UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => get involved: access, environment, BMC => Topic started by: shark on April 15, 2024, 06:06:42 pm
-
If you signed the petition for the BMC resolutions can you email me your membership number and postcode to: simon@simonleeconsulting.co.uk
Whilst we have sufficient numbers signed up to include the resolutions (ie over 382) the BMC Office was unable to verify a substantial number from the Change petition info as being BMC members so I need this additional info for the unverified signatories. The deadline is April 27th.
I have also sent a further new 29 new signatories for verification today. If you’d like to add yourself to the list the petition is here:
https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2
This will give the membership the opportunity to vote at the online BMC AGM.
-
Update
Quote by me on UKC
I sent the details of 411 signatories for the subsidiary resolution and 461 signatories for the financial disclosure resolution and was completely confident that at least 382 but I’m told that for the subsidiary signatories only 151 were verified, 45 came up with a match but weren’t current members and a staggering 195 weren’t matched at all. Similarly for the financial disclosure only 177 were verified, 50 came up as match but weren’t current members and 214 weren’t matched at all. I’ve requested further info from the office to try to understand how it went so wrong.
So in terms of what went wrong I now understand that the Change location isn’t as exact as I assumed it was as it was often drawn from the IP address and often comes up with a nearby post district. I have asked that given this that the verification by location is relaxed more ie member name matches approximate location but this isn’t seen as acceptable.
Of the 45 ‘non members’ I have received emails from 7 of them so far including our famous alpinist. I don’t know whether their middle name is on the database or not. I don’t know the reason for the other six being counted as non members. I have agreed with the Office to park that for the time being.
Thank you to everyone who has emailed me. This has enabled me to gather the membership numbers of 62 signatories for both resolutions who were classified as non members or no matches in the verification process. Keep the emails coming.
Additionally there are 58 new signatories for both resolutions of which I have the membership numbers of 20 of them. Please sign the petition if you haven’t already.
I have chased those I know via Facebook and will email those in the CC handbook who I can name match.
I wanted to publish a list of the 200 or so names of the unverified signatories so others can chase them for member numbers on my behalf but that appears to conflict with GDPR and a post I made on UKC to that effect was pulled.
I will submit the updated back to the Office on the 27th which is the deadline. I have made a request that if the verification thresholds aren’t met that the Office sends out emails to the unverified to see whether confirmation can be ascertained that way
I’d like to thank Arun, Josh and Thom for the work they have carried out so far and the further work that is heading their way. We are working in less than ideal circumstances to unclear rules. I’d like to stress that I believe they are working diligently as neutral parties.
I won’t be able to devote as much time to this as I have recently in the run up to the deadline as I have a significant birthday tomorrow and off to Kalymnos on Monday.
Thank you everyone who has supported me and the campaign so far.
-
I have just submitted updated verification info to the Office for many of the unverified signatories as well as the details of 71 new signatories for both resolutions.
The total number of signatories stand at 512 for financial disclosure and 462 for the subsidiary.
It remains to be seen whether the signatories that are validated exceed the required threshold (382) for either or both resolutions. Therefore, I have formally confirmed I wish to progress the resolutions through Members Council as well (requiring only 25 signatories, validated number already well exceeded) whilst the validation process is taking place.
For reference the resolutions are:
1.The Board is required to publicly disclose a full and detailed breakdown of the finances for GB Climbing for the financial years 2022 and 2023 and its budget for 2024 within 6 weeks of this AGM and is urged to be more open and transparent in its affairs and more responsive with specific requests for information
2. The Board is required to set up GB Climbing as a financially independent body that is no longer subsidised by the BMC. It would also be desirable if the Board made any subsidy, loan or bailout to this new body subject to a reserved matter that is included in the articles.
Thank you everyone who signed and in particular everyone who took the trouble to dig out and send me their membership number (150+ people)
Simon
-
Back from Kalymnos but off on my travels again later today and weather permitting will have no signal from tomorrow till Sunday 12th
I was told that the Peak MC reps were gagged at Weds evening’s meeting. It was pointed out to me this was a missed opportunity by MC as the article: 11.8.2 MC includes "may refer the resolution to members through area meetings for discussion & feedback" prior to accepting or rejecting.
Certainly a primary role of MC reps is to feedback from Council meetings and this was pointed out pointedly by at least one attendee from what I heard.
I gather one of the reps said that the published rebuttal document wasn’t endorsed/approved by Members Council despite the article saying it had been.
I chased Andy Syme again for feedback on MC’s position last night by email and he replied this time saying he would provide a formal response today. I’ll share when I get it.
Regarding verification I requested when I submitted the updated spreadsheets that the criteria was relaxed in light of the better understanding of how Change worked such that if there was a unique name on the BMC database that matched the Change list and the person was in the vicinity of the postcode or part postcode then that person should be approved. I also requested if the threshold wasn’t hit then a email was sent out to any no match names to ask whether they had signed the petition.
I’m told that the deadline for supporting papers is the 27th May. I’ve done a lot of work already on a paper detailing about the background to previous recommendations at the BMC for a subsidiary and how it might work. If I can find time I’ll do a rebuttal to the published rebuttal document*. I’ve already indicated some of the flaws it contains online.
I will also be away weather permitting with no signal 18-26 May so won’t be able to attend the Open Forum (https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_jHjPCsvvQvSCyHdXsAsAkg) on the 21st May. I encourage everybody to go particularly if you have questions on the resolutions process, the finances and the published rebuttal document.
At the suggestion of the CEO a few/couple of weeks ago I had agreed to having an Open Forum just for the Resolutions but have heard nothing back on this since.
Finally it has been confirmed that the BMC has sought and received legal advice on whether the subsidiary was a special (75% majority required) or ordinary resolution (50%). As I have always said and contrary to that stated by Andy Syme, Offwidth et al it is in fact Ordinary albeit with a couple of caveats which I’ll explore if it gets on the agenda. Good to see sense has prevailed here too. It has been in short supply.
*Rebuttal paper (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/240426_Competition%20talent%20pathway%20and%20national%20team%20activities%20activities_V1.3.pdf?utm_content=link3&utm_campaign=news_id_73660&utm_medium=news_post&utm_source=ukclimbingp)
-
It’s all over.
Dear Simon
The BMC Staff have now validated the member votes in support for your 2 resolutions as detailed below. Validation of membership is an important part of the integrity of this process; Article 11.11 allows the board to verify that all signatories are valid voting members. To ensure this the BMC have spent a considerable amount of staff hours and resource ensuring the validation is accurate.
Resolution 1
Validated Members 320
Validated not Members 42
Unvalidated 146
Resolution 2
Validated Members 279
Validated not Members 39
Unvalidated 140
In both cases the resolutions failed to reach the threshold defined in Article 11.8.1 that would require them to be raised at the AGM.
The Members’ Council understand that the subject areas are important to you and others and appreciate the effort made to go through this process. I also thank you for taking the time to present your proposal to Council on 28 April, having written formally to the Council on 26 April 2024, to review your proposal under Article 11.8.2.
The Council have considered your resolutions at the Council meeting on 28 April and reached the following conclusions:
Resolution 1
Council fully supports the principle of transparency of accounts both in line with our legal obligations and to ensure members understand where money they contribute, or the organisation receives, is used.
The 2023 accounts and 2024 budget will be published before the AGM and the Board has already committed to providing a clear explanation to members of the GBC and wider financial position as part of the AGM paperwork. In addition, the members will have opportunities to discuss any concerns further at the Open Forum in May or at the post AGM ‘Drop-In’ Discussions already advertised.
The 2022 accounts have already been finalised and posted in the 2022 financial audit. The Council accepts the opinion of the CEO and Chair of the Board that it would be an unacceptable cost in staff and volunteer time to re-open and restate the accounts to provide the information required, and such effort would not move the BMC forward or be a use of BMC resources that would benefit Members.
The Council therefore rejected the proposed resolution.
Resolution 2
The Council recognise the need to discuss the future of GB Climbing within the wider BMC structure. This has already started, is being facilitated at the current round of Area Meetings, as well as in the Open Forum in May and will be discussed with staff and stakeholders and at the post AGM ‘Drop-In’, which we encourage you to be part of.
The proposal made would, in the opinion of Council, be very detrimental to a significant section of our membership. Holding a vote at this time could also significantly damage the BMCs reputation with partners and potentially further jeopardise the funding we receive. This would not be in the interests of the BMC or its members. As is detailed in the implications paper.
The Council fully supports the proposals and process of consultation outlined by the Chair and President in the statement published on 28 April https://thebmc.co.uk/bmc-member-update .
The Council therefore rejected the proposed resolution.
In line with Article 11.8.2 (b) “The decision of the Council is final in this regard and the proposed resolution, or materially similar resolutions, may not be raised again under Article 11.8.2 until at least 12 months have elapsed since the date of the submission of the first resolution to the Council under this Article 11.8.2.” The date of submission is recorded as 26 April 2024; i.e. the date you sent the email requesting Council review.
Whilst recognising you may be disappointed with these decisions Council hopes that you can agree that we have followed the processes defined in the Articles and made our decisions based on what we collectively believe are the needs of the whole of our diverse community of Members and participants across our range of activities.
kind regards
Andy
Andy Syme ‑ President
Email: President@thebmc.co.uk
Web: https://thebmc.co.uk
Working for Climbers, Hill
Walkers
& Mountaineers since 1944
Manchester
M20 2BB
-
Thank you everyone who voted and gave other support. I don’t have anything else to say at this point
-
That is absolutely fucking shameful. I am astonished and will not be renewing my membership.
-
Essentially saying ‘We are not going to let our members vote on this because we are afraid it might pass’ is a pretty horrible thing for a membership lead organisation to be writing!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
It is sad. It is also easily avoided, but you (ie the BMC) have chosen to patronise, obstruct, and stifle members voices at every turn.
-
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.
It's a bit of a joke to ask members to give careful consideration after the complete piss take of a response Simon got. Maybe the BMC could do some careful consideration itself first?
-
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.
I naively expected support being possible for the financial motion but I wasn't aware then that the 2022 data just wasn't in a good enough state to provide anything like the same information we intend to publish for 2023 (where all the really problematic loses were). The headline 2022 accounts are available on the links below.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=2244
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=2243
-
I’ve not actually bothered to read the BMC accounts before but that is a vanishingly small amount of actual information and gives no indication of what money was actually spent on.
I assume that the 2023 accounts are going to have much more detail?
Dave
-
The 2022 annual report summarises GB climbing income and expenditure in pie charts (although this didn’t include their share of non-core office costs): it's why I linked it alongside the 2022 accounts.
Yes, 2023 accounts will be much more detailed. However, Council have been told we can't produce anything close to equivalent detailed information for 2022. Once Council were informed this we were stuck, as we can't accept a motion that we know will place big extra workloads on an understaffed finance team, on a very difficult task which might even prove to be impossible to achieve. All this to highlight financial management wasn't tight enough in 2022: something we already know.
-
The BMC response does a very poor job of explaining that position, or even taking a swag at how much time that would be. Doesn't inspire much confidence that the approach to communication has changed with the change in leadership. Also, far more importantly, can someone please teach whoever writes the reports that pie charts are shit for basically everything.
-
Pie charts really help some people, really annoy others, and many sit in between.
A fun pro-pie blog (with some anti-pie views referenced):
https://www.displayr.com/why-pie-charts-are-better-than-bar-charts/
-
The 2022 annual report summarises GB climbing income and expenditure in pie charts (although this didn’t include their share of non-core office costs): it's why I linked it alongside the 2022 accounts.
Yes, 2023 accounts will be much more detailed. However, Council have been told we can't produce anything close to equivalent detailed information for 2022. Once Council were informed this we were stuck, as we can't accept a motion that we know will place big extra workloads on an understaffed finance team, on a very difficult task which might even prove to be impossible to achieve. All this to highlight financial management wasn't tight enough in 2022: something we already know.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don’t have a problem personally with the motions not going to the AGM but I don’t think it has been handled well and certainly the concerns raised by Simon’s motions are pretty valid.
I do hope that the accounts and explanation of the financial information are more detailed this time around. I am in a small mountaineering club and our members would not be happy with the lack of clarity and detail if we presented our accounts to them in this manner.
Also just to be clear I have no intention of leaving the BMC and I didn’t think the subsidiary idea was good. I just want better financial clarity and for GBClimbing to be financially self supporting etc
Cheers Dave
-
The 2022 annual report summarises GB climbing income and expenditure in pie charts (although this didn’t include their share of non-core office costs): it's why I linked it alongside the 2022 accounts.
Yes, 2023 accounts will be much more detailed. However, Council have been told we can't produce anything close to equivalent detailed information for 2022. Once Council were informed this we were stuck, as we can't accept a motion that we know will place big extra workloads on an understaffed finance team, on a very difficult task which might even prove to be impossible to achieve. All this to highlight financial management wasn't tight enough in 2022: something we already know.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I don’t have a problem personally with the motions not going to the AGM but I don’t think it has been handled well and certainly the concerns raised by Simon’s motions are pretty valid.
I do hope that the accounts and explanation of the financial information are more detailed this time around. I am in a small mountaineering club and our members would not be happy with the lack of clarity and detail if we presented our accounts to them in this manner.
Also just to be clear I have no intention of leaving the BMC and I didn’t think the subsidiary idea was good. I just want better financial clarity and for GBClimbing to be financially self supporting etc
Cheers Dave
The most polite and reasonable UKB poster, has just echoed much of what has been, more stridently, posted by others, though out various threads on both channels.
I’m sorry Dave, they’re not listening and hide behind weak excuses.
It’s obviously far worse than is being admitted. 🤷🏻♂️
-
We will all see soon enough, when the AGM papers are released later this month. What could possibly be the point of telling lies within that timetable? Simon has outlined the approximate losses already (based on leaks)... he just forgot to take into account the cost savings and extra commercial income.
Council saw extensive information on provisional finances for the 2023 accounts two months back (with way more detail than normal). These would have been public already if a more complex audit than normal hadn't thrown a spanner in the works.
-
Hi Offwidth, I personally have no problem with pie charts. What I would like to understand better is the breakdown of some of the larger slices of pie in the expenditure section on the 2022 Financial Report. From a total of £4.412M expenditure:
30% - £1.305M - Administration Costs including governance Costs, AGM and Area meeting support.
26% - £1.148M - Membership Support Costs including the costs of the insurance programme.
2% - £93K - Trading support Costs to enable travel insurance sales.
The limited itemisation here is weird and rather random.
Could we have a more regular itemisation of Administraion Costs? eg. Wages, Buildings, Utilities, Legal, Travel.
That way we would be able to consider if these seemed reasonable for an organisation of
the BMC's size. How much are governance costs seeing as they are specifically mentioned? Likewise AGM and Area meeting support?
It is unclear what "Membership Support Costs" are and why including "the costs of the insurance programme" this would amount to £1.148M. What is money actually being spent on?
Why does the insurance programme not simply have a listed cost. Similarly why does the travel insurance incur "Trading Support Costs". If the insurance sections of the BMC are operating at a loss then could we simply be clear and quantify this.
A clear itemised breakdown of expenditure would go a long way to helping us all understand what on earth is going on.
-
It is unusual because if you track back a few years (accounts and annual reports) the financial details were more extensive. I'm afraid I can't give more details for 2022 as Council don't have them and we have been told chasing such details down is impractical (reliable Council members sit on the Board and the Finance and Audit Committee so it would be a massive conspiracy if this wasn't true).
I've already said the 2023 accounts, due for release soon, will cover a lot more detail than previous years. So from proportions compared to the sub-totals in the 2023 budget you should get a good indication of the situation wrt your questions for 2022. The BMC can also answer questions on 2023 if things are unclear (there is an Open Forum on May 21st and a Q&A at the AGM on June 12th). The headline losses for 2022 are known, as was the reduced level of the reserves at that time (and headline GB Climbing income and costs except office costs).
I should add the situation we face is far from good, but it is where we are. Personally I'd rather members focus on factors that still need work, especially GB Climbing stakeholder relationships and building back reserves. Also on the financial side, we know we are facing above inflation increases in Insurances costs yet again in 2024. There is also real pressure in 2024 on departmental expenditure, staff workloads and keeping as many meetings as possible online (and if anything problematic that's extra crops up, on subs).
-
Does it not strike you as more than a little bit worrying that the Finance and Audit Committee don't have basic knowledge of the finances. The notion that these "details" need chasing down is ridiculous. They should be readily to hand. There will be a considerably better breakdown of expenditure than that given in the Finance Report if you simply look at the Corporation Tax return.
I don't think members should actually focus on anything at all until there's some basic transparency regarding expenditure. The Finance Report is a massive red flag as the breakdown given looks like a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters and prevent members from seeing where money was actually spent.
-
Of course it's ridiculous. Six of us, including both FAC members, wrote a letter to Council and Board last March (23) about serious concerns around overall finances, areas that seemed to demonstrate lack of financial control, serious stakeholder communications in GB Climbing, overoptimistic looking forecasts of membership growth and breaches of our governance requirements (wrt informing Council) and a number of other issues. Subsequently Council formally challenged the Board in April (23) under our governance rules.
Mismanagement and substandard Board oversight had led to these problems. Since that time Council have been doing our best under our governance remit but we only advise on general strategic and financial direction: Senior Management run the organisation day to day, under the guidance of the Board.
Further management problems in 2023 occured until our CEO left. Then until the end of 2023 we were in a holding position due to remaining management and Board having to cover the CEO work alongside managing a restructure in some areas to cut costs and sorting out several other problems (including reassuring funders and funding partners). The situation in 2023 was further complicated by a shift to a new finance system (good in itself but it made 2022 information harder to retrieve). Things finally started improving quickly in 2024 with the appointment of our new CEO.
We can't change the past but we can learn from it. Financial planning is more realistic. Improved financial openness is agreed across the BMC. Financial control in GB Climbing will be strictly maintained. Stakeholder engagement in GB Climbing must be seen to improve: we hope current plans will acheive that but if they don't (and sadly there are still clear issues visible for now, around athlete quotas) everyone is watching, so the plans will have to change again. Plus lots of other initiatives too.
-
Difficult to learn from this when there’s lack of understanding, rigour & governance structure to identify where it’s gone wrong. Further compounded by the lack of integrity & probity in the way the BMC runs.
Hats off to Shark and others who valiantly fought to hold the BMC to account and act in the best interests of BMC members.
I’m seriously considering ceasing my membership and transferring the funds to the Peak Bolting group.
Any recommendations for a company that offers good travel insurance for climbers
-
As I said, serious mistakes were made. However they were people issues (and people can break the best of governance systems). However, in the last couple of years, the hundreds of volunteers and staff (away from leadership and governance) just got on with their good work. Why punish them for mistakes in leadership (mistakes that are already a good way to being fixed).
Simon has been a real help on pressuring for financial openness (his was one of the first points I raised when I joined Council), sadly he was a bit late to this 'gig', as Council were working towards resolution last March. If you have concerns let your Council reps know: evidence from members was how we broke the internal governance communication 'log jam' last spring.
I wish someone else would speak up about this excellent work in really difficult times (since 2017 really, but especially in covid and 2023)... I've just finished a monthly national access meeting celebrating some past BMC work and a discussion on how this is leading to future similar developments and better relationships with conservation groups.
-
Everyone criticising the BMC, that I have seen, has shown a lot of support for volunteers and most of the staff
Thr criticism is almost always the leadership (fair), the running of GB Climbing (also fair), and the financial controls (extra mega fair) which have all been rather poor to say the least. Saying "the BMC does other good stuff!" Is neither here nor there. We know. It's the stuff that is bad that is getting the criticism. And the BMC needs to actually sort that out.
-
I can assure you it doesn't feel that way from the view of many key volunteers and especially not so for staff. If people are serious about leaving just as the finances and GB climbing are being sorted out, it's certainly going to impact those BMC stalwarts even more (and as for those who were involved with mismanagement but have now left the BMC: it will have no impact at all).
BMC leadership are custodians for what's important: the BMC work outside of governance.
It's not all been bad: there are more access staff FTEs now than pre covid.
-
I think that's mischaracterising why people might be leaving now. If you were simply appalled at the financial management you'd have gone a while ago. If you're leaving now it's because of the response.
I'm disappointed that the MC is willing to take the board's word that telling members the proper breakdown for 2022 isn't worth the effort. Paul Ratcliffe seems to have made a good start though, and has the confidence of staff I've spoken to. Communication with members when this started was shocking and dismissive, it showed to me that PD didn't understand the organisation he was running.
The comps and funding issue isn't likely to go away anytime soon, it's been rumbling on for 50 years! The BMC need to get better at selling that aspect to current members. It still feels like there's a lot of reactive rather than proactive work in this regard. It's not going to be an easy shift with tight budgets.
-
I think that's mischaracterising why people might be leaving now. If you were simply appalled at the financial management you'd have gone a while ago. If you're leaving now it's because of the response.
Exactly this. I'm godsmacked you need it spelling out.
-
Perceived response in the face of the Board, Senior Management team and Council all saying proper detail will be provided for 2023 and 2024 as soon as the audit is signed off. I ask again why on earth would we all say and do that if it wasn't true? It would be terminal for the Board.
Three Council members (and the President) sit on the Board and two sit on the Finance and Audit Committee. These five include some of those who raised concerns about Board and management behaviour last March: they are highly credible and they say there are real practical reasons preventing us providing similar information for 2022 as 2023. The information Paul D left us with was less than £200k extra core costs for GB Climbing, including all office admin, on top of the costs actually reported in the 2022 accounts (and alongside grant income for GB Climbing also reported in the accounts).
I agree Comp climbers are still facing serious issues (especially on quotas) but if we care about them (and I do) parking them in a subsidiary and removing BMC core funding that's been there for decades is hardly going to help (as their reps point out on BMC Watch). We simply can't move forward with major stakeholder concerns: as such we need some more work on this.
-
Exactly this. I'm godsmacked you need it spelling out.
Sadly I'm not at all gobsmacked that Offwidth needs this pointing out. If you were to read 'Offwidth' posts on BMC matters over the past, say, 5 years I'd suggest you'll very likely find the common theme to his view of the world:
'waste of good volunteer's time'
'waste of BMC resources'
'this is a distraction to more important things'
'mistakes were made'
'issues are now being addressed'
'this is a misrepresentation of the facts'
'good work is being done'
'here to represent members interests and hold the board to account'
'I take very seriously these concerns'
Offwidth is actually a political chat bot, designed to cycle through a pre-programmed series of sincere and serious-sounding reassurances using convincing jargon no-one entirely understands the meaning of. It's deployed to distract and placate a (justifiably) angry crowd. It was built by the BMC IT dept. sometime around 2018 using funding intended for sending young comp climbers to comps.
:tease:
-
Or maybe just a human who cares for the people he works with. Occam's razor will indicate likelihoods even without the many who know me in person.
-
The problem here is when we apply Occam's razor to the curent BMC setup and the lack of transparency around the 2022 finances. Obviously, there are many possible explanantions for what is currently going on. Here are two scenarios to consider:
Scenario 1. The 2022 finances are poorly documented, incredibly complicated and it's just not worth the effort required to uncover them. Let's all move on. Volunteers are working phenomenally hard and constant harking on about historical finances are an insult and distraction to their sterling efforts. People who were involved in any mismanagement or misdirection of funds have now moved on. The current board,management etc have worn their fingers to the bone sorting everything out and getting the good ship BMC back on an even keel. The Council members who sit on the Board and the Finance and Audit Committee are all reliable people and just want to move on.
Scenario 2. The 2022 finances are actually quite well understood. They had to be in order to file an accurate Corporation Tax return. HMRC aren't big on allowing such things to be wrong based on the argument that, "it's all too much effort". If there's any likelihood that the BMC didn't understand their finances correctly for 2022 and may have filed an incorrect Corporation Tax return then it is probably rather important that this gets investigated urgently just in case they turn out to have a massive tax liability. So assume the 2022 finances are well understood, but they're embarassing and not just to people who have left the organisation. People within the BMC are desparate not to have all this uncovered and are really hoping that it all gets forgotten about.
Which of these would Occam choose?
-
Scenario 2. The 2022 finances are actually quite well understood. They had to be in order to file an accurate Corporation Tax return. HMRC aren't big on allowing such things to be wrong based on the argument that, "it's all too much effort". If there's any likelihood that the BMC didn't understand their finances correctly for 2022 and may have filed an incorrect Corporation Tax return then it is probably rather important that this gets investigated urgently just in case they turn out to have a massive tax liability. So assume the 2022 finances are well understood, but they're embarassing and not just to people who have left the organisation. People within the BMC are desparate not to have all this uncovered and are really hoping that it all gets forgotten about.
The things HMRC are interested in for tax returns are not necessarily the same things that are being asked for now. For example, if you have some admin costs HMRC are unlikely to be bothered about how those are split across the different areas within the business, whereas that seems like something people interested in the cost of comp climbing within the BMC would be pretty interested in. I think it is easy to imagine a situation where coming up with the latter figures would require work.
-
I appreciate that, but even the simple breakdown that HMRC require (Wages, Buildings, Travel, Admin etc) would be considerably better than what has been provided in the Finance Report. The whole idea that the costs are unknown and too difficult to find out is simply not credible.
-
BMC accounting 2022:
1: Lift corner of rug.
2: Sweep it all under.
3: Deny massive lump under rug exists.
4: Claim rug is now too heavy to lift and “anyway, we put a new sofa on it now”.
5: Attempt Jedi mind trick “This is not the lump you are looking for”…
-
Ok.
Fuck it.
I’ve said similar to Pete, privately.
I’ve sniped, but I can make no direct accusation. There is simply no evidence and I have no knowledge of systems in place.
I don’t want to appear arrogant (or “financially incompetent”) either, but, as I said, Fuck it.
I simply do not understand how this situation arose.
I don’t understand, because I am a director of a large company.
I control a budget just under €100M. For context, I have spent €2.5M on paint alone over the last 12 months.
I don’t, of course, control this budget alone. There is a single accountant, under the group CFO. There is no fancy accounting package, they use Exel.
For any purchase under €10k, my signature, our Commercial Director’s signature and the CFO’s signature, are required on the offer/quote, LPO/PO, and all the invoices. We each keep a copy for our own files.
Above €10k, then the CEO replaces the CFO. That means, the CD and I physically take the documents to the CEO and justify the purchase, discuss alternative offers etc etc. This begins at the offer stage, long before any purchase order is generated.
Approximately every six months, the directors have to justify every employee’s position, to the CEO. We track hours and work orders, so it takes about an hour to put together the report. Nobody except the CEO has a secretary or assistant.
The group is internally audited twice per year.
We let the previous accountant go, for releasing a payment to a subcontractor that wasn’t due and without signatures. We discovered the missing money within seven days of the mistake, because we spend about an hour reviewing the previous week, on a Monday morning.
None of this aspect of my role is in the least bit arduous, tedious perhaps, but not actually hard. It is not at all within my educational background, I am an Engineer.
I can, however, “bring receipts” for everything we have done across all the various disciplines and departments I control with the CD at any time.
I am certain others posting here and on the other channel, also control substantial budgets and complicated work environments, alone or in part.
I want to point out as well, that we are a new company within the group, set up less than three years ago. We build large yachts (over 500 GRT) completely (steel/aluminium fabrication, design, fitting out, interior design etc etc), we are building a massive new shipyard (first shed will come on line within 3 months) and we are handling all aspects of the construction there too, no subcontractors. We have just completed the modules and fit out of a 900 room modular hotel for the Neom project (for four months I had 200 staff working in Saudi). There are just over 800 employees right now.
So, I just don’t understand how it can be hard to have kept track of the budget or how it is possible that that information is not retrievable. Or how the released info can be so woefully inadequate.
I of course bow to Tony’s superior financial nouse and freely admit my own incompetence.
-
A surprising lack of imagination there Matt if you are asking "how can it be so hard".
What if your CFO left tomorrow, and it took 3 months to get someone else in post? What if the successor decided to start using some new accounting package? What if they then left after 6 months? What if someone outside the organisation started asking for reports on things you weren't previously tracking, like "what if we categorised this expenditure as X rather than y?"
Not to defend the BMC here as obviously they should be on top of their accounts and be exercising appropriate financial control, but it's not hard to see how an org can get itself in to an accounting mess.
-
A surprising lack of imagination there Matt if you are asking "how can it be so hard".
What if your CFO left tomorrow, and it took 3 months to get someone else in post? What if the successor decided to start using some new accounting package? What if they then left after 6 months? What if someone outside the organisation started asking for reports on things you weren't previously tracking, like "what if we categorised this expenditure as X rather than y?"
Not to defend the BMC here as obviously they should be on top of their accounts and be exercising appropriate financial control, but it's not hard to see how an org can get itself in to an accounting mess.
Because any irregularities should have been spotted within weeks, if the Directors and CEO have their eyes on the ball, even if it’s just an hour a week. Frankly, our CFO works under the directors (which I admit is unusual) and only came into post a year ago, anyway. The group ran for 40 years without, but grew to a point where it became justified. Any changes would need to be agreed by us and the boss (that is all the directors of all the companies in the group, around nine of us, I have only met five of them and then socially, we don’t even have board meetings). My boss is the most humble Billionaire I’ve met, works hard and is damn sharp, but hardly superhuman. Shows up at 12 midday and buggers off at 6 and yet has all his ducks in a row. I’ve known him for 24 years now. No, every director has an up to date financial report for their bailiwick every week. We’d need to lose the entire accounting division before that point and everything would pretty much grind to a halt anyway. Losing the CEO, is a different matter. Nothing over 10k could move without him and that includes payroll… However, he’s training up two of his nephews (one of which is my CD. He has no kids himself). By training up, I mean has been using them as proxies. 16 years now for my friend.
I understand your point, but the BMC was supposed to be under professional board control, with council oversight, correct? That’s a lot more than our group.
So, there doesn’t appear to have been any oversight.
Friendship or no, I would have been fired for that kind of crap, if it would have even been possible for me spend money without two other signatures.
We fuck up. Lose money, choose duff clients that stiff you on payments, have cost overruns that strip margins, blah blah blah, but we alway know how and why. In fact, we usually see it coming in time to cut losses, because we get weekly reports…
Edit: My point is, it isn’t justifiable. Or, at least, should not be. Nor has any adequate justification been presented. Or, to my knowledge, even an explanation of where the money went. To the stakeholders. The membership. WTF.
All I’ve seen is whitewashing and obfuscation.
-
I can quite easily see how things can get messed up, simply by not doing things properly and not keeping records. What I can't accept is that having discovered that things are in a mess, they can't then see what was spent where. Surely they can just look at bank records. The BMC is not that big. It's simply not that hard. It's also accounting 101 that if you've messed up your accounts, you then go through them in minute detail, so you have a solid base to continue from. You don't say "forget all that" and carry on. "It'll all be ok cos we're all working jolly hard"
-
I can quite easily see how things can get messed up, simply by not doing things properly and not keeping records. What I can't accept is that having discovered that things are in a mess, they can't then see what was spent where. Surely they can just look at bank records. The BMC is not that big. It's simply not that hard. It's also accounting 101 that if you've messed up your accounts, you then go through them in minute detail, so you have a solid base to continue from. You don't say "forget all that" and carry on. "It'll all be ok cos we're all working jolly hard"
Ex-fucking-zacertly
-
I'm no accountant but give me 1 day with access to the bank records for BMC 2022 and I could give you a pretty detailed picture of where the money has gone and on what.
-
Also Offwidth. I find your continual attempts to shield the BMC behind the fact that it's heavily supported by volunteers extremely hard to jusify.
A small percentage of people that we meet in life are takers. That's just how it is, people realise this over time and the takers aren't widely respected as a result. The vast majority of people help or volunteer with something. Whether it's charity, clubs, schools, community, sports, politics or whatever, most of us volunteer our time in some fashion or other. The notion that volunteers should be regarded as being in anyway special or holy is nonsense. Nearly all of us are volunteers for something or other. Being a volunteer should not make you immune to criticism. It one hundred perecent should not make the organisation you are volunterring for immune to criticism. The volunteers should be as outraged as the rest of us if not more about the state of things at the BMC. If any of the organisations that I volunteer for were behaving this poorly I would be kicking up so much shit you wouldn't be able to see me for the brown cloud.
-
I'm no accountant but give me 1 day with access to the bank records for BMC 2022 and I could give you a pretty detailed picture of where the money has gone and on what.
Have you done any accounting? This seems extremely unlikely from the small exposure I've had to finance and accounting.
-
I'm no accountant but give me 1 day with access to the bank records for BMC 2022 and I could give you a pretty detailed picture of where the money has gone and on what.
Have you done any accounting? This seems extremely unlikely from the small exposure I've had to finance and accounting.
I don’t believe it is as hard as has been intimidated and Nails suggestion is a good starting point. Are we to believe that all kinds of transactions occurred with no records, authorisation or direct oversight?
To be clear, the number if zeros at the end of amounts concerned is largely irrelevant. Imagine if you will, attending the district Christmas street decoration committee, to be told that the fund which had stood at £2000, has £200 missing and unaccounted for, but not to worry because Mrs Baker (the Grocer) has done a wonderful job of the bunting and lets all pull together and forget the missing money, and anyway, Mr Sparks (local carpenter) the former treasurer, has moved away anyway, and look at the lovely lights and don’t worry that Mr Sparks left the accounts scrawled in three lines on the back of an old envelope and Mr Dodge, the former chairman, said he was sure it was all cushty, before he went to take up his new job in the Hebrides…
-
I've been compiling company accounts for nearly 30 years. I may be overstating things to make a point. It might be hard to decipher if there was no accompanying documentation but I reckon I could give it a good go. Not that I suppose the BMC are likely to give me the opportunity. The main point is that it simply isn't that difficult to work out the expenditure.
-
Have you done any accounting? This seems extremely unlikely from the small exposure I've had to finance and accounting.
Helping Randall to hide the McLaren on the Lattice accounts? 😂
-
Also Offwidth. I find your continual attempts to shield the BMC behind the fact that it's heavily supported by volunteers extremely hard to jusify.
A small percentage of people that we meet in life are takers. That's just how it is, people realise this over time and the takers aren't widely respected as a result. The vast majority of people help or volunteer with something. Whether it's charity, clubs, schools, community, sports, politics or whatever, most of us volunteer our time in some fashion or other. The notion that volunteers should be regarded as being in anyway special or holy is nonsense. Nearly all of us are volunteers for something or other. Being a volunteer should not make you immune to criticism. It one hundred perecent should not make the organisation you are volunterring for immune to criticism. The volunteers should be as outraged as the rest of us if not more about the state of things at the BMC. If any of the organisations that I volunteer for were behaving this poorly I would be kicking up so much shit you wouldn't be able to see me for the brown cloud.
That's not what I'm saying though. I'm saying staff and volunteers just got on with things, since 2017, during several real crises. The first big one was the disruption then financial fallout of the Motion of No Confidence (when grants were stopped, despite a huge majority backing the BMC leadership). The second was covid and furlough. The third was during a cost of living crisis which was unlucky to correspond with: some seriously poor financial planning , control and oversight; and also serious stakeholder problems in GB Climbing. Six of us wrote to say this last March, got Council to back us and have been pressuring for improvement ever since. After a year of struggle, and some senior departures, at last there is light at the end of the tunnel. However, since budgets are still tight, members leaving now because they are angry with BMC mismanagement (and encouraging others to leave) will hurt staff and key volunteers' ability to work at maximum efficiency. So since things are looking much better I'd just ask them to think carefully before doing so.
If you don't believe the 2022 statement ask questions at the open forum in a couple of weeks. Or have a quiet chat with David, Tarquin or Bill who have been Council Finance and Audit reps in the last few years... I trust all three. David was the first to warn the FAC about over ambitious membership growth targets (who then dropped put of Council for a few months) and Tarquin and Bill were part of our letter writing 6.
-
Have you done any accounting? This seems extremely unlikely from the small exposure I've had to finance and accounting.
Helping Randall to hide the McLaren on the Lattice accounts? 😂
That's a legitimate business expense right?
-
Have you done any accounting? This seems extremely unlikely from the small exposure I've had to finance and accounting.
Helping Randall to hide the McLaren on the Lattice accounts? 😂
That's a legitimate business expense right?
If you plaster it with huge Lattice logos, probably.
Squirrel!👉