[galpinos]

You really are being ornery on this thread. 

New word learnt.

[Andy Syme]

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.

[JR]

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...

[Offwidth]

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.

[Andy Syme]

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.

[reeve]

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.

[Offwidth]

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.

[Andy Syme]

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.

[shark]

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.

[fatneck]

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...

[Offwidth]

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.

[Andy Syme]

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

[Will Hunt]

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.

[shark]

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

[JR]

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

[Will Hunt]

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.

[shark]

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.

[tomtom]

         In the final analysis, it is between you and God. Climb faster.

You got the last line wrong...

[T_B]

         In the final analysis, it is between you and the Campus board.  They'll never do 1-5-8 anyway.

[Andy Syme]

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.  :-)

[Offwidth]

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

[JR]

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.

[Offwidth]

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.

[JR]

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.

[Offwidth]

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,