I could almost be described as being married to the organisation having a President as my partner. Much of my volunteering this year has been alongside Lynn as she travelled the UK and got involved with events, staff and volunteers whilst 'getting to grips' with the size and complexity of what is done at the BMC 'coal face' and listening to the views of many of the thousand plus volunteers and members. For me even the Roman's joke misses the point as by far the majority of BMC work is voluntary.

It's best to link the AGM paper on 2018 that efficiently and clearly summarises most of the organisation in the last year (but frustratingly could do with a diagram and summary of linked partner work.. and it underestimates volunteer numbers again albeit not as bad as before), as it includes important activities you miss, like the three internal charities. It is to be found here:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1754

The membership is approaching 85, 000 with about 25, 000 club members and significant membership from those involved in mountain training and comps.

I think the BMC complexity is hard to get away from without seriosuly pissing off sub sections of membership who do BMC work. Hence the ODG work to deal with governance change has risks as well as gains. I too favour a Board run BMC but The Board have to convince the membership. Strategy, member communication and member defendable budget allocations do need to improve.  However, in improving all this, governance work is seen as dull by most, so the organisation is lucky to have those it has and had working hard on such things. I expect it to go mostly well but If they do get big things wrong (as in Climb Britain wrong) the membership will very suddenly shift from 'meh' to 'wft'.

The risks are bigger than they might have been as a lot has needed to be done in short time scales (nearly all members would take a dim view of some '5 year plan' eating BMC  time and energy). So mistakes will happen:  my view on the signed off and member agreed 2018 Articles is they were necessary and the change to a Board was needed, but in fine detail they are sometimes  a bit of a mess compared to Articles of other similar bodies, even taking into account the complexity of the BMC. Some tidying up will be be needed in the next year or two. Also I'm not convinced eveyone involved in ODG knows the whole BMC well enough... so I'm glad the two key players, Lynn and Garath (the quietly impressive new BMC chair) have been meeting as many in the organisation as possible and using this to sense check things. Lynn has decided to take a sabbatical to do this, as best she can, as it was obvious soon after she was elected the role from  2019 into 2020 was huge.

On politics there is a new change most BMC members still don't realise. The member reps, including Lynn,  are 'political' appointments elected by members, working with Board appointments based on management needs, and both alongside the employed staff led by the CEO. The Board now 'runs' the BMC,  so a good balance is important. We must also remember that the BMC when it proposed Climb Britian was MORE member controlled: National Council was 'in charge' and  decided to go ahead with this, not a Board. The Board who are now 'in charge' still have to take members with them in any change.

On  'BMC 30' and 'Option B' politics, my concern was not about the political opinions, it was about the dirty tricks (private distribution of  dishonest letter and hoping to convince enough of the small minority who bother with the AGM) . Their concerns remain valid as there ARE good and bad ways for the BMC to be more 'corporate' with sadly too little good practice to emulate in UK organisations at present.  They were assuming a bad outcome to having a Board ... my perspective so far is nearly all good with any problems being due to the neccesary quite speedy changes.

From my experience this year attending several BMC organised comps and talking to staff and volunteers  I completely disagree it would be better in an independant subsidiary any time soon. I do think clearer guidance, structures and rules are required but given how much is done by volunteers the BMC might struggle to run comps from a subsiduary (especially if anything goes wrong) and the costs of doing in practical terms would be much higher (subsidiary staffing could not be provided on the current officer and admin budget). Cycling is a terrible comparison both as it's had all sorts of governance issues and it gets huge funding compared to competition climbing. 

I think you have rose tinted specs on bouldering and commercialisation. They started seriously in the 1980s. The big recent change is the explosion in numbers of bouldering walls: worrying as outdoor bouldering is much more sensitive than outdoor climbing (bouldering erosion is already terrible in some places and access is more complex). If the indoor bouldering 'hordes' move outdoors, as some will,  the need of the BMC (especially local access volunteers) at this interface has arguably never been greater.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 28, 2019, 12:19:34 pm
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.

With the professionalisation of the sport should come a professionalisation of our National body which is a point I've just added to the article.There is also much to celebrate about the development of the sport notably how many strands of climbing there are to enjoy now (or ignore) and the rise in standards.   

Institutionally the BMC has to move with the times but as individuals we don't have to. We are largely rooted in our formative years and it is still an option to wallow in the past and climb the neglected and obscure but still hard routes at Stoney ;-)

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on February 28, 2019, 12:46:21 pm
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.

You clearly haven't talked much to you local volunteers , area reps, or key BMC officials. You are putting a false image on the people involved based on the wording neccesary to run what is, after all, a company. I see it as the opposite of New Labour... not enough talking about the good stuff done and too much on the organisational 'mechanics'.  Your vision of what your climbing means to you is hardly different from what most would say about thier climbing and walking
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on February 28, 2019, 01:02:12 pm
85,000 members! Crikey all you need to do is arm and mobilise them and you’ve got Coup d’etat. You aren’t producing documents called ‘manifesto’s’ are you
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Yossarian on February 28, 2019, 01:10:00 pm
“Whoever wants to know a thing has no way of doing so except by coming into contact with it, that is, by living (practicing) in its environment. If you want knowledge, you must take part in the practice of changing reality. If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself. If you want to know the theory and methods of revolution, you must take part in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates in direct experience.”

I think it’s time you volunteered comrade...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on February 28, 2019, 02:15:25 pm
I must apologise for my actions comrades. I have been suitably smited by a general from the inner party. I now see more clearly and have my double think in check. I shall return to the ranks of the proletariat and await my fate.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on February 28, 2019, 02:41:15 pm
Is it true that those working one tier below the BMC politburo were called commissars?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Duma on February 28, 2019, 02:46:23 pm
Or you could try engaging constructively.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on February 28, 2019, 02:50:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on February 28, 2019, 02:51:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on February 28, 2019, 02:53:18 pm
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.

There are very few Serfs left around Burton Road. Gentrification Max+.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on February 28, 2019, 02:54:14 pm
It’s an easy fix for the Doc Shark. Just do a find replace and swap members for comrades.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on February 28, 2019, 03:08:38 pm
Or you could try engaging constructively.

What Duma said...!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 28, 2019, 03:20:00 pm
Will - did you read the revised version? Also I’ve submitted it now
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on February 28, 2019, 03:43:17 pm
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.

I'd be quite interested in reading a passionate polemic against BMC slowness, even if confined to UKB rather than distributed at meetings, as I've heard similar sentiments expressed privately by prominent volunteers and already felt the sentiments myself despite only having been involved for a year or so!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on February 28, 2019, 04:40:51 pm
Or you could try engaging constructively.

Is that doublespeak for ‘stop being a knob’ comrade?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: thekettle on February 28, 2019, 07:55:11 pm
Thanks for the update Shark, votes cast.
Incidentally I only found the electoral reform voting email hiding in my spam folder (on Gmail) today after seeing this thread. A fair quantity of the 85,000 potential votes may be lost this way!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 28, 2019, 08:56:11 pm
Nice one John.

Even for the Motion of No Confidence at the 2017 AGM and the surrounding publicity only 2500 votes were cast and that was considered good!

You should get a letter in the post too.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on March 01, 2019, 12:35:24 am
It was considered good as it was a massive increase on anything before and last year was another massive increase in voting numbers. The BMC has never seen as much democracy as it has in the last two years.  UKB massively helped with that as did other web sites and social media. There is no need for excessive cynicism; just read the AGM stuff and vote (if nothing else appoint someone you trust as a proxy).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: reeve on April 03, 2019, 12:24:02 pm
Does anyone know what happened at the BMC AGM this last weekend? There's nothing on their website or Facebook as far as I can see. I posted on the FB page last night but no reply as yet. Seems a bit odd that there's been no communication by now.

Simon, I heard you were there. Anything to report?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on April 03, 2019, 12:28:54 pm
 :tumble:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 03, 2019, 12:48:47 pm
Simon, I heard you were there. Anything to report?

In terms of the main items the subs rise and the amends to the Articles of Association got voted through. The contested elections were won by Huw Jones (Finance) Jonathan White (Clubs) and Jonny Dry (Grants).

About 100 people in attendance. The meeting was well mannered and was chaired by Lynn. Apparently Pettigrew was in the audience but didn't speak up at all  :o There was relatively little dissent from the floor.

There were certain things I am very concerned about regarding some of the processes and rules which had from my perspective unintended and very negative consequences but I'm trying to gather some info to see whether my assumptions are correct. Once I've got my facts straight Ill report further if there is an issue. 

Overall vote breakdown here:

(https://www.flickr.com/photos/64358048@N03/47475961712/in/dateposted/)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: reeve on April 03, 2019, 01:00:51 pm
Nice one, thanks Simon.

Worrying to hear about your concerns, obviously it would be good to hear more but happy to wait until you are ready to say more.

Any idea why there is no information about it on the BMC website or anywhere else? Seems a bit weird that they haven't publicised the outcome of a members vote.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 03, 2019, 01:15:21 pm
Up now

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2019-report

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 03, 2019, 01:18:51 pm
Overall vote breakdown:

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7898/47475961712_b4a82eaa92_h.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2fkhHo1)Voting result (https://flic.kr/p/2fkhHo1) by TheUKBShark (https://www.flickr.com/photos/64358048@N03/), on Flickr

(http://www.flickr.com/photos/64358048@N03/47475961712)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: reeve on April 03, 2019, 01:26:25 pm
Up now

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2019-report

Ah, just beat me to it thanks again Simon
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on April 03, 2019, 02:47:35 pm
Simon, does this mean your concerns have been addressed?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on April 03, 2019, 02:54:12 pm
How did the ERG vote?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 03, 2019, 03:13:11 pm
Simon, does this mean your concerns have been addressed?

Fraid not - the info I'm after isn't included in the article. I'll send some emails
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 04, 2019, 10:36:01 am
So my concerns relate to proxy voting and in particular discretionary proxy voting.

Proxy voting is being able to be absent from a meeting and still lodge a vote. There are directed proxy votes where you select your vote on each motion and discretionary proxy voting where you nominate an individual to use their discretion to vote on your behalf.

In the case of the BMC AGM there were 100 or so people in the room and clearly it is impractical to 85000 members present. As I understand it (please correct me if wrong) the proxy votes came in via post with the completed voting forms that were included with the Spring edition of Summit or electronically via the new system run independently by the Electoral Registry Service. In either case an individual can vote directly for the motions or nominate the Chair to use their discretion. The proxy votes could also be exercised in the room by nominated representatives in bloc vote type fashion by any authorised BMC member and as mentioned the Chair which in the case of the BMC AGM was Lynn the President.

In a post mortem analysis of the votes the members only get to see the overall votes and not how many discretionary proxy votes were being placed so it is difficult to ascertain what level of power nominated individuals had in determining the outcomes. However, by looking across the variances of votes from one item to another you can make comparisons and assumptions.

My concerns are that a nominated individual may have so many discretionary votes that they have too much discretionary power especially in the election of Directors. The former bloc power vote of the Trade Unions in the Labour Party is often cited as an example of the negative consequences of this sort of thing. In the case of the BMC it might be that by dint of their discretionary vote that the Chair of the meeting or a Club luminary like Pettigrew harvesting proxies might be in position to an unwelcome individual level of power. Currently it is unclear whether this is the case.

I have requested the numbers of discretionary proxy votes that were used at the AGM for each item but so far been turned down on legal grounds. I’m new to all this but instinctively that doesn’t seem right with an organisation that repeatedly claims to aspire to be open and transparent. I’m undecided whether discretionary proxy voting is inherently undemocratic and un-transparent but my current feeling on the subject is that you should do away with them altogether and outcomes should be entirely determined by individual votes.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on April 04, 2019, 10:48:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 04, 2019, 11:05:33 am
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.

You can draw all manner of assumptions which is why it would be useful to verify the discretionary proxy numbers held by the Chair and ideally anyone else in the room to understand what is going on.

It also seemed odd that the President was the Chair rather than the Chair of the Board of Directors (Gareth) as would be the case in corporate AGM's and understand how and why that decision was arrived at - which I assume is in enshrined in the Articles of Association.

One thing worth mentioning is that it is also possible for nominated representative to split their vote, if they choose which is another thing to confuse guesswork. Nick Kurth did this by splitting his discretionary vote 50:50 for the contested Presidential election at the last AGM.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Ru on April 04, 2019, 11:52:47 am
Shark have pm'd
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on April 04, 2019, 11:53:19 am
What's a discretionary vote in BMC terms, I'm assuming not mandated proxies?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 04, 2019, 03:30:16 pm
Simon

I must admit that after the votes it was immediately clear to me that an unintended consequence of the current articles is that any Board member with discretionary votes is actually a potential governance issue as the majority of AGM business is related to Board accountability.

If the Board Members have discretionary votes, albeit given and exercised in good faith, there is the potential risk.

Safe to say it's on my list of things to review with the Board and NC for next years (final I hope) revision of the articles.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 04, 2019, 03:34:03 pm
What's a discretionary vote in BMC terms, I'm assuming not mandated proxies?

When you proxy vote you can either direct your vote i.e. I want you to vote for X

or give your proxy the discretion to vote as they believe appropriate on the day.

The default in the BMC has always be they go to the President, unless you select someone else, but you can elect anyone to exercise your proxy vote, the only criteria is they attend the AGM in person.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 04, 2019, 03:53:26 pm
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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 04, 2019, 05:19:17 pm
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:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 04, 2019, 06:40:55 pm
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.  If a voter wants a particular outcome on a proxy they should simply mandate it.

There are no block votes... each eligible member can vote and if they proxy someone (it could be anyone present) they either choose to mandate a decision or to allow the discretion of the proxy on their behalf. Members present should only be carrying discretionary proxys because they are trusted to be of 'like mind' on votes after any debate.

I'd be happy if AGM elections for Nominated Directors ended; it was always a risky idea that might have ended up pissing-off some loyal volunteers (maybe even some of those elected this time!). If 'member input' is needed (Nom Com could also  just appoint!?) it's much better done in a National Council vote in my view. As it was, any candidate presented to the AGM for election was regarded as meeting the Board agreed appointable criteria for the role... ALL are regarded by the Board led process as good enough to do the role.


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 04, 2019, 06:46:23 pm
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:

Yep... it looks like 21 of 293 voters who's first choice was abstain had second preferences.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 04, 2019, 07:55:25 pm
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?

I said I'd review, not guarantee change.  Speaking to a lawyer friend there are some issues!!

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?

  You might agree or disagree with the decision made but is your opinion of what the members want any more valid than the Presidents views?  She is the members champion and has been going round meeting loads of members.

I guess if people are in some way 'worried' by events, my take away is we need to look at why that is, and then what can be done to ensure people don't feel this way in future; whether that's changes to articles, processes, communications or whatever.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 04, 2019, 08:13:45 pm
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.

John has done an excellent job in ODG, but given the role (and the fact some still smart about last year's motion) I'm not surprised he scored lower than others (by my estimate of direct votes). 

What was disappointing to me was
1.  that the Board when looking at ND roles did not feel ODG was important enough to warrant a director specifically for that.  I would have liked to see a firm commitment from the Board for work which I think is absolutely vital to us moving forwards.
2.  Why, by the look of things, those people with discretionary votes did not vote for him, thought I suppose given my initial statement about role they maybe felt the same and so could not 'in good faith' support him given the job description.

I may be biased but getting ODG right is the most important thing for the BMC if we are going to move away from the last few years problems, and there is NO ONE in the BMC better qualified/knowledgeable than John to lead that work.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on April 04, 2019, 08:34:16 pm
More gobbledegook
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 04, 2019, 08:41:59 pm
More gobbledegook
Gobbledegook as in you don't understand the words or just bored of subject.  I did try to use short words :-) :-)

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on April 04, 2019, 08:44:12 pm
Just had the urge to say gobbledygook
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on April 05, 2019, 09:12:16 am
Just had the urge to say gobbledygook

Childish. If you aren't interested (the thread is called BMC AGM so its fairly clear you wouldn't be) then butt out.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on April 05, 2019, 09:16:33 am

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?


If I understand this right the proposition would be to disclose numbers though wouldn't it, rather than who voted which way?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 05, 2019, 09:25:03 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on April 05, 2019, 10:18:58 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on April 05, 2019, 10:30:52 am
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!). The principle is the important bit and if I've understood it right, it seems plausible that too many votes could end up concentrated with one person. Perhaps next time just change it so the maximum number of votes one person can exercise is 10, or another suitable number?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 05, 2019, 10:46:14 am
Having thought through Andy's wise words above I now think from the numbers and guessing the rough proportions of discretionaries from past years it's a vanishingly small possibility that John didn't come bottom because of various blocks of discretionary votes. Yet what good does knowing the size of any of the bigger discretionary blocks in that room do the BMC really? You give discretion individually because you trust the proxy, so any power is deliberately given on a person by person basis.

I really don't get why is it so important to know why John came bottom. All the candidates were said to be comfortably  good enough to appoint and I trust the Board process in determining that.  Isn't John being the best candidate really your opinion in a democratic election and risking your views here being regarded as sour grapes? I also voted for John and feel for him and am shocked that the order of a thousand more members who feel the same way as you and I didn't vote in the election to mandate him for the good work he has done; but that's elections: people disagree and too many don't vote. I take what Andy said about John's situation but I still suspect laziness in not voting played a bigger part... members who might feel pretty guilty now. Would it have changed things?... maybe not, there will also be many supporters of the other candidates also probably didn't vote who now feel they probably should have. Low voting numbers do benefit political groups who always vote.

I can now see there is a potential issue on Nominated Director votes with the chair's block vote (to do with Nom Com) but as Andy pointed out that's something the Board missed (ie probably should have realised and dealt with earlier). Andy is also right that there are advantages in that the chair should know the BMC and the membership view closer than anyone. It's the Board's job with NC input to look at this for next year...I personally hope they decide AGM votes don't happen again for Nominated Directors. The damage visible here is more than even my cynical nature was worried about. I certainly hope all the candidates who were not elected continue their expert volunteer input to the BMC.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 05, 2019, 10:58:27 am
[quote  Perhaps next time just change it so the maximum number of votes one person can exercise is 10, or another suitable number?
[/quote]

A sneaky method of increasing AGM attendance? A lot of members like to have someone they trust to listen to the debate and vote how they might. Going to the AGM is a big commitment in time and money, especially if you live far away from the venue. I don't favour a maximum at all....individuals chose to build that block one by one. Its not like the old block votes at all.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 05, 2019, 12:13:11 pm
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!).

I didn’t frame it as a crusade - The decision has been made and can’t be reversed. However, the context of when clearly the most competent (not nicest) person comes bottom you have to question how did this come to pass as it is painfully obvious that the outcome is not in the best interests of the BMC.

I have spent 30 years devoted to Executive recruitment and know bad recruitment processes and decisions when I see them.


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on April 05, 2019, 12:23:17 pm
I suppose I was more getting at what Offwidth mentioned in his second paragraph, namely that this is an inexact science and taking a view on the most competent candidate fundamentally comes down to opinion. I wasn't there so can't really comment but presumably there must have been a reason for the landslide victory? Am genuinely interested as do not have the inside track on this.

I hope JR can still be involved in the ORG work as he sounds like he's a valuable asset.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 05, 2019, 12:35:45 pm
this is an inexact science and taking a view on the most competent candidate fundamentally comes down to opinion.

Competency and track record can be measured with reasonable precision and comparisons made. These represent a bar and the most important aspects to be considered in board appointments - more so than personality traits such as likeability
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 05, 2019, 12:52:16 pm
Frankly your comments about the recruitment process look biased to me as someone who voted for John.

The members approved Articles last year that made the appointable candidates for Nominated Director face an AGM vote, to increase member input to Board selection processes: that's the biggest issue here. My opinion was then and still is now, that that was a mistake.... not because you get a 'wrong person' elected (by the process, any candidate is OK to elect from a selection process and interview basis on a skills and knowledge basis) but because it risks causing unnecessary aggro for dedicated volunteers (for all sorts of reasons) and eats AGM time better spent on other issues.

As Andy said, the Board's choice of a fundraising post possibly made things a lot more difficult for John... again I can see the reasons they did this given the unexpectedly problematic financial position of the organisation, especially due to the impact of the big insurance claim.   

Given the weird type of election you end up with a clear reluctance to campaign. This makes potentially the biggest difference for John... he could for instance have said he would stand down as ODG chair if the workload severely hindered his ability to function in the Board role he was standing for, also being ODG chair almost certainly meant he didn't get 'out and about' as much as he would have liked as a VP. Irrespective, way more people who did support him should have voted.

All the three candidates looked comfortably OK to me for the post advertised and all had other useful skills besides. AGM votes are by definition political: part of the reason I voted for John was 'bigger picture' issues than the job spec.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on April 05, 2019, 01:51:30 pm
Some interesting input on this thread. As there seems to be some posters who actually understand the inner machinations of the BMC could they answer the following:

•   Who decides what “director” roles are required?
•   Is a “Job Spec” created for each director role?
•   Who is on the Nominations Committee?
•   Who makes the final decision on the nominations, is it an advisory committee or does the committee chairman get the final say?

Also, what is happening with the ODG? It didn’t seem to get much of a mention in the write up which seems out of kilter with the effort they seem to have gone into? Who is the director overseeing this?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 05, 2019, 03:34:51 pm
More gobbledegook

It's best to keep up UKB style humour.  BMC rules can sometimes look as dry as a silica gel pack in dessicated air in a hot box in a desert. We still need them.

There is a political spectrum of opinion in the BMC membership on the balance of  corporate vs member led in the organisation and AGMs are one of the places this gets discussed, sometimes rather heatedly. We had 75 people in the audience this time from a membership of ~85,000. In the meantime most of the 1000+ BMC or BMC related volunteers just get on with their good work.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 05, 2019, 04:04:02 pm
A few useful links...

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-nominations-committee

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-board-of-directors-october-meeting-summary

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-board-of-directors-february-2019-meeting-summary

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/articles/tag/ODG


•   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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Teaboy on April 07, 2019, 10:35:46 pm
Not knowing much about the candidates other than JR I assumed Jonny Dry was ushered into the role by the chair (or whoever was proxy for all hose votes) because they had some expertise in the area. This wasn't apparent from his personal statement but there must have been something they knew that I didn't. I wasn't going to comment but have just found this article which to me suggests he is particularly unsuited to the fundrasing role unless we are talking about sponsored walks or a jumble sale.
 
https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/commercialisation_-_changing_the_face_of_climbing-9112

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on April 08, 2019, 08:16:27 am
Not sure I agree on the basis of that article Teaboy. I find the overblown language and misspellings pretty painful but his core point, that it is the climbing not the business community which is most likely to act to preserve the environment, has some merit.


*edited at mrjonathanr’s request

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 08, 2019, 08:36:54 am
The below is the text of his supporting statement. Link here (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1748)

Quote
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-

In his short talk he came across as likeable and energetic but his grant funding experience was largely limited to getting funding for his films and he’s not held a Board post before.

I think experience is more important than enthusiasm for Board positions which makes it tricky if you are looking for youthful representation though JR is still in his 30’s so not ancient. I talked with one former BMC Director who was youngish who candidly admitted they felt out of their depth and ill equipped experience-wise to make a proper contribution.

If the organisation wasn’t going through such a difficult time of change then it wouldn’t matter so much.

Wish him well. He’s stepped forward for a time consuming and potentially stressful unpaid role.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 08, 2019, 10:03:13 am
Round we go again:  Nom Com said all candidates presented were appointable and The Board ratified this: by attacking candidates you are saying The Board are incompetant. The election material is a short form summary, not a CV.  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).

I really don't see the near BMC future as a " difficult time of change". The latest AoA modifications  went through smoothly and despite the volume of ODG work, most is well underway and there is little left that is highly controversial.  The new subs structures put the finances back in order.

The Board has tons of experience, in particular ... Roger, Will, Fiona and Jonathon are arguably as experienced in BMC membership issues as any group has ever been... the three Independant directors are well established.....what I view as an outstanding chair (ordinary members probably won't ever know just how well he responded to organisational challenges in a short and time)..... Lynn has taken a sabbatical until next April in order to get things done (in the remaining ODG work, improving volunteer support and for the 75th birthday year) .... and of course Dave who has been there for a long time. There are very experienced and impressive volunteers involved in all the Board linked work.

I have already talked about my worries last year about potential election fallout for the type of candidates applying for Nominated Directors. These elections were a BMC choice, not a requirement. I listened to much talk this year about the need to avoid 'assumed succession' in the discussions around the very real need for replacement of work done by VPs (we had three VPs until last year) and to provide cover for the President when on a diary clash or on holiday or ill. Discussions and delays that mean we don't yet have a Deputy President (or whatever name/ format is decided in the end).  I thought these concerns were all a bit ridiculous but just maybe from this result and some of the fuss I was wrong,  Either the organisation and candidates take election flack or it forgets concerns over succession and uses National Council to elect. I thought John was a safe and sensible shoe-in, and didn't see an issue with him being a VP and Director,  but he lost the election, and a few people seem strangely unwilling to accept that.  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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 08, 2019, 10:21:05 am
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.

I don’t know which ‘people’ you are referring to but nobody has suggested a re-run and I don’t think anyone has claimed the system as a whole is broken.

The outcome and the way the outcome has possibly occurred has shone a spotlight on the rules and recruitment processes and a call, from me at least, for a review as well as some information on the number of discretionary proxy votes that were applied for context.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Teaboy on April 08, 2019, 10:42:38 am
I'm not sure I attacked anyone but maybe I sounded more condemnatory than I was. My point was that JD was strongly backed so I was curious to know why, on the face of it he didn't seem head and shoulders above other candidates in the way the vote suggests so I was interested in why that might be. I was therefore surprised to read the article as he certainly doesn't seem to be in the mould of the new Climb Britain version of the BMC and much more old school but also a bit anti-commercialisation in climbing - no bad thing of itself but a key funding stream I'd have thought.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 08, 2019, 10:57:50 am
Another point that hasn’t been addressed on this thread is that when the AGM progressed to the contested elections Lynn said that in the interests of fairness that the candidates wouldn’t be giving presentations. Some objections from the audience (by no means all) led her to change her mind on this despite the BMC legal adviser from Womble Dickenson counselling otherwise.

When it came to the Funding Director election Jonny Dry gave a talk but Kaye Richards took a stand and said she wouldn’t on the grounds of fairness (creditable to take that stand in that situation I thought) and John Roberts followed suit.

Whether that stand prejudiced their chances with respect to discretionary proxy votes we will never know.

I’m agnostic on whether giving talks is inherently fair or unfair. However, if you’ve agreed a process then stick to it and dont put people under pressure to stand up and sell themselves without prior warning as that definitely isn’t fair.




Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on April 08, 2019, 11:44:30 am
Offwidth, thanks for the answers. I had read those tlinks and that was the reason I asked the queions as the whole process seemed quite opaque.

•   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.

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)

The current system just seemed a bit arse about face and if this is how the BMC are going to do things from now on, needs sorting out.

I do think the BMC needs to be a lot clearer and open about the procedures involved. Challenge should be welcomed and accepted.

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 will bend his ear when I next see him at the wall.

I fondly remember when climbs were my main topic of discussion on climbing forums.

Ha! Too right.....
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 08, 2019, 11:55:00 am
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)

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 08, 2019, 01:00:05 pm
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).

Dave worked with Lynn on the skills matrix and and then on the Nominations Committee pools I'm led to believe.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on April 08, 2019, 01:17:04 pm
Well observed!

I had been thinking about my involvement with the BMC over Christmas and had decided that I would like to do more once the kids were older so when the advert came out I was interested to see what was required/what they were after and whether I'd fit the role now or maybe in the future. It kind of stuck in my memory that I wouldn't actually know what I was applying for.

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.

That would make sense, though it would make the job of the nominations committee (and the board to ratify) quite hard as it's very difficult to prove competence against a non/ill defined set of criteria. I would hope the system could be changed for next time.

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 08, 2019, 01:41:00 pm
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.

Well that involves acknowledging mistakes rather than sticking head in sand, fingers in ears etc. The AGM report's gushing tone and content wasn't a great start.

To press the re-set button I would like to see a statement from the Board acknowledging mistakes had been made with the rules and processes of electing Directors that didn't conform with best practice and that the rules and processes will be reviewed and recommendations implemented together with full disclosure of the number of discretionary proxy votes that were applied by the Chair to each election, and also the discretionary proxy vote count applied by others.     
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 08, 2019, 07:15:30 pm
It's like we have been told different things and you see mistakes when I see process (where my views on AGM votes being unwise for ND posts didn't previal). I fail to see where we can go much more with that on this thread  (with the exception that I wasn't clear that the 3 ND posts listed the range of required skills on a single advert, and I see nothing wrong with that...).

You will have to ask Lynn about her meeting timing decisions but the subs discussion was very important to many members there and it was already  running up against the official  end of the meeting and, as people were leaving, in remaining quorate  (it had to end at 4 as everything needed to be cleared out by 4.30). so I for one appreciate her making judgement calls that saved time.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 09, 2019, 08:24:29 am
This makes no sense at all.

The whole thing was slowed down by having speeches from the candidates. We'd have been out earlier had that not happened.

Also when Lynn said she would ask the candidates to give speeches it was you (creditably) that called out “Lynn point of order! - there is still dissention in the room” but your call was completely ignored which was awful.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 09, 2019, 10:27:39 am
You really are being ornery on this thread.  What I meant was she cut out the need to argue more if a vote was needed and then to have it. It's the chair's choice to ignore procedural 'troublemakers' if they feel from the front that its clear what the room wants. I've been to hundreds of similar meetings in my job and union roles and based on all that would replace the 'ful' bit with 'esome'.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on April 09, 2019, 11:06:28 am
You really are being ornery on this thread. 

New word learnt.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 10, 2019, 03:59:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on April 10, 2019, 06:03:42 pm
Quote

JR is still in his 30’s so not ancient.


Ahem... EARLY 30s, actually.

Some interesting debate and positions on here, and good to see that people aren't completely worn to the ground with BMC governance fatigue!  As I said the day after the AGM:

"There are lots of really positive things that the BMC is working on right now, but also some very concerning and major challenges, particularly after yesterday's AGM (more on that another time)"

For a variety of reasons, I have resigned from chairing ODG. I've made my reasons known to the ODG volunteers (who have done an incredible job over the time I've been involved) and the Board, and I'm perhaps happy to offer some more public thoughts in due course (within the bounds of appropriate confidentiality).

But right now, I'm off climbing...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 11, 2019, 10:35:10 am
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.

Cheers Andy  I have the following views on some of those points.

1 As I've already said, I  predicted trouble arising from Nominated Director (ND) post elections, as the sort of candidates you want from a governance perspective often won't want to be in a contested election and votes might exclude the very best qualified candidates from a Board and/ or National Council (NC) perspective.  My decades of HE political honed cynicism has been surpassed in terms of 'fallout' and I suspect its not over yet... I'd like the BMC to review process and consider electing future NDs through NC (or whatever it becomes). People talk of problems but the process WAS broadly followed and we are only talking about this subject on UKB because JR came last.

2 You simply can't legally avoid discretionary proxy voting or fiddle about with it in a way that might be seen as organisational gerrymandering.  If you have several BMC names alongside the President (that could be ticked as proxy)  it signals the organisation doesn't trust its main member elected representative. Members individually give a proxy one by one, it is not a block and the proxy can choose to split it in any number of ways. Memebrs can name anyone attending the AGM  to hold a proxy. As another example, if the BMC said AGM Chair's discretionary proxy votes will always be split equally, that could also be regarded as manipulation and also leave a low turn out AGM subject to minority activist distortion. I really think the current situation is the least worse option (but NDs appointments shouldn't be by members AGM election) . 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.... Another  Board possibilty  was since there were two women above the line in the same area of skills, the fundraising post could have been an election limited to those two.... a normal sort of governance process these days.

3 Without taking anything at all away from JR, no one is irreplacable. Compared to last year the workstream systems and volunteeers are already in place and there is way more time for them to work. He has left the process in good order and earned his chance to climb a bit more.

As for the Board , the NC members and the President will be directly looking after member interests and all the other Board members should be. In respect of experience of supporting members I'm especially glad to see Jonathon White back on the board. Not being on the Board doesn't stop advice being made from the outside.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 11, 2019, 11:48:34 am
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

Re the general post I think we are in general agreement. 
1.  NDs process was not done right and needs looking at again.  I don't  think AoA need changing, they just need to be used as intended. 
2.  Discretionary votes have to remain though I think those people given the votes need to think about how they use them and be willing to explain their position if asked.

Re the quoted text, VP was not forgotten it has been covered.  The new article 16.7 allows NC to elect a deputy to assist the President.  Article 18.3 allows NC to appoint any Member as a temporary Elected Officer (e.g. President) if they are unable to do their job; this has been an article for years.

Finally while I agree no one is irreplaceable, it is madness IMHO when the best candidate for the job is lost through a series of unfortunate events, and that the Board could/would not find a way to keep him in that post.  So we will be going for a 'second team' person at a time where there are real concerns, from John and others, about the commitment of the organisation to deliver the ODG members supported.  That is an avoidable and bad situation.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: reeve on April 11, 2019, 02:32:55 pm
Out of interest, why do you legally have to have the option for discretionary votes?

Steve I can see your point that without them the process is vulnerable to a vocal minority getting enough support for a toxic option. However ,just as bad in my opinion is the undisclosed use of them which could discourage participation in the voting process in the future. For example, if the Chair's decision is going to go no matter what anyone else votes, then why should I bother ever voting for anything? It seems to me that the answer to the problem of the processes being vulnerable to a vocal minority is not to have a large discretionary vote available to the chair, but to encourage greater participation in the democratic process by well-informed members. This is unlikely if people feel that their vote does not count. Much like the same factors which drive voter apathy in constituencies where it is a safe seat.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 11, 2019, 06:19:04 pm
I'm not a lawyer but have been party to serious contention on voting in my academic union and at work and have heard and read about other examples. It can burn organisational and volunteer time, energy and enthusiasm;   informal complaints and counter complaints sometimes came in fussilades, formal complaints were expensive and slow; good people too often got pissed off and resigned ...the message I got was don't elect from membership unless you have to. Some of the union national elections I took part in were incredibly complex with many positions on the same ballot paper and several times that number of candidates standing, and with proscribed minima (on women and by employment sector)  using algorithms  that many couldn't follow. There were also separate BME and LGBT elections to make the system workable.  The BMC elections look positively simple and calm in comparison. At work I once came last in a 3 person vote for 2 places, using STV, and by chance passed the data on to a retired colleague who was a hobby psephologist... he spotted an error which got me elected (I proposed all three candidates retained a position, which was accepted)

Back to the BMC, the basic legal requirements are a companies act issue and the BMC had a lawyer advising on detail at the AGM.

You vote because you care.  My guess is less than 3% of members voted (a pretty easy job on a smart phone) and too many who did vote were lazy with their discretionaries. However, discretionaries are specifically there to be used following AGM debate and no more sway things than other votes, unless the individual voters didn't really didn't mean what they signed up for.  This ND election was unusual in that it's the first time all such candidates up for election were agreed by the Board to meet the skill requirements for the role and the Board wanted members to vote for their preference of these.

I think t'other  Andy is right about voting: we need to encourage more people to vote and encourage those that do use a proxy to vote to mandate. Currently all AGM proxy voting is normally undisclosed (the Chair last year broke this convention) but most individual votes are by a show of hands. The good news is we do know that the process for appointing NDs will be reviewed.

T'other Andy is also correct about the articles:  the process to appoint a Deputy President is included but we are both right as at the moment no one has been appointed and I think the next NC meeting is a couple of months away. Most similar organisations have multiple VPs or DPs (usually non Board members and elected by the membership) to add prestige and better cover the member led workload.

I felt John was the best candidate for the Board but other wise heads in the audience in the room said differently when I expressed my shock to them after the results. The idea he was the best candidate is therefore an opinion of some but clearly far from being an agreed political position, irrespective of any discretionaries. The Board chose to put this to vote, I think this was a mistake and I see any concerns with the voting as really a distraction from that. You can change process but you can't revist votes when rules were followed.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 12, 2019, 07:37:28 am
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. 
It keeps going back to the basic principle that you only give your vote to a proxy you trust to make the right decision.  If they don't there's nothing you can do (unless you think they haven't acted in good faith, but that's a different can of worms) then: a) you don't give them a discretionary proxy next time; b) you give a mandated proxy; c) you use another proxy next time; or d) you go yourself.
The best solution in my eyes is that all the information you need to make an informed choice is available at the time of voting, in which case you don't need to give a discretionary vote as you know the issues and can mandate your choice.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 12, 2019, 01:35:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: fatneck on April 12, 2019, 01:53:18 pm
As a relatively recent armchair BMC member who didn't attend the AGM, has never attended a local  meeting and never offers their services to volunteer for anything BMC related this is an interesting set of discussions from learned and heavily involved folks - chapeaux.

FWIW, I read the nominated individual's statements and voted solely based on that information and my interpretation of who would make the most of each role. Interestingly, I didn't vote any of the winners!

On reflection;

a) I wanted to vote because I could
b) I voted because I felt I should make some kind of effort (and this is about the least I could do).
c) I didn't feel I knew enough about the candidates and the organisation to make an very informed decision, even having read most of the available information
d) I don't have the time to get more involved and proxy voting gives me an opportunity to have at least some
e) Where I gave a proxy vote it was becasue I couldn't make a good enough decision and trusted that the chair would make a good choice

Not sure if that adds much, but I hope it gives some different views of the process...

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 13, 2019, 11:17:35 am
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.

I think its more about rules compatible with the organisation and following company law. I'd prefer all information is available in advance but there can be possibilities of change in the meeting (ie surprises can happen like calls for amendments etc). There is plenty of legal advice around, eg on how to deal with proxies, on how to deal with such circumstances.

CC isn't a company is it?

I really doubt anything in that meeting swung the vote.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 16, 2019, 10:45:20 am
All

I have been discussing some of the issues with various people in the BMC and I would like some input from this audience, and others.

If you mail any issues you saw, with a solution if you think there is one, to ODG@thebmc.co.uk then I will work with Dave Stanley in ODG to collate these into some themes that can be presented to the NC in June; the outcomes being expected to be decisions or requests for some more detailed work to reach a decision.  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.

Hope this will be seen as a positive move to address the issues.

Andy

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on April 16, 2019, 11:09:40 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 16, 2019, 12:33:12 pm
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
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on April 16, 2019, 12:50:18 pm
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. (*See edit below)

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.


*Edit: The BMC board is still 25% female, which is short of the 30% SE gender diversity target in order to meet the SE code. I'm unaware as to whether this will affect SE funding again.

Edit added at JR’s request

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on April 16, 2019, 12:54:40 pm
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. Our gritstone access rep got heat after Whitehouses was trashed. I think they were recovering from a serious operation at the time, so were hardly in a position to have done the hammering themselves, but you would have thought otherwise from people's tone.

Attending a clean up day or festival is high risk - remember those old boys who walked up a Mod in the rain at Crookrise? Boy, did that kick off. Imagine what would happen if you pruned a tree and someone took exception.

Foley posted on the Yorkshire Grit Bouldering Facebook page this morning. He called some people "morons" who'd had a fire under The Dray, left all their cans/bottles, and graffiti'd the rock. All anybody could think to say was how shocking it was that there was chalk (there really wasn't that much, and no tick marks at all) on the rock and how this must have caused the problem. And how dare we call some people who'd littered "morons". Nobody said, "thanks, James, for selflessly clearing up after other people".

National Council reps weren't named (I don't think) during the Climb Britain thing, but people were certainly quick to point the finger at Nat Council and jump on the "membership has been betrayed" bandwagon.


The message is pretty loud and clear now. Don't volunteer or help out in any way. Don't do your bit to the best of your abilities. Don't talk about climbing in public. If you like climbing, just get on with it quietly and for your own benefit.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 16, 2019, 01:09:42 pm
I’n not religious but reminded of this prayer - attributed to Mother Theresa:


  People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered.  Forgive them anyway.

            If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives.  Be kind anyway.

            If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies.  Succeed anyway.

           If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you.  Be honest and sincere anyway.

            What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight.  Create anyway.

            If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous.  Be happy anyway.

            The good you do today, will often be forgotten.  Do good anyway.

         Give the best you have, and it will never be enough.  Give your best anyway.

         In the final analysis, it is between you and God.  It was never between you and them anyway.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on April 16, 2019, 02:04:24 pm
         In the final analysis, it is between you and God. Climb faster.

You got the last line wrong...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: T_B on April 16, 2019, 02:10:04 pm


         In the final analysis, it is between you and the Campus board.  They'll never do 1-5-8 anyway.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 16, 2019, 07:46:29 pm
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.
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.

That said a thick skin helps deal with the more vexatious social media muppets.  :-)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 16, 2019, 07:47:22 pm
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.

Most things I agree with and have been discussed upthread. There are some things I do think need further clarity or look wrong:

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.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/39811492

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cookson-and-browning-face-calls-to-resign-after-report-into-british-cycling-pzj55khcz



Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on April 16, 2019, 10:45:43 pm

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).


I felt strongly enough about it to vote as I did, but clearly the detail of some of these matters, and what I did about it, are confidential. Agree with your sentiments in general here though.


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).


With respect to %s, my mistake on this one. Thanks for correctly challenging. However, don't forget the Board was only 9 large before AGM 2018, but there were issues around when independents appointed etc. You're absolutely correct for this AGM. It doesn't change the fact that the BMC is still short as it is, and had a real opportunity not to be. I'll ask Shark to put a note on the original post to highlight an error.

Things were clearly time pressured with respect to various processes and I'm confident that with hindsight things would be done differently, but that's the benefit of hindsight. Obviously I'm not going to disclose confidential Board conversations, I did discuss the gender target, and raise many other issues with the process, but for most of the process I was out of the Board discussions as conflicted on the matter, and the voting "buckets" were decided after interviews etc. We definitely had the opportunity to hit that gender target, and votes and buckets as they were, my withdrawal wouldn't have made a difference. I actually withdraw an election nomination previously in order to allow a female candidate to stand, but that's another story...


I assumed the MOU wasn't signed was because the meeting hit the end time before completion of the agenda.


Perhaps so, but disappointing not to be mentioned even if time pressured given the huge amount of work that went into it, and the gravity it was given to get things through last year. I don't know, but hope those involved are given an explanation.


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 comparison can obviously be stretched too far. The article is high level, and felt relevant from my perspective. Happy to send it you if you're interested.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 17, 2019, 10:12:44 am
Thanks for straight up admitting your mistake on the Board gender balance. Still as a very recent Director complaining about the subject its a very peculiar one to make. Prior to 2017 I've forgotten the exact numbers on Exec (probably 11 members ?) but prior to the 2018 AGM it was only 9 on a practical basis as there were 2 vacancies:  2 independents (and a formal vacancy as there would have been a third if Amanda hadn't been pointlessly blocked by procedural trouble makers), 3 NC members, 2 VPs (with a technical vacancy as Nick was acting up) ,  the acting President and Treasurer. Looking back it seems weird and destructive now that all that fuss was made about Amanda requiring AGM ratification before doing any work. The gender percentage prior to the 2018 AGM was 22% if you ignore the periods of Emma's maternity leave (11% otherwise).

On the Target it's aspirational (clearly so, as the BMC is back in receipt of SE funding) and I expect it to be met within a few years.

If we could view outcomes in different 'multiverses' with different 'hindsight decisions', assumjng Rebecca didn't stand down as a candidate, I'd lay odds that she would have won more often than any others (as one of two in a women only NC election or in some open elections as one of n candidates... with n being 2, 3 or 4). As such I think you making a stand could  have made a real difference and certainly would have been consistent with your previous decision to stand down (one of several reasons I voted for you).

Things being time pressured is one of the BMC understatements of all time.  Since Gareth took up the Chair role in November, I really wonder what he thought about all this work in such a short time, with the AGM moved from its normal  June slot to March. I am certainly  super-impressed with his level headed approach to such a situation.  As for the work itself,  the ODG stuff was planned but complex, hard and thankless (as most members simply don't care), as such the decision to progress fast was I think the absolutely correct one. Then we had:  the insurance claim and subs issue and the impact of that on clubs;  an exceptionally busy time on comps issues; issues with the accounts;  the need to agree non Board replacements for the VPs (the choice in the current articles being a single Deputy President... that I think looks too few cf other similar organisations and may need to be revisited); and the usual trouble makers like Dennis wittering on in his Footless Crow article about the (potentially libelous) 'beergate' BMC conspiracy.  I'm more positive than Will, as people on the internet and down the pub always took potshots at the BMC but depite this thousands of volunteers continue with good work and with hundreds of them in formal designated roles of some sort. The BMC volunteering base is very healthy, and its remit has never been more important, given the recent Active Lives survey results.

On your votes I get your strong feelings; it's your need to publish your vote here (and leaving the issues behind it hanging) that confuses me, especially as someone who was recently a Director.

I've got the British Cycling document cheers.



Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on April 17, 2019, 05:55:55 pm

the need to agree non Board replacements for the VPs (the choice in the current articles being a single Deputy President...


There's quite a long debate behind that one, as you almost certainly know, given it's something you've brought up a couple of times here. It definitely needs sorting, but there were very good, and very well reasoned discussions behind why that couldn't be done, particularly as proposed at the 11th hour. There are plenty of mechanisms to get good volunteers to support on particular tasks in the interim if needed, and if asked, and worst case stand in for the President. It's rightly a core part of the NC reconstitution work.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 17, 2019, 08:28:03 pm
I have brought it up several times as it's rather in my face. It's not quite reached the point I question my climbing partner if she 'really wants to lead that' but the current lack of cover is a big concern. The BMC could also do with a senior volunteer  for the Keswick festival,  which is before the June NC meet (that I understand will make decisions on the subject) ....as the President is doing a long Scottish traverse route in May. The last elected President didn't serve a full 3 year term and the last acting President unexpectedly (at least for me) didn't stand for President in 2018, pretty clearly indicating it's not an easy or comfortable role.

I fully understand there have been Board and National Council (NC) discussions on Deputy President  (DP) but awareness of the role  doesn't seem to have reached most members (whom the DP will represent): the question was asked again of the President  at the AGM ....'what occurs if something happens to you?'.  So, not being party to the detail of these discussions I  cannot see why most other bodies (when they had what must have been similar discussions) decided they need so many of them. If the BMC decides to continue DP elections from NC and to continue to elect from those candidates for Nominated Directors (ND candidates above the line on interview) from the membership, it looks the exact opposite of what would seem a normal route to me. Hence, the two arrangements if ongoing seem back to front to me .. I'd prefer members to elect DPs and NC to elect NDs.

I have no issue at all with a DP exceptionally  being elected in 2019  by NC, given the timings:  pragmatism in action.

So what makes us so different from all the other similar bodies on the DP/VP  front? You would certainly seem to have no trouble filling such prestigious posts. One reason I've heard against them is 'perceived succession' which seems bonkers to me. It also amused me that the ND elections had a Director succession issue with no apparent concerns at all. I see succession concerns as a red herring, as it seems to me the BMC wants plenty of such candidates that have the skills and experience to stand as President. In some organisations where I've been on a national body  (UCU is a good example), the VP was a formal succession step; a couple of years before becoming President, partly to ensure they hit the ground running with experience and to arrange sabattical cover... so the UCU VP election was the key election for future UCU presidents,
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 18, 2019, 11:46:22 pm
Steve

I'm fairly neutral on VPs; there are advantages and disadvantages.

Going back in time, the ORG were clear that VPs should go, partially I assume as in meeting SE requirements made VPs on the Board problematic.  As the members wanted ODG in 'spirit of the ORG' so the articles were changed.  There was no issue with 'losing' a President as we already had articles that cover that. 

Lynn brought up the issue of workload and the 'elected VP' at a very late stage in the articles change process.  There was a significant debate in the ODG and all the ODG members felt that we did not have time to consider all the issues/implications and change the articles in a way that ensured that we did not inadvertently introduce more issues.  Also there was not time to get candidates to volunteer and only allowing elections from the floor was seen as disadvantageous to the majority of members.  We could however see Lynn's point about needing support and, while she could always just ask for more support from NC members, felt it was reasonable to add the deputy role as a stop gap until the VP issue could be properly worked through or as a potential long term solution if VPs were to remain 'gone'.

I assumed that the Deputy would be pre-nominated at one of the 2 NC meets before the AGM, or elected in a special NC meeting straight afterwards, but this wasn't done hence the delay till June.

The VP issue does need looking at for next year and that is part of the NC reconstitution work that is being progressed at the moment.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on April 19, 2019, 01:23:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 19, 2019, 03:01:00 pm
I've merged the "BMC AGM 2019" thread with the earlier "Changing the BMC" thread
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on April 19, 2019, 04:23:42 pm
I've merged the "BMC AGM 2019" thread with the earlier "Changing the BMC" thread

Are the words of both threads loosely the same but with different acronyms? 😂
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on April 19, 2019, 06:33:14 pm
You lads have clearly got your WTF’s mixed up with your WTAF’s, possibly needing more FYFI’s before GTFO’s
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 19, 2019, 07:29:42 pm
Even I don’t know a couple (UCU and MA)

ODG is Old Dungeon Ghyll
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on April 19, 2019, 08:16:36 pm
ROFL
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on April 19, 2019, 08:24:44 pm
ODG is Old Dungeon Ghyll

Thats what I thought.

Too many TLA's
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 20, 2019, 10:15:25 pm
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.

I think you are asking way too much of the National Council members reps and their Board role would surely mean they could not in governance terms act as a DP. Irrespective, being on the National Council (NC) and representing that body on the Board is a shit load of work over the next year.  A  proposed Deputy/Vice President is, if similar to other equivalent Sport England Tier 3 bodies,  a non Board member but still an organisational figurehead. This is much more than 'support' for the President (despite the fact that as it is, she had to take a sabbatical to deal with the workload). It's simply normal to have 3+ VCs  in equivalent organisations of equivalent size so it seems to me the ODG needs to explain to members why the BMC needs to be so different. My guess is it was only brought up 'late' because it had seemingly been overlooked in ODG (as a VP could no longer be on the Board and this succession point you and Andy seem to be ignoring was said to be a big concern ). How can it even be 'late' if the original ORG report had a section on this.  I also fail to see why 'late' is now an issue as no one seems fussed with the pragmatic solution  that the NC elects the DP this year. I personally think the BMC needs more than one DP.

The original  November ORG recommendation in the President section (above section 34 on p.54) was  " The Members Assembly should agree a process to appoint a VP to act as the President's deputy in appropriate circumstances. However the VP should not be seen as, defacto, successor to the President"

Something that disappeared in the final modified ORG report version, with no public explaination as to why (unlike all the other changes)

Apologies to non BMC geeks for the acronymitis: MA is the ORG proposed BMC Members Assemby to replace National Council. UCU is the University and College Union (~120, 000 members, so of the same size order as the BMC). My apologies, as I  always try and define these as I've seen political charlatans misuse them too often for their own gain.

https://www.ucu.org.uk
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 21, 2019, 07:32:15 pm
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Mountaineering Vol. V No. 6  Winter 1969 Price 3/-

" The 1969 Annual General Meeting of the BMC was punctuated by the interjections of some of those present,  who charged the organisation and management of the BMC with incompetence and being out of touch with present reality.  They demanded that the whole character of the BMC be drastically changed........  ..... the BMC now has a wider and growing membership looking to an expansion of its responsibilities,  it still sees its task as that of collective representation and the provision of services that are beyond the capacity of individual clubs,  while leaving intact the autonomy of clubs. This concept is now being put into question and  we are being asked to put a more authoritarian  BMC in its place. Is it necessary?  Is it practicable? "

(With many thanks to Peter Holden for spotting this)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on April 21, 2019, 08:00:13 pm
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?)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on April 21, 2019, 08:26:53 pm
No, for Christ’s sake keep it up, I’ve just run out of night nurse
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 22, 2019, 09:17:50 am
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?)

We can't see viewed stats. Equivalent threads on UKC had way more than typical numbers of views.... the readership of a forum is much bigger than its regular posters.

I think the discussions here have always been much more civilised and sensible than on t'other channel.

I resent being called a BMC geek (as it has, very much against my better instincts, become true).... until a couple of years back my BMC contributions were very practical: initially in a student club, then many guidebooks, access, cleanups and festivals. My concerns in corporate governance are that if enough ordinary folk don't get involved, things are determined by those disconnected from the climbing and hillwalking masses...  highly political unrepresentative people (like those behind the Motion of No Confidence).

My Deputy President concerns are one of those very practical issues that risk getting buried in boring governance... the BMC had 3 Vice Presidents until last year and I know the important organisational level representative  work they have done over the last decade, alongside Presidents, and we have completely lost that right now. They lobbied government, they ran meetings, met the membership at events, provided good informal feedback routes, cross-covered when diaries were double booked or more.  We will hopefully get one Deputy President at some point following the June National Council meeting (although its still not clear even to a geek like me what sort of person or exactly how). For these reasons the governance reasoning behind this decision to have only one Deputy President seems wrong to me. Sure, VPs are no longer on the Board. Sure, some very odd people are concerned with perceived succession...yet if nothing else, if you have a lot of VPs it can only be a percieved succession for one of them!. I really don't think the National Council elected representatives can fill the orgainisational level representation gap we have (especially from their workload perspective..... people step up to help the BMC in exceptionaly generous ways .... so hey, why don't we get them to do even more work ???), and the Nominated Directors are too new and arguably too specialist.

If all else fails I'm at least helping Dan sleep.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 22, 2019, 10:19:52 am
I should have said we can't see the viewed stats on this latest section of discussion. Overall the thread has had 22, 000+ views so its hardly tumbleweed territory.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on April 22, 2019, 08:46:20 pm
That’s just JR repeatedly reading his own posts.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: danm on April 23, 2019, 04:18:54 pm
That’s just JR repeatedly reading his own posts.
Savage
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on April 23, 2019, 05:49:02 pm
It just popped out
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 23, 2019, 10:25:27 pm
Sam sent me a link to Google Analytics and there has been 350 page views of which 301 were unique with an average of 2min 28secs time spent on the page per user since 18 April 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 24, 2019, 01:17:55 pm
this succession point you and Andy seem to be ignoring was said to be a big concern
Steve

It's unfair to suggest things are being ignored.  Not sure where the 'Succession Point' is a big concern, except with you and Lynn obviously, as there is a clear process to elect Presidents and being a VP is not a pre-requisite. 

As I said, I'm neutral on VPs, they do no harm but equally they are not 'necessary' just to show 'status'.  If there is a clear role for them then that will I'm sure come out of the NC reconstitution work.  As an aside I am very concerned that the Presidents role is growing into a 'full time role' as that will just radically reduce the pool of candidates who can stand; those with enough money/resources to work full time and unpaid.  I think we need to look at getting the staff to step up and take more workload, reduce what we do so the workload reduces or get more staff, so that the Presidents role is about leading the organisation NOT managing the day to day workload of the organisation.  In fact that goes for most volunteer roles, we are becoming too reliant on goodwill of volunteers and this is right and proper to a point but has/is on the verge of going too far the wrong way at the moment.

Whatever the reason for the late proposed reintroduction of VPs, I was certainly not going to rush through a change to the 2019 articles at the last minute when almost everyone on the ODG had concerns about the potential impacts.  It will be reviewed this year and a consensus reached both within the ODG (meeting at the ODG might help things) and then via membership engagement.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 24, 2019, 03:58:35 pm
"It's unfair to suggest things are being ignored."

It's not unfair from my perspective. There is no current DP and worst case as far as I can tell if no one from the core NC group wants to step up there may not be one until late summer.. I know this is a partly a result of a very busy period last year with many unexpected and unplanned events, so I'm not blaming anyone but it is a reality and could have been better planned.

"Not sure where the 'Succession Point' is a big concern, except with you and Lynn obviously"

Obviously?   Succession perception was clearly part of that original Nov ORG recommedation (so why was that ?) ...and please remember Lynn speaks for herself and we are not of the same mind (I thought after her response to Jim Gregson's question at last year's AGM people got that). The time she currently spends is partly out of choice... in a busy year she wants signifcant stuff done that is visibly positive for the membership (ie more than just governance) as per her election statement.

"As I said, I'm neutral on VPs, they do no harm but equally they are not 'necessary' just to show 'status'. If there is a clear role for them then that will I'm sure come out of the NC reconstitution work. "   

Hardly sounds positive in the context of all the great work VPs did in the past and how most organisations have quite a few of them under their new SE compliant Board based constitutions and governance!?

"I think we need to look at getting the staff to step up and take more workload, reduce what we do so the workload reduces or get more staff, so that the Presidents role is about leading the organisation NOT managing the day to day workload of the organisation. "

I think the opposite: the staff impress me and often volunteer themselves. Their time could maybe be adjusted slightly but given the financial envelope significant extra input has to come from volunteers: luckily there are really good people who want to volunteer to help more who currently cant do as much as they want because of systems and support issues. I'd hate to speak for Lynn but she doesn't seem to me to be managing any day to day work.

"Whatever the reason for the late proposed reintroduction of VPs"

Again, it's not late, it's in the Nov Org report, as I copied above, and somehow mysteriously disappeared from the final report without reasons or enough people noticing and saying 'hang on a minute'....


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 25, 2019, 08:33:08 pm
To avoid boring the other readers with a 2 way conversation I'll try and keep this brief:
1.  There is no DP as the President hasn't asked NC elect one; could have been done as a pre nomination at either NC after Articles had been finalsied and before the AGM or via an election at an extraordinary NC since the AGM.  You'll need to ask Lynn why she has chosen not to do this.  I'm sure someone will step up if Lynn asks. 
2.  I am addressing you, not Lynn but my point was Lynn was concerned as she raised VP proposal, and you based on the numerous comments.  So obviously you are both concerned.
3.  I said I'm neutral, this does not denigrate the previous work of past VPs.  VPs have done good work in past but that doesn't to me mean VPs are a must in the future for the BMC.  I will listen to the arguments for and against when the NC reconstitution group have considered it.
4.  I'm not saying the staff don't work hard, BUT I disagree that our only option is volunteers need to do more.  We need to cut our cloth appropriately.  I have twice effectively worked full time (i.e. more than 35 hours a week) on BMC whilst also having a real job; I chose to do that but it is not a good model for the BMC generally.
5.  No idea why ORG changed their report; they will need to comment; but what was implemented in 2018 and 2019 AoA changes was the Mar ORG report intent, i.e. without VPs.  Adding them back in was suggested very late in the AoA approval process.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on April 26, 2019, 09:27:54 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 29, 2019, 07:20:21 pm
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
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on April 30, 2019, 06:46:43 am
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

Good. I mostly understood that and it largely held my interest (despite my general dislike of all adminstrative and organisational). Thanks Simon.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on April 30, 2019, 08:06:19 am
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.

1.  But the DP could have been pre-nominated it was known the VPs were going and the DP role coming.
2.  Nothing to add.
3.  I am not sure that we know members want more figure heads, but ultimately if they do fine.  I'm neutral!  I'm sure there will be volunteers if VPs were resurrected.
4.  I think we are agreeing in many ways, but I think volunteers are best used to do the 'real stuff' (guides access etc) and oversight.  The core stuff of running and changing an organisation is best done by staff (with oversight) IMHO.
5.  Nothing to add.

Now off to UKC :-) 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 04, 2019, 06:14:29 pm
I've replied over there but thought the issues I raise were worth sharing here as well. Apologies for a large amount of self plagiarism.

Im saddened by the lazy, at times chauvinist (on Lynn's alledged inability to deal with Governance nitty gritty, despite her professional experience in the area) and sometimes insulting characterisations of Dave, Jonny etc and a farcical view that everyone voting should share his highly positive opinion on JR (speaking as someone who broadly does).  I'm pretty sure the stuff around Gron is just plain wrong and if so so those governance concerns go from serious to trivial. The ODG being slow is plain wrong (JR as chair himself said the opposite). The subs changes this time applied equally to clubs and individuals (timing wise possibly putting some club finances at genuine risk) and the late changes due to a real-time shifting of the impact on BMC finances (and these final changes were to the detriment of clubs). There is no hard evidence of the BMC anywhere not being in control of its finances; again, there were never any changes to the finance numbers when the accounts changes to narrative were made. The accounts concerns seem bizarre to me.... silly narrative errors are not a sign of financial mismanagement: the AGM felt so too and signed off any remaining small changes in advance. This stuff about undemocratic proxies are bull given the fact they are a normal company procedure and legal requirement. Moaning publicly about the BMC response whilst in his BMC job and linking this in to these other concerns is just sad really (and unfair on the organisation as they could never respond fairly on such employment matters). The Articles ARE complicated and clunky... read them and then read British Canoeing:  having spoken to Dave on this he seemed to me to want to retain the full intent but just in better written form. As I said earlier, I thought Lynn's decision rather than being 'backtracking' was very good chairing, as it probably saved time and energy in a tight schedule ( otherwise we faced lenghty wrangling about if the meeting wanted to hear from the candidates or not.... as I though the majority of the meeting did,.... despite raising a point of order about there being some dissent). I'll lay a large bet on Lynn not going against any legal advice, so I'm not sure where that came from. Time and time again these so called concerns Simon raises simply don't stand up to any examination and nothing serious seems to have any hard evidence. If this was Bob P saying these things people would be howling him down (my big problem with Bob was never his opinions, that I disagreed with, just the secret dishonest ways he dealt with them).

So after this examination of what Simon says we are left with a few minor issues at a time of massive change and super-tight deadlines for the organisation and the start of a new Chair of the Board (what must he feel like right now?) . There is the balance of power question on Nominated Director appointments:  the President being on Nominations  Committee and also taking the normal organisational proxy votes (nothing I can see an easy way round, as although there could be a choice between President and BMC Chair on the standard voting form in future.... the BMC chair is also on Non Com and faces the same risks). The only practical solution is to get more people to vote and chose a candidate when they vote. There are concerns about the Nominated Director posts not being advertised individually (a sensible holding compromise in my view given the pace of change at that time and the then brand new Chair). There are what I see as dangerous opinions about releasing proxy numbers (which would enable a good chance of back engineering the election results and hence working out how those people voted, and the risks and potential fall out of that). There are concerns about the missed narrative errors in the accounts but in this, there are also possible concerns that the Board seemed to have be caught napping, which I feel really falls on the Board members last June, especially any Independent Directors with audit responsibility and the acting Chair. I would have ideally expected a new Board under new governance arrangements to have fully examined the accounts, planned a new approach to them and have hence have likely spotted these errors early (well before audit). In a way, the exact opposite problem to what Simon described .. the 'modernisers' he speaks up for clearly missed an opportunity here (but I see this as a much lesser problem than him, especially given the workload and amount of change). The modernisers also missed opportunities in not reserving a gender post in the Nominated Director elections (this would have been controversial),  in not reserving an ODG post (... this might have upset people as being seen as a shoe-in for JR), in pushing for stronger pro voting material for the membership.... all completely forgivable given what else was going on.

We are also left with those using proxy votes, clearly disagreeing with Simon's views... and Simon's very disappointing response to that...... welcome to elections  (something that, down to my decades of experience of bad behaviour and fall-out,  I always maintained was unwise for Nominated Directors).

In conclusion  Im glad we have a discussion paper but I wish Simon had got it checked more carefully and been more measured so we could be discussing the way forward in the BMC,  instead of the errors in this report  and the unnecessary character attacks.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 12, 2019, 07:19:11 pm
To bring the thread up to date I submitted a number of questions (quoted below) to the Board via Simon Mccalla, Senior Independent Director.

The concerns expressed by me and others was discussed at the Board Meeting last Thursday.

Afterwards Simon let me know that it was decided that the Board will respond with a piece on the BMC website. This has been left with the Chairman Gareth Pierce to draft and it is hoped it will be published this week.

Quote
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?
 

 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on May 12, 2019, 10:53:55 pm
Has everyone paid their Coffee money this month? And can we please have more On the Edges for down the side of the bog?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 13, 2019, 02:06:08 pm
Well I could add Simon, on UKC, fat shamed me, which I initially thought was funny, then he made it clear he was being serious, forcing me to serious, and then he apologised (kudos). He also again forgot to do any basic fact checking on his most recent assertion (that the BMC hadn't got any money from Sport England for hill walking... which they have had for a couple of years .... Edit...actually thinking about it it might be only a year but it sure feels like a decade).

All I ask for is for him to apply basic journalistic standards: fact check properly, contact the organisation before publishing serious accusations (like those an angry mate who lost an election says) and be clear on what is fact and what is opinion. When in a conflicted position such things are especially important.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: danm on May 13, 2019, 04:46:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on May 13, 2019, 05:38:44 pm
Please can we be linked to Overwidthgate?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 13, 2019, 05:47:02 pm
So to save others checking on UKC what I said to Steve in response to what I felt was his hyperbole on the the health benefits of climbing was a sarcastic comment that he could be a Sport England "funded BMC diet buddy ambassador" and more meanly "If you are waving a BMC banner of ‘climbing as obviously healthy’ it helps your advocacy if you look the part"

I regret making those remarks and I said sorry in my next post on UKC. It was childish thing to say.

I refute your repeated assertion that I am a liar.

I also take issue with other repeated assertion that I have conflict of interest because I am 'pals' with JR which is not even true. It may be that we might be pals in the future but we have only crossed paths because of the BMC and 99% of all dialogue between us has been BMC related where we are like-minded. I admire his commitment to the BMC as key memebr of the ORG and Chair of the ODG whiolst at the same time being Vice President of the BMC and furthermore resigned as Chair of NICAS to take up that post due to potential conflict of interest. Further more his knowledge of governance is outstanding and this is an area where despite the ORG is a weak area for the BMC. His defenestration was a loss to the BMC and how and why this happened is unclear.

Genuine conflicts of interest relate to having financial or or family connections. Your conflict of interest being married to Lynn is a genuine conflict of interest which you have not flagged up on the thread once, nor included in your BMC profile even though many readers of the thread will be entirely unaware of the fact. 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 13, 2019, 05:57:09 pm
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.

And you would have been right to do so. I did say sorry.

Quote
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.

So what I said was this

Quote from: shark on ukc
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.


The BMC participation says "the BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death". I said as much as well so not sure what you are getting at.

The SE funding towards Talent Development has been significant over the year and whilst I don't know the figures I am reasonably confident that it amounts to the most £ over the years - perhaps yoyu can check with Alan - he is good at having these sort of figures at his fingertips. Furthermore it is directed funding on training and coaching young climbers. The only hill walking funding has been the funding for Carey's job (Hillwalking Officer) which was indirect and maybe lasted 3 years? and stopped a couple of years ago but the Talent Development has recently resumed I understand. The bid to get grant funding to support the Hill Walking strategy failed.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on May 13, 2019, 06:47:40 pm

Quote from: shark on ukc
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.



All I can think is it’s probably a good job you don’t work for SE. This may make some sense if you’re comparing ‘curry eating trad climbers’ to your own climbing ability, 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.

Bringing the ‘danger’ of climbing into it seems ridiculous too, I’m not going to look for stats but I’d think that cycling for example is far more dangerous for the participant and obviously very well funded.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 13, 2019, 07:15:07 pm
So what I was responding to was Steve's assertion:

Quote from: offwidth on UKC
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.

As health interventions go, I dont think it is good value for money especially if my assumption is correct that more SE directed funding to the BMC has gone towards already active teens getting even better at indoor climbing rather than towards hillwalking (or possibly even outdoor trad?)

Most of the BMC funding from SE, as I understand it, is 'core market' ie already participating climbers being supported rather than funding for new participants to the sport. Therefore, comparing climbing to physically inactive people is irrelevant as the funding is not aimed at getting new participants into the sport.

I acknowledge there are some health benefits to climbing and that other sports can be risky but lets not overstate the case of the BMC playing anything but a miniscule role in combating the 'impending health crisis
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on May 13, 2019, 07:44:39 pm

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.


Absolutely. For a bit of SE context, since SE's 2016-21 strategy, there's two funds that the BMC can and has applied for, core market and mass market.

The core market fund is aimed at supporting those that are already active, or have an existing affinity to sport, and whose participation may have dropped off (due to life circumstances) and could be encouraged to be more active again. Almost all BMC members (and ‘curry eating trad climbers’) are in the group this fund is aimed at. This fund also funds talent development, although the elite/olympics end is funded by UK Sport (which is another discussion point entirely).  Drop off happens traditionally during teenage years, and when people have families.

The mass market fund is aimed at getting those that are inactive, active. The ~40% quoted.

The BMC's funding from SE is currently core market only (mass market has been considered in the context of hillwalking).

Although, quoting from the 2016-21 SE strategy:

"We have already backed some initiatives that would fall into this category. This includes.... commissioning research work with the Outdoor Industry Association to encourage commercial investment in new markets."

So opportunity knocks, and so does risk (BMC organisational and environmental), but it's not a stretch to see that means looking at promotion of hillwalking (given existing multi-million people participation levels, you can affect significant numbers of people with small % increases) and indoor climbing to mass market (with or without BMC).

Given the health crisis Steve raised, and that Teestub highlights, the money is likely to move to getting the inactive, active, rather than core market. So weening NRBs/NGBs off core market funding is likely to happen (and arguably already is), hence why there's a push to make NRBs/NGBs (like the BMC) more commercial and self sustainable. Clearly there's also Politics and Government budgets involved, which is another can of worms.

Ref: https://www.sportengland.org/media/10629/sport-england-towards-an-active-nation.pdf
and: http://www.theoia.co.uk/about/
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: danm on May 13, 2019, 07:54:35 pm
In terms of funding, the following non-indoors/youth area jobs have been SE funded or part funded in recent times:

Hillwalking Development Officer, Equity officer, Clubs Officer.

For Talent, its 1 full-time role, job shared and of course we now have Caff back doing Youth. From my perspective, if you look at resources vs demand, the youth and indoor area of work is hugely under-resourced. I do all the climbing wall support work in 0.5 days a week as an add-on to my main job with no SE funding at all.

SE have funded a lot of club based initiatives, it was one of the main focus areas for funding in the last cycle before the one where the MONC screwed it all up. Money for club kit, for training, and for IT. Seeing as clubs have a heavy hillwalking slant, this meant that during that cycle more resources were probably available for clubs via SE funding than youth/indoors received. Next cycle, the focus changed more to youth, so more money was available for that, but of course the MONC kyboshed a lot of that (although Talent was ringfenced, thank god). Not to forget the funding focus on under-represented groups, which has included lots of marketing stuff aimed at women, stuff like funding the Women in Adventure film stuff etc. So yeah, the assertion that most if not all SE money goes to youth/indoor/already active people is simply incorrect imho.

You compared climbing and hillwalking in terms of safety and health outcomes, right? Well, the vast majority of MR callouts are not to climbers but to hillwalkers. Statistically, climbing is less dangerous than driving to the crag (for you especially, I've heard about your driving  ;)) and the benefits of a lifelong hobby/obsession  will vastly outweigh the very small chance of death or serious injury.

It'll be interesting to see (there are no decent stats from the UK) the injury rate for indoor climbing, but given that there were an estimated 8 million visits to walls in the UK last year, putting participation above football (yes I was gobsmacked too), if I was a public health official I'd be very interested in it for it's synergy of movement, exercise and sociability in improving health outcomes but more importantly, quality of life. Whether this is a good thing for climbing is a different conversation altogether though.



Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 13, 2019, 07:57:04 pm
Responding to JR..

In terms of the BMC’s strategising this is a key topic that means grasping a few nettles that has been avoided in the past and hopefully an empowered and bold enough Board would get to grips with. If ‘responsible participation’ as proposed by the ORG is endorsed then the BMC and its partner organisations can go full bore for ‘mass market’ grant funding.

However, that means dealing with Stephen Venables, Doug Scott et al writing to the Times complaining that the BMC is proselytising and more seriously Tyler complaining about queueing for routes at Malham.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 13, 2019, 08:12:38 pm
Statistically, climbing is less dangerous than driving to the crag (for you especially, I've heard about your driving  ;))

No injuries from driving but from climbing twice in a pot and god knows how much on physio.

I'd be interested to know the real figures on how much was spent on directed stuff with indoor climbing / Talent Development. There are lots of ways to present figures but my recollection was that Talent Development got the most grant funding - probably salaries aside.

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.   
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on May 13, 2019, 09:43:56 pm

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!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 13, 2019, 10:23:53 pm
Bit of a strawman here, I don't think anyone is suggesting taking money off diabetes programs to give to the BMC!

If I did then you just out-strawmanned me given that isn’t what I said  ;D
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 14, 2019, 08:56:01 am
Sorry Simon I have been clear about my conflict of interest wrt Lynn and raised it specifically where my comments relate to what she may or may not have done. 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.

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 (If I'm wrong I'll be making a massive apology). I'm certainly not accusing you of being a liar (just in case you think I am), nor him (I'd favour cock-up over conspiracy in most disputes)

I stand by what I say about SE on UKC, as an 'old skool' social liberal (I know others disagree)

To Andy  "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. I think it is very unfair that SE seems to expect a transition to where partners (and if we cant find those, then members subscriptions) might be expected to replace what is currently funded through SE, for work that saves the government a fortune in tax expenditure on the NHS, and Social Services down the line. Mulitply that up across all SE funded sports and that to me is a huge potential political scandal in the making."   

and to you...  "On the subject, the participation within the BMC remit is already huge. The BMC just need recruit more of them to help ensure people are doing things that meet their aims (access, conservation, sustainability,  skills and safety ). What on earth has happened with you that you keep spouting all this misinformation: I though everyone interested knew the BMC get SE funding for hillwalking and given you are a climbing journalist, didn't you think to just google first. I also can't believe as a climber who's views on risk I admire is peddalling risk exaggeration in that way. I'd add that one of the great things about the BMC activities compared to most sports are the much higher improvements in mental health outcomes... something UKB is really great for highlighting and I thought you might have thought about.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/11-bmc-things-funded-by-sport-england 8 / "

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on May 14, 2019, 10:06:02 am
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.


The ICSA guidance, on the UK Corporate Governance Code, is very clear in relation to its recommendations on dealing with discretionary proxy votes, AGM chair obligations in relation to these (and polls) and transparency around such procedures. Obviously there's an interpretation that might be perceived differently for members' orgs rather than PLCs, but the overall differences in intent will be very minor.

With respect to Nominations Committee that's why the independents are in a majority in membership on the committee and this should be the case for it to be quorate in its activities (I think Simon did point this out from in the Feb minutes from the Board with respect to this on here or UKC).

If the operations of NomCom, and the transparency regarding voting work in partnership (driving openness and accountability), in line with the recognised good practice guidance and intent, I actually don't see it as as thorny a problem to solve as might be perceived. It's not like the BMC is the only organisation facing such issues!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 14, 2019, 10:57:52 am
Sorry Simon I have been clear about my conflict of interest wrt Lynn

Far from clear in my opinion but let's leave that there for the time being

Quote
By your pal I meant Gron, not JR

Given that you said "who's 'pals' lost the election" that is not correct

Quote
... 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

What you say reads that way.

When you say Gron's statement isn't believable or you cant see things as possibly being true then you are calling out the veracity of his statement bearing in mind he is a qualified chartered accountant and former PLC Director who wouldn't put his name to something lightly. If you don't think he is a liar what are you saying? 

And what exactly do you think is unbelievable Gron's statement especially now it has been disclosed there wasn’t a written recruitment procedure and so things will have been made up as the process went along:

Quote from: Gron in UKC Article
"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."
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on May 14, 2019, 11:12:18 am
Is this actually going anywhere? Maybe just settle it in the street like gentlemen?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: danm on May 14, 2019, 11:36:06 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: SA Chris on May 14, 2019, 11:43:11 am
Roshambo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwA8V6hcqQo
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 14, 2019, 12:54:31 pm
Even though I am pretty battle hardened with flame wars I have been taken aback with the repeatedly provocative, confrontational posts by Steve to what was a largely well received article that was hard to write.

I could just leave the accusations and slights unrefuted which leant them credibility or answer them in a boring exchange.

Damned if you respond, damned if you don’t
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 14, 2019, 05:35:58 pm
It's not a flame war from my perspective. I'm simply challenging the factual grounds on which a lengthy and serious complaint is being made about an organisation I care deeply about.  People receiving the article well is irrelevant to me unless they are well informed on why I'm concerned about it. Currently the polls say 34% of the population receive well what Nigel Farage says; I'm proud of my climbing community that seem to care an awful lot more about facts and evidence..

I have no idea what happened with Gron and did the exact opposite of challenge his veracity: until the facts are known I'll suspect some combination of cock up(s). In my decades of casework I've been involved in many disputes where accusations of not being informed turned out to be due to an address error or an accidentally overlooked communication. l do think you should have contacted the BMC first before you put this in the public domain in writing.

My favourite UKB post on Lynn about us being married:

"One of the election questions from the floor was about how she would ensure her notorious troll husband did not unduly influence BMC matters. Lynn's answer was magnificent ... just hoping someone filmed it. Uxurious interlude ends."
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 14, 2019, 05:49:52 pm
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.

I tried to talk but Simon wanted to do that with official BMC folk instead. The irony in this is I share much of his more general views. I certainly hold no grudge about this. I even think that he is right to be concerned but think public attack before proper information validation and an initial private right to reply on serious issues is bad journalism. I will happily buy Simon as much beer as he can drink if he will still talk to me at meetings in the future. The route is mildly hard but serious 3c.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 14, 2019, 06:09:19 pm
FFS you twist just about everything.

My response to your PM was “Tricky situation. Probably better if I speak to Lynn first.”

You said that was fine you just meant when we next met.

I emailed Lynn then she called me then I emailed again which she didn’t respond to.

Needless to say the response to my concerns were not fulsome, open and transparent hence taking it up further with others and writing the article.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 14, 2019, 06:39:10 pm
I guess I said that as, at the time, I didn't expect to see what you wrote in the article.

Given its a BMC situation involving Lynn shouldn't you have contacted the BMC as well as Lynn for an initial private right of reply. Did you ask her about what happened to Gron?  Did you ask her if she went against legal advice?  Did you ask her if the BMC was in charge of its finances ( the implications of errors in the accounts)? Did you ask her if the ODG was going slow? Did you ask her about her attention to detail on governance nitty gritty? These are the main issues I'm concerned about in your article and subsequent posts. I knew the release of proxy numbers was always going to be resisted and you would not like that; if transparency concerns around that was your entire case I'd be OK with it (despite disagreeing with your view on it... and being annoyed you failed to mention proxy voting is a legal requirement).

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 14, 2019, 06:56:25 pm
This was only a few days after the AGM when my immediate concerns focussed on disclosure of the number of discretionary proxy votes at her disposal and the way she voted to unravel what happened and why which is what triggered things off.

If her vote went against JR (which seems likely based on the numbers we know about) what was the rationale for not voting for him. As I said in the article this undermined his position as ODG Chair. He was of course on the Board to that point. Was his performance on the Board such that she couldn’t vote for him?

Yes I also contacted the BMC office for voting info (declined) and made the Local Area Chair, Sec and NC reps aware and emailed the Senior Independent Director with my concerns. I escalated it to the best of my ability yet no Board response and only the glib BMC article for members to go on in the meantime.

The article was more comprehensive than my initial focus. Lynn had an opportunity to nip things in the bud but chose not to disclose the number of votes and how she voted.

The other concerns came out from discussions on this thread, subsequent resignations by JR and Gron from their other BMC positions and other offline conversations and reflections on my part.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 14, 2019, 07:42:11 pm
So because Lynn didn't 'nip things in the bud' in a way none of us can ever know about, and the BMC didn't clarify the voting issue you felt it was OK to ignore normal journalistic standards and make the other accusations in the article public without giving the BMC a right to reply first?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 14, 2019, 08:11:06 pm
I asked for information and didn’t get it.

Lynn or the Board could have nipped things in the bud by responding to concerns expressed by others as well as me by disclosing the discretionary proxy numbers, acknowledging concerns had been expressed, acknowledging errors had been made and making a commitment to review rules and processes.

It was an opinion piece and I expressed my opinions. I am a BMC member and can hold our BMC politicians to account. Isn’t that a function of the press? Most who expressed an opinion on the ukc thread thanked me for it.

To put me back in my box would be a commitment to review discretionary proxy voting rules and practice, establish a written recruitment procedure, disclose how many votes were entrusted to Lynn and confirm which way she voted. I’m hoping that the promised Board response does just that and not before time.

Personally I think a publicly stated rationale on why Lynn voted the way she did on behalf of her discretional proxies is in order. I would like to see that she acted in accordance with procedural best practice and in the best of interests of the BMC.

I’m not holding my breath that she makes such a statement.





Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 14, 2019, 08:22:33 pm
In fact can we draw a line under this until the Board issues their response

 :please:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 14, 2019, 08:33:45 pm
Thats your opinion that you have a right to and I'm OK with you expressing it. Proxy voting is a legal requirement and the voting followed proper proceedure. My opinion on the proxy numbers being released is it's a terrible idea that will be used to attack the election and is probably motivated by sour grapes.  Having spent decades in trade union meetings and seen how such intimidation is used for political ends I'm very much in favour of all BMC votes being secret in the future. How people vote is nothing to do with transparency. I agree the process needs looking at for future votes and Andy has assured us it will be.

So how about you answering my question if you gave the BMC  any prior right to comment on those other issues before the article publication;  on what to me look like much more serious questions (and they are the only ones where I feel you are being  really unfair.).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 14, 2019, 08:50:10 pm
Can you list which other issues/serious questions you are referring to so I can answer that by referring back to the emails I sent Lynn and Simon Mccalla both (being Board Directors).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 15, 2019, 08:27:02 am
That list of questions covers the serious stuff the BMC should have had a chance to comment on before you published the article. The rest that I disagree with is opinion or trivial.

"Did you ask her about what happened to Gron?  Did you ask her if she went against legal advice?  Did you ask her if the BMC was in charge of its finances ( the implications of errors in the accounts)? Did you ask her if the ODG was going slow? Did you ask her about her attention to detail on governance nitty gritty"
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 15, 2019, 08:57:06 am
It is hard to sort stuff from your posts. If you specifically list then I can specifically respond.

The other stuff I have already answered which I’ll repeat. I was focussed after the AGM on the number of discretionary proxy votes entrusted to her and how she voted on their behalf. I didn’t get a conclusive answer. For context it was only a few days after the AGM and I was walking one of my dogs in Settle when she called.

The article was a more comprehensive response to the whole of the AGM and the aftermath ie JR’s resignation as ODG Chair and online and offline discussions and reflections on my part.


*EDIT Re-reading your post was that in fact the definitive list of what you consider the serious stuff?


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 15, 2019, 05:14:58 pm
Yes the bit in quotes is the list of issues which concern me the most, specifically if the BMC had a chance to comment before you published the article (which I'm assuming won't apply to Simon, unless of course you contacted him before publication).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 15, 2019, 07:04:26 pm
So to be absolutely clear you're asking is did I notify the Board prior to publication of the article on the following?

Gron's experiences as a candidate 

[Lynn going]against legal advice [of the Womble Dickenson solicitor at the AGM] 

Whether the BMC is in charge of its finances 

That the ODG is going too slow?

The level of Lynn's attention to detail on governance nitty gritty
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 15, 2019, 07:56:08 pm
Yes.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on May 15, 2019, 09:55:49 pm
the Womble Dickenson solicitor

I really hope that's not a made-up name.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 15, 2019, 11:19:23 pm
Now we have civilly established between us the issues you believe are important I will address them as comprehensively as I can in the earnest hope that this draws a line under the matters in establishing my position. I also please ask that you maintain the civility that you have more recently exhibited.
 
First point to make is that what you say you consider most important and what I consider most important are evidently two different things.

My most important issues with respect to the UKC article I wrote all relate to concerns over the recruitment and election of Directors and the BMC AGM article that failed to reflect those concerns which prompted the article being written as a response.

The reason that this issue is most important to me is that the BMC went though the wringer to gain Board primacy so the composition of the Board is vital for taking difficult decisions to modernise the organisation. When one of the Directors (JR) who I perceive as one of the driving forces of modernisation was not re-elected to the Board that rang alarm bells straight away and a desire to understand how such a detrimental outcome came to pass.
My endeavours of trying to understand how that came to pass included contacting two Board members (Lynn and Simon Mccalla) for information on the discretionary proxy votes and relay concerns about recruitment procedures.

Even now I am not seeking a Board response to the other issues that are a priority concern to you (but a secondary concern to me) and the list of questions I sent to Simon Mccalla all relate to the recruitment processes, election and BMC AGM article which for reference are as follows:
Quote

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?

Bearing in mind that I have failed to elicit a response on my information requests for my primary issues from Board members individually or the Board as a whole, why would I be hassling the Board on secondary issues? It is not incumbent on me to submit my opinion piece to the Board so that they can deliberate before it is published.

Having said all that….

Let’s look at your individual issues and relate it in turn to what I said in the article

Gron's experiences as a candidate 

Yes I flagged up this early on in a confidential email to Simon Mccalla in his capacity as Senior Independent Director in the week following the AGM the email I sent on 3rd April:
Quote
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.

[Lynn going]against legal advice [of the Womble Dickenson solicitor at the AGM] 

The relevant paragraph in my article was this:

Quote
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.

I’m not sure what more to say about this. She stated this from the floor and was located about 15 feet away from me. Lynn was looking in her direction when she said it. I’m surprised that you didn’t hear her too as you were about the same distance away. I am assuming her comments were minuted. If not she can be contacted for confirmation. In any case this was all in the public forum and should have been heard by Dave and Lynn at least and been subject to any post AGM wash-up with the solicitor. Hardly a job for me to flag up what should already be known by the BMC’s paid legal advisor. 

Whether the BMC is in charge of its finances

The relevant section in my article is this:

Quote
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.
As I said in the article these are two clues. My overall view that the BMC does not have an iron grip on its finances is informed by my role as Commercial Manager and attendance of all the Finance Committee meetings whilst employed at the BMC. I lobbied more than one Director currently sitting on the Board of Directors at the 2017 2018 AGM in person and gave them my opinions on Financial Management at the Office and advocated that in my opinion that the appointment of a Finance & Commercial Director would go towards addressing the issues.

That the ODG is going too slow?

The relevant section of my UKC article is this:
Quote

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.

Regarding your point in a previous post about John Roberts presenting at the AGM I have checked this with JR directly and you are correct that there was a slot. He says he was given a maximum 5 minute slot whilst the votes were being counted. Unfortunately I  along with many others missed this slot assuming it was a break in proceedings and headed straight for the toilets. I think it fair to say that it was not assigned the priority it deserved.
As for only 2 recommendations being completed since the last AGM I only knew that from the AGM handout. The Board should be very aware of what has and hasn’t been done to date so not my job to flag up things they should know in far greater detail than I ever would.

[The level of Lynn's attention to detail on governance nitty gritty
The relevant section of the UKC article is this:
Quote
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.

Also don’t forget I know her and there are various things she's said that have led me to holding the opinion I have. Whilst recognising Lynn's strengths as a “people person” I have long been apprehensive about her unknown abilities with respect to the grind of process change hence my advice to her in an email (11.7.18) after her election as President: “If you are to achieve the level of change that the ORG aspired for the BMC during your term I suggest you and JR sit down and form a game plan. It will be all too easy to get diverted, bogged down by inertia etc. My plan was all I had to cling on to at times. The importance of impact of the first 30/60/90 days in office and all that. Maybe you already have that in hand.”

It seemed obvious to me that if Lynn and John worked closely in partnership they would be a force to be reckoned with. Lynn could take the outward facing leadership role as the face and communicator of change and Roberts could drive the internal aspects and the detail. On paper it could have been a great double act. It is a calamity that the opposite occurred.

My early apprehension has only been subsequently strengthened by things she has said and comments from others. One was over our public exchange on her use of “holding the Board to account” regarding the MoM at a Peak Area meeting which you may recall.

You have characterised me as having a conflict of interest in terms of friendship with John Roberts but I have a longer term friendship with Lynn which you should therefore also acknowledge.

Going back I was the first one to let Lynn know about the upcoming Vice President vacancy and encouraged her to apply (email 10.3.17). I then encouraged her to stand as Acting President when Rehan resigned. Finally I publicly endorsed her Presidential bid on UKB when she stood against Les Ainsworth.

In short Lynn is a wonderful person but in the context of her duties as President in the article I am dispassionately judging her on her actions. As a ‘fan’ it has been personally disappointing her lack of transparency and disclosure. The consequences of her likely lack of support for John Roberts undermines progress at the ODG and in her position she should have been acutely aware of that.

I have endeavoured to understand the issues that were important to you and openly give context to how I arrived at the opinions and the timings of when I communicated matters to Board members which you are concerned about.       
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 16, 2019, 01:38:11 am
Thanks, I know where you stand now. I have still issues with your answers but think it best now we do draw a line until the BMC report is out. The information I needed is something I now have.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 16, 2019, 07:29:51 am
Made one edit. Re lobbying Directors on financial management I meant at the 2018 AGM not 2017 AGM
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 19, 2019, 11:11:45 am
The BMC 2019 AGM minutes are now up: www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-minutes-and-national-open-forum-notes

One thing that stuck out
Quote

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.

By BMC solicitor I assume that means Martin Wragg who is the BMC’s volunteer Honoury Solicitor who I don’t believe is a practicing solicitor any more. Emma Moody is the paid BMC solicitor from Womble Dickinson and it isn’t minuted that she also said that having the candidates speak opened up a “risk of legal challenge”.

Time is moving on. The BMC Board meeting took place 11 days ago and still no publication of the mooted response to the concerns and questions raised or for that matter the publication of the Board of Directors meeting summary.


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 19, 2019, 01:56:53 pm
The solicitor was almost certainly Emma and my bet is what you 'heard' is the classic psychology of inadvertant false witness to fit the narrative you had built for yourself. Im sure the BMC/ Emma will confirm later. I say that as I sat pretty much next to you and heard the exact opposite but it's the BMC position that counts, not what either of us heard. As I said, Lynn just doesn't ignore legal advice (despite some other 'modernisers' members in the organisation who seemed to be rather sulking about some of it) its been a maxim of hers since I've known her.

As you haven't drawn a line under things I'll reply on your other most recent points.

On Lynn first, where people do need to remember I am both conflicted and uxurious.  It's really sad to see such character assassination for someone you said was a friend. I'd stick with her view on the world... instead of your search for faults  that are possibly not even real,   she prefers to see what the BMC can do for its members and its remit and how best to achive that; she doesn't claim to be perfect and knows its a big job, she has given up 14 months salary to try and do that as well as she can.. Her CV, including extensive involvement in governance up to a Board level handling of two Public Inquiries on behalf of her PCT, academic qualifications up to an MSc in Public Sector Management, speaks for itself. As does her highly significant (although mainly behind the scenes) input in the BMC ODG and other governance mattters . Her BMC CV is also impeccable and there has never been a President who honestly ackowledged following election how much more there was to know, nor one I'm aware of who made as many efforts to be as well informed in all areas of the BMCs work as possible.  With friends she is a person rather than a politician:  she shares the joy of being where she is and is sometimes plain silly and certainly is part and parcel of the heritage of climber's humour.  I could make the most academicly people I know look like fools if I wanted to 'out' them with such a pathetic level of anecdote. The whole point of Lynn's so called lack of transparency is that she is following internal BMC advice on this and will continue to do that until that advice changes. All the disagreement I see from you on the voting seems to end up in differences in organisational politics and opinion.

On giving the BMC a fair chance to comment before publication of your article it seems that we needed to rely on your emails to  Simon, whom if what you say is true I am very disappointed with. He is not the organisation of course and may have his own agenda but I'm glad you confirmed this.  I still maintain you should have written to the BMC directly.

On Gron I have enough independent confirmation now to know emails were sent to candidates successful in the interviews. It doesn't make Gron's statement necessarily untrue as there could have been some cock-up with his but it makes your email exchange with Simon look very odd indeed as he should have told you that.

On the accounts I was referring to the original version. There were no financial errors at any time,  just narrative errors. Your views from your job role at the BMC were always just your opinions and very unfair in that the BMC would not normally reply in such matters.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 19, 2019, 02:11:20 pm
Out of interest when you say I should have written to the BMC directly what do you mean by that given that I wrote separately to the President and the Senior Independent Director and also a group email to the Peak Area Chair, Sec and NC reps laying out my concerns.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 19, 2019, 02:37:28 pm
Yes, if you making official complaints about the organisation you write directly to the organisation. We have no idea exactly which of your varied concerns were raised with which people. What you did looks like mud slinging. If you wrote to Lynn about her not following legal advice, or about Gron, or about the finances, or about the ODG being slow Im pretty sure she would have corrected you on those points.

I forgot the ODG being slow point in my previous reply. I ask again where is your evidence of this as JR seemed happy and the time constaints I put up were as far as I know correct and show a huge amount of work in just a few months. Prior to this the likes of Andy, JR, Lynn and Dave did the ground work they were tasked with.

JR's slot was short but so was the meeting time. Unlike the subs discussion there was no clamour to ask more questions than the time allocated.

My biggest personal concern with the meeting remains with club members attending (or keen to hear news) who were worried about the impact of the subs rise on their clubs (speaking as a current non club member who campaiged to remove the club block vote). The votes against are too large to be ignored.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on May 19, 2019, 03:23:21 pm
Is this actually going anywhere? Maybe just settle it in the street like gentlemen?

That'll be a no on both counts then.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on May 19, 2019, 04:00:34 pm
Some sort of KissinG and MakinG up ProcesS? SlArTY is happy to mediate
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 19, 2019, 05:05:14 pm
Simon is passionate about his concerns and I respect that he is entitled to those. What he isn't entitled to is to distort the facts of the matter. Also as a journalistic piece he should have given the BMC organisation a chance to comment before publication.  Everything serious he is seemingly concerned about, aside from the conflict of interest on discretionary proxys (something I think will be hard to avoid in the BMC) seems to me to come down to opinion and politics. I once thought we were pretty close on those as well. I guess the real difference between us comes down to how corporate the BMC can become. I think it's already improved significantly in this direction in the recent AGM changes but I where suspect it has gone almost as far as the average voting member will tolerate, Simon would clearly like more change. I didn't see this type of political battle coming or I would not have trusted Simon and voted for Gron. I don't see I need to kiss and make up as I still believe in most of the same things and I suspect the BMC report will clear things up. On the attack on Lynn I will forgive as he is clearly angry and lashing out .... the President role is political and she is a woman who never 'knew her place' in a male dominated arena. I am a bit like Simon: too focussed on negative nit picking. Lynn is much more positive and broader in outlook being trained in modern management best practice: inspire, focus, enhance, support, encourage. She can't comment herself as she is still crossing Scotland in the TGO challenge and was yesterday hanging her clean linen in public in Braemar.

I need to read your 'mad' stuff as it will I suspect be a fun distraction but I still have some exam marking to finish for tomorrow am. It includes some Visual Psychology.... why we sometimes see things that aren't correct .
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: user deactivated on May 19, 2019, 06:25:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on May 19, 2019, 08:10:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 19, 2019, 11:37:27 pm
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.

Thats what boring people say Dan. Its better to create than be a critic.

I'm not sure that many people take this seriously and a few might be our common friends worried about us rather than more BMC politicians.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on May 20, 2019, 07:09:41 am
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.

Ive been copying and pasting the lot, re-arranging and selling online to desperate students 😂 just substitute a key word from the essay title where BMC is mentioned and it keeps the punters happy 😂
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 05, 2019, 08:22:11 am
The Board has finally issued a response to the concerns expressed by me and others over the AGM

www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2019-reflections-and-the-future

Disappointingly, the Chair's number of discretionary proxy votes and where those votes were cast still remains a secret.

In general terms it is a good piece drafted mainly by Jonathan White and ruminates on the issues, acknowledges concerns and provides some context and points to how things will be improved in the future.

One thing to note is that there is obfuscation in not clarifying the legal difference and obligations of a Chair’s responsibility and those of other proxy holders in the room. As Chair (and Director) there is surely an obligation to be more open about decisions made on behalf of members which are in turn are legitimately open to public scrutiny – this is what you sign up to in public office. These obligations apply to a much lesser extent to other proxy holders in the room but the response appears to conflate the two.

I’ve submitted a paper for the next Peak Area meeting to discuss concerns arising from the BMC AGM 2019 and the lack of disclosure, openness and transparency or indeed any formal response to those concerns in the two months since the AGM

I have also set up a public Facebook Group called BMC Watch to share info, discuss issues and promote the BMC becoming a modern organisation

https://m.facebook.com/groups/2241207952632038
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 05, 2019, 08:33:56 am
A copy of the paper for the Peak Area meeting is copied below. It was written and submitted before the BMC response was published but all the points still apply.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 05, 2019, 11:28:16 am
Hi Simon

Thanks for the Facebook group. I'm sure it will be useful but I won't be contributing there as I only use Facebook  'on receive' as a moral stopgap, given I'm not a fan of that company.

It really is not common for organisations like the BMC (a Company based membership organisation under Sport England Tier 3) to release numbers of discretionary proxies held by the chair and the positions voted for. It is, I would agree, fairly common for charities (including many membership organisations) and there are governance bodies who recommend it for  PLCs where financial consequences for shareholders are more serious. I'd like to see a single example of an organisation like the BMC that does it. I do agree the BMC should consider that possibility,  amongst others, when it reviews this later in the year,  even though I am against it. I think it will lead to sour grapes attacks on the chair by the politically aligned of those who lose election votes, and it fails to recognise that the AGM chair, as a Director, has to operate in the best interests of the organisation and for a company, given that inevitably involves confidential Board information that cannot be disclosed, it removes the ability of the chair to robustly defend their position outside of the Board... a bad idea in the days of social media. There are some specific issues in ND elections that do need resolving.

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, then the Board will need to reverse that for that retrospective information to be provided, with the legal complications that could ensue with such retrospective changes. It really is a bad idea to do this as an organisation, unless there is no other choice.

I'm glad the article has finally put up the idea common for those who are familiar with governance that the chair splitting discretionaty proxy votes can be regarded as 'destroying' votes. This is a serious issue for those who really do intend their proxy discretionaries to be used by the chair on behalf of the best interests of the company. The BMC does however need to ensure those who give a discretionary proxy to the chair really mean that: if they have no idea what they mean, they should proxy direct an abstention. I'm also glad the different positions on poll votes and shows of hands has been clarified: I really hate shows of hands as, in my academic union Congress, I've seen shows of hands change on a recount as people live tweet and text reminders of policy positions to far left colleagues... pretty much voter intimidation. People do sometimes look and scowl at the BMC AGM. This really is an issue of the organisation better informing the membership on voting and I prefer all ballots to be secret, and if technology allows, live vote for members watching who cannot attend. 

If JR and Gron hadn't both lost the election I don't believe any of this particular fuss from you would be happening (although I know JR's enemies planned their own fuss if he had won). This attack behaviour after elections needs to stop and the BMC need policy on this, as other organisations have, in best practice terms. Simon is an Independant director but not so independant 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). You are a close friend of Gron and support JR. I am married to President Lynn. We are all conflicted on this subject; we agree on many things but do disagree on this subject.  However, I would hope that in looking forward to the review and the future, that all of us focus on whats best and not damage the organisation in petty squabbles about the past. There are issues that need looking at but it's complicated and making best efforts for the future will need to avoid such distractions and need to be inclusive of views that we both disagree with... eg those of the BMC 30.  You made the point that JR was by far the best candidate... this is an opinion stated unfairly as fact. I think he was one candidate of three standing for a fundraising focussed Board post who were all appointable, despite voting for JR. I will admit that if Rebecca hadn't stood down I would have voted for her as she was also ORG and a fundraiser in her day job.  JR admitted himself that he was reluctant to campaign as he wanted a woman to win the vote, but most of those who voted for him (at the very most only a paltry 365 of us, despite all his good work) didn't seemed to know that.

I have very different worries from the AGM that I see as more important. Moans about subs I hear way more commonly from the membership. The subs issue is where the votes were closest and many are still unhappy with the outcome (especially in clubs). In terms of Director behaviour I am way more  worried that JR publicly stated that as a Director he voted against an agreed Board position and abstained from one. He's not the first to do this but going on the public record is very unwise. Board collective responsibility is an important company position.

A lot of these complications arise because the BMC is a company and not a charity. I would prefer the BMC to reconsider this decision at some point in the future. If so, this recent period wont be the biggest governance change ever.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: SA Chris on June 05, 2019, 11:35:40 am
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.

Quite. Also wondering if there is a BMC Safety Statement regarding the swinging of handbags.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 05, 2019, 12:41:19 pm
Dan has tested handbag straps by rubbing them on gritstone and discovered that, unlike slings, they are not weaker then than if cut half through. It would also be an unfair fight.. Simon's would have a heart of oak.

On the subject of handbags I think this is more aggressive dancing around them. Simon is right to be annoyed but should have just been a lot more careful about what he said in public:  I could have respected that and not needed to have been so oppositional. For true handbags: I've faced these much of my working life and from opposite quarters as I became a union rep early on. I always believed in standing up and opposing gross unfairness. The managers I blocked in their attempted  unfair actions were sometimes seriously nasty and the far left of my union hated me as I faced off their bullying behaviour and dishonest presentation of their version of "facts", which were too often just opinion, and I stood successfully many times for election against their candidates on behalf of ordinary fairly apolitical members, including nearly a decade on national executive councils. I have also had about 20 years on my Uni academic board. I'm not a lightweight in governance terms even if at BMC meetings I would (before Lynn led me to assume bodyguard status) prefer 'to buy a pint discuss guidebooks' with Grimer, when governance came up in the area meeting. It was all just too similar to nasty shit at work and obsessive climbing was my escape from that.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on June 05, 2019, 08:00:48 pm
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.


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...


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.


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).


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).


there are governance bodies who recommend it for PLCs where financial consequences for shareholders are more serious


Are you a member of ICSA? Or are you referring to another body?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 05, 2019, 08:07:37 pm
It’s ridiculous equating a climbing partner with a married partner in terms of conflict of interest. Quite frankly Simon Mccalla was being overly cautious categorising it as a material conflict of interest. Dave Turnbull must be 100% conflicted as he’ll climb with just about anybody and everybody.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 06, 2019, 08:41:15 am
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 seem really weirdly up and down in your understanding of how organisations work. Boards can make lower level decisions in ad hoc meetings without formally minuting them.  If a Director is concerned about such they can ask to formalise.

Many in the BMC know you and Simon M are really good friends and some cruel folk (climbers are renowned for humour in such areas) even joke about you seeming more married than some actual married couples. There is nothing wrong with this as long as its doesn't unfairly influence decisions. I didn't know Simon had declared on ND but assumed he would have, as unlike Shark he gets the fact that its actually ridiculous to compare levels of being conflicted in an organisation: if you are, you are and you should declare. When trying to deal with what happened to you,  Simon is quite simply the least appropriate person on the Board.

No I'm not a member of any of such governance body.... firstly you nearly always have to pay and secondly I think many look a bit parasitic with seemingly a business model designed to cover up shit governance with a veneer of process. My information comes from friends and colleagues who are directors, trustees or company secretaries, and from conferences and academic experts (although I'm an academic Engineer I've also been lucky enough to have been involved as an independent experienced validation panel member in quite a few MBA overseas multi-day course validations alongside real world expert practioners). I've said before that governance is a modern day obsession and almost a full on industry because so many organisations were (and many still are) failing in the basic principles. 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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 06, 2019, 09:50:03 am
Where is the ‘interest’ ? An interest represents a legal or business connection and a conflict of interest is something that could lead to material gain.

At FinCom meetings I declared that my ownership of UKB was a potential conflict of interest as the BMC is an advertiser. I did not also declare my friendship with Dave Turnbull and the fact we climb together and our respective partners go running together represented a conflict of interest. Was I wrong not to do so  :lol:

Clearly Simon McCalla felt he had a conflict of personal loyalty. Not the same thing as a conflict of interest. That’s his call if he wants to call it a conflict of interest but I think it was lame - as an independent director he should be confident of his even-handedness and dispassionate in the boardroom.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 06, 2019, 11:20:15 am
It was according to JR formally declared on the ND vote you are complaining about and as such you should have been told to contacted the Board Chair or another Independant Director. The level or lameness of that declaration is frankly irrelevant. I guess the 'lame' concept is important so you don't need to state your relationship with Gron when you introduce your paper at the area meeting next week.

It seems to me you have achieved your main stated aims in the original article. The concerns are now widely known and there will be a BMC working group to look into it. This will take valuable volunteer time and some expenses costs. There is a formal BMC response (more valuable volunteer time), there are formal routes to make comment on the ODG section of the BMC website. If you really are independant and fair you should now just let the organisation get on with its work in this area (knowing that really the vast majority of members would prefer that this volunteer time and money should have been focussed on core access work and similar). I'm pretty sure the group recommendations will lead to changes that will reduce future levels of discretionary proxy votes, but also that this could have been achieved more efficiently by a private communication to the Board chair.

There are very real political groupings amongst the BMC AGM and Area meeting regulars and its worrying to me for people to pretend independance that isn't real, like some of the BMC 30 did, when forgetting to mention what they had they signed when supporting it on social media. When such groups put their ideology above the organisation, what I see as possibly happening again here, I think that is dangerous. The pragmatic need to get governance changes that wereTier 3 Sport England compatible was necessary to from a financial perspective and beneficial for modern good governance; the political conflict between so called, 'modernisers' and 'traditionalists' have at time  been depressingly damaging and exceedingly wasteful.

It would be good if  you could be open and transparent and answer the question would you be doing all this if Gron and JR  had won? If you were dispassionate on the voting and really cared about the BMC you should be happy now, for it to be looked at for next time. Instead you play the 'Pettigrew card' spreading concerns to strengthen your weak and divisive remaing objective on the release of proxies (which even if fairly agreed for the future, given the rather fractious insider politics, some groups will certainty use to attack the President and the BMC, whichever way they vote). You could also have fact checked all those things you got wrong in your original article and subsequent posts (that you have to 'read between the lines' in the BMC response, to realise they were actually wrong; a response which has been pretty kind to you).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 06, 2019, 12:06:22 pm
I have not taken issue with Gron not getting the Directorship but I do think the process was handled poorly.

Yes I wouldn’t have sought to peer under the car bonnet if I hadn’t sought to uncover how JR failed to get re-elected. I now know far more about the rules and process. Before ignorance was bliss.

Also the ongoing withholding of a reasonable request for proxy information is becoming as big a worry than the outcomes of the AGM. It signals that the Board as a whole is not fully committed to openness and transparency and member scrutiny which is not in the spirit of the ODG.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 06, 2019, 02:00:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on June 06, 2019, 02:15:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 06, 2019, 02:40:49 pm
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.

 ::)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 06, 2019, 02:42:43 pm
There goes my tenner  :wavecry:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Johnny Brown on June 06, 2019, 04:10:05 pm
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...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 06, 2019, 05:04:38 pm
Joking aside if me responding to Offwidth with a straight bat and soaking up abuse (calling me dishonest amongst other things) makes this look like a grudge match that is utterly unfair.

It is also worrying because there are genuine issues here on openness, transparency and potential derailment of modernisation that he shouldn’t deflect folk from.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: SA Chris on June 06, 2019, 05:40:18 pm

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...

Sure you can get enough Buckfast with that much, fight fuel of Weegie champions.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: SA Chris on June 06, 2019, 05:43:47 pm
it's the Peak area meet next week.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OO27A8xllA
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on June 06, 2019, 08:21:13 pm

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...
£5 bonus if they can spell independence correctly.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on June 06, 2019, 10:22:39 pm

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)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on June 06, 2019, 10:34:00 pm

I'd like to see a single example of an organisation like the BMC that does it.

Cycling UK looks like they do.  See comment by Cycloloco
"Electronic voting at the AGM this year organised by Electoral Reform Services didn't always work first time but seemed OK in total. The postal and proxy votes were shown before the votes at the meeting were taken making it clear to attenders that their votes were largely useless."

https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?t=113397&start=90#p1127929

Without wasting much more time searching there is certainly a precedent in sports governing bodies too.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on June 06, 2019, 11:02:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on June 07, 2019, 03:38:09 am
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.

As someone who only vaguely keeps track of this stuff due to it seeming tediously complex, I'd +1 this
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 07, 2019, 08:18:30 am
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.

I've never disagreed with the potential problems here; yet:

Nothing much seemed to be wrong in the Nominations process according to the BMC report. Sharks argument is turning  molehills into mountains. Some minor issues (President conflict of interest being on the Nom Com) I think are real (but in that case not serious, being protected by a Board ratification vote)

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, except ND, where JR almost certainly could not have won being bottom.

Shark could have avoided doing something that I see as pretty similar to the original content of Bobs MoNC but from the opposite political perspective.. writing a polemic based nearly all on opinion. The article also contained errors and misinformation that could have been avoided from the start (if he did what a good journalist would and allow the organisation a right to comment before publication).

My concern is how do you fix this given there is an ongoing political struggle in the BMC membership with clearly very strong views on either side.  I think retrospective change is always bad and in this context a terrible idea. Knowing exactly what proxys did, when this wasn't part of the rules for 2019, does risk being seen as JRs, 'fan club' (where I was a part remember), attempting to cause harm in revenge due to sour grapes.  I disagree with those who seem to hate JR's politics but they are members.

You have to allow proxy votes so I'm hoping with better advice to members people who don't absolutely know they want the chair to have a discretionary will with better advice direct an abstain in future.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on June 07, 2019, 09:01:13 am

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.

This is also my view as someone who volunteers a small amount of time to the BMC. I have neither the time nor the inclination to work out whether Simon's piece was mostly fair or not, but I was disappointed a response took so long and disappointed it danced around the proxy issue; this was surely deliberate.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 07, 2019, 09:03:08 am
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

Well let’s take the guesswork out of it then.

It is within the Board’s gift to be open and transparent by disclosing the Chairs discretionary proxy numbers.

Members can then know whether Lynn determined the outcome of any of the appointments and she can provide a rationale for using the votes entrusted to her in the way she did.

It doesn’t reflect well on the Board to keep members in the dark like this.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 07, 2019, 09:54:45 am
I think if you really cared about openess and transparency you would have dealt with this like a proper journalist in the beginning and given the article up-front for the BMC to comment before publication (on those errors and opinion almost dressed as fact). Also if you really cared about openess and transparency once the review was announced you should have shut this down.  It's not really guesswork given the voting numbers, the margins are massively over 700. You know full well that two results would almost certainly be the same with discretionaries removed. The exception is the ND fundraising where JR being bottom could not have won if discretionaries were removed. What we don't know from the numbers are things like  if Lynn had a large enough number of discretionaries and voted for him if he might have won. 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. All the fuss you make over 2019 discretionaries influencing the vote agaisnt JR therefore has to be a smokescreen. I fully support that the review does need to look at issues around discretionaries for future AGMs but that is already part of the  remit.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on June 07, 2019, 10:09:36 am
I think if you really cared about openess and transparency you would have dealt with this like a proper journalist

I have literally no skin in this game, but I've read this point a few times now and its rankling a bit. 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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on June 07, 2019, 11:09:21 am
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.

Not entirely accurate out of context, as my reluctance was essentially driven by experience of the process (which included not really making it easy for female candidates, and me wanting the BMC to start meeting the targets set), which the BMC has acknowledged needs looking at, because there's room for improvement.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 07, 2019, 05:49:51 pm

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)

Just re-checked the AGM minutes and website for British Canoeing and there is no 2019 proxy breakdown visible anywhere. Maybe its approved for next year, maybe that rule change doesn't mean what you think it does.

Cycling UK is not a Company
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Andy Syme on June 07, 2019, 08:21:31 pm
 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.

Re UK cycling no they are not a company they are a sporting membership body.  We've already established that companies do generally disclose.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on June 07, 2019, 08:55:29 pm
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

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on June 07, 2019, 09:20:20 pm
Absolutely everything else aside, 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.

That's not to say that I think Lynn has acted maliciously. I'm sure that whatever she did (I've little interest in this so haven't read around it), she did it with fair intentions.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 07, 2019, 09:50:07 pm
Had a beer and a few gins but my understanding is that CTC is a charity that has limited company subsidiaries in common with many charities

Edit. So clarified with JR that CTC is a company limited by guarantee (like the BMC) that is registered as a charity. Apparently most charities have this structure. CTC also has limited company trading subsidiaries.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 08, 2019, 09:24:44 am
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

My apologies in that case on saying its not a company. I hadn't looked for the company house route to see itts a company run as a charity. Its still not that similar to the BMC as the AGM minutes are clearly in charity style having  Trustees instead of Directors. Such AGMs run under slightly different rules to company AGM rules. Most membership organisations have trustees on their AGM.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 08, 2019, 09:39:24 am
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.


Still can't find anything on BC providing individual proxy numbers in future. 11.2 is about modifying the articles to include proxy votes in any show of hands vote (as IS required in company law) as previously they didn't include proxies. Unless I've missed something else you have just misunderstood what this means.

Did find that in future in all instances, in the AoA, Chairman will be changed to Chair (for Shark).




Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 08, 2019, 09:54:50 am
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.

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).

The Board position for the BMC 2019 AGM was that the breakdown was not to be provided. Shark thinks we should retrospectively change that (with its possible complications). I think the Board response is correct and it should be looked at by the governance working group and the Board should use that to make a decision for 2020 onwards.  I'm pretty sure Lynns position will remain no retrospective release unless the Board change their mind.. not because of her views but... because that is how a Board should work (with collective responsibility for its majority decisions).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 08, 2019, 10:13:34 am
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.

Sorry, I overlooked this earlier. Obviously I disagree about it being a journalistic piece as its an article on the biggest UK climbing website, raising serious concerns about the BMC. Journalistic rules in my view apply to anyone who wishes to be taken seriously on such potentially damaging public accusations. They are nothing to do with being a paid professional journalist  nor member of a professional body. In addition Shark is an ex BMC employee and an ex BMC National Council member and is conflicted given his relationship,with Gron (who lost in this election). All these reasons mean I think he should have given the BMC a fair chance to comment before publication  or at least got some other independant people to look over it who are very familiar with the BMC.

On the issue of speed differences. The BMC can be pretty rapid on operational issues picked up by the staff. On Board governance matters Board volunteers have to pick this up over and above all their other volunteer work for the BMC. Im very greatful for Jonathan White for leading on this (but it is not just his paper, as some seem to think, it will have been agreed by the Board).

Members need to think hard on this. Do the membership want the Board to do this for every future Bob or Shark's concerns or do members want Board time spent in other ways.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on June 08, 2019, 11:04:35 am
 Could this whole debate about proxies being disclosed not be easily resolved by - ironically! - putting it to members to decide at the next AGM? The BMC is a member-led organisation after all.

'Ironically' because you might end up with lots of proxy votes deciding the matter of whether or not proxy votes are disclosed.

My choice would be that proxies are disclosed by those in positions of 'power' (using the term lightly) at the BMC.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on June 08, 2019, 11:45:27 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 08, 2019, 11:49:20 am
They could Pete but it's still a Board decision that, if it needs articles changes (I'm not sure it does), will need to be ratifed by members at the next AGM.  Members could raise an AGM motion but if by next spring it looked like the BMC were doing this anyway what would be the point? If Chairs proxy voting is agreed (very likely I'd say given how easy it is to rabble rouse on such a subject), given the political split in the BMC governance obsessives who always turn up and vote and that discretionay proxys are not going away anytime soon, we can then look forward to attacks on Presidents for whichever way they vote at the AGM, for years to come. Rehan resigned early as he could no longer spend the time and energy under such attack and Nick decided not to stand from his position of Acting President after a pretty torrid year. This aptly labelled 'proxy war' is the just the latest move in a chess game between BMC 'traditionalists' and 'modernisers'. I just wish those who seem to do this and nothing else useful would get lost and let the BMC get on with its work. I don't see Shark in this category, but he and others should think about how they go about things or, as he has, they will be burning Board volunteer time that could have been spent on something constructive.

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. If they don't really care about the outcome of a vote they should proxy direct an abstain. Proxys help protect an organisation from single issue activists who could turn up en masse and try to stack an AGM decision.  In my academic union activists at Congress managed to get a boycott of Israel Universities passed that very few members agreed with, so an Extraordinary Congress had to be called to reverse the decision (at great expense and waste of organisational time and energy). I've seen (time and time again)  voter intimidation at my union Congress based on show of hands. I happen to care very much about activists getting carried away and using proceedures (or baps in them) to distort organisational democracy. I could tolerate Chair proxy publication (it will be bloody hard on Presidents as AGM Chair), but where possible I think voting should be secret. Splitting votes seem attractive to the ignorant but could open the AGM Chair up to legal action from proxy voting members,  on not taking their Chair proxy responsibilities seriously and 'destroying' the member's vote.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 08, 2019, 11:59:48 am
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.

These governance squabbles had pretty serious effects for Rehan and Nick and the funding and operational functions of the BMC in 2017/18 . We are lucky Lynn is a woman with a strong constitution (or allegedly 'no governance nitty gritty' from some who don't like what they think she did). People should beware of the motivations of those who don't volunteer anything for the organisation other than aggressive positions on governance. Even those who do contribute elsewhere can get carried away (probably including me).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 08, 2019, 12:26:01 pm

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.

I agree. But that doesn’t mean that it should be kept a secret.

Lynn was vocal after her election at the Area Meeting about being open and transparent. She also declared she would be vigorous in her role of holding the Board to account. She also has highlighted her role as an active members champion.

All of this seems entirely at odds with refusing a request by at least one member to disclose the number of votes entrusted to her, how she voted and providing a rationale for using the votes in the way she did.

It is within her gift to release this info. Nobody is stopping her. No rules would be broken and there is a precedent of a previous President having disclosed similar proxy information. It would demonstrate a commitment to openness and transparency and engaging and listening to members concerns.

She was offered the right of reply by UKC as standard but declined it.

The fact that she is not legally obliged to disclose the info doesn’t mean she shouldn’t and all the indications are that it is both good practice and common practice to do so.

It is also in the Boards collective gift to release at least the proxy numbers as well and as far as I know there hasn’t been a direct vote on the matter.

You mention time wasted. Yes I feel my time has been wasted too by an obstinacy to not reveal the information or even give a valid reason for not releasing it.

The board or Lynn would save a lot of time by just ‘fessing up and having a conversation about what actually happened so there is closure to this sorry episode and lessons can be learnt to help with improving things for next time.



Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on June 08, 2019, 12:32:24 pm

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).


On the basis neither you nor I are actually professional governance experts on this I have asked ICSA: the Governance Institute (professional body for governance and company secretaries), of whom I'm a member.  Although I'm sure you'll be quick to point out the specific guidance is in the context of PLCs, the guidance doesn't just cover PLCs (nor is it that new), I checked with them on that point.

"However, the thinking behind governance topics in the big PLCs does tend to "trickle down" and making poll results available in the quest for transparency is becoming commonplace."

They wrote the guidance on this back in august 2004: https://www.icsa.org.uk/knowledge/resources/disclosing-proxy-votes

I can't publish the full script of the guidance, as it's licensed to me personally, but the BMC have seen it. In essence it says (good practice is):

• Display the proxy votes in the meeting
• Provide a written summary of proxy votes at the end of the meeting
• Put it on the website for a reasonable period after

I totally appreciate that in the context of smaller organisations like the BMC, this isn't always possible (cost and technical ability etc) to put up on a screen in real time, but they do specifically say that the information should be available on the website for a reasonable period following the AGM.

I don't know the full British Canoeing stance on this, but it's clearly a transparent variation on this theme. The minutes you're referring to do say:

"The proxy votes would be shown first, followed by the votes taken in the room (firstly those against, abstentions and then those in agreement)."

https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/uploads/documents/AGM-2019-Minutes-Draft.pdf

So one can reasonably assume that if the figures were to be requested in a written form they would be. The same is true in their minutes from 2017 EGM (which is probably when they sorted their tier 3 etc):

"There were 58 votes in the room. 575 Proxy votes had been received. Some of the proxy votes has already been cast for or against a motion, whilst other proxy votes were being held in the room. Votes in the room, proxy votes cast and proxy votes held in the room would all be taken separately and then added up for each motion."

https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/uploads/documents/2017-EGM-Minutes-Approved.pdf

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.  In essence because it was probably never really looked into it in detail because it wasn't asked until after (accepting that there was a discussion about the volume of the proxy numbers which I wasn't party to). The implementation of electronic proxy voting makes engagement much easier, and so it becomes a bigger issue for members, and now it's being asked because of the volume of proxies that individuals may have which could sway a decision. It's dull, and it's technical, but these are important issues of trust.

There isn't a strict legal requirement to release proxy numbers, but it's in line with the "quest for transparency". I also asked the ICSA Policy Manager in the context of the BMC doing this and the response was:

"I cannot recall any instance (this is only anecdotal) of where an organisation decided not to do this."

-
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 08, 2019, 03:07:45 pm
All of that is very well and good but membership organisations with AGMs based on company law must be 'well behind the curve'. I can't find BC proxy number breakdowns for the chair in any of their AGM  minutes and that link doesn't clarify things either (it looks like the bulk proxies totals they publish, as the BMC already does). 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?

It would be nice if you asked your contact about the possible legal complications about releasing such proxy information retrospectively... we all know they recommend it for the future, as you have said this many times. How do you know the BMC have got the information incidently, as I understand it the BMC are not members?

I recognise this release of chair proxy breakdown is probably where we will end up but as the old saying goes, beware of what you seek. I'm already sick to death of BMC Presidents leaving early 'punch drunk' and this will add more pressure.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 08, 2019, 03:28:41 pm
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
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 08, 2019, 05:14:34 pm

.... 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've just realised I forgot to make two other points from your reply. 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).

I also forgot to point out in reponse to your point (and Shark's) that irrespective of there being no Board position before the new articles the Board did meet immediately  before the 2019 AGM and there has been a full Board meeting since, so we have to assume Lynn is right in it being a Board position (and not her remit).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 08, 2019, 05:21:17 pm
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

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on June 08, 2019, 05:36:41 pm
How do you know the BMC have got the information.

I sent it to Lucy (governance manager) a few weeks back as it's pretty much the only written guidance on the specific issue available. ICSA membership in general is incredibly good value on this basis, (less than an hour of lawyer time per year), and I think we'd both agree lawyers aren't always the best people to ask on how to do things in practice. I did the same for 2018 AGM apropos the "abstain" issue on the ERS form.

Regarding legal risk on release, unless it exposes something that is legally incorrect, which is highly unlikely, then surely very little. The BMC, as members, should be able to seek specific advice on this from Sports Recreation Alliance Governance team (or join ICSA, or both) which would be more beneficial than straight legal advice.

I'm already sick to death of BMC Presidents leaving early 'punch drunk' and this will add more pressure.

I'd very much hope that doesn't happen, and would hope this is no-one's intent (certainly not mine) as there's lots to be done, but perhaps some humility and tough decisions are required to build trust.

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.

I don't think the ERS disclosures are on the CTC site itself further back than 2012, but the figures are disclosed for 2011 at least on the CTC forums etc.

https://www.cyclinguk.org/about-ctc/policies-and-procedures/annual-reports-and-accounts
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=32978&start=75#p423854

They basically had exactly this debate... and opted for transparency and disclosure. There will always be a reason to say it's different because...

Such AGMs run under slightly different rules to company AGM rules.

That's a very blunt statement on a complex topic. However, it being a charitable company over and above it being a just a company (as i understand it) has little impact on proxy voting rules. If you can tell me why the rules will be different for CTC because it's a charitable company when it was:
 
a) disclosing proxy votes when it was a company before it was a charitable company, and
b) a charitable company is only required to hold an AGM in line with its articles of association, and they run in accordance with company law, and CTC's AoA are clear (the only reference to general meetings in Charities Act itself are related to CIOs, which the CTC isn't)

I'll buy you a beer ;)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on June 08, 2019, 05:41:51 pm

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).


The actual document obviously goes into much more detail but specifically.

"It would also seem odd to disclose voting levels only for resolutions passed on a show of hands... ...voting figures should also be provided for resolutions decided on a poll so that information is made available for all the business of the Meeting."

It then goes on to attach a template of how to do it.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 08, 2019, 06:14:50 pm
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.

To be clear you say proxy voting is a legal requirement and I don’t dispute that. What I dispute is the Chairs use of discretionary proxy voting being secret.

The Chair should be open and accountable for their decisions and be prepared to have those decisions scrutinised which disclosure enables. That is how public office works.

If it is clear to all how the Chair should operate and the guidelines they follow then everyone knows where they stand. Currently it looks like no one is clear where the Chairs obligations lie re responding to the room, their own opinion or the wider membership. In providing a rationale Lynn can make clear her own interpretation of the role in guiding how she made her decisions.

To echo JR’s point, and I’ve said this repeatedly elsewhere, I don’t consider this a resigning matter and I don’t know anyone else who does.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 08, 2019, 07:47:11 pm

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.


So that would be not yet then. If its so common you must be able to find a current one rather than one that used to do it before they changed.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 08, 2019, 08:00:35 pm
[quote author=shark link=topic=28127.msg585705#msg585705 date=1560014090

To echo JR’s point, and I’ve said this repeatedly elsewhere, I don’t consider this a resigning matter and I don’t know anyone else who does.
[/quote]

Wow!  Lynn doesn't needs to resign. My point was the last two Presidents gave up early having done nothing wrong but more having lost the will to go on, in the face of huge time and energy wasted dealing with constant attack and too little doing constructive BMC work. I guess you and Bob can be happy when the only people who can be bothered to stand will be the sort of weird folk we end up with in UK politics.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 08, 2019, 10:33:14 pm
There was me thinking an accommodation was possible.

C’est la vie
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: lagerstarfish on June 08, 2019, 11:01:41 pm
If any of you have the soundtrack A Clockwork Orange - it makes a great background for re-reading this whole thread
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Teaboy on June 08, 2019, 11:23:54 pm
Anyone else now wish they had voted in the 'BMC 30' when they had the chance?

 :shrug:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on June 09, 2019, 06:56:03 am
There was me thinking an accommodation was possible.

C’est la vie

Yet the BMC made the accomodation a while ago now and proxy breakdowns are going to be looked at, as part of this, as the governance working group will investigate it alongside the other issues raised and report on it. More recently the Board worked to produce it's response, which fully acknowledged the range of feedback and member concerns and publicly confirmed they would act on the outcomes of the governance working group. Its hard to think how they could have been more balanced in this:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2019-reflections-and-the-future

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:  a retrospective proxy breakdown, where,  other than vague waffle about openess and transparency, there seems to be no  coherent argument about anything constructive that could come from such a release. From the vote numbers its already clear that if all the discretionary proxies for the AGM Chair had been stripped out JR still could not have been elected (as he was bottom), and this is irrespective of their number so knowing the number is irrelevant.  In the other elections it is highly unlikely the outcomes could have changed (as the discretionary proxies average was well below the margin of victory) but you say these votes are not main issue for you , so again why do you need the 2019 numbers?

I also really wonder why a lot more wasn't done in these contentious areas much earlier following the June 2018 AGM given that they are now so very important. This would particularly apply to the discretionary proxies, but also the Accounts issues, and Auditors issues.  JR has expressed concerns on all these areas but was on the Board from then and chairing the ODG which was in charge of the modifications to the Articles. If this release of discretionary proxy breakdowns is really so normal and obvious why did no one start to put it in place back then in Articles changes for the 2019 AGM. 

Instead of you recognising the Board responsibility for an oversight on discretionary proxies, in an area very much under JR's remit, the President (as AGM chair) gets to carry the flack for following the process that was agreed  (which must have  included a Board decision, following legal and governace advice immediately prior to the AGM, to not release the breakdown). Your continued focus on the AGM Chair actions in this context looks very odd.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 09, 2019, 10:17:54 am
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

I'm not asking for more. I only ask for what I originally asked for which was a tally of the Chair's discretionary votes. That way we can move on to a conversation on how they were applied and the rationale behind how they were applied.

The only person who is defending this being kept secret is you.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on June 13, 2019, 10:47:54 am
An update from last nights Peak Area meeting.

I gave a talk on my view of why the Chairs discretionary proxy numbers should be released. Lucy Valerio The Governance Officer represented the BMC on the matter. Only Lynn was there from the Board and she didn’t speak.

Questions and observations from the floor where on-topic and pertinent. Lucy repeatedly declared that “the Board had decided not to release the discretionary proxy vote numbers”

There were two votes. One to ask whether the numbers from this year’s AGM should be released which was defeated.

The second was whether this info should be made available at future AGMs which was almost unanimously accepted (1 vote against I think)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 01, 2020, 05:01:05 pm
www.thebmc.co.uk/organisational-development-group-update-march-2020

Latest update from ODG and there are a number of short videos - the introductory one is below

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnk8TuZq2r4&list=PLTodUXkQjZwzWQtFx5k0P4qm5MRhV-WJD&index=2&t=0s

There is a webinar tomorrow evening at 6.30pm

To sign up for it go here: thebmc.co.uk/bmc-governance-webinar although the link doesn't seem to be working for me at the moment

Also I set up a Facebook page (BMC Watch) for anyone that wants to keep up with developments

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2241207952632038/permalink/2813738155379012/

 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on April 01, 2020, 07:50:40 pm
I gather the webinar has been postponed
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 14, 2020, 09:44:51 am
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.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 14, 2020, 05:40:15 pm
Hmmm...

Good luck to them getting anyone to volunteer for that viper’s nest.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 14, 2020, 06:38:57 pm
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:

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 14, 2020, 07:02:51 pm
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:

Yes, that seemed apparent.

I stopped paying attention when my own circumstances became complicated. 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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 14, 2020, 07:30:47 pm
Quote from: Oldmanmatt
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?

No - members have soft power as well as hard. It is still primarily a membership organisation so members are listened to.

At the soft end you can raise issues as agenda items at your Local Area meeting and escalate concerns to National Council who have an established structure to raise grievances. You can also contact the Board Chair or CEO, directly as a Member.

Listening is of course one thing and acting on it another. If you are unhappy with the organisational response having exhausted these routes then 0.5% of members have the power to directly submit motions at AGMs or force an (Extraordinary) General Meeting. Full details are in the Articles of Association on page 16 (Clause 11).

Both avenues represent an absolute last resort that should only be exercised if the matter has substance and is important and all other routes have failed as organising a General Meeting or submitting such items as 'Motions of Censure' are very public actions that are time consuming, expensive and can cause consequential reputation damage for the BMC
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: duncan on August 15, 2020, 11:43:18 am
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.

Anyone have the faintest idea what’s going on?  Personality clashes? Minority couldn’t live with a majority decision? Bit of both?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 24, 2020, 10:17:45 am
Further update from the Board here:

https://thebmc.co.uk/statement-to-members-from-the-bmc-board
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 26, 2020, 09:04:38 am
I’ve been making efforts to try and understand what’s gone in and think I’ve got to the bottom of it based on what I’ve gleaned and further pondering. Due to the current lack of official disclosure some of it is conjecture so it may be that other things come out that change my interpretation. I’ve also posted similarly on UKC.

To set the scene as an organisation we had a comprehensive Independent Review that consulted widely and its recommendations were endorsed by the Board, National Council and the Membership. Collectively we made a choice. Over 2 years on it is about time that the headline recommendations on Culture, Management and Leadership we’re finally put in place (in spirit if not necessarily in word for word detail). Despite the current difficulties it doesn’t seem to me that turning the clock back and reversing this big choice is a viable option.

The ODG volunteers have worked hard to implement the recommendations of the report but it’s been tough and slow going not helped by the loss of its Chair in 2019 after the AGM shenanigans.

This faltering progress of the ODG work coupled with failure to raise governance standards re accounts and other things has led to tensions building for a while. The final straw when folk lost it somewhat was over this procurement issue at the Office which appears to be a relatively minor issue of itself but yet another example of a casual approach to management.  So the tensions have broadly been an underlying struggle between those who have been used to, and have promoted an informal approach to governance and those looking to instil more rigorous standards. Depending on your viewpoint the opposite poles of this spectrum might be characterised as shoddy practices through to stifling bureaucracy and all points between.

If this is approximately what happened then I can well imagine that for a CEO who has been used to doing things in an informal way for 20+ years who is then expected to change to what he might see as pointless procedures, trivial issues and uncomfortable oversight might not implement them with the urgency or rigour expected and then kick back against it. On the other side tensions will have built up amongst those trying implement ORG governance feeling frustrated in their efforts.

In the bust up it appears that the Chair and the President sided in sympathy with the CEO. I don’t have an insight on who was  pushing hardest on the other side of the rift and who were on the sidelines but I expect those championing the ORG the most would be those who were getting most frustrated.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: andy popp on August 26, 2020, 09:15:05 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 26, 2020, 09:58:00 am
If they cannot behave professionally or accountably, they do not belong in post.
The fact that details have been withheld from members, clearly indicates that something has to be hidden to prevent the members protesting.
If there was nothing to hide, there would be full disclosure.
 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on August 26, 2020, 10:18:45 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: andy popp on August 26, 2020, 10:34:14 am
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.

Thanks; about what I would have guessed, though less from Sport England than I would have guessed. More than enough for governance and accountability to really matter.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on August 26, 2020, 11:03:42 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 26, 2020, 11:27:03 am
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.

Its a different issue. Grant money has been used for lots of non-comp stuff including the salary of a Hill Walking officer for example.

I do think a partial split makes sense. It was meant to be an independent subsidiary but now is going to be a discrete internal department at the Office,
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on August 26, 2020, 01:49:35 pm
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.

It was a necessary step to allow continued Sport England Funding but it's worth noting this extract from the ORG Report text that stated:

These are the requirements* that we were asked to meet in making our recommendations.  We do not consider them to be overwhelming, unobtainable or unsuitable for the BMC and believe that they simply reflect good governance practice.  Their implementation will improve the governance, decision making and representative nature of the BMC, and as a result, the service it provides for its members.

* Sport England’s Tier 3 governance requirements

It is also worth noting that the BMC applies for Sport England funding, as the NRB, for/on behalf of, its partners such as Mountain Training.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on August 26, 2020, 02:02:06 pm
Thanks both
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on August 27, 2020, 01:28:29 pm

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.

There may be some truth to struggling with structures but if the resignations were linked to ORG/ODG (or other serious differences in ideology) the resigning (modernising) independent directors would have said so. I've not noticed any serious push back from the Directors on ODG (and the the majority of work is already done). I'm sure some might disagree on detail on some specific ORG recommendations and the world has moved on a bit since ORG was published. The new ODG chair after JR left ( both also ex ORG), seemed to think the paid project manager (whom I was very impressed with) was no longer needed at the end of 2019.

Rab, also ex ORG, is chairing the committee dealing with the new competition arrangements.

On the subsidiary option my main concern was always the extra expense of this. I didn't see it as appropriate without firm sponsorship income to back it up (a potential future option but not a current one). Given the covid hit on finances it's a lucky break they chose what they did.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 06, 2020, 10:28:39 am
Further Director resignation

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/resignation-from-the-board

I’ve been closely involved with this having questioned Huw on UKC and then escalated background information and questions on Huw’s track record as a Director of other business and his accountancy qualification last week to the Board via Jonathan White who said he would look into it. Therefore I am almost certainly one of the members cited as “undermining the good work of the Board and National Council”. Needless to say I am deeply unhappy with the tone and content of the article.

I know this stuff is understandably a complete turn off to most on UKB but it would be remiss of me not to update the thread.

The relevant thread (https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/bmc_directors_resignations_etc-724145?fbclid=IwAR3FWv5w2VGzQUDAMEgPaBpcgwujIPb_dQmWXx2QIpFuJXc8DHUydnbdqfQ)on UKClimbing has been locked for the weekend by Alan and it is not clear it will be reopened.

Probably the best forum for continuing discussions is an open group I started a while ago called BMC watch on Facebook which is
here: https://m.facebook.com/groups/2241207952632038
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on September 06, 2020, 10:41:30 am
All this stuff with the board, council, reform group thing or whatever it's called seems so impenetrable that I guess most people have no clue what's going on? 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!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 06, 2020, 10:49:13 am
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!

Calling a General Meeting would be the mechanism do that allowing the remaining Directors the opportunity to put their case and put themselves up for re-election if they wished and other people to put themselves up for election. It is also a practical measure in that the 4 vacant Director positions need to be filled - 5 if you include the Chairman who has said he wants to step down.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on September 06, 2020, 11:13:25 am
The problem with BMC elections/votes is that it's a bit like student elections - no-one has a clue who anyone is or what they stand for. I vote for whoever promises to not be shambolic. Which I guess is everyone.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 06, 2020, 12:16:38 pm
There was a clear roadmap with the ORG report then the Organisational Review Group was meant to add the detail and implement it. The end result of its implementation should have been a better run BMC.

It has taken a long time and key recommendations on culture, leadership and management haven’t been implemented over two years on and other recommendations have been eroded or overturned. The members at Peak Area meetings are bored and fed up with ORG stuff understandably. I think this view is widespread and also kills momentum for change.

I think that the plan was sound but the leadership on the Board in totality was lacking the conviction, experience, grasp of detail or whatever to collectively drive it through in lockstep to overcome typical bogging down which is a feature of entrenched BMC culture. 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on September 06, 2020, 12:51:49 pm
I wouldn’t be sharing that thread around if I was you Shark. In the mildest possible terms you come across terribly!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 06, 2020, 01:36:22 pm
I wouldn’t be sharing that thread around if I was you Shark. In the mildest possible terms you come across terribly!

I’ll take your word for it. If it subsequently transpires that him and the Board have falsely claimed Huw to be a qualified accountant would you revise your opinion?

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: kac on September 06, 2020, 02:16:40 pm
Hi Simon, I can see why your annoyed/surprised by that latest statement by the bmc. Seems that either they know something not yet in the public domain or its another example of incompetence. 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. Anyway ive found it fascinating -although in the same way that car crashes are! Hope the climbing went well!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on September 06, 2020, 02:19:22 pm
In business, as in climbing and life, style is important Shark. You could have easily got the answers you were looking for without taking the tack you did.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 06, 2020, 02:58:55 pm
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 post

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: kac on September 06, 2020, 03:27:11 pm
I get the frustration and totally respect the way the way you have stuck your head above the parapet. To me it is David lanceleys post that has now gone too far. Unfortunately you will be associated with his behaviour which although unfair will probably not help the cause. 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!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 06, 2020, 03:42:42 pm
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!

Word!

I’ve taken to handing my phone to my climbing partner with strict instructions not to let me have it back till we are packing up.

I hate that I’ve been sucked back into this but the recent events and inadequate communication is infuriating.

I want the organisation to be led and run competently. The constant mini cock ups is a regular reminder that all is not well. The slow pace of the ORG stuff is also a constant niggle . As a friend of mine said offline: “It doesn't need more committees it needs the right skill set and a degree of openness and honesty. If there is too much to do say so. If it's delayed say why. If you say you are going to do something bloody well do it.“
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: kac on September 06, 2020, 04:17:33 pm
Just be grateful you don't work in the civil service!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 06, 2020, 04:19:44 pm
Just be grateful you don't work in the civil service!

 :lol:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Johnny Brown on September 07, 2020, 10:20:17 am
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.

Having had to deal with similar c*nts in business I think Shark was absolutely right to raise questions. Huw's replies on UKC were pointless denials with no supporting information. This is the first I've heard of this guy but he shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near such a role the BMC without some serious explanation, the fact that he was seems to be perfect illustration of why governance needs improving.

One of the BMC's greatest strengths has always been the calibre of the volunteers, but perhaps too much trust has been placed in them and there needs to be a little more scrutiny. Assuming everyone to be a good egg rather leaves you vulnerable to those that might be not be. Having had a fair bit of involvement with the BMC over the years I'd always considered NC etc to be something I'd be interested in putting myself forward for at the point I felt competent to do so. The last couple of years have made me lose any motivation for that entirely, so I do think changes need to be swift so more engaging topics can be resumed.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 07, 2020, 11:14:05 am
Thanks Adam. Not surprised you’ve been turned off the prospect of being an NC rep which is a shame as you’d be a good ‘un.

UKC thread has been unlocked and David and I have set the ball rolling again

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/bmc_directors_resignations_etc-724145


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on September 07, 2020, 12:21:48 pm
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 post

Quote
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.

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.

You did indeed seek private words in the proxy issue and then when you didn't get what you want, you posted aspects of that in public which might explain why Lynn doesn't: trust you anymore.   Lynn stonewalled as the exec, based on legal advice and governance advice, had a majority position that proxy vote details should not be released retrospectively (standard practice where this is the status quo). However Lynn did acknowledge some potential conflicts and the matter is now being worked on as a major item in the Governance Working Group (the GWG that both of us have made input to in the last year).  I agree the AGM and other events highlighted now 'known unknowns' that ORG missed.

I also know I'm biased as her husband but it looks to me your continued attacks on Lynn seem very personal, as you take every opportunity to exaggerate the importance of minor issues and to paint her (and the CEO) in a bad light.... even speculating the current bust up was probably because Lynn and the Chair were conspiring with the CEO to thwart ORG. The NC reps at the Peak area said this was categorically not the case and you refuse to apologise for what was a pretty serious accusation. Your past criticisms of Nom Conn  imply incompetence in the Independent Directors and the dead straight and experienced National Council member. You make negative public statements on the CEO you know he cannot defend as a BMC employee.

That UKC article of yours dressed up many of your political opinions as fact and presented normal democratic change (like the bulk of the meeting clearly demanding short presentations from candidates.... as the chair making stuff up on the spot...in the context that votes in the room would barely have made any difference as most members used directed proxy's in advance). As another example:

"John Roberts was by far the most experienced of the three candidates and I was shocked when the votes were announced stating he had come last. How this came to pass has shone a spotlight not just on the recruitment rules and processes, but also on the use of discretionary proxy votes that are carried by the Chair and (typically) BMC Club luminaries."

Actually it showed no such thing, that's just your view. It did show that in a membership that voted overwhelmingly to support the modernisation agenda, JR was the least popular candidate in actual individual members votes for that post.  Imagine an alternative past where proxy votes were public and Lynn (who knew no details of votes elsewhere) voted for JR such that the bottom candidate had won based on what would be painted by the BMC 30 as clear bias.

You claim on UKC that the 2018 accounts issue, where Lynn drove to Manchester on the deadline day, to check and sign the accounts was a mistake that shows she doesn't follow process. You conveniently ignore the whole Board collective fault in not setting up any process suitable for the new structure of the BMC in the first place, such that the accounts were viewed by all well in advance  and the signatories defined.

People accused Lynn this weekend of still being 'missing' when we has been back on BMC work for two weeks and NC have been clear due to being conflicted she is not leading on NC communication (and under the new structure, the Board Chair leads on Board comms, albeit some recently are co-signed by Lynn). The same was said of the CEO who has been back at work for a month.  Directors have suffered health issues as a result of this shitty politics and few had expressed concerns on that. Lynn took an unpaid sabbatical from work .. she is no figurehead 'good egg'... she has worked way over a normal working week on BMC matters large and small (including at least 10 hours a week on the governance related committee areas) with her last holiday being a week in early Nov.  She took a few weeks break so she didn't, passing over any duties correctly. This wasn't just the BMC we fear all four of our parents are at high risk from covid and many close friends (you might think from some critics covid never happened).

Our democratic NC have formulated a plan with the Board that the acting chair of NC said was supported by all of them. In contrast, you with your supposed experience suggest a General Meeting (that  costs tens of thousands and would create more knock-on stasis for innocent staff and volunteers on committees doing essential work) that would act as a reverse beauty contest, where all Directors defend their post, one by one!? What modern governance manual does that come from?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Johnny Brown on September 07, 2020, 12:41:02 pm
Quote
she is no figurehead 'good egg'.

Just to be clear Steve that was not directed at Lynn at all, nor did I mean to suggest being a 'good egg' implied a lack of competence or diligence. I just meant that all the volunteers I have met are in it for the right reasons. This as a marked contrast to another organisation I'm involved with where volunteers are generally viewed (quite rightly) with a little suspicion as they are mostly only ever interested in their own advancement.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on September 07, 2020, 02:38:34 pm
That wasn't aimed at you (you typify the dedicated volunteers who risk being let down again by this latest political crap). Similar accusations have been a regular problem identified by some 'modernisers' since Lynn became President. Actually before...one senior person she approached about advice on being a candidate, as the only VP 'left standing',  suggested it was unwise as (with no apparent sense of irony, nor how it might come across as a 'tad' sexist) there were "several excellent candidates".

There is an obvious conflict between openess and transparency and the necessity of enough confidentiality (and the importance of collective responsibility) for a Board to function, in any Membership Organisation. Having critics using best practice governance arguments missing this point of balance is beyond weird. I also think when any BMC Board makes a mistake it's unhelpful to paint it is as "the latest disaster" or similar hyperbolic language. Mistakes happen and the important thing is how they are resolved and future prevention (without so much risk averseness the Board becomes 'frozen in aspic')

Where I agree with Shark is where the Board communication should be open and transparent (published Board minutes, resignation announcement etc) it  has at times been unacceptably delayed and/ or disappointing.  Yet when you have a Board divided on process and respect issues, in the middle of a national crisis with severe impact on all aspects of the BMC (and where quarterly annual meetings moved to weekly emergency meetings) I do have some sympathy...they are all unpaid except the CEO and probably stressed to the eyeballs. I'm also disappointed the two Independent Directors resigned without putting issues in this context.  What Andy Syme reported to the Peak area...a series of behaviours that in themselves would not impel resignation but do in their sum.... seems a bit 'out of touch' in the context of recent BMC history, the covid crisis etc.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 12, 2020, 05:25:09 am
Latest from the BMC

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-update-september-2020

“Whilst there has been some speculation on the reasons for the resignations, the Board and outgoing members have all agreed that they do not wish to comment further on the matter”

Other stuff covered. I have started a new thread on UKC
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on October 03, 2020, 03:38:03 pm
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/statement-from-the-bmc

Yesterday evening two further resignations were announced namely Chris Stone who was a Director nominated by National Council and the Chair Gareth Pierce who had already said he wouldn't stand for a further term. The Acting Chair is now Paul Drew who was already on the Board as Senior Independent Director. Other people have been co-opted to join or assist the Board and Sport England have funded a consultancy firm to assist.

Over three weeks ago UKC put a number of questions to Dave Turnbull CEO which have only just been published on UKC (https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2020/10/bmc_ceo_dave_turnbull_-_whats_going_on_at_the_bmc-72500). Its not very illuminating.

By contrast the September National Council minutes (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-national-council-minutes) are far more enlightening on some of the issues going on.

Following an investigation it records NC reprimanding the President Lynn Robinson on her conduct at a previous Council meeting saying: " that the President did not act in the open, transparent and honest way that is necessary to ensure the mutual trust between the Council and the President".

The CEO and Council Nominated Directors were also criticised for their poor openness and transparency.

Similarly the Board as a whole was criticised including: " Board’s approach to ‘Board confidentiality’, which was overly focussed on hiding uncomfortable facts, rather than withholding only what was strictly and legally inappropriate to share with Council".
 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on October 03, 2020, 03:50:08 pm
The only thing the UKC article really makes clear is that the BMC is currently a clusterfuck...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 03, 2020, 08:31:24 pm
I read barely half of that article. Life is too short to continue reading responses which don’t answer the question.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on October 03, 2020, 08:37:02 pm
I read barely half of that article. Life is too short to continue reading responses which don’t answer the question.

Yup. That’s what I did - but probably didn’t make it half way... 😀

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on October 08, 2020, 06:18:30 pm
A good summary from Andy Syme, Vice President on ukc on how things kicked off and where we are now

Quote
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....!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 24, 2020, 02:40:33 pm
Dave Turnbull steps aside to be Head of Access and Conservation and Paul Davies, Interim Exec takes over as temporary CEO

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-ceo-statement
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Johnny Brown on November 24, 2020, 02:50:54 pm
Wow, that seems like a big change. Potentially positive though. Anyone know Paul?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 24, 2020, 03:54:36 pm
Don’t know him and not heard anything negative.

He’s not a climber - he comes from a sports performance management background and his LinkedIn profile is here (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dsm-paul-davies) and got involved with the BMC when he joined the newly formed Climbing Competitions  Performance Group that runs GB Climbing and Talent Development. He then applied and got the Interim Exec role to implement strategy.

His role is temporary and it sounds like he’s not interested in the permanent role: “I look forward to helping the BMC to continue this process over the coming months whilst they seek a new CEO to take this vital work forward”
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: JR on November 25, 2020, 09:50:23 am
Some thoughts via twitter: https://twitter.com/johnrobeds/status/1331501196251705344
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 25, 2020, 12:19:29 pm
Re-read the article a few times now to interpret it and try and get my head around what is really going on


Quote
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.

So far so clear. Dave Turnbull has always continued to head up the Access team since being promoted to CEO in 2002

Quote
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.

Yes the climbing world has changed markedly since Dave became CEO. Covid has a particular impact on Access and remote working by staff and volunteers more common

Quote
At 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.

Quote
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.

Yes. The organisational changes has made the need for fresh blood and experience more pressing and the ORG report majored on the topics of cultural change, leadership and management

Quote
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.

This is logical. The only reason they are currently combined is that Dave started in Access

Quote
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.

So Dave has been overloaded and falling short in his role to the extent that Board members were increasingly pulled into operational and executive matters that should have been dealt with by the CEO.

Quote
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.

Instead of appointing a new Head of Access and Environment Dave has relinquished the CEO role which on the face of it a demotion. 

Quote
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 makes sense. Christmas period is not a great time to place an advert

Quote
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.

So the implication here is that Access and Environment which is already the major part of the BMC agenda will assume even more importance than it does now. Quite a few things here are unclear to me:

Does it mean that the Access and Environment operate as a semi autonomous function much as the Climbing Competitions Performance Group now does?

Does it mean that Dave reports to the CEO or directly to the Board?

Will it mean that the silo culture at the BMC becomes further entrenched and common purpose and action undermined?

Is the Accces and Conservation team ringfenced and protected from modernising?

Is the scene set for political infighting and lack of clarity with staff and others on who is actually in charge?

 :-\
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on November 25, 2020, 06:03:57 pm
Does anyone else think Shark should just apply for the CEO role and get it out of his system?

Maybe I should apply for el presidente..
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on November 25, 2020, 06:17:15 pm

Quote
At 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.

You care to clear this bit up before I head off into rant mode? For example would you consider warmer wetter winters reducing the amount of winter climbing available as a secondary or primary effect?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 25, 2020, 06:37:23 pm
It’s a question of making best use of members money to meet primary goal of protecting and advancing interests of climbers and hillwalkers. I’d favour money spent on tangible outcomes like mending footpaths which it can do over mending the weather which it can’t.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on November 25, 2020, 06:42:32 pm
I’d favour money spent on tangible outcomes like mending footpaths which it can do over mending the weather which it can’t.

Interesting you think that the footpaths thing sits well with the BMC, be interested to know what percentage of footpath users are members.

Plenty of tangible good value climate change related goals, particularly as a land owner. For an example local to me there’s a good few acres at Crookrise that The BMC own that could be planted with appropriate trees.

Sorry you lost my vote for CEO 😄
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 25, 2020, 06:52:10 pm
Yes - local projects with tangible activity such as that and working with Moors for the Future on sphagnum moss planting (https://intouch.thebmc.co.uk/the-climate-project/) are great but it if it strays into generalist awareness campaigns then I’d consider that scope creep.

You could raise tree planting at Crookrise at your local area meeting, get some volunteer support, do some crowd funding etc
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on November 25, 2020, 07:00:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: dunnyg on November 25, 2020, 07:03:14 pm
Thats a bit much
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 25, 2020, 07:31:05 pm
There should be less of that going forward as they have started to do national Members Open Forums for the minority who are interested in that side of things
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on November 26, 2020, 10:28:25 am
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! Also worth noting that they will be on Zoom for at least the next couple so you can have on in background /leave when bored in a way that wasn't as socially acceptable when it was in the pub!

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on November 26, 2020, 10:32:01 am
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.

NW meeting is very much the opposite. There is an option to discuss the ORG stuff but the main drive to give time to the local issues.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 26, 2020, 11:43:32 am
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:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on November 26, 2020, 01:08:53 pm
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!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on November 26, 2020, 06:56:54 pm
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!

I'm moving closer in the spring one way or another, but until then I'm an absentee MP!

Yeah I'm a sucker no doubt, but hopefully we can get it a bit more dynamic in the short term as I've been the youngest person there every time I think!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: andy_e on November 26, 2020, 08:46:33 pm
Fucking hell Jim, best of luck...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: danm on November 26, 2020, 10:13:52 pm
It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it...

Good effort for getting involved, our volunteers really are our best asset.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on November 26, 2020, 10:17:12 pm
It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it...

Good effort for getting involved, our volunteers really are our best asset.

No, Tremadog is.
But you're a close second Spider.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on January 20, 2021, 11:22:00 am
3 new BMC Directors have been registered on the Companies House database. No doubt an article explaining their roles will appear shortly.

The proposed changes to the articles of association have been posted up and there is an online open forum next Thursday at 7pm. Details all here: https://thebmc.co.uk/changes-BMC-articles-association
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 25, 2021, 01:04:36 pm
Open Forum again tonight at 7pm looking at Area Terms of Reference, changes to National Council and upcoming voting at AGM

https://thebmc.co.uk/board-update--invite-to-open-forum-governance-changes-in-the-bmc
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on February 25, 2021, 03:09:33 pm
Is there anything in there re proxy voting/disclosure of proxy voting/conflict of interest with proxy votes being held by a member of the NomComm etc.

As I remember it, the voting issues stemmed from the opacity of the proxy system and the fact the President, by dint of holding the all huge member of proxies, could pick who they wanted, whilst also having been on the Nomination Committee? None of the info I can find to be discussed tonight (see you there Simon) seems to cover/solve this issue.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 25, 2021, 05:13:13 pm
Yes thank god - that is one of the proposed changes to the articles that was potentially up for discussion at last month's open forum though no one raised any issues in relation to it:

16.14. Following the completion of a General Meeting or AGM, any person appointed a proxy who holds ten per cent (10%) or more of the votes cast on any resolution or election shall have the following information published by the Company as soon as reasonably practicable after the close of the meeting:
16.14.1. the number of votes held by the appointed proxy; and
16.14.2. how they cast those votes.
15.14.16.15. For the avoidance of doubt no appointed a proxy shall be under any obligation or
requirement to provide a reason for how they voted.
(https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20Organisation/BMC%20Articles%20of%20Association%202020%20v0_5%20amends%20post%20Feb%202020.pdf?_ga=2.112049415.20347724.1614188284-2060569237.1506626462)
 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on February 25, 2021, 06:07:55 pm
 Cheers Simon, didn't spot that last time.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on February 26, 2021, 10:55:49 am
Be careful what you wish for.  The BMC has become a political obsession for some and all these 'democratic improvements' although certainly good in healthy times, currently very much benefit those politically minded members the most. If you look at the voting data from the 2019 AGM where so much concern was presented here, the candidates where the most controversy was expressed (about discretionary proxies) almost certainly came bottom in the actual membership votes (JR for certain and Gron almost certain). This latest proposed change will allow the political minded to create more 'hot air' and  more effectively add pressure on the AGM chair to vote their way (and given the two opposing factional positions, this means no result is going to escape criticism and independent winners will probably be attacked from both sides... all in all a very hard job to honestly apply discretionary proxies on behalf of the membership just got harder). The change I want is better education so that discretionary proxies, become a small minority.

All the recent political problems in the BMC relate to factional squabbling and it won't go away as the more 'traditionalist' wing remain a long way from the ideas of the 'business like' wing and neither side really represent the average access focussed membership, let alone the wider community. Talk to volunteers unconnected to factions who did try to represent the ordinary membership (say Council area reps) about what they feel about continuing in the midst of these factional squabbles.

With all the fuss that has occured online about BMC matters in recent years the biggest changes that smells bad to me in democratic terms barely raised metaphorical public forum eyebrows. The previous Chair was a very experienced, hard working and straightforward guy, who demonstrated a clear willingness to try to act on wider member views. Almost no one seems to have noticed that his removal could be regarded as an effective Board coup from July 2020 (read the July minutes). Nor thought much upon the fact that those who win power in such circumstances control the message. The Chair became a problem seemingly as he insisted on process in dealing with a lot of internal problems at a very busy time. The investigation that catalysed the July meeting, and that the Chair was supposedly blocking, came to almost nothing (other than of course majorly shifting Board power). Also near the top of that list of problems was both opposing factions were unhappy with the CEO, so it's no great surprise that once the old Chair had gone the CEO moved out sideways. Unfortunately no one can keep both factions happy at the same time...  so the next political obsessions take precedence and already the new chair and acting CEO are being grumbled about from some of the usual suspects. Acceptable standards of behaviour in governance positions simply have to be taken much more seriously.

Governance in a membership organisation is supposed to be fairly and legally enabling of what most members want, not an industry in itself and especially not a means to minority power grabs. How many are really listening to what the large majority of members are saying  so the BMC can focus on what matters most for most of its members. Governance compromise between political factions takes time and rarely leads to simple efficient member centric solutions... messy political compromise is unfortunately where we might well seem to be heading.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on February 26, 2021, 11:03:33 am
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”.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on February 26, 2021, 12:24:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 26, 2021, 01:19:06 pm
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.

Which resignation statement / letter are you referring to?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 26, 2021, 01:25:48 pm
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. 

Edit: Or was that the point you were making to Offwidth - the reason no one has blown a whistle is because there is nothing to blow a whistle about?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on February 26, 2021, 02:02:35 pm
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?

Edit to more clearly respond to Shark’s edit....

Yes, not really attacking Offwidth, per se, just wishing a little “put up or shut up” would occur. I won’t be paying membership again until this crap stops.

Ps:
It’s 2021, there are clear governance models to follow in every major sport and most minor ones. This isn’t a “Gentleman’s climbing and social club for the right sort of people” anymore.
 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 26, 2021, 02:39:27 pm
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?

My sense is that whatever the infighting was about and between whom before it doesn't appear to be ongoing now.

I'm not aware of two distinct factions acting in concert against each other. Maybe I'm not close enough to the action. There does seem to me to be a collective consensus and willingness by the majority of those involved in the politics (ODG, National Council, the Board and individuals participating in the Open Forums) to make the BMC more professionally run in alignment with comparable national bodies.

Most ordinary members I think would be generally happy that this is happening in the background but unhappy that the organisation at the top has become far too inward looking for far too long as a consequence. Hopefully when the ODG activities have been crunched and implemented then minds and time are freed up to become more outward looking to advance the interests of climbers and hillwalkers.   
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on February 27, 2021, 11:58:19 am
I've made my points. The problems in the BMC came from infighting and the new proxy situation could inflame that if members are not educated on the importance of directing any proxies rather than giving discresion. The infighting has flared up again or I would share most of your optimism (as I did until recently)  and I wouldn't have posted. Members being exceedingly unhappy with the prospect of more ructions might be an incentive for the individuals to calm down. If some were very unhappy with the previous Chair and are now unhappy with the new Chair, maybe the problem lies with them.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on February 27, 2021, 12:07:59 pm
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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 27, 2021, 05:07:50 pm
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?

Access and Conservation has if anything been internally strengthened with Dave Turnbull now focussed solely in this area and to a large extent Access is largely driven by local reps with head office providing support.

The conservation aspect is an area I think that needs to remain specifically relevant to climbers and hillwalkers on projects where the BMC can make measurable impacts as opposed to nebulous global climate projects.

I think the organisation is relevant to normal climbers if by that you mean outdoor boulderers, crag climbers and mountaineers. It is less relevant to indoor climbers and hillwalkers though looking at ways improve its offering here.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on February 27, 2021, 05:16:51 pm
Problem is (speaking now as a member) it seems to now be an organisation of which we only seem to hear about it’s internal machinations and wrangles.

Instead of hearing about what it (presumably) should be doing. Eg Helping climbing stuff.

Feels a bit like it’s disappeared into the vortex (or up it’s own arse some might say) of how it’s run and who’s running it.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on February 27, 2021, 07:18:38 pm
Thanks Shark. Sorry if I was unclear. The constant squabbling and committee shenanigans makes the organisation appear to have lost its way, whatever the reality.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: lagerstarfish on February 27, 2021, 08:52:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 27, 2021, 09:00:01 pm
This might not be that far from the reality with everything happening on zoom.

Alex, pass me the blue pill.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on February 28, 2021, 09:23:28 am
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.

To an extent that's what's been happening over the last year. The staff and key volunteers that do stuff other than the politics of governance have been pretty amazing given they are working in a national crisis with added pressure from the Board ructions. The relationships with funding  partners are mostly good, especially MT.

The functional problems were exaggerated to suit political positions. The old CEO simply wasn't doing a bad job but some key players on both sides wanted him gone. Yet he had almost no training to deal with the new style role nor any formally agreed performance management system.  When the BMC formed a new company structure a whole bunch of immediate changes should have happened  (including a new financial accounting system, senior executive training for new governance arrangements, modern policy for Board behaviour....greivance policies etc). By July 2020 the political players decided the very experienced Chair had to go, after allegedly delaying a complicated investigation structure, that probably should never have happend.

It seems to me that after all this if the political players now have problems with the new Chair and new acting CEO it's them who need to calm the fuck down (and work with issues), or go, for the sake of the organisation. So far the organisation (staff and key non governance volunteers) have tolerated this but that generosity won't last for ever. There is a good ongoing plan that should fix the governance issues and the additional executive support that should have happened from day one is now in place. As much as I'm disgusted with the way David L acted and blanket attacked the whole Board, he is probably right that the lack of senior non exec governance experience was behind all this. Normal non execs disagree but they keep that on a professional level... robust debate is vital for good governance but endless assassination plots that would make Shakespeare blush are not.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on February 28, 2021, 02:34:23 pm
Who are these “political players”? (Board members, NC members or ordinary Members?) and what issues do they have with the new Chair and temporary CEO? - is it that they aren’t getting on with ODG changes quickly enough?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on March 01, 2021, 09:14:44 am
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.

I've been to the last two/three ORG style web meetings. The first one was very robust, heated and pretty bad with the President coming in for some personal abuse. However, the next two were REALLY well run, effective and seemed to really get things moving. (Shark was there so he might have a different point of view). I've no idea who or what these evil forces/factions/people are that are moving against the current set up but they've not popped their heads up in any meetings I've been to! Things are definitely moving in the right direction.

My day to day involvement is with the Tech Committee and that is going from strength to strength, with a new chair and fresh(ish) new faces that have really embraced the new way of doing things and have a decent schedule of work for this calendar year despite the financial constraints.

Anecdotally, I also bumped into a BMC staffer walking home from the park and they were very enthusiastic about the new (temporary) CEO so from where I stand, thinks look pretty bright!

*tomtom/lagerstarfish/mrjonathanr
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on March 01, 2021, 09:29:27 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on March 01, 2021, 09:33:37 am
No fetish? I want my money back! 😂
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on March 01, 2021, 11:08:35 am
That’s good to hear galpinis. TT- you may have to look further afield I am afraid.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on March 01, 2021, 11:21:42 am
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.

Yet. The behaviours that led to last ructions  didn't filter down very far at all before they became public. I'd be delighted if I end up looking like a fool howling at the moon.

People can't deny I'm a dedicated fan of the BMC, which to me is mainly the staff and the volunteers who do useful stuff on behalf of members and the wider community. This comes with necessary governance functions that following the recent changes sadly proved to be less robust than most expected. The Board and Council should be enabling custodians. The Council seems to be working well enough but the Board has clearly struggled and in that as much through personality issues in its politics, as strategy or finance. It would be a tragedy if things went wrong again at the point where clear improvements are being put in place.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 17, 2021, 04:54:46 pm
There is an Open Forum tomorrow night at 7pm focussed on the lengthy Governance report (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/governance-working-group-report-published). Tickets for the forum here (https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/bmc-open-forum-7pm-on-thursday-18-march-2021-tickets-144416608965?utm_campaign=5ad329fe46-gwg-march2021_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_source=BMC+governance+list&utm_term=0_0096151773-5ad329fe46-2307503)

In other news Andy Syme, Deputy President is running for President with support of Lynn Robinson the current President. I’m not aware of any other runners.

I gather a part time Finance Person has been recruited to the Office who will be part of the Senior Management team - don’t know who.

No word yet on a new CEO.

I believe there are still openings available for the new NC roles nationally representing the separate disciplines of Rock Climbing, Indoor Climbing and Mountaineering.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/agm-volunteers



Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 23, 2021, 10:18:17 am
Andy Syme has posted his election supporting statement for President on the “BMC Watch” Facebook page with a pitch to get brexit governance done.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 05, 2021, 01:27:20 pm
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)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on May 05, 2021, 01:32:49 pm
For those of us who aren't really in the loop with BMC stuff, is there anything worth voting on?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 05, 2021, 01:52:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on May 05, 2021, 02:14:16 pm

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.

I would have also posed Barrow’s question here; after a quick perusal of the Agenda there doesn’t appear to be any ‘ClimbUK’ or attempted Kernow Coups on there, and I’m not really bothered about who the directors are. As such I will very much be leaving it to the small interested minority, who are not doubt poring over the accounts to raise objections as we speak!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Teaboy on May 05, 2021, 02:24:25 pm
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?



Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on May 05, 2021, 02:30:17 pm
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?

There an equivalent role for indoor climbers.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 05, 2021, 02:32:48 pm
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?

Equivalent.

4 roles in total representing rock climbing, walking, mountaineering and indoor climbers:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/agm-volunteers

One of the requirements of the role was to help sort out what the role does 🙃

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tomtom on May 05, 2021, 04:32:13 pm
Can we change the thread title?

Option 1: remove the colon and space after re and replace with a hyphen

Option 2: add a question mark at the end

😁
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 05, 2021, 05:11:55 pm
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)

Hardly 'cats and pigeons' about my candidacy for Nationally Elected Councillor for Rock Climbing. On BMC Watch, Les Ainsworth and Bob Pettigrew are the only two named members who are supposedly upset (plus I have my fingers crossed that Les has been duped.... as it's unlike him and he doesn't 'do' social media enough to fully see himself what I've actually said online). Les has sadly written an unfortunate polemic, complaining about internet abuse (with no sense of irony), targeting me, posted on his behalf by Ian Lonsdale.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2241207952632038/permalink/3897138223705661/?app=fbl

Andy Syme has called this behaviour out on BMC Watch as unacceptable. I really admire Andy's optimism in trying to unify all the BMC political factions and I'm sorry that my standing for election has broken that truce already (Les and Bob are written supporters of his Presidential candidacy). If elected I'll probably keep a lower profile on the external political front, to help Andy (if elected) in his aims... plus I'll try and listen to everyone who contacts me with input to the area of work. I'm very used to being a member's representative for a membership of widely different views, having done that professionally in my union for decades at local and national levels. I was very unpopular with the SWP in my union but managed to work with them without descending to their level of dirty tactics.

On the CEO appointment, I'm very happy for Paul Davies. He is apparently doing a good job and working well with staff and key volunteers.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on January 18, 2022, 10:31:47 am
So thought I’d do an update in advance of upcoming area meetings although what is actually going on is hard to tell from the outside

- Open Forums seem to have died a death which is a shame

- Alex Messenger (long-standing Marketing and Communications Manager) has left

- The part time Chief Financial Officer, Paul McKeon who had only been in post for about 6 months has left to “put more time into a personal project”. The plan is to find a replacement

- A Chief Commercial Officer has been appointed, Gavin Finch who has a background with other sporting bodies. This is the no.2 role to the Chief Exec, Paul Davies. Neither are climbers. Paul’s public profile has been invisible to date and it seems that the Board backing away from delivery to more oversight has taken longer than expected

- There have been no Board minutes or even summaries published since June which is in contravention to the articles. Andy Syme President says this is due to Board workload and lack of time to review minutes

- More positively a new Chair, Roger Murray has been appointed. Strong background and a good guy from my brief chat with him a few years ago

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: steveri on January 18, 2022, 10:50:49 am
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).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on January 18, 2022, 11:27:58 am
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).

This is correct. The local link can be used at any point and the area chairs have been emailed them, so can distribute them as required/put on FB etc.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 02, 2022, 08:40:03 am
There is an online open forum tonight at 7pm with presentations by the new Chair, Commercial Manager and Head of Performance for GB Climbing then discussion about proposed tweaks to articles (constitution).

Registration and further details here: https://thebmc.co.uk/bmc-open-forum-invitation
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on May 19, 2022, 04:48:32 pm
Online AGM was held last night with about 50 logging in. Well organised with the opportunity to pose questions via the messaging system.

No particularly contentious items on the agenda although David Brown was agitated by one article change that I didn’t understand. 

New Chair Roger Murray kicked off the contagious trope of the evening of ‘space’ with things happening in this or that space.

Board is temporarily depleted in numbers following departures of Jonathan White, Johnny Dry and Diane Hopper. Reasons were provided.

Finances and membership numbers surprisingly healthy.

I had a question about GB Climbing and it was abundantly clear from the answer that it was not running anywhere nearly independently as intended. The decision to create an independent department for GB Climbing sounded like an unworkable fudge at the time and that has proved to be the case. Paul Davies even described it being independent as undesirable.

Following a question from Rodney Gallagher there was a promise that the allocation of spending from latest Sport England grant would be drawn up and made public.

It transpired that none of the money was for hillwalking despite that being the biggest growth area but assurances were made by Andy Syme President that Sport England would be lobbied in ‘this space’

There is a new Chief Financial Officer - Joelie Chisholm - which is good news.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on May 19, 2022, 05:31:50 pm
I thought you would understand David's concerns as I thought Mark Anstis made a similar point on BMC watch.

Using the method of a Board led AGM vote to make a change to the objects of the BMC (the organisation's legal stated purpose)  would under the MOU normally go to much more extensive democratic debate (normally twice to local areas): it does seem to me to be incredibly heavy handed, even allowing for governance fatigue in areas. Despite this, mine was very much a minority view as minutes will show it was supported by Council by a large majority.

I broadly support the change but not the process of it and I worry that sets a bad precedent (I'm all for minimising area governance debates as much as possible, but not removing it completely in a democratic members led organisation). Also like David I don't quite understand why the need for this suddenly arose as the BMC has always actively encouraged recruitment of this type (of those seriously interested or already participating), especially through clubs. The technical issue comes from a sub clause in an appendix to the Moulton report from years ago: in a statement that has multiple provisos.  I do understand the genuine concerns raised, that Andy and others told us they ended up dealing with this a lot on email, and would love to find out why (partly as the level of pressure on this seemed new.... and that it's a pretty odd political agitation).

As ever I disagree with your views on GB climbing. The main lack of independence Paul described was one of the reasons I was glad they chose what they did: avoiding the need to expensively duplicate back office functions.

I do agree they need to deliver the previously promised improvement in support for hillwalking. Things have improved a bit but not to the level promised. Other promises were also delayed (partly due to covid), notably the website improvements.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 07, 2023, 12:50:08 pm
I’m a bit out of the loop these days but it seems the BMC is having a financial crisis and the Head of Finance has handed her notice in. From what I’ve heard ballooning costs at GBClimbing and lack of projected membership growth seem to have contributed to a massively increased projected deficit. Cost cutting is under way. Sadly two in Access and Environment have already gone and a further redundancy is on the cards. Carl Spencer, one of the Board members, has just confirmed on BMC Watch that he has resigned over this.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: yetix on July 07, 2023, 01:01:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on July 07, 2023, 01:07:20 pm
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.

Are you a member Dan? 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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Liamhutch89 on July 07, 2023, 01:19:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: yetix on July 07, 2023, 01:22:26 pm
No, in the last couple of years I've considered getting membership on a few occasions and decided not to as I felt access just didn't feel close to the level of priority I'd need to value having membership. Jon's appointment as Access & Conservation Officer had filled me with hope, knowing he is a boulderer himself (and given that bouldering access is ultimately what I value) and also having seen his contributions on here and elsewhere to the community.

I had recently been considering if membership was something I should get given I'm looking to get travel insurance in the near future for a longer trip in Sept and to get BMC insurance I'd need to combine membership so it kind of made sense and may have cost me a little more but if access was important to the BMC then it would be worthwhile. But hearing the lack of priority towards access just puts a bad taste in my mouth and make me want to look elsewhere for (cheaper) alternatives (which also don't require this membership). This was what I did in 2019 when feeling somewhat similiar at the time and was travelling to Rocklands...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Teaboy on July 07, 2023, 01:29:00 pm
Does this mean we’re not buying Kilnsey?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Adam Lincoln on July 07, 2023, 01:33:52 pm
The BMC are a shambles and stopped getting my money years ago.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 07, 2023, 01:37:44 pm
I had recently been considering if membership was something I should get

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on July 07, 2023, 01:40:05 pm
Does this mean we’re not buying Kilnsey?

I think Kilnsey was always a bit steep (excuse the pun). I can only think it was marketed with the intention of getting the BMC to buy. I'm concerned for access if someone else buys it but the BMC owning Kilnsey would be a management nightmare for them. It would end up being a money pit.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: yetix on July 07, 2023, 01:45:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: remus on July 07, 2023, 01:50:47 pm
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.

I really struggle to understand this point of view. BMC membership is what, £40 a year? For all their faults access and UK climbing in general would be hugely worse off without the BMC. It's got to be some of the best value for money I put in to climbing each year
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: yetix on July 07, 2023, 01:56:42 pm
Realistically they're many causes close to my heart not all are directly related to climbing. Climate change, research, child poverty are all examples. They all add up and I don't have vast amounts of wealth (unfortunately), so I have to consider what I'm donating money towards. They say its a membership but for me this is a donation, the benefits aside from what I mentioned above just aren't important to me I just want to donate towards access. If large amounts are going to things like comps then yeah it's not for me and I'll donate elsewhere.

Failing to understand that to many people this is a donation is probably why the BMC is failing to get people like me to be a member.

Edit - grammar
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Wellsy on July 07, 2023, 01:59:54 pm
I am a member, largely because of access. But I do also like that they put money into supporting comp athletes
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 07, 2023, 02:00:53 pm
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 Facebook
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.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Liamhutch89 on July 07, 2023, 02:03:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on July 07, 2023, 02:08:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Wellsy on July 07, 2023, 02:14:47 pm
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.

I can certainly appreciate that and I didn't used to feel that way, but increasingly I like that there is a way to be a genuine professional athlete as a climber and I like seeing these top end people push the boundaries of the discipline. It would be cool imo to see more young British climbers do well in comps and to do that they need financial support which I think is appropriate from the BMC. Also the BMC being involved in comps and Olympic sports gives their name more weight and I think that helps with access and speaking for punters like me too

Not suggesting I'm right and you're wrong either, for sure!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: northern yob on July 07, 2023, 02:26:35 pm
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!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Adam Lincoln on July 07, 2023, 02:36:33 pm
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!

Its being turned into Depot yorkshire?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Liamhutch89 on July 07, 2023, 02:41:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on July 07, 2023, 02:58:25 pm
letting perfect be the enemy of good for me

I strongly agree with this. 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! (But a bit like insurance - it's self interest even if I'm not 100% sure if it will actually benefit me in the near future)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Dac on July 07, 2023, 03:05:39 pm
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).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on July 07, 2023, 03:09:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: cheque on July 07, 2023, 03:20:25 pm
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!

 :agree: I’ve never seen it as anything else. Depends if you see the BMC as “us” or “them” really I suppose. If it’s “them” then fuck knows what the other 99.9% of the world that isn’t to do with climbing is.

Like others I don’t care at all about comps though and I’m surprised to learn how expensive all that is given that I only only ever hear about how little financial support comp climbers get. 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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on July 07, 2023, 03:31:37 pm
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 Facebook
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.


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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: duncan on July 07, 2023, 03:33:34 pm
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.

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.   
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: yetix on July 07, 2023, 03:36:56 pm
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 Facebook
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.


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
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on July 07, 2023, 03:38:19 pm
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.

Can anyone confirm that this is definitely what's happened? It seemed a bit vague from the earlier posts. It's hard to say without seeing figure on spending, revenue, what members you'd be likely to lose by ditching comps etc, but it may raise the question of if this is the point at which the bodies need to part ways, at least to become financially independent organizations of some kind even if strong links are maintained.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tk421a on July 07, 2023, 03:43:52 pm
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.

I'd agree in general if your definition is "outdoor UK climber" rather than any climber. BMC has no relevance for adult indoor climbers (unless you're one of the 120 who competed at BBCs). Also if you climb in the Alps I think you're more likely to be an Austrian Alpine Club member than BMC.

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....
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on July 07, 2023, 03:46:12 pm
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.
 

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: northern yob on July 07, 2023, 03:46:42 pm
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. A lot of the youth comps which are extremely well subscribed probably(should ) make money, not cost the bmc money. The bmc by my reading of things has tried desperately to keep hold of Gb climbing (the comp  branch of it all) when it would have been much better for comp climbing if they were split (in my opinion) in my head at least this is because comp and indoor climbing is a potential cash cow rather than a drain on resources. As evidenced by “outside climbers not caring and not joining the bmc” the bmc is dying!! It’s only a matter of time before comp climbing is separate and maybe a portion of your wall entry each visit will fund the climbing team(which might result in them getting the support they deserve and require).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: sxrxg on July 07, 2023, 03:47:35 pm
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 Facebook
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.


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'm a BMC member but only by proxy of being a club member. I wouldn't consider upgrading to full membership or joining if i wasn't a club member, I would however donate to an access fund in a similar way that i currently donate to mountain rescue.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Teaboy on July 07, 2023, 04:08:42 pm
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
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: northern yob on July 07, 2023, 04:24:25 pm
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

Even more reason to split it all…. I can’t believe it’s not possible to support comp climbing properly( which the bmc definitely doesn’t do) with the funding and potential revenue streams from both sponsorship and some kind of indoor climbing tax.

It certainly shouldn’t be affecting the funding going to access (possibly the only thing the bmc does well at) either way I’d say it’s a clusterfuck of the bmc’s own making and proves it’s not fit for purpose.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Bonjoy on July 07, 2023, 04:24:47 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 07, 2023, 04:30:05 pm

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Liamhutch89 on July 07, 2023, 04:34:18 pm
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.
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.


Ah yes, that conversation did happen. My bad.

I will say that i'm reading everyone's comments with interest. Just because I'm not a member now doesn't mean I won't be tomorrow. I've just never given it any thought until now.

Some of the views in here, that it's an investment in ourselves, I can understand, and are tempting, but then seeing that hundreds of thousands of pounds go to something I don't even enjoy watching doesn't help.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tk421a on July 07, 2023, 04:48:15 pm

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.

Why would commercial interests necessarily be an issue with being an NGB? The FA has commercial interests and is the NGB for football? DAV runs climbing walls as well as being an NGB, not sure how well they function / how the access / comp split goes in Germany. Also the ABC itself doesn't really have any commercial interests, its members do.

I would also support commercial walls more directly supporting comp climbing, if I believed the body running it was fit for purpose.

Supplementary crazy idea: BMC had £2m cash at bank end of 2021. Build 2 climbing walls, profit. Ringfence profits, fund sport climbing.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on July 07, 2023, 05:09:21 pm
fund sport climbing
You mean comp climbing presumably?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tk421a on July 07, 2023, 05:17:30 pm
Yes sorry, comp climbing, which someone decided to also name sport climbing  :wall:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on July 07, 2023, 06:06:36 pm
Is this bollocks - comp climbing finances and governance of comp climbing becoming a distraction to the rest of BMC matters - not just pretty much exactly the bollocks that many people said would happen when ‘Climb GB’ first reared its head and started all the introspection and BMC governance waffle? Followed by lots of governance wonks talking governance lingo about how essential comps were to their own job roles ‘The BMC’.
Quelle surprise.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on July 07, 2023, 08:47:07 pm
I’m a BMC member twice, through different clubs. Prior, I was an individual member.

It’s the only body that represents my interests through its access work. Simple self-interested desire to keep being able to go to the places I want to go to, as others have said.

Not bothered about comps, but very happy for young climbers to be supported, if it’s done in an effective way.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: duncan on July 07, 2023, 09:34:05 pm

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.

The Access Fund only came into existence in 1991 as a spin-off from the American Alpine Club access committee which was formed in 1985. By this time many horses had already bolted. Even so, they appear pretty supine in respect to many of the issues US climbers face.

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 is also the complex legacy of Native Americans land rights (https://www.mountainproject.com/area/106066502/ship-rock-area).

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.

A few examples...

The Gunks has some of the best climbing in the US  and certainly the best close to NY. It costs $20 a day to climb there. One of the best cliffs, Skytop, is only open to clients of a particular guiding company. If a pair of you fancy doing the classic and historic Supercrack - 7b+ on gear and one of the hardest in the world when it was climbed in 1974 - it will cost you $340 each (https://alpineendeavors.com/rock-climbing) (or $265 each if you Be Like Jerry and only need half a day). This is like paying to do London Wall.

Eldorado Canyon, classic area near Boulder Colorado.  There is an entry fee to the park of course, there is also a timed reservation system for vehicles in summer. If you want to climb a new route with bolt protection you have to apply to the Action Committee for Eldorado (http://aceeldo.org/hardware-applications/) who will permit - or not - the fixed gear. On reflection, perhaps not such a bad idea. I nominate Shark and Neil Foster to head the peak committee: we might have had fewer Gibson retrobolting atrocities!

Red Rock, Nevada. Of course you have to pay to get into the climbing area. You also need a permit if you think you’re going to be back “late” (eg after 5pm in winter). What is the rationale for this? I have no idea but it keeps people in a job I suppose.

Yosemite! The rules and regulations are so complex that it’s probably best to just link to the NPS page (https://www.climbingyosemite.com/services/regulations/). You need a permit for any overnight climb (I think it’s hilarious folk attempting the N face of the Eiger don’t need a permit but people biving on Washington Column do...). This was introduced as a pilot scheme in 2021. To the surprise of absolutely no one the scheme is now permanent. The Access Fund were completely supine about this. One particularly delicious item is that booking a campsites in Yosemite is now a lottery system. You pay a $10 deposit to enter the lottery, non-refundable if you’re unsuccessful.

The US is the land of the free for access to climbing - like many other things  - just as long as you’ve got good money, good connections, good lawyers, and good know-how for negotiating bureaucracy.




Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: James Malloch on July 08, 2023, 08:02:54 am
This discussion just made me join. I always got membership for insurance when i was at uni, but started getting cover elsewhere and never renewed my membership.

Just the fact that i was climbing at crookrise this week makes me think i should re-join.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on July 08, 2023, 08:23:05 am
Duncan, thank you for that detail. I didn’t put free access in my short post above, but certainly had it in mind.

You’re examples  reinforce that.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on July 08, 2023, 08:53:21 am

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.


I think this is the key bit, that they are starting from a very different position, where there are vast areas in which there are free access, and as such not such a pressure on access to the few open spaces near to cities as there is in the UK,  which I guess is what lead to the right to roam initially.

An annual National Parks pass is $64, so probably about the same as a tank of gas for a Sprinter!

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.
 

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Fiend on July 08, 2023, 09:27:48 am
Interesting discussion. I joined the BMC earlier this year, on the surface to get travel insurance but in reality because I was feeling guilty about eating my own weight in sandwiches and chips at various area meetings (God I wish I had the mental disorder / tolerant digestion to have REDS)... 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.  But I've always had a lot of respect for their access work, and especially the guidebooks when they still did those. As shark says:

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.

But conversely, despite being someone who enjoys watching climbing (although not with any particular interest in British comp climbers winning - selfishly, I'd rather have world class crag access and maintenance than world class comp climbers), I know exactly where the primary focus should be...

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.   
I very much agree with this and don't like the sound of the last bit.

Although...

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
(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...


And finally....

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?
:lol: Quite probably true, and probably why they still CAN'T PUT TWO SODDING FANS IN THE DEPOT MANC TRAINING ROOM.


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: cheque on July 08, 2023, 11:34:59 am
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’s on private land but it’s climbers who own it. Muir Valley is a big area and is owned by a nice old climber couple who bought it all when they retired, PMRP (contains the Motherlode and Chocoate Factory), Miller Fork etc. are owned by the Red River Gorge Climbers Coalition which is a local organisation set up to buy land with crags on. Graining Fork Nature Preserve sounds nice and friendly but is basically a way for a bunch of rogue climbers to stop people climbing on Roadside crag (one of the earliest sport areas to be developed so has lots of famous routes) without paying them, like the situation Duncan describes at one of the Gunks crags.

As Duncan also says above, you can’t climb on most non-climber-owned private land in the States (southern states in particular) because the landowners are within their rights to shoot you dead.

The land in the Red is both easy to buy and very cheap because there’s not really anyone else who wants it. Oil companies own the mineral rights to the whole region so can just drill for oil anywhere that isn’t state park or forestry commission land so private landowners there are just stuck with areas of basically jungle with rocks in that they can’t turn into anything useful- selling it to climbers is quite a good deal for them so they’re not going to negotiate access, they just tell you how much it’ll cost.

So while there’s lots of access to crags (and probably more to come- every time one of these parcels of land is bought there are suddenly cliffs that no climbers have ever seen, let alone climbed on) it’s hardly a utopian model, it’s just good for the south.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mark20 on July 08, 2023, 11:35:46 am
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
"Off the beaten track VS-E3", "Lancashire quarries revival", "Dogs of the UK climbing scene"  :jab:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: danm on July 08, 2023, 11:36:27 am
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.

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.   
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Wellsy on July 08, 2023, 11:37:30 am
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

Not that it shouldn't have those things but bouldering does exist and is very popular it would be nice if Summit covered it.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: UnkArl on July 08, 2023, 11:50:25 am
This thread prompted me to renew my BMC membership; I’d let it lapse a few years back. It cost me all of £32.93
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: andy moles on July 08, 2023, 12:06:12 pm
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

I am of the trad segment, to a large degree, and believe me: I still think Summit is poor.

Once in a while there's something decent. Mostly it's gloss and commerce and nothing of real interest. Probably a symptom of how thinly the BMC is spread across divergent scenes: all it can give is the lowest common denominator of each.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: cheque on July 08, 2023, 12:35:17 pm
Probably a symptom of how thinly the BMC is spread across divergent scenes: all it can give is the lowest common denominator of each.

I’ve always seen Summit as emblematic of the nature of the BMC. It’s got to cover trad, comps, sport, bouldering, non-comp indoor climbing, hillwalking, ice climbing, fellrunning, ski mountaineering, etc etc so it ends up being something that most people say “pfft there’s only ever one interesting thing in each issue, if that” about.

When I’d only been climbing for a year or so I used to read it cover to cover and find it fascinating and informative. Now I just flip through it, think “that’s a nice picture” a few times, make a mental note to go back and read one article that looks interesting. A week or so later I pick it up again, read the article and chuck it in the recycling. I don’t think the magazine’s changed that much, I’ve just become more experienced and less interested in types of climbing I don’t do.

I feel like whether I see it as “it’s alright really, does what it’s intended to” or “what a waste of time, why do they spend my money on this, blah blah blah” is up to me and I’m going for the first option because life’s too short.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 08, 2023, 01:31:37 pm
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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: danm on July 08, 2023, 02:17:57 pm
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?
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".
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Fultonius on July 08, 2023, 02:30:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tk421a on July 08, 2023, 03:02:09 pm
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.

No, but AAC membership is the same as the reciprocal rights card and gets you the rights + insurance etc.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: bolehillbilly on July 08, 2023, 05:50:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Bonjoy on July 08, 2023, 05:54:11 pm
I have had several reports about issues with the RAD app being out of sync with the web version. I'm really sorry about these. I've passed on to IT, but it's not something I have the skills or permissions to correct myself.
Any technical probs with the RAD can be sent to me and I'll pass on.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: steveri on July 08, 2023, 05:56:37 pm
On the balance of funding I’d liken it to paying tax, which as we know is a privilege and the entrance fee for living in a civilised society.

We don’t get to hypothecate the bits we want to spend money on, same as people without kids or in perfect health shouldn’t moan about funding schools or the NHS. But we do get to question the people that make those decisions. And I’d prefer a different balance.

I have only a vague interest in competition climbing, though if it gives us a Shauna or a Will at the end of it, that’s a nice by product. I happily pay the membership for access work, pure gold. Just as I’d pay the BBC licence fee for 10% of their output on Rs 3,4,6 and Beeb 4 and others.

The governance needs simplifying and we need more Jons, not less. It bothers me that ‘non climbers’ hold so much sway, and I’d kinda include people who spend 95% of their time indoors in that.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: edshakey on July 08, 2023, 07:52:21 pm
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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: remus on July 08, 2023, 10:41:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: edshakey on July 09, 2023, 12:42:01 am
Ah I stand corrected, cheers Remus
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Teaboy on July 09, 2023, 07:24:36 pm
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 been a full member for over 20 years, previously when I’ve had membership via a club I’ve continued to pay full individual membership as I think it’s important to support the access work, however, last year I cancelled my individual membership in a fit of pique (I’m still a member through CC but that really only covers the cost of my membership benefits and contributes very little to other BMC activities). This wasn’t something I did lightly but followed a few discussions on UKC where it was becoming apparent competition climbing was becoming a cuckoo in the nest and people representing the BMC were obfuscating the the extent of this. Specifically
1. A lot of the funding for comps is linked to Olympic success, what happens if no one qualifies? Is the BMC left with a comp organisation that it can’t wind down quickly enough and is forced to fund?
2. In order to qualify for UK Sport funding the BMC has to contribute a certain amount. I imagine Sport UK aren’t too bothered about the distinction between combined and speed, are the BMC committing to increased funding for speed climbing?
3. On other threads I was repeatedly told that the CCPG was working on Team GB being entirely self funded. The CCPG has not reported for over two years.
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).
5. The perception from some at the BMC that there was more than enough for A&C and that additional funds were not required and the example used to illustrate this was how well the Kilnsey parking issue was resolved but that wasn’t my recollection at all.
6. I used to think talk of over reach by the BMC was nonsense but skimo is now under the umbrella of GB Climbing. C’mon!
I still think the BMC is a wonderful organisation and I fully intended to mitigate my silent and wholly pointless protest by contributing to the Access and Conservation Trust but have to fess up that I haven’t. I also love comps I just think it absorbs too much from the BMC as it’s not just the direct funding but a significant proportion of all other budgets like HR, facilities, IT, staff costs, pensions etc.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: duncan on July 10, 2023, 06:07:36 pm
From Dave Turnbull, currently BMC Head of Access, Conservation & Environmental Sustainability, on facebook (https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02uNCuHhXwJaYSGLKeMQpTM567f8v73YPX96d6ocXJ5XDy6Xoc8dz8JFfimSWpUJ7tl&id=100001889404908&eav=AfZ9ZjOePHGu4LQvfvK-eq33Oqn-OJRsKWW4cPREOLWG3tFO8hcpJF_E8wyOPPFB2gs&paipv=0) (after some bad health news).

"Meanwhile in planet BMC, later the same day the whole of the Access and Conservation Team, plus the Marketing & Comms staff received ‘risk of redundancy’ letters from the CEO. Seems the BMC is in free fall at the moment having set over ambitious membership growth targets resulting in a projected year end deficit of minus £275k. One of the access team has already been handed his notice but they’re still looking for at least one more scalp. At one time this was seen as the most important thing the BMC did but it seems not now. Pity really. It’ll be interesting to see what the membership thinks. Staff morale is rock bottom as you might imagine."


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on July 11, 2023, 09:16:10 am
To save typing, this is what I put on Simon's indentikit thread on UKC:

Quote
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”.

My second to last paragraph is strengthened by Duncan's post. Dave is quoting figures (£275k deficit) that are different to Carl's (142k without "course corrections". 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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: steveri on July 11, 2023, 09:38:29 am
Proper disappointing but maybe not Defcon 1 crisis. The comps tail should not be wagging the access dog.

If you think of a funnel, few people compete, fewer still at the top level. People entering a local bouldering league have no need for a BMC involvement. The fat end of the funnel is All Climbers, Everywhere. These are the people that need access, insurance, safety, etc. And it feels like plenty of the hard yards are being done at local level, by keen volunteers. They NEED the backup of paid staff with good legislative knowledge, negotiation skills, contacts and all that. And if these are the people being put to the sword it's hugely disappointing. And if they survive, it's still massively undermining to go through this 'consultation phase'.

The organisation is are poor at reporting back and communicating big picture with the great unwashed. I don't mean the marketing comms, which are light but good at what they do. None of this latest financial hole will have been a surprise at AGM time, but I bet it wasn't discussed properly (I wasn't there). Good luck to the people having their chairs removed when the music stops.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: duncan on July 11, 2023, 10:33:31 am
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.

Dan, thank you for putting me right. I was going on his biog. on the BMC website where he described himself as a hillwalker. And good luck at what sounds like a difficult time.
 
Ironically perhaps, I’m very much in favour of organisations having managers chosen primarily for their effectiveness as managers. I’ve experienced enough bad management from brilliant people to know a good manager requires different skills than a good engineer, teacher, doctor or climber. I don’t expect to see the BMC CEO every time I visit Rhoscolyn (or so it seemed with Dave Turnbull!). I do expect professional managers to manage professionally and, in a membership organisation, to broadly follow the priorities set by the membership that have been consistent over decades despite the many changes within climbing.

From the information we outsiders have currently, senior management are neither effective nor focusing on membership priorities. Communication from the BMC high-ups - a crucial part of effective management especially when concerns arise - has been notable by its absence.

Dates of the next BMC area meetings. https://www.thebmc.co.uk/upcoming-bmc-area-meetings
 If you are a member and you are not happy about how the BMC is being run or its direction of travel, raising your concerns at them will probably have more of an effect than posting on forums and other social media.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on July 11, 2023, 10:38:59 am
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
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on July 11, 2023, 11:01:39 am
Quote
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

You are right, I misread that. As a standalone statement, the gap is not that wide, it was more in every post of Simon's the worst case/most hyperbolic poistion is taken. I don't think this is helpful. Obviously the BMC could have got ahead of this by

1. Actually writing a statement pre redundancy letters going out as access will always be contentious when cutting back, it is everyone's priority!

2. When the board were notified last Thursday that the rumour mill had started turning they should be able to get a statement out. The fact that six days latter we only have a wall of silence that has allowed those rumours to spread and evolve ("The whole of the access team is getting laid off!)

Again, cross posting with UKC but my position is:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Dingdong on July 11, 2023, 11:46:13 am
I guess we know why they declined to buy kilnsey now  :lol:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 11, 2023, 11:49:28 am
The figures can be cut in many ways but I can’t account for Karl’s £160k vs Dave’s £275k. Perhaps the situation had worsened from when Karl was informed and the Access team notified? Perhaps Karl was using the post cost cutting figure? I’ve asked him on BMC Watch. 

My understanding is that someone working with Land Management Trust left and that Inigo Atkin Fundraising and Campaigns Officer who is responsible for Mend Our Mountains hadn’t had their contract renewed. They are apparently looking for one more reduction on the Access Team according to Dave and another source.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: T_B on July 11, 2023, 11:56:35 am
It’s a projection. I appreciate that doesn’t account for quite a sizeable difference but it comes down to approximately 3500 memberships and we’re in July. Sure they’ll have a sales history but they could lay off loads of staff or put them to task chasing lapsed members. I’ve just re-joined based on this thread. I’d start with everyone who previously took out insurance but have gone elsewhere. Again, what are you selling if you’ve laid off the Access staff.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: T_B on July 11, 2023, 12:03:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 11, 2023, 12:12:36 pm
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.

It was the single most effective marketing initiative they ever did. It got people in the loop then the comms promoted all the good works the BMC does so they don’t cancel the direct debit which most forget anyway till it’s too late
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: T_B on July 11, 2023, 12:23:38 pm
I’d be pretty interested to see that journey from 1st year of (discounted) membership and how many were retained in years 2, 3 etc.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: danm on July 11, 2023, 01:10:19 pm
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!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: remus on July 11, 2023, 01:54:25 pm
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!

Pass on my thanks Dan. Feel free to put them in touch with me if they need someone to beta test too.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 12, 2023, 10:17:59 pm
The statement from the BMC has finally been published

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/restructure-statement-and-update

*Spoiler alert* It’s awful
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on July 12, 2023, 11:16:29 pm
Reading that statement is the first time I’ve stopped to wonder if the BMC is no longer an organisation which represents my interests. I think the access team deserve better and a separate access entity might be a good move now.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: andy moles on July 13, 2023, 07:37:59 am
Quote
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.

 :-\
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on July 13, 2023, 08:27:10 am
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?



Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Dingdong on July 13, 2023, 08:31:56 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on July 13, 2023, 08:38:20 am
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.

Agreed. I’d have had a new, larger and ragged arsehole forcibly installed and currently be looking for employment (more likely charity) if I had presented something like that to the boss, and (at base) the members are the boss.

Edit:
No, worse, the members are your boss and customers rolled into one. If the product you are selling isn’t what your customers want, nor what your boss asked you to produce, you are (technical term) Fucked.
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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on July 13, 2023, 09:02:00 am
Without understanding what their various revenue streams are I can't really tell whether I'm satisfied with this or not.
I'm not bothered by indoor or comp climbing but can understand that some are. Moreover I don't know how big the Sport England grant is and how dependent that is on them feeding the comp climbing machine. From the discussion years back when the Climb Britain thing was going on, I thought that there were certain hoops that had to be jumped through to unlock the grant money that could then be shared with the outdoor side? I don't know whether this might have changed in recent years so that the comp stuff is now the tail that wags the BMC dog?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on July 13, 2023, 09:49:55 am

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.

Given the lack of communication and what little we do know, it looks like mismanagement of the comp funds is undermining the outdoor work. A non obfuscatory statement which includes clearly identified funds, overspends and proposed ‘mitigations’ would be a start.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on July 13, 2023, 09:57:45 am

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?

Good point. Recruitment means little without retention. It would be interesting to know what the numbers are, including individuals vs affiliated through clubs. I’ve no idea where to find this and even less desire to try to navigate the BMC site.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on July 13, 2023, 10:05:46 am
Do leadership teams not learn that this kind of bullshit non-statement just pisses people off?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Wellsy on July 13, 2023, 10:58:30 am
Do leadership teams not learn that this kind of bullshit non-statement just pisses people off?

Exactly my thinking. It's typical of the BMC but they must surely know from the last fiasco that the response to these corporate bullshit statements is always overwhelmingly negative?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: PipeSmoke on July 13, 2023, 11:01:42 am
Where does all the money from GB climbing even go? As far as I can tell, nearly all the athletes going to IFSC comps pay for everything themselves, apart from a couple on the olympic pathway. So is all this, which is clearly hugely damaging on what most people actually care about (access), being done for literally 1 or 2 athletes? I'm not against helping contribute towards someone like toby have a good shot at the olympics, but it seems like a complete money pit, is it being mismanaged? and why is it using the same pot as the access stuff
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on July 13, 2023, 12:15:50 pm
In 2020 this BMC article (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/uk-sport-funds-gb-climbing-to-uncover-the-champions-of-tomorrow) announced they received £450,000 to fund the Olympic climbing team, and develop future facilities/coaching structures for comp climbers:

Quote
''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.

Quote
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.

Paul Davies CEO:
Quote
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.

.....


Then, in 2022, this BMC news piece (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/sport-england-confirms-funding-bmc) announced the BMC has received government/lottery funding of £2.8 million over the next 10 years:

Quote
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.

The article describes the aims of the funding:
Quote
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.

All of which is basically saying they started receiving £2.8m last year over ten years to fund indoors, comps, athlete development, coaches etc. Not access.

The statement at the end by the ceo is interesting:

Quote
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.


That's £3.2m in funding announced in the above two articles which started in 2020 and will continue over the next ten years. Yet now we're being told the BMC isn't growing as quickly as hoped so it needs to cut back on everything, including Access, because it isn't making enough money - the key question for me is how much money do the BMC need for competition climbing, if the £3.2 million it's received/been agreed to be given over next 10 years isn't enough?

That's just from two quick searches that came up for 'BMC, sport england, uk sport funding'. Further back there are other announcements of funding. So where does the money go? Something (literally) doesn't add up from the picture being painted. Where has the money gone and where is it going to go in future?




* lol, 'governance and leadership'.. couldn't make it up.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: SA Chris on July 13, 2023, 12:30:52 pm
Should it bother me that "England" "GB" and "UK" seem to be used interchangeably in the various organisation bodies and statements? Could lead to a bit of confusion?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on July 13, 2023, 03:15:21 pm
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…
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on July 13, 2023, 03:28:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on July 13, 2023, 04:18:12 pm
Tony, if your 'financially illiterate' cheap shot is aimed at me than you've missed the point being made. Which is:
In times of financial overshoot which require slim-lining of the important bits of the BMC as has just been announced, do you not think it matters A LOT that we all understand what the total costs are of various parts of the BMC, and who's spending what, so we can all make an informed opinion on what the priorities are, whether those priorities make sense and align with member's priorities?

Those details don't seem transparent.

edit.. deleted the rest as it's basically same as the above.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on July 13, 2023, 04:26:31 pm
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.

Ok, ok…

Overreaction. My bad.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on July 13, 2023, 04:46:05 pm
My comment about about “financial illiteracy” was -of course- provocative; I was really suggesting the latter clause. I will be more specific: I think some comments have been disingenuous or, at the very least, hyperbole.

I was, in the main, reacting to Pete’s comments but I’m sure there’s others. (I’m not reading 24 pages on  the BMC … again!)

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.

I’m not saying the BMC should not reform further but, come’on: let him who is without sin cast the first stone…


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on July 13, 2023, 04:49:32 pm

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on July 13, 2023, 05:38:08 pm
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.


I'm saying income and expenditure should be transparent so members could take an informed view on how the organisation they pay to be a member of allocates its (and their) money. Essentially what you're saying is: 'yeah they're crap at being transparent - that's member organsiations for you'

Now they've just reported that they've failed to attract extra members (that were seemingly unrealistically forecast) and in the financial shortfall are cutting bits of the BMC that are of the most value to the most members. And it's a bit unclear what the financial relationship is with the bit that is of least value to most members but which attracts the most money and costs the most (GBC), to the rest of the BMC. 

I'm also saying I'd prefer (but don't expect) a BMC that didn't focus as much on comps/athletes/coaches/olympics and did focus more on advocating for access to and protection of hills, cliffs, moors, coastline, the outdoors -  i.e. all the bits that the vast majority of us actually value the most.
And you seem to essentially be saying 'the BMC is a bit crap at representing the majority of their membership because they want the funding that comes with being the NGB for competitive climbing. So why can you not comprehend this poor performance?'

I can comprehend it, I suppose I just don't like it.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on July 13, 2023, 05:47:19 pm
It most certainly is the case that the members are the club. What you have described is the co-opting of the club by another organisation.
I’m not suggesting this has happened.

If a club does not exist to serve it’s members, it is not a club.
I don’t think anyone has said that climbers or UKB’ers are the largest or most important members. Pretty sure many of those climbers etc are also hill walkers, mountaineers, winter climbers, skiers and various combinations of. The British Mountaineering Council was set up to represent the interests of those people. It markets itself as such. It is more than reasonable for the members to ask for both transparency and assurance that GB climbing is not now wagging the BMC tail.

Access, surely, affects most of the  mentioned activities above? Didn’t we just have a bit of a battle over Dartmoor camping?

And, where would the BMC’s legitimacy lie, if membership were to plumet?

No, sorry, but the “if you’re not selling what I want buy, then I ain’t paying” line is perfectly justified.
All you appear to be saying is “don’t question your betters, they know what’s good for you”.

It’s true, I’m sure they “have their reasons”. Also, damned certain the members have a right to know those reasons and the official statement does not reveal anything.

This isn’t merely “less transparency than I would like” it is blatant obfuscation. It’s a political press release, not an answer to legitimate calls for explanation.

How much opacity do you think members should tolerate, before taking their money and support elsewhere?
What a disaster that would be.
Control has been removed from the membership and the organisation is now a corporate one (probably a needed step). Many members are suddenly realising they have been disenfranchised by that change.

However, the organisation is reliant on it’s members for both legitimacy and financial stability. Is it just outdoor climbers complaining? How does GB Climbing benefit hill walkers exactly?

Anyway, I’ll cast the damn stones I’ve paid to cast, cheers.

I realised I’ve been a member for thirty years, either directly or via the RNRMC. I’m (sorta) paying twice right now.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on July 13, 2023, 06:33:42 pm

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.

You make a good point about safeguarding, but my comment wasn’t intended to imply that this wasn’t essential in the context of comps but that running comp climbing isn’t, to me, essential in the context of the national body.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: webbo on July 14, 2023, 10:43:15 am

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.
There may well skeletons in the closet. It may take someone to become one before it comes out.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Fiend on July 14, 2023, 11:33:26 am
Are these skeletons GB athletes with too much "REDS", or desiccated husks who have been suckered in by Mark20 peddling Silicon dioxide??
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 14, 2023, 11:43:27 am
I think he is slyly alluding to Dennis Gray. I’m told there is a report that is labelled not to be published till his death but suspect this relates to a financial scandal generally known as “Brazilgate” rather than anything else and I don’t want hearsay about Gray discussing here.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: northern yob on July 14, 2023, 12:19:47 pm

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).

Hi Teaboy thanks for trying to put me straight, I’m still not really any the wiser though….. sorry.

What is comp climbing actually costing the bmc? Given the funding it receives and the money it wastes/uses to provide the services it’s required to do, to receive said funding? I’m gonna need it in a fairly black and white basic figure as I’m definitely financially illiterate (can anyone give me this figure?) just to clarify my position, I’ve been involved with comp climbing in one way or another for about 20yrs and all I’ve really seen is the bmc make a mess of it. I’ve seen lots of well intentioned good people get involved and basically either lose the faith or join the gravy train… the only thing I know is that despite good intentions the bmc has tried and failed to run comps and the team well.

I definitely have a problem with authority and organisations so I’m definitely slightly biased, but lots of other aspects of the bmc haven’t struck me as efficient or effective over the last 20yrs, I value the access work the bmc does and has done over this period, but from an outside point of view I’ve seen an organisation that seems like once people get in they don’t get out(because it’s an easy ride) I’d love to be put right on this, it’s just my biased opinion, hopefully I’m wrong but as you point out if someone as connected as me thinks these kind of things the job really is fucked.

We need to be represented as a community by some kind of organisation and comp climbing needs to be given the resources and support it requires if these are at odds split them if not they really need to sort their shit out…
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Dingdong on July 14, 2023, 12:31:08 pm
Personally I think the BMC should be separate to the entity that funds and runs competition climbing and teams in the UK/internationally. I believe the BMC have more important focused work to get on with: access and relationship management with landowners, land stewardships, lobbying government for access law changes, sustainability, repairing the environment where people walk, climb etc. It’s hard for a company to be focused on all that and also running comps, a team, international comps when the funding is as they say, an issue.

I also think the fact that the BMC tries to spread itself so thin is why comps and the team suffer and also why the outdoors side suffer.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on July 14, 2023, 12:33:06 pm
I get the impression it's not just your opinion... from the rumour mill, it seems like the system gets in the way of the top athletes more than it helps them, it doesn't sounds like parents are happy with the youth stuff, it doesn't sound like plenty of people actually working in the comp system are particularly happy...

It seems like there are two key issues (the first might be better divided into two though):
1. Poor management of the BMC, and poor management of GB Climbing
2. Should the BMC and GB Climbing split

If by "how much does comp climbing cost the BMC" we really mean "would the BMC's other work be financially better off without comps" (which for may of us is probably the real question?), this is a a question that you can try to calculate an answer to, but it will be an estimate - you should know how much it costs, and will know for sure that some grants would move to a new separate governing body, but you'd be estimating how many members you'd lose as a result and estimating which other (e.g. grassroots) grants you'd then lose to the new organisation. Still, even if it's not an exact figure, someone should at least show some scenarios and clearly lay out what's what, so people can see the broad figures and the uncertainties...

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: yetix on July 14, 2023, 12:58:35 pm
Also how many members might you gain as a result of splitting and people feeling more confident in the direction...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on July 14, 2023, 04:38:13 pm
Agree with the need for some clearly laid out figures but I think people would be shocked about how much funding used for access is likely tied to the BMC running comp climbing as well. An Access Fund style organisation would be much more dependent on member subs and donations for income. Frankly I think a lot of people on ukc (and on here, but especially there) talk a good game about how willing they'd be to pay large subs for access work and/or make one off donations but I remain somewhat dubious.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on July 14, 2023, 04:39:54 pm
An alternative is that the Alpine Club becomes the current ‘BMC’, minus GB climbing; and the BMC becomes the current ‘GB Climbing’, minus the BMC. Simple  :blink:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Dingdong on July 14, 2023, 04:43:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on July 14, 2023, 04:45:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on July 14, 2023, 04:56:55 pm
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.

Nothing personal but this kind of thing is exactly why I am dubious that splitting access off would result in a boom in members who had allegedly not joined due to the BMC involvement in comps. Comparing the BMC with the NT is totally pointless, the organisations could not be further apart in terms of both membership and finance. The NT has 5.7million members for Christ's sake; the BMC has 80,000. No wonder they can offer free parking given they own dozens of sites all round the UK!

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. This is not me saying things couldn't and shouldn't be improved, I think it's a flawed organisation which needs improvement.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: yetix on July 14, 2023, 05:26:57 pm
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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on July 14, 2023, 05:32:02 pm
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.

Oh I know, CC member here and they make the BMC look like Elon Musk.

Only half-joking tbh.. where there’s a will there’s a way etc. But obviously the most sensible solution imo would be something that looks like Shark’s idea of retaining the GB Climbing part, but strictly controlling resource allocation and costs so it doesn’t dilute the rest of the BMC’s (more important imo) work.
The problem, is that you only have to look at the incentives of the burgeoning comp/coaching scene to suspect that this ‘ring-fencing by the adults’ approach probably wouldn’t work over the long term, because the glory, money, fanfare and ‘glamour’ is in ‘elite coaching’ and competitive climbing. I suspect scenes like these incentivise certain types of characters into management roles. In my opinion that’s likely the source of the tension. A BMC that was really effective at doing what 9/10th of its members want would be an attractive employer to managers who like being boring and sphagnum moss.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on July 14, 2023, 05:36:22 pm
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?

I guess because you need the recurring revenue that subs provide to run a functional representative membership organisation. I dont think you can employ a team of people for Access work in the hope that donations every year are sufficient to maintain them. I know nothing about governance but that's my immediate thought. I imagine registered charities are set up differently to allow this but then again they aren't representative bodies so have different responsibilities.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: yetix on July 14, 2023, 05:46:48 pm
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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on July 14, 2023, 05:49:42 pm
Couldn’t the BMC just do everything it currently does minus comps, which would be funded and run by ‘GB Climbing’ or similar?

The arguments against this might be that memberships from those involved in comps might disappear off to that organisation- but how much do comp registration members account for now in ££?

The second could be the revenue that comp involvement brings effectively cross subsidises other BMC work and enables economies of scale. That’s looking pretty improbable to me right now, so hiving off comp work looks like a good move imo

Additionally, as Pete points out, elite sport attracts different profiles of employee. Again, looking at the financial mismanagement and the arrogant statement from current management, that also looks like a good argument for dropping comp work from the BMC’s portfolio.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Fiend on July 14, 2023, 06:09:46 pm
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??
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on July 14, 2023, 06:35:28 pm
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?

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. I'll reply properly later to flesh that out a bit.

I guess my somewhat exasperated attitude comes from volunteering for the BMC for several years and seeing the huge amount of stuff that is shovelled our way, it's all well meaning but unrealistic imo.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on July 14, 2023, 07:50:45 pm
This

administered properly,

is the tricky bit, isn’t it?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on July 14, 2023, 08:25:57 pm
I once read something about the BMC and I vowed never to repeat that mistake again, so these thoughts are likely to be factually incorrect - please do correct me.

1. There's no reason why indoor, outdoor, and hillwalking interests can't be represented by one organisation. It's just down to management. To say otherwise is like saying that universities can't research and teach, that Shell can't run oil rigs and petrol stations etc etc.

2. Is the loss to the access division that big in the grand scheme of things? It sounds like they've fucked up the membership projections and they're having to reduce headcount (which is really shit for those individuals and I feel for them) but they do say they still have more people in post than they normally do.

3. When the Climb Britain thing was going on, and when the BMC was marketing itself more to hillwalkers, I seem to remember there being talk by climbers that this was good for us because we'd take the money from them and use it for our access work. In the case that the situation is reversed people are lining up to do dirty protests at the National Championships - is that fair? Lots of people wanted the BMC to buy Kilnsey, no doubt using a load of hillwalkers (and the vast majority of climbing members who won't go to the crag) cash to do so.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect each arm of the group to completely ringfence its own budget - management need some flexibility to apportion resource as needed (with some reasonable limits perhaps).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Nails on July 14, 2023, 10:28:33 pm
I used to feel very strongly that everything climbing-wise was better kept under one organisation. This latest debacle has made me start to think the opposite. However, the gross lack of transparency prevents anything other than positions based upon gut-feelings. There seems to me a continuum from Competitions to Walls to Bouldering to Outdoors Climbing to Mountaineering. Not sure where Hill walking fits (probably somewhere all across the latter three). My opposition to breaking these things up was largely based on the feeling that separation might lead to organisations pulling in different directions (particularly with regard to the management of all things outdoor climbing). I feel like possibly just Competitions could be successfully separated without this affecting discussion of all things outdoors.

My other observation was that Sporting organisations seem to be afflicted by these transparency/incompetence type issues. My experience within BMX (with my kids) is that British Cycling as well as the UCE and the UCI are all pretty atrocious in these areas. I think Sporting organisations have these issues because they aren't really companies with clear goals, they have large numbers of volunteer staff but also a number of professional staff. The professional staff are often people trained in "Sports Management". Probably based on my own basic sneering prejudices, but I have met very few "Sports Managers" who I've found myself to be at all impressed by. They often have a background in "Elite Sport Development Pathway Champion Coordination”, or some such, which they consider to be eminently transferable across football, ping pong, mountaineering etc. Once they wind up at the BMC, they have now discovered a “Great Passion for the Outdoors” which they can prove as they go walking occasionally. Anyway I find myself Rambling … literally.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: andy moles on July 15, 2023, 07:16:39 am
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.

I'm willing to be persuaded on this, but it seems to me that most of what the BMC represents, from indoor climbing to mountaineering (and therefore hillwalking because there's no bright line there), are logical and compatible bedfellows.

Competition seems like the sore thumb, fundamentally because it's a sport. Its aims and needs are just totally different.

How much would the administrative complexity of the organisation be alleviated by separating GB Climbing?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Dingdong on July 15, 2023, 07:50:23 am
Having two very different organisations vying for funds and manpower just seems silly to me but what do I know.

As a BMC member I would also more than happily pay extra or donate monthly into an access only fund/pot if it’s spending was fully transparent and showed a good breakdown of where that money is going. The access reps already do really good work and I think it’s a travesty that they’ve reduced the headcount, though I bet the CEOs/directors haven’t cut their pay have they.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Moo on July 15, 2023, 09:14:39 pm
An access fund sounds like an extremely good idea.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on July 16, 2023, 09:32:25 am
An access fund sounds like an extremely good idea.

You can already give to any number of charitable bodies that work to improve access. Even the BMC’s “own” Access and Conservation Trust: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-access-conservation-trust

Charitable giving is very different in the US compared to the UK: fewer people give but those that do, give a great deal more.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on July 16, 2023, 09:40:34 am
…. I bet the CEOs/directors haven’t cut their pay have they.

The directors are voluntary; and their expenses seem pretty minimal. The CEO probably has taken a real-terms cut this year (this is a guess). I doubt (based on reported BMC costs and headcount) the CEO is on stupid money.

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on July 16, 2023, 10:53:25 am
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.

Agree with this logic. Although I'd argue it also applies to organisations that aren't well-run - high pay correlates with good performance but correlation isn't causation!

A poorly-run organisation can cost the same (or more) as a well-run one. An example of this might be wasting tens of thousands of pounds in expenses through poor organisation.

By this logic it therefore stands to reason that an organisation - say... the BMC - that wished to establish from scratch a professional non-governing sporting body to oversee competition climbing would likely have high overheads. Which is what we're seeing.

GB Climbing needs to attract 'elite' level sporting performance directors, managers, coaches, trainers, advisors, administrators, event organisers etc. These people don't work for free.

The latest staff list on the BMC website (out of date by 3 years) looks like a classic example of an expensive growing organisational blob.

I think most members would expect transparency of the BMC, to understand where member money gets spent. One way of being transparent is a remuneration break-down of BMC senior management including GB Climbing, with transparency on the proportion of member's contributions compared to funding contributions.

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on July 16, 2023, 10:55:41 am
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.

Come on Pete, don't make me read the entire AGM minutes...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on July 16, 2023, 10:58:07 am
https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/uploads/documents/Board-Minutes-March-2021.pdf

(DCMS refers to department culture media and sport).
Paul Ratcliffe now GB Climbing's performance director.


6. World Class Programme funding 2021-25 and beyond
JC welcomed Paul Ratcliffe (PR) to the meeting and introduced Item 06 highlighting that a
decision was required around the approval of the co-funding allocation of £580k for the 2021-25 Paris Funding cycle.

DJ highlighted the key points from the paper;
- It is a DCMS directive that all NGBs receiving World Class Performance Funding need
to contribute to the costs of the Performance Programme

- The amount required had recently changed and increased, due to the impact of
coronavirus and the reduction of the DCMS award to UK Spor
t. All provision for “Gap
Funding” was removed from the process and the NGB contribution increased from
15% to 25% of core costs
. For British Canoeing this amounted to £452k for the
Olympic programmes and £128k for the Paracanoe programme.
- The value of the Performance Programme to British Canoeing and the
interdependencies between WCP and core costs needed to be fully considered
- The expenditure in the programme cannot be reduced any further whilst
maintaining the potential to produce the results required

- Funding cuts would need to come out of core costs that are already lean
- The proposed sources of funding was £400k from retained balance sheet funds,
which had originated from public funding sources. The balance of £177K was
planned from commercial partnerships, but this could not be guaranteed.
There was a comprehensive discussion around the principles of supporting the funding
contribution. The Board required that the change is drawn to the attention of the members
within future financial reports
.
There was recognition that the principal of this requirement is likely to stay and that it may
be at this level for future cycles
. The challenge will be greater, if balance sheet funds have
already been released.

BRITISH CANOEING BOARD MEETING - 13 MARCH 2021 - FB73 - BY ZOOM | Minutes
A Board member emphasised that it was important to note that cash flows in both directions
across British Canoeing and the World Class Performance Programme and that it is in British
Canoeing’s interests to make this contribution as it represents a positive net funding position
overall.

It was noted that British Canoeing fund the non-Olympic disciplines with around £150k in total
each year and has also invested heavily in Go Paddling resources for recreational paddlers.

The Board noted and approved the co-funding allocation of £580k for the 2021-25 Paris
Funding Cycle as outlined in paragraphs 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the paper.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on July 16, 2023, 12:01:41 pm
Actually a bit more reading (https://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/investing-in-sport/current-funding-awards?utm_content=link2&utm_campaign=articles_id_15275&utm_medium=articles_post&utm_source=ukclimbing) shows that 'world class performance funding', which is what British Canoeing receive, is different to the 'progression funding' GB Climbing receives. 75% UK Sport / 25% contribution by British Canoeing versus 85% UK Sport / 15% contribution by BMC.

My bad.

It still leaves the obvious question though of when 'progression funding' changes to 'performance funding'. The future looks likely to involve a 25% financial commitment to GB Climbing from the BMC, if Sport Climbing becomes a successful sport (likely). This should be communicated.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: steveri on July 17, 2023, 09:47:52 am
A couple of dumb generalisations: most climbers aren't in the BMC, most climbers don't climb outdoors much. A tiny number of primarily indoor climbers are interested in the BMC. This is a potential source for growth, if the BMC can offer them something tangible.

Indoor folk are probably more likely to identify with competitions, it's more like what they do. 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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on July 17, 2023, 10:04:25 am
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.

Not all BMC members have to be climbers- there are a lot of hill walkers who care about the environment and access to the mountains. I’d argue losing the running of comps still leaves a significant pool of potential BMC members.

Ideally, the BMC could do it all.  However, simultaneously being the representative and governing body looks like too difficult a balancing act at the moment. The question for me is: would the outdoor remit of the BMC be better supported if comps were split off?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 17, 2023, 10:30:38 am
There are advantages to having everything under one roof as the BMC is then held as the de facto leading climbing body by other organisations whether they be bodies like UK Sport or major landowners like the National Trust. That status carries clout.

More specifically a key facilitating role undertaken by the BMC is it’s a ‘one sport’ application to Sport England that combines applications for the ABC, Mountain Training etc. If GB Climbing totally split off (rather than say becomes an independent subsidiary with its own Board) that status would be undermined. It is also conceivable that GB Climbing over times becomes a bigger and more successful body and would usurp the BMC in this role and would be more successful at winning grant money for itself.

If the BMC get back on track with its priorities, financial control and transparency then all of the above might be averted. As things stand the emphasis by the Senior Leadership is very much more on GB Climbing and the Sporting bodies to the detriment of Access. That emphasis needs to change as it doesn’t reflect the wishes of the vast majority of members as proved by surveys.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on July 17, 2023, 11:11:07 am
… as proved by surveys.

Surveys prove nothing. Well conducted surveys may lend support to a position.

There are some interesting contrasts between the 2010 and 2017 surveys. I don’t think either were particularly well designed and both fairly poorly reported. Reading both together is helpful.

I am sure access is important to many (certainly more than comp climbing) - I’m not arguing about that. But when it comes to people actually handing over their cash, priorities often seem to change.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 17, 2023, 11:33:50 am
Ok ‘indicated’ then but sounds like a nit picking to me
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on July 18, 2023, 05:19:58 pm

New/Revised Statement:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/restructure-update-statement
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on July 18, 2023, 07:35:39 pm
It’s an improvement on the first statement but the English is terrible and the lack of clarity about why they have run over budget and exactly which roles have gone/will go is concerning. It still gives the impression that they do not want to be completely honest about this.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on July 18, 2023, 08:05:31 pm
I've got no problem with the English in that statement tbh. The odd occasion where a semi colon might have been better but don't see what the issue is?

On the whole a much improved statement. I think it was established that the fixed term contract of the Mend Our Mountains employee has not been renewed. I agree the central questions remain but whether a public statement is the appropriate forum for that I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on July 18, 2023, 08:47:28 pm
There are errors that need correcting but yeah, maybe I’m being harsh a bit harsh after the obfuscatory management speak of the  first statement. The statement is definitely an improvement but I’m still unclear what the total reduction in FTE will be in ACES. 0.3 + 0.4- but has 0.8 not gone already?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Dingdong on July 18, 2023, 10:36:23 pm
I’ve read william faulkner novels with more punctuation  :lol:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on July 18, 2023, 11:46:21 pm
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!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Dingdong on July 19, 2023, 07:43:33 am
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 realise I forgot to capitalise his name now aha. Though I think Faulkner is infinitely worse than McCarthy when it comes to it, having at one point the longest sentence in the world with 0 commas lol
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on July 19, 2023, 09:57:29 am
A long time ago, while recovering from a back injury, I sent a job application and cover letter for a part-time job proofreading. I received a polite letter informing me I hadn't got the job and that, if I was considering this as a career, I should more carefully proofread my cover letter/application before submitting as they contained typos.  :slap:


Thought the statement was 'ok'. Fair play to A.S. for making the effort to communicate. The telling part for me was his comments about GBC.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 19, 2023, 11:26:40 am
To his credit Paul Davies CEO attended the Peak Area in person last night and I quizzed him on two areas

Regarding the two members of staff who gone prior to the redundancy exercise. It turns out the Property Officer (Phil) is a flexible contractor who is part funded by the Land and Property Trust who is so flexible in fact that he has chosen to take the summer off and Paul expects him to re-commence his work in September. However, the Hillwalking Officer did have his contract terminated early and will not be replaced. They worked 4 days a week with 2 days devoted to fund raising and 2 days to project management and their responsibilities will be absorbed by other people in the Access team which represents a reduction in the headcount.

Secondly I pressed Paul for a figure on how much GB Climbing cost the BMC less grant funding and their other income. He refuted the figure of £530k and said that it was £180k. Quite frankly this stretched my credulity as in 2021 the cost was £327k and he had already confirmed that last years IFSC Ratho competition alone was an unsubsidised cost of £90k (budget £40-50k) and no such competition was held in 2021 not to mention the increase in staff numbers in 2022. However, he promised to provide a full breakdown of the figures in due course and at the end of the meeting reiterated that I could follow him up on that which of course I will and I now have his email address.

Howard J on UKC has pointed out that the £180k Paul stuck to is shown in the Financial Report, which is part of the Annual Report.  It is the difference between £0.96m GB Climbing costs (including expenditure related to the grant funding) and £0.780M income to support the activities of GB Climbing (including £0.421M funding from UK Sport and £0.166M funding from Sport England).  However he says it does not include the IFSC World Cup Ratho cost of £90k which is included under "Other Costs".  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. 

A final concerning piece of news was that they don’t intend to replace the Chief Financial Officer,
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on July 19, 2023, 01:23:49 pm
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.


Hmm… syntax and tenses… although (full disclosure) I’d just got back from climbing at 2 Tier with bruised ribs, which, it turns out, shouldn’t be the rehab of choice, nor does it make for the happiest frame of mind to post on the internet

Quote from:  the BMC
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.

Quote from:  a proof reader
Reading it critically (I give engineers a hard time over their written work for a living so I'm well practiced)

I take it you’re American?  :lol:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on July 19, 2023, 01:26:17 pm
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.

sounds like a nit picking to me  :P

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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on July 19, 2023, 01:33:15 pm

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
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on July 19, 2023, 01:40:03 pm
Not overspending on the comp budget in the first place. tbh

I’m sure shark will share the details of the BMC’s spending overall when he has them. Until then it’s not entirely clear how costs have fallen across different areas and what their budgets were.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 20, 2023, 11:34:17 am
Paul Davies the CEO has released an article rebutting most of the issues raised to date. I think this is going to set a bomb off in various quarters.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/ceo-qa 4 

Just focussing on the cost of GBClimbing he has confirmed that the £180k cost he cited at the Peak Area meeting is made up of £780k from UKS, SE, competition fees and sponsorship less a spend of £961k which is £180k.

However, this doesn’t include the £90k cost of hosting the World Cup at Ratho.

He goes on to confirm that if a share of office overheads are included than there is a further £81k to add. However, he doesn’t say what % this allocation is or what the overall overhead is - either figure would do to get a reality check.

Anyway in my book the net contribution of support by the BMC in 2022 towards supporting GBClimbing based on the figures disclosed so far is £341k.

This is more than the revised projected deficit for this year that led to the redundancies and is obviously far more than implied by a cursory look at the 2022 annual report.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on July 20, 2023, 11:49:25 am
341k appears to be more in line with 2021 and significantly more than the entire access spend in 2022 (274k) based on the infographic here:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/redundancies_deficits_and_direction_-_whats_happening_at_the_bmc-15275

Although the admin costs are so high that you wonder if all staff costs are somehow lumped in there or something weird? The whole spend structure looks very strange, at least to someone who only ever sees financials for consulting or manufacturing businesses). Are admin costs being that high normal for an organisation like this?

Anyway, doesn't hugely make comp climbing look good value for
money, especially when you consider that the athletes largely self fund both comps and the bulk of their coaching!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on July 20, 2023, 12:05:15 pm
Putting aside abarro's comments on the value for money of GB Climbing (I agree by the way!)

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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on July 20, 2023, 01:33:20 pm

Simon:

- You said redundancies, there was one (voluntary) redundancy? This may seem irrelevant but it implies a certain tone to your post.

Fair enough. My mistake. Please substitute “course corrections”

Quote
- 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".).

How they do things internally is up to them. How they present things to members is another matter. You wouldn’t need so many support and management staff if GBClimbing wasn’t there and the BMC scaled down accordingly. If we are to understand how much GBClimbing costs these very real costs should be included especially if there is to be a weighing up of the advantages and disadvantages of GB Climbing becoming an independent body where it would have to shoulder these support costs itself and the savings the rump of the BMC might make in doing so. If GBC were an independent subsid of the BMC there would be a management charge from the BMC for any shared support from HR, IT, Marketing etc they benefitted from.

Quote
- 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!

If GBClimbing were separate the BMC would not pay to host a World Cup. It’s ridiculous not to include it a GBC cost. The profile raised and sponsors gleaned will only be to the future benefit of GBC

Quote
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?

You’ve made your views about me abundantly clear more than once.

I’m relaying info in good faith when others are unwilling to do so. Typically those in charge aren’t disclosing things openly and transparently. My access to info is flawed but by putting stuff out there on SM provides an opportunity for those in charge to put the record straight as the CEO has attempted to do in todays Q&A.

Does it not occur to you that the cuts in access might have been more severe had there not been an outcry on social media? Impossible to prove either way but not beyond the realms of possibility.

My experiences in the past to solely get things done or glean facts off line through official BMC channels have not been great. Always time consuming and frustrating and usually fruitless.

What random figures are you alluding to? All those figures are drawn from the CEO’s Q&A article
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: northern yob on July 26, 2023, 09:53:40 am
I’ve been reading the threads on the other channel with interest on this, whilst I can’t bring myself to get involved over there, there are a few things I need to get off my chest… sorry.

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.

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.

Genuinely interested in what other think, these are basically opinions which might not stand up to much scrutiny (I certainly can’t face brining it up on Ukc)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on July 26, 2023, 06:06:16 pm
Being a good manager is not as easy as people think, either because they: don’t manage people; are bad managers; or, are very lucky and work for an organisation (or part thereof) which has lots of money/resources.

Changing the culture of an organisation is really not easy and takes time and money (resources) and will upset people.

The ORG’s recommendations are all reasonable but the ORG did not provide a plan of how to implement these changes (many/most of them are a bit “fluffy”), nor did they cost it up and provide a timeline.

The ORG recommendations were published in 2018, the new CEO was appointed mid-2021, there was a large disruption to BAU 2020-2022.  I don’t know him and have never met him but give the CEO some time.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on July 27, 2023, 10:33:54 am
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.

Cutting lose was the BMC 30 option.... ie no BMC involvement.

The costs of a BMC subsidiary would have been slightly higher, but financial control may have been better; the bureaucracy more complex and transparency should have been improved but not guaranteed to be; flexibility would have been reduced (harder to shift staff on something urgent); the liabilities would have been the same. Saying a subsidiary was a much better option than the internal department was always plain wrong, and swapping now is fraught with serious issues. Iain Whitehouse's posts on the UKC poll thread from a professional perspective are worth reading, as are Ian W's.

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's hard to say and we mustn't exaggerate, GB Climbing is not run so badly in many respects, but there are clear problems in some key areas: stakeholder communications in GB Climbing are well below where they should have been; there were some poor examples of financial control and planning in overseas competition; there were some welfare issues that shouldn't have happened; grassroots responsibilities havn't got significant attention. BMC management should stop being defensive, apologise, and fix things.

Cutting lose now is a childish response and would impact activity and jobs for work funded through SE and UKS (Andy Syme detailed the large grants across the BMC in the poll thread...a large proportion of posts are outside GB Climbing)

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?

The BMC has always been complex and within that it doesn't do too badly. I prefer to think of it the other way round to a conventional company: it's an organisation that helps facilitate and magnify volunteer efforts. It's not just ACES either: those volunteers include parents and others running youth comps. To do that it needs income and staff and governance structures and in my view the paid and volunteer roles are roughly in the right places.

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.

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.

It is indeed the responsibility of those at the top to sort things out. Too often staff have been unfairly singled out and criticised on forums for doing their job.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: northern yob on July 27, 2023, 10:45:28 am


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.


Ha ha said the government spokesperson….. I think your strengthening my analogy
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on July 27, 2023, 11:15:42 am
I chose to represent what the BMC is in my view, in it's widest sense, for BMC rock climbing members' interests (and those in the wider rock climbing community) in a significantly time consuming volunteer role on Council. I've constructively represented people and tried to improve things in imperfect bureaucracies all my working life, on top of my actual working role. Yes that position is incompatible with saying "everything is shit" on forums,  because it's not all shit, mostly just the opposite. That doesn't mean I think some important stuff doesn't need improving (and in fact, a few areas needed significant improvement quickly... some of which, better comms and more openess on costs, has already started to happen).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on July 27, 2023, 11:47:58 am
Political jargon-speaker creature.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on July 27, 2023, 01:42:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: northern yob on July 27, 2023, 02:24:39 pm
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.


Great question….. I’m not actually sure, which I get is fucked up!

Firstly as I’ve already mentioned I have a deep seated mistrust of organisations and authority and this undoubtedly drives the majority of my gripes.

The BMC has over the last 20yrs has become increasingly more inept with its running of comps and the team. I’ve seen really good people get involved with really good intentions and basically walk away due to frustrations with the way it is run. The fact that athletes are self funding to attend comps currently when 20yrs ago that wasn’t quite the case, yes it cost them but not like it does now! Speaks volumes. As the funding has increased the comps/team has consistently failed to be good enough and whilst it has improved in some ways it’s not enough. Don’t get me wrong they are trying but it’s not working and hasn’t been for more than 10yrs…. How much time do they need to get it right? When something is that wrong for that long it’s got to be down to the structure and the people at the top.

My experience of the insurance over the last decade has been that it’s got worse.

I’m maybe in the minority that think climbing should be being pushed from a participation point of view, I don’t see that happening( I know lots of people are against this)

I don’t see much about diversity and inclusivity , where exactly is the big push to increase this? (It should be happening at indoor walls where the bmc’s presence is non existent)

The only thing the bmc does for me is to represent me with regards access which is a huge thing and is only going to become more of an issue.

What do you think the bmc is doing for you? And is it doing it well?

I can’t get away from the feeling that bmc towers is like an old boys club where once you are in you can sit back and take an easy ride, this is undoubtedly not based on anything other than my fucked up distrust of organisations and probably not the case, but it’s something I can’t shake! It feels like the people that work there are more interested in justifying their steady job and nice salary than they are about getting things right. Which is a terrible thing to say, and hopefully not the case but that thought is always there…. It’s a problem with lots of big organisations I know.

I don’t have any answers! Comps and the team deserve better much much better. And despite everything, I know we need something representing us,but it feels like it’s a complete car crash which seems to just be getting worse.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on July 27, 2023, 03:01:07 pm
Thinking about a few of Northern Yob’s points…

I sold my wall last year and I’m no longer professionally involved in the climbing scene (first time since I was 16 that I’m not an instructor, guide or wall owner, feels odd).
Over the ten years I ran that wall and in the years before, that I ran/managed  (part time) club/base/sport centre walls; I tried repeatedly to get the BMC to engage with trying to recruit through the centre and never managed to get anything more constructive than their free “Have you tied in/warmed up” posters. When I was opening the bouldering centre, the “Walls officer” (or what ever his title was and we’ll skip his name) was so dismissive of my partner’s attempts to even get hold of some leaflets or info posters; we just gave up and made our own.
I remember thinking that GBC might finally change that, but nothing materialised.
They couldn’t even manage to keep the Youth Coach on a mailing list for comp dates.
He bought the wall, I’ll ask him how it’s going. I know he has a strong squad.
I strongly support the existence of the BMC and GBC, but as a user, never felt that it was “working”.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on July 27, 2023, 03:20:41 pm
Thanks for taking the time to answer!

I have no experience of the comp scene so have no idea on this. Interestingly, at the NW meeting last night there was a parent of someone in the current GB Climbing team and, though critical, was not as critical as I had imagined they would have been in light of some of the social media posts and rumours. (as an aside, all people willing to voice an opinion were in favour of keeping GB Climbing as part of the BMC, though all were critical of how it is being managed (in/c Roger, Chair of the BMC Board).

Insurance wise it seems as competitive as always (not the cheapest but with good cover), I have never claimed on it though, maybe it's awful.. Access wise they seem to be doing as well as they ever have.

Re participation, diversity and inclusion, I believe they are working on it. Having bumped into Paul, the CEO, at the Depot, we had a brief chat and a summary of what he said was "he really hoped what the BMC have in the pipeline appeals to and engages with the people he could see at the walls who had no idea who the BMC were". No idea what it is or whether it will work but the intent is there!

Re an old boys club, that may have been the case but doesn't feel like it anymore (and a reason why some on social media are so upset imho). There are lots of new faces, the CEO hasn't been in post long and the make up of the staff is no longer based on who climbed with who back in the day.

Personally, I'm on the Technical Committee and it has had a bit of a shake up in what we do, how we do it and how we budget, all for the better. The BMC feels like it's heading in the right direction to me, though with some (at times considerable) dumps in the road and with probably many more to come. Don't give up hope yet!



Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 17, 2023, 01:04:36 pm
Bit of an update:

- 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 rather than just online

- insurances sales have probably been hit hard due to issues that led to the web presence being hosted by their third party providers over the holiday season

- the report into the CCPG (oversight body of GBClimbing) has now been released to Members Council

- further investigations are being undertaken into unspecified incidents at GB Climbing

- the Director representing the Board on the CCPG has resigned and commented “ it is my belief that we have a fundamental problem with culture and attitude within GB Climbing” and adding “ I am just deeply ashamed that some of this happened on my watch and the more time went on I just appeared to be making a fool of myself starting off with “concerns” which later became sheer disbelief and frustration.”

- in an email to me the CEO has said he will publish a further Q&A that may include costs but didn’t commit to providing me with a full breakdown of costs for last year + budget for this year

- UKC similarly put a number of questions to the CEO on 7 Aug which haven’t yet been answered and have given him a deadline of Monday before publishing a further article about the BMC

- the next Members Council meeting isn’t until 7th October

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Fiend on August 17, 2023, 01:16:30 pm
Bit of an update:

- 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
Well that's gonna help my "reduced sarnie / reduced chips" diet at least.

Sounds like a bit of a  :shit: show to me??

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 17, 2023, 01:52:45 pm
Yeah it’s a struggle to make the Areas work at the best of times without undermining the already hard pressed organisers like this to save minimal amounts. It either signals the financial situation is awful or the Board see the local Area structure as of low importance. 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..
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 17, 2023, 01:56:45 pm
“Unspecified incidents” has a rather ominous tone. Is that your phrasing Simon, or the BMC’s?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: T_B on August 17, 2023, 02:11:36 pm
How many people typically attend the Peak Area meetings? I.e. how big a venue is required?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 17, 2023, 02:22:24 pm
How many people typically attend the Peak Area meetings? I.e. how big a venue is required?

40ish. I offered to try and find a free venue but sounds like they’ve got it covered.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: T_B on August 17, 2023, 02:24:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 17, 2023, 02:31:40 pm
“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 Group

Quote
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.

Also heard on the grapevine there has been recent cock ups with failing to make grant applications and entering people into the wrong competitions.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 17, 2023, 03:03:19 pm
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.

Nice one. Passed info on to the Chair
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: steveri on August 17, 2023, 06:48:35 pm
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..

An absolute bucketload of good stuff happens at local level. All this nonsense from above just serves to piss off all the unpaid people doing good work. The BMC would be half as effective without local people on the ground. No disrespect to staff on the payroll.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 24, 2023, 06:01:41 pm
Significant, well researched  article (https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/bmc_ceo_paul_davies_on_gb_climbing-15338) by Natalie Berry on UKC titled “BMC CEO Paul Davies on GB Climbing” which incorporates Paul’s response to a number of questions posed by Natalie.

Natalie was formerly on the British team and a couple of the “UKC Fact Checks” aka “You’re telling fibs” are startling.

Members Council are meeting tonight to discuss the proposal that has been produced in response to the damning internal report of the CCPG (GB Climbing oversight body) .
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 24, 2023, 10:02:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: remus on August 24, 2023, 10:43:36 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 24, 2023, 10:53:02 pm
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.

Excellent take.

Now, I can see you’re a discerning fella, perhaps you’d be interested in this bridge I can offer you? Really, it’s going for next to nothing… :tease:

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 25, 2023, 11:25:10 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 25, 2023, 11:32:10 am
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.

Not at all. My point has always been that I’m sure that the BMC has done some stupid sh1t but I’m against sensationalist reporting and I am for giving the relatively recently installed CEO a fair crack at resolving issues.

I think “UKC Fact Check” boxes were an unnecessarily confrontational way to present information which was of limited relevance (which, in any case, UKC should have allowed the BMC to respond to before publishing).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on August 25, 2023, 12:20:10 pm
‘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 

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 25, 2023, 12:42:50 pm
‘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

Interesting that the article to which you link, essentially, argues that the approach you reference does little to advance readers understanding.

You seem to have misunderstood what I found unnecessarily confrontational: the action of labelling the boxes “UKC Fact Check” and their tone was that they uncovered “a lie” which was not actually the case. Additionally, generally if you do uncover such things you give your correspondent a right to reply before publishing, this does not appear to have happened.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: remus on August 25, 2023, 01:04:38 pm
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.

If the contact details are wrong then it's out of date, no? As I said it's a pretty low bar to have this contact info readily available, and if it isn't then I think it does contribute to an overall picture of poor management.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on August 25, 2023, 05:59:53 pm
You seem to have misunderstood what I …..

Not really. I just don’t agree with you. Surprising as you may find it, it’s possible both to comprehend you and to still think you’re wrong.

The ‘fact checks’ don’t appear to me confrontational - it comes across to me more as unenamoured with the CEO’s attitude toward providing a members organisation’s members with information.

I mentioned ‘confrontational is a rational response to someone dodging giving answers’ because it is, and because dodging answering is what the BMC ceo appears to be doing.  I didn’t say I thought the piece *was* particularly confrontational. 
You might ask who’s the one really being confrontational in that situation by withholding information from members?

Nor do those fact checks appear to me to be designed to come across as ‘revealing lies’. They appear to be designed to flesh out the facts. In which case - as you say - why would a right of reply be required?

And what Remus said.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 26, 2023, 09:47:52 am
I am for giving the relatively recently installed CEO a fair crack at resolving issues.

Relatively recently installed? Relative to what?

Paul’s involvement with the BMC started 3.5 years ago as Vice Chair and Performance Sport Specialist of the CCPG. He was then hired as an Interim Executive to support the Senior Management and became Interim CEO in May 2021 which then became permanent so he has been in post over 2 years and the issues being highlighted have mainly happened during his watch.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 27, 2023, 06:50:05 am
Not really. I just don’t agree with you. Surprising as you may find it, it’s possible both to comprehend you and to still think you’re wrong.
[/quote]

Personally, I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to say I understood you Pete. It is well known there is no limit to human stupidity … and varying opinions. Is that not what fora are for?

I can appreciate that linking to a website that actually argues against a stance you think is appropriate would makes complete sense to some. And, we do not seem to be disagreeing about whether the interview was confrontational. Simply the degree to which it was confrontational and where or not that was a good thing.

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. There are very many organisations that do not publish any such policy (who knows if they even have one)? I don’t think it’s indicative of very much else. But that’s an opinion.

Again, an opinion, I don’t think 2 years and  3 months and a bit is that (relatively) long. Especially since there was COVID (and an Olympics).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: SA Chris on August 28, 2023, 09:50:17 am
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.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 28, 2023, 11:04:10 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 28, 2023, 11:12:10 am
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.

Ah, that’s all right then.

No point mentioning what is or could reasonably be considered, appropriate behaviour, policy and actions of a national governing body; regarding a significant matter involving the safety and protection of minors.

I’m sorry, however, you are a tit of the lowest order and your pedantry sickening in this matter.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 28, 2023, 11:21:45 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 28, 2023, 11:26:00 am
My word Old Man, what are you referring to? The point was the BMC manifestly did and does have a safeguarding policy.

I replied to SA’s post/statement which was slightly at a tangent to my point which was in response to Remus about a document on a website that wasn’t up to date, and its importance (or not)as indicator of an organisations competence (or otherwise).

Insults are cheap. Sticks and stones and all that…

(Edited to correct typos/grammar)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 28, 2023, 11:28:28 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 28, 2023, 12:06:11 pm
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.

Hmm. Rather my point… Your paraphrasing is rather more succinct. I do tend to the rambling, but you have summed your position and attitude far more economically than I did. My thanks.
I believe that there are questions pertaining to safeguarding issues and events, within the broader debate, aside from the inattention to details pertaining to reporting safeguarding issues?
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: webbo on August 28, 2023, 09:12:51 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 28, 2023, 09:31:54 pm
Are you for real, or do you not read what you post.

Not really, but then again, please, can you tell me what is real?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 28, 2023, 09:53:24 pm
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.

I think there is likely to be a lot of confusion all round if any organisation’s “authorised representative” is having regular contact with children. I think you may mean “staff and volunteers”?

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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Wellsy on August 29, 2023, 12:21:43 pm
This is not seeing the wood for the trees. Whatever technicality you want to drag up; the BMC is responsible for comps, including youth comps, and athlete development, including youth athletes

Having up to date and accurate safeguarding policies and contact information is therefore extremely important. 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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 29, 2023, 01:39:36 pm
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.

If you’d like to read what I’ve actually written and point to anywhere where I wrote any such thing I’d be much obliged.

If you only wish to repeat others’ misreading of my comments above then there’s little for me to address.

To recap, the UKC interview has
Quote from: UKC
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.

What I wrote:
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.

The relevant safeguarding legislation (in England) was made law in, err, 2014. (The Children and Families Act 2014 in case you wondered.) What a surprise.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Wellsy on August 29, 2023, 01:53:54 pm
You said that it can be old but not out of date. It is true. But it is out of date because it has as the safeguarding contact someone who isn't at the organisation any more. What if I,or anyone else, identified a potentially serious abuse which needed reporting, and emailed that person, and nobody read it and it never got a response? That would be a huge, disastrous breach of safeguarding which is hardly a far-fetched possibility. Bandy around the legislation all you want; safeguarding of youth sport is very important, the safeguarding contact on the Web being someone not with the organisation any more has the potential (not is, but has the potential) to be a very serious problem.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 29, 2023, 02:16:18 pm
I would have thought that laying out my quote in full would have made it simple enough for you to have read more than the first sentence but I’m guessing you’ve never had any experience of either raising or receiving a serious safeguarding complaint. Long may that continue to be the case.

For those reading who, similarly, have no idea about what you should do if you have a serious/immediate safeguarding concern:

My first piece of advice would be to use a telephone or speak to someone in person to ensure the concern has been understood and recorded.

To report a crime:
in an emergency, contact the police, call 999
if the person is not in immediate danger, contact the police, call 101

May you never have to report or receive any such issue.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Nails on August 29, 2023, 08:56:15 pm
Yes Tony, you should "use a telephone or speak to someone in person to ensure the concern has been understood and recorded". 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. So having those details correct is important. Simples!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 29, 2023, 09:55:34 pm
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?

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 29, 2023, 10:18:11 pm
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?

Sorry mate. It’s not a good sign. As someone above stated, it’s a pretty low bar and failing to clear it hints at a poor attitude.
All of this, everything mentioned, appears to point to a cluster fuck that has lost sight of it’s purpose.
Anyway, I’m not renewing.
I’ll still support through my club, but not take personal membership until it looks like an organisation I want to support.
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 “.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Nails on August 29, 2023, 10:25:47 pm
One last time Tony. "These are small, but the ones out there are far away". 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 29, 2023, 10:55:20 pm
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…)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Wellsy on August 29, 2023, 11:22:09 pm
If someone sends an email with safeguarding concerns to an email address that nobody uses then it could easily be missed and that's absolutely the case if the website contact details are out of date. That's a big oversight, and 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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: andy moles on August 30, 2023, 08:09:47 am
Lads. C'mon.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 30, 2023, 08:12:44 am
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…)

The point is, Tony, being “inside” no longer means anything.
Raising concerns simply elicits evasive and dismissive responses (much like yours here).
I don’t believe it is coincidence that F2F area meetings were sabotaged at a time when the organisation and management were facing strong criticism and membership push back. I think they tried to “mute” the debate.

The only defence of the BMC, either from them or in these discussions (both channels), amounts to “stop moaning, we know better” and a refusal to be open or honest.

If you read back over the last couple of pages here, you will note there is zero support for your position. Some of the people commenting have some experience of either drafting such safeguarding policies or running them whilst working with youth groups and other vulnerable groups. I owned and ran a climbing wall for eleven years, ran a Combined Cadet unit, helped set up and run the (then, for me) local  “Venture Scouts” (before they became Explorers, so things were different then). I’m not claiming expert status, by any measure, but not changing the name on the contact details?
Ran you reasoning passed my partner, who’s the Attendance Administrator at a local Comprehensive, who thought it just seemed whack and spoke to the Safeguarding lead, who thought it was “plain fucking stupid” (it’s summer holidays, this was over drinks) and petty (the reasoning to defend a glaring error). I mean, I’ve run my own websites for a couple of my businesses now and popping in to update the site (opening hours, prices etc) was never exactly hard. Even where the site was third party managed, an email to them would get the site changed within a couple of days at most.

Anyway, largely irrelevant, because:

The point is, either nobody noticed or nobody could be bothered.

Neither of which is indicative of anything good.

As “another nail in the coffin” it’s a straw too far for this camel’s spine.

That’s humour (ish). The entire thing is a shit show, if it wasn’t , there would have been clear, open and honest statements with unambiguous data released.

We got platitudes and obfuscation.

The only “power” left to me, are my feet, with which I shall vote, by leaving.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on August 30, 2023, 10:17:06 am
Is there any suggestion the BMC have failed at safeguarding young athletes in any way other than not listing the policy online? Because, whilst clearly suboptimal and avoidable, this is easily corrected and hardly seems worthy of the fire and brimstone on this thread.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 30, 2023, 11:46:07 am
“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 Group

Quote
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.

Also heard on the grapevine there has been recent cock ups with failing to make grant applications and entering people into the wrong competitions.

Yes, and on the BMC Watch FB page. It is how we ended up on this dead end.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on August 30, 2023, 11:55:16 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 30, 2023, 02:09:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on August 30, 2023, 02:18:15 pm

I’m reluctant to wade back into this, especially with the quality of the discourse but here goes…..

General

That UKC article was frustrating from both sides. From the BMC side, Paul doesn’t help himself! Some simpler, plain language and more open answers would be much appreciated. He is straight talking in real life so I’m baffled as to why he allows stuff like this to go out, making the BMC look decidedly shifty. Seems the BMC Comms strategy still need work! Form the UKC side, the “Fact check” boxes came across as particularly snidey and like Tony said, added very little/nothing to the article. I was disappointed that is was in writing and not as an interview as I think that would have been better for both sides.

The virtual only area meetings are also a real kick in the teeth for all the reasons mentioned here and on UKC. Hopefully they will roll back on this as they seem to imply.

Safeguarding

Policy: As I understood it, the safe guarding policy was not “9 Years out of date”, it was a valid document in every sense apart from a single incorrect e-mail. It is very poor that this was not updated and the weaselly excuses as to why it wasn’t sorted even worse, but not quite worth the furore on here imho. If you google “BMC Safeguarding” the first hit is this page https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-child-protection-information which has both the correct e-mail (safeguarding@thebmc.co.uk), the link to the reporting form and all the whistleblowing info.

Issues: I have only heard rumours of issues via internet hints and the BMC watch group. This differed from the feedback from the parents of comp kids at the last NW meeting (who were critical but supportive of GB Climbing) so I am passing judgement based on hearsay from actors’ whose motivations are unknown to me.

Conclusion


Reading all these threads are pretty depressing. As someone who volunteers for the BMC and has seen improvements in organisation and financial control, 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. It really feels like the BMC is actually heading in the right direction but I can see that getting derailed by another MONC style debacle.
I would also say the character assassinations levelled and Paul and to a degree Andy seems so misplaced. Knowing them both a little bit (thought he BMC), they are a long way from how they are portrayed.

Having said all the above, I have zero interaction with GB Climbing and I think there are a LOT of questions to be answered there, in both the internal GB Climbing management and processes, and the lack of control over GB Climbing exerted by the executive.

Not actually sure what I’m trying to say/add to the discourse but felt I had to post something………..
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on August 30, 2023, 02:26:56 pm
Agree with Galpinos; the discourse comes close to a kind of moral panic at times.


It’s from the statement of a resigning  BMC director. Not just rumours.

'Statement' is a bit much isn't it? Its a comment on a FB group. Frankly if theres stuff going on behind the scenes being investigated the responsible thing to do is say nothing, rather than stir rumours. Anyway...
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on August 30, 2023, 02:38:33 pm
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 - everyone I know who has any interaction with it seems to find it very frustrating and seems to have any vigour/focus in spite of the organisation rather than because of it (that includes staff, others in the coaching world, athletes... though of course it may just be selection bias in that people at the wall/crag tend to moan about things that are annoying them but not to bring up things that are going moderately ok)
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on August 30, 2023, 03:05:50 pm
I get the impression GB climbing might be much more dysfunctional than the other parts

I think you are probably right here which on one hand, at least means that the rest is potentially working ok/well but is getting caught in the crossfire, but on the other hand it is not good that the Executive have not got a grip of GB Climbing as failure and overspend in GB Climbing affects ALL of the BMCs activities.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 30, 2023, 04:10:21 pm
.
If you read back over the last couple of pages here, you will note there is zero support for your position.

I say Old Man, you’ve changed your tone a bit since talking about my
Blind obedience and trust unquestioning
.

I’ll just have to believe your middle class stories about chatting with an unnamed safeguarding lead over a Prosecco (plebs, eh?). Though quite what it was you related to them I don’t know. This was my main point (before SA made a random, somewhat inaccurate, statement):
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 30, 2023, 04:13:11 pm
The only “power” left to me, are my feet, with which I shall vote, by leaving.

That’s well and good but what are you actually seeking to achieve in exercising this power?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 30, 2023, 04:26:16 pm

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 defended nothing. I explained how these things [a published document ends up having the wrong name on it] come about.

I’m over the moon to have made such an impact on you that you can’t help but to interact with me despite your opinions. You’re not a stalker are you?!
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: lukeyboy on August 30, 2023, 05:14:01 pm
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.

Appreciate that it's not been the most respectful discussion from both sides at times.

I think galpinos gave a good and balanced appraisal.

My twopence is that regardless how significant you think the various issues cited are, they certainly are not helped by the lack of acknowledgement from the BMC side or the absence of effective communication. I'm a long time BMC member and it's sad to see it in this current mire.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 30, 2023, 05:30:30 pm
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.
As I said, being inside doesn’t mean anything anymore, I think the members have lost agency. I don’t like the way it is heading, I don’t believe the members have much control over that anymore and will have even less in the future.

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on August 30, 2023, 05:45:12 pm

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.

I'm not suggesting that he made up his concerns, more that I don't think 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, is necessarily the best forum in which to air them. It was never exactly going to be critically appraised on there. Anyway, as you say it is not the main issue.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: cheque on August 30, 2023, 06:08:25 pm
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:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 30, 2023, 06:10:08 pm
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.

Don’t fear Lukewarm, I’m sure Old Man recognised the reference to his post and is not the snowflake you think he is.

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 “.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 30, 2023, 06:18:28 pm
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.

For the third time Old Man, the “they” in my response to SA’s (inaccurate) statement references the “Any group” to which SA’s statement refers and which is quoted at the top of my reply.

Once again:
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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 30, 2023, 06:26:57 pm
Ignoring the fervent rambling, I think (it’s quite hard to tell) your response to my query

what are you actually seeking to achieve in exercising this power?

Is

I 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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on August 30, 2023, 06:40:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on August 30, 2023, 07:50:08 pm
Ignoring the fervent rambling, I think (it’s quite hard to tell) your response to my query

what are you actually seeking to achieve in exercising this power?

Is

I 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.

Eyeroll.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 30, 2023, 10:26:48 pm

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on August 30, 2023, 10:27:08 pm
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.

Cheque and Spidermonkey, you are spot on. I joined as it seemed to be an group of interested parties keen to ensure the BMC was the best it could be but increasingly feels like it’s full of people who claim it wasn’t like this back int’ day amd bemoan the loss of the old boys club.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: galpinos on August 30, 2023, 10:28:00 pm
Also, can we have a topic split so Tony and Matt can keep going at it without clogging this thread up?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: cheque on August 30, 2023, 11:32:04 pm

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.

Yeah, BMC Watch. I rejoined to find and screenshot it-

(https://i.ibb.co/4g8fJVp/IMG-4242.jpg)

I remembered it wrong though, it’s a reply to a post you made on the 8th of July about a report by BDO commissioned by the BMC. I was confusing it with another post from the 4th of February that had a thumbnail of BMC staff and was met with similarly OTT (but not quite as ridiculous) negative comments.

Your intentions in starting and posting in the group aren’t the unconstructive ones I was referring to and now I look at it again the blokes I was aren’t really initiating posts themselves, they’re mainly chiming in, Statler & Waldorf-style on the posts of others.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on August 31, 2023, 08:27:06 am
Thanks for clarification Mike,

Not sure about Ian Lonsdale but 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. Based on my own experiences and inside knowledge I am sympathetic. Politics innit.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on August 31, 2023, 02:49:27 pm
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.

Not really. Sounds much more like a pressure group with an axe to grind.

Wanting things done their way without taking on any of the responsibility for making the changes.

Nice work if you can get it…
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 01, 2023, 04:30:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on September 01, 2023, 05:21:10 pm
Finally, something of substance.

The pithy conclusion could be summarised as: GBC is badly run, the CCPG have failed to do anything at all, and the BMC Board has failed to hold the CCPG to account.

 :popcorn:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Duma on September 01, 2023, 06:18:59 pm
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/CCPGReview2022FinalReport_v1_b.pdf

Direct link to the report
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Duma on September 01, 2023, 06:23:43 pm
And the final paragraph Simon refers to above:
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: wasbeen on September 01, 2023, 09:43:47 pm
I spent/wasted a silly amount of time and had massive arguments with my wife and neglected my other daughter in order to support the "dream" of GB climbing with my other daughter from 7 years to 14.

On one side it gives me some comfort to see my hunch that things were not quite right in the wood shed validated. But generally I feel really sad for the number of kids/big-kids that haven't been adequately supported in their obsession.

P.s. I have drunk too much and will certainly regret this post in the morning.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 19, 2023, 12:05:39 pm
I’ve given up hope of receiving the promised breakdown of GB Climbing finances. Carl Spencer who was until recently a Director and the Board’s representative on CCPG says he repeatedly asked the same question and never received a straight answer so far chance of being getting one despite it being publicly promised by Paul Davies CEO.

Carl went on to say much more on BMC Watch that casts further light on what has been going on at GB Climbing that makes painful reading

Quote
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

And in answer to my question: “ I find it astonishing that as a Board Member that you weren’t able to access figures to understand the cost base of GB Climbing.
Was that unique or was the Board more generally kept in the dark about spending, commitments and operations?

Quote
  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….

Off the record I’ve heard there is further bad news on the way with BMC Finances.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on September 19, 2023, 12:27:47 pm
As I've sadi before those calculations on GB Climbing overheads are embarrassing. 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) but as the CEO promised a further breakdown he should arrange that.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 19, 2023, 01:25:09 pm
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).

What are you talking about? He didn’t give any numbers about GBC overheads at the meeting - he said he claimed he didn’t have the numbers to hand.

The only info he subsequently provided was an £81k share of the overheads and given that there were £1.3m of costs that means that GB soaked up less than 7% of that which beggars belief.


Also what do you mean by core overheads being removed the split allocated to teams? What allocated split? What do you mean by teams?

Show us your workings.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on September 19, 2023, 03:16:24 pm
What you copied was:

"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"

This analysis was said to me to be nonsense because it ignores core costs (buildings etc) that would be there irrespective of the new GBC staff.

So although I'm no expert, £81k didn’t "beggar belief" for the people I spoke to who know about such things. Fair attributed additional overheads would be additional overhead costs for the new extra staff not funded by the grants and not including any core costs. Until we know more details, any further breakdown is pretty pointless speculation.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 19, 2023, 03:35:22 pm
So why does the core costs have to be absorbed the rest of the BMC? It’s standard business practice to apportion costs of this type by headcount. If GBC staff left the building for example there would be an opportunity to downsize on the buildings costs. In grant applications  there would be provision for an overhead allocation.

As for “People who I spoke to who know about such things” 🤣

This is not a valid basis to shoot down anybody let alone the assumptions of a Director who was the Board rep on the CCPG.

Let’s have your figures if you know better or accept that your statement is “pointless speculation” as you put it.

An allocation of 7% of admin costs towards GBClimbing does not pass the smell test. Now there are 14 full time employees even more so.

The balance of how resources are deployed has to be fair and seen to be fair in a membership organisation representing multiple activities.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on September 19, 2023, 04:48:23 pm
It's not standard practice where grants or other income cover part of those costs differentially acrosss teams.

It's a free country so you can always insult my attempts to reality check statements by speaking to others who know more about such things, but I'll stand by what I heard about overhead allocations. Just as I did in in our discussion in what happened in ACES (where despite your catastrophising there are still 20% more FTEs now than in 2019).

I can't speak for why Carl wrote in that exact way (especially as an ex Director) but when he used it as an illustration on Council to say we must include a fair allocation of overheads in assessment of comparative expenditure he had pretty much full agreement on that point.

7% as a fraction of a minority cost (excluding core) with other complications like grant allocations really isn't unrealistic.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 19, 2023, 05:30:21 pm
According to Jonathan White £115k has it seems been used for some time by the BMC for grant applications for covering GBC’s contribution to overheads. Somewhat more than the £81k cited by Paul Davies. It is good to know that we are getting that as other NGB’s will but in terms of presenting figures to the members it should also be subtracted from the grant GB Climbing is said to receive (or at least 85% of it with maybe the 15% added back in) in terms of how much the BMC is paying for GBC. Still feel I’m just scratching the surface though.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 20, 2023, 05:55:40 pm
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


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on September 20, 2023, 10:15:50 pm
I presume he left before he was ousted, and/or he wanted to escape further scrutiny before yet more dirt hits the wall, as it appears it’s about to.

‘Because the commute was too arduous/too much time away from family’ - a throwaway line that screams to me ‘being CEO of the BMC was just another executive position and its membership structure/core values meant little’.

No mention of the current GB Climbing issues or any acknowledgment of the CEO’s part in them? PD undoubtedly must have had a significant hand in the current GBC situation - part of the reason for him being recruited was that he’s an ‘elite sporting body professional manager’.

Looks like a lack of transparency or personal accountability ‘till the end unless there’s another statement somewhere.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Wellsy on September 20, 2023, 10:49:57 pm
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


Pfffft how fucking stupid do they think people are
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on September 22, 2023, 01:31:31 pm
UKC article: Open Letter: GB Climbing Athletes & Parents cite 'Loss of Confidence' in Leadership (https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2023/09/open_letter_gb_climbing_athletes+parents_cite_loss_of_confidence_in_leadership-73446)

Content of letter:

Quote
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)

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on October 05, 2023, 01:50:25 pm
Apart from the BMC response to the open letter on UKC there has been no further communication from the BMC Board or any substantive action taken to my knowledge

Key points IMO

- The open letter expressed loss of confidence in the leadership of GB Climbing but the BMC response made no reference to, or defended the leadership
- The last of the “listening sessions” with the competitions community takes place tonight
- There is an NC meeting at the weekend with two Council nominated Director positions vacant. Andy Say has put his name forward
- The finances are reportedly in disarray. The Finance Committee has, I’m told, prepared a lengthy report.
- I understand the projected deficit has grown substantially but to what extent is unclear
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on October 06, 2023, 10:06:36 am
If BMC were a publicly listed company I'd be selling or shorting here.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 06, 2023, 02:13:13 pm
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 “?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: wasbeen on October 06, 2023, 02:25:09 pm
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? From what I have seen, when people suggest splitting off the comps side form the rest of the BMC it does not seem to have resounding approval. However, at the same time there does not seem to be realistic proposal for how it could work within, beyond just letting athletes getting on with competing and staying out the way as much as possible. 
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on October 07, 2023, 08:42:20 am
Maybe the BMC management of GB Climbing just needs to follow the governance processes it was supposed to in the first place (governance is the reason the CCPG exists and the failures are why they wrote such a critical report)? This starts with the necessity of good communication with athletes, parents etc. Ignoring repeated chances to resolve things is what leads to critical reports, that often move slower than they could (due to raising potential disciplinary or legal issues etc.).

It should be easy to 'steady the ship' just by following the processes. However, it still won't change the fact that a group of young athletes will have probably missed their best opportunities because of what happened (as pointed out by a 16 year old athlete at the AGM), plus the resolution of the 'mess' takes time and energy better used elsewhere.

Work on 'fixing things' started ages ago. Athletes, parents, etc tried informal routes (with a broadly unsatisfactory response), they then reported serious concerns to CCPG in 2022 and CCPG did their job, wrote the report and passed it up in 2022. Council became aware of these concerns in March 2023 and although understanding the reasons for delays were alarmed with the situation and have been pushing on responding as quickly as possible and on improvements in communications ever since (partly because most of the key information reached us from outside the formal governance routes).
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on October 07, 2023, 02:46:23 pm

It is clear that something is seriously broken. Do you have any thoughts on how to fix it?

Great question! 🤔

There is hopefully enough attention on this now from below and above to solve things short term assuming the Board does the sensible thing and starts by replacing the current Head of GB Climbing with someone competent.

However, it’s certainly worth considering whether the current governance and organisational structure needs changing for the long term.

The CCPG has been ineffective to date and needs beefing up in terms of frequency of meetings, more stakeholder representation (partners, athletes, parents) and power to enforce things and bring the Head of GBC to account. The financial transparency and discipline of having their own bank account seems like a no brainier rather than being muddled in with rest of the BMC Finances. Whether those measures are enough I guess we will have to see.

Overall the CCPG set up has an inherent weakness of being one step away from the Board. This has almost certainly contributed to the Board being less aware of what was happening at the coal face. This could be addressed by having the Head of GB Climbing on the Board - GB climbing is certainly big and ugly enough now to warrant it though it might make the relationship with the CEO awkward and the Board is already large. Probably worth quizzing comparable organisations on the pros and cons of their structures. I’m still intuitively in favour of an independent set up but there isn’t sufficient appetite for it.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Hydraulic Man on October 07, 2023, 09:45:45 pm
No disrespect but you need to stop commenting on these threads.

Maybe...It should...Working on things...

In the real world you'd be run off...

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Nails on October 08, 2023, 04:40:16 pm
Hydraulic Man:  I have no idea what you're actually trying to say here?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on October 08, 2023, 05:22:25 pm
Hydraulic Man:  I have no idea what you're actually trying to say here?

He’s responding to Offwidth’s apologism.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: wasbeen on October 09, 2023, 10:03:12 am
Thanks Offwidth and Shark for the replies.

I appreciate how much thought and work has gone into the policies and procedures (I had a good read through over the weekend). They are certainly an improvement from 3 or 4 years ago when I last looked at them in terms of the framework, selection and safeguarding. So I sympathize with your view Offwidth that if they were adhered to, it would solve a lot of the problems.

However, the current response (or lack of) appears to be completely misjudging the depth of feeling from those represented in the letter. My guess is that whatever the response is at this point it will not be received well, as the current perception among many is that the current GB set up is literally worse than useless and there is little confidence the set up can be salvaged.

My ignorant thoughts: Keep it simple; don't waste money; and make it a safe and fair environment for the athletes and a rewarding environment to volunteer.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on October 09, 2023, 10:59:15 am
Where such problems are not solved informally or by immediate process routes, those impacted don't stop caring and will just try other ways to highlight issues. When they collectively become so serious they become reports and open letters (with many signatures) something has clearly gone badly wrong. However anything involving Board level governance responses (as this does) takes time as the people doing the work are busy volunteers (with busy staff support) who have to deal with this in the context of other responsibilities to the organisation, especially the staff (pretty much all of whom are blameless). It's why robust communication/governance systems that resolve problems and don't hide them are so important. Processes are further complicated by the departure of the CEO.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on October 09, 2023, 11:36:38 am
The President just posted more detail on the other channel.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rock_talk/bmc_update_please-764634
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on October 09, 2023, 11:49:11 am
Andy Syme’s post on UKC disclosed publicly for the first time that there has been a budgeting error but the BMC’s finances are “fundamentally ok”.

I’m led to believe that this budgeting error is substantial (£100k+) and came about from double counting grant income by GBClimbing.

Quote
“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'.”

I’m waiting for his response to my further questions on how the finances stand in relation to the reserves policy and whether the Board has confidence in GBClimbing leadership.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on October 09, 2023, 12:06:25 pm
Processes are further complicated by the departure of the CEO.

While he is no longer a Director I am led to believe he is still working till the end of the month
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 01, 2023, 09:45:55 am
So there was a bit of an update last Thursday in a newly launched monthly update article (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/october-update?s=5) which is intended to work alongside the email newsletter.

The most pressing issues IMO are the Finances and GBClimbing.

Re Finances on top of the BMC issues of income not meeting budget it turned out there was a big error in the budget in terms of how much money was available. My understanding is this came from
double counting grant income and is in excess of £100k but this hasn’t been confirmed or denied. Andy Syme disclosed publicly about the error on 9 Oct on UKC. The Board was aware of it well before that date (they must have been because I was) I don’t know who got the sums wrong in the first place or how the budget got past the CFO, the CEO, FAC, the Board and MC without being picked up.

The newsletter had this to say

Quote
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;"

This is literally no information in the update on the cause or magnitude of the mistake.

It does not reflect well that after 3 weeks the extent and impact of the mistake hasn’t been fully evaluated and does not give confidence that the Board is in control of the finances generally or they know perfectly well and don’t want to tell us.

Re GB Climbing the comps community is still waiting on action or otherwise regarding their declaration of no confidence in the leadership of GB Climbing

The newsletter had this to say

Quote
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.

So presumably after the 1 Nov we will know whether the Board backs or sacks the ‘leadership’. I can’t see any kind of credible alternative fudge here.

If the Board backs the ‘leadership’ then the comps community then has to put up or shut up by collectively deciding whether to garner enough votes to force an EGM to have a targeted motion to force the leadership or alternatively even the whole Board out.

The advert (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/recruitment) is also out for a new CEO. You don’t need to be a climber to apply. There’s a focus on financial acumen, handling governance complexities and negotiating ability. Deadline for applications is the 13 Nov. Here’s hoping for a good ‘un 🤞

There are two new Members Council reps voted to the Board: Trevor Smith and Andy Say. Andy is an interesting addition. Currently NW Area Chair (I think) and presented an alternative constitution to the BMC one which gave the Board primacy. He might provide some challenge to any prevailing groupthink. Fiona Sanders has also resigned to join Mountain Training as their Chair. She was from Members Council so presumably that creates a vacancy.

Finally the Governance Officer Lucy Valerio who acted as Company Secretary has left and again an advert is out for her replacement

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: steveri on November 01, 2023, 06:46:57 pm
Small point, Andy Say is NW Members Council Rep rather than Chair, strikes me as a good egg.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: stone on November 01, 2023, 08:06:02 pm
I know almost nothing about competition climbing nor competitive sport in general. I'm not expressing an opinion here. I'm just trying to understand the situation.

I wondered whether there could be a mismatch between running the elite team in a way that pleases most athletes whilst meeting the UK olympic sport ethos of 100% focussing on medal contenders? I mean that is what governing bodies of UK olympic sports are supposed to do isn't it? Aren't top-20 athletes just supposed to go recreational and not distract from those likely to get an olympic medal?

Am I totally misunderstanding this?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Wil on November 01, 2023, 08:24:36 pm
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:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: stone on November 01, 2023, 09:24:25 pm
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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on November 01, 2023, 09:52:14 pm
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:

Quote
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.

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?
Quote
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.

Communications from the BMC seem muddled. Perhaps that reflects the clarity of thinking that lies behind them.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: tk421a on November 01, 2023, 10:26:56 pm
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?

I may be wrong, but I think one point was they could've let more go, and register them for the comp. And given that the athletes mostly self fund, there would be little / no cost to GB Climbing / sport England funding.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 01, 2023, 11:30:12 pm

Quote
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.

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.

I don’t know for sure how many staff are now employed directly by and fit GBClimbing but IIRC it is in the region of 14!  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.

In the process GBClimbing seem to have lost sight of the simple fact that for athletes an essential part of success at competitions is getting competition experience. Restricting numbers attending comps gets in the way of that and also not funding athletes to attend comps gets in the way of that, typically restricting participation to better off parents. Yes do all the fancy expensive structural stuff when you’ve got money to burn and the basics are already cemented in place, but not before.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: stone on November 02, 2023, 06:44:14 am
Can't widespread competition experience be gained by having comp-style route setters etc putting on lots of local comps all around the UK?

To me (as an ignorant non-participant), that seems more likely to discover a potential talent than sending a large team of not-quite-top-level athletes to international comps.

Do cycling/athletics/etc send athletes who have no hope of a medal to international comps? I'd imagine that it isn't just about funding but also about team focus, organisational bandwidth, etc.

I saw a TV program about the 2012 Jamacan sprinting  team. It said that the key to success for Jamaican sprinting was the inter-high-school comps in Jamaica. It was about huge numbers trying very hard and then a tiny number picked from that going to international comps.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: webbo on November 02, 2023, 07:42:11 am
British cycling used to send young riders to championships where they had little chance of a medal so they could experience bigger fields, longer and harder races.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: wasbeen on November 02, 2023, 08:15:52 am
To compete internationally over a full season is in the region of £10-20k, even in the junior ranks. This is almost all self/parent funded. In practice, the most successful will be paying multiplies of this once you take into account coaching costs, parents attending comps etc.

In effect the best UK comp climbers are the best upper middle class (and above) climbers. This is the approach that British tennis has taken, which also has a reputation of being very inefficient at turning money into top players, with the best often achieving despite/outside the system.

I am convinced that an approach which widens the selection pool by reducing competition costs (e.g. a stronger domestic scene). With a reduced number competing internationally but with more financial support would be infinitely more successful.

It is also worth noting that those who signed that letter were climbers/parents currently within the GB system. Those who are asking for more opportunities to compete internationally presumably are those that can afford it. The ones who slipped away enroute are not represented.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: stone on November 02, 2023, 08:34:44 am
I guess that there are (at least) two strands to this.

One is about upset at not sending lots of athletes to international comps. On that my impression is that perhaps it is a needed change for team GB to only send medal contenders whilst strengthening/widening local competitions.

The other issue is about BMC not being transparent and trying to evade accountability. I think Shark is absolutely right to be  vigilant in calling that out and trying to sort it out. With any bureaucracy there is always a gravitational pull towards being self-serving and degenerating into just being buildings full of staff who spend all day sending one another emails strategising on warding off criticism. The only way to prevent that is with transparency and accountability. Any hint of that faltering needs to be dealt with very promptly indeed IMO.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on November 02, 2023, 09:11:42 am

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.


Thanks for your thoughts. The picture is unclear, but looks like just like you say. To be effective it’s essential to set clear aims, both with participation and podiums, and have structures and strategies to build incrementally towards them. The obvious explanation for unclear messaging is that it reflects unclear thinking behind it, with no will to engage transparently. It looks like GB Climbing first and foremost needs to decide what it’s for and recognise a duty to be accountable for its operations.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Tony S on November 02, 2023, 11:11:21 am
Furthermore it is a strategy that has been implemented by stealth.

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Teaboy on November 02, 2023, 12:20:17 pm

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 02, 2023, 08:36:40 pm
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.

The fact that the BMC has included an estimate of GBC’s shared costs (£115k) in the grant bid has only recently became more widely known. It makes a mockery of Paul Davies’ claim that the BMC never looked at GBC’s share of the admin costs. My assumption is that this has been treated as belonging to GBC rather than the BMC as the share of admin costs has been treated as an already sunk cost. My view is that this chunk of money (presumably 85% of £115k) isn’t for GBC to spend on its running costs but my assumption is the same as yours (based on the way the headline figures are presented in the annual report) that this has been the case, and probably for a number of years and another aspect that hides the real cost of GBC from the membership.

I don’t know whether this is the portion of grant money that has been double counted leading to the “budget error” - the cause and magnitude of which is still not public.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 02, 2023, 08:51:03 pm

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.

Well it is a strategy that a (former!) sporting body CEO might deploy to then be able to demonstrate to future employers how effective he was in bringing in huge amounts of grant money and professionalising and developing a fledgling Olympic sport
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 17, 2023, 05:01:23 pm
The Board met on the 1st November and Members Council met on Tuesday. As yet no further public communication regarding the budgeting error or the Board’s response to the “listening sessions” with the comps community which no doubt will have reinstated their no confidence in the leadership of GBClimbing.

Andy Say (recently appointed BMC Director) did have this to say on BMC Watch:

Quote
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

To my knowledge the Board has not communicated with the comps community either about their intentions. Regarding the budgeting error from snippets I’ve picked up the ‘error’ could be in excess of £200k 🤯 If so this is scandalous and up there with Rheged and the Climb Britain rebrand as the the BMC’s biggest gaffs. Needless to say ‘course corrections’ (aka cuts) coming down the track will be substantial.

Who knows where this leaves the reserve at the end of the year but presumably significantly diminished. Fortunately the BMCs conservative policy of not forward booking Members subs should give sufficient breathing space to put the cost base back on a sustainable footing.

I’m told there have been 42 applications for the CEO role with shortlisted interviews due to take place. Before anyone asks I’m not one of them. Quite an agenda for him or her when they start.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on November 24, 2023, 09:54:39 pm
November update out.

GBClimbing. Leadership issue swerved.

Quote
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.

Finances. Scale of monumental budgetary error confirmed. Blame not apportioned.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 07, 2023, 02:15:06 pm
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”
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 09, 2023, 11:27:14 am
Following the letter of no confidence (https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2023/09/open_letter_gb_climbing_athletes+parents_cite_loss_of_confidence_in_leadership-73446) from the Comps community and the subsequent “listening sessions” the response from the Board appears to have been nothing.

Carl Spencer, the former BMC Director who represented the Board on the CCPG (oversight body of GBClimbing), has spoken out on BMC Watch (http://📸 Look at this post on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/share/wVMCzW3uBX63N4Uo/?mibextid=K35XfP)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 09, 2023, 06:34:28 pm
And…

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on December 10, 2023, 09:47:09 am
Charlie Munger died this week: ‘Show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcomes’.

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: stone on December 10, 2023, 01:46:03 pm
Charlie Munger died this week: ‘Show me the incentives and I’ll show you the outcomes’.

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.
Some sports bodies thrive with UK Sport funding don't they?
Are the incentives for GB Climbing different from those for cycling or swimming or whatever?
I am fully ignorant of all of this and keen to hear views about it.

I Googled and this blurb gives the impression that Sport England funding is for pretty much the whole scope of what the BMC might do. Apparently it is about facilitating everyone and anyone to adopt a more active lifestyle. https://www.thebmc.co.uk/sport-england-confirms-funding-bmc
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 10, 2023, 04:41:45 pm
There are two bodies namely Sport England and UK Sport.

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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: stone on December 10, 2023, 04:50:41 pm
There are two bodies namely Sport England and UK Sport.

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.
Sorry and thanks for the explainer.
But I'm still puzzled as to how this incentivises BMC dysfunction in running competition climbing etc
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 10, 2023, 06:00:48 pm
Good point. I’ll ask Carl
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: stone on December 10, 2023, 06:47:37 pm
Good point. I’ll ask Carl
PeteJH here was saying the incentives caused the situation.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 10, 2023, 09:22:25 pm
Oh yes. Best let Pete answer it
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 14, 2023, 10:31:49 am
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”

My summary of last night’s ‘open forum’:

There was a 100 in attendance and we were told a 100 questions sent in in advance. It was less ‘open’ than past open  forums as only the Directors were allowed to speak - the attendees were muted throughout and you couldn’t see who the other attendees where. Even the chat function was disabled. Questions could be sent in by attendees during the course of the meeting but only the Directors could see those questions. A lot of what was said by the Directors was scripted. The whole setup seemed somewhat over controlling to me and disengaging being talked at like this to say the least. Hopefully future forums will improve on this.

Three Directors spoke namely Andy Syme (President) Roger Murray (Chair) and Martin Hurn (Nominated Director). Of the three Roger was by far the most engaging and least scripted.

Andy Syme spoke the most. It wasn’t helped that his audio set up was echoey and picked up whispering of others in the room. The content largely reiterated what had already been sent out in updates so was superfluous and time could have been used better elsewhere. The lengthy listing of competition successes would be a complete turn-off to an attendee who had no interest in this facet of climbing and reinforced the notion that rather too much of the BMC’s attention was in this area.

Roger addressed my question at length (which I’m sure had been posed by others) on the £200k+ budgeting error. How this came about has obviously been looked at in great detail. The description of the UK Sport funding (which is markedly  different, more complex, more constrained and contractually obscure than Sport England funding that the BMC is more familiar with) was illuminating. Despite his comforting bedside manner the more I have subsequently thought about his answer on this the less reassured I am and don’t feel the full story is known or has been relayed.

WRT to the former Head of Finance Roger said she resigned having implemented a new Sage system which he describes as great success believing that she had left the BMC finances in a steady state unaware of the £200k+ inclusion of non existent grant funding.

In terms of the deficit for the year Roger says this is now likely to be £300-350k as opposed to the £250-300k cited in the November update which was published only three weeks ago! He says he has been assured by Ian Dickinson the Head if the Finance Committee that the reserve limit of £500k won’t be breached this year. On this note I have heard rumours that some spending that truly belongs in this year is being pushed into next year maybe to avoid this breach. If true that is disappointing as it is another example of a dishonest accounting sleight of hand putting wool over the eyes of the membership.

Martin Hurn held forth on the GBClimbing issues. He seemed irked by claims that the Board was seemingly not doing anything and went on to explain what they had been doing. I’ll leave it to others closer to GBC to comment on how satisfied they were with the answer. The no confidence letter was mentioned but the leadership issue was not in anyway addressed. They have a consultant (Jo Coates?) described as a force of nature working with GBC and are waiting on her report which rather sounds like a stalling tactic given the amount of info already supplied by the CCPG report and listening sessions.

The CEO recruitment is down to two candidates who Roger was clearly excited about as he described them as fantastic with either capable of doing the job and doing it well albeit both would approach the role in very different ways.

There was passing mention of a restructure in the new year. No doubt this would be led by the new CEO.

The Open Forum has worked well previously and I was disappointed it wasn’t continued. The intention is to continue it now and I hope that becomes embedded this time. The dates for the next ones are 13 Mar, 22 May, 11 Sept and 11 Dec - some possibly to be held in person. There should be a survey sent to attendees to provide feedback which is also a welcome initiative.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on December 14, 2023, 11:47:31 am
Thanks Shark, your efforts to inform on this are very much appreciated.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Teaboy on December 14, 2023, 11:58:30 am

How this came about has obviously been looked at in great detail.

So how did it come about?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 14, 2023, 12:17:26 pm
Thanks Shark, your efforts to inform on this are very much appreciated.

Thanks Jon.

Carl Spencer has set down a more robust (for want of a better word) summary on BMC Watch

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: SA Chris on December 14, 2023, 01:26:49 pm
Thanks Shark, interesting stuff, just checking MONC =?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 14, 2023, 01:45:19 pm
Thanks Shark, interesting stuff, just checking MONC =?

Motion of No Confidence. There was one tabled at the  2017 AGM by Bob Pettigrew (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-agenda--motion). If it had been passed the expectation is that the entire Board steps down so if something like that is tabled it’s enormously disruptive and the Boards energies will be focussed for weeks on dealing and refuting it.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: SA Chris on December 14, 2023, 03:31:04 pm
Thanks, should have known.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 14, 2023, 05:33:22 pm

How this came about has obviously been looked at in great detail.

So how did it come about?

He didn’t specifically say but painted a picture of the confusion and misunderstandings that surrounding the UK Sport grant.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 14, 2023, 08:31:23 pm
UKC have published a report of the meeting:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2023/12/bmc_open_forum_meeting_december_2023_-_report-73556P
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 22, 2023, 01:39:20 pm
https://thebmc.co.uk/bmc-appoint-new-ceo

Paul Ratcliffe is the new CEO. Currently CCPG Chair so has taken the same route in to the BMC and has same type of background as Paul Davies.

He says: “I now intend to lead this wonderful organisation with those same core values and with my philosophy of putting members right at the heart of the BMC.”


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: teestub on December 22, 2023, 03:17:35 pm
Hopefully all that marathon experience will transfer to climbing
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Davo on December 22, 2023, 05:02:46 pm
He seems well qualified but from the blurb on the BMC I don’t actually see that he has much climbing and mountaineering experience. Personally I would prefer to see someone leading the BMC who is a lifelong climber and mountaineer and who likely has the same values or thoughts about climbing, mountaineering, hill walking, sport climbing and comp climbing as myself.
However I can see that this is clearly difficult to achieve
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on December 22, 2023, 05:05:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Davo on December 22, 2023, 05:15:33 pm
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!

However, for arguments sake: I think specialist/niche organisations should have at the head of them people who believe strongly in the values of that organization and who have spent a long time learning why the activity (ies) the organisation governs matters so much to its members. I think without this inherent buy in from the person at the top the organisation can end up making decisions that look perfectly respectable financially (and to outsiders) but are inherently against the wishes and interests of the members.
I do take your point that it’s hard to find someone…
Maybe yourself SpiderMonkey??
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 22, 2023, 06:06:14 pm
I would also prefer it if I identified them as a proper climber as they would better understand and have the interests of climbers at heart.

Additionally if they identified themselves primarily as a climber they would have more ‘skin in the game’ compared to someone who was primarily motivated by their career.

I also noted that he doesn’t appear to have run an organisation before (large or small) and this looks to be a step up. It would be less risky to have someone who has already been the CEO or head of an organisation.

I hope he has what it takes.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on December 22, 2023, 06:37:27 pm
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 and it could extremely quickly become a case of "jobs for the boys." I think this is an accusation you could level with some fairness at the BMC in the past as well.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Will Hunt on December 22, 2023, 06:44:21 pm
I hope he has what it takes.

I've got £10 saying that all the people who currently spend every waking hour moaning about the BMC will still be moaning about it a year hence.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Nails on December 22, 2023, 06:56:54 pm
 Personally I feel that the fundamental question concerning the BMC is whether it's a membership organisation that is largely focussed on the concerns of its members ( access, safety, training, guidebooks, certification etc) or is it focussed on elite sport. It seems hard for it to fulfill both roles. I think this is the main lesson from the whole GB Climbing thing. The new CEO looks very elite focussed. Hopefully he'll be great, but elite goals and membership goals strike me as pulling in different directions. I think it needs two separate organisations.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 22, 2023, 07:03:37 pm
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

It was not a requirement but a preference to have sporting body experience. Sporting bodies are quasi public sector which is not a great breeding ground for financial, commercial or visionary acumen.

A climber who has run a commercial organisation should transition well. There are 80000 BMC members and many more climbers who are non-members. It’s a reasonable pool to fish in and a sizeable minority would fit the bill. Quite a few volunteers with inside knowledge of the BMC are, or have been, senior managers. Anyway what’s done is done.

I hope he proves to be an excellent CEO and climbers are happy that the organisation is batting primarily for them and not itself, it’s employees, Sport England and UKSport. He says he wants to put members first which is a good start.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: spidermonkey09 on December 22, 2023, 07:11:39 pm
All true, I guess it would be interesting to know how many of the 40 candidate who applied came from within the membership.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Neil F on December 22, 2023, 09:19:58 pm
They really couldn’t find a credible climber for this crucial role…    :shrug:

Staggered…  :wall:
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: stone on December 22, 2023, 09:39:02 pm
Canoeing seems like a great background to have someone come in from because that's a successful GB olympic sport that also has an adventure/recreational/wilderness/access side to it.

I guess the problem with having a climber is that they wouldn't have experience of managing an olympic talent pathway.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on December 22, 2023, 11:03:00 pm
I guess the problem with having a climber is that they wouldn't have experience of mis-managing an olympic talent pathway.

FTFY
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: stone on December 23, 2023, 06:33:57 am
Was/is canoeing a mess?

They do quite well in competitions don't they? eg https://www.teamgb.com/article/team-gb-announces-slalom-athletes-selected-for-paris-2024/58vJY7mXtUXsSX2mWfy8Zr
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: petejh on December 23, 2023, 09:51:15 am
Interested to read he has a background in commodities trading. Hopefully he'll be well-equipped to get a grip on the BMC's finances.

Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 21, 2024, 09:28:43 am
Although poorly publicised last nights open forum was a vast improvement in openness than the previous one on the 11 Dec in terms of both the set up (able to interact with the Directors and use the chat function) and also the level of detail of financial information presented by Paul Ratcliffe which is a strong indication that there will be an improvement in openness and transparency to ordinary members going forward

The current public estimate for the 2023 deficit/loss has now moved up to £397,000 up from the £250-300k cited by Roger Murray, the Chair at the last meeting. Another blow to this years finances is that the cost of liability insurance is rising from £591k to £855k

Since I last posted the Board unilaterally announced that the AGM is to be online only. The articles state they are meant to consult with Members Council so that qualifies as a collective breach of the Directors Code of Conduct and leaves that decision open to legal challenge.

The AGM announcement is here (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-annual-general-meeting)

This week Lorraine Brown the Head of GB Climbing resigned (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/lorraine-brown-to-step-down-as-head-of-performance-gb-climbing) which follows on from Tom Greenall the Head Coach resigning (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/tom-greenall-to-step-down-as-head-coach-olympic-gb-climbing)

Andy Syme the President is not standing for re-election. I’m not aware of anyone who is intending to put themselves forward. Roger Murray the Chair’s term in office expires in September, I think.


Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: T_B on March 21, 2024, 11:13:27 am
No mention of the Open Forum in their February update email. I would have attended if I’d known about it.

I’m not surprised by the increase in Liability Insurance premium.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on March 22, 2024, 10:18:59 pm

The current public estimate for the 2023 deficit/loss has now moved up to £397,000


Yet again not a number I've seen, I'll only believe it when Council are informed of a change to the number we were given a few weeks ago.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 23, 2024, 11:30:00 am
That was taken from the Open Forum (weren’t you on it?) where I asked Paul Ratcliffe if the £250-300k deficit estimate given by Roger at the previous open forum still stood.

Paul Ratcliffe said it was broadly right but then went on to say £147k was from GB Climbing 50k from the insurance debacle and another £200k from elsewhere. I asked on what and he said restructuring. I started to question that and pointed out that adding up those three figures came to £397k. 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.

However, the figure also chimes closely with what other insiders have said about the scale of the deficit though they have calculated it in different ways.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on March 23, 2024, 12:40:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 23, 2024, 02:48:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: abarro81 on March 23, 2024, 03:44:45 pm
. 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.

Sounds like a very "open" forum 😂🤦‍♂️
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 23, 2024, 04:25:09 pm
He had always come across to me as a cuddly uncle type figure before but reportedly he lost it even more colourfully at an MC meeting having at the start of the meeting emphasised that everyone should treat each other with courtesy and respect…

Although out of order he has worked ridiculously hard and been under a lot of pressure.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on March 24, 2024, 01:15:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Davo on March 24, 2024, 09:00:13 am
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
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: shark on March 24, 2024, 09:23:15 am
Hi Dave

Yes would be nice to keep everyone in the same big tent as long as no one monopolises an unfair share of the space inside.

It’s already the case that the Board doesn’t understand competitions because the Board members don’t come from that background and each new member has to go on a crash course on everything involved ie selection rules and procedures, appeals, safeguarding, distribution and application of UKS and SE grants, IFSC Red S policy etc etc. The attempt to manage it by outsourcing to a sub board (the CCPG) and recruiting and trusting professionals from other sporting bodies has backfired spectacularly.

The subsidiary option is a compromise to provide some distance accountability and transparency. I’d much prefer if it was entirely independent. Do we really want the hassle, stress, distraction and expense of running an NGB especially when the Board for the most do not have the experience or genuine interest. For an insight into the difficulties at an NGB check this out: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2024/mar/14/swim-englands-toxic-culture-must-go-it-is-time-for-sport-to-prioritise-joy
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Offwidth on March 24, 2024, 09:35:59 am

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.


I support the sense of the petition, just not the misrepresentation in the background (so can't sign it). In fact I've been urging more openness since I joined Council in 2021.



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

It's more than that it's a very expensive mistaken proposal at a time when we need focus on other serious and urgent issues that need fixing.
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: mrjonathanr on March 24, 2024, 12:27:01 pm
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?
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Davo on March 24, 2024, 01:23:25 pm
Hi Simon

Thanks for the reply. To be fair I don’t exactly disagree with anything you have said it’s just I don’t like your solution!

I am not that bothered about the cost and time to the BMC of altering its structures as it is a member organisation and if the membership wish for change so be it.

My main concern is that I really don’t like the idea of segregating one part of what I personally consider the climbing and mountaineering world. I fear that the BMC and by inference climbers in general will lose influence in national discussions. I also fear that by leaving competition climbing to its own that both the comp climbing community and the usual climbing community will become divorced from each other. I understand that there is already a gulf between the two worlds but I am a climber and mountaineer who genuinely enjoys watching the comp climbing and finds it very inspiring (if a little hard to relate to). I also do the odd local casual comp and get my son to do the same. If it turns out he is any good at comps I think it would be great if he could do national comps etc and I don’t see a reason why we wouldn’t want national and elite comps to be governed and run by the BMC. As such I want the two worlds to stay under the same governing and representative body.

Personally I see this as a problem of management and personnel within the BMC and not so much a structural issue. If the board could get a few more people on it that had at least an interest in comp climbing I think this would help.

Anyway, I applaud your efforts here Simon. Maybe you should join the board of the BMC??

Cheers Dave
Title: Re: Changing the BMC
Post by: Oldmanmatt on March 24, 2024, 01:32:13 pm
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?

This.
With knobs on.

You really don’t need to know much more than the number of resignations and see the volume of chatter, to develop a cautious attitude to the BMC as an organisation. If we’d been presented with this kind of stuff, during due diligence, prior to entering into business with another party, I’m certain my entire board would have declined to proceed.
I hate corporate jargon, but the “optics” of this, uh, suck big ones.

I think Simon is absolutely correct to be miffed and every “explanation” (official or otherwise) I’ve read has seemed hollow and insincere. In my opinion, with what seems like obfuscation and certainty incoherent, messaging from the body, it’s starting feel like something other than “mistakes”.
Why can’t it be laid out clearly and decisively? Mistakes happen. Lay it out and state what will be done to avoid it in the future. Did I miss that? Has it been done?
Nobody outside the inner sanctum can really say what’s happened, how bad it is or see what’s to be done and “better than it could have been” doesn’t help. Where I’ve read the opinions of “insiders”, who appear to have broken ranks with the sanctum, they are universally negative and appear accusational (but guarded) of something deeper and darker.
FFS, clear it up.
Or would that be the end of the BMC? 
It can’t be that bad, surely?
It was a massive undertaking and huge culture change, nobody should be surprised by even quite large screw ups.
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal