UKC

ARTICLE: Whither the BMC?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC Articles 19 Mar 2019
BMC AGM 2019.Ahead of the British Mountaineering Council AGM on 30th/31st March, Simon Lee takes stock of where our national body is currently and the direction in which it may be heading...

Climbers and upland hillwalkers are very fortunate to have a strong and single national representative body to champion and promote our interests in the BMC. Obviously, that doesn't stop us moaning about it from time to time, but overall the good very much outweighs the less good.



Read more
2
 profitofdoom 19 Mar 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

100 points for using "Whither" in an article title

 Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator 19 Mar 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

I presume Alex used a time machine in order to photograph the 2019 AGM....?

(sorry)

In reply to Neil Foster:

The decisions have already been made, no point in attending

1
 Offwidth 19 Mar 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

Plagiarism? I'm sure I've seen a very similar article in the Peak Area newsletter and on UKB ?

I'd agree with most of the content (with a few exceptions below) and certainly welcome the discussion. It would be good to see even more members get involved in BMC democracy after two very large increases in the last 2 years (partly fired up by a Motion of No Confidence and then last year an 'Option' argument about how Board led the members wanted the organisation to be).

On my issues:

Firstly it hints towards the 'what did the romans ever do for us?' joke, without listing some of the most key functions. To most members access is the number 1 factor they join and there is no mention of The Access and Conservation Trust, an internal charity owned within the BMC that fully works on access and conservation. It also misses the crags owned by the organisation and the Mountain Heritage Trust the favorite BMC charity for the history buff. If people don't even realise these charity aspects exist in the BMC how can they donate or volunteer to help?

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-access-conservation-trust

https://www.mountain-heritage.org

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-owned-and-managed-sites

Secondly, I'm not convinced of a competition sub-division, certainly not in the next year or so, unless sponsorship opportunities are significant... such structures increase costs and reduce flexibility. The vast majority of the UK BMC run competitions are highly reliant on BMC volunteers and parent volunteers (overlapping sets) and from my volunteering experience seem to need more help (please contact the BMC direct or your BMC Local Area Youth Rep if you can assist). Any changes need to be carefully thought through following on from the ODG governance workstream conclusions after looking into this: the last thing we need is sponsored comps that can no longer motivate volunteering.

Finally the BMC is a complex beast in a period of significant chance and that needs all the leaders to step up, not just the CEO but also the President, Chair and the other Board members and in that to ensure the Articles of Association, resource and staff management,  volunteer management and support  (most BMC work is done by 1000+ volunteers), and organisational communications are right, on behalf of the membership. The Board and whatever the National Council becomes need to work in step to ensure this leadership is both effective and what the members broadly want.

3
In reply to UKC Articles:

After a day at work suffering business bullshit, this article has really put the tin hat on it. 

Thanks for the headache. 

5
 Andy Reeve 19 Mar 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

Thanks for taking the time to write that Simon.

Offwidth: I'm interested that you suggest that a separate arm of the BMC purely for comps wouldn't attract as much volunteer help. What process do you think would cause that?

 Offwidth 19 Mar 2019
In reply to Andy Reeve:

I think a focus on sponsorship in itself might put some volunteers off (grumbling around current commercial arrangements is still there from some volunteers who work hard for the organisation). Any seperate arm would seem to need more admin and management (if so simply isn't viable without sponsorship or shared resource from elsewhere, as the current assigned staff seem to struggle with workload at busy times) and any silo effect might make assistance less easy from the main body of the BMC (urgent staff input and unexpected cost sharing) when unpredicted issues arise. Some parental concerns I've heard about organisational support already seem unrealistic to me for the current level of BMC staffing (for instance its simply not possible for BMC staff to be present at all regional, comps). I think the comps really need more recruitment of and support to volunteers than they need any realistic levels of sponsorship money.

In my last volunteering, for a regional comp, I worked pretty much non stop from 8 until 2 (when someone kindly took over and gave me a 15 minute break) and a couple of hours afterwards. You are often judging in front of parents and coaches (despite the fact they are supposed to be off the mats) so little pressure there !?  Luckily it was just down the road and I'm used to block assessment and challenges. I'd add that some volunteers are driving a long way for national comps. On the plus side, the kids were fabulous, as were most of the visiting adults and of course the wall staff (a lot of parents volunteer on the day as they tell me regional events are apparently often short staffed).

There is also this ODG work group tasked to talk to the experts in the area and make recommendations and I, being no expert, have almost certainly overlooked things.

I do worry about risks of too much top down focus in quite a few areas under review this year when the organisation mainly runs on volunteer time. Given the complexity, the BMC is unusual in this respect. The related volunteers do need to be reasonably happy with any major change. It's a difficult juggling act that the new National Council and others will be looking at closely on behalf of the members.  Too firm a control from the top might have the opposite effect to that desired. Those rowing the BMC boat are not chained to the oars.

British Cycling is a strange comparitor in my view:  funding wise it's huge  cf comp climbing and from a governance perspective it has suffered some terrible problems in recent years.

 Andy Reeve 20 Mar 2019
In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks Steve.

I don't have any experience of comps (well, not since I competed in the BRYCS one time twenty years ago!), bit I had imagined that most parents of kids who compete would be absorbed fully in that bubble, and so would be insulated from concerns about the BMC more broadly. Perhaps not. I'm kind of conflicted over this though, as I can see the importance of the BMC remaining relevant post-Olympics, but I'm not interested in my subs finfund comps or "athletes"

 Offwidth 20 Mar 2019
In reply to Andy Reeve:

I'm not against change ... just pointing out some concerns I've heard and seen that need including in the discussions for any change.

We are a broad church... all the youth competitors are BMC members. Elite funding for the Olympics comes from a different source and is ringfenced to the qualified athletes.

 Andy Say 24 Mar 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

Thanks for the name check Simon - I'm flattered

The point I was trying to make in the phrase you quoted was that it is the membership that should set the direction of the BMC rather than 'the office' deciding what is good for the membership and then 'selling' it to them.  I've nothing against Big D being pro-active and showing initiative - even a hewer of wood might decide that investing in a chainsaw will make their hewing more efficient.  I hope you would agree, though, that for an organisation like the BMC to develop along lines determined exclusively by the staff may not be ideal? 

 jonnie3430 24 Mar 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

"The increasing professionalisation of the sport should also be reflected by an increasing professionalisation within our national body."

Given that the members, bar a few, are amateurs, suggests that your assumptions stink from the start (and reflect the selfish views of mountain training England that you would be wise to acknowledge.) Increased free support for clubs to train their own instructors, so that there is a recognisable and safe passage from indoor to outdoor will do more for getting indoor climbers out, and raise membership of the BMC as people actually see some benefit from membership. Professional routes from indoor to outdoor are expensive and too short for success; take advantage of the effort amateurs are willing to put in and train them up!

1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...