Voting Rights in the BMC

New Topic
Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Tony Ryan 21 Jan 2005
Ever since the emotions aroused at the Extraordinary General Meeting in October 2003 (see Summit 32 page 6 for more details – click here for a link http://www.thebmc.co.uk/services/summit/backissues/SUMMIT_32.pdf ), the voting structure, and in particular the block vote, has come under scrutiny. The issue was raised openly at the BMC Club Workshop last September – an event set up as part of the Future Policy Review Process. Delegates agreed that change might be needed and agreed to set up a working group to review the voting structure.

The Voting Structure Working Group, made up of a range of club representatives agreed at the Club Workshop, duly met in November to consider the issues.

After constructive discussion the group decided to make a number of recommendations to the Future Policy Review Steering Group (FPRSG). These included changing the Articles of Associations to reflect a “one member one vote” system for all members of BMC affiliated clubs with the proxy voting facility already used by Individual Members of the BMC. Clearly, if adopted this will abolish the clubs’ block vote. It will also give Individual Members of the BMC and members of BMC affiliated clubs equal voting rights.

The working group’s recommendations went to FPRSG which in turn made similar recommendations to the Management Committee with the request that these go out to Area Committees and clubs to discuss and feedback to the Management Committee. If the recommendations are endorsed they will be submitted to to the 2005 AGM and if agreed will be fed into a comprehensive review and rewrite of the Articles of Association to be submitted to the 2006 AGM for approval.

If you would like to contribute to this process you can do so by attending an Area Meeting. Details of dates can be found here http://www.thebmc.co.uk/thebmc/areacom/areas.asp
This is a significant change of policy for the BMC which, for all those (especially the small UKC contingent) present at the EGM in October 2003, seemed miles away at the time. After all the debate we had on these forums, and then the half-hearted attempts to get a IM Club going, I must admit that I had all but given up anything like this ever happening. Congratulations to those at the BMC who have had the conviction to push this through.

Of course there is a long way to go before this becomes policy but getting the debate going is a great start. I suppose the big question is:

- will the Clubs vote against their own voting interests in order for the reform to be implimented.

Turkeys voting for Christmas?
Jules King 21 Jan 2005
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Alan
This is unlikely to happen as the proposal put forward by the Future Policy review Group was based on the results of two meetings exclusively attended by BMC affiliated clubs to discuss the voting equity matter. It was the clubs choice to head in this direction.
To compliment the above it has been recognised that an improved and effective proxy voting facility needs to be established to facilitate all members (IM and club) who are unable to personally attend meetings, it is also proposed that this includes Area meeting voting where at present it is not allowed. The precise details behind how this will all work (under what conditions/ rules etc) are to be decided.
To ensure it does not get blocked you've got to turn up and vote for it, so the next AGM is THE important one.
 Simon Caldwell 21 Jan 2005
In reply to Jules King:
> To ensure it does not get blocked you've got to turn up and vote for it

Really? Surely if the big clubs vote for it it goes through, if they vote against it it doesn't, either way it's irrelevant how many others turn up. Or have I got it wrong?
Either way, our small club has decided to vote in favour
 Chris the Tall 21 Jan 2005
In reply to Tony Ryan:
Call me sceptical...but I'm a bit sceptical about this

The recommendations state that "an improved and effective proxy voting facility <be> established."

Without knowing what this entails we don't know whether these proposals will improve matters at all. You could say that at the moment we have OMOV and that by joining a club you are giving your proxy vote to the club rep. Even if you say that each member of the club has to sign a form before each AGM (having had chance to consider the resolutions put forward) the clubs will still be able to wield vast numbers of votes.

So how will the BMC act to encourage the 33000 or so individuals to get involved in the AGMs ? Even with the storm of protest we kicked up over the subs, and with great effort from Kate, we still only amassed 30 odd proxy votes. (Yes the inabilty of Individuals members to organise a piss-up in a brewery is acknowledged!!)

One of the options rejected was that that voting should reflect the members financial contribution to the BMC. This would have been a far more equitable solution to the problem...

And while we're on the subject, anyone know the figures for the number of club members who have upgraded to full membership ?
Ian Hill 21 Jan 2005
In reply to Chris the Tall: what is needed is a more modern way of voting acknowledging that not all members live within easy driving distance of AGM locations or know some other member who lives close enough to act as a proxy...this is the modern world, we can have votes by post, by phone, by email, by fax, by text or simply by an online web page...vote rigging could easily be avoided with the members database...democracy needs a way to actually involve most of the members in the process not just give them the right to be involved...

Ian
In reply to Tony Ryan:

I agree with Ian, web based voting is accessible to most nowadays, even if it means a trip to the internet cafe. The overall idea sounds good though, to equalise the voting power seems pretty sensible as long as everyone can make their vote easily.
 Mark Stevenson 21 Jan 2005
In reply to Tony Ryan: Interesting.

As pointed out by others, more people attend my club's AGM than attend the BMC AGM. Assuming 60-75% of those at our AGM agree with our committee's stance on BMC issues and sign the paperwork the new system would give us around 50-90 votes rather than the current 2000!

When viewed that way it is certainly a step forward that still allows clubs a say commensurate with their ACTIVE membership rather than the 'silent majority' of the block vote.

Certainly not a case of turkey's voting for Xmas, so I'll happily support the motion via my club committee/AGM.

If the same use of proxy voting was used at Area Meeting level this would allow 'representative democracy' to work both through club and area reps. Not quite true 'one member one vote' in some senses but it is an improved arrangement with solid democratic principles.
Charles Gameson 22 Jan 2005
Mark when we have a vote at our next area meeting I will be asking you to check each members membership and arrange a proxy vote in the time span of the meeting.

Applying the recommendations to the BMC AGM is a great move, but it might prevent proposals on the day being allowed - such as the student subs last year.

At area level I for one would like to continue allowing members to put proposals to our meetings on the day. I will have to turn full time to put all the proposals to every Midland member and collect in the proxy votes.

If any one can think of an easier way for voting at areas - I'm all ears. How about those that attend get a vote?

Regards
Charles
(Secretary of the BMC Midlands Area)
 Hammy 22 Jan 2005
I think I'll just stick to going climbing.....
James 22 Jan 2005
In reply to Tony Ryan:

if each club had one vote, each club would have to hold its own vote to determine what their vote is going to be (democracy and all). realistically, would every club do this? surely some (eg student, youth) clubs like mine would rather not vote and leave the decisions to the experts.

if each attending club had a vote it would give incentive for improved attendance,but might not be fair if a club of 200 didnt send a delegate but a club of 35 did.

tough call, i'll just stick to climbing too i think.

Charles Gameson 22 Jan 2005
James none of us are experts when it comes to trying to reinvent the wheel.

It was a student who stood up at the last AGM who gave the best argument for a change to a proposal I have heard at any AGM.

Yes, the club vote is complicated and hopefully once the Future Policy Review is settled we can concentrate on giving more value to membership.

Charles

Ian Hill 22 Jan 2005
In reply to Charles Gameson:
>
> It was a student who stood up at the last AGM who gave the best argument for a change to a proposal I have heard at any AGM.
>

James Jackson who posts on here regularly
 Mark Stevenson 22 Jan 2005
In reply to Charles Gameson: My comment about Area Meetings was based on the premise of allowing an official area representative to take a mandate from his/her area to the annual BMC AGM not to change the normal area meeting workings/structure. Something like the following scenario:

All members, club and individuals should be sent their own copies of the AGM info including proxy vote forms.

Proxy votes can only be delegated in person.

At the Area meeting immediately prior to the BMC AGM the meeting might decide to take a stance on the AGM agenda (show of hands vote if necessary as per normal). The Chairman (or other member) officially representing the views of the Area at the AGM might then take the opportunity to ask those agreeing with the 'area' view to action proxy votes for him/her to use at the AGM. Other members intending to attend the AGM with an opposing view (who would no doubt have already expressed that view during the debate) could be extended the same courtesy.

In this manner the views of every member attending an area meeting could be conveyed the AGM without 500+ individuals attending.

Certainly that's what I envisage happening at our club AGM. Currently we always discuss:
1) Who will represent us at the BMC AGM
2) Debate what the official club position is to be.
3) Vote if necessary.
It is only a small step further to ask those who voted in person to decide the club position to action proxy votes in support of that position.

Charles, I hope that clarifies what I meant.

 Mark Stevenson 22 Jan 2005
In reply to James:
> if each club had one vote, each club would have to hold its own vote to determine what their vote is going to be (democracy and all). realistically, would every club do this?

All clubs should have been doing this anyway. Ironically, more people turned up at our club AGM where our response to last years BMC proposals were debated that actually turned up at the BMC AGM.

The block vote is certainly not sustainable but that doesn't mean it wasn't underpinned in most cases by the application of democratic principles.

Allowing Club (and Area reps?) the opportunity to represent the views of their active membership must be the best way forward.
 CENSORED 22 Jan 2005
In reply to Alan James - UKC: I object to the suggestion that the IM club was half hearted! I spent my own time and money travelling from liverpool to a Peak Area Meeting to discuss with people, I also spent money on a premier post to high, but unfortunately, it was a bit too Judean Peoples Front, with some people seeming to have their own agenda, whereas my proposal was that the club should exist just longe enough to get the block vote withdrawn.
Charles Gameson 23 Jan 2005
In reply to Mark Stevenson:

It does clarify what you meant and its makes sense.

The charm offensive used on the clubs to maybe changes to the block vote by the BMC should now be turned to asking the clubs to actually send their representatives to area meetings.

The Midlands Area is the second largest and we do have regular attendance from a few clubs. And yes the agendas are sometimes not the most exiting in the world and our meetings are shared between east and west, so travel ex's can mount up.

We are trying to follow other areas in having slide shows/lectures by well known mountaineers. (if you know any one.....?)

We always discuss the AGM proposals at the meeting before the AGM and we are discussing the voting structure at our meeting on Thursday. I have sent a letter to all club representatives, in which I have mentioned that the voting structure is on the agenda. But you can’t force them to come.

The democracy of the BMC is built on the areas – there have been those who have questioned its purpose and wanted to reduce their role – but they are all striving to increase their attendance and the restoration of the South West Area was a real boost.

As I said in my previous post to James – the BMC need to get this Future Policy Review done and the changes made where necessary, then the BMC should then concentrate all its resources on giving value to membership. It’s embarrassing that the Ramblers are well over twice the size of the BMC, the RNIB one million and the National Trust three million.

Charles
Ian Hill 23 Jan 2005
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
>
> At the Area meeting immediately prior to the BMC AGM the meeting might decide to take a stance on the AGM agenda (show of hands vote if necessary as per normal).


this 'show of hands' thing has to change...voting has to be available to members who can't get to meetings or who don't know proxy voters...make voting easier, don't preceed it with a necessity of travelling somewhere first
Jules King 24 Jan 2005
In reply to Ian Hill:

The problem with using the proxy vote on every decision is that motions need to be debated, agreed and distributed before the vote, this slows decision making. A particular problem within the BMC strucutre is that communication is slow between areas and ManCom and the office (and not for want of trying to speed it up). Taking the Proxy to the areas is a big step forward (into the unknown), a lot of consideration will be needed to strike a balance between spreading the chance of democracy to those who, through geography or means, can not attend and not over burdening Area volenteers with too much admin work. I'm sure debate here will be considered on all aspects of the proxy vote.

As to voting, as per the current Articles: For the 2005 AGM the usual procedure of voting on the articles (special business as per article 67) requires a poll, which allows clubs to block vote and individuals to proxy vote. I guess the office will be facilitating this soon.
Jules King 24 Jan 2005
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

You are right, the club vote will decide it, but it would be useful if anyone who is a club member, that they also got in touch with their members, discussed this and then presented their vote. If anyone is not sure how ask the office.
BMC affiliated clubs need to understand that they still have an influential role within the BMC and need to contribute both at Areas and national level.
 The Crow 25 Jan 2005
In reply to Tony Ryan:

I felt so strongly about this that I allowed my individual membership to expire.

Can I attend an area meeting as an interested ex-member?
 Haggis 25 Jan 2005
In reply to Tony Ryan: The SW Area meeting discussed this on Sunday. Our position is that we support the principle of "one member one vote" but are concerned about how it will be implemented. The concerns were broadly in line with those being discussed here.
 MeMeMe 25 Jan 2005
In reply to The Crow:

Me too.

I'll be interested to see what happens.
Tony Ryan 25 Jan 2005
In reply to The Crow:
> (In reply to Tony Ryan)
>
> I felt so strongly about this that I allowed my individual membership to expire.
>
> Can I attend an area meeting as an interested ex-member?

BMC Area Meetings are open to members and non-members.
GLADIATOR 25 Jan 2005
In reply to Mark Stevenson:

How do you define "active" is this "politically active" or does it mean that you have to climb at least E3? Anyone who pays their BMC subs has a right to vote or be represented at the AGM whether by proxy, postal or other voting sysytem. The current system of block voting is simply a form of proxy vote.

The most likely outcome of all this effort is to galvanise the "big" clubs into organising effective system for "harvesting" the proxy votes of their members. The end result being that they will STILL control the BMC (you might think this is a good thing or maybee not). As the so called individual members club (What idiot thought that one up - it is simply another club!!) only managed to raise 30 votes out of a possible 33,000 the level of apathy from most individual members is palpable. I suggest therefore that the BMC is expending huge resource pandering to a small and politically active group of young people when it could be concentrating on keeping the crags and hills open to those of us who want to go climbing!



Jules King 26 Jan 2005
In reply to GLADIATOR:

"The current system of block voting is simply a form of proxy vote" - not quite true, with a block vote no one asks you if you agree with the proposal before they cast your vote for you, they just assume you do.

As part of the team that are working on this I can assure you that the BMC is definately NOT expending 'huge resource pandering to a small and politically active group of young people' (and also that most of them ain't that young either!!) and still spend the vast amount of energy on keeping crags open. Most Future Policy Review meetings are in the evening and most of the group are volunteers.

The fact of the matter is that the apathy of the clubs is as great as that of the individual membership. If the proxy system is set up well, and the BMC make use of the new technology available to it there is no reason why a reasonable vote balance between the interests of individuals and club members can't be struck. Remember that under the new system club members become individual members too in terms of voting, they have a choice.
GLADIATOR 26 Jan 2005
In reply to Jules King:

Are you really going to ask each member how they want their proxy to vote on EVERY issue raised at an AGM or an area meet?

A proxy is normally empowered to vote on your behalf and once you have signed a proxy to them you trust them to act in your best interest, (this is how proxy's work at general elections and even then you cant tell who your proxy voted for). Is this not what club members are already doing - trusting their elected members to vote in their best interest?

What you are actually suggesting is more akin to postal voting which is expensive, requires all proposals to be stated well in advance and which also takes no account of any debate on the day (you ask any other ltd company how expensive it is to arrange postal voting at its AGM).

If you really want club members to sign proxies for their elected members will these be enduring, annual or for each specific vote? Who will bear the cost of organising these proxies - the clubs? They will not be very keen on that I suspect. That would require them to vote for additioanl expense and extra administrative effort at the AGM.

If the BMC pays for all this extra cost will they raise subs again? This is also unlikely to be popular - especially amongst the "big" clubs. You do not get the sort of systems you are proposing for free.
Jules King 27 Jan 2005
In reply to GLADIATOR:

I don't have the official answers to any of your questions, but thanks for the ideas.

My views:
It would be impractical to vote on every issue raised at AGM and Areas, we don't now so why do in the future? The fact is the block vote has only been used once, possibly twice since the Articles were enacted, so based on this it is likely that proxy voting on specific issues will prevail in the future; thus costs should not be significantly higher.

My interpretation of the difference between a proxy vote and a block vote is that with block voting one person carried ALL the votes continually and casts them without need for formal consultation on any specific issues before hand. Club members have complained about this in the past, some people have used the block vote to effect their own agendas. A proxy vote allows the voter to direct the proxy on how they wish them to vote, thus the proxy gets to cast some votes ‘yes’ and some ‘no’, therein lies the democracy previously missing.
How those votes are collected and carried forward, i.e. postal , electronic, in person; and how they are validated is still to be considered.
My interpretation of events so far is that the BMC wishes to go beyond the issue of club/ individual members in relation to voting, both parties will be treaded the same in future - equal rights.
I assume (hope) the new system will allow all members of the BMC the right to vote as they think fit - directly, via any other person they wish to nominate as a proxy (club rep or anyone else), or in person.

Please be careful in assuming that I am proposing any system, I am only suggested way and means and encouraging debate. There is proper debate and consultation going on, and cost is recognised as a key issue. Why not go to an area meet and raise your points there too? I'm sure you'd be welcome.
Ian Hill 27 Jan 2005
In reply to Jules King: I think what's important is allowing more people to vote...not just those that can get to a meeting...if more people could vote more easily then the need for block votes or proxies goes out of the window

proxy votes shouldn't be needed in the 21st Century
 Paul Leader 28 Jan 2005
In reply to Ian Hill:
> (In reply to Jules King) I think what's important is allowing more people to vote...not just those that can get to a meeting...if more people could vote more easily then the need for block votes or proxies goes out of the window
>
> proxy votes shouldn't be needed in the 21st Century

total agreement here - more people should be allowed to vote, other societies allow it.

Jules King 29 Jan 2005
In reply to Jules King:
> (In reply to GLADIATOR)
>
> My interpretation of the difference between a proxy vote and a block vote is .................A proxy vote allows the voter to direct the proxy on how they wish them to vote, thus the proxy gets to cast some votes ‘yes’ and some ‘no’, therein lies the democracy previously missing.


Seems I may be have been wrong about the way Proxy works. a proxy acts in trust not as directed - not sure I like that so much, but I guess anyone can find another proxy that will do as you want.
James 02 Feb 2005
In reply to Tony Ryan:
we discussed this matter at the NW area meeting on monday.

I (with a freshly broken ankle on the way there ;-D )
and 7 others present at the meeting concluded on the issue:

unanimous decision to approve the proposal to the mancom meeting in feb to implement 'a type of proxy voting system'.

suggestions as to how to do this appropriately were far from cost effective at best, and each was met with criticism; it was decided that mancom would have to decide this anyway so we would leave the specific system and its implementaton options to mancom.
Jules King 03 Feb 2005
In reply to Tony Ryan:
This is extracted from the minutes the L&SE meeting in response to the proposals for voting structure:
1) It was noted that ‘AGM’ should read ‘General Meeting’.

2) In summary the meeting recognised the need for the BMC to progress to ‘one member – one vote’ in principal BUT also that there was some concern that the reduction of club voting power would in effect leave the BMC open to maverick actions by smaller groups, by decimating the total vote count. Some felt that considerable stability within the BMC existed because of the strength of the club vote. It was noted that the concept of the Proxy was to validate that club vote strength.

3) The meeting felt that without a more detailed proposal/recommendation of how a proxy vote would be applied and administered, The meeting agreed they were in no position to make any definitive comment on the recommendations and asked that ManCom be asked to not submit any recommendations to the AGM until the detail has been properly developed (by the FPRSG or the Club Voting Structure Working Groups), and reviewed at Area and club level and approved by ManCom.

4) The meeting agreed to reject Option 3 and Option 4 but proposed an additional option for ManCom to consider. The additional option tabled suggested ‘to retain the bock vote and allow individual postal voting at General meetings’.
Option 1 and 2 were accepted as worth progressing further with a split decision on the additional option.

4) No discussion on the Application of Proxy to Areas was held as it was felt worthless without detail of how the Proxy would be enacted.

5) There was agreement that the Club Voting Structure Working Groups should continue to meet to devise detailed paper on how the proxy vote should be administered and executed. It was also noted that some clubs' representatives were not aware of who had represented them or why they had not been invited. Other club representatives proffered that they had not had a chance to discuss this issue in enough detail to make a definitive discussion. The general consensus of the meeting was that this was too important an issue to rush through for the 2005 AGM and recommend further consultation time.
Ian Hill 03 Feb 2005
In reply to Jules King:

does the BMC want stability or democracy?

proxy votes are not needed if a modern voting system is instigated.
James 04 Feb 2005
In reply to Ian Hill:

i disagree.

after a long chat with the activities co-ordinator at my students union i have decided to reduce our involvement with the BMC (im sure much to their delight)

we would like to reamin discounted *student* members, with civil liability insurance, the oppertunity to send 2 delegates to the October Student Seminar, the ability to download copies of the technical manuals (for club members to read)...

...but otherwise have no contact whatsoever with the BMC, including not voting whatsoever and not attending further BMC meeting as a student club.

im sure the apathy in interest of such matters of other student clubs breaches towards the same conclusion.

for this reason i would like student club membership to remain discounted, students are young, often new to an area and (in my case) have no interest anyway. such things (risk assesments for example) will put them off climbing, and is not what climbing & university life is about anyhow.

no point in chasing a lame horse if you want a ride is there?
J2 04 Feb 2005
In reply to James:

so no interest in access? conservation? etc?

tad selfish??

not meaning to have a go at you, just seems you saying you want cheap insurance off the BMC and thats it. You and your club are not willing to put anything back into British Climbing, some of the crags and land we use are only available due to the hard work of some BMC members among others.
Ian Hill 04 Feb 2005
In reply to James: so you want all of the goodies but nothing else?

I think you'll find other students - James Jackson for instance - are VERY interested in the future of the BMC
GLADIATOR 05 Feb 2005
In reply to James:

It may have passed you by, but the block vote is a "type of proxy voting system".

GLADIATOR 06 Feb 2005
In reply to Paul Leader:
> (In reply to Ian Hill)
> [...]
>
> total agreement here - more people should be allowed to vote, other societies allow it.

The BMC is not a society, it is a business - to be exact it is a company limited by guarantee and it is owned by its members. It must, by law, comply with its articles of association.

The current rules allow groups of members (clubs) to be represented by an individual at the AGM and to cast a vote on their behalf.

Those of you wittering on about democracy will note that this is how the oldest democracy in the world (The UK) operates. It elects members to parliament who then use their judgement in the interest of their constituents. They do not have to compile proxies before any large vote and the goverment only resorts to referenda on the most compelling issues.


 Paul Leader 07 Feb 2005
In reply to GLADIATOR:

point taken...

I know that I have a right to a proxy vote in all the companies I own parts of. So with the BMC being a business why does it not follow this business practice?


Also with parliment each member only has one vote, their own, not a block vote of the number of their constituents.

Paul (who may be missing the point?)



GLADIATOR 07 Feb 2005
In reply to Paul Leader:

Yes, but in parliament the boundary commission ensures that each member represents "roughly" the same number of people. In the BMC the largest is over 100 times larger than the smallest.

When the trade unions were confronted with the same problem they instituted the block vote to stop the smallest unions carrying the same influence as the largest.

Long John 08 Feb 2005
In reply to this thread...

Are you guys not aware that the clubs do not normally (ie. never)utilise the "block vote" at all!

The only time it was enacted was at that EGM where the BMC rules (constitution) dictated that it had to be used.
- having an EGM at all was a result of a botch-up at the AGM due to the management committee (BMC) proposing an unworkable and unacceptable subs proposal and the presiding chairman playing games.

Can't you see that all this debate over the block vote is just a means to distract you from what is really going on!
graeme alderson 08 Feb 2005
In reply to Long John: Care to explain what is really going on?
Charles Gameson 12 Feb 2005
In reply to Long John: I second Graeme - Care to explain what is really going on?

Charles Gameson

New Topic
Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Loading Notifications...