UKH

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/ukc/bmc_announces_four_board_resignations...

The above UKC thread on the recent BMC resignations has been archived despite ongoing posting. Maybe it had got too long? 

Key points (IMO) within it are the following:

Andy Syme Deputy President is confirmed as temporarily Chairing National Council 

Andy also confirmed the issue surrounding the departures of the two Independent Directors related to Board decision making (governance)

The Directors involved in the conflict are still on the Board

The Board has put a narrative to National Council that the blame is collective and presented a recovery plan that has been accepted by the Board 

This plan is not yet in the public domain

The governance issue is unspecified and still only partially resolved 

The President, Lynn Robinson has taken a back seat or is on sick leave

Various accounting irregularities have been highlighted relating to premature signing of 2018 accounts by President and CEO repeated changes to those accounts prior to AGM and then a repeated submission of 2018 accounts to Companies House with amendments 

David Lanceley a member of the BMC Finance and Audit Committee and Former Treasurer has accused the Board of interference in Finance effectively saying they are inexperienced and financially illiterate and should be sacked

John Roberts former Director and former Chair of the Organisational Development Group (ODG) has recommended the Board convenes a General Meeting, with a proper strategy and plan for the future, and a new Chair and directors proposed

Rodney Gallagher (gallam1) member of the BMC 30 and involved with the alternative constitution presented at the 2018 AGM is talking on similar lines

John Roberts also criticised the latest AGM for not reporting a membership figure which is a key metric and constitutionally significant highlighting a letter he sent questioning why key ODG objectives relating to Culture, Leadership and Management has still not been implemented

Chris Stone (cds) current Board Member said “A meeting is taking place tonight (Thursday 20th) to discuss and make decisions about further steps we will take, acknowledging the concerns that have been raised by members – including on UKC. We will be sending a communication to members (with a link here)  following that with an update on the progress that has been made in the last couple of weeks and additional steps we are taking to address the situation”

I've forgotten, are this lot the Mensheviks or the Bolsheviks? 

This is correct. Very long threads become too difficult to manage for the system so they are auto-archived. It doesn’t happen very often but we could probably do with making an auto-continue system.

Alan

Excellent summary Simon, appreciate the time and effort required to prepare.  I guess we're all getting good at drafting in Word and pasting into UKC.....

A small correction;  I'm now an ex-member of the FAC, the penalty for speaking my mind, and not just on UKC.

Could you please give us some more detail on this? Did you resign or were you actually forced out?  

Thank you 

For some time I've felt that the BMC has struggled with its position as the the activity/sport has developed around it. Created as an umbrella organisation for the Clubs, when mountaineering clubs were the usual route into the sport; it was a 'representative' council. Later, as participation grew, that placed greater demands on the BMC. It could better deliver these with external funding; but the principle funding sources expected it to be a National Governing Body with good governance. Problem was that there was little to govern; and a distaste for it being a Governing Body amongst a portion of the membership. In the last decade our sport has gone through a huge expansion. It is now (principally through the climbing wall industry) a mainstream sport. Climbing imagery is common. It's in the Olympics. Participation is no longer counted in tens of thousands; it's millions. Our activity, our sport is in robust good health and still developing new facets; but where is the BMC in this. It does a good job in areas such as access; but in the global whole?

I don't think it would be easy for the BMC to be a true NGB. It lost that 'position' long ago. But it could return to being a good National Representative Body for the whole sport. Unpalatable as it was to many; the concept of Climb UK might have been the first step in investing in this.

After 49 years involvement in the sport; and having played a small part in the direction it has taken I'm still a member of the BMC. Purely because I feel I should be. But it doesn't represent climbing as I see it in the UK in 2020. Perhaps it is time for the discussion. Does the BMC clearly state 'we'll represent and work for the benefit of those in the UK who climb in the outdoors. A different body can emerge to represent the majority who are Wall users etc'. Or, 'the BMC will seek to up it's game and represent climbing in the UK in all it's forms'.

I was fired.  I refused to resign as I felt that my views were entirely correct and reasonable.  This did cause some consternation with the Board as apparently there is no procedure to remove volunteers.  In my view the Board has alienated the FAC which has already led to the resignation of one long-standing and well-respected volunteer.   

I would accept that you can't say the stuff I've been saying and stay in the tent but for evil to survive all it takes is for good men to do nothing....

David, this may be a really naive question but I have sat on quite a few execs and boards. Who is actually in charge, and what is the President’s role? The responsibility matrix for President, Chair and CEO doesn’t give much in the way of clues. 

Is "evil" metaphorical or real here?

Good question but as an ex-member of the FAC I'm probably not the best person to ask.  In very general terms as I understand it the Board has overall primacy but must consult with the membership via the (currently) National Council.  The President chairs the NC and is the members "Champion", the CEO is responsible for the day to day running of the organisation.  Andy Syme will I'm sure be able to give you a much more comprehensive answer.  

Hi Andy,

All good points and some of the things I covered in a previous article* on the direction (or rather lack of it) the BMC was heading

The BMC has historically lacked strategic direction and giving the Board the final say (primacy) was meant to be the solution to all this but that has come apart at the seams before our eyes.

The big questions such as whether the organisation should narrow its scope or widen it and if so how to resource it remains in answered due to poor leadership.

To give some examples it was not so long ago that the BMC affirmed its commitment to hill walking and a hill walking officer was appointed who drove the high profile Mend Our Mountains campaign. A strategy was agreed but SE funding was lacking. The officer left and never replaced. Mend Our Mountains could have been built on. It had direct relevance to climbers and hill walkers and strengthening relationships with National Park landowners. However, next campaign was “Hills 2 Oceans” to do with plastic waste which was never properly agreed with NC as far as I know and less relevant to climbers and hill walkers . All worthy stuff I’m sure but smacks of jumping on the latest zeitgeist band wagon as surely their are better placed and more relevant organisations to be taking the charge on this sort of thing.

At the other end of the spectrum we have Team GB and talent development where we are the NGB. The independent ORG report recommended putting into an independent subsidiary to be governed and create its own aims and realise it’s Potential. That recommendation was quietly overturned by the Board a few months ago in favour of being an internal department. How does that fit into the overall strategy? No one knows as there isn’t really an overall strategy. 

*https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/whither_the_bmc-11808 

metaphorical of course but without using the word I thought that the quote might not be easily recognised....

Worth noting that the BMC no longer has a hill walking officer but it does have a Governance and Compliance Officer (in-house lawyer).  Easy to see where the focus of the organisation is.

Feck!

Credit where credit is due! Andy Syme has played a blinder on UKC trying to answer queries and I'm sure will do a good job whilst the President is absent.  There WILL be things that are currently 'sub judice' as current investigations are conducted.  And, of course, the reasons for the resignation of the National Council Director may be very pertinent.

But three of the Board members have already left. And, let us not forget, an independent director also resigned a year or two ago.

'Irregularities' may be too strong a word? I dotdo it IS unusual that accounts are submitted 'on behalf of the Board' without the Board actually seeing them. And I would have thought it incumbent on any Director to ask questions about 'the numbers' if they had any worries about payments etc. There may be a temptation to say 'bugger off and let us get on with it but, with primacy comes responsibility.

This, obviously, is the 'apocalypse scenario' embedded in the new Articles.  Previously National Council could have 'instructed' the Exec. Now they can only pull the house down.  And the idea of a free-for-all election of a brand new Board is both difficult and hard to reconcile with the articles. The members have NO say at all the selection of most of the Board!

The 'Board' (collectively) is in charge. Their decisions are channelled through the Chair who 'cannot' go against their wishes.

The President is supposed to be 'the People's Champion, no longer the 'head honcho'. They are just one member of the Board.

The CEO is in a tricky position as both s Director and also an employee of the Board.  They may contribute to Board discussion but, ultimately, have implement any decisions the Board makes.

So any question about 'who runs the BMC' is tricky.  In the end all of the 'brass' could get run over by a bus and the BMC would still function as the majority of the nuts and bolts stuff is undertaken by the staff.

As in any organisation 😉

Did it all start to go wrong when we started calling it a ‘sport’?

Good article. I'd missed it first time round.

And does every bloody BMC AGM photo have to include me!?! (Who gets the royalties, Alex or the BMC 😉)

If you will permit me to be an awkward sod...

"The new constitution for the BMC has improved the problematic governance framework for decision-making that has in my opinion hamstrung the organisation over the years. The big decisions now ultimately rest with the Board rather than being split with the National Council".

And now it's the National Council that seem to be doing the hard yards 😉

The past wasn’t always rosey. The BMC has had many ups and downs but the long term trend has been good in terms of increased resources, influence and membership. It is a good organisation and climbers and hillwalkers, whether members or not, should be pleased we have it. It is struggling to internally reform from a good to great organisation. There is hope. But it’s the hope that can kill you...

So by process of elimination,  now we suspect that the issues don't lie with the CEO or outgoing board members, and given what David (thanks for your reply) has said above, might we assume that the problem is with those currently on the board? And if so, is perhaps a general meeting what is required? Or have I read too much into that?

The CEO is a Board member

I’m wanting to know where the President, who is meant to represent members, is in all this. A Johsonesque absence and silence in the face of chaos. I am drawing conclusions...

Yeh, but presumably isn't causing the problems if they are subservient to the rest of the board?

Nah - it's gone wrong because of the disproportionate influence of the Ron Hill brigade who spend their time puntering up VSs and kidding themselves that they're doing something 'extreme'.

If NC has primacy then they would be de facto the Board. The final say and accountability for that say has to stop somewhere. Boardroom bust ups are not uncommon. Sometimes driven internally by personality sometimes externally by events. The make up and chemistry of the people on the Board is key. I don’t think there is a structural issue. There is a people issue somewhere and a governance issue. What these are specifically has yet to be revealed which is hugely unsatisfactory. Something’s rotten when you have long-standing capable veterans like David being sacked from a voluntary post (and another FAC member resigning) something’s gone very wrong.
 
As things stand JR’s recommendation seems the obvious and cleanest way out. The Board and to a certain extent NC are on the back foot and need a hell of a lot of explaining to do to convince this member at least that we should continue to have confidence in the currently constituted Board since no one majorly responsible for what has gone on has individually fessed up or taken the fall for it. The general feeling is that ranks have been closed by the Board and NC on the real issues at stake. 

As an ex-everything I think it started to go wrong when non-climbers / mountaineers / hill walkers began to exert an influence on the BMC and associated organisations, (MHT and MTT) via independent director / trustee roles.  I appreciate that some of this might have been necessary to get the right skills but they just don't understand.......

'Sources close to The President' are also unusually silent ...

Indeed.

The President’s remit seems to be external engagement rather than taking hold of leadership, which prompted my question ‘who is in charge?’, especially when the president represents the members.

Lets be careful not to put pressure on individuals who are unwell.

Andy Syme as Deputy President is confirmed as temporarily Chairing National Council and is doing a good job of communicating to the members what he can.

No, please do be careful not to stretch my position too far.  The member resolution/GM option of course exists (which I assume you're referring to as the 'apocalypse scenario'), but I wasn't saying that members raising a GM should be the method, nor that all directors should necessarily be replaced.

This is specifically what I said:

"That said, the easiest route out for the Board is to probably hold a General Meeting, with a proper strategy and plan for the future, and a new Chair and directors proposed ASAP, so that it gets the house in order, draws a line, and allows the air to clear. The Board (or NC) can of course call this themselves."

There are also at least three new appointments that will need to be voted on (at least the Chair and 2 x Independents), but who are appointed prior to a GM/AGM by a NomCom. This is a NomCom that doesn't currently meet the expected (SE governance) criteria given the recent resignations of independent directors. Given the current situation, the sooner new directors are voted on by the members, and a full, reformed Board given the confidence to get on delivering, the better.

I do think that it would be sensible for the all incumbent Directors wishing to stay on the Board to put themselves up for re-confirmation vote (individually, and/or collectively).

Whether incumbent directors wish to stay to do this, whether a Board with new appointees wishes some Directors to stay, whether NC wishes them to stay, or indeed whether the members wish them to stay at a GM/AGM is then up to the relevant groups to discuss, decide, or cast their vote accordingly.

An interim exec is being appointed to bring further leadership internally, the President is currently absent, and the Chair is standing down. Andy Syme has a lot of his plate, and I'm sure is doing his very best to chair NC (which is still yet to finish its own reform), but it is obviously facing its own challenges.

You have to feel for the general staff here, this is not their fault at a challenging time for organisations generally, and they will be being run through the mill, again.

It's the Board who are "unusually silent"

This story has been running for nearly two weeks and there hasn't been a statement from the Board. In the meantime speculation is running wild.

The Board really need to get on top of this quickly before it gets completely out of control.

'it's gone wrong because of the disproportionate influence of the Ron Hill brigade who spend their time puntering up VSs and kidding themselves that they're doing something 'extreme''

Not so. Elite climbers are good at elite climbing, not necessarily at running substantial organisations. The organisation has gone wrong because technical incompetents have had the arrogance to fire obviously competent officers such as David Lanceley with substantial periods of worthy service.

It went wrong when no one on the board had a beard anymore.

A further communication to members has been drafted, which will go out via the BMC website to all members. We are trying to get it out as soon as possible and hope that this will be Monday. We will put a link to it on UKC.

Fully agree... There is a deafening silence (save for the laudible but unofficial interject here from the like of Andy) that smells of sophomania and a 'f&ck em' disregard for the level of interest and decreasing confidence (that was already low) among the UKC audience. 

Any sane PR crisis management approach would be to get control of the narrative and engage with a UKC journalist like Nat Berry...

... badnews does not get better with time. 

What a strange comment. I wear Ron Hills (or similar). I've just spent a week climbing mostly VSs in Pembroke, which for a 69 year old emerging from 4 months lockdown is not too discreditable I think. I know well that VSs are not extreme but they were challenging enough for me. I have my one vote on the BMC. How can I have "disproportionate influence", unless it's because others don't bother to use their vote - that's hardly my fault.

Martin

FWIW I agree.

I couldn't agree more.

I don't agree.

I assume the reference is to Covid-19. We are all having to deal with that, no matter what line of work we're in. But what has that got to do with the apparent problems in this specific case?

No. The reference isn't to Covid19. It's about staff stress in a time of uncertainty. They've been through a Motion of No Confidence in the Board, a fairly bitter wrangle about the governance of the BMC and now a series of resignations, a CEO off sick, a missing President and further turmoil.

And still Access, Technical, Training etc has to go on.

The staff have had a very turbulent time over the last few years with funding for their roles potentially being cut and their line management being preoccupied with additional stuff above and beyond their actual jobs.

Large organisational changes in businesses are invariably crap for staff in my experience, the long lead time and very public discussions (including questioning of their usefulness in some unsavoury posts about staff count during the discussion about the articles) in the run up to such change will certainly not make it easier.

There is no way in which you could persuade me to be a member of BMC staff if my job was going to have a sword of Damocles hanging over it with the regularity that the last 3-4 years suggest. 

Agreed that organisational and cultural change is often a negative experience. Generally, like in this case where it’s ‘change by committee’. Clear, unambiguous leadership with an open and transparent set of objectives and change plan can and does work, especially when the employees are valued and supported as part of the process. I’ve been lucky enough to be involved in a couple of these large scale change projects which have had very positive outcomes. It’s not going to work with the current setup though.

I haven't experienced that so far in my career, the last big change I watched happen (integration of two engineering consultancies) it felt like watching a car crash in slow motion.

I don't doubt it can be done well, I just haven't seen it done well. 

Fair enough, thanks.

I think my initial reaction was due to the fact that the official BMC announcement at https://www.thebmc.co.uk/update-bmc-board-11-august?fbclid=IwAR1xpZVAhBedRh... explicitly implies that the troubles have been caused by Covid.

The key word I think. It's certainly the bit that bothers me, how secretive this episode has been. The BMC is a representative body, my representative body. It's not got any commercial in confidence stuff (except for things like insurance scheme arrangements) that competitors (what competitors) might take advantage of.

So why the secrecy?

I didn't read every post in the initial thread but from what I did read it sounds like there have been big disagreements about the direction of the BMC, its long-term strategy and its governance, and some board members have decided that they can't continue since they can't reconcile their views/position with board decisions. I haven't seen any accusations of people behaving dishonestly or of plotting with Machiavellian intent, etc (please correct me if I've missed that), merely that the differences of opinion may have become heated and that it's been impossible to reach a compromise acceptable to all.

Are board members threatening to take legal action if all is revealed?

So why can we not know what these disagreements were/are?

I wonder if many of us (if/when we do see the details) will think "is that all it was?"

A further communication to members has been drafted, which will go out via the BMC website to all members. We are trying to get it out as soon as possible and hope that this will be Monday. We will put a link to it on UKC.

No doubt some spoilt weekends in the BMC corridors of power wrestling with what to say and how to say it knowing it's all going to be picked over in minute detail by the UKC band of keyboard warriors.  I almost feel sorry for them.

It's all going to be picked over in minute detail by the UKC band of keyboard warriors.  I almost feel sorry for them.<

Keyboard warriors being the stakeholders who on the whole give a shit... Once again its reassuring to see passion in thread about the national representative body ... Sad however that it is 'again' ... when organisations become self serving and fail to achieve the basics of coherence and communication with the very people they are their to serve then its time to shake the tree very hard. It's really simple when it adults volunteer... Is this the right place and the right organisation to volunteer into...Frankly the real issue IMHO is a ridiculously complicated structure of governance and management... Simplify, know your cause, choose your leadership wisely and then back them to the hilt. 

Perhaps keyboard warrior is the wrong label here but you know what I mean.  I think we also both know more about what's going on than can be placed on a public forum just yet.  So I agree with what you say about the organisation and the ridiculously complicated structure but "they" still have a probably impossible task to do.

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth would make a refreshing change and attract more sympathy.

However, on current form I’m bracing myself for Director speak double talk, riddles, hand wringing, woe is us, no one is to blame and everyone is to blame collective arse covering and face saving.

Indeed, the usual garbage.  If the drafting style is reminiscent of Jarndyce v Jarndyce then we'll know were it came from....

Still, things could be worse!

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/aug/23/islamic-relief-worldwide-entir...

Dickens?

Bleak House.

Never heard of Bleak House. Is he as good as Charles Dickens?

OK.  My sixpenn'orth.  I have friends on the Board and in National Council.  More particularly I have friends who actually work for the BMC and can't resign and walk away. Like most people I am trying to put together a jigsaw here from snippets.  And I'm not going to show you the detail of the jigsaw I have created because of those friends.

Firstly I think that for 90% of the membership of the BMC this is all just tiresome.  They have joined the mountaineering equivalent of the RAC and just want a service.  Of the remaining 10% maybe half understand the current governance structure of the BMC; for the rest, the Board and NC and staff are just 'them'.  So its all a bit arcane.

I think that the Board, with newly endowed 'primacy', felt empowered to start asking questions and rolling back the stones to see what was underneath.  This may well engender discomfort! I recall getting a new Chair and from a phone conversation once a fortnight I got meetings every other day.  I complained about 'micro-management' but is was MY problem in that it was I that struggled to adjust to the new style.  I can empathise with David 'Bleak House' Lanceley here.

So. A few of those stones revealed something questionable and the Board wanted to dig further.  They met with opposition and/or distrust.  Staff may have been unsettled about being questioned.  It is possible that some Board members simply did not want to rock the boat and wanted other members of the Board to just back off.  Others may possibly have felt that their integrity was being questioned.  During this whole process Board minutes haven't been put on line as they were supposed to be and National Council weren't informed about just what was going on.  Bad news!

We now have a CEO on sick leave; a President that has gone missing; three resignations from the Board (plus one a few years ago after queries about the accounts) and a National Council on high alert.  Amongst those resign-ees we have a Company Lawyer and the head of a large charitable trust which is worrying.

Where to go next?

Whatever is ongoing internally needs to be concluded.  A General Meeting has to be given as full a report as possible about the saga.  And there has to be real thought given to the process whereby the resigned, and retiring, officers are replaced.  I would really like an open process, involving the membership, rather than a new set of  Directors being selected by a 'Nominations Committee', that may well now even exist currently, without reference to the membership.

As they probably should be. This is getting rather unpleasant.

Ah look - that was a joke (or cheap shot, if you prefer) by me. Just ignore it.

The person to whom I am referring to is 'Never Knowingly Underopinionated' on any climbing matter - let alone on any matter relating to the BMC - so the current radio silence is very obvious to anybody who has monitored these forums for any length of time.

But I agree that it doesn't matter. The people from whom we need to hear at this point are those with real responsibilities, and/or power.

Mr offwidth if you haven’t worked it out already

Yes, I think there are very few UKC regulars who don’t know that.

David

To be fair you were not fired for what you said you were fired for how you said what you said particularly in an email to a Director which was totally inappropriate and would have been gross misconduct if any member of staff had sent such an email to another member of staff in any company.

You were also given the option to apologise for the email and remain on FAC but you said you didn't want to do that either.  That left the Board with no choice.

While I disagree with your views I totally accept you have the right to hold them and say them, but this must be done in a professional and respectful way.  Failing to do that is why you are no longer on FAC.

Andy 

The Chair of the Board is responsible for the direction, strategy and overall correct running of the BMC as a commercial entity.  Clearly this responsibility is shared across the whole Board, but the Chair has deciding votes and is ultimately the accountable person.

The CEO is the executive arm of the BMC ensuring the staff and company deliver against direction and strategy of the Board and deal with the day to day stuff that makes that happen.

The BMC President is in a fairly special role as they are a Director of the company with legal duties, like all other Directors, to ensure the BMC remain legal, solvent etc.  They are also the Members Champion; so have a moral (though not legal) responsibility to ensure the Board are aware and take due account of the members views.  Finally they are Chair of the National Council part of whose role is to hold the Board to account.  So they theoretically have no more influence than any other Board member, but they have a soft power well above that; and at times a difficult conflict of interest.

Does that Help Paul?

The Board as currently constituted (albeit with some gaps) is as follows:

• 4 People Directly elected by the Members (Lynn, + 3 NDs Jonathan, Huw & Jonny)
• 3 CNDs elected to National Council by their areas and then elected to the Board by fellow councillors
• 3 IDs & a Chair appointed by the Board (and agreed by Members)
• 1 CEO ex-officio.

Which is almost exactly the same as the pre-2018 board constitution

• 4 people directly elected (Pres & 3 VPs) - Pres was also Chair of Board & NC
• 3 CND
• 3 IDs
• 1 CEO
• 1 Treasurer

I guess the only difference is that the Treasurer was 'nominally' elected but not sure it was ever an opposed post.  And the Board can chose to go to a stakeholder Group to appoint a ND instead of going to the members but the appointment is by that Group, NOT the Board.

So currently 4 (33%) are directly elected and 3 (25%) are elected via NC.  That doesn't look like no say to me.

The CEO is a Director and is as much part of the problem as any other member of the Board. 

Even the outgoing Board members are not immune to criticism, though possibly mostly in terms of 'giving up' and walking, rather than doing anything specifically to inflame the issue.

....

Michael

Members could well say "is that all it is" in that the behaviours are more 'stupid and inconsiderate' rather than illegal or misconduct.  But the net effect was that the Board stopped operating as they should and that is a problem.  This is where the council have focused their effort, not in adjudicating any specific dispute, and I think that is the best approach.

No Board member has threatened me or the Council with legal action, but the fractious nature of the situation means it is a concern.  Also the Council are not a court so while we could take a 'view' on individual incidents and attribute blame, that person could then feel the view as 'defamatory'.    

Obviously the Council can't publish the details, but the Board, or individual members, could each publish their concerns and explanations.  My view remains that this would serve little purpose and I would also say that that effort is less useful than recognising they have all got to change and focusing on ensuring those changes happen and the Board work effectively.

As I have said to all the Board members I've spoken to, it would be far better if the 'Board' could respond to this thread quickly rather than me acting as an alternative mouthpiece.  I guess if they did we might not cause UKCs system so many problems.

IMHO the issue is, and remains, that even though they are moving in the right direction they are not yet at the point where a single Board Member can respond authoritatively for all and hence they need to discuss and agree what they say.  This inevitably results in slow communications and smoothed, or even overly polished, responses.

While every Director posting here in a public argument might be 'fun' the slow, polished comms at least show the Board is working cooperatively. 

I remain hopeful that in fairly short order the Board can move to swift responses either here or on the website and I can go back to a quieter life where my biggest concern is I still can't get enough time ice climbing

A note to thank you for all the helpful responses here.

It is very disappointing you need to post in this way however because of what are clearly major problems at the BMC.

I sent a private email to the current chair saying in summary that I was pleased he was leaving as his term as chair had been a disaster for the BMC.  I acknowledged that it wasn’t entirely his fault and that he had been assisted by an incompetent Board.  I hoped that he had learned a lesson from the debacle and would not inflict himself on other organisations in the future.  I don’t use corporate gobblydegook-speak so my words were plain and to the point.  If he thinks that's a bit tough then he's led a very sheltered life.  Gross misconduct?  Nonsense.  Calling a spade a spade?  Certainly.

I was not given the option to apologise and remain on the FAC.  Check your facts with Jonathan.  In any event I would not have apologised.

Professional and respect are in short supply with the Board as you well know.  Plenty of arrogance and patronising though.

I look forward to tomorrow’s revelations.

Maybe you see it as plain words to the point, it was way beyond that.  If I had received, or seen, an email like you sent within my professional life then I would definitely be looking at formal disciplinary action and probably gross misconduct, maybe I work in a different world to you.    

As I said I have no problem that you think the Board is the 'wrong people' and could have better, but not how you said it.   

I would also say that given your views it is difficult to see how you would want to remain on the FAC, a committee of the Board and directly responsible and managed by the very 'incompetents' you have railed against. 

I did very carefully before posting anything; this included getting him to check the notes he took during the calls.  

If you would not apologise for the email (the content not the sentiment) and wouldn't resign then as I say the Board were left with little choice.

You obviously do work in a different world, pretty routine stuff for me.

So if I had wrapped it up in corporate gobbledegook it would have been OK?

I never said that I did want to remain on the FAC

Then his recollection is wrong, it was discussed but there was never an option to apologise.  

I don't dispute that the Board had no choice, as I've said before you can't say this sort of stuff and stay in the tent.

What I would remind of is that I spent 5 years on the BMC Board, far longer than any of the present incumbents.  All was peace and tranquillity, we did stuff, made a surplus and didn't raise the subs.  The big difference is the people, that Board was made up of competent, capable people from a climbing / mountaineering background who treated it as a volunteer role not a day job.  The current Board of wannabe's living out their corporate fantasies is not in the same league. 

I recently re-read Caffs account of his trials on Indian Face http://www.jamesmchaffie.com/caffs-blog/the-indian-face.  I think it could be quite a good analogy. 

The Board have got to the 'no hands rest', albeit climbing a bit scrapily at times.  If they can get their head and body working together then they have one crux sequence and it's (relatively) going to be easier from there. 

But they are stood there and the crowd are watching.

They can't stay there indefinitely (they'll fall eventually), down climbing is not a great option, so they need to go up.  They are capable of going up but they need to get their head together and work precisely and efficiently if they are to achieve their goal. 

If this virtual body does not work as a cooperative whole it will lead to a messy end.

Let's not forget, David, that Jarndyce v Jarndyce dragged on for years, no-one understood it, and it collapsed when all of its capital had disappeared... 😉

You have I know done much for the BMC, and I'm not wanting to devalue any of that.  As you agree you gave the Board no choice based on your actions so not sure that further to and fro will enlighten people further.  

The fact that you were on the Board in the past and there were no problems does not however mean necessarily that 'your' Board were more competent as I'm sure you know.

If this Board are 'wannabes', competent people in a very difficult situation or somewhere between those 2 extremes is a matter of opinion.  

Currently the Council feel that the remaining members of the Board are capable of moving through this and returning to a fully effective Board and we are working with the Board to achieve that; whilst very aware that we need to watch the situation carefully and may have to change our approach if things do not continue to move in the right direction.

Your views and opinions are useful input into this work so do keep telling us your thoughts.  

Hi Andy

Does the BMC invite members to submit nominations for these posts like the National Trust and other organisations as they always seem to be shoe-ins ?

Steve

The Board can chose if they want NDs from: 

1. Specific stakeholder groups - In which case they approach that group ask them to nominate a candidate and, provided the Nominations Committee agree that the person nominated has the required skill/expertise, they are appointed by the Board and agreed (or not) by the members at the next General Meeting; OR
2.  the wider membership - In which case the role is advertised and, provided the Nominations Committee agree that the person proposed has the required skill/expertise, they are put to the members for election at the next General Meeting.

That meant all 3 could be nominated from stakeholder, all 3 could be sought from the members, or a mixture of the 2 across the 3 roles.

In 2019 all 3 posts were advertised on the BMC website, all candidates were accepted by the NomCom (though some withdrew their application before the elections), and all went to the members at the AGM in Buxton.  There were 2 candidates each for 2 posts, and 3 candidates for the 3rd post.  So there was no shoe-in as far as I could determine.

But not free open elections as the NomCom can refuse any candidates they don't like

Statement now published:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/statement-to-members-from-the-bmc-board

Issue seems to be more a finance (procurement) issue than a governance one.

Address is entirely from the Chairman. No statement from, or reference to the President. Others have been co-opted to strengthen the Board and Nom Com. External evaluation of the Board by Sport England brought forward.

The description by Andy Syme of the democratic make-up of the Board lacks critical detail.

Only the President is directly elected by the Members, see article 18.1.

The Nominated Directors are offered to the members for their “approval” or “appointment”, see article 19.7. They are not directly elected by the members. They have not been proposed and seconded by members. Indeed there is no election as such, unless more than one candidate has been approved by the Nominations Committee and then “presented” for appointment by the members.

This makes voting for a Nominated Director akin to elections held in the Communist States of Eastern Europe during the Cold War. The electorate can vote for anyone who has been approved by the Central Committee of the Communist Party and put on to the ballot by the Party. No other candidates may apply.

It is worth remembering that the Nominations Committee itself is not made up of people directly elected by the members. The Nominations Committee is a body comprising members of the Board who apply to any candidate put to them by the Stakeholders a skills matrix, drawn up by (you guessed it), the Board. See article 19.5 for the justification of this structure.  

To compare the position under the revised articles with the open elections held under the previous articles for the President, three Vice Presidents and a Treasurer, all of whom were proposed, seconded and then directly elected by members at a general meeting, is at best misleading.

Regardless of the "spin" none should be in doubt of the democratic deficit at the heart of the BMC.

Unless you are going to volunteer to take on the role yourself you are eventually going to need to trust that someone else is going to act with integrity in the role.

If Nom Com refuses a capable candidate that they don't like for personal reasons (perhaps if some of the very vocally negative posters on this thread applied to join the board) who has the skills which Nom Com is looking for in that role they would be exposing the BMC to legal and reputational risk and therefore not meeting the requirements of their own role on the board. 

If it was a completely free election there would be a large risk of it winding up being little more than a popularity contest in the way that student union elections are. Having seen the prize incompetence in the Loughborough Student's Union Executive during my time on the committee of LSMC a few years ago I am quite comfortable in there being a filter to ensure competence and having suitable experience for the role of an organisation which serves a variety of important roles in the community.

RE: Statement - It reads as though the board has been concerned with governance and the latest crisis since it was set up, this is understandable, surely the board can say something good about what it's done in terms of the organisation's core purpose (Mend Our Mountains 2 and Hills 2 Oceans both come to mind) since it was set up? I feel as though the majority of members don't care about governance or finance as long as they are done well, they are interested in improved access, guidebooks and access to training etc and want to hear about these things (and some members even want to participate in and hear about comps).

I agree little to be gained by further exchanges, we can agree to disagree.

Whilst I'm enjoying my time outside the tent after 12+ years your suggestion that I should keep telling you my thoughts I will take with a tablespoon of salt.

No they can reject a candidate that does not have the right skills and experience for the role.  That is very different. 

In 2019 as I said no one was filtered and Jonathan White who had previously been a Tier 1 supporter, and possibly was seen by some as potentially disruptive, not only was put forward by NomCom, but was elected.  

Having a Board with the right skills and experience is clearly good.  The SRA principles for example say in Principle 3: Leadership and the Role of the Board that "In order to perform these duties, it is essential that the board is made up of directors with the right skills and experience."

The 2 issues there are however are:

1. If there were 20 candidates, with the right skills and experience, for 1 role should NomCom filter this to say 3?  My gut says members would not appreciate having 20 people to chose from but we did not put it in the articles as it seems very situation specific.
2. What if NomCom don't think person X has the right skills and experience but person X, and their supporters, do?  If that happened then my view would be that it does the BMC no good to get into an argument on this and the NomCom should be flexible if they were close to the line, but if person X were patently not suitable then it does the BMC no good to put forward an unsuitable candidate. 

Ultimately I trust NomCom to do the right thing, if they don't I would be the first person to call foul. 

Does this procurement matter relate to the (belatedly reported in the accounts) Director loan to the CEO for a car?

I experienced a Finance Director disappearing, their name was never mentioned again, just gone....

Rodney.  I specifically covered this as there are 2 types of Nominated Director.  If you look back to 2019 all the potential NDs were elected under Article 19.7.1.  They had proposers and seconders as per article 12.3. "... nominations of any candidate proposed for election to the office of President, or for Nominated Director appointments under article 19.7.1, shall be delivered to the CEO not less than forty five Clear Days before the date of the General Meeting."

They are elected by the members in line with article 19.8 "Where there are more candidates than vacancies for Nominated Directors under Article 19.7, all candidates deemed suitable and qualified by the Nominations Committee will be presented to the General Meeting and the Voting Members shall vote for their preferred Nominated Director."

The NomCom includes the President (directly elected) and a National Councillor who is not on the Board.  So there is definately directly elected representation, though I accept less than you wanted.

The NomCom develop the skills matrix on behalf of the Board, who have to agree it, but then who else would you suggest does it, or are you suggesting that counter to SRA principles we just leave everything to a beauty contest?

The Board composition is different to before and that is for the better.  We have gone from a 'beauty contest' with no specifically required skills, often with candidates who were uncontested, to a skills based approach as recommended by the SRA.  

SRA Principle 4: Board Structure "In the sports sector, boards should have a combination of elected and appointed directors to balance sports expertise and independent thinking. It is important that appointments to the board are made on the basis of competencies, knowledge, skills and experience and that these skills are clearly set out in the role descriptions."  

No idea, I'm not part of the investigation nor the Board so I only know what is in the public domain.

You have to be joking, Simon? Added to all the above and the prior thread, we need a new representative body. Climbers and mountaineers deserve better.

Climb Britain, anyone?

Paul

Yes was in ORG Report and personally I still think it's a good idea.  Huw is partially filling the role but a full time member of staff in the role of FD would IMHO be a good idea. 

Andy

I had heard about a loan 'to a Director' for car purchase.

A loan to a staff member who needs to spend a lot of time traveling and lives 90 miles from the office could be justifiable but I would have expected it to be clearly minuted and to appear in both summaries to the Board and the accounts.

Well, of course, the BMC had whatisname in the early 2000's.....

Reading these two threads has been like being back at work, sat at the back of an internal event for a purposeless quango, being forced to listen to suited men drone on in hazy language about abstract concepts which seems to serve only to cloud the actual purpose of the business being conducted and justify the existence of said suited men.

The BMC is a body which exists exclusively to represent, promote, protect and advance the interests of its members – climbers and mountaineers (and apparently hillwalkers and competitive sport climbers and mountain bikers and dog walkers and grandma’s neighbour’s cat). Right at this moment, to this particular average young climber, it seems to be failing significantly in that aim, while simultaneously generating an entire new range of mountains of chossy crapstone and treating the membership (those people they exist exclusively to represent the interests thereof) like a large collective of morons.

Don’t get me wrong: I appreciate that having a functioning organisation requires more complexity than the average school club. I understand that very well – I spend the majority of my work time sitting at the back of a huge range of events for a huge range of different corporate bodies. I get it. I get what effective corporate governance looks like, and I get what woolly corporate bull’ looks like. This does not look like effective corporate governance.

From what I understand (and that is not much at all – how could it be when the BMC are being so opaque to the membership and the wider community?), I’m firmly on the side of Mr. Lanceley’s interpretation. Corporate fantasists living out their dreams via the BMC. Between this, the rebranding debacle and the general presentation of the BMC, there’s the best part of naff all chance I will ever rejoin. Not unless something profound changes. Regardless of what good the BMC do do on the ground.

This is bollocks. Pull your socks up, the lot of you.

A director loan is different to a staff member. Where DT chooses to live is his affair, nothing to do with the employer, and surely on the CEO salary it is reasonable to assume the holder of that office would have the wherewithal to provide his own wheels or at least have access to funds to provide same. If it wasn't in the accounts as a beneficial loan then I would regard that professionally as a "very bad thing" .

Simon,

It's an ongoing investigation, and no organisation would comment publically in such cases. Now that Jon is back from his Covid-dodging holiday in Europe, hopefully it will be concluded asap.

It's highly unlikely that anything will be published afterwards, but that depends on the findings. 

Jonathan

The investigation is nothing to do with a car loan.

I'm not sure which Directors would you think were corporate fantasists and not long standing members of the BMC most with a track record of volunteering for the BMC for many years. 

But I totally get your frustration that there have been far to many problems, of small and larger types and wheras in the past they were only visable to those 'in the know' now it all plays out here for better or worse.  Are the Board now, as individuals, any better or worse than their predecessors impossible to prove but easy to have an opinion.  I still believe that it is the circumstances since 2017 that have lead to the problems far more than the individuals lack of commitment or competency.  

It is worth remembering that the Board in place for Climb Britain, the Board who supported the 2018 new articles and the Board now are totally different people.  The only person who has been on the Board throughout is the CEO.

This is all so rubbish. How far can people stretch "the BMC does so much good work" to justify all this nonsense? 

The main (only?) thing most members care about is access. I've been an access volunteer for a quite a few years now and in this time it has become apparent that all this work is done by volunteers with the (superb) help from 1 member of BMC staff: Rob Dyer, most of this work seemingly quite detached from the rest of the BMC. We don't need this huge, bloated bohemoth of an organisation to maintain access to crags and hills.  We need a single person's salary, plus a bit of cash for software, a bit of admin etc and the continued efforts by Volunteers. Yes, the BMC's name is useful when negotiating with landowners, but that and the access officer is about the limit of its helpfulness. 

It was obvious at the time there were changes made in the governance structure that there was going to be a problem created by removing primacy even further away from members. The bigger the BMC gets, the more of a problem this becomes. We were told it wasn't possible to have a democratic organisation, because we needed to court sport England funding. We were told we needed to have sport England funding in order to do all this superfluous stuff. This isn't working and I for one would support a slimmed-down organisation that focused on things that were actually important to members and one we could all be proud of. This should remain within the BMC, but i think something pretty drastic needs to be done to restore the membership's trust in the organisation.

Oh, and I wear ronhills FWIW 

So do I.  Not sure why that's in reply to me

In addition to your robust attitude to plain speaking you also seem to have an unusual idea of what private means.

I guess you must know something about finances because you clearly didn't get the job for your charm and diplomacy. 

Hi Ian.  I can clarify here if it helps.  The 2019 accounts include a note (11) that refer to a loan made to a Director of the BMC in August 2018.  The loan was not mentioned in the 2018 as it fell below the auditors' materiality figures.  However it was mentioned in the 2019 accounts, giving both he original value and the sum remaining outstanding, as the Board felt it was in the membership interest to do so.

As always, if anyone has any questions then I'm happy to answer them as best I can.

Some of us are still here Paul, and more than happy to answer questions as best we can.  'Corporate Wannabe's or otherwise..........

Main thing? Possibly although I'm not sure how you or any of us can know that. Only thing? That might be stretching it.

All the insurance stuff, being the umbrella organisation for clubs, involvement in the now big commercial sector that is walls and bouldering centres, competitions and the national teams, promoting access to the sport for groups who are underrepresented or face challenges to access, being a contact point for local and national goverment etc. etc.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think it will be easy for anyone to just hack away bits of the BMC to leave us with, say, just access work.

For me access and support for conservation in a way that allows climbing/walking is the most important thing the BMC does, but I'd be hard pressed to explain why that's the most important thing overall the BMC is involved in to, say, a disabled person who climbs for a para-climbing team based at a London climbing wall.

What about membership, managing and collecting the subs?  What about Clubs and Huts?  What about managing payroll, even for one member of staff?  What about the growing numbers who climb mainly, or exclusively indoors?  What about IT support?  What about Areas, are they not important for access?

It's not, IMHO a behemoth with 30 staff and while access is probably the common factor for most I don't think it's the only thing by a long way.

We obviously could stop being a limited company and revert to being just a club or similar, but then who would employ the staff that remained; under what basis and with what legal liability?

Hi there, I’ve nothing to do with the BMC except being a member for decades. It’s important that we remain members for one thing....

The work the BMC does on negotiating and maintaining access is critical for us all, and it does a superlative job. We really need it. Add in insurance, and that’s all I need. I agree with your analysis of people playing at execs, and unnecessarily stretching the BMC remit 

Didn't even know you could still get 'em. Wore out my last (red) pair about 25 years ago.  You got a beard and wooly socks....?

The BMC conducts regular membership surveys. I stand to be corrected but I believe that every such survey for the last 15 years has indicated that, for the members at large, Access is far and away their highest priority.

Thanks David

In attitude as they present themselves through stupidity like this, not necessarily in background.

A company is a self-serving entity: they create a product or service which they hope to sell to people in order to generate a profit to make their shareholders happy. There is no obligation on the part of the customer to partake, and there is no obligation on the part of the company to be transparent beyond any statutory requirements. A representative body exists to represent its members, by the efforts of its most dedicated members - in simplest terms. There is surely a strong moral obligation to be transparent with the body of members, who are the sole reason that the organisation exists in the first place?

I'm not sure that's any better, to be honest. To me, it seems that the BMC have lost all sense of direction - and that it isn't confined to one period in time under the leadership of one board of directors. Someone needs to give them a compass - or rather an unambiguous reminder of why the BMC actually exists and what it stands for.

I have no vested interest, and so I don't really want to dive into a deep debate about it myself. I just thought, having read both threads, that in among those who do have a deep and passionate interests, there was a lack of voice from the average mountain-goer. Those who form the bulk of the membership, and those who are who the BMC needs to attract and/or retain as members in order to survive going forward. Those who are mostly going to silently read and judge, and not speak, and quite possibly avoid the BMC from here on, having formed a similar opinion to my own.

Hi Andy.  I can clarify here if it helps.  The 2019 accounts include a note (11) that refer to a loan made to a Director of the BMC in August 2018.  The loan was not mentioned in the 2018 as it fell below the auditors' materiality figures.  However it was mentioned in the 2019 accounts, giving both the original value and the sum remaining outstanding, as the Board felt it was in the membership interest to do so.

As always, if anyone has any questions then I'm happy to answer them as best I can.

I'm sure that's how I would have answered that question! But I guess my point is the BMC does do lots of other stuff too. Perhaps there are obvious answers that I'm simply not aware of, but I'm not sure who would do that other "stuff" if the BMC didn't.

Private in the sense that the email was sent to an individual and not copied more widely.  It was his choice to do that.

I've tried charm and diplomacy with these clowns and it doesn't work, the egos are too big.

Yes, I do know a bit about finances, I specialise in counting my millions......

In fact the loan was included in the 2019 accounts following the FAC review (identified by Iain D) and prior to Board involvement.  The auditors still considered that it was not material as they had in 2018 when the FAC did not review the accounts prior to Board sign-off.  In 2017 the Director involved was not a Director so the issue didn't arise. 

I think this is the nub of the problem.  Whatever it's structure without an agreed view of what the BMC is for any group of people is going to struggle.  The BMC has always tried to be a broad church and I think that is right, but as climbing expands in both numbers and 'disciplines' the needs of each group become harder to meet without others feeling 'their BMC' is being 'lost'.

Ultimately we either need to agree we are stronger together or we split into numerous BMCs each focusing on a different part.  

Must we be addressed in Welsh from an organisation based in Manchester?  I would guess 99.9% of the membership don’t understand the language and have no exposure to it other than being confused by bilingual road signs on visits.  I put up with this stuff at home as I’ve lived for 45 years in an almost 100% first language Welsh speaking area but from the BMC?  Political correctness gone mad.

For the rest of the piece the expected whitewash, we’re doing fine, all concerns are being addressed etc. etc. etc.  The only glimmer of hope is the three “independents” drafted in and although I have considerable respect for all of them they are hardly outsiders and I suspect more inclined to be supportive than critical.

Thats fine, it would be odd if it sparked an investigation, unless dishonesty or acting ultra vires was suspected.

Its more a matter of principle for me. The highest paid officer / employee in an organisation doesn't get a car loan. Especially when loans are so cheap commercially and there are clearly other calls on the money.

I had a quick double take there, David!

But if we are talking about the CEO then surely he was both part of the Executive Committee, a Director registered with Companies House as well as the Company Secretary?

As I've said the investigation is nothing to do with the car loan and the whole issue is something of a red herring.  I don't have a problem with car loans for any staff if that's what they want, they will be taxed on the benefit, the amounts are very small and the BMC is in any case awash with cash.

Only appointed as a Director in (IIRC) June 2018.  Only transactions related to Directors need to be reported.

Option 1 please, though I would have preferred the sport/comp climbing NGB to be a more separate entity under the BMC's control as per the ORG recommendations, rather than the current internal department arrangement. 

Splitting into multiple small entities, each desperately guarding their fiefdom will lead to ineffective outdated and isolated groups with little influence who all suddenly recoil in horror when the ABC/A.N.Other appears out of nowhere with a proper governance structure and becomes the NGB and NRB for all climbing.

The BMC IS imperfect, it IS a compromise, but that doesn't mean it's not the best option, we just need to ensure it is the best it could be. I'm sure there's a slogan about "Better Together" kicking around somewhere.......

But which also covers other areas, including... Wales, and whose Chair is Welsh.

Anyway, since you lived for 45 years in an almost 100% first language Welsh speaking area presumably you aren't that confused by it any more. 

Or is just pleasantries in any language you don't understand?

Really?! That causes you some distress or something? The BMC includes Wales and, not unfairly, has lots of its information relevant to Welsh climbers available in Welsh.

Perhaps I'm a genius or something but I've never found ARAF painted on a road right next to SLOW to be particularly confusing even though I don't speak any Welsh. 

I have absolutely no idea whether what you wrote in the now infamous missive was that rude or not, but I'm starting to feel a certain amount of sympathy to the letter's recipient now!

Nah Then Luv

Totally agree Toby, but I must say I was disappointed that God's Language was not included in the greeting

Si'thi' Luv

and would have been understood by more members.

but why stop there, why not an Al right la for us scousers......

Indeed.  Suggested by the FAC, the Board listening, weighing it up against what the auditors suggested, and going with the FAC suggestion because it was in the members' interests.  Just as it should be

Red=HVS
Blue=E1-2
Black=E3+
Fluoro Yellow=FFS!

'I sent a private email to the current chair saying in summary that I was pleased he was leaving as his term as chair had been a disaster for the BMC'

So you were fired in order to salvage the amour-propre of an official who was soon to be an ex-official? Curiouser and curiouser.

A bit more to it than that even I would agree.  As I've said before you can say this stuff from outside the tent but not from inside.

Not how it happened but I can't be bothered arguing with you.

Nay lad (seems colloquialisms are 'in' on this thread) them red'uns saw me up an E3 or so as well as some reet good VI's in't Dollies.  Tha nost.

Blue and black? Pah. Conservative!

Oops, I used to wear some black RHs (still do for orienteering) that didn't get anywhere near an E3+. I never knew they were colour coded. Anyway shouldn't the graduations (since we're on a "Rockfax" website) be green, orange, red, black? 😁 although I think you'd struggle to get RHs in those colours nowadays.

The reference to SRA Principle 4 by Andy Syme should be a timely reminder to members that all the changes to the articles that have left the membership powerless in the current crisis are a result of “gold-plating” by the Board and NC of principles set out by Sport England and SRA.

The BMC already had independent directors before the 2018 changes to the articles. To denigrate generations of previous directors by suggesting that they were the product of a “beauty context” is, at best, unfair.

To further suggest that members are not fully cognisant of the intellectual and skills base of the people they are selecting, proposing, seconding and voting for as directors is foolish. This suggestion indicates a level of contempt for the membership that speaks volumes for the attitude of the Board and the NC towards the membership in general.

To presume that only the directors have an understanding of what is required to discharge the responsibilities of a director of the BMC is clearly wrong. It is the members who define what they want from an entity that they own and finance, not the directors.

The basis for the changes to the articles adopted in 2018 was set out clearly by the leader of the ORG in his introduction to the Final Report of the ORG, dated March 2018. Members were being asked to give up their rights in exchange for the promise of patronage and financial support on a considerable scale, from Sport England.

Since then subscriptions have risen, revenues are in doubt, the directors have kept competition climbing within the BMC and the promise of major grant funding from Sport England has not been kept. And now a number of directors have resigned.

In an earlier post Andy Syme lamented the apparent lack of trust in the NC. Trust is a two way relationship. A lack of trust should be no surprise to the Board and the NC given the experiences of the last couple of years and the evident contempt for the rights of members shown by those running the BMC.

As in 2018 you seem to feel that NC are not also members of the BMC. The NC members which friends with lots of members of the BMC and in some cases married/ related to members of the BMC.

NC ARE members of the BMC, and none of the NC members who I have met have ever given me any reason to believe that, as far as the BMC goes, they want anything more than a functional BMC which can work on behalf of all of its members. 

A significant portion of the members most likely are cognisant of the skill set which a board of directors needs on the whole, that doesn't mean that they can see gaps in skill/ experience within the board as well as the board can if it evaluates itself in a respectful but critical fashion. The board needs to have a level of involvement in the selection of new members to ensure that it is maintains the necessary skill set as time goes on. That's not contemptuous of the membership in any way.

You made all of these complaints in 2018, again all rooted in distrust of the people volunteering on the behalf of members. Your behaviour was destructive and disrespectful then and it's destructive, disrespectful and childish now.

For "balance", as someone who has only started to get involved with the BMC in the last 3 years and not at an NC/Board level but as a volunteer on a committee, my take on the situation is radically different.

The "Vice President" elections always seemed a closed shop. I got tyhe impression it was an "old boys club" where you had to be in the know to get in and the various positions were just passed between the same group.

The ORG work, a proper board, defined roles and responsibilities of the board and National Council etc seemed like a breath of fresh air, a proper, transparent organisation.

I concede that it hasn't been plain sailing (and the BMC communications need a proper overhaul) as the current thread shows, but I prefer it to the "decisions made in the pub by 'proper climbers' vibe" of days gone by.

There has been an issue, potentially quite a big one, and we all know (something) about it. The communications around it have been poor imo, but hopefully the promised solutions will be successful. It's disappointing that the CEO and President haven't come out with statements but hopefully they will in the future, should the need arise.

I'm not saying the BMC is perfect, far from it, but it appears, to this member, to be generally moving in the right direction. I just hope there aren't many more nav errors before we get there........

Regarding the above paragraphs, criticising a system that identifies areas of missing expertise within the board and attempts to recruit to fill those gaps seems absurd.

The members were not given a promise of patronage and financial support from Sport England. Bodies such as the BMC are not just given money by SE. If the BMC wants SE money they have to bid for it. They put together a package that includes costs and targets. SE looks at the components of the bids, decides which they will support and the value of the support. Those monies are payed in installments and linked to the BMC targets in the bid. Should the BMC fail to meet some of their own targets then related parts of that years grant may be reduced. As it is public money, SE rightly requires that any NGB bidding for funding should have good Governance in place.  

The BMC had the choice. Either, we don't want SE money so we don't need to do anything with our Governance; or we would like to put in a bid so we must bring our Governance to SE requirements.

When I started at the BMC (2000)  car loans were available for staff but they were stopped a few years later. I wonder when the policy was reversed to allow them once more, and whether they were available for all staff.

Most of the points you made have been addressed by others already and were addressed in 2018 when 6222 members voted for the change (313 voted against and 347 abstained) .  This repeatedly suggesting they were wrong indicates a level of contempt for the membership that speaks volumes for your attitude.

That is not what he said Rodney the idea of 'giving up rights' is all of your own, I suggest you go back and read it again*.  The paragraph that is most relevant is at the top of page 2 and says (my emphasis):

The BMC is currently recognised as the representative body for all British climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers, alongside the home nations representative organisations. It is also recognised as the representative body by UK Government and as the governing body by Sport England. Other major organisations and landowners similarly recognise the BMC in its representative role, and this is vital in dealing with important issues like access to mountains and crags. Through this recognition, the BMC applies, on behalf of its funded partners such as Mountain Training, for Sport England grant funding. Due to this relationship, the total amount of the grants, and the period over which the funding is granted, the BMC must comply with Sport England’s Tier 3 governance requirements. These are the requirements that we were asked to meet in making our recommendations. We do not consider them to be overwhelming, unobtainable or unsuitable for the BMC and believe that they simply reflect good governance practice. Their implementation will improve the governance, decision making and representative nature of the BMC, and as a result, the service it provides for its members.

* in case anyone doesn't know the amended report is: at https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1569&_ga=2.16...

"Their implementation will improve the governance, decision making and representative nature of the BMC, and as a result, the service it provides for its members."

Is it your impression that the BMC has achieved any of the goals set out above?

I get the impression that this is your main gripe, now as it was two years ago.  I don't pretend to understand what the current crisis is really about but the Board members I know are neither stupid nor dishonest. 

The rumbling issue seems to be that a rump of traditionalists still can't stomach the BMC supporting competition climbing, with the increased compliance issues and international cooperation that entails, don't really like having a bolt fund, and aren't actually all that interested in representing people who climb indoors. 

Any hint of any administrative controversy or mistake is then used as an excuse to imply incompetence or worse, as a means of undermining the broad church of the BMC that this minority finds ideologically unsound.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Unfortunately in this case the members are an argumentative and opinionated bunch with utterly irreconcilable differences in opinions. Far too many climbers don't behave with good grace when it comes to their views about climbing so it's not surprising that extends to the BMC. 

It's not the BMC, it's existing climbers collectively over the last decade struggling to deal with the fundamental changes in the nature and participation in all forms of climbing. Some are happy with change, some are not. 

Not going to happen any time soon. There's just too many members (mainly older, males) who are stubbornly trying to protect their world view and opinions on what climbing and mountaineering are all about.

Climbing has and is rapidly changing. The BMC had a clear "compass" and tried to change but the membership revolted. Until enough members change their minds (or die) there is never going to be a completely clear and unequivocal direction for them to follow. 

That’s where you're making an assumption that is completely wrong (along with others) - the "average" mountain-goer of today and those of the future are largely different demographics with different avenues into climbing and mountaineering.

The BMC will only succeed as a broad church, unfortunately some members explicitly do not want that... 

Apologies the figures above were for "continue the work of the BMC in the spirit of the recent organisational review recommendations, whether or not a new constitution was adopted. "

For the Articles change it was 6057 (92%) of the votes were in favour of adopting the new articles of association, 409 (6%) voted for the proposed 'Tier 1 Articles' and 91 (2%) for neither.

Mark

I broadly agree with your view of where we are now, even if I'm less pessimistic about how we can move forwards.  One thing though

6222 members voted to "continue the work of the BMC in the spirit of the recent organisational review recommendations, whether or not a new constitution was adopted. "

6057 of the votes were in favour of adopting the new articles of association. 

These were the largest numbers, and %ages, of members in living memory to vote at an AGM.

So the members did not revolt they gave us a clear steer.  The issue is that there is a vocal minority who seem to not trust the members to have made an informed decision and keep harking back to the same points. 

The BMC is trying to move forwards as directed but, trying to be a broad church without 'loosing' the minority.  Whilst this has been the right approach at some point the risk remains that we fracture either because we move forwards to slowly and the (mainly younger) members leave the BMC behind, or we push on and the 6% give up on the BMC. 

Th plot thickens https://www.thebmc.co.uk/update-to-statement-by-bmc-board

This is just nuts. The Board appear to be a bunch of squabbling six year olds. Has the President reappeared yet, or in fact has the NC made any response at all, outside individuals in a personal capacity.

It reminds me of some of the ultra serious politics the students union used to get excited over whilst everyone else blinked and went "can we have our club funding please".

Welcome to the world of organisation petty politics, nestling somewhere between the inanity of office politics and the squabbler's dream of local councils.
Hardly any wonder it's often said that anyone with any interest in politics should be barred from participating.

Totally agree, Mark. For instance, if I go back 50+ years, pretty much everybody came into climbing via hillwalking. They saw themselves as mountaineers. Nearly everybody went to the Alps, often for year after year. Obviously that's changed radically.

It might be interesting if some bright person could design a survey (for on here, maybe?), where we take different forms of the 'games climbers (now) play' (indoor, bouldering, trad, sport, DWS, hillwalking, ice climbing, Alpinism, big walls, etc, etc) and assign a weighing from 1 to 10 for how important each is to us. I'm guessing we'd get a different histogram from say 20 years ago (e.g. massive increase in indoor/bouldering?) It might be instructive to reflect on what other people find important, vis a vis what each of us finds important.

It might also be interesting to do a similar exercise on BMC core activities (e.g. access, competitions, guide books, insurance, etc) and this might be particularly pertinent to people closely involved with such activities. It might help to enable implicit differences to become more explicit. If there are significant differences in perspective, it would surely be better to bring them out in the open. My guess is that our differences may be reflected in their differences. But it's just a guess. Would be interesting to find out though?

Beyond that, those two words you used above - good grace - seem of inestimable importance. In my experience, when people behave with an abundance of good grace, decent outcomes tend to happen more often than not. The converse is unfortunately easier to predict - bad grace almost invariably leads to shit outcomes! We only have to look at the protracted conduct of Brexit negotiations to see a glaring example of that. 

Anyway, just some thoughts. Clearly these BMC difficulties are having highly detrimental effects to some people's lives and this seems a terrible - I would say unacceptable - price to pay. The patience and good grace shown above by people such as Andy Say and Andy Syme surely stand as exemplars of a civilised way forward.

Mick

Ah, the joys of grumpy old men with too much time on their hands. 

This whole thread reminds me why I do my best to steer clear of committees and, for the most part, clubs. 

Hi Mick

A member survey was done in 2017 which I think is the most recent

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Download.aspx?id=1528

Many thanks - I did wonder whether this had been done. Have had a quick look; it's extremely comprehensive. Would think most of it is still applicable. If anything, it appears over-complex (a symptom perhaps of the BMC being over-complex?) But it seems to have tons of good stuff in it and hopefully great heed was taken of it.

Will have a good long read. Thanks again.

Mick

It's a dreadful shame that arguments and disagreements of various sorts are still happening. However, in some ways, there's nothing new under the sun.

Laycock in 1913 felt he had to passionately justify the merits of the outcrop climbing, then seen as less worthy than mountain climbs. In the introduction to his historic guidebook, part of his argument was:

"... if climbing is worth doing, they are worth doing, many of them very well worth doing. It is not because I fear comparisons that I say comparisons are odious to both sides. ..."

Unfortunately, people are still make comparisons today, including various times on this thread. As well as requiring good grace, we really need all comparisons to stop - if climbing is worth doing, all climbing is worth doing!

(Given the Global Climate Emergency, that isn't actually the case - however that particular can of worms is perhaps best left for another day.) 

I think the problem in doing such a survey now would be reaching tge full range of members. I think the proportion of climbers in their 20s who use ukc is much lower than the proportion of climbers in their 40s. They use means other than forums to chat over the Internet. 

Almost certainly true. No point doing a survey if it would be unfairly skewed. I suspect though that the principle still applies that we implicitly give weighings to different forms of climbing and fondly imagine that others have roughly the same weighings - and they may not.

It seems that, re the BMC, key figures may see things significantly differently to other participants. Hopefully they're at least clearly aware of those differences. In my experience, if people care enough about the future of an organisation (and, in this case, I would think they do) and they understand their differences and there is sufficient tolerance and goodwill and change is well managed, then they may struggle through to a better future.

Of course, as David Lanceley would doubtless remind us, if you don't take careful heed of the purse strings, all else goes by the board anyway.

Tricky times. Hope things get better.

Mick

Agree - nowt new under the sun! But it's a hundred years later and somehow, on our now almost unbearably complex planet, we have to make things work - or go under.

Mick

What a great suggestion.  Can there also be another additional bar chart added.

One that tells us how much money is contributed proportionately from each revenue stream.  I would be very interested to see how many youth, indoor and competition membership fees are paid because the competitions require membership.  Add to that competition revenues and then add the SE funding which seems to be reliant on competition climbing and is the bug bear of most issues.  After this has been shown in black and white, or colour bar charts we can then see if the BMC are doing all of this to keep a cash cow on board rather than let it go out on its own where it could start pushing itself forward.  Maybe then with a little truth and clarity people can see if the BMC are making a financial decision which funds other aspects of their work without having to further increase membership fees.
 

I remember a student union meeting (Univ of Sussex - well known politico breeding ground at the time) where an important debate/motion about rapes that had happened on campus and what could/should be done, was pushed down the order by things like emergency motions decrying the Junta that had taken over in Chile etc. Of course the meeting became inquorate way before any motion with relevance could be discussed.

With respect to the update statement, oh dearie me. Handbags at dawn I fear.

The updated statement suggests to me that the issue there is mostly one of individual incompetence, which is less of a concern than the reasons given for the other resignations.

Might also be some questions about whether they have adequate processes for dealing with investigations, if they are an important part of the board's role.

Hey Mick, hope you’re well and back new-routing!

Given that entry to climbing is Mostly via indoor facilities now, which would have been unrecognisable to us old grockles starting out (unless you count traversing a grim corridor at Hucknall Leisure Centre), Do you not think that there’s a case for Sport England funding and admin/development of Sport/Competition/Bouldering being under a Walls/Gym organisation. Apart from being an entry point, that’s where the bulk of day to day climbing, training and transition to the outdoors (if required) actually goes on. One of the co owners of a  Sheffield wall will be setting at the Olympics. Actually the walls are now probably the  most important factor in encouraging and developing participation. Additionally, the wall owners are already up to speed with running businesses in this environment.

This leaves the BMC to concentrate on its important missions - access, diversity, conservation, guidebooks and insurance. Basically all the outdoors stuff, concentrating on what it does well. Eventually, as you correctly describe the diversity in climbing, it becomes too complex for one organisation. What do you think?

I can’t claim to know the full story of what’s gone on but this is my general interpretation based on what I’ve gleaned and further pondering. Due to the current lack of official disclosure some of this is conjecture so it may be that other things come out that change my interpretation.

To set the scene as an organisation we had a comprehensive Independent Review that consulted widely and its recommendations were endorsed by the Board, National Council and the Membership. Collectively we made a choice. Over 2 years on it is about time that the headline recommendations on Culture, Management and Leadership we’re finally put in place (in spirit if not necessarily in word for word detail). Despite the current difficulties it doesn’t seem to me that turning the clock back and reversing this big choice is a viable option.

The ORG volunteers have worked hard to implement the recommendations of the report but it’s been tough and slow going not helped by the loss of its Chair in 2019 after the AGM shenanigans.

This faltering progress of the ORG work coupled with failure to raise governance standards re accounts and other things has led to tensions building for a while. The final straw when folk lost it somewhat was over this procurement issue at the Office which appears to be a relatively minor issue of itself but appear to be yet another example of a casual approach to management.  So the tensions have broadly been an underlying struggle between those who have been used to, and have promoted an informal approach to governance and those looking to instil more rigorous standards. Depending on your viewpoint this opposite poles of this spectrum might be characterised as shoddy practices through to stifling bureaucracy and all points between.

If this is approximately what happened then I can well imagine that for a CEO who has been used to doing things in an informal way for 20+ years who is then expected to change to what you might see as pointless procedures, trivial issues and uncomfortable oversight might not implement them with the urgency or rigour expected and then kick back against it. On the other side tensions will have built up amongst those trying implement ORG governance feeling frustrated in their efforts. I think this is broadly what happened. Correct me if you know otherwise.

In the bust up it appears that the Chair and the President sided in sympathy with the CEO. I don’t have an insight on who was  pushing hardest on the other side of the rift and who were on the sidelines but I expect those championing the ORG the most would be those who were getting most frustrated. 

Having worked in the Office I saw how an informal approach and laissez faire leadership style allowed, amongst other things, considerable freedom for staff to interpret their roles and priorities. However, the Board are working to set a strategy that cascades down to a management plan that in turn will set out more specifically what staff should be doing in terms of aims, objectives and performance metrics. The brief of the new temporary Exec sets out to implement that in just 3 months. However, there is an enormous cultural shift of imbedded informalism (insert word aligned to your viewpoint) that needs to be overcome that would suggest under the current leadership that once that temporary person has departed I’d be concerned that old practices will seep back and we will back to the unsatisfactory situation of the Board being increasingly unhappy in the ways things are being done at the Office. 

Some will be pinning their hopes on the mooted new Head of Operations and Development to pick up the baton from the temporary Exec to do the hard lifting of implementing institutional and cultural  change at the Office after the temporary Exec has made their recommendations.

However, successful culture change has to be sincerely championed from the top if its not going to be undermined so how this successful, and more importantly long lasting, these initiatives prove to be remains to be seen.

Amusing that an announcement that was supposed to explain why three directors had resigned in short order was obviously not reviewed by those directors before publication.  Yet another example of the ignorance and arrogance of the Board in general and the Chair in particular.

Expect apologist-in–chief Andy S to be along in a minute to explain.

Pleased to note my suggestion that the welsh language tags be dropped has been adopted.  A rare example of listening to the membership.

Thank you. If your surmising is correct, then this is the first post that might actually explain what's going on.

Really!!  I have provided some balance to the wilder comments, but I've been clear the Board messed up and that unless and until the Board get this right the Council will be watching very carefully.

 >Pleased to note my suggestion that the welsh language tags be dropped has been adopted.  A rare example of listening to the membership.

Think that's just because the update wasn't a personal statement from Gareth.  But still don't understand your objection to a welshman using bilingual greeting. 

Re the updated statement, first I knew was on the website, looks like the statement was not run past Jon prior to issue, and while I thought the original was a better summary for members clearly Jon didn't.

Fascinating. 

And yet this in effect is a £3 million turnover business or thereabouts. Any organisation of that size would struggle with a formalised set up . It goes against a small set up.

Formalisation works where you have lots of employees etc  etc and big money  .

This is not such an organisation.

Hi Neil

I can see how you might see it that way but this is not primarily a business and the turnover does not reflect the level of its obligations.

These include being one of the largest membership organisations in the UK representing not only it’s 80,000 members but all climbers and hill walkers which at its highest level includes lobbying on legislation.

Furthermore it is an Olympic sporting National Governing body in receipt of government money and acts as a conduit to get grant money for other climbing organisations. I could mention the network of clubs it supports as well. With this level of influence and responsibility it cannot and should not operate in the manner of a small business. Also the turnover does not represent the output of its legion of volunteers. 

So yes - it such an organisation

The drive for competition winners does seem to be a problem for those bodies which have a mix of "pure sport" and broader leisure.

Cycling has a sort of working approach with British Cycling for the competitive road/track cyclists and Cycling UK for more general.

British Canoeing has had problems with its emphasis on competitions although does seem to have improved recently and got a broader focus especially around access rights.

And therein lies the issue. It’s a small organisation handling big issues. The type of formalised struture that is needed does not naturally sit well within a small organisation. It is almost impossible to marry the informal / formal nature of the 2. 

Thanks for replying. 

I have no interest whatsoever in competitions, but to me it is incomprehensible that the BMC should not be the governing body.  It must cover all aspects of the sport/recreation. If not, then I believe it would lose some of its influence with government, who might well be more interested in the competition side, especially in view of the Olympics.  We must be able to speak with a united voice.

I think it's reasonable to ask whether in trying to meet Sport England's requirements the tail is wagging the dog.  However I believe SW funding doesn't just support competitions but also training and other matters.  Also, somewhere it has been pointed out that its governance requirements simply represent good practice, which the BMC should be aiming for anyway.

The BMC is quite a small organisation, and yet the organisation structure appears very complex.  That's just at the top level, this is replicated as you move down the chain. For example, the organagram for the proposed governance structure for representing clubs resembles that for a multi-national corporation.  Whilst its great that there should be proper channels for clubs to make their voices heard, I wonder how much enthusiasm there will be for engaging with this multi-layered structure.

Surely it should not be too difficult to put in robust systems which allow for proper accountability and financial control while allowing the small team of staff and volunteers sufficient flexibility to work effectively?

I'm sure I am not alone in wishing the BMC could simply pull itself together and get on with the job.

I agree with a lot of your post but this (and numerous other comments before it) has the unmistakeable tone of Get Brexit Done oversimplification. Its possible to simultaneously acknowledge that the role of the BMC is complex and say that things have been done poorly in recent times. Comments like the above run the risk of implying that its an easy fix. It isnt!

Paul, I don't think the indoor and comp scene should be removed from the BMC remit. The reasons you state in your post and the reasons I think it needs to STAY within the BMC remit.

This is the exact reason it should be under the BMC umbrella. I agreed with the ORG recommendation that the comp side should be one step removed as a separate entity under the BMC umbrella but if indoors in the access point to climbing nowadays, then the BMC needs to be there.

I think Howard J put it very well.

I think it requires wiser and better informed minds than me!  It's certainly an option. I suppose a counter-argument might be that emphasis and funding on indoor activities might diminish emphasis and funding on outdoor activities. A bit like Royal Robbins' quip that sport climbing was like the child who ate its mother (or something like that).

Viewed from afar, there's certainly a sense of drowning in complexity. And that must be a terribly difficult working environment. It's not in the least surprising that it's taking such a dire toll on people's health.

A long time ago, I worked as an OD (Organisation Development) consultant. Back then, culture change programmes tended to be with companies which had grown beyond a certain size (say 150+ employees) which needed to become more formal/professional or sub-units of large companies which were getting far too stale and bureaucratic and needed to become more agile and entrepreneurial. In each case, you knew you were making progress when people felt a growing sense of relief, that complexity was sharply reducing and clarity was finally emerging.

However if you drop down to something like the local tennis or golf club, filled with characters with bees in their bonnets, ironically this is when politics can get really silly and things become downright unmanageable.

Back to Mark's 'good grace'...

Mick

Thought I'd chip in as a long-time lurker on this thread and having been involved in drawing the complicated clubs organogram you reference!

As others have noted, once you look beyond the top layers of governance and staff, the BMC is far from a small organisation. There are literally hundreds of volunteers getting out and delivering the work that members care about.

In the clubs area, there are getting on for 300 clubs, with in excess of 20,000 members to represent and cater for. Currently there are about 12 volunteers and half a member of staff to do this. If we actually want to engage with the groups and members we're supposed to represent and actually deliver them anything that they value, we've got to make sure that we're using that limited resource as best we can.

If we're going to expect volunteers to do this stuff, that does mean making roles really focused and specific. That way you make the most efficient use of volunteer's time, meaning they can achieve more whilst respecting that their free time is limited. And of course clubs get more bang for their buck. 

When you draw it out on paper, I appreciate it looks really complicated. But, crucially, the way that we've tried to do it is so from a club's-eye-view there will be one single point of contact, which should be more easy to engage with.

I think this a situation is replicated across many areas the BMC operates in. I guess the point is that the BMC is in reality a massive organisation, trying to deliver a huge amount on a tiny budget. If you're going to rely on lots of people giving a couple of hours a week, that does mean having lots of small, specific roles if you ever want to get anything done. This is entirely possible when you have dedicated people willing to put their hand up and contribute, so long as you take the time to define roles and responsibilities clearly.

I 100% agree that the BMC needs to stay a broad organisation and with your last point. We know what holds us back in many areas, we've just got to get on with it.

Yes this is preferable not only from it being a greater than the sum of its separate parts but also to avod having rival organisations competing for members and grant money. However, it must akso work for the different facets - if hill walking or comp climbing is held back by being under the BMC umbrella then the BMC is failing in its obligations and right to represent that facet    

Yes I believe grant money has previously paid for the hill walking officer and maybe the Clubs officer amongst other non-comp things.

You are not

Thanks for that- seems very plausible.

If its true, would that meant that those departing directors were those that wanted a more rigid structure (the update yesterday said Jon didn't like his methods being called aggressive)?  As a more formal approach is what the membership voted for... that means the wrong people have left!  why should anyone therefor have confidence in those that remain to do what is needed?  they clearly have a track record of digging heir heels in and getting spiteful to the point of relationships breaking down.  How will anything change?

Yes - it seems that no one central to the breakdown other than the Chair has resigned over this or has been asked to resign. National Council has supported the Boards view that it can resolve these internal issues itself.

However, for it to come to this far the divergence of views on how things should be done at the BMC (ie governance) must be pretty deep for it to come to this and so you have to wonder whether that expectation of self- healing is some form of magical thinking.

Hi Andy,

Given what Simon said above, and his theory of what happened- how is it that the NC are convinced that those remaining directors/ chair etc can comply with what they need to do? how many chances will they be given/ how many new-blood directors will be sacrificed for the old guard to make their cruise-liner esque tack to bring them in line with what is needed?

I started reading all of this quite firmly of the opinion that everyone was making a big deal over nothing.  I'm now in the other camp.

Yes initial impressions did seem like it could be just personal bickering between clashing personalities that got out of hand.

My interpretation is that whilst the arguments might have individually been to do with irregularities of low importance the accumulation and regularity of these irregularities is concerning as it probably exhibits fundamentally different attitudes  to professionalism and governance.
 
Publicly visible irregularities include incorrect due process signing off the accounts and the lodging of incorrect information on companies house. The procurement issue is another. Each is individually forgiveable if they didn’t keep cropping up so regularly.

I'm not going to comment on the validity of Simon's specific theory but as a general point I can explain the Councils view.

There were various options available to the Council between calling a General Meeting and recommending to members to remove the whole Board and doing/saying nothing but let the Board carry on as is and sort it's own problems.

Doing nothing was clearly not a sensible option.

The Council were well aware that removing the whole Board would be severely damaging to the BMC and also to our partners; it is very much the nuclear option.   The Directors were also clear in what they said to us that they recognised the need for, and wanted to undertake, the changes necessary; collectively and individually.  It was felt inappropriate to recommend to members that they press the 'nuclear button' when the Board had not been given a chance to act on their stated intent. 

While giving the Board some time to address the issue we were also very clear that we needed to have some assurance of what the Board are doing to correct the issues.  This was provided partly by their plan and partly will be based on outcomes.  The Council are in dialog with the Board and watching the outcomes very carefully.

If the Council don't see Board changes, collectively, then this would suggest either a collective failure to change, or individual(s) blocking change, and we would clearly need to understand which it is so we can take a view on what we should recommend to members.  
 
The Council have not specifically time bound the question of when enough is enough.  I personally think that the Council need to have confidence in the Board having 'fixed' the problems before the new Chair and IDs are appointed so that they join a fully cohesive and aligned Board.  If not then the BMC would possibly be better served by the new members forming the start of a completely new Board, but this would need to be discussed by Council and they may decide another solution is better. 

It doesn't have to be quite so drastic as removing the whole Board. The scenario that JR painted above is maybe worth visiting which allows for a clearing of the air and the option of more dignified exits which to quote in full is:    

The Council were well aware that removing the whole Board would be severely damaging to the BMC and also to our partners; it is very much the nuclear option. 

I don't see removal of the current Board as the nuclear option but as the only option.  They've had the best part of two years to get their act together and have failed, why should they have yet another chance?  The current Board and Chair are damaged goods and need to be replaced and a fresh start made by a new team un-tainted by previous failure.

That is a view.

Could make a great line in a 2 Ronnie's sketch.  

Thanks Andy.

I hope the board are reading this and realise that people can see them being fcuking morons.  Hopefully they will pull their socks/ ronhills up.

I'm thinking it's more Yes Prime Minister

W1A?

This may be accurate, but until the NC make a full statement it’s just speculation which for the BMC is very damaging and will fester on like a boil until it is lanced.

For 2 of the 3 IDs to resign it was clearly not over minor issues and Andy Symes has stated that “the IDs provided a statement to the Council that covered the reasons for their resignations.” The NC should release this now, suitably redacted, instead of hiding behind “GDPR and other privacy laws and regulations”

This is so true and if your speculation is correct it's difficult to see how the President and CEO can continue in post. So for their sakes the NC need to come clean about the reasons for the IDs resigning.

Yep, W1A - all sitting around on bean-bags in the 'blackadder' meeting room.

It is an option but still fairly nuclear (maybe tactical nuclear attack rather than strategic but still very messy).

There are a couple of issues:

1. The law allowing virtual GMs in lieu of physical GMs expires in Sept (1st I think, but it was a specific amendment for COVID-19 and the government seem to think this is not an issue anymore so it doesn't seem likely it will be extended....!) so we would need a venue to host 50+ people in a socially distanced way.  Possible but not easy or cheap.
2. When would it be scheduled, before or after the new Chair & IDs are appointed?  If after is it a good use of money when the actual AGM is a couple of months later anyway?  If before you are potentially further removing resources from the Board at a time where I suggest we need them. 
3. How would members know who to support and who not?  Assuming it's not just a collective all or nothing approach I suppose each Director would need to explain why they are worth keeping and therefore who in their opinion should go and why.  If there was unanimity of opinion that person X should go that would help (some) members decide, but in that case the Board could remove that person anyway.

Finally as I'm sure you realise, your theory wouldn't be addressed by such an approach as the CEO is a Director by right ex-officio.

I do personally see the merits/attraction of the approach at a high level but, looking at the detail, I'm not sure if a GM is the right approach at this time.  

David,

Are you seriously suggesting that the whole of the current BMC Board should resign and be replaced?

Indeed, except for the CEO.  Not just me but an option that has been / is being considered by NC.

Presumably the single point of contact for local clubs will be the local area rep.  However the organagram then suggests it has to be filtered through several more layers before it reaches someone who can make a decision.  The chain appears to be:

Club ->Area Rep -> Area Clubs Development Group -> Clubs Strategy Group -> Clubs Director -> Board (or Chair of Clubs Strategy Group -> National Council)

I suspect that is replicated in other aspects of the BMC's work.

In my experience as a club committee person, the problem in the past has been that communications from the BMC to clubs have come out too late (sometimes after the event) or are buried amongst news items about someone's latest ascent or the latest bit of kit, and get overlooked.  That suggests a lack of resources at HQ rather than an organisational structural issue.

In reply to spidermonkey09:

I realise my wish that the BMC would pull itself together is more an anguished plea than a helpful suggestion, and that it isn't an easy fix.  However this now seems to have been going on for ever.  Has anything actually been accomplished? How close is the BMC to meeting the required standards?

Totally understand your point. It's worth pointing out that this is going hand in hand with clubs volunteers working in a different way outside of the committees and groups. We're trying to get away from the idea that BMC committee meetings are just forums for stuff to get discussed, and are the only conduits where information gets handed between volunteers. 

I didn't really like laying it out as a hierarchy, as it does give the impression of a chain things are passed along. Really we're just trying to show who's working with who. In reality the chain will be:

Club -> Local Rep -> Person that needs to know (whether that's a director/councillor/chair/working group/other committee)

If each volunteer knows clearly what their, and others', role is they can work together much more easily on an ad-hoc basis, rather than storing everything up for a meeting every 3 months. We've shown we can do this with the pandemic response, and we want to extend this to business-as-usual clubs work in the future.

The issue you identify with comms being limited by resource and being non-specific is a really important one, and it's something the changes are designed to improve on by focusing volunteers on actually engaging with clubs, rather than sitting in meetings.

You're not alone in feeling this has been going on forever. I think many volunteers on the ground really just want to get this done and get back to supporting our specialist areas.

Not to my knowledge, though maybe I missed something. 

Your post above.

There were various options available to the Council between calling a General Meeting and recommending to members to remove the whole Board and doing/saying nothing but let the Board carry on as is and sort it's own problems.

The longer this goes on the more damaging it is to the organisation, its ability to deliver, its reputation, the staff morale, the financial position, the trust from the members. 

The next AGM would normally be June. That’s a long time for this to continue to simmer. Whether it’s via GM, further resignations, statements or other actions, this boil needs lancing.

What are the triggers and timelines for any further actions from National Council?

Members raising a General Meeting, rather than NC or the Board is fairly nuclear, as it undermines both bodies. Independent Directors resigning is fairly nuclear itself. 

However, I think I may speak for many when I say that am still not yet convinced that there is a sufficient plan from either individuals, Board or NC to recover this situation.

There has still not been an update to the Annual Report highlighting the number of members the BMC has, and therefore what the thresholds are for members to collectively act should they need to. It should not be difficult to include this in a statement or update the report.

Whatever pressure the Board or NC have applied here to get this done is insufficient; it was an explicit action taken at the AGM c. three months ago.

I don't want to put words in Andy's mouth, but the statement that an option is available is not the same as saying that it is being considered, actively or otherwise.

I've been following this thread and just want to say that you come across as bitter, biased and quite malicious in much of what you have said. It's important for everyone that the correct outcome is found to this predicament in an unbiased way and having people from an apparently knowledgeable background but with an axe to grind continually posting to influence the wider membership's views has a lot of potential to prevent that happening. I wish you would shut up and let the organisation get on with fixing the problem without inflaming things further, although I don't expect you to.

David

The statement the NC provided was to the whole Board it did not exclude the CEO.

We discussed the option of calling a GM to recommend removing the Board, but excluded that as sensible at this time.  

While the consideration of the Council did not go this far, had we considered the option sensible and therefore decided to make a recommendation to the members then given it was the behaviours of ALL the Board, it would be sensible to conclude that the CEO would have been included within any recommendation.   

I understand this is your strong belief John, but it is not currently the position of the Council which I have stated above.  We are reveiwing the situation and if we consider the situation has changed then our position may change.

I agree and have made the point repeatedly and very forcefully to the Board.  

How is identifying the number of members difficult or contentious? Surely a hour's administrative work, at most?

You are assuming that the information is properly collated and stored (which it should be).

So whilst it should be a straightforward task, it might not be.

Andy, is NC aware of any reasons why membership information should not be easily available to be appropriately published?

And, does it need to wait on the board (for approval) to be published?

For information member numbers are currently dropping by around 700 to 800 per month mainly due to lack of travel insurance sales and virtually no mountain training.

The Articles require the "total Voting Membership numbers reported at the previous Annual General Meeting" (11.9) so it would need the Board approval but as it is just a statement of fact I'm not sure it needs more approval than the request from the Board to publish, which I have seen.  

I do not know what system the office use to track membership numbers but agree this should not be a difficult or time consuming task so not sure what the delay is.

Individual membership is a tap of a button job at any point of the year. Keeping track of club members less so as the clubs (including student clubs) submit their member info once a year at the beginning of the year to a deadline.

This is all well established so I’ve no idea what led to the omission of the final tally for the AGM / Annual report or why it is hasn’t be released subsequently following JRs very specific AGM request.

Then who is holding it up, and why?

If I knew I would tell you but I don't.

My self imposed monitorium has ended now and I've several general reflections.

I urge people to take Mark's excellent points very seriously. " Unfortunately in this case the members are an argumentative and opinionated bunch with utterly irreconcilable differences in opinions. Far too many climbers don't behave with good grace when it comes to their views about climbing so it's not surprising that extends to the BMC." This means that whatever decisions any BMC Board makes there will be some very vociferous climbers, who just know they are right, who will be angry and posting here.

I think the actions NC are taking are the right ones. Adding experienced non voting advisors to the Board (to give the Board breadth and calm proceedings) and insisting on a Board commitment to deal with the problems, and with the NC watching the situation carefully. There seems no need for 'nuclear options' unless we face the highly unlikely position that the remaining Directors won't cooperate with this. The resignations were about process and behaviour, not ideologically incompatible positions. 

Irrespective of any bad behaviour, or failure to follow process, that is said to have caused the two IDs to resign, I think in terms of experience and skills and general consistent opinions on broad future strategy, the Directors are the right sort of people who should have been capable of working together. However you don't need to look far in life to realise even soulmates can end up in bitter divorce. It's hard to imagine a more stressful 6 months to have lived through as a Director of the BMC. We are dealing with people under massive pressure and it's telling that only one of the more politicised posters (one of the BMC 30) has expressed any concerns for reported health problems of some Directors (on a Board with a commentment to a modernised position, as per the 2018 AGM votes). I'd amazed if only two were affected.

Finally, in its day-to-day operations the BMC staff and many hundreds of key volunteers and the BMC affiliated clubs and partners are getting on with their excellent and important work. Their 'spirit' in the context of conflict has lasted as long as world wars  Let's get on with dealing with these problems for the sake of those people and their good work.

Onto some specifics, including your point.

Under normal circumstances it would be inconceivable this wouldn't have been done. However, I'm not sure what the numbers will tell anyone as these are extraordinary times. I'm pretty sure Hugh said at the AGM there will be a sharp decline in the regular MHT and and Youth comp annual new registrations and likely a lot of members' finances will have been stretched by the covid crisis. Numbers will be well down but it will be hard to see trends from them. David's concerns with the interaction of the Board with the finance committee seem way more important to me. This is known now and will be on the NC 'to fix' agenda.

Back to history now. When the new BMC Board formed in 2018 one of its first priorities should have been to look at finances and how they were presented to the members in the  accounts given the structural changes. They clearly failed to do that. They also failed (as did the previous management and finance committee) to spot the incorrect support information to the financial details in the accounts that must have been there for a decade. No one noticed until after the accounts were published in 2019 that one Director had an incorrect registration date, by one day. However anyone who has experience in company legal advice on accounts will know these mistakes (that should not have happened) were not serious. There was never any problem with the numbers. The elephant in the room was failing to sort out a new approach to reporting in the accounts under the changed circumstances. Blaming the two Directors who gave up valuable time to check the numbers and sign them off before the posted deadline, in the face of such Board inaction is getting close to those who blamed Rehan for Climb Britain (that ironically some of the traditionalists on the NC of the time must have voted for).

Another irony is the mysterious extra Director resignation. A wise and jolly man who joked about threats from his family about his agreeing to stay on until then (and no later) to help cement in the new Board structure.

There are others points I'll think about for later.

Steve

Broadly I agree with both your posts but one thing.

This is a legal requirement of Directors and the submission/sign off is not just about checking the figures but the accuracy of the whole report.  To sign it off with errors and without full Board review was an error (Rehan voted against Climb Britain I believe so he was 'punished' for being right but not persuading others!!).  However I agree we do not need to continually berate people for errors as long as they, and the organisation, correct the error and learn from it to prevent it happening again.

Reply to Andy Syme, 07.16

“…..and therefore decided to make a recommendation to members…”

There have been repeated references to the NC “making recommendations to members” in respect of calling a general meeting, as if the matters before the NC were ones which members have to decide. Any decision by the NC about whether or not to call a general meeting is one that the NC takes in its own right. It makes no recommendation to members, it does not need to seek their approval and there is no mechanism for the NC to do so, short of calling a general meeting. To suggest otherwise is just “spin”.

The NC has ample power under article 11.5 to requisition a general meeting should it wish to do so, without any need to make recommendations to the members or obtain their support. Subject to article 12.2 the NC does need to explain its actions to the Board, but not the members. The Board may disagree with the NC and procedures are set out in 12.2 for their objections to be considered and subsequently reported to members. But the members have no role in the process.

Of course the NC can also render the Board without a quorum by removing from office the Council Nominated Directors under article 22.1.2. This would result in a paralysed Board rather than a disappearing one and has little to commend it. The NC cannot dismiss the Board, only a general meeting of members can do that.

It is clear that the NC has the power to call a general meeting. It may not wish to exercise this power in current circumstances and then take responsibility for the results. But the members are, by design of the revised articles, not involved in the NC’s decision-making process. Requisitioning a general meeting is a decision for NC to take, acting together with the Board.

Usefully, under the revised articles the NC is not constrained from calling a general meeting by the lack of information about the reported numbers of Voting Members at the recent AGM as members are when considering calling a general meeting.

I assume that is individual members.

Based on those number if they contine at that rate how long as the BMC got before its financial viability in its existing format vanishes.

Agree with the rest of your post- it’s the serial nature of the slip-ups that has become less forgivable.

Re the notorious Climb Britain vote point my understanding is at the NC meeting Rehan voted for “Climb Britain” but then later said it was with misgivings but at the time wanted to be supportive of the near unanimous approval.

There was another NC rep who later said he only half raised his hand in support.... 

I'm not denying the signing off on the deadline day might have been an error (I don't know it was as I don't know who knew and did what and when in the rest of the Board).  What I'm saying is I do know the much bigger problem was the result of a collective Board failure over months to look at the accounts in a much wider sense well before that deadline. It's the fault of all the Board. The BMC Board needs to work together demonstrating good governance practice with collective responsibility, based on clear process and behaving consistently within a code of conduct.

Without wanting to rake over very old coals, if what you have written is true then both of those are pathetic stances to have taken.

Rodney

I was either unclear or you have misunderstood what I said.  So to clarify.

You are correct that Council can call a GM under 11.5, subject to going through a mediation process at 12.2, without any reference back to the members.  Clearly though if the NC wanted to call a GM then we would need to have a proposal on which the mediation would be based and on which the members needed to vote.  The Council could also ask for a proposal to be raised at a planned (A)GM.

If we raised a GM with a proposal on removing the Board, which the specific post was about, or anything else then it would be inconceivable to me that the Council would not make a recommendation stating to the members their reasons for the proposal.

So no we don't have to make a recommendation but I would suggest it would not be in anyone's interests for the Council to raise a GM and an associated proposal but make no comment/recommendation.  Obviously members ultimately decide and may, or may not, accept the Council recommendation.

The mechanism that has been used for years to seek members input/feelings/approval is the Area meetings.  Given these are quarterly, in this case, it may not be possible to do this and make a timely decision, but I suspect the Area meetings starting next week will possibly cover some of this topic!

When Mountain Training, Youth Competitions and adventure travel that needs BMC insurance (and so membership) restarts/ returns to normal levels, those particular membership numbers will return quickly. As far as I'm aware, the budget for 2021 is due to take the big hit. The balance in 2021 is presumably going to be how much belt tightening (that might annoy members) and how much use of reserves is appropriate. Medium term the Board needs to ensure the BMC is seen to be doing the good that it does so is attractive for membership, and stops as quickly as possible creating its own bad news that gets in the way of that.

Steve

Agreed and there is now a new process, which is part of the reason why AGMs have been moved back to June in order to ensure there is time to do this properly.  Hopefully there will not be the deadline pressures in future. 

Absolutely

You may be correct as it was before my time.  Sorry if I've confused things.

That’s arguable. There is a requirement of a Chair to act independently of their personal views and take an account of the “mood of the room” in their actions. 
 
As for the NC rep saying he only half raised his hand that fully raised a laugh when proffered as an excuse at the AGM...

Well I just hope they are managing their cash very well in the current climate. I have seen enough of these issues in business to understand that they drain far faster than people optimisticaly wish for.

I would not like to be a volunteer Director in this situation with all the responsibilities that this implies.

Actually, the first area meeting (SW) is tonight! It may be interesting...

Thanks for all your diplomatic and balanced replies to this and the previous thread which I have followed with interest.

All the best,

Mark Kemball (SW area chair).

A little confused with how competition climbers memberships can be included in declining figures at present. Most competition climbers will have taken their membership out at the start of a year when the BMC start with announcements about where and when the comps are. With the recent phenomenon of them restricting entry numbers it has made it a race to take out membership and enter. As usual they announced the comps and I expect got their full quota of comp climber memberships for 2020.  It won’t hit them at all if they manage to get comps going in 2021 and make them renew membership.

Unless I missed a refund option for 2020.

In the interests of transparency it might be helpful if Mr Offwidth disclosed in all of his posts that he is the partner of the current President.  Known to most regulars here of course but perhaps not to the casual reader.  His posts are carefully drafted in the style of an interested and well-informed observer but in fact he is much more than that and knows in I’m sure excruciating detail exactly what has happened over the last couple of years.

He could start by telling us where the President is hiding.

You make that sound like a bad thing!

I cant overstate how repulsively you are coming across on this forum.

He is blunt and undiplomatic, and clearly has a personal axe to grind too.  However, his points seem sound.  The mysteriously absent president certainly needs explaining.

TBh he is right to make the observation. But after his first sentence it would  have been better to say nothing.Certainly his last sentence does him no favours, and is appalling.

I think once/relevant-thread would be sufficient.

Have you disclosed that you're an ex-treasurer in all of your posts?

(I know you've stated it at least once in either this or the previous thread - or in both)

I presume that he has more "inside" knowledge than regular BMC members but I doubt that he's been told everything, there being many things that are confidential. However I don't recall any of Steve's posts (ever) containing detail where a reader could say "he only knows those details because the President is his partner". I think he's been very careful (rightly so) to avoid doing that.

Well he did begin: 'My self imposed monitorium has ended now and I've several general reflections.' Even I got that clue! 

David, while I'm all for plain speaking, there's a point where bluntness descends into rudeness. And all rudeness will do is piss people off. Nobody's disputing your ability. It seems such a pity for that ability to be compromised by your delivery.

Mick

P.S. I don't mean to impugn your character. Although we've never met, I'd be happy to ab into Red Wall with you any time.

Absolutely.

Mick

Thank you for informing the masses, who aren't 'in the know' of this fact. Offwidth might post frequently on here, and normally his domestic arrangements have no relevance. In this context they clearly do  - all though it clearly isn't up to him to explain where his partner is, or to speak on their behalf. 

Offwidth has never concealed that he lives with Lynn, most people who attend peak area meetings or are active BMC volunteers on a national level will also be aware.

I regard Steve (Offwidth) as a friend, I've spoken to him quite a bit about BMC stuff and there is plenty which he doesn't know about BMC stuff as Lynn respects issues of confidentiality required by her role as President (and previous role as VP).

David's tone throughout both of these threads has been arrogant, however at this point is downright nasty, I profoundly hope he never has anyone treat him in the way he has seemingly treated Gareth Pierce over email and Lynn on here.

Yes Lynn is my partner. She didn't 'dissapear' but she did desperately need a break as given she was working on BMC matters pretty full-on since November (and with the covid crisis which seriously impacted some family and close friends) this was starting to affect her health. A break was possible as Andy had kindly agreed to take over chairing the NC issues relating to the Board (she was conflicted). I'm pretty sure she informed NC of her reasons and gave her full support to their proposed plans. Although she preferred to avoid any BMC 'work' contacts, she was available to key BMC staff in case of any new emergency.

Are Presidents expected to work as a volunteer on behalf of the membership until destruction in your view?

Simon. Replying to your long Wednesday post (driving to Arco and I'm knackered). I think that your guesswork and mine tally quite closely. I would summarise my thinking as a newly empowered Board decided it wanted to 'look under the bonnet' and see how it all worked. In so doing they rolled back a few stones (to mix metaphors) and were a bit surprised at things they found.

For any organisation with a very low staff turnover (getting on for 15+ years service for many senior staff - and volunteers) that can seem intrusive and threatening.  There can easily be a pushback along the 'we know how it works, just feck off and let us get on with it.  The loan issue may be isolated, or there may have been other things subject to inquiry. I don't know.

To the thread as a whole, following on from this, I think that the glib assumption that this is a battle between old buffers and young guns; that in some way 'vested interests' abhor bouldering and walls and comps, is too easy and is incorrect.

I'm not going to speak for others but I'm 68. Over 50 years ago I was doing named problems (I've got two mats!). At that time we were just getting into chipping walls and climbing on brick edges. Personally I regard walls as a necessary evil (I'd rather be outside) but I really enjoy spectating and competitions. I've clipped a shed load of bolts as well.  For sure there are a few old gimmers knocking about, but there's also a few out there busily bolting crags (🙄). There are equally a lot of incredibly intolerant youngsters kicking around.

I've rambled. But whilst this MAY be a generational thing it's about the political generations within the BMC not about elderly alpinists trying to stymie youngsters: OK?

One last thing before I cook my tea. The more the cognoscenti talk about NC and NomCom and FinCom and FAV and NCD's and ID's the more of a complete bloody turn-off thus is going to be for the average member. If we really want to engage them let's try to speak a common language.

And a big up to Andy Syme here. He's playing a blinder trying to explain without being able to tell all (if he knows all!). Knock off the criticism, eh?

Yours, in the shade, in the Vinschgau, an old buffer.

Thank you, a reasonable answer to a reasonable question.  Now everybody understands the situation, no fuss, no drama.

Of course no-one is expected to work to destruction and you've explained perfectly well that a break was required.

This confusion could stem from Rehan voting 'against' in an Executive Committee meeting (forerunner of the Board) but then accepting 'corporate responsibility' when it was presented to National Council?

I don't know. I wasn't there 👍

Just to help clarify as I was there. Rehan didn't vote, the chair would only do so as a casting vote. Nobody half heartedly did anything. Only one person abstained, giving the perfectly understandable reason that this was his first NC meeting and he didn't know enough about the topic to cast his vote with conviction one way or the other. Rehan did say he had misgivings about it but because the vote by NC was so overwhelmingly positive would support the decision and work positively towards achieving the re-brand.

In other words, exactly what you would expect a good chair to do.

Of course they aren't.  However, I think it is reasonable to expect them to explain why they are not around, particularly in a crisis such as this where the President's role in representing members is clearly of great significance.  Thank you for the explanation but really it shouldn't come from a third party (however well connected) on the internet but via the organisation in question.

Hi everyone

We've just published a new article on our site which gives both 2019 membership figures and also how they've been affected by Coronavirus:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-membership-numbers-latest-update

Huge thanks to everyone who has continued to support us through the Coronavirus crisis. And if you liked how the staff and volunteers worked for climbers and hill-walkers through the crisis, then do tell your friends about us

With our 50% Direct Debit offer, membership is only £1.66 / month:

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/join

Alex.

Is that 1.66/ month for a years membership?

Yep, our Direct Debit 50% intro offer is £19.97 / year. Thanks for spotting that

While they're about it, could they please find another name for the ODG?  It always makes me think of a certain hostelry in Langdale.

Honestly, I did say that, but I was overruled.

Why would the BMC inform members of such a short break? The BMC Board Chair is responsible for the Board Comms and the Deputy President was dealing with NC response to the Board issues. It was less than 3 weeks and knowing how efficient she is I'd be amazed if she isn't back up-to-date with all her BMC emails and missed calls.

The President's key role is representing members.  The BMC is the having a complete breakdown in governance.  In the middle of this, the members need to know they are being represented and how.  As is very clear from these threads they don't know either, despite Andy Syme's best informal efforts. If the President can't do their job in this period they need to tell the members why and what the alternative arrangements are.  As in any job, and particularly those with responsibility, being ill is of course fine and everyone accepts it happens.  Buggering off without telling those you have responsibilities to anything isn't.

It's just an attempt to cheer up the old buffers.

So if I read that right membership numbers have slumped back to 2015 levels because of the loss of people who are forced to join the BMC rather than because they want to. But it's actually all positive because of social media uptake? Get a grip of reality!

And, of course, the last annual report didn't include membership figures for some reason.

Oh, Alex 🙄. Maybe not on this thread, eh?

So I ask you a similar question to David. Should she have carried on and risk breaking for the members (and to what benefit as Andy has I'm sure said what can be)?

I answered above - of course not.  Just let people know she will be off and how her responsibilities are being covered.  Leaving the entire membership in the dark (they still are apart from your message here) is not acceptable for someone in a position of responsibility.

ODG in Langdale terms wouldn't mean anything to most of the Board......

David Lanceley's posts are, to me, revealing, informative, shrewd, to the point, and generally prompt replies that are informative and explain things better. Keep it up David; the incommunicative, even reclusive, people in the Board and National Council are explaining themselves much better with you around.

You wrote: "In the interests of transparency it might be helpful if Mr Offwidth disclosed in all of his posts that he is the partner of the current President.'

Oh FFS! Why do we only find this out now? 

Thank you Chris, I will continue but often feel like a lone voice in the wilderness.

Sorry but bollocks. DL's posts are great. They cut through the shit and are sometimes revelatory. Offwidth being the BMC President's partner for one! 

I'm sorry but she should have communicated her decision much much better rather than appearing to just disappear and contribute to the curtains of darkness around the whole affair..

 Crikey if that offer is not a sign of a financial crises then I do not know what is. 

That offer has been around for something like 14 years!

I would really hope not: 'cos if it is the problems started well over 10 years ago.

Can someone write an article summarising this thread please, it seems important somehow but dragged down into relational and political fog.

Basically see the first post and add:

- Various hints and assertions about the Board being incompetent and/or acting aggressively/rudely/etc.

-Various hints about financial mis-management

- A statement from the Board saying it's all OK really.

-A further statement from a departed Director contradicting the Board's statement.

-The President is apparently ill/stressed and absent but hasn't seen fit to tell members this despite the chaos

-Membership numbers magically appeared in a few hours after failing to do so for months despite being required in the Annual Report or similar.

-There is discount on membership

As a longstanding UKCer, I'm a bit surprised you didn't know (but not totally surprised - depends which threads you follow, whether you've ever looked at his/their? "low-grade gritstone" website or even just sussed it from some photos).

But, as I stated above, from what I've seen over the years, Offwidth limits his posts about the BMC to generalities, readily available information and to things he knows from his own dealings with the BMC (guidebook work, don't know about other stuff). He doesn't post anything that "must" have come from the President. I don't know whether he has "inside" knowledge or not, and frankly I don't care because as far as I'm aware he's always acted correctly in this respect when he posts.

And lets face it, if he had posted some "inside" information, there'd be loads of people screaming for the President's head because information had been leaked via Offwidth rather than coming out through a proper channel. 

What’s your prognosis for the annual outturn?

£164k loss last year. Loss of membership income of say £175k for this year. Salary savings from 10 staff on furlough. Savings from cancelled events and comps. Savings from online AGM and online meetings. 

Around £100k surplus for 2020.  I have the details.

Also discussed higher up the thread.

If that’s the case then I suggest the poster needs a bit more nous about how these things can be viewed.

It was stated somewhere either in the 1st thread or way up in this one that she was taking a break but that merely left things open to speculation so in hindsight maybe could have been communicated better. But it was hardly a cardinal sin, it merely added to the "what's going on speculation".

However (really trying not to speculate here), if her mental health was at risk, I can understand why it wasn't communicated. There's still a bit of a taboo about mental health issues which also would inhibit others making statements "for" her, and if you are in that position, the priority is sorting yourself out. Everything and everyone else can just go (insert appropriate expression). I'm sure many other explanations can be thought up for what from our end appears to be sub-optimal communication.

Michael,  How do you account for the below statement?

I think I'd bullshit that into "generalities" 😁. I bet there are loads of people with some connections to the BMC that knew that kind of thing.

Personally, I was surprised to hear that the board had signed off accounts without properly reading them - my immediate impression would be board members not knowing (or caring) about their responsibilities as directors. That's a collective Board failure, and I'm sure the knowledge of that failure was fairly widely known to many people who had dealings with the BMC.

The point was they were signed by 2 Directors (CEO & President) but in signing them they also, incorrectly, declared they were seen and agreed by the Board (its boiler plate in the submission but that doesn't mean it can be ignored)  In fact the accounts had not been seen by the Board and weren't until about a week after submission.

When the Board did review them there was a minor error, but the major correction was the date the Board actually reviewed them. 

Were the rest of the Board aware that they had been signed by CEO & President without (I presume) being more widely seen?

Were they aware of submission deadlines etc.

Edit: anyway the accounts things aren't big problems in themselves, but they do feel like they might be symptoms of bigger problems.

Not totally sure.  John Roberts might be able to be more definite as was in 2019 when he was on Board.

I believe

1. Not until after the event.
2. Yes, but not sure of the reason it got so close before action resulting in the rush.

We only knew about the accounts problem as some people made a big thing about it in BMC meetings and on the internet after the 2019 AGM (despite pretty much anyone experienced in company accounts saying it was not a serious problem). It seems those making a fuss missed the bigger implications of collective Board failure on the subject, given the new structure. There was a small amount of unsavoury sniping about staff and volunteers involved in the finance side as well (which is out of order but impossible to stop if they hold no BMC position).

Anyone close to the BMC knows some vocal members have been 'gunning' for the CEO for quite a long time (from both the BMC 30 side and a few from the moderniser side). I guess the President and Chair have now ended up in their cross hairs as they take process and behaviour very seriously.

I still don't see how dislike of the CEO could apply as a major cause to the current Board problems, unless something incredibly Machiavellian has been going on. My best guess from what I know and using principles like Occam's razor would be a clash between careful process driven views and a more action driven perspective; in the context of the hothouse of weekly Board meetings to deal with the impact of covid. If so, it means the situation is very much more in the ' broken but fixable' camp than in the more emotive words like 'implosion'. People fall out on Boards all the time, especially as in the corporate world you get as many 'alpha males' with fixed vews as Mark pointed out that we do in climbing.

It's not just inside the Board either, as, as much as I disagree with some of the things David has said when raising his concerns, I do believe they are real (and way more important than the 'squirrel' about membership numbers). What I don't get is how the careful by nature Chair that we have (and a thoroughly nice guy) ends up being the cause of David's concerns? It would be tragic indeed if it turned out that because the Chair was trying to apply best practice in governance that partly caused the problems. I'd also add that we have had patrons who said much worse and no action was taken.. given this and the conflict of interest when dealing with a complainant about Board behaviour they probably should have got an independent investigator to look at the situation.

A mate of his are you? It a problem but if everyone needs to be upfront with their affiliations then you should probably disclose why you're supporting extremely rude and aggressive behaviour. 

I didn't dispute the content of the postings. Indeed it has been enlightening. But they've crossed the line in my view. You can get a point across without being a knob.

Thanks for that summary MG. I think we have to be careful when we hint at Financial Mis - Management. If there’s been any of that then I’d like someone to point me at the detail so the claim can be checked and explained.

I think we need to take David’s figures with a significant pinch of salt. They’re some way off the mark, and I suspect that his comments are ‘measured’ for political effect more that for the provision of accuracy

in fact whilst we’ll generate a surplus this year it’ll be nowhere near £100k. We were only forecasting a surplus of around £75k before Covid hit

The signing of the accounts argument has lost a degree of focus I suspect. Let’s not forget that the numbers in the accounts were reviewed and checked by the Board before the final statutory document was drafted.  Those numbers did not change for the final version. What was missed was that a couple of dates of appointment were incorrect.

We also need to remember that those accounts were distributed to the AGM (i.e. published) before several of the present Board were in place. The 2019 accounts checking and filing process was far more thorough.

Am not really replying to you directly but making some general observations as I see them. I don't need a reply. In terms of my views, they are my own but I should declare that I was area chair for the south west. I have never held a role on NC etc.

The words of some here have at times been very unkind. There is no real excuse for this. Most of the unpleasantness has been aimed at volunteers who have freely given time to contribute to an organisation that they believe/believed that they could aid.

Lynn is not hiding. She attended the SW area meeting last night and was as open as she could be whilst expressing a need for this to be resolved promptly and properly.

National Council is attempting to resolve the difficulties experienced at present as well as they can. This is adding huge additional time strains and also great stresses personally.

If you are going to be on the board of a relatively large organisation, it would be better if you were a person able to get on politely and collaboratively with others.

Given Offwidth's relationship with the president, it would probably be better if he had kept his council, rather than posting here.

The number of individuals jumping up and down over this issue on here is small. Some of those people have axes to grind.

If you consider the other issues facing the UK and the world at present, all of this is something of a storm in a teacup.

James

I assume a forecast has been done for a real worse case scenario ( no furlough money, poor income form insurnace as people not going overseas, low membership renewals etc) and that cash is being conserved for this scenario.In the current wider climate, whether people like it or not, an organisation cannot bury its head in the sand.

I would almost suggest that these posts may be an outward sign of financial issues really starting to bite and this spilling out.

Please tell me I am completely wrong as I like most climbers value the work of the BMC

Would you have required a detailed itinerary if she'd been off in the Alps for three weeks?  It's the middle of the summer when many people would routinely be on holiday.   You're being hysterical.

Put it down to depression of seeing people who claim to be friends of the BMC seeming to do their best to spread false information and even sometimes undermine democratic positions if their views are going unchallenged. People deserve to know this is all set in a wider political context. I don't think it is possible let alone right for any properly functioning Board to respond to every social media issue but if no friend of the BMC has already said what I think is important, when faced with barbed nonsense, I will say it.

I'm also a member and long standing volunteer in my own right who became very politically active when the Motion of No Confidence surfaced; I was always accepting of the different political views; as democracy cannot function by suppression of reasonable positions. Yet as I care deeply about the work of the BMC  I was very unhappy with the plotting and secret distribution of lies and misinformation utilised to further the MoNC and fought that. As a result of that I've been threatened with legal action and violence (such tactics are nothing new to me as a veteran moderate in Trade Union disputes in academia, from management and sadly even some 'comrades' ... dishonest cowards use dirty tricks). A year later I was amazed and so pleased with the Manchester meeting compromise on governance structure options prior to the AGM, that sought a wider peace across different views in the organisation and Jonathan and Crag's brave input to enable that success. It seems to me some modernisers resented that, and it has festered to the extent some behaviour on the other political end of the BMC political spectrum looks unhealthy to me. In my long experience most member views sit in the middle and they are rarely as dumb as some of the political activists make out. UKC contributions are unrepresentative and way more polarised than those of the membership.

These are my views.

If someone is off sick, then they're off.  There is no need for the members to be informed, and it might raise questions about privacy.  If any actions were required, presumably there was someone to cover for Lynn in her absence.  In any event, I question whether it would be appropriate for the President to comment, when there has been a statement on behalf the whole Board.