[shark]

Take the survey now!

An independent organisational review of the BMC is well underway and the next step the Review Team is taking is to perform a membership survey. Read on to find out more about the survey, how to take part, and how to win one of three £100 cash prizes.

The membership survey is fully independent from the BMC. The Review Team would like to understand your interests and priorities, and your opinions of the BMC and its future direction.

Message from the Review Team

Your views do matter, so please take time to complete this survey. It will take you 10-15 minutes to complete and will give us a comprehensive picture of the views of you, the membership.

Your responses will be used to form our recommendations on the future of the BMC. We will publicly release the results as part of our recommendations later on in 2017.

This survey is being managed by an independent agency, 2020 Research. All responses will be kept strictly confidential.

If you would prefer to complete the survey by phone, or if you would like to request a paper copy, please contact 2020 Research on 01226 767120.

To say thanks for taking part, your name will be entered into a prize draw for three £100 cash prizes.

Thank you,

The Independent Organisational Review Group

P.S. This is the first of two major membership surveys. A second survey, asking for your feedback on BMC member benefits, will be sent out later in the summer.

[tomtom]

I was surprised there was no question about whether the BMC should increase its portfolio of student accommodation...

[Offwidth]

I'd urge folk to complete this otherwise the old fogies' views will dominate. In particular, the organisers of the No Confidence vote haven't just gone away, they are still causing trouble behind the scenes and probably plotting their next intervention.

Such surveys can provide a good wide ranging set of views, meaning the BMC doesn't just have to rely on the inevitably more limited set of those who can attend BMC meetings to judge the breadth and balance of what its membership wants.

[JR]

Thanks for posting up shark, and thanks (to the many) that have already completed it. 

It's really important we do collect as many views as possible from as broad a range of members as possible, so please do share and encourage others to complete.

[36chambers]

Just finished doing it. My main response was "neither satisfied or dissatisfied" as I don't really know anything about what it was asking.

Futhermore, I've just clicked on the survey again and there appears to be no issues with me doing the whole thing again. If this is the case, surely someone could compromise the results.

[shark]

In particular, the organisers of the No Confidence vote haven't just gone away, they are still causing trouble behind the scenes and probably plotting their next intervention.

What sort of trouble?

[tomtom]

In particular, the organisers of the No Confidence vote haven't just gone away, they are still causing trouble behind the scenes and probably plotting their next intervention.

What sort of trouble?

They've formed the Popular Alpine Committee of Manchester - aka PAC-MAN - its a group focused on direct action. So far this includes greasing holds at the Depot, and getting up early and pinching all the parking spaces on Northern Grove (next to the BMC's S.Manchester lair). Next phase is setting up a picket outside to 'beard shame' those working there.... 

[Teaboy]

I'd urge folk to complete this otherwise the old fogies' views will dominate.

I am an old fogey!

Are answers taken in context of previous answers? E.g. If I don't think any support should be given to comp coving then I am very dissatisfied that the BMC do this. But if put down I'm very dissatisfied with BMC support for comps that would be interpreted as wanting he BMC to more to support if they don't refer back to my earlier answer. 

[shark]

I'd urge folk to complete this otherwise the old fogies' views will dominate.

I am an old fogey!

Are answers taken in context of previous answers? E.g. If I don't think any support should be given to comp coving then I am very dissatisfied that the BMC do this. But if put down I'm very dissatisfied with BMC support for comps that would be interpreted as wanting he BMC to more to support if they don't refer back to my earlier answer.

It'll make you feel younger if you say you like comp climbing. 

[JR]

Just finished doing it. My main response was "neither satisfied or dissatisfied" as I don't really know anything about what it was asking.

Futhermore, I've just clicked on the survey again and there appears to be no issues with me doing the whole thing again. If this is the case, surely someone could compromise the results.

Thanks for completing. On the first point, that's fine if that's what you think/know/understand.

On the second, important, point:

We had to make a decision here about how wide reaching we wanted the survey to be. For example, we could have used a unique link ID for each email recipient, so that if the survey was completed using that link, it couldn't be used again. However, we know that BMC email opening rates and click through are skewed (and indeed missing certain segments) and we would almost certainly therefore may miss other respondent segments.

So in order to achieve that broad church we've "advertised" the survey in multiple places including social media.  We're hoping for a large response size which should give us a higher level of confidence.  The response so farm, for 24 hours in, has been excellent.

Of course, that means that people could respond more than once, if they were sufficiently motivated to, but 2020 do have measures to pick this up.  Aside from the normal methods of tracking and analysing multiple responses by source link click/IP address etc, 2020 (who are managing the survey creation/analysis) have also been developing specific tools for verifying the validity of online surveys, which they are considering generally releasing within the coming year. This started in response to general concerns over the reliability of online panels and online methodologies such as the one you've raised, and are using ways in which statistical techniques could be used to spot 'manipulation' of survey responses by individuals or groups of individuals. They will be able to apply these to the BMC data as a means to flag anything suspicious, which may merit further investigation.

So, technically, you could respond more than once, but you'd probably be wasting your time and it would more than likely be picked up as we're looking out for it.

[Offwidth]

In particular, the organisers of the No Confidence vote haven't just gone away, they are still causing trouble behind the scenes and probably plotting their next intervention.

What sort of trouble?

Most won't be aware that during the No Confidence period there must have been several accusative letters written by Bob and Doug to the BMC Exec (piecing together what some of the 30 No Confidence motion signatories said privately to people I know and from Rehan expressing serious concerns about things that were written about him but that he wouldn't fight as he just wanted to get back to his family life and business). They might also not know that Bob refused at least twice to provide the BMC details that supplemented the very vaguely worded second version of the motion. This request was the BMC trying to ensure balance in Summit prior to the AGM. He then dishonestly complained in his no confidence speech at the AGM that the BMC hadn't given him equal billing in Summit.  He sees rule problems everywhere... he negotiated longer AGM presentations for the no confidence motion then complained the time wasn't enough (it easily would have been if we didn't have to hear him tell us how wonderful he was for several minutes and hear pointless sexist shit like how his 'nemesis' Scolaris has Maria as a middle name).

He has never shown any intention to stop nor to behave honourably.. he has lost vote after vote and still keeps fighting BMC Olympic involvement and his 'nemesis' and his behaviour seems to get worse each time. Unlike most who have concerns about the Olympics he will now seemingly use any means he feels is OK to achieve his aims. Spreading clear disinformation as contained in his leaked letters and using this to collect proxy votes in secret for the no confidence motion was all shamefully part of that... all exposed in public here. When I first met Bob I found him quite persuasive. Like most adventure minded climbers international comps were not high on my list of BMC priorities (and I still think the proposed format stinks) but I respected those who were involved and any democratic voting outcomes and I thought Bob did too. Over the years it's become obvious I was naive.

I know Bob is now unhappy about the way the BMC have written about the very clear outcome of the No Confidence vote (again from what some of the 30 have said privately to people I know)  a letter was to be sent and I will be amazed if  further accusative communications will not be made to the BMC. I will also be amazed if there are no new motions in the next few years. Bob made it very clear at the AGM the 30 would do all they could to continue to lead the fight to stop BMC Olympic involvement. Remember we are dealing with a situation where some of the original 30 hadn't even been asked if they supported the motion and most definitely didn't (insisting their names were removed and remain angry with their inclusion and the behaviour around this) and that the original motion contained clear misinformation. I'm still not sure if some of the rest of the 30 haven't been duped.

We need a functional BMC that supports its broad membership requirements not one locked in internal disputes as a small faction try any means they have to ensure their viewpoint dominates, irrespective of broader member views. Lets make sure the views expressed in the survey are as broad and as fair as possible and that we remain watchful for further attempts to distort the democratic process.

[shark]

Ok so nothing more specific than complaining about losing then.

I thought you might mean that there was a specific attempt to somehow undermine or subvert the independent governance and organisational review.

[Offwidth]

I'm sure  that is part of it. If he can keep governance concerns on his agenda and Sports England get even more worried, funding will be more at risk and he might even get what he really wants.  I'm sure these letters will form part of his 'evidence'. All very dirty politics since the democratic route keeps failing.

[tc]

I'd urge folk to complete this otherwise the old fogies' views will dominate.

Oi!

[user deactivated]

I'm sure  that is part of it. If he can keep governance concerns on his agenda and Sports England get even more worried, funding will be more at risk and he might even get what he really wants.  I'm sure these letters will form part of his 'evidence'. All very dirty politics since the democratic route keeps failing.

I'm not sure I quite get what the protest is about? Climbing in the Olympics? Seems a shame to get all upset about that. I mean (as we all know) competitive climbing and competition has been a part of climbing and mountaineering for ever (first to the top and all that) and the olympics which is symbolic of something that crosses all kinds of boundaries without predjudice, what is at all negative about being part of that? The BMC is great and what an awesome opportunity. I'm sure the more leftfield of us can continue to smoke rollies and drink real ale while discussing the merits of RP's on Gogarth at the same time as enjoy a great climbing competition? FFS

[Fiend]

Tis b0rked in Opera? I filled it in in Firefox.

[shark]

I'm sure  that is part of it. If he can keep governance concerns on his agenda and Sports England get even more worried, funding will be more at risk and he might even get what he really wants.  I'm sure these letters will form part of his 'evidence'. All very dirty politics since the democratic route keeps failing.

The word "governance" is being bandied around a bit and I think it would useful to piece together how (I think) we got to where we are now on this issue.

Governance is how decisions are arrived at in an organisation. Good governance seeks to put in place processes, checks and balances so that decisions are made in the best way and are seen to be made in the best way and in particular mitigate against corruption. A badly governed organisation might still make good decisions and a well governed organisation isn't guaranteed not to make bad decisions.   

Pettigrew used the phrase "poor governance" with reference to policy decisions (the rebranding) being made without proper consultation. His conspiracy theory was demonstrated to be hogwash by Martin Wragg in his report and so Pettigrew used his time at the AGM to rail against the Olympics and the IFSC.

For some years Sport England have been concerned about governance at the BMC and in particular the role that the National Council plays in decision making. With the scandals at British Cycling, Sport England tightened up the rules and codes of governance last Autumn that it requires of those organisations that it funds such as the BMC.

Around the same time National Council, and notably Phil Simister (Midlands Area Rep), were trying to establish more precisely what National Council was responsible for and what the Executive Board of Directors were responsible for. An attempt was made to agree a matrix of responsibilities which fell apart under legal scrutiny and a request was then drawn up by National Council to have an independent Governance review.

In the meantime Sport England were delaying providing the next round of funding which should have started in April. Whether Pettigrew's motion has strengthened their resolve in this matter only they will know. However, it is now clear that any funding now is linked to suitable progress in the independent governance review even though that was not the main reason it was originally set up

The guidelines that the Governance Review are using is not Sport England's but that of the Sporting Recreational Alliance which is a trade body for Sporting NGB's. The guidance document that they provide for good governance is here and this is the model that is being followed by the BMC Review team.

The SRA guidelines and Sport England guidelines, as far as I am aware, largely dovetail and the linked document from SRA also asserts that the Executive Board should have primacy in decision making which is additionally consistent with company law. Therefore, speculating forward I think it is likely that National Council in requesting the governance review will lead to the end of National Councils role as a policy making body if the BMC wishes to achieve good standards of governance. This will be an erosion of democracy so different mechanisms to strengthen accountability and communication with the membership to compensate may be advocated by the review team in their recommendations.

     
   


         

[Ru]

Have completed. Just another mention of the issue that Teaboy raised. When choosing between satisfied-dissatisfied it is unclear whether a lack of satisfaction will be interpreted as the BMC are not doing enough or are doing too much. Comps and encouraging participation being the obvious examples of where people may be dissatisfied because they think the BMC are currently doing too much, or too little.

[JR]

Thanks for the feedback Ru.

Please do let us know in the open questions if you do thing there's anything we've missed, or you particularly want to tell us.

The number of responses so far has been excellent, please do encourage other friends and climber that are members (or recently lapsed) to complete the survey.

[Offwidth]

Cheers Shark,...of course it doesn't stop the 'bandying' being deliberate for nefarious anti-democratic ends. I'd also point out if the democratic link to policy is not put somewhere that keeps most members happy we could end up with a Mexican stand-off rebellion like Table Tennis and the SE. The BMC is much less of a representative body than most  'sports' getting SE funding.

https://www.sportengland.org/news-and-features/news/2017/july/11/table-tennis-england-our-statement/

I'd urge folk to complete this otherwise the old fogies' views will dominate.

Oi!

FFS... its possible to be old and not a fogie or vice-versa, without being both. It's even common to play up both.... which I could do myself.... but then maybe optimism has bitten me for a while as the young finally got out of bed and voted and made a difference in the both the BMC AGM No Confidence vote and the last general election.

[Bonjoy]

Have completed. Just another mention of the issue that Teaboy raised. When choosing between satisfied-dissatisfied it is unclear whether a lack of satisfaction will be interpreted as the BMC are not doing enough or are doing too much. Comps and encouraging participation being the obvious examples of where people may be dissatisfied because they think the BMC are currently doing too much, or too little.

I filled in and had the same thought. Some of the results will have to be ignored because they can be interpreted to convey either of two opposing views.

[thekettle]

Completed. Doesn't work on Firefox with ad-blocking software running (gets blocked). Might lose a few potential respondents this way.

[JR]

Completed. Doesn't work on Firefox with ad-blocking software running (gets blocked). Might lose a few potential respondents this way.

Thanks for letting us know.

[JR]

Have completed. Just another mention of the issue that Teaboy raised. When choosing between satisfied-dissatisfied it is unclear whether a lack of satisfaction will be interpreted as the BMC are not doing enough or are doing too much. Comps and encouraging participation being the obvious examples of where people may be dissatisfied because they think the BMC are currently doing too much, or too little.

I filled in and had the same thought. Some of the results will have to be ignored because they can be interpreted to convey either of two opposing views.

Thanks for the feedback and for completing. 

I think "ignored" is a little strong! We're not necessarily looking to create specific policies off the survey, more make recommendations where existing policies need to be reviewed or where there is general dissatisfaction (either way).   Following (a lot of) testing, its not something that came up before launch, although there are always improvements that can be made once released to the wider public, so we do value your comments taking it forward into analysis.

The response has been fantastic so far (over 3500 by Friday last week).  We've asked some pertinent policy questions specifically, such as encouraging participation.  There are a number of open questions where those who feel particularly strongly about an issue can feedback more generally, and people have, and will!

This is all happening alongside the focus groups (and legal/articles review) and we'll look at everything in the round one all the intel has been gathered and analysed.  So any recommendations are not solely down to what's uncovered by the survey.

[kelvin]

Done.