[spidermonkey09]

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?

[Offwidth]

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.

[Offwidth]

[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.

[shark]

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.

[spidermonkey09]

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.

[shark]

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

[Offwidth]

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.

[galpinos]

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?

[Offwidth]

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.

[Offwidth]

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.

[Teaboy]

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

[mrjonathanr]

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

[shark]

The below is the text of his supporting statement. Link here

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.

[Offwidth]

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.

[shark]

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.

[Teaboy]

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.

[shark]

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.

[galpinos]

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.....

[shark]

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.

[shark]

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.

[galpinos]

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.

[shark]

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.     

[Offwidth]

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.

[shark]

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.

[Offwidth]

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'.