Resolution to be put to BMC AGM 2018

[JR]

A group of BMC members, including Bob Pettigrew, have launched a counter set of articles of association to the ones that many volunteers of the BMC have been working extremely hard on for the past 12 months, proposing that the BMC should not seek to be the tier 3 Sport England national representative and governing body for climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering. This will have a detrimental effect on the organisation and the sport as a whole.

In order to give a clear message to members, and to define the direction of travel for the BMC, we have proposed the motion below that will be sent to the BMC before the deadline tomorrow, which will go along side the new "official" articles of association to be voted on at the AGM.

It has already achieved more than the number of signatures required to be put forward and voted on at the AGM, however, we want to show the BMC that it has the support of its members to implement these changes, be the umbrella organisation for climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering.

If you are a BMC member, and support the huge amount of work that volunteers have done over the past 12 months to get this to AGM, then please add your signature and we will deliver this to Dave Turnbull in the morning with as many more signatures as possible.

https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-submission-of-ordinary-resolution-to-the-bmc-agm-2018

Please sign and share to your BMC member climbing friends and colleagues, and feel free to share the facebook post here: https://www.facebook.com/johnrobeds/posts/10156567004549658

 

[Will Hunt]

I will sign literally anything if it gives Bob Pettigrew a hard poke in the eye. Done.

 

[Simon Lee]

Canny move John. ;D

Signed.

 

[spidermonkey09]

That bloke is a fucking halfwit. Signed.

 

[Wil]

Are Bob's proposals publicly accessible? Or are they as "perfectly clear" as last years objectives?

 

[Oldmanmatt]

They really need to improve the the security at Petigrew’s “sheltered housing”, that old fart just keeps wandering off the reservation and straight into 1952...

 

[Simon Lee]

Are Bob's proposals publicly accessible? Or are they as "perfectly clear" as last years objectives?

Pettigrew’s proposal here: https://sites.google.com/view/bmc-rr/source-documents?authuser=0

 

[teestub]

proposing that the BMC should not seek to be the tier 3 Sport England national representative and governing body for climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering.

Their motion says governing and representative body status to be maintained, are they wrong?

 

[Will Hunt]

I think they suggest being a Tier 1 body.

 

[teestub]

Ah I see now, ‘detrimental effect’ as in not >£1mill funding, in fact <£250k funding.

 

[Simon Lee]

Deadline is 1pm today.

Be cool to get it to 500+ signatures

 

[Johnny Brown]

Agree with poking Bob in the eye.

However the site was very keen for me to connect to Facebook. I'm very keen not to connect anything to Facebook nowadays to be honest. Had already shared via twitter.

 

[JR]

Thanks Adam,

I know what you're saying about Facebook. Sorry about that.

I was in a rush to get to work (it was actually posted from the train at 200mph) and we needed a platform asap to help it go public and grow. But it worked, twitter, facebook, email, word of mouth...

We just hit 500!

 

[spidermonkey09]

Would someone mind explaining the upshot of this as regards the AGM please? I think (correct me if I'm wrong) there are now three proposals on the table: 1) do nothing 2) carry out ORG recommendations 3) carry out alternative recommendations from Pettigrew etc. This petition is to be presented at the AGM in support of 2, I think.

Whats the threshold needed to pass something at the AGM? I keep reading 75%; is this the threshold needed to kill it once and for all and stop it coming back further down the line? Would a simple majority be good enough to get things moving in the right direction? Appreciate a brief exposition of the various potentialities; cheers!

 

[JR]

I know this subject is terribly dull, and complex, so here goes.

At the AGM (currently) there will be:

1) An "official" set of articles put forward from National Council based on the ORG recommendations (not strictly in line with, but in the spirit of), and tier 3 SE governance compliance.

2) A "counter" set of articles put forward by another group based around tier 1 SE compliance and implementing some of the ORG's recommendations.

To change the BMC's articles requires a special resolution, which needs a 75% vote to be passed.

This is a high bar, and if neither pass, there is "no change" to the articles and stalemate.

3) I have proposed an ordinary resolution (with support of over 700 signatories) which will need a 50% vote to be passed. It doesn't change the articles, but defines the direction of travel as: seeking to achieve tier 3 SE governance compliance, and implementing change in line with the spirit of the ORG recommendations.

If there is stalemate for whatever reason, (3) commits the BMC to seeking to achieve (1) in future, and signals to dismiss (2).

In the case of (1) not passing, and regardless of whether (3) passes, or indeed, if (2) is successful, the BMC's funding from SE will be restricted, and the current whole sport bid application (which includes the partners like Mountain Training) will be rejected.

The whole sport bid, which goes via the BMC as the SE recognised NGB, is still being written, and needs to be approved by SE, but even if it was successful in terms of its content, it will be rejected on the basis of the BMC not having achieved the required standard of governance.

Tier 1 is a lower standard of governance, and tier 3 is required of SE recognised NGBs, so basing a set of articles on tier 1 is rather a moot point. See this statement from SE:

The tier decision for an organisation is dependent on a number of factors. These include: amount of funding; length of relationship with the partner; nature of the relationship with the partner and type of organisation. The amount of funding is one factor but certainly not the deciding factor. All of the National Governing Bodies who we’ve previously funded, and who we continue to fund, have been assessed as Tier 3 of the Code, regardless of their size or level of investment.

To put it into context, the charity that I chair (ABCTT), which receives funding through the whole sport bid, is tier 1, moving to tier 2. It is a tiny organisation (c. 2 FTE staff, and c. 150k revenue).

The BMC is over 10x the size, and rightly needs to meet higher standards of governance in order to help it make good decisions and use its resources and funding properly (whether public grant money or from membership fees). It's about good governance (and that's governance in how decisions are made by and for members, not governance of the "sport" in terms of "rules"). As you can see the BMC is having a very tricky time making those decisions at the moment, because it's not entirely clear in the current constitution and articles who decides what.

Very few people will read the full set of articles proposed, and I can understand why, they're dull as dishwater, but many volunteers (including me on the ORG) have put in the hard yards getting this all to place where it can get put forward to AGM.

Essentially, if you support (3), you should, in my view, support (1).

 

[Simon Lee]

Would someone mind explaining the upshot of this as regards the AGM please? I think (correct me if I'm wrong) there are now three proposals on the table: 1) do nothing 2) carry out ORG recommendations 3) carry out alternative recommendations from Pettigrew etc. This petition is to be presented at the AGM in support of 2, I think.

Whats the threshold needed to pass something at the AGM? I keep reading 75%; is this the threshold needed to kill it once and for all and stop it coming back further down the line? Would a simple majority be good enough to get things moving in the right direction? Appreciate a brief exposition of the various potentialities; cheers!

OK. (some guesswork involved)

There are two special resolutions requiring 75% - the National Council recommended constitution (based on ORG recommendations) and the alternative constitution (opposing ORG recommendations). These would (probably) be separate items as opposed to one either/or/neither vote. It would be ridiculous to vote in favour of both constitutions but that option might be possible.

There is now an ordinary resolution ie what started this thread that requires 50%. The main reason for JR instigating this resolution was in the eventuality that no constitution is carried but members have an opportunity to vote on whether they are generally in favour of ORG recommendations (not all of which are constitutional) therefore indicate the direction of travel they want (which I would characterise generally as regressive or progressive).

Hope that is clear? :geek:

 

[spidermonkey09]

Thats great, thanks JR and Shark.

Stupid question, but I presume the special resolution requires 75% of the total votes cast, including abstentions, rather than 75% of the total membership?! I know the answer to this but just double checking!

How is the vote structured? Does everyone vote on the Tier 3 resolution from National Council, then vote again on the Tier 1 Resolution, then again on the ordinary resolution in the event of stalemate? (Sorry Sharkl, just saw you answered this. Presume it would have to be seperate rather than an either or)

75% seems reasonably likely from my point of view if there is a strong campaign beforehand. What was the last special resolution to succeed at an AGM?

 

[petejh]

So to ask the obvious..

What does the BMC need to do to meet tier 3, versus what does it need to do to meet tier 1?

In simple language please.

Surely that's important to know (if you really care)?

Can I assume among the tier 3 requirements is a requirement to 'promote participation'. Or is that too cynical of me?

 

[Simon Lee]

So to ask the obvious..

What does the BMC need to do to meet tier 3, versus what does it need to do to meet tier 1?

In simple language please.

Surely that's important to know (if you really care)?

Can I assume among the tier 3 requirements is a requirement to 'promote participation'. Or is that too cynical of me?

Nothing to do with participation. The main requirement is that policy making lies with those who carry out policy so there is legal accountability for the outcomes ie policy decision making and execution should all lie with the Executive board of Directors whereas currently it is split with National Council.

Tier 1 might make allowances for such a split of responsibility and accountability but Tier 3 compliance definitely doesn't. .

 

[Teaboy]

Has the 'promoting growth in participation in all activities the BMC represents' statement made it into either set of articles?