BMC Resolutions shout out

[Davo]

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

 

[Oldmanmatt]

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. ‍

 

[Offwidth]

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.

 

[Nails]

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.

 

[Offwidth]

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).

 

[Nails]

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.

 

[Offwidth]

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.

 

[oldfella]

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

 

[Offwidth]

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.

 

[Wellsy]

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.

 

[Offwidth]

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.

 

[Wil]

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.

 

[Duma]

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.

 

[Offwidth]

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.

 

[petejh]

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:

 

[Offwidth]

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.

 

[Nails]

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?

 

[remus]

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.

 

[Nails]

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.

 

[Oldmanmatt]

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”…