In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
Dear Rob,
Sorry for conflating a number of issues, however, the day before the renaming debacle / story broke, I drafted the following for the BMC:
Dear Mr Turnbull
It is 16 years since I began my mountaineering journey by joining a university mountaineering club and a university fell walking society as a teenager in 2000. Throughout this period I have been a member of the BMC - either as an affiliate student member, or as a full member. During this period I have:
• Held numerous positions on climbing club committees and as President of a university mountaineering club I helped to introduce hundreds of new participants to the sport.
• Attended local BMC meetings and local BMC crag clean-ups.
• Unilaterally cleaned (and promoted) routes in Northumberland
http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=617554 and the Lakes
http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=552379&v=1#x7409480
• Developed significant new crags for climbers:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=56539
• Produced free mini-guides for neglected crags:
http://geoquest-verlag.de/?q=en/node/503 so as to promote traffic (away from the increasingly damaged South facing crags) and opportunities for all.
• Participated in international expeditions abroad, helping to promote and establish climbing (communities and equip crags) in places where mountaineering is in an embryonic form and where it is economically challenging to do so:
http://geoquest-verlag.de/?q=node/465
• Collected and donated second-hand but useable and safe climbing equipment to developing countries.
• Provided free translations for guidebooks in Albania, Germany, India, Iran, Montenegro and Romania.
All this has largely been achieved while working full time in a non-outdoor related field. I would hope that I am the kind of member that the BMC would wish to engage with and retain.
On 11/4/16 and 20/4/16 having experienced an access issue at a crag in Northumberland I wrote emails to the BCM Access & Conservation Officer (see attachments). In these emails I explained in great detail:
• the previous access arrangements;
• what has been requested by the owners;
• the legal status under CRoW;
• and what needs looking into further.
• Plus I provided a map to show the issues.
While others in the local climbing community replied to these emails, after two attempts the BMC did not and the RAD has not been updated. I cannot reconcile the lack of response with the BMCs stated aims of: ‘Negotiat[ing] access improvements and promote cliff and mountain conservation […and] Providing services and information for members’. I have always encouraged others to become members of the BMC and actively contribute to the climbing community, thus it is with great sadness that I am reconsidering my membership in future because of BMC inactivity. I trust you can help in the matter.
Kind regards
Simon
In truth I would probably have continued being a member, albeit a slightly disgruntled one. In trying to encourage new members (as this is one of the stated aims of the rebrand) on reading the comments in this forum I would urge the BMC not to alienate existing members around three key issues:
1) Delivery of the core work of the BMC
2) Attitudes towards members
3) Democracy
Taking each in turn:
1) Rob, you state that ‘the BMC - or should I say Climb Britain's - commitment to access work will continue as strong as ever’. I note that I am not the only person frustrated by lack of responses to emails sent to the BMC. On the other thread:
Simon Caldwell - on 12:46 Tue, I email them occasionally, generally about access or their broken website, and haven't had any reply to anything since 2012.
We appreciate the work that the BMC has done to widen its appeal through things like BMC TV, a social media presence etc, however, failure to deliver on basics (such as answering emails about access) will not engender support for name changes and may impact on long term membership.
2) Attitudes towards members. I would urge BMC representatives and others not to use a holier-than-thou approach in responding to criticism. Please consider how your statement:
'Whilst I admire the passion of the many that complain (it's a testament of the strong feelings people have for the organisation) I must say that if people directed half of this effort into their local climbing community then the world would be a better place for it. Clean a crag, re-bolt a route, help out with a youth day for your local club, attend a BMC area meeting and get involved, whatever it is the significance of this action will be far more than the name change from the BMC to Climb Britain'
makes people (both members and non-members) who are actively engaged in developing the mountaineering community feel and how that may affect their engagement with the BMC. Similarly those who pay their membership subscriptions but do not actively go out and bolt routes etc should also be entitled to a view in a self-proclaimed democratic organisation.
3) Democracy. We are told by the CEO that ‘The BMC has an effective democratic structure’ but in going through all the local area minutes in 2016 HStudierende (above) has raised valid questions with regards to the effectiveness. I concede that I have missed a few local area meetings owing to commitments that I could not re-arrange, however, I have read the minutes and a) the North East reps have also missed a few NC meetings (so I am not alone in missing meetings) and b) the reband was not mentioned anywhere in NE meeting agendas or minutes. Therefore, I too am left wondering why I should bother to attend in future, as it now indeed appears apparent that they carry no importance. I would suggest that simply consulting in a meaningful way with local area meetings may have saved much of the outrage here.
(If it had been discussed at the local meetings I might have suggested the retention of the general BMC banner but under it running specific campaigns like: Climb Britain, Walk Britain, Hike Britain, Ski-tour Britain).
Aside from what I actually think of the name and logo, the way in which I feel the BMC has treated me with regards to its core role representing climbers in specific access issues, combined with the way in which organisation has treated all members and handled the process of rebranding has, in my view, created a real risk of isolating and even losing existing members. I would urge the BMC to take a good, hard and honest look at itself and its relationship to the membership.
Kind regards
Simon