BMC Directors resignations etc

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Andy Say 28 Aug 2020
OP Andy Say 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

For what it's worth (I don't really know about the details of the BMC accounts farrago) in my limited experience it is normal for the accounts to be presented to the body acting as the Board for discussion. After that discussion the Company Secretary and the responsible officer (Chair/President whatever) sign them off as approved by the Board.

Miss a Companies House deadline? Trivial. You'd be really unlucky to get a tap on the wrist. Some companies are up to a year late submitting their accounts

 UKB Shark 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

The latest round of Area Meetings is upon us which gives Members an opportunity to put their thoughts forward and question their National Council representatives and any Directors in attendance.

Some potential things to ponder:

How do you feel about 4 Directors resigning over an undisclosed bust up?

How confident are you that the remaining Board can operate effectively after such a bust up?

Do you feel further resignations are in order?

How happy are you with the level of disclosure, openness and transparency on the issues so far? 

How happy are you with National Council’s response to this leadership crisis?

Do you feel that calling a General Meeting with Directors submitting themselves for re-election with a strategy communicated is the best way forward?

1
 David Lanceley 28 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Might be interesting to answer these questions here.  I'll start.....

> How do you feel about 4 Directors resigning over an undisclosed bust up?

Un-surprised, it was probably inevitable

> How confident are you that the remaining Board can operate effectively after such a bust up?

Not at all confident

> Do you feel further resignations are in order?

Yes

> How happy are you with the level of disclosure, openness and transparency on the issues so far? 

Not at all happy

> How happy are you with National Council’s response to this leadership crisis?

In the circumstances National Council has done the best it can

> Do you feel that calling a General Meeting with Directors submitting themselves for re-election with a strategy communicated is the best way forward?

Yes

Post edited at 14:04
1
 UKB Shark 28 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

> Un-surprised, it was probably inevitable

How so? Can you elaborate please. It was certainly a surprise to me
 

 SDM 28 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> How happy are you with the level of disclosure, openness and transparency on the issues so far? 

​​​​​​Not at all happy. After reading the press releases and skimming the various threads, I still don't have a clue what the issues were, who (if anyone) I agree with, or whether any of this this will assist resolving the issues.

Due to this failure of communication, I don't think I am qualified to even hold a position on any of the other questions.

 Martin Haworth 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

> Miss a Companies House deadline? Trivial. 

I have to disagree with you on this being trivial. If this happened in any of the companies I am a director of it would be taken very seriously. Any finance director or CEO knowingly allowing this to happen in any medium or large organisation isn’t doing their job.

1
 David Lanceley 28 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> How so? Can you elaborate please. It was certainly a surprise to me

I was aware of tensions within the Board that had been building for some time from various conversations with people more closely involved than myself.  The continued reporting of endless meetings with agendas rarely being completed and the meeting having to be continued at a later date were also a very good indication that relationships within the Board were fractured.  The disparate experience and background of the Board is another factor, a significant number were both unfamiliar with the BMC and / or inexperienced in a Board level position.  The Board's apparent determination to do everything itself, it's side-lining of the FAC being a good example, and the huge additional workload that this entails is another indicator that the Board was unlikely to survive long. 

I know easy to be wise after the event but all the signs were there. 

2
 Martin Haworth 28 Aug 2020
In reply to This thread/topic in general.

Difficult to know exactly what to say really...but “what a mess”.

Why anyone who is or has recently been on the NC, BMC board, BMC employee, thinks it is a good idea to use a UKC forum to discuss any of this is beyond me. This isn’t achieving anything useful, and is just damaging the BMC reputation and the reputation of individuals as well.

6
 UKB Shark 28 Aug 2020
In reply to SDM:

> Due to this failure of communication, I don't think I am qualified to even hold a position on any of the other questions.

Good point. It’s infuriating. Openness and Transparency is meant to be a key theme of Good governance - especially in a membership organisation.

A General Meeting should force more disclosure. If it didn’t I suspect an alternative set of Directors would be voted in.

 Offwidth 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Martin Haworth:

That's the exact intention. Some of the critics want blood.

Even the basic facts in the OP are wrong as there have only been 3 resignations so far.

I think the GM suggestion is laughable in terms of good governance practice. We accept the NC plan or call in an independent investigation and call a GM to deal with the outcomes.

17
 David Lanceley 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> That's the exact intention. Some of the critics want blood.

The critics do indeed want blood.  I couldn't put it better than Ollie Cromwell;

You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

> Even the basic facts in the OP are wrong as there have only been 3 resignations so far.

The thread title is lifted from the original BMC publication which said 4 resignations, as you note they couldn't even get that right.

> I think the GM suggestion is laughable in terms of good governance practice. We accept the NC plan or call in an independent investigation and call a GM to deal with the outcomes.

I agree the GM proposal is perhaps unworkable at this stage.  An independent investigation would clear the air.  Can I offer myself as a witness?

14
 UKB Shark 28 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

An independent investigation would prolong matters. Whilst it was ongoing any strategic activity would cease and initiatives at the to improve management would grind to a halt. I saw it first hand during the MoNC episode when the CEO and Board were almost 100% preoccupied with dealing with issues surrounding it. 

I’d love to be able believe the remaining Board could sort it all out and have everything back on track over tea and biscuits but I’m a realist. Blood has been spilt on the boardroom carpet but it is obvious that the wrong blood has been spilt so far. It is hard to be certain from the limited info which is the right blood. I set out my theory but it’s just a theory. Steps taken so far don’t feel like decisive enough action - it all feels like a fudge. I’m not convinced from what Andy said that NC reps probed deep enough to get to the heart of the matter either and too acceptant of taking things at face value from the Directors who were questioned. 

I think in general it is a struggle centred on instilIng professionalism at the BMC in the face of resistance. 

 Dave Garnett 28 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

> I agree the GM proposal is perhaps unworkable at this stage.  An independent investigation would clear the air.  Can I offer myself as a witness?

Why so modest?  Why not apply to be CEO and stand for election as President?

7
 Huw Jones 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Chiefly Dave because he’s been banned for doing so for five years. Which is disappointing as he’s put a lot of time in over the years

1
 David Lanceley 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Why so modest?  Why not apply to be CEO and stand for election as President?

I see you struggle with the concept of parody.....

 Huw Jones 28 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

Sidelining of the FAC?  Really?  So selection of auditors, involvement in getting the Statutory Accounts sorted, involvement in the Covid forecasting and involvement in the 2021 budget prep. None of that’s happened?

3
 Dave Garnett 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

> Chiefly Dave because he’s been banned for doing so for five years. 

Thought there must be a good reason, it couldn’t be lack of self-belief.

OP Andy Say 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Three resignations now and a resignation two years ago after the accounts 'thing' kicked off?

 David Lanceley 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

> Sidelining of the FAC?  Really?  So selection of auditors, involvement in getting the Statutory Accounts sorted, involvement in the Covid forecasting and involvement in the 2021 budget prep. None of that’s happened?

Only after a very acrimonious FAC meeting on 09 March, extract from the minutes;

There was much discussion around the FACs lack of involvement in the budget process, with many committee members feeling annoyed by the process that was followed in production of the budget, commenting that the FAC had been bypassed entirely and that the Board was doing the detailed work that is in the FAC ToR.

The committee felt that they should be responsible, as part of their delegated authority from the Board, to review budgets prior to them being passed to the Board so that the Board could rely on the FAC to have carried out checks on the figures included within.

DL asked for it to be minuted that the FAC had seen the 2020-24 budget after the Board review, but had not been involved in its production.

1
 Huw Jones 28 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

Yup. That’s exactly what happened. But you’ve left out the bit about there being a need for a very different and much better forecasting process to that which had been used previously (you can only use the ‘take last year’s and add a bit’ so many times before it becomes useless), and the lack of time available to complete it in.

For 2021 - more time, staff that have been through the new process once and yes of course the FAC are involved.  Even to the extent of direct interaction with the strategic and operational planning.  Not because of complaint but because they should be.

It’s a shame you’re missing out really.

6
 David Lanceley 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

See you've just checked my profile on LinkedIn

Don't forget Facebook

I've nothing to hide

10
 David Lanceley 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

> For 2021 - more time, staff that have been through the new process once and yes of course the FAC are involved.  Even to the extent of direct interaction with the strategic and operational planning.  Not because of complaint but because they should be.

Yes, and I understand you're not involved in any of this which should mean last years' fiasco is avoided

14
 Huw Jones 28 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark

I have to say that my own view is that National Council have done an excellent job in holding us to account. And yes I appreciate that ‘I would say that wouldn’t I’.

However realistically we can’t say a great deal about an ongoing investigation. It concludes shortly and things will become clearer then - including the fact that it may well be a lot less serious a matter than some might imagine.  As one of the Directors commissioning the investigation I’ve often wondered if the word ‘investigation’ was the right one to use given what it can conjour up in people’s’ minds

Equally we are bound by confidentiality clauses and, love them or loathe them, GDPR rules.  So matters of relationships between directors are also a challenge to talk about.  But this isn’t a Board at odds with itself.  In any group of that number most will get on and one or two might feel less a part of it.  Behaviours can sometimes be of greater consequence than we’d hope or realise.

Independent Investigation?  That’s already been brought up.  It hasn’t been rejected but we’ve not had the chance to discuss it as a whole Board yet.

General Meeting?  Ditto.  And if one is held then members may well be able to decide that the CEO needs to have a completely different team of Non - Execs around him.  We all recognise that.

And to repeat, we’ve been as transparent as we can be with National Council.  

Have we slipped up on a few things?  Yes.  The membership numbers issue is an example.  Historically they’ve formed part of the CEO report.  This year they didn’t.  We said we’d correct the report - but immediately after the AGM the CEO took leave, and shortly after the staff member who publishes these things was put on furlough.  Our error was not having a plan B to publish them in what became an extremely busy period.

Are we on top of things?  We’ve got work to do but we’re gaining ground quickly.

The round of area meetings has started. There’ll be at least one member of the Board at each. Go. Ask us what you want to know and either we’ll tell you or we’ll explain why we can’t tell you.  We’re there to be held to account

7
 Huw Jones 28 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

Uh - oh. There’s that anger again. Who knows - it might bother me one day

12
 David Lanceley 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

> Uh - oh. There’s that anger again. Who knows - it might bother me one day

Yes, the truth is pretty inconvenient isn’t it.

9
 UKB Shark 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

Thank you for responding

> I have to say that my own view is that National Council have done an excellent job in holding us to account. And yes I appreciate that ‘I would say that wouldn’t I’.

The telling bit from Andy (took me 10 minutes to find it) was: “There were plenty of hard questions asked and there were statements made or answers given that the council could have followed up further if they had wished but they did not”.

It seems to me that if asked they wouldn’t know who exactly had what was clearly an incendiary exchange which was probably the culmination of building tensions. My reading was that the Lynn and Gareth backed Dave Turnbull but I don’t know who was most forceful on the other side of the rift.

>However realistically we can’t say a great deal about an ongoing investigation. It concludes shortly and things will become clearer then - including the fact that it may well be a lot less serious a matter than some might imagine.  

I have already said that from what I know that it sounds like a relatively minor issue insofar as believe the £quantum is relatively small, the purpose justifiable but the arrangement irregular. It reflects an informal casual approach to management and one of a succession of mishaps that collectively amount to something more substantial in terms of symptoms of poor leadership and work culture

>Equally we are bound by confidentiality clauses and, love them or loathe them, GDPR rules.  So matters of relationships between directors are also a challenge to talk about.  But this isn’t a Board at odds with itself.  In any group of that number most will get on and one or two might feel less a part of it.  Behaviours can sometimes be of greater consequence than we’d hope or realise.

Not at odds with itself!? Two of three Independent Directors did not resign over nothing. I don’t know Amanda but came to know Matthew. He’s an experienced Director and no snowflake. If anybody represented an adult in the room it would have been him. He put in a huge personal commitment to the ORG and was the driving force behind Mend Our Mountains. He wouldn’t resign over something trivial. The relationships on the Board must have broken down to something unworkable given that we have been informed that legal risk and gross misconduct wasn’t part of the equation. What other reasons are left to resign. He must have been approaching the end of his five year term.

 Andy Syme 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

I think the original News item mistakenly included Gareth not going for a second term as a resignation. 

 UKB Shark 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

> I think the original News item mistakenly included Gareth not going for a second term as a resignation. 

Semantics. He offered his resignation to NC and you accepted it but without immediate effect.

 birdie num num 28 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> An independent investigation would prolong matters. 

 

There’s been a pretty good prolonged independent prolonged investigation prolonging on here. 

 Rob Parsons 28 Aug 2020
In reply to birdie num num:

> There’s been a pretty good prolonged independent prolonged investigation prolonging on here. 

Has there? We haven't yet even had an official statement of what the actual problems are.

 birdie num num 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Yes sorry. Insert ‘speculation’ for ‘investigation’ in my last.

 Andy Syme 28 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

He told the Board he wasn't going for a second term, there was no discussion offered to councol on that.  He then asked Council if we thought he should go immediately and council emphatically said not until he had a suitable replacement. 

1
 Dave Garnett 28 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

> See you've just checked my profile on LinkedIn

I can see nothing much gets past you!

 UKB Shark 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

Like I said..

 gooberman-hill 28 Aug 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

"Equally we are bound by confidentiality clauses and, love them or loathe them, GDPR rules. So matters of relationships between directors are also a challenge to talk about."

Please explain what GDPR has to do with this. I have some working knowledge of GDPR (as a technical director for an engineering data science consultancy). I'm at a loss to understand what personal data might be involved, and how, under the circumstances, it might not reasonably be disclosed under Article 6e (public interest) or Article 6f (legitimate interests of a data controller or 3rd party).

I don't have a view on the arguments ongoing around the tensions in the Board which have led to resignations. I don't have enough information to take a view. But for the board to basically refuse to tell the membership what the issues are, claiming confidentiality clauses and GDPR, strikes me as deliberate obfuscation.

Steve

 David Lanceley 29 Aug 2020
In reply to gooberman-hill:

"Equally we are bound by confidentiality clauses and, love them or loathe them, GDPR rules. So matters of relationships between directors are also a challenge to talk about."

Perhaps you could also explain where the confidentially clauses are and what they say.

 Andy Syme 29 Aug 2020
In reply to gooberman-hill:

Steve

Having seen one of the pieces of legal advice the lawyers are in my view being very cautious. 

That said if you look at GDPR it states personal data is: 

Data which identifies an individual, even without a name associated with it, may be personal data if you are processing it to learn or record something about that individual, or where the processing has an impact on that individual.

There are many examples of data that ‘relates to’ an individual because the content of the information is clearly about that individual. For example:

  • medical history;
  • criminal record;
  • a record of an individual’s performance at work; or
  • a record of an individual’s sporting achievements.

As a DPO myself I know you can't use Public Interest, GDPR defines 26 cases that are public interest and this definitely isn't one of them.  Legitimate interest is possible but You must balance your interests against the individual’s. If they would not reasonably expect the processing, or if it would cause unjustified harm, their interests are likely to override your legitimate interests.

So while I think the lawyers have applied a very (overly?) strict interpretation having received advice the Boards hands are a bit tied unless they chose to ignore it and accept the consequent risks.  It was unfortunate that, as I understand it, the whole Board weren't involved in the initial decision to seek advice or not given that their hands are now collectively tied; but is possibly not surprising given the problems.   

Post edited at 08:33
4
 UKB Shark 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme and Huw Jones:

From what you are both saying it rather sounds like some on the Board wanted to disclose more specific information and be more open and transparent with members about Director relationships but the subject or subjects of those relationships objected and threw up GDPR and confidentiality clauses as reasons not to do so making it a “challenge to talk about”? 

 David Lanceley 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

So just to be clear the Board have taken formal paid for legal advice as to whether information relating to the departure of the 3 (maybe 4) directors can be disclosed publicly?

 UKB Shark 29 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

They, or specifically Lynn, took legal advice to provide justification for not disclosing the number of proxy votes applied at the AGM or how she applied those votes. Not all on the Board agreed that this information should remain hidden and Andy made a valiant effort to garner support from NC to force disclosure

 David Lanceley 29 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> They, or specifically Lynn, took legal advice to provide justification for not disclosing the number of proxy votes applied at the AGM or how she applied those votes. Not all on the Board agreed that this information should remain hidden and Andy made a valiant effort to garner support from NC to force disclosure

So the legal advice is in respect of the voting issue and not the departure issue?  If that is the case then what is the relevance of the legal advice to the departure issue?

 UKB Shark 29 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

Sorry. That is entirely separate. I’m just pointing out that getting legal advice to justify non-disclosure has happened before. If one Director has independently sought legal advice from BMC lawyers to gag the other Directors it makes a mockery of Huw’s claim that the Board isn’t at odds with itself 

 David Lanceley 29 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> Sorry. That is entirely separate. I’m just pointing out that getting legal advice to justify non-disclosure has happened before. If one Director has independently sought legal advice from BMC lawyers to gag the other Directors it makes a mockery of Huw’s claim that the Board isn’t at odds with itself 

You couldn't make it up.....

 Offwidth 29 Aug 2020
In reply to gooberman-hill:

Confidentiality clauses are pretty standard for company Directors; plus, GDPR and seperate confidentiality rules normally apply to company communications about staff (ie the investigation subjects). There will always be tensions between neccesary confidentiality and needs for transparency in any membership organisation.  The BMC articles seek to strike a sensible balance.

Some of the members here pretending the BMC is somehow less transparent than normal have an agenda. They want information they are not entitled to under the articles and given the fuss this will have been carefully checked with legal advice. It's often possible to change the rules but that doesn't uncover the retrospective information. This particular point is important as some here made a massive fuss about releasing AGM chair proxy vote details from the 2019 AGM that were regarded as confidential. A publicly stated motive was JR losing an election for a Nominated Director post. He came bottom out of three candidates and it was obvious without the detailed numbers  (from the total proxy voting) he almost certainly got the lowest number of actual member's votes. JR said on the other channel (UKB) he didn't campaign as he wanted the female candidate to win (easy to achieve.. stand down at the AGM and support that candidate). After the results, the AGM chair (The President) was shamefully publicly accused of voting for the "wrong candidate" by people here lecturing us on organisational governance failure. They went on to insult the elected Director and the Nomination Committee by saying he should not have met the criteria to be in the election.

On a seperate point, the idea being guessed at here by one of the critics is that the President and Board Chair, who most who know them say are two of the most respectful and process driven people the BMC have ever seen, caused the resignation due to the lack of respect and not following procedures. This is ludicrous.

Having seen the posts about David's concerns on the committee and the response from Huw, my view is it seems to falls into a 'mistake that should not have happened' category, but it goes nowhere near a need for resignations. For me it also goes nowhere near explaining his anger that led to the completely unacceptable comments, especially his attack on the Board Chair. 

Andy Syme explained the 4th resignation issue.. it was offered, but NC said the Chair should stay. The news posts were correct but things changed.

Post edited at 09:22
6
 Steve Woollard 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

> It was unfortunate that, as I understand it, the whole Board weren't involved in the initial decision to seek (legal) advice or not given that their hands are now collectively tied; but is possibly not surprising given the problems.   

OMG this gets worse every day.

What have these Board members got to hid that they thought it necessary to get paid legal advice to protect it?

The only people damaging the reputation of the BMC are these Board members

3
 gooberman-hill 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

Thank you Andy. Of course, the trick with lawyers is to pick one who will give you the opinion you want to hear

1
 Offwidth 29 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

"> Sorry. That is entirely separate. I’m just pointing out that getting legal advice to justify non-disclosure has happened before. If one Director has independently sought legal advice from BMC lawyers to gag the other Directors it makes a mockery of Huw’s claim that the Board isn’t at odds with itself 

You couldn't make it up....."

Seriously? I'd have thought anyone with even a modicum of company law experience should be able to see reasons this could happen to a resignation letter of a non exec. Two of the most obvious would be trying to publicly criticise employees or releasing commercial sensitive information. A legal intervention in such a case would not in itself show a Board at odds with itself. It would show a governance failing in the resigning Director.

Post edited at 09:42
8
 David Lanceley 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> Seriously? I'd have thought anyone with even a modicum of company law experience should be able to see reasons this could happen to a resignation letter of a non exec. Two of the most obvious would be trying to publicly criticise employees or releasing commercial sensitive information.

That BMC Directors have taken paid for legal advice as what they can and can't say publicly and to each other is pathetic and you know it.  If there was ever a clear indication that the Board is broken then this is it.  I could understand if this was a major multi-national turning over billions with highly paid non-execs but the BMC?

2
 Huw Jones 29 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

I’ve clearly not had the same experience with it that you have David

 profitofdoom 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Steve Woollard:

> OMG this gets worse every day. > What have these Board members got to hid that they thought it necessary to get paid legal advice to protect it? > The only people damaging the reputation of the BMC are these Board members

That's what I was thinking. Like anyone I understand confidentiality, but.....

.....I haven't seen so much beating around the bush, on these 2 threads, since Prince Charles's last grouse shoot in Scotland

 David Lanceley 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

> I’ve clearly not had the same experience with it that you have David

I guess you're taking about your Company Director experience.  A quick check of the Companies House records reveals how extensive that is.

 Offwidth 29 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

Actually I think your attitude is frighteningly naive for a senior volunteer. I have no idea what might or might not have happened in the BMC Board but in any company it could be neccesary to gag a Director. You can't have Directors or ex Directors spilling commercial secrets or smearing employees in public.

Post edited at 09:57
9
 gooberman-hill 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth and to Andy Syme

Thanks both for your detailed reply.

Confidentiality clauses are of course very common in commercial organisations. Generally they exist to preserve the internal discussions of the organisation and preserve their commercial advantage.

However while the BMC is a commercial organisation it also has a responsibility to its membership as the National Body for mountaineering climbing and hill walking, and there appears to be a tension between these two roles.

It strikes me that while it would be fully legitimate for the BMC board to invoke confidentiality in any matters that underpinned its ability to operate in a commercial market place (for example the business case underpinning guide book production), there is is a wider public interest; the legitimate concerns of the membership the governence of their national body should not be brushed aside so lightly.

We are where we are because of the resignations of three directors from the board. The membership of struggling to understand the reasons behind these resignations. The way that the board is now using a variety of legal pretexts to avoid giving the members any information on the issues underpinning these resignations is, in my opinion, extremely damaging to the BMC because it erodes the confidence of the membership that the board is acting in the best interests of the outdoor community it claims to represent.

As as ever, the cover-up is far more damaging than the original issue.

Steve

 UKB Shark 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> On a seperate point, the idea being guessed at here by one of the critics is that the President and Board Chair, who most who know them say are two of the most respectful and process driven people the BMC have ever seen, caused the resignation due to the lack of respect and not following procedures. This is ludicrous.

I don’t know Gareth but I do know Lynn. She certainly talks a good game about process and her governance knowledge and I was a big fan and voted for her as President. Her tenure has been disappointing. In the same way that you say you wish you hadn’t voted for JR, I now wish I had voted for Fiona.

Lynn could have struck a great partnership with JR drawing on his governance knowledge and communicating the issues to the membership. Instead she fell out with him criticising the poor procedure of her and Dave prematurely signing off the full accounts thereby confirming that the Board had sight of them when the fact is they had only seen the numbers not the final narrative. If she was process driven she wouldn’t have signed them prematurely or at least acknowledge it was a mistake to do so.

JR was one of the modernisers heavily involved in the ODG then Chair of the ODG. By not backing him she undermined his position and understandably he stepped down as ODG Chair which derailed ODG activities and the dedicated volunteers working on it in limbo for 6 months. 

Is history repeating itself? I don’t know. As you rightly say it’s a theory. However, you say most who know her believe she is respectful and process driven. Where are these people? They are not popping up on here to shoot my theory down in flames. The silence has been deafening.

 Offwidth 29 Aug 2020
In reply to profitofdoom:

The better analogy is people with clear public anti-BMC Board agendas throwing as much mud as possible and tying to get some of it to stick. Ignoring all this fuss on the thread for the moment the member's representatives on National Council looked at the Board resignations and their causes and made an adult proposal that no-one has yet picked apart.

Those with agendas include two of the BMC 30, critics of the 2019 election who wanted JR on the Board despite coming last in an election (I voted for JR but am disgusted with the anti democratic nonsense that followed) and the person who led the AGM debate against the 90%+ supported governance option in the 2018 AGM; an option produced after the BMC and leading critics of some aspects of 'modernisation' made a compromise in that public meeting in Manchester to strengthen the role of National Council in BMC governance (who knows... without that compromise the governance proposals might have failed to meet the necessary percentage... the majority would certainly have been a lot smaller and the NC might have  lacked the power to do what they have done now).

Post edited at 10:24
10
 Andy Syme 29 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

We don't know the intent.  But the impact is on the whole board.  Hence why in my view remains that the Board should decide, and minute for their own records, when legal advice is requested so they can be sure that they all agree the need and can collectively accept the consequences of the advice received. 

 Andy Syme 29 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> I don’t know Gareth but I do know Lynn. She certainly talks a good game about process and her governance knowledge and I was a big fan and voted for her as President. Her tenure has been disappointing. In the same way that you say you wish you hadn’t voted for JR, I now wish I had voted for Fiona.

Fiona didn't stand for President Les Ainsworth did.  Fiona stood against Lynn as VP in 2017

 UKB Shark 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

> Fiona didn't stand for President Les Ainsworth did.  Fiona stood against Lynn as VP in 2017

Sorry and thanks for pointing that out. You are quite right. I wish I had voted for Fiona as Vice President. Perhaps she would have similarly gone on to be President. 

1
 Offwidth 29 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Neither you or I know why Lynn voted the way she did. She does know the organisation as well as anyone and has a responsibility to vote in the best interests of the organisation and did state many times that is what she did and will always do. Your view on her motives stated almost as fact is pure political posturing and it still looks like sour grapes (especially given your connections to Gron, who lost as well).

Similar arguments would apply to your views on the CEO (whom you have publicly criticised and seem to want replaced). Directors interested in process and behaviour would have put a performance system in place to ensure the CEO met organisational needs and would have been disappointed with polical attacks. Again this looks like sour grapes from you after you left the BMC.

We don't know the accounts signature is a mistake as we don't know the Board communications prior to the deadlines, especially with the new Chair (it's clear something did go wrong somewhere). If it was it was a mistake it was a well intentioned one on an issue that has been massively overblown in its seriousness. Onto the release of proxy  votes from 2019 you were told it was not going to be released after a Board decision based on legal advice and you campaigned against that (perfectly reasonable). Attacking a BMC employee for doing her job in an area meeting is the lack of respect problem here. You lost the area vote on the retrospective release but the meeting overwhelmingly said the rules should be changed in future (which I think is happening).

JR has let me down on many fronts. He admitted himself on social media that he didn't campaign for that election and said he wanted another candidate to win; yet failed to do something that could have easily have achieved that (withdraw and ask his supporters to vote for the person he wanted). We are democratic organisation and JR almost certainly came last on member votes. He hasn't ever answered why given his public concerns on the subject of the accounts what he did between the 2018 AGM and the deadline: to ensure the accounts were suitable for the new structure (including plans for the signatures). That's part of a way more important collective Board failure that includes Lynn (but she is much less skilled and was less responsible for finance than others on that Board). JR also stated on social media he voted against a Board position in that AGM and abstained from another, a breach of Board collective responsibility: the normal and honourable way to express that level of concern would have been to resign.

Lynn never made a big thing about her governance experience (not insignificant) so I know who I think had actions that were mystifying given their governance knowledge and public emphasis on the subject.

11
 Offwidth 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

That a critic wants to be taken seriously when he can't get the other candidate right in a BMC presidential election is just the latest in a serious of factual errors added to all the spin.  Maybe even one of a succession of mishaps that collectively amount to something more substantial. This was exactly what the BMC 30 were guilty of and led to the groundswell of member opposition to their bad behaviour. It's really sad to see it again here. Political difference is healthy, misinformation and attacks on ordinary BMC staff isn't.

Post edited at 11:42
9
 UKB Shark 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

As you know on a personal level I like Lynn and I like Dave. However, if as appears to be the case they are at best indifferent and at worst obstacles to the reforms and recommendations that stemmed from the ORG report then they should step aside from their roles and responsibilities particularly with respect to culture, leadership and management. 

The ORG was independent and consulted widely and it’s recommendations were endorsed by the NC, the Board and the Membership notably with respect to the motion supporting the “spirit of the ORG”.

I was personally excited by the prospect of a more strategic BMC better able to execute its obligations to its members and all climbers and hillwalkers than the one I experienced. Delays to its progress fill me with dismay as Im sure it does many ORG volunteers and interested members.

Over two years on and the headline recommendations on culture, leadership and management have scarcely gained traction and seemingly hit the buffers in this row. 

I would love for their to be an alternative explanation of what has gone on replete with facts and insight on differing views of modernisation. Especially if that was an official explanation.

Instead what we are getting is nothing to see here...please move on.

 Offwidth 29 Aug 2020
In reply to gooberman-hill:

You've changed you position to something I can say is more reasonable bit I stilll disagree. You acknowledge the tension between confidentially and transparency that will always be there.

The resigning Council Nominated Director directly points to the Board Chair as their reason yet the National Council (NC) on which they sit decided the Chair should not resign immediately but remain until a new Chair is appointed. I'm satisfied with that if NC are. The two Independent Directors cite behaviours and processes but how do we know the Board knows exactly what this means (opinions in any group will differ) or could have a position on what to do beyond what they have already said (working with NC to fix anything like such problems). Directors are unpaid volunteers with serious responsibilities and liabilities and are entitled to legal advice to best protect the organisation.

The attitudes on display towards some Directors on these threads is beyond atrocious and the focus on detail that supports agendas (vs the bigger picture) indicates 'too much' information would almost certainly be misused. I think there is enough detail to know there is a serious problem that needs fixing and I stongly prefer the matter is resolved following the proposed NC route. I'm very surprised if you think this isn't a good option given your experience as a Director, as it is exactly what the organisation's articles indicate should happen and those making that decision on NC are the democratic representatives from local areas (and there are more of them than critics on these threads!). What exactly is to be gained by knowing the exact shape of the stains on this dirty washing if we have a way for it to be cleaned. How does it help us recruit new high quality Directors to fill these and future vacancies? If people lecturing us on governance seriously think a GM where Directors have to defend their individual appointments is a good idea, I'm surprised we don't suggest throwing those judged to have failed to the lions as well.

11
 John2 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

'JR has let me down on many fronts'

Is that what you intended to say?

 Offwidth 29 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Liking someone is not a sensible issue to discuss, and it's a bit rich to stress that when you are conflicted on your concerns and in both cases seem to think they are to be singled out as failing.  Four Directors from 2018 were on ORG (JR, a CND and two IDs) to ensure the 'spirit' didn't lose emphasis. Three continued when JR left the Board at the 2019 AGM.

There is simply no evidence that ORG has been particularly badly handled as it progressed through ODG (under a new chair, the Council Nominated Director, who is an equally keen proponent of and ex member of ORG). Much of it is implemented already (most is finished and waiting for the covid postponed Article change debate). If there is indeed a problem as serious as you imply that would seem to sit with that CND Director's openess and progress. All you provide is unsubstantiated innuendo and opinion with a sprinkling of misinformation. JRs concerns are pretty vague as well. As far as I can tell getting on for a hundred volunteers have been beavering away on various sub groups.

For information this is the July update from the ODG chair

https://odg.thebmc.co.uk/hc/en-gb

The member view on ORG seems to me to be there has been too much emphasis on it. Yet Director communications continue to stress the importance and progress to the most recent AGM. Yes it's fair you disagree with the outcome of one recommendation (competitions) after it was looked at following due process. Yet others think it was a sensible decisions, and the change is being looked at by a committee chaired by Rab (ex ORG).

Post edited at 13:42
9
 David Lanceley 29 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

As a follow up to my comments on Company House data above I thought I would take a quick look at the experience of the other current BMC Directors.  Only a few have any other appointments listed, i.e. they’ve not been a director of a company before and for those that do the companies are, as far as I can tell, £1 companies with a single director.  As I know from running my own £100 company for the last 18 years these organisations run with a minimum of process, you don’t need a board meeting with yourself....

Hardly surprising then that there should doubt and confusion about the how the Board operates and the role of the Directors, no one has ever done this stuff before.  I appreciate that much can be taught / learnt / read about in a book and most of it is common sense anyway but might go some way to explaining how the Board got were it is.

3
 Offwidth 29 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

I'd share that concern to an extent.. it depends how it balances with other skill needs in a membership organisation. It  still doesn't explain what you are so angry about. What actual problems led from this particular inexperience that  caused your anger and very poor behaviour.

It's also possible to be pretty senior in a big organisation such that you work immediately below and directly with the Board (as the President did when she worked in a PCT).

9
 Martin Hore 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Has there? We haven't yet even had an official statement of what the actual problems are.

And there we have it. I've followed these three threads but have learned little about the underlying problems that appear to have beset the governance of an organisation I've been proud to belong to for several decades. All I've read is not very friendly exchanges between what I presume to be some of the key people involved who all know the details but don't seem willing to explain them in a way the wider membership can understand. I'm not at all sure the UKC forum is the place for these type of exchanges. 

Can we please have a full explanation, in terms those not in the know can understand, from representatives of the various factions, preferably via a BMC newsletter, but failing that on here? The continuing Board members surely have a duty to the wider membership do this. I would suggest that the resigned members have a similar duty to respond.

Martin

 Offwidth 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Martin Hore:

Looking at this in the context of my 30 years and knowing some of the unpublished history of the BMC it's probably only modern governance arrangements that mean we are not blithely unaware of these problems; which are probably nothing like the most serious fall outs in my 30 years (The BMC had nearly broken when Dave M came in and resolved issues as a fixer President). I even posted a photo of an early governance blow up that must have been very bad, as it hit the public ( in the 50s or 60s maybe... I'll and find the image and repost).

2
 UKB Shark 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

Andy,

Sorry if you’ve covered this already but has NC had sight of, or requested sight of the resignation letters?

 Offwidth 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Got it, it was a photocopy we took not a photo.  Mountaineering Vol V No6 winter 1969

"The 1969 Annual General Meeting of the BMC was punctuated by the interjections of some of those present, who charged the organisation and management of the BMC with incompetence and being out of touch with present reality. They demanded that the whole character of the BMC be drastically changed and remodeled on the lines of the larger European Alpine Clubs....". Etc

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Post edited at 16:29
6
 UKB Shark 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> Seriously? I'd have thought anyone with even a modicum of company law experience should be able to see reasons this could happen to a resignation letter of a non exec. Two of the most obvious would be trying to publicly criticise employees or releasing commercial sensitive information. A legal intervention in such a case would not in itself show a Board at odds with itself. It would show a governance failing in the resigning Director.


Are you talking hypothetically or is this what happened?

 gooberman-hill 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Can I make 3 points:

  1. I don't have a dog in this fight - I don't know any of the people involved, and I am certainly not taking sides. As a concerned member I don't have enough information to come to any view. I have certainly not suggested a GM.
  2. I don't think I have changed my position at all. I was surprised that confidentiality agreements and especially GDPR were being cited as pretexts for not informing the membership. The fact that legal advice has been sought and is being used to restrict the dissemination of information simply demonstrates the seriousness of the breakdown in the Board.
  3. My position is simple: the BMC acts as the national body for the mountaineering community, but is also a limited company, and this is clearly leading to tension. Where there is a conflict between these roles, the wider interests of the community the BMC represents should take precedence. Maybe this could be developed into a policy.

You are right that there has been some atrocious behaviour on display. There are certainly some people who need to grow up and act like adults not like 7 year olds. I agree that there is no need to air the dirty laundry. But I think the members have a right to know whether the resignations are due to differences in opinion on strategic direction, significant concerns with the governance of the BMC, or personal differences. I suspect that it may be a combination; I don't care about the latter, but if it is either of the former then the membership, as stakeholders, should be kept informed.

Steve

 paul mitchell 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

I have often communicated politely with some folk here mentioned and never had the  courtesy of a reply.I do mean NEVER. People who have a supposedly cuddly and  laid back but professional image. I name no names,as I want to talk to them when we meet. The BMC still has the same old problems,lack of openness,fear of commitment,and private agendas. 

Post edited at 18:47
OP Andy Say 29 Aug 2020
In reply to paul mitchell:

Hope that wasn't me, Paul!

OP Andy Say 29 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> Andy,

> Sorry if you’ve covered this already but has NC had sight of, or requested sight of the resignation letters?

I also would hope that those letters had been released to National Council. It's a bit hard to resolve a problem if some of the evidence pointing to the problem is with-held!

For what it's worth I think that National Council really seem to have stepped up to the plate. It's a shame it's not just 'holding the Board to account' but actually 'trying to repair a disintegrating Board'.

OP Andy Say 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

That was then. This is now.

Or are you urging us to just accept all this crap as 'normal'?

 Tyler 29 Aug 2020

In reply:

This wouldn't have happened with Bob Pettigrew in charge! 😂

 Andy Syme 29 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

We had a written and verbal statement for Jon. 

We had a written statement from Matthew and Amanda, though didn't see the resignation letter to the Board  itself. 

 UKB Shark 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

Did you ask for the resignation letters?

Could be illuminating if Lynn saw fit to embargo them...

 Mick Ward 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Tyler:

> This wouldn't have happened with Bob Pettigrew in charge! 😂

Love it.

Capt'n Bob: "Them 'as dies 'll be the lucky 'uns!!"

Mick

1
 Andy Syme 29 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

No, I approached Matthew directly and he emailed me a statement. 

OP Andy Say 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

It does occur to me that we have been through a fair spate of governmental resignations; either politicians or civil servants. Their letters seem to be published in full to the public without any legal repercussion. We've had plenty of people saying X obstructed my work; Y did not give me the support I required; I regret leaving Z's team or stuff like that.  No one seems to be taking out 'confidentiality injunctions' no matter how incendiary.

I would guess that the writer 'owns' the letter rather than the recipient?  And I really do think that GDPR is a desperate red herring. It's perfectly possible to say 'Boris Johnson is a pillock' (identifying the individual concerned) without ANY breach of data.

Post edited at 20:48
OP Andy Say 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Tyler:

> In reply:

> This wouldn't have happened with Bob Pettigrew in charge! 😂

Strange to say; but a Board, with constitutional 'Primacy', falling apart and being rescued by a subservient National Council quite possibly wouldn't. 😉

The BMC might, instead, have found itself funding explorations up the Orinoco in dug-outs with no propulsion means.

 UKB Shark 29 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

Is there anything preventing these statements being shared with the membership?

 Andy Syme 30 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Yes.  It was sent to Council for their use only.  It was not written as or intended for public distribution and I do not have their consent to release it further. 

5
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Love it.

> Capt'n Bob: "Them 'as dies 'll be the lucky 'uns!!"

> Mick

Hi Mick. It’s come to something when Captain bob and his merry band of tweed clad gentlemen adventurers start to look like the better option.....

paul

 Offwidth 30 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

Actually big fall outs were quite often in the BMC, from what I gather. It's just you needed to watch carefully to see anything. Dan summed it up well on the UKB thread.. old men in smoky rooms. As a club official I hadn't a scooby do about the BMC almost falling apart financially under the previous CEO. The old system gave us Climb Britain (with no votes against and one abstention on NC). Under the new governance system (that you formally led the opposition debate on) it's much harder to hide such problems, as the Board and NC have to work together. It's messy but it's a good thing. The compromise in Manchester gave a bit more power to NC (which partly enabled their proposed assistance), whilst retaining SE governance conditions (which are only pretty standard good practice in any case). 

Those political and civil service resignation letters you cite don't attack staff (at least not below the top) nor release what most experienced people regard as inappropriate to release confidential information. They will always have gone through a lawyer. That some here are scathing about lawyers and governance officers having a part in a professional modern organisation is worrying and again indicates their idea of governance is faulty.

My point to Shark was obviously a general one, there are all sorts of possible reasons for some Board confidentiality. On specifics, whatever happened it's the fault of the whole Board as they have collective responsibility and should had worked better to resolve things. Rather than following the negativity of a critic trying desperately to pin blame on the Director who has upset them the most, it would be the best for anyone who genuinely cares about the organisation to give the NC proposals a chance to fix things (unless the Board ignore the NC position, that I see as very unlikely).

This comes back to Steve's point... If there were gaping differences in strategic direction the resigning Directors would have been dishonest. If there were such differences I would agree it would be essential for the members to know more. That the resignations all cite behaviour and process means it must be personality and nuts and bolts (in an incredibly difficult period for anyone to be on that Board). The main critics (who often have clear differences to the Board in strategic direction) don't care about that though. If people think there were major strategy differences they must also think Andy Syme is blatantly lying (again ludicrous in my opinion).

Post edited at 08:20
8
 UKB Shark 30 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

Thanks Andy.

So to get it straight you requested the statements because the Board refused to release the resignation letters on the grounds of GDPR concerns that Lynn obtained of her own volition from the BMC lawyers?

 David Lanceley 30 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

> Yes.  It was sent to Council for their use only.  It was not written as or intended for public distribution and I do not have their consent to release it further. 

What nonsense.  The statements have been sent to the Council that represents the members but can’t be released to the members themselves?  What are these people frightened of?  If the BMC were a public body then a FOI request would quickly secure the release of the statements.  Personally I’m not interested in what the children were squabbling about but I understand others concerns about the nature of the differences.

8
 Offwidth 30 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

There are plenty of exemptions in FOI (including information provided in confidence) 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_2000

5
 David Lanceley 30 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> There are plenty of exemptions in FOI (including information provided in confidence) 

Of course there are but this is not one of them

 Offwidth 30 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

Andy explicitly said it was information provided in confidence!?

Post edited at 08:38
2
 David Lanceley 30 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> Andy explicitly said it was information provided in confidence!?

You say black, I say white, neither of us lawyers or experts in FOI.  If the BMC were a public body I would have done the FOI request by now, they could decide to release or not.  If they didn't then I could appeal to the commissioners for a decision.

 Offwidth 30 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

Actually it's pretty clearly an exception (and given one of the IDs was a lawyer, something that doesn't surprise me). I've dealt with quite a few FOIs (from both sides).

2
 UKB Shark 30 Aug 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

Just been looking at the company house listings for your business Genesis Business Solutions and there seem to be two listings with the same name; one active and one dissolved. Just wondering why that was? Also the confirmation statement for the active company is overdue.

3
 David Lanceley 30 Aug 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> Actually it's pretty clearly an exception (and given one of the IDs was a lawyer, something that doesn't surprise me). I've dealt with quite a few FOIs (from both sides).

I’ve spent a good part of the last 20 years preparing and presenting expert evidence on quantum matters in arbitration and similar forums in often multi-billion $US international construction disputes, working with client legal teams and frequently being aggressively cross-examined on my evidence by smart-arse QC’s. 

If I’ve learnt one thing from this experience it’s that if you’re not a lawyer don’t pretend to be one.

1
 Offwidth 30 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

Yes it's amazing with all your experience you are behaving here in the way you are. I don't think we have met but I know of your work for the BMC and the very high regard it's held in by friends and fellow volunteers. I can only think you know something that you can't discuss here and are letting your anger carry you where it shouldn't.

Most FOI applications are not from lawyers (but often based on generic legal advice as they were in my trade union) and those dealing with FOI are trained and follow processes that have been agreed with lawyers.

Post edited at 09:14
6
 UKB Shark 30 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

>  It was not written as or intended for publiC distribution and I do not have their consent to release it further. 

 

So you could email and ask for that consent?

1
 David Lanceley 30 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> Just been looking at the company house listings for your business Genesis Business Solutions and there seem to be two listings with the same name; one active and one dissolved. Just wondering why that was? Also the confirmation statement for the active company is overdue.

Well spotted but you are being a little mischievous here Simon as it's very clear from the filing history why the original Company was dissolved.  No doubt Huw will be along in a moment to explain.

2
 UKB Shark 30 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

I haven’t delved that deeply. People really should take me at face value a little more

 David Lanceley 30 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> I haven’t delved that deeply. People really should take me at face value a little more

Point taken.  I await Huw's explanation with interest.  If it doesn't appear than I can make a pretty good stab at it myself......

Oh, and it's not just one Company that was dissolved but two.

Post edited at 09:44
 Andy Syme 30 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

No.  I never asked the Board for the letters I went straight to Matthew.  And the reason I went straight to Matthew was solely because I know him and it never occurred to me to ask for the Board letters. 

1
 Mick Ward 30 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> I haven’t delved that deeply. People really should take me at face value a little more

Simon, when you were at the BMC, if I recall correctly, you used to post related stuff on here. I never had a clue whether your posts were official policy, your own views or some sort of reaction (naughty shoolboy?) to what was going on. Or something else entirely.

Because I knew you were a decent cove and because it was climbing (more informal, innit?), I just sort of accepted it; everyone else did too. 

As your views seemed became increasingly critical (naughty schoolboy hurls inkwell across room?) one did wonder whether there was animus. But then I thought, 'Nope. He's a decent cove.'

You have been taken at face value for quite some time.

Mick

 Andy Syme 30 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

They were sent to the council in confidence and clearly I won't go against that.  If Matthew or Amanda wants to make a public statement I'm sure they will, but that's their decision not yours or mine to make. 

1
 Mick Ward 30 Aug 2020
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

> Hi Mick. It’s come to something when Captain bob and his merry band of tweed clad gentlemen adventurers start to look like the better option.....

Hi Paul,

Indeed. Time for us all to head up a dripping Lockwoods Chimney on the proverbial moonless night, the rope having been forgotten in the boot of some unfortunate's car...

Mick

 Andy Syme 30 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Council didn't think it was appropriate to make a statement beyond what has already been made.  I'll ask them whether that opinion has changed and whether they want me to make such a request. 

Alternatively you could approach Matthew yourself and ask him if he wants to make a public statement 

1
 UKB Shark 30 Aug 2020
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Simon, when you were at the BMC, if I recall correctly, you used to post related stuff on here. I never had a clue whether your posts were official policy, your own views or some sort of reaction (naughty shoolboy?) to what was going on. Or something else entirely.

> Because I knew you were a decent cove and because it was climbing (more informal, innit?), I just sort of accepted it; everyone else did too. 

 

It had to tread carefully using my discretion. I said to the Board that I was happy to stop if asked to but would continue on the basis of asking for forgiveness rather than permission 

> As your views seemed became increasingly critical (naughty schoolboy hurls inkwell across room?) one did wonder whether there was animus. But then I thought, 'Nope. He's a decent cove.'

> You have been taken at face value for quite some time.

Thank you

 Mick Ward 30 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

The reason I brought it up is because the point may be pertinent to this thread (and its precursors). As long as people are honourable and well-intentioned in their contributions, whether one agrees with them or one doesn't, at least the discourse has a chance of going somewhere productive. The odd blind alley, the odd error here and there, well these can be put right. 

Anyway, on with the discussion. And good luck on The Oak. When you top out, I will be very happy.

Mick

1
In reply to Mick Ward:

>  And good luck on The Oak. When you top out, I will be very, very old and happy.

FTFY.

OP Andy Say 30 Aug 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

> Point taken.  I await Huw's explanation with interest.  If it doesn't appear than I can make a pretty good stab at it myself......

> Oh, and it's not just one Company that was dissolved but two.

Is it relevant, David?  You two DO need to kiss and make up.

Or are you illustrating between you, for the elucidation of the general public, how 'Board' relationships can break down?

OP Andy Say 30 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> So you could email and ask for that consent?

I know!  Someone could get in touch with Emma (?) from Womble, Bond, Dickinson and ask for a legal opinion on the possible disclosure of Board and National Council documents.  Simple!

 Chris_Mellor 30 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

I think we need a new president. Lynn Robinson's personal statement put out at election time had this as her third priority: 

"3. Improve communication between members, staff, Board members and volunteers by: - Developing a comprehensive communication strategy that works for everyone - Reviewing how we use social media and digital communications."

Her statement also said:

"As President, I will lead the development of a Communications Strategy to include:  How to enact feedback from local areas at a national level  A review of the specialist committee Terms of References  Ensuring communication to the membership is central."

And:

"Place your vote with me and you will be giving your vote to a trustworthy and reliable future President. Join me in creating a robust and flourishing, member-led BMC."

She suggested people follow her on Twitter. The last post by her was August 2.

Communication has been dire. Reliability has been questionable. I just don' t see public leadership here. Our president has not stepped up but appears to have kind of stepped down. 

1
 UKB Shark 30 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

> Is it relevant, David?  

If the de facto Finance Director of the BMC has peculiar filings on Companies House for his own businesses then it is wholly relevant to a thread which is largely about confidence in the current Board. 

1
OP Andy Say 31 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> If the de facto Finance Director of the BMC

But is that what Huw is?

Once upon a time, before the Org wars, there was a clever wizard called the Honorary Treasurer. The Hon. Tres. led some other numeracy wizards called the FinCom. But the Hon. Tres. also sat with the demi-gods who composed the Exec. Com. thus bridging the world of mortals and the deities.

After the Org wars the Hon Tres was cast into outer darkness and the assumption was that one of the higher deities on the new Board would replace him. But did that ever happen.....

1
 UKB Shark 31 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

The recruitment at the 2019 AGM was for a “Nominated Director qualified and experienced in accounting and finance, also having other relevant skills and experience (one position available)”.

The Treasurer of the Finance and Audit Committee no longer holds a position on the Board as standard. There is also a full time Company Accountant on the BMC staff. 

Of the three Huw holds far and away the most responsibility and accountability as a member of the Board. I think “de facto Finance Director“ is as good a description as any..

1
OP Andy Say 31 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Fair enough. Just shows how out of touch I am!

OP Andy Say 31 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Shows how much I'm in touch wi' owt. 🙄

OP Andy Say 31 Aug 2020
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Chris, Let's be clear - I speak as someone who backed Les Ainsworth (I might even have seconded his nomination?).

I thought the presentation by the current incumbent was long on nice sounding waffle but incredibly short on detail.  Vote for me I'm a nice person stylee.

 UKB Shark 31 Aug 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

The solution I have kept putting forward is to  appoint a qualified accountant as paid Commercial and Finance Director directly managing insurance. That’s how they do it at Ski Club of GB. In fact I think it found its way into the ORG report as a recommendation but was yet another thing kicked back on.

1
 galpinos 31 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> The solution I have kept putting forward is to  appoint a qualified accountant as paid Commercial and Finance Director directly managing insurance. That’s how they do it at Ski Club of GB. In fact I think it found its way into the ORG report as a recommendation but was yet another thing kicked back on.

That sounds sensible but I’m not sure I’d blithely follow The Ski Club of GB, they were down £800k in 2019 on a smaller turn over than the BMC and the Chief Exec quit this summer after less than a year (got a better offer), the members I know are not exactly happy! Not exactly a steady ship to emulate......

 neilh 31 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

The ones I know would find it boring and a part time job that would barely use all their skills and experience. 
 

3
 UKB Shark 31 Aug 2020
In reply to galpinos:

I’m not suggesting to blithely follow it - I was citing it as an example. Im sure there is more to their ups and downs than that role existing with them! Correlation and causation and all that

I spent 8 years specialising in financial recruitment recruiting FD’s, FC’s, Auditors etc and advising companies on roles before moving into more general Exec Recruitment so have a bit of insight here. 

Accountants with personality were often attracted to roles that had a commercial input and it seemed like that opportunity fitted BMC operations and would add value above and beyond the routines. The way the brokers and various parties supplying the BMC presented information was mind boggling so having someone who was an accountant to manage and represent the BMC seemed a good idea re insurance accounting, actuarial issues, sales analysis etc.

On top of that the internal management accounting was confusing and I’m sure that there is plenty of scope to tighten up its presentation and introduce financial controls. For example I know David was pushing for zero based budgeting (rather than tweaking year on year) but not sure that ever got implemented. Someone capable who would be prepared to get stuck in would find plenty to improve. 

3
 galpinos 31 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

The idea was a good one, it just seemed an awful example to use (and I just happened to know the SCGB situation)!

I’m quite surprised there doesn’t seem to be an actual FD position.

 facet 31 Aug 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

For feck sake people let this thread go. The longer this rumbles on the more people ditch the BMC as this thread is now unhelpful, ?un-professional and definitely putting nails in the BMC coffin.. or maybe that's what you really want? Even though there's constant B*llock talk to the contrary. 

17
 UKB Shark 01 Sep 2020
In reply to facet:

You are pointing the finger the wrong way. Honest and comprehensive disclosure of what had caused the resignations and the discussion would have petered out a week ago.

Currently I am doing the equivalent of twiddling my thumbs until Huw comes back on to answer questions about his companies house record...

10
 David Lanceley 01 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> Currently I am doing the equivalent of twiddling my thumbs until Huw comes back on to answer questions about his companies house record...

Indeed, you might even say that's the Cornerstone to the future direction of this discussion.

7
 UKB Shark 01 Sep 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

Oh David. You will have frightened him off now. It appears he already has form in failing to respond and assist.

11
 David Lanceley 01 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> Oh David. You will have frightened him off now. It appears he already has form in failing to respond and assist.

As Francis Urquhart said  "You might very well think that, I couldn't possibly comment".

Post edited at 09:32
6
 Huw Jones 01 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

I agree.  I have a great deal of respect of both Matthew and Amanda and I don't believe that they perceived their reasons for resignation as trivial.  However neither do I believe that they perceived those reasons as being rife throughout the Board, which at the time comprised a dozen members

 Huw Jones 01 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Happily.  The first was a company that I set up when I lost my job in the middle of the crash at that time.  I had a number of clients and so ran it for a time but allowed it to close when a change in the nature of the business (from several small clients to one or two larger clients) co - incided with my divorce.  So I allowed it to close.

The companies set up after that have been done so primarily because there's been a chance that I might need one, though in fact they've never traded and had never even had bank accounts.  The 'will they / won't they' IR35 situation and some of my clients preferences have mean that actually it's been much easier for me to work under an umbrella company if I'm not engaged directly by my clients under PAYE.

 Huw Jones 01 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

That made me laugh.  To be fair Andy, and difficult that this may be to believe, I do actually like David.  He's put a lot of time into the BMC and should be thanked for it.  It is genuinely a shame that he had to move on from the FAC.

 UKB Shark 01 Sep 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

Thanks for coming back on. Off climbing and just pulled over - so in brief can you confirm whether you were the same Huw Jones who was a Director of Cornerstone Training Solutions and the Director referred in the liquidators report (Item11) of receiving payments whilst the company was insolvent.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07213929/filing-history

13
 Huw Jones 01 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

It's a tough one isn't it.  The BMC has a very good Financial Controller (really - very good indeed) and the Finance and Audit Committee.  I don't consider myself the 'Finance Director' although it's what I get called and frankly, what's in a name.  I don't have the authority an FD would normally have - and I don't need it.  Instead I see my job as giving the Financial Controller 'a voice' on the Board, and ensuring that the FAC has a link to the Board and other committees / groups such the it can be as effective as possible.  I'm happy to get my hands dirty if I need to - and I have done - but I don't think that builds a sustainable role going forward so I try to structure things such that things will be sustainable.

 Huw Jones 01 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Do I?  I wasn't aware.  Just enjoying a bank holiday weekend with the family.........

1
 Huw Jones 01 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

I was a Director yes, but not one that received payments whilst the company was insolvent.

 David Lanceley 01 Sep 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

> I was a Director yes, but not one that received payments whilst the company was insolvent.

So you wouldn't be involved in the potential legal action identified in para 7?

12
 UKB Shark 01 Sep 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

Thank you. Can you also confirm the specific accounting qualification you hold - the AGM paper wasn’t clear

11
 Huw Jones 01 Sep 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

No David I wouldn't

1
 David Lanceley 01 Sep 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

> Happily.  The first was a company that I set up when I lost my job in the middle of the crash at that time.  I had a number of clients and so ran it for a time but allowed it to close when a change in the nature of the business (from several small clients to one or two larger clients) co - incided with my divorce.  So I allowed it to close.

> The companies set up after that have been done so primarily because there's been a chance that I might need one, though in fact they've never traded and had never even had bank accounts.  The 'will they / won't they' IR35 situation and some of my clients preferences have mean that actually it's been much easier for me to work under an umbrella company if I'm not engaged directly by my clients under PAYE.

Indeed, there have been three incarnations of Genesis Business Solutions.  A common theme running through all is a failure to submit accounts and annual returns to Companies House in a timely manner.  By my count the Companies have been “Gazetted” 10 times for this and generally the accounts / returns are only submitted once the gazette notice has been published.  A fine example of good governance.

14
 La benya 01 Sep 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

So, you're not going to apologise to Huw for falsely accusing him of embezzling money?

Nasty piece of work you are, and Shark.... i've never met you but i've been aware of you presence within the climbing community for a while and always had a good opinion of your postings.  This is atrocious behaviour that you two are engaging in.

5
 UKB Shark 01 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya:

This is what scrutiny looks like. Snowflakes should look away

31
 Huw Jones 01 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

I wouldn't expect an apology and yes, this is what Scrutiny can look like.

Unfortunately it would seem that this is also what the BMC looks like.  This is a public forum.  These are BMC members.

3
 La benya 01 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

No, this is what being vicious and trying to show people up in public looks like. If you were solely concerned with the fact, you would acknowledge your wrong assertion and apologise, at the least. But you haven't.

David appears to have tried bullying tactics while at the BMC and got the boot. You both are exhibiting the same behaviour here under the guise of 'scrutiny'.  You need to step back and reevaluate how you're going about this.

I'm Vaguely aware that you used to work for the BMC, but i'm not aware of the reasons for your exit.  Does therein lie any reason for this negativity?

2
 La benya 01 Sep 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

You're a better man than I would be Huw.

 Dave Garnett 01 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> Thank you. Can you also confirm the specific accounting qualification you hold - the AGM paper wasn’t clear

Are we going to be making this public declaration of qualifications obligatory for all finance officers past and present?

1
 UKB Shark 01 Sep 2020
In reply to Dave Garnett:

IIRC the requirement for the elected Director specialising in finance and accountancy was that they be qualified. It wasn’t stated on the AGM statement what Huw’s qualification is - hence the question.

15
 La benya 01 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Are you just going to keep blindly swinging until you hit something? I hear he might have stolen some sweats as a kid, and he doesn't fold his washing before he puts it away! Burn him. You also still haven't apologies for the first couple of baseless accusations.... you'll hide behind veiled innuendo and say you hadn't accused him of anything, of course.

Any legitimate concerns you might have had, are being drowned by the ridiculousness of your approach and your behaviour... "he had a failed business"... "well, actually it was because he sent his accounts in late"... "no, no it because he was stealing!"...."oh, erm, I think he said he has qualified but i bet he isn't".  Its pathetic.

8
 Huw Jones 01 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya:

You're not my wife are you?..........

Thankyou for your support.  It's much appreciated.  As it happens I don't fold my washing, rarely iron anything other than shirts; and despite being known to eat offal for supper I have an intense and unfathomable dislike of Beetroot and Bananas

 La benya 01 Sep 2020
In reply to Huw Jones:

Normally my rugby-born entrenched hatred of anyone named Huw or Jones (let alone both at the same time) would stop me from being on this side of the argument.  I don't know whats come over me!

It was just two idiots shouting into the breeze, it needed another idiot shouting back and I had some time.

2
Calski 01 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark: no, this is what bullying looks like. Trying to turn UKC into a kangaroo court is extremely distastefult. 
 

edited as I forgot that the BMC isn’t a charity other points still stand. 

Post edited at 16:14
4
In reply to Calski:

The BMC is not a charity so why would Shark talk to the Charity Commission.

Calski 01 Sep 2020
In reply to Graeme Alderson:fair point

 profitofdoom 01 Sep 2020

In reply:

IMO this thread is now deteriorating into mud-slinging and I wonder if it's time to call time

1
 Steve Woollard 01 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark & David Lanceley:

I have to agree with others. It's time to give this a rest and allow the NC to do their stuff.

At the SW Area Meeting they said they would give a timescale and if they don't resolve things in short order then we can hold them to account.

3
 Michael Hood 01 Sep 2020
In reply to all:

If people have specific questions to someone like Huw about his history of directorships, qualifications, etc. Then maybe they should have a private email conversation about it and only post on here IF the end result is something that NEEDS TO BE KNOWN by the general membership of the BMC.

6
OP Andy Say 02 Sep 2020
In reply to the thread:

So. After all the angst, and the questions, and the finger pointing, and the questions we are left with.....

An ongoing internal investigation into 'matters of concern' which will report to the Board? That's going to be confidential; especially if it could lead to disciplinary action.

The need for a review of the way that the Board has malfunctioned; an examination of the composition of the Board, and a look at how National Council had performed as a 'second chamber'.  Probably conducted by someone external to the BMC.

This can't go on.

1
 La benya 02 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

The way I see it (as someone totally external to the BMC/ Sheffield/ North Wales who doesn't know any of the characters involved (other than what has been on show here...ahem) is;

There's clearly been issues that's need addressing to the point that a plan has been agreed by those actually in charge. Andy syme in place of Lynn and the remaining board. 

These are being dealt with with a degree of confidentiality that anyone working for a private company would expect. If I was hauled in for a disciplinary at work I wouldn't want my dirty laundry aired to the masses. If I quit, I wouldnt expect my resignation letter to be spread. 

This confidentiality clashes with the nature of the organisation, being for the members.

Some of these members that used to be on the inside and are now on the outside know a little, but feel it's their God given right to know it all. They can't for the reasons of running a fkcing company with actual human beings. 

Their not being privvy to all the gossip has pissed them off so much that they are dredging for literally anything to gripe about. 

The initial point of poor governance choices and how to work through the situation has got lost in the abhorrent behaviour of a couple of idiots.

These idiots have decided best to leave it at that, at least publicly on here, for now. 

The Bmc will continue their work in addressing the issues as set out by Andy, who is de facto the one charged with making sure the board sort themselves out as Lynn has been away. Again no one fcuking business. If she's ill or absent, she's absent. As long as her direct reports know. 

Only after this has happened, can we judge whether it has been successful. Or if it fails or doesn't not materialise in a timely manner can we judge.

Said idiots will continue to feel agreived that they are on the outside looking in, muttering to themselves that they should do it this way, and they would do a better job while simultaneously not actually doing anything to help, indeed actively making it harder for those doing these things and walking away (or being forced out for acting like a nob) from the little influence they had. 

All of which has played out very publically in a way it shouldn't. So you have people like me nosing in. What a cluster fcuk. 

16
 FactorXXX 02 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya: 

> The Bmc will continue their work in addressing the issues as set out by Andy, who is de facto the one charged with making sure the board sort themselves out as Lynn has been away. Again no one fcuking business. If she's ill or absent, she's absent. As long as her direct reports know. 

Doesn't that rather depend on the nature of her absence?
This might seem controversial to some, but if it's stress related due to current situation, then is she actually suitable to carry on in her role and position in the BMC?

10
 Michael Hood 02 Sep 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> but if it's stress related due to current situation, then is she actually suitable to carry on in her role and position in the BMC?

Or maybe is the BMC actually suitable to carry on using volunteers in "senior" positions?

Am I remembering this correctly, not that long ago Rehan Siddiqui resigned because he wanted to retain his health and have some quality of life.

Is this the beginning of a trend?

 FactorXXX 02 Sep 2020
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Or maybe is the BMC actually suitable to carry on using volunteers in "senior" positions?

I assumed that she was a full time paid member of staff.
Apologies if she isn't and I don't blame her for doing a runner considering all that is going on if that is the case!

OP Andy Say 03 Sep 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

All members of the Board (with the exception of the CEO) are unpaid volunteers. As are all of the members of National Council.

The BMC has always relied extremely heavily on volunteers doing it for love.

 spenser 03 Sep 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

As someone who was temporarily signed off work for a couple of weeks nominally due to stress as a result of circumstances outside my control last year I find your sentiment here utterly detestable. A business putting its staff under obscene amounts of stress to the point where their mental health suffers is failing in its duty of care and is setting itself up for constructive dismissal claims. 

The BMC needs to sort out its disciplinary processes, provide effective means of handling disputes and ensure that the workload provided to senior staff/ volunteers is appropriate.

 Regardless of his competence it seems that David's sacking after acting in an abusive manner towards board members was a pretty damn good decision, a decent disciplinary procedure would see him barred from membership in future (including from affiliated clubs). 

These are my personal views. 

12
 Dave Garnett 03 Sep 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Doesn't that rather depend on the nature of her absence?

> This might seem controversial to some, but if it's stress related due to current situation, then is she actually suitable to carry on in her role and position in the BMC?

My understanding is that she took a break of a couple of weeks during the summer.  That doesn't sound so mysterious to me. 

 La benya 03 Sep 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

Not at all. Would you look down on someone with crohns because it isn't cancer? Flu because it isn't TB? What a backwards way of looking at things.

I would also echo my previous statement. How would you like to be dealt with at your work? This is a job, the only difference is that Lynn isn't being paid. Perhaps more slack, not less is deserved?

3
 FactorXXX 03 Sep 2020
In reply to spenser:

> As someone who was temporarily signed off work for a couple of weeks nominally due to stress as a result of circumstances outside my control last year I find your sentiment here utterly detestable. A business putting its staff under obscene amounts of stress to the point where their mental health suffers is failing in its duty of care and is setting itself up for constructive dismissal claims. 

A few things:
1. As far as I know, she is in a high role position in the BMC that pretty much means that she is someone that could be partly held responsible for such matters.  That should be if she is unpaid or not.
2. As clarified in a latter post, I didn't realise that she was actually unpaid for that role which puts an entirely different complexion on what she can/should do with regards to time off, etc.  
3. From what I can tell, the BMC heavily relies on the goodwill of volunteers to run quite high end aspects of its business and therefore shouldn't be surprised if those individuals take a back step when things start to unravel due to unforeseen circumstances such as Covid-19, etc.

5
 neilh 03 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya:

But it appears from all that has been said is that those   voluntary Directors who have left were the one s driving the change agenda which had been agreed as the way forward by the membership. 
 

Therein lies the fundamental issue. 

1
 Offwidth 03 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

Except NC reps explicitly said that ORG was not the issue last night at the Peak Area Meeting, alongside debunking some other speculative theories presented here. It was always insulting to imply the two Independent Directors would have been dishonesty blaming behaviours when the real problem was strategy.

Post edited at 11:09
3
 neilh 03 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks for uodating. ( although had to read it a couple of times to get what you are saying)

1
 La benya 03 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

That theory was put across by one of the stirrers and never actually verified.  Apparently a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 La benya 03 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Mr Offwidth?  Was Shark &/or David at the meeting and was the line of questioning more constructive in nature that the one presented here?  Presumably it was all quite amicable when face to face?

Post edited at 11:34
 Offwidth 03 Sep 2020
In reply to Michael Hood:

Is not just Rehan. Nick Kurth had a pretty torrid time as Acting President with threats and faced similar secret distribution of misinformation. Dave T was treated equally badly throughout and the impact on staff and volunteer work was incredibly significant for 3 years. From after Climb Britain (a traditionalist response to over marketisation) to the the 2018 AGM the organisation was under attack for what I saw as a more sensible modernisation agenda within the values of the BMC membership, and after the 2019 AGM  from some on the moderniser side.  As I said before, it's important to accept and politely debate political difference but not highly disrespectful behaviour and disinformation. The genuine mistakes of the BMC in this recent period, like Climb Britain, were dealt with as well as any similar errors in any organisation I know and in my view led to further improvement.  This was not anything like the more secretive BMC of the past, from Brazilgate to the restructure following the near financial collapse, where Dave M and other key volunteers did such stirling work.

The NC, who are the elected members representatives, have an adult view on how to move forward based on the best information available. Despite their differences in politics they were said last night at the Peak area to have all agreed to focus on trying making positive change (in contrast to the focus on punishment for past mistakes from the main critics here).

Post edited at 11:58
4
 Offwidth 03 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya:

Shark was there, David L wasn't as far as I could see. The debate was constructive. On the negative side for the Board most independent comment was communication needed to improve and there seemed little sympathy if progress on the problems isn't made quickly, Rupert Davis (ex VP) in particular put this communication problem in a proper constructive context.

I'd add that Henry Folkard (the biggest Peak area access hero) made a very useful long contribution to the draft strategy document.

Post edited at 11:59
 UKB Shark 03 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Too add to that Lynn, Gareth and Chris were the Directors in attendance. Chris did all the talking from the Directors side in relation to the resignations with the rest taken up by Andy Syme and David Brown, Peak NC rep.

As you said the ORG and it’s implementation was categorically confirmed as not the cause of the resignations. It was also confirmed that the legal advice sought by Lynn did not relate to restricting the circulation of resignation letters but the content of statements to be made from the Board to National Council. It was confirmed that the issues highlighted in Matthew Bradbury’s resignation letter related to “process and people” not strategy. The Board minutes are in the process of being updated with draft minutes sent first to NC as per the MoU. The co-opting of other people to assist the Board was covered though I pointed out they were insiders as opposed to independents (given that 2 independent directors had left). The Interim Executive is to start on Monday and is Paul Davies who is on the CCPG - short profile here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/competition-climbing-performance-group-cccg

Disappointingly the only other person involved in questioning from the floor was Mike Pinder, former Mountain Leadership Training Board member. Mike was scathing about the lack of communication and described the Board as ‘dysfunctional’. Rupert, former BMC Director made a characteristically measured and articulate statement at the end urging better communication. 

Think that covers it. Corrections or anything I’ve missed welcome.

OP Andy Say 03 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> It was always insulting to imply the two Independent Directors would have been dishonesty blaming behaviours when the real problem was strategy.

I'm afraid I'm still not getting this bit.  'Dishonestly'?  Are you suggesting that it is an insult to the resigning Directors to suggest that they were blaming 'behaviours' because the real issue was strategy? Because Andy Syme was quite clear that it was 'behaviours' that were the issue presented to NC; not strategy.

 La benya 03 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Did you take the opportunity to apologise to Huw for falsely accusing him of embezzlement? Or are we still ignoring that?

6
OP Andy Say 03 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Mike Pinder was for many years the BMC representative on the MTE board and also served in the Executive Committee as Vice Chair.

 UKB Shark 03 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya:

That was not covered nor raised at the meeting. I can assure you it is not being ignored. The mood on the thread very much appears to be that it should not be discussed here. If you want more info send me a DM. 

12
 Offwidth 03 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

I don't thinking person(s) seeking legal advice were named in the meeting.

Post edited at 14:29
 La benya 03 Sep 2020

In reply to UKB Shark:

Ah, modesty when it suits.  Gotcha.

11
 UKB Shark 03 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> I don't thinking person(s) seeking legal advice were named in the meeting.

I named Lynn and it wasn’t refuted

4
 Offwidth 03 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

The two resigning Independent Directors said the problem was behaviours. Those implying upthread that the resignations were really about strategy would effectively be saying the Directors were dishonest in their stated reasons. 

2
 Offwidth 03 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

You made various accusations and speculations that you now know were not true. The normal constructive response would be to apologize.

4
 UKB Shark 03 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

In the face of lack of information I have put forward informed theories and speculation  for people to confirm, knock or refute.

I have said they are just that - theories -trying to second guess what people in the know have or haven’t said in the absence of proper explanation. They are also based on my experiences as volunteer, NC member and as Commercial Partnerships Manager at the Office. You think as a member I should apologise for that? 

If we were given fullsome information there wouldn’t be questions to ask. We are somewhat closer to knowing what the issues aren’t, less so what they actually are.

Yes - I’m sure it would be highly convenient for some if I stopped asking questions or posing theories. There’s a simple way to stop me and it’s to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. 

Its not great place to be with your head above the parapet and I can fully understand why others don’t or don’t any more. I question myself why I keep getting drawn back in because it really isn’t worth the grief you get given that little seems to change.

21
OP Andy Say 03 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

OK. I get that now. Ta. But I'm not too sure anyone has really said it was about 'strategy'. (As in implementing changes recommended over 3 years ago).

The flavour I got was more about those who wanted to look under the stones v those who wanted to let sleeping dogs lie. Not so much 'future strategy' as 'enquiring about accepted strategies'.  There will always be some discomfort at the questions, 'why on earth do you do it that way' or 'have you actually tendered for that work' or 'why do you pay for that instead of doing it in-house', when the answer is, 'er. We've always done it this way'.

 La benya 03 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

The fact that you think you are being ask to apologise for asking specific and pertinent questions is ridiculous.  You know what you have to apologies for. you assured me it was not being ignored, whatever that means?

Giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing your intentions are good and you only want to see the best for the BMC, then take the criticism on here as constructive and go about your activism in a different way. as i mentioned at the top of this thread, you had initially convinced me that the issue was serious and needed to be addressed.  you then ruined it all by bullying, baseless- verging on libellous- accusations and ignoring what is being done to correct the very problem you have bought up.

The whole car crash honestly played out like two school kids egging each other on until one of them breaks a window and they both realise they've gone too far.  David started out aggressive and clearly with an axe to grind and you seem to have got swept up in his poor behaviour.  you can try and take the high road about the difficulties of 'sticking your head above the parapet' but really, it was your own doing. 

7
 UKB Shark 03 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya:

reply to La benya:

In terms of baseless accusations how about you retract the below: 

> Did you take the opportunity to apologise to Huw for falsely accusing him of embezzlement? 

What I asked him a straightforward question (how sugar coated did you want it to be?) as to whether he was “the Director” named in the report as receiving payments when the company was insolvent. He said no. So we have is his word on that. However, he was the only Director when it entered insolvency. Just think about that for a bit. Read the report - it makes alarming reading not just to do with the questioned payments. The subsequent filings also raise questions. 

Like I said drop me an email and I’ll send the relevant bits to save you digging.

David and I aren’t on the same page with everything but we are with this and that is that there are questions still to be answered. 
 

16
 UKB Shark 03 Sep 2020
In reply to facet:

> I imagine you and David don't really understand social media, forums and basically what matters are private/confidential, and what is and isn't appropriate to post an L opinion on. Its sad actually, similiar to some squabblers in our village who seem to love being awkward,  arguing and trying to 'out wit' the local council over matters of the utmost importance (like the location of bins...). I am embarrassed for you, but I guess you just enjoy arguing. Oh well. 

Companies House filings are not private and confidential - they are matters of public public record.

As for me not understanding forums surely you must be having a laugh?

2
 Andy Cairns 03 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

He may not be aware of your illustrious history, but what *is* difficult for some of us to understand is what you are actually trying to achieve, and when you'll consider it to be a job well done?

Cheers, Andy 

2
 MG 03 Sep 2020

So, a summary of now three threads is basically any members who want to know what has happened to an organisation they pay for and which is meant to represent their interests can piss off.

5
 UKB Shark 03 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Cairns:

’Illustrious’ - do I detect sarcasm? 😀

Broadly speaking I’m in favour of the BMC modernising it’s culture, operations and practices. I’d like it run competently and in a professional manner especially at the office. In so doing they can more better serve all climbers and hillwalkers effectively deploying the resources available to it.

I wrote an article on the subject if you are interested in more detail of where I am coming from: https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/whither_the_bmc-11808 

 La benya 03 Sep 2020
In reply to MG:

How in the holy hell have you come to that conclusion after all of this? Laughable

10
 MG 03 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya:

> How in the holy hell have you come to that conclusion after all of this? Laughable

Mainly because I still have no idea why multiple directors have resigned or why the President has vanished, and because of high handed dismissive posts from those close to events.

Post edited at 20:49
3
 La benya 03 Sep 2020
In reply to MG:

Can you please post your most recent appraisal from work, your most recent pay stub and the medical report from from your most recent trip to the doctors here please?

If you aren't willing to do that, you should have some idea of why you cannot know all the details from the recent resignations. They involve real actual human beings with real lives and they deserve the same privacy for certain things that anyone would from their place of work. 

While I agree the communication has been poor, Andy has explained at length why certain details simply cannot be shared! 

18
 MG 03 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya:

Bollocks. Members deserve an explanation of what has gone wrong. It clearly isn't to do with pay. Directors don't resign because someone is ill. If it is performance/incompetence, members deserve to know.

I note your addition to the high handed dismissive posts, showing contempt for members.

Post edited at 21:36
5
 La benya 03 Sep 2020
In reply to MG:

Members have got an explanation. You disagree that it is a full and complete as can be. Those in charge beg to differ. The members. Generally don't give a fly fcuk only a very small few care beyond wanting assurances that whatever the problem is there is a plan and a timelien to fix it (there is).

Let me ask you something. As a member, how has the service you demand been affected by this? 

17
 MG 03 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya:

> Members have got an explanation.

They don't. Well they do but it was instantly contradicted by a director who had resigned so not very believable.

> u disagree that it is a full and complete as can be. Those in charge beg to differ.

Oh well. If those "in charge" say so I guess members should shut up and be happy. 

> Let me ask you something. As a member, how has the service you demand been affected by this? 

I obviously.cant say specifically but whatever a functioning board, president and NC would have done for last year rather than bicker and resign.

Post edited at 22:02
3
 Rob Parsons 03 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya:

> Members have got an explanation.

There has been no official explanation at all to explain what the actual issues are.

Post edited at 23:06
1
 Mike P 04 Sep 2020

I am loath to comment on this in the maelstrom of argument as I have no idea who most of you are, with the exception of those who at least post under a clear name, but I want to put a number of points regarding my comments at the Peak Area meeting last night.

Let me introduce myself as I don't do "profiles". I have been, Peak Area sec. Peak Area Chair, Peak Area NC rep., and NC rep. on the old format B.M.C. Exec. (under 3 Presidents). I have also been B.M.C. rep. on Mountain Training England, B.M.C. rep. and M.T.E. rep. on Mountain Training UK, and Vice Chair of M.T.E. This is not meant to be a boast, simply an attempt to show that I have over 20 years experience "inside the B.M.C.". I think that I have seen, or dealt with the consequences of, more than my share of B.M.C. "scandals" (and so far avoided being identified with any). 

The point I wish to make has been made by several others already; that, without a great deal more information (not necessarily every iota) members cannot have an opinion, a voice, or any faith that we are being told the truth. There was silence at the meeting after the Board's "statement"; and a degree of surprise was expressed that no one had a comment or question. The statement was as bland, platitudinous and lacking in detail as I have ever heard. It can be summarized as "Don't you worry your pretty little heads about grown up things; Mummy and Daddy are working very hard to sort things out. We've got Mummy and Daddy's best friends to come over and help out, so it will all be fine now those other strangers have gone." My point is that unless the B.M.C. has an effective, honest, and fast communication system with members, the members will continue to draw their own conclusions from the crumbs that they can find out. It is not the role of Andy Syme to have to speak for the B.M.C. off his own back because no one from the Board has stepped up. He did the same role at the Peak meeting.

I did not describe the Board as actually "Dysfunctional", but that it appeared on the very limited information available that it was.  Without much more information this may be the mildest interpretation of the events.

I know that there is information that shouldn't be public, but I hope that in my roles in the organisation I took the line of "tell everything that could be published" rather than the present policy which appears to be give out as little as they can get away with that will keep the membership quiet. I believe it is sometimes called "The Mushroom" technique to communication.

I know nothing of what has gone on recently within the B.M.C. but that which I have gleaned from here, and last nights meeting. However, as a member of an organisation which I help to fund and purports to have at it's heart the members interests, and to be (slightly) democratic: members must have sufficient information to judge how well it is meeting its aims both in its projects, and its commitments to appropriate governance. In this the B.M.C. is utterly failing.

Mike Pinder

 Offwidth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Mike P:

It is the role of National Council (NC) to question the Board in such a situation and as their chair, the President (and the three Council Nominated Directors) was conflicted (being a Director) she invited Andy Syme as Deputy President to chair the initial discussions on the matter. After the scale of the problems became evident, the NC chose Andy Syme to lead on further discussions. Andy is democratically completly legitimate in the role he is leading on, on behalf of an NC. I also completely trust the two Peak NC reps who supported Andy's position on NC action in the meeting. So you are wrong on Andy and are undermining our two democratic elected NC reps. I am disappointed a man of your experience has not thought through those aspects a little better.

The BMC Board has clearly been dysfunctional to an extent, according to the resigning Independent Director, who was reported to have provided some additional information in confidence to NC. The Director's concerns were about 'behaviours' ( relating to respect and process) which, although not especially serious on their own, amounted in sum to a resignation issue. This wasn't a major breakdown. Andy said the Board had recognised the issues and made a plan and the NC looked at this and put forward additional proposals to help facilitate that, including a proposal for 3 experienced Board advisors (non voting), who are now in place.

Given it's about such behaviours I really fail to see how more detail could be provided. Board relationships break down all the time. With your experience maybe you could explain: how making more detail on these issues public would be constructive, given that this will almost certainly depend on different views from different Directors; and how additional release could mitigate against unfair reputation damage and possibly even legal action. The Board and ALL of our democratic reps on NC have proposed a way forward that is constructive and should be given a chance. This isn't the historic BMC Mummy and Daddy, it's our membership representative democratic committee, NC, under the new governance structure (that gives NC that role).

I agree the Board comms have been disappointing and need to improve quickly  but I prefer the much more constructive and balanced statement Rupert gave on that, without 'pulling punches' on how serious a need for Comms improvement is.

Post edited at 05:34
29
 Offwidth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Trouble with your article is it naively assumes the members are sheep in the face of decades of evidence. Having a more decisive Board will not always necessarily be a good thing. Climb Britain was a decisive move from a unified exec and NC. Anything the Board does has to meet member values enough to guarantee there won't be a reaction like there was to Climb Britain. Additional complexity like improved NC responsibility through the Memorandum of Understanding help protect the organisation from such risk.

ORG and ODG were important but ORG missed some things (proxy's) and may have got other things wrong (as some of the survey evidence may have been distorted by a methodological flaw... as Les rightly pointed out in his Presidential bid).  The average keen BMC volunteer I talk to feels there is too much emphasis on it now, and some think it's almost become an 'industry'. The most important bits are done (Board Primacy) or would have been ready for member consultation prior to votes at the 2020 AGM (before covid hit).

I see the Board as a necessity for modern governance best practice but requiring sufficient checks and balances that it doesn't get carried away in an organisation that is complex for good reasons. This is not a normal company the specialist committees and NC and local area committees collectively have many thousands of years of expert experience.

You are entitled to your political difference but not your political style. You clearly feel it's OK to repeatedly malign the management of the CEO on these forums (he wasn't so 'laissez faire' with you, was he?) and imply the current difficulties likely meant the Board Chair and President were working with the CEO, engaged in some conspiracy to thwart ORG. That you thought this was acceptable in the first place is worrying and that you can't see this needs an apology, now more facts are known, speaks volumes. You are now digging for dirt on other Directors. Then we have the fact you left your BMC job in less than happy circumstances and were then seriously pissed off with democratic election results in 2019. Despite what we don't know from proxies, it is almost certain the two candidates you supported in 2019 came bottom on the individual member votes and you had the arrogance to say the President voted the wrong way!?

Post edited at 07:27
19
 UKB Shark 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

>(he wasn't so 'laissez faire' with you, was he?) 

Kindly explain what you mean by that?

OP Andy Say 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Mike P:

Good post, Mike.

 MG 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Is that a BMC annoucement, your opinion, or are you being spokesman for the President?

5
 Offwidth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to MG:

I'm reporting information  from the area meeting. The politics is my opinion.

3
 La benya 04 Sep 2020
In reply to MG:

That is a summary of what has been said on this page by Andy syme, what is readily available information on the structure and function of the different parts of the BMC and then Clearly a bit of opinion as they use the pronoun 'i'. Well, that's my reading of it. How would you come to anything different from reading that? 

Why are people trying to stir shit where there isn't shit to stir? 

10
 Offwidth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

Sure.. you told me you disagreed with the CEO on the scope of your contract and that constrained what you could do.

Post edited at 08:06
 MG 04 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya:

> That is a summary of what has been said on this page by Andy syme, what is readily available information on the structure and function of the different parts of the BMC and then 

Well not according to Offwidth it isn't.

 MG 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> It is the role of National Council (NC) to question the Board in such a situation and as their chair, the President (and the three Council Nominated Directors) was conflicted (being a Director) 

If this is correct (and of course the BMC haven't deigned to say) it suggests the governance arrangements are inherently unworkable. The idea that the members lead representative can't ever be involved if the Board is failing is absurd.

Post edited at 08:18
1
 Offwidth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to MG:

That's actually correct. I'd love to see a summary of what NC think and have been doing, from NC, on the BMC website. Andy gave slightly more information in the meeting than is included on the Board communique (in particular it was problem behaviours that in themselves were only serious enough to resign in their sum)

 UKB Shark 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

On the contrary the scope of my contract was extremely wide to investigate and carry out ways to make or save money. I was left to get on with things to my own devices and never formally appraised but made it my business to keep Dave (and to an rxtent the Board) informed of my progress.

I was not driven or directed or measured in my work which is fine as I am experienced and self directed and laid out a plan from the outset which I reviewed.

My own metric (as someone who had joined the Office as a passionate volunteer) was to generate money in several multiples of my costs. This was achieved in the first year and my contract was renewed for another year following a presentation to the Board. However, in the second year my proposals were serially blocked/not backed and I couldn’t see a way to meet my self imposed metric of achieving multiples of my costs so resigned. I wasn’t there to twiddle my thumbs but could have easily sat out the rest of my contract doing that. 

I probably still have a copy of my resignation letter and Dave’s response to it. If anyone is that interested email me. 

1
 mondite 04 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya:

> Why are people trying to stir shit where there isn't shit to stir? 

Because the communication has been stunningly poor and nature abhors a vacuum.

Mike P post sums up the issue pretty well from my perspective as a not overly actively involved member.

 UKB Shark 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

No. The role description was clear about the scope. However, when it came to following through on projects to make or save money he wouldn’t back me. These activities tend to rock the boat somewhere. He’s not a boat rocker. His call. The Board had a lot on its plate at the time without risking further upset but highly frustrating for someone who was trying to achieve things and had been set on specifically to do so. 
 

Edit: You seem to have removed the post I was responding to. Maybe I’m imagining it and just re-responding to your post above. Anyway I’m off out of here climbing Don’t expect any more posting from me till Sunday you’ll all be relieved to hear

Post edited at 08:57
 Offwidth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

I've not removed any post. My main point is you disagreed with the CEO and left the BMC and now publicly criticise him on these and other threads (in a way that if you held any committee position would need to have been reviewed in the same way David's was.)

2
 galpinos 04 Sep 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Because the communication has been stunningly poor and nature abhors a vacuum.

I think this pretty much sums up these threads. Most of us members don't know what has happened to make three directors resign. On paper, that sounds pretty bad, so people fear the worst. Communication is key.

Add to that personal gripes, historic issues and plenty of strong characters and you get this car crash of a thread.

I'll be waiting till my local meeting on Tuesday to see if anymore information is forthcoming.....

 Offwidth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to MG:

The conflict is always inherent. Any members rep on any member organisation Board is also a Director subject to some confidentiality requirements. The four Directors discussed the Board problems with NC but could not lead on that discussion.

3
 UKB Shark 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Good grief. Since when was it the case that volunteering your time and effort in a committee position for the BMC meant you forbidden from publicly criticising its leadership? Sounds unhealthy and somewhat totalitarian 

Anyway as mentioned above I’m out of here till Sunday 

 Offwidth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to galpinos:

It's fairly clear why the CND resigned given the update.

5
 Offwidth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

As I said concrete criticism based on facts never concern me, it's unfair opinion based accusations (from conflicted members). It's the exact same concerns I had with the leaked Motion of No Confidence communications and some posts made by the BMC 30 here. Codes of conduct are pretty standard in modern governance.

Post edited at 09:25
6
Alex Messenger, BMC 04 Sep 2020

In reply to 

Hi everyone. We're sorry to report that Huw Jones has resigned from his voluntary BMC Nominated Director position. 

Huw submitted his resignation from the BMC Board on Tuesday, indicating that this is in light of the behaviour of minority groups of BMC members who, whilst small in number, are in his view intent on undermining the good work that has been undertaken by the Board and by National Council in its role of holding the Board to account. 

The Board regards these circumstances as deeply regrettable and will consider how we can collectively promote the BMC’s values across the wider organisation, in particular that of respect; also, clear guidance will be provided regarding appropriate ways of raising any concerns that members may have so that the valued contributions of volunteers are not placed at risk.

Read more: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/resignation-from-the-board

As ever, we'd also like to say a big thanks to all the members who've continued to support us over the Coronavirus crisis.. We're still all working hard for you, and you can find the latest membership numbers here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-membership-numbers-latest-update

2
 Will Hunt 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:

Is that code for, "he felt so hounded by keyboard warriors that he's decided to jack it in and enjoy his life instead"?

I've seen everyone from the President down to local access reps get vitriol poured over them for giving up their time for others. I don't think I'll ever get involved in any serious capacity. Seems to be far more pain than its worth.

4
 Martin Haworth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

I’ve heard on the grapevine that any BMC financial concerns may soon be a thing of the past. Apparently there is a bidding war for the publishing and movie rights to the BMC saga.

Any suggestions for a name for the book and movie?

OP Andy Say 04 Sep 2020
In reply to La benya:

> Members have got an explanation.

Well that explanation would seem to be, unless I've missed things, 'there have been personality issues but we think we can sort it and National Council agree'.  Officially that would seem to be it?

A bit sketchy?

I DO agree that for the majority of members it's an irrellavence. They don't really care about the company they buy insurance from or that they have to join before they can gain a qualification.  Those in clubs always seem to have a vocal love/hate relationship (bloody hell why do I have to pay that extra on top of my subs!).

 Offwidth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

Although they must exist I have never met a pure 'Insurance member' of the BMC .As I have said before you are insulting members by saying this. In my experience a very large majority of members do care about the key work in their areas of participation, be it government lobbying, access, conservation, safety, equipment advice, training or competitions. What they don't usually care about is these arguments or the detail of BMC structures.

Post edited at 15:57
7
OP Andy Say 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Martin Haworth:

First thought was a follow up to the Ken Wilson edited 'The BMC. The first 50 years: a political history', entitled 'The BMC: the final 27.5 years....'.

But Star award beckons! 'The alpinists strike back!'; 'Return of the Rab'; 'Revenge of the sithee'; 'ORG-A new hope'.  All have a certain something....

OP Andy Say 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

I know you've said that before. But I will continue to maintain that you're wrong and that at least 90% of BMC members just don't care about the finer points of governance. That still leaves you 8000 who 'might' care 😉

And it's not an insult. Would you feel 'insulted' if I suggested that you just don't give a stuff who is chair of the company you've got house insurance with?  Or the company you buy your electricity from?

OP Andy Say 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Will Hunt:

I think you'd be safe as an Access Rep, Will. Everyone loves them.

OP Andy Say 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:

The resignation of Huw Jones. I've never met the man. I've heard good things about his work on the Board. On these threads he comes across as humourous and articulate.

I feel he will be a loss. So that's four resignations and a decision to stand down asap.  Plus two other directors sick or missing. How soon before we've lost half?

 Offwidth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

You're missing my point: sure most don't care about governance but most will care about the damage that attacks based on misinformation will have on the organisation that does work they do care about. The dishonesty exposed around the MoNC caused a lot of anger across the wider membership.

Post edited at 16:28
3
 Arms Cliff 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Will Hunt:

Excellent work from Shark, who seems to have taken his experience in recruitment and used it for the opposite purposes! 

 Offwidth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

If only... unfair online criticisms of access officers was discussed in the Yorkshire area meeting, when I was a visitor. Plus Will is producing a guidebook: a gargantuum volunteer effort, yet quite a few editors received 'stern letters', especially those of my favourite Peak gritstone guide, OtM.

Post edited at 16:47
2
 MG 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Will Hunt:

> I've seen everyone from the President down to local access reps get vitriol poured over them for giving up their time for others. 

Except you haven't. No one has been criticized for giving their time.

10
 Steve Woollard 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:

It’s regrettable that Huw Jones considered it necessary to resign  but it should be remembered that the BMC organisation created this problem with their press release on the 11th August which stated –

“Two independent directors, Matthew Bradbury and Amanda Parshall, made the decision to step down in the context of concerns about some behaviours within the Board”

And went on to say “The Board is taking steps to review the issues that have led to these resignations”

And “The plans put forward by the Board were subsequently supported by National Council as the basis for providing positive outcomes”

Since then the BMC Board and NC have failed to provide details of what these “behaviours” were and more importantly what are the steps that the Board is taking to resolve them and as a membership organisation the members have a right to know.

So the only people who can stop this damaging saga are the Board with a full and frank disclosure of what’s been going on and how they’re going to fix it.

7
OP Andy Say 04 Sep 2020
In reply to the thread:

In the meantime the BMC is appointing a temporary Executive Officer to 'plug some gaps'. Are we any closer to an appointment? Also there is seen to be the need for another, permanent, senior member of staff acting as an 'Executive Officer'?

So we'll have a CEO, a Deputy CEO, an EO and a 'Comms manager'?

Seems like there's a lot of executing to be done....

2
OP Andy Say 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

>  most will care about the damage that attacks based on misinformation will have on the organisation that does work they do care about. 

There is one sure cure for misinformation, isn't there?  I believe it is called 'information'.

And, come on, the 'Motion of No Confidence'!?!  Are you STILL fighting that battle?  Or are you preparing for another one....

Post edited at 19:57
1
 mondite 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

> And it's not an insult. Would you feel 'insulted' if I suggested that you just don't give a stuff who is chair of the company you've got house insurance with?  Or the company you buy your electricity from?

Dunno about that. If I read that the house insurer was having what seems to be a board breakdown I would be getting dubious about my annual renewal and debating going somewhere else since it would be a tad annoying to pay only to see them fold.

 Mick Ward 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

> The resignation of Huw Jones. I've never met the man. I've heard good things about his work on the Board. On these threads he comes across as humourous and articulate.

> I feel he will be a loss.

So do I - and that's just from his contributions to these threads. Such a pity - although entirely understandable if people have to keep their sanity/health/quality of life.

Surely even more evidence (if such was needed) for further discourse to be conducted in an amicable manner?  I don't think that abrasiveness helps. Nor vitriol.

Mick

 MG 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

You are forgetting the appointments that will tell the Board how to behave properly. Frankly, I think the organisation is pretty much finished in its current form. 

3
 David Lanceley 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:

> In reply to 

> Hi everyone. We're sorry to report that Huw Jones has resigned from his voluntary BMC Nominated Director position. 

> Huw submitted his resignation from the BMC Board on Tuesday, indicating that this is in light of the behaviour of minority groups of BMC members who, whilst small in number, are in his view intent on undermining the good work that has been undertaken by the Board and by National Council in its role of holding the Board to account. 

What nonsense.  Does the Board really expect to get away with this?  I’ve been on the road all day, back at my desk first thing tomorrow.  
 

Watch this space.

25
 Andy Syme 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Steve Woollard:

Steve

While I have explained why I won't go into more details of why, I think the what the Board & Council are doing has already been answered.  However taking on board Mike and Rupert's comments it is across a number of posts and articles and maybe not in a clear enough way.  So in a single post on the how:

  1.  The Board have accepted there is a problem for which they all bear responsibility.
  2. The Board have proposed a plan to address this problem that the Council felt provided a viable approach to fixing the problem.  This plan is: 
    1. The Board are having a 'facilitated session' in order to work out what the issues really are and how they can address differences in a more productive manner.
    2. The Board are then going to undertake an external review of Board performance.
    3. To provide additional support the Board have identified 3 'advisers' who will remain during the period until new Board appointments have been made.  
    4. The NomCom has been strengthened with an additional Council member and is working on the timely recruitment of the new Independent Directors and Chair. 
  3. The Council Nominated Directors are providing regular updates to the Council, both written and verbally at meetings.

Fixing this, or maybe having confidence it is fixed, is not going to be done this week or even this month.  The Council will provide updates to members on their assessment on the progress made, when there has been enough time to make a sensible statement on whether the Board are implementing the plan and whether it is having a positive effect.  I would expect the first update to be in the middle of the month.

Andy

1
 Will Hunt 04 Sep 2020
In reply to MG:

In fact, I have. Our local gritstone rep copped it when Whitehouses was vandalised. As far as I'm aware he wasn't responsible for taking the sledgehammer as he was having a hip op at the time.

1
 Steve Woollard 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

Thank you for that

May I suggest that you put this statement on the BMC website so it's available for all members to see

2
 FactorXXX 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

> While I have explained why I won't go into more details of why, I think the what the Board & Council are doing has already been answered.  However taking on board Mike and Rupert's comments it is across a number of posts and articles and maybe not in a clear enough way.  So in a single post on the how:
>  The Board have accepted there is a problem for which they all bear responsibility.
> The Board have proposed a plan to address this problem that the Council felt provided a viable approach to fixing the problem.  This plan is: 
> The Board are having a 'facilitated session' in order to work out what the issues really are and how they can address differences in a more productive manner.
> The Board are then going to undertake an external review of Board performance.
> To provide additional support the Board have identified 3 'advisers' who will remain during the period until new Board appointments have been made.  
> The NomCom has been strengthened with an additional Council member and is working on the timely recruitment of the new Independent Directors and Chair. 
> The Council Nominated Directors are providing regular updates to the Council, both written and verbally at meetings.
> Fixing this, or maybe having confidence it is fixed, is not going to be done this week or even this month.  The Council will provide updates to members on their assessment on the progress made, when there has been enough time to make a sensible statement on whether the Board are implementing the plan and whether it is having a positive effect.  I would expect the first update to be in the middle of the month.

Is this whole BMC saga thing actually going on in real life?
Or, is it some sort of elaborate comedy spoof?
Sincerely hope it's the latter, but have a sneaking suspicion that it might be the former... 🤔

3
 Graham Booth 04 Sep 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

I think this is a surreal monty python sketch...

but not funny and pissing money away which they don’t have 

1
 Andy Syme 04 Sep 2020
In reply to Graham Booth:

> but not funny and pissing money away which they don’t have 

I'm not sure where you think money is being wasted. 

The external review is funded by Sport England as it is a 3 yearly requirement and is just being pulled forward a few months.  I understand the facilitated session is planned to be run by a volunteer with expertise in these matters (though I may be wrong so there may be a small amount spent there).  Everything else is no cost.  

 FactorXXX 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Syme:

> I'm not sure where you think money is being wasted. 
> The external review is funded by Sport England as it is a 3 yearly requirement and is just being pulled forward a few months.  I understand the facilitated session is planned to be run by a volunteer with expertise in these matters (though I may be wrong so there may be a small amount spent there).  Everything else is no cost.  

Why can't the full time paid staff of the BMC do all of the above and not have to bother with external parties?

3
OP Andy Say 05 Sep 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

They might be a tad conflicted?

 neilh 05 Sep 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

Does not really answer the question of the  publicly available companies house  filings and whether good governance ensured that these were checked prior to an appointment as a voluntary FD.

I would expect this sort of checking to have been done as a matter of routine good and sensible practise.After all the BMC will not want to appoint somebody who has for example been struck off as a Director.

If it is not being done, then perhaps the Board may recognises a gap in practices which should be tightened up. 

2
 gooberman-hill 05 Sep 2020

In reply to David Lanceley:

What are you actually trying to achieve by threatening to reveal correspondence about an ex board member?

My kids behave better than you do. Grow up.

Steve

11
 Keith C 05 Sep 2020

In reply to David Lanceley:

David, up to now I've found your blunt posts really quite helpful in understanding what is going at the bmc. However, for someone not bothered either way that last post is coming across as quite vindictive. If you could go back to just blunt and direct and leave out the ultimatums and threats that will reflect a lot better on you. 

5
 MJAngry 05 Sep 2020

Oooooh. Not too long before the 4th (?) thread on this will have to begin! 

***fresh popcorn purchased****

2
 Steve Woollard 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

If what David says is true then he's just pressed the nuclear option because the BMC Board will have lost all credibility and their position will be untenable.

2
 Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator 05 Sep 2020
In reply to gooberman-hill:

> What are you actually trying to achieve by threatening to reveal correspondence about an ex board member?

> My kids behave better than you do. Grow up.

> Steve

So if, hypothetically, someone has claimed to have an accountancy qualification in order to secure a board position, and it transpires that isn't true, you don't think that matters?  Really....?!

You have clearly no concept of the challenge it takes to become a professionally qualified accountant.

Neil

 neilh 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Foster:

Spot on. It is serious, if true. 

 Offwidth 05 Sep 2020
In reply to Steve Woollard:

It was even more regrettable that your fellow travellers in the BMC 30 used secret distribution of lies and misinformation to try and execute what amounted to an attempted coup, with the Motion of no Confidence. I always felt you demonstrated too much human kindness to be that dirty, so just labelled you as naive (the political arguments were acceptable, always just part of democratic debate). That mess involved some sympathetic BMC insiders leaking confidential information that could be usefully distorted. Following initial leaks from honest and knowledgeable people in clubs, who regarded such behaviour as unacceptable,  I and others made it know that if this continued we would receive information and evidence of such undemocratic behaviour and treat the sources as confidential and when there was enough for good journalistic independence, and care taken to a anonomise where neccesary, post the behaviour online.

For Andy Say,  the reason I think the MoNC behaviours and dishonesty were important is they happened again in the run up to his presentation of Option B at the 2018 AGM. Sure enough the leaks came and after enough independent verification was clear I posted them on UKC (despite attempts prior to that to label me a liar when I said it was happening and subsequent threats of legal action). Andy Say did not disown that dirty tricks operation.

It now seems from information I'm getting sent, various critics are again plotting behind the scenes. It's a peculiar collection of Option B and MoNC types, some dissatisfied BMC stalwarts, the odd frustated 'moderniser', and at least one important BMC insider.  I will accept any information that further evidences any of this. We have democratic processes in the BMC.. outside that people with a 'beef' can post on social media but that should be done respectfully based on some actual facts and be very clear in what is opinion.

I come from an academic trade union background where truth was sometimes treated with disdain (for political and/or personal gain) both in management and in parts of my trade union (I was on Academic Board for decades and various union national NECs). When problems occurred in my areas of responsibility I felt despite serious problems being evident and clear mistakes, most people on both sides wanted to do their best and I always tried to use that to work constructively towards the best solution I could see. Sadly some people often claimed grand motives to cover up what was clearly hate and revenge and I discovered early on in my career they could do significant damage if they had political support. The victims of such behaviour were usually those who least deserved a bad outcome. Viable compromise with better outcomes turned to dust.

People can try and spin my posts here as defence of my partner, the President, but I started my campaign against dishonesty in the BMC a good bit before she was elected as Vice President. She is a very different character to me and very well known on a personal level (as she has attended more meetings and events than any previous President... easier now the old role split). It doesn't take much of a leap to realise if this mess in the Board contributed to her health problems, if I were of the mind to behave like a 'hillbilly', like some of the critics here, I could be justified for acting on anger. In contrast, because I believe in the organisation and the essential good work it does I'm interested in how best to get it functioning properly again.  I'm human and my anger for the dishonest and the terribly behaved does spill out at times.

The internal Board issues disappoint me but I completely believe it when it was said to be a collection of smaller issues, as I've seen nothing to indicate otherwise. I think all the Board members (including the departures) had broadly good intent but when in the middle of a major national emergency (the covid pandemic) with serious implications for the organisation I know from experience in such circumstances, any tensions can quickly magnify. The problems are forgivable. We also have our democratic representative body,   the Natonal Council proposing a viable way to resolve the issues with in their opinion a good chance of success.

Then there is an elephant in the room... the mystery of the negative behaviours in public view targetting the CEO over the last two years. I know from enough external sources to be confident in saying here that it is no real news to say it wasn't only the likes of the BMC 30, but a few key insiders and moderniser political voices wanted him gone. My issue with that is the following... when someone is in a role (especially important for senior roles) under good practice modem management systems they are set SMART objectives and if they fail in those they are then supported in performance improvement. Only after a confidential process where no resolution looks likely should anyone be looking at a departure on performance grounds. Those spreading smears that at times come close to libel simply cannot claim that is consistent with expertise in good management practice aligned with good governance. Those seeking to damage the CEO publicly in this way are guilty of old fashioned dirty politics based on arrogance and egotism. The behaviour in view, in my opinion, has no place in the BMC.

10

For various reasons, I am locking this thread. Please don't post again on this topic. We may open it again on Monday but it is the weekend so we can't properly moderate it. 

Thanks

Alan

2

This thread has been unlocked again. It was locked because of a single post which has now been removed. We are happy to let the discussion continue but please can people post carefully otherwise we will have to lock it again.

Thanks, Alan

 UKB Shark 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Thanks Alan.

Like David I was pretty hacked off with the Board article communicating Huw’s resignation. We had been providing information to the Board via Jonathan White about Huw and had no prior warning of his resignation or the article. The below is the main body of an email I sent to one of the remaining Directors, Jonathan White on Saturday.

The article presented Huw as a victim of unwarranted attacks and presented his accounting credentials, his experience, his contribution and the process of his appointment. That’s why I took it to be an answer to our questions 

Furthermore David and myself were framed as the villains undermining good work. 

The article then went on to lecture about respect and the manner of lodging complaints. There was no respect to our position as members - whistleblowers who put our heads above the parapet in the firing line and potentially put ourselves at legal risk. I thoughts as one of the proponents of the alternative articles you would have some empathy and insight into what that involves. It’s far easier to stay silent and most choose to do so or are harangued into silence or have vested interests that prevent them rocking the boat. 

We should be thanked for highlighting the potential risk of you harbouring a Potential rogue board member - one that could feasibly be disbarred or even sent to jail. What if this happened while he was still in office? How would that look for the BMC? Instead of recognising we are doing a service there were scarcely veiled warnings that members had to keep there tongues in check. What is this? A totalitarian state? What you are advocating in the article is not healthy in fact it is toxic.

God knows I have tried to raise concerns for just over a year about the recruitment and election of Directors and tried to do it diplomatically. The lengthy UKC article following the 2019 AGM could have been far more harshly worded. And what of the list questions I sent to Simon McCalla a year ago about the recruitment and election of Directors? As you pointed out it is still unactioned item on the Governance Working Group agenda. 

What are our sins? Asking a couple of direct questions of a publicly accountable Director regarding publicly available information on public bulletin board. It was Huw’s choice to engage in the dialogue on the forum.

I predicted he would use some pretext to cast himself in an honourable light if he resigned. The more likely major reason was he realised the game was up. Yet the narrative article sought to exonerate him even though it is now clear from your email that the Board has scarcely started to properly look at the information we sent. 

No doubt you are all getting tired and peeved at criticism which in reality are justified given events that have occurred and poor communications. Is it appropriate response for the Board of a membership organisation to try and gag that criticism and shame those who engage in it? 

6
 David Lanceley 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Neil Foster:

> So if, hypothetically, someone has claimed to have an accountancy qualification in order to secure a board position, and it transpires that isn't true, you don't think that matters?  Really....?!

> You have clearly no concept of the challenge it takes to become a professionally qualified accountant.

> Neil

There is a very simple way to resolve the qualification issue.  Huw simply takes a legible photo of the certificate that should be hanging on his office wall and sends it to me for verification.  If it makes it any less painful I will send him mine first (although I'm a QS not an accountant).

5
 neilh 07 Sep 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

I believe you still have to be a member of the ACCA irrespective of the certificate as you have to demonstrate conintuous professional developement( like in most professions these days).But usually to use the certificate in a job role you must be a member.

So you could have sat the exams and passed them , but then not bothered with ACCA membership.

A bit opaque I know,.

 UKB Shark 07 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

The agenda item for Huw’s appointment was:

Item 7.c. Election of Nominated Director qualified and experienced in accounting and finance

Qualified means being an ACA, ACMA or ACCA (or Fellow of those Institutes). If Huw doesn’t hold one of those qualifications he wasn’t qualified in the sense most would understand it he shouldn’t have been nominated or at the very least flagged up that he wasn’t qualified

5
 UKB Shark 07 Sep 2020

The article mentions the co-option of a Director*.

Presumably they will be approaching Gron Davies (who I supported) first of all given that he was the other candidate nominated for election to this post in the 2019 AGM...

*Moving forward, the Board will consult with National Council on the reserved matter of using the provision within the BMC’s articles of association (article 19.15) for the co-option of a person to fill a Nominated Director vacancy until the role can be filled through a nomination process in accordance with article 19.7.  The aim is to complete the co-option process quickly and communicate the outcome. 

2
 oldbloke 07 Sep 2020
In reply to neillh:

Should be easier than that to check:  ACCA membership is searchable.

https://www.accaglobal.com/hk/en/member/find-an-accountant/directory-of-mem...

I've no skin in this game other than being an accountant who prefers people who hold themselves out as qualified to be so qualified. I know nothing of the people involved.

 David Lanceley 07 Sep 2020
In reply to oldbloke:

> Should be easier than that to check:  ACCA membership is searchable.

> I've no skin in this game other than being an accountant who prefers people who hold themselves out as qualified to be so qualified. I know nothing of the people involved.

We’ve done that and Huw is nowhere to be found.

3
 David Lanceley 07 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

> I believe you still have to be a member of the ACCA irrespective of the certificate as you have to demonstrate conintuous professional developement( like in most professions these days).But usually to use the certificate in a job role you must be a member.

> So you could have sat the exams and passed them , but then not bothered with ACCA membership.

> A bit opaque I know,.

Yes, of course you need to continue with CPD and keep paying the subs but the original membership certificate is a good starting point.  If the membership is lapsed then you’re no longer entitled to refer to yourself as Chartered.

2
 UKB Shark 07 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> The recruitment at the 2019 AGM was for a “Nominated Director qualified and experienced in accounting and finance, also having other relevant skills and experience (one position available)”.

> The Treasurer of the Finance and Audit Committee no longer holds a position on the Board as standard. There is also a full time Company Accountant on the BMC staff. 

> Of the three Huw holds far and away the most responsibility and accountability as a member of the Board. I think “de facto Finance Director“ is as good a description as any..

With apologies to Andy Say it seems I was wrong to assert that Huw was de facto FD as Jonathan emphatically refuted that was the case.

This is however extremely worrying. If Hugh wasn’t de facto FD by virtue of being the only Board member with specific responsibility for Finance then it is a muddled state of affairs regarding who the buck actually stops with on technical accounting matters.

The ORG rec of an FD on staff would have solved that. I assumed (clearly wrongly) that this Board appointment was intended to bridge the gap. Before when Treasurer was a Board member accountability was clear. Not so now. Good governance is meant to ensure that there is transparent responsibility and accountability on who carries the can.

I think this needs reviewing. Urgently.

 UKB Shark 07 Sep 2020
In reply to oldbloke:

To add to what David said I’ve tried to call the Institute a few times this morning to double check that Huw hadn’t somehow fallen through the net in their searchable database but couldn’t get through so emailed them instead. The automated response says they will reply within three working days.

 andyclimber 07 Sep 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

Have you done that using the link - https://www.accaglobal.com/hk/en/member/find-an-accountant/directory-of-mem... 

because I can find Huw Jones with an ACCA qualification via that link.

 David Lanceley 07 Sep 2020
In reply to andyclimber:

> because I can find Huw Jones with an ACCA qualification via that link.

Not the BMC Huw Jones though.  This guy is in his 20’s and works for an outfit called Pritchard Roberts and co.  He only qualified in 2016.

 UKB Shark 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Arms Cliff:

> Excellent work from Shark, who seems to have taken his experience in recruitment and used it for the opposite purposes! 

Point taken but effective recruitment is as much about ruling people out as ruling them in

 andyclimber 07 Sep 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

OK thanks David. Thinking about it the article only states "With a qualification from the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants". Doesn't say that the qualification is a full ACCA anyway just that its a qualification from the ACCA of which there are a number of qualifications it could be.

 UKB Shark 07 Sep 2020
In reply to andyclimber:

Yes it could be that he was part-qualified which isn’t the same as being qualified in the same way that doing the first year of a degree course doesn’t make you a graduate

 David Lanceley 07 Sep 2020
In reply to andyclimber:

> OK thanks David. Thinking about it the article only states "With a qualification from the Chartered Association of Certified Accountants". Doesn't say that the qualification is a full ACCA anyway just that its a qualification from the ACCA of which there are a number of qualifications it could be.

A bit splitting of hairs....

I think the intention is pretty clear that a formal accountancy qualification is required and not just student membership....

I have no particular problem with Huw not having a qualification only that the BMC seem to have been misled into thinking that he did.

Post edited at 13:49
1
 neilh 07 Sep 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

I would after investigating it report it to the ACCA  if the BMC have been mislead.That is what the ACCA or similar bodies are there for.

 David Lanceley 07 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

> I would after investigating it report it to the ACCA  if the BMC have been mislead.That is what the ACCA or similar bodies are there for.

Not sure even I want a crucifixion...

BMC contrition would be quite sufficient.

1
 andyclimber 07 Sep 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

Why the assumption that the BMC has been misled?

 neilh 07 Sep 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

So somebody else has the same issue then.For all we know the ACCA might have  been chasing him for some time. a. It needs to be done if true.

Then tighten up the systems.

Post edited at 14:53
 David Lanceley 07 Sep 2020
In reply to andyclimber:

> Why the assumption that the BMC has been misled?

The news item says that Huw has a qualification from the ACCA.  Presumably Huw has told them that.  There doesn't appear to be any evidence that Huw has such a qualification.  Looks like being misled to me.

We don't know what checks (if any) were carried out at the selection stage so again it could have been verbal only.

Both team BMC and Huw have so far been silent on this issue here. 

 Howard J 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

Taking the most generous view, if these allegations are upheld then there appears to have been a failure to carry out basic due diligence when he was appointed, which is very worrying.

Are we going to be told whether this issue is the reason underlying the other resignations, or is it a separate problem?

 David Lanceley 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Howard J:

> Taking the most generous view, if these allegations are upheld then there appears to have been a failure to carry out basic due diligence when he was appointed, which is very worrying.

> Are we going to be told whether this issue is the reason underlying the other resignations, or is it a separate problem?

I understand that the allegations in respect of Huw are being investigated by the BMC.  As far as I know the issue is separate from the other resignations.

 andyclimber 07 Sep 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

I am very much in favour of accuracy with communication and that is what peaked my interest in this particular thread. However I don't currently see anything to suggest that the BMC's article on Huw's resignation in inaccurate. The ACCA may not list all its many qualifications on its website, and it may well list only those held by current members. If you want to get this clarified with the BMC there are various channels for doing this (area meetings for example). UKC forums are not an official BMC communication channel so I wouldn't expect any communication here from the BMC (or Huw for that matter).

Have you raised this query with the BMC via an official channel(s)? If so which ones?

I would be interested to know the response from the BMC but honestly I think you need to allow a reasonable amount of time for that response to come. And until a response is received I think it would be inappropriate to make assumptions about what has happened, particularly in public, and especially as you are calling out the BMC on the accuracy of its own communications.

1
 David Lanceley 07 Sep 2020
In reply to andyclimber:

> I am very much in favour of accuracy with communication and that is what peaked my interest in this particular thread. However I don't currently see anything to suggest that the BMC's article on Huw's resignation in inaccurate. The ACCA may not list all its many qualifications on its website, and it may well list only those held by current members. If you want to get this clarified with the BMC there are various channels for doing this (area meetings for example). UKC forums are not an official BMC communication channel so I wouldn't expect any communication here from the BMC (or Huw for that matter).

A number of senior BMC figures including the Vice President, a Director and Huw himself have already posted on this thread.  All have been silent since the allegations (qualifications are not the only one) were made.

> Have you raised this query with the BMC via an official channel(s)? If so which ones?

Indeed, there has been a series of recent exchanges with a BMC Director and I understand that an investigation is underway.

> I would be interested to know the response from the BMC but honestly I think you need to allow a reasonable amount of time for that response to come. And until a response is received I think it would be inappropriate to make assumptions about what has happened, particularly in public, and especially as you are calling out the BMC on the accuracy of its own communications.

I'm not making assumptions, just setting out the evidence.  I agree some time needs to be allowed for a response but there should be no cover-up.

If Bernstein (sorry, I mean Simon) and I had a Deep Throat inside the BMC life would be so much easier....

4
OP Andy Say 07 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> With apologies to Andy Say it seems I was wrong to assert that Huw was de facto FD as Jonathan emphatically refuted that was the case.

I'm not precious about it. But at the time of the governance debates I did say that I thought it was a grave error to do away with the Treasurer without some clear strategy in place other than 'we'll get a Director who knows a bit about it'. I even stuck my neck out a wee bit over the 'remuneration of Directors' debate to suggest that the BMC should consider paying an appropriately qualified Director for one or two days per week to act as a 'proper' Financial Director (aka 'Treasurer'😉).

OP Andy Say 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Howard J:

> Are we going to be told whether this issue is the reason underlying the other resignations, or is it a separate problem?

To be honest I think it's got stuff all to do with the Board's problems. 'If you think you've found a witch then burn them' seems to be the theme of this thread.

All I have heard about Huw is good. That he has done a good job as a Director. If the BMC asserts that he is a fully qualified accountant (don't know they do?) then 'the BMC' or Huw are at fault.  And possibly the Nominations Committee needs a wake up.

1
 David Lanceley 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

> I'm not precious about it. But at the time of the governance debates I did say that I thought it was a grave error to do away with the Treasurer without some clear strategy in place other than 'we'll get a Director who knows a bit about it'. I even stuck my neck out a wee bit over the 'remuneration of Directors' debate to suggest that the BMC should consider paying an appropriately qualified Director for one or two days per week to act as a 'proper' Financial Director (aka 'Treasurer'😉).

The idea of a part-time FD-type role has been discussed many times even while I was Treasurer years ago and was one of the ORG recommendations.  Problem is the BMC is really a small organisation with quite straightforward finances, the reporting and routine stuff is very capably dealt with by Alan and Yas with overview by the FAC and I think even a part-time FD would end up looking for stuff to do.

1
 UKB Shark 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

> I'm not precious about it. But at the time of the governance debates I did say that I thought it was a grave error to do away with the Treasurer without some clear strategy in place other than 'we'll get a Director who knows a bit about it'. I even stuck my neck out a wee bit over the 'remuneration of Directors' debate to suggest that the BMC should consider paying an appropriately qualified Director for one or two days per week to act as a 'proper' Financial Director (aka 'Treasurer'😉).

The ORG did recommend the appointment of an FD but this was later overturned by the Board. I’ve always advocated bolting on Commercial responsibilities to beef up the role as I mentioned previously on this or one one of the other threads.

The specific recommendation was: 

Recommendation 41: The Senior Leadership Team should be expanded and must include the two staff Directors, the CEO and the Finance Director

This recommendation has been updated to reflect the changes in the structure of the Board of Directors, and to ensure that the BMC has the specific balance of skills the ORG felt were required in its Senior Leadership Team.

The Senior Leadership Team should include at least the two staff members who will take an ex-officio position on the Board of Directors, and therefore hold, alongside the rest of the Board of Directors, legal and fiduciary responsibility for the BMC.

These two staff Directors should be:
● the CEO, who is responsible overall for building the culture of the BMC, the day-to- day management decisions and for implementing the BMC's business plans; and,
● the Finance Director, who is primarily responsible for managing the financial risks for the BMC, financial planning and record-keeping, as well as financial reporting to the Board of Directors and Members’ Assembly.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1569

 gravy 07 Sep 2020

Over 1000 posts and I'm still none-the-wiser as to what has actually happened.  There's now so many lines written that reading between them is impossible.  Anyone care to give me a fairly neutral, fairly informative and fairly fair single paragraph that will let the lay reader know what is actually going on?

OP Andy Say 07 Sep 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

>  The reporting and routine stuff is very capably dealt with by Alan and Yas with overview by the FAC 

Agreed. They are a good team (and Yas could always scare me into producing receipts) and were a really good replacement for Ian Blair!!!

But there does need to be some sort of interface between the Finance Committee and the Board.

I would, crudely, put it as the Board, mindful of its priorities, sets a 'budget' reflecting those priorities. The Finance Committee then produces a forecast based on that budget and says, 'this is what it will mean'.

Expenditure is always political; the intermediary role is to say 'if you want to do that we'll go bust. But if you do this instead then we won't'.

 David Lanceley 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

> >  The reporting and routine stuff is very capably dealt with by Alan and Yas with overview by the FAC 

> But there does need to be some sort of interface between the Finance Committee and the Board.

Indeed, previously provided by the Treasurer supported by the Chair of the FAC and now by the fashionable management-speak term "Lead on Finance".

 MG 07 Sep 2020
In reply to gravy:

It seems the staff and many volunteers of the BMC do good work.

Meanwhile the Board, Council and key associates indulge in dreaming up ever more complex governance arrangements; messing up implementing them; resigning, making allegations of plotting, incompetence, financial irregularity, "inappropriate" behaviour and financial shenanigans.  They then publish uninformative boilerplate statements that are contradicted by others and write long posts on UKC stirring the pot.

 neilh 07 Sep 2020
In reply to David Lanceley:

Only a wider point. If volunteer Directors have metrics against their performance then they really need to be paid. 
 

If as a body the BMC decides that volunteer are the way forward then imposing metrics and “ management “ tools on the volunteer Directors is just not right. You cannot have it both ways. 

OP Andy Say 07 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> I’ve always advocated bolting

Well, yeah....

But the rest of it was a wish list. Some of it got acted on (and some bits of that I supported) and some of it got dumped (and some bits of that I regret).

We are where we are. To bemoan the partial implementation of the Organisational Review Group suggestions ignores the fact that we have an imploded Board. The BMC needs to try to address the issues that have caused the current implosion!  Then, maybe, in can move on.

Side issues are simply that and don't help the BMC recover right now.

 MG 07 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

I don't think that's quite right.  Directors, paid or unpaid, need to fulfil their role and be replaced if they don't.  There needs to be some way of establishing whether they are doing this.

 mondite 07 Sep 2020
In reply to gravy:

Some independent directors resigned. Even with the very limited information provided it was clear this was due to some disagreements about direction/management. Various requests for information were made, a few more very vague announcements were made including one "clarification" which didnt inspire confidence.

Without anything useful various speculation went on and seems to have snowballed from this with some ex board members/staff members dusting off old disagreements and starting to prod which looks to have resulted in another resignation.

Think this ticks the neutral, fails the single paragraph and definitely fails the informative request but my excuse is thats the main problem here. Only just enough has been shared to get people concerned but not to answer anything.

Post edited at 17:39
 Michael Hood 07 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> Qualified means being an ACA, ACMA or ACCA

Boring point of information (being a bit pedantic but there may be many out there who don't know) there are actually 6 UK&I bodies where membership would mean you were "qualified" as an accountant...

1. Chartered Management Accountants must be members of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) (designatory letters ACMA or FCMA)

Chartered Accountants must be members of one of the following 3:

2. the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales (ICAEW) (designatory letters ACA or FCA)

3. the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS) (designatory letters CA)

4. Chartered Accountants Ireland (CAI) (designatory letters ACA or FCA)

5. Chartered Certified Accountants must be members of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) (designatory letters ACCA or FCCA)

6. Chartered Public Finance Accountants must be members of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) (designatory letters CPFA)

[with thanks to Wikipedia for the wording]

I presume that as well as getting through all the qualification exams etc, they all require you to be paid up subscription wise (which would also mean you were at least declaring that you were doing CPD) to be able to use the designatory letters. I know I shouldn't use mine, not that I did even when I was paid up.

How suitable each of those are for the BMC FD (or whatever) position is (IMO) not nearly as important as relevant working life experience. And as David said, the actual qualification isn't a necessity, it's merely a sign that somebody should be able to professionally do the job (or if they can't then from a professional standards PoV, they should be disbarring themselves from doing it).

Marginally more interesting point of discussion - as far as I can see, there's no fundamental reason for so many bodies. I think it's merely politics that allows (6x) more people (who like to get involved) to feel like they're a "big cheese" in whichever of the 6 they're in. I still don't understand why there's not one body in UK&NI that does a common core of exams and then allows people to specialise in management accounts, audit, public finance, private practice, etc.

Post edited at 17:50
 Michael Hood 07 Sep 2020
In reply to MG:

> I don't think that's quite right.  Directors, paid or unpaid, need to fulfil their role and be replaced if they don't.  There needs to be some way of establishing whether they are doing this.

Yes but (usually) unpaid directors are there to challenge and scrutinize and are (again usually) less involved with the operational side of a business, so their "metrics" would be different and would probably be (or at least appear) much less formal.

Ironically, unpaid directors are partly there to ensure that an organisation doesn't c**k it up.

 MG 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Michael Hood:

Sure but that mustn't mean they can just idle or be incompetent or in post primarily for self-promotion, all of which can happen.  Some comments over the various threads have  implied that volunteers should beyond reproach because they are unpaid, which I think is wrong-headed.

 UKB Shark 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Michael Hood:

Yes. There are the national entities and I completely forgot about CIPFA <shudder> as fortunately I only recruited qualified accountants in the private sector

 neilh 07 Sep 2020
In reply to MG:

That is simply addressed by having have a re-election process.

There is no way you would get me to take on a volunteer Directorship if  metrics were part of the deal and there were performance targets etc. That is not volunteering. 

Ultimately the organisation is asking you to take on a lot of legal and fiduciary  responsibilities for in effect free time. 

 UKB Shark 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

> I’ve always advocated bolting

😂

> But the rest of it was a wish list. Some of it got acted on (and some bits of that I supported) and some of it got dumped (and some bits of that I regret).

> We are where we are. To bemoan the partial implementation of the Organisational Review Group suggestions ignores the fact that we have an imploded Board. The BMC needs to try to address the issues that have caused the current implosion!  Then, maybe, in can move on

The ORG was a holistic solution which everyone voted for - NC, the Board and the Members. It was not a menu. If wholly implemented with good governance practices maybe the Board wouldn’t be where it is. Andy Syme did admit earlier on that the break up was to do with governance early on but references to it seems to have shifted back to “behaviours and processes”.

Once the Board have “reflected deeply” on what has happened in their scheduled mediated session maybe they might feel suitably empowered and liberated to share what those issues are with the rest of us.

 MG 07 Sep 2020
In reply to neilh:

> That is simply addressed by having have a re-election process.

It doesn't really though because the electors tend to be other Board members.  It's a guards' guards problem without an easy solution, and seems generic to Boards.  I don't think the problem is wanting good, measurable achievement from Directors -if they aren't coming up with a strategy, or holding an executive accountable etc., that is a problem and being volunteers shouldn't mean they can be allowed to continue.  It is more a question of who is responsible for measuring things. The BMC solution of having a NC seems to have failed.

OP Andy Say 07 Sep 2020
In reply to UKB Shark:

> The ORG was a holistic solution which everyone voted for - NC, the Board and the Members. It was not a menu. 

Incorrect. The Organisational Review Group made a series of recommendations.  It was agreed that those recommendations should be considered. There was considerable debate around each and every one of those recommendations.

Some were adopted; some weren't. At no point was it agreed that the Organisational Review Group should dictate the future governance of the BMC.

Arms length Competition organisation anyone?

2
 David Lanceley 07 Sep 2020

Couldn’t  help noticing that the BMC is looking for support in the recruitment process for the new Chair etc.  Perhaps a belated acknowledgement that things could have been done better....

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/kate-anwyl-320474112_hr-volunteers-activity-...

2
 Martin Haworth 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Andy Say:

So this Huw Jones bloke... what’s he ever done on grit?

 David Lanceley 07 Sep 2020
In reply to Martin Haworth:

> So this Huw Jones bloke... what’s he ever done on grit?

Nothing!
 

1
 gavmac 07 Sep 2020
In reply to gravy:

As per my comment over a week ago... just grumpy old men with too much time on their hands.

7

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...