1

get involved: access, environment, BMC / Re: BMC Resolutions shout out 📣

« Last post by Dac on Today at 08:36:41 am »

I too am very disappointed with the BMC’s responses and communications throughout this whole process. For what I had thought to be an organisation that represented the interests of its members it appears intent on maintaining a very condescending ‘we know best’ attitude.

2 things continue to confuse me:

If the BMC response to 1st proposal is in essence “well we’ll be doing this anyway”, then why has so much time and effort been put into opposing it? (I am aware the response will be “ we’ve done everything to support, ect, ect” but that is not how it appears.) The BMC could have gone, yup 25 names easily, we’ll talk about that one, rather than complaining about how much staff time has been needed to check names on a petition.


Secondly, reading the response:

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

The date of submission is 26 of April? This has been rumbling along for far far longer than that. Why do I suspect the date of 26 April has been chosen as the latest date that could be justified, meaning that insufficient time would exist to raise similar resolutions between 26 April 2025 and the 2025 AGM. Which may well be imperative if in the next 12 months comp climbing continues to spend money like a drunken sailor, and a clear explanation of GBC and wider BMC finances turns out to be a couple of vague pie charts.

Frankly that date of 26 April feels like bullshit, and naked attempt the stifle any debate for the next two years.

2

chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?

« Last post by stone on Today at 08:09:32 am »

Exactly although with regards liz truss’s economic policy  I might be a little more like fultonius….. incredulous at the idea anyone could truly believe that it might be a good idea…

People with income north of £300k probably thought abolishing the 45p rate was a great idea.

I'd entertain the possibility that Truss herself genuinely believes that throwing money at the richest people is the best way to help society.
I think she is a believer in this sort of stuff: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/redistributing.html

PS I think it is moronic garbage myself

3

get involved: access, environment, BMC / Re: BMC Resolutions shout out 📣

« Last post by Oldmanmatt on Today at 07:58:29 am »

Sorry Offwidth, that’s rather patronising.
I have yet to see anything other in any BMC response.
Clearly, the BMC no longer values the views of the membership.
Change is hardly a new thing, nor is it untrusted.
The bar set at such a high number of members requesting/responding, whilst refusing to accept a petition on Change, seems clearly designed to make it as hard as possible for members to act.
Do you expect them to pick up pen and paper and write in?
It seems Simon suggested plenty of quite straight forward ways to further  verify signatures and yet…

Sham.

And shame.

4

get involved: access, environment, BMC / Re: BMC Resolutions shout out 📣

« Last post by shark on Today at 07:26:28 am »

If Council had to support every motion like this there would literally be no point in such a Council decision and as such the 0.5% rule we have to follow would be equally meaningless.

Not everything was done to try and validate.

I requested that the validation criteria was relaxed in recognition of Change worked such that if a name was unique on the BMC database then if it matched a signatory with a postcode within 5 or 10 miles of the BMC recorded address. I’m fairly sure this didn’t happen.

I also requested that if the thresholds weren’t met that a last ditch email was sent out by the BMC Office to the non matched names to ask if they had signed the resolution. This definitely didn’t happen.

Given the numbers submitted (512 for financial disclosure and 462 for the subsidiary) a common sense view is that there were at least 382 members in there. MC as a members representative body should have supported inclusion on the AGM agenda on that basis and are out of touch IMO

5

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by andy moles on Today at 07:18:49 am »

The best two types of climbing right?

I'm pretty conventional myself, I quite like multiple pitches of immaculate flowing climbing up compelling features on impeccable rock (I know,  right?), but each to their own.

6

get involved: access, environment, BMC / Re: BMC Resolutions shout out 📣

« Last post by spidermonkey09 on Today at 06:53:26 am »

I think that's a pisstake of a response. I could have swallowed not accepting the subsidiary motion. Not agreeing to the financial resolution is a joke and pretty hard to defend.

7

get involved: access, environment, BMC / Re: BMC Resolutions shout out 📣

« Last post by Offwidth on Yesterday at 11:58:56 pm »

Following the huge damage of the Motion of no Confidence, including the withholding of ~£150k grant funding (even though that motion was lost by a very large majority at the AGM), Council set the 0.5% membership level for future membership motions to the AGM, to prevent further risks of that type.

As an alternative, motions need only 25 members to go to Council who can approve it for AGM if they agree.

The subsidiary motion was unanimously opposed on Council as they felt it had significant extra cost, significant transition costs and significant extra risks to the organisation; and because they felt it disenfranchised Competition members to an extent.

If Council had to support every motion like this there would literally be no point in such a Council decision and as such the 0.5% rule we have to follow would be equally meaningless.

Detailed financial declarations will be made in May after Audit is signed off by the Board (when we have agreed accurate 2023 accounts). As such the finance motion will pretty much be met before the AGM.

Despite this formal position it's obvious Simon has highlighted numerous issues that most of us on Council feel need looking at for future AGM motion submissions (and especially the communications of that process) to try to prevent such a mess happening again.

It would be really sad if members left or reduced their contribution, because of this result. I would encourage some careful thought on the matter, given the good work that has continued through the difficult times in the last few years, especially in Access & Conservation. The importance of the BMC is the core staff and volunteer cohorts, not the governance structure.

8

chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?

« Last post by mrjonathanr on Yesterday at 11:20:46 pm »

Exactly although with regards liz truss’s economic policy  I might be a little more like fultonius….. incredulous at the idea anyone could truly believe that it might be a good idea…

People with income north of £300k probably thought abolishing the 45p rate was a great idea.

9

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by kingholmesy on Yesterday at 11:05:09 pm »

I’ve only bothered to read half this thread, but basically JB and Northern Yob are correct.  But then maybe I only think that cos I’m squarely in this Venn overlap:

You probably are in a relatively small Venn overlap of specialties there, ankle-breaker grit soloing and seaside death choss.

The best two types of climbing right?

10

chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?

« Last post by Moo on Yesterday at 10:25:46 pm »

This is everything UKB should be.