UKH

Summary: A petition to include resolutions at the 2024 BMC AGM to disclose withheld financial information and set GB Climbing up as an independent subsidiary. Petition link here: https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2

Background: The BMC is expected to make a record loss of more than £300k in 2023. Most of that loss has arisen from subsidising the growth of GB Climbing and covering its overspending. GB Climbing has been loss-making for years and now those losses have ballooned. 

In order to help protect the BMC from the increasing financial, legal and reputational risks presented by GB Climbing I believe that GB Climbing should be set up as a separate independent subsidiary of the BMC.

This arrangement would mean that GB Climbing is still part of the BMC but the BMC is better safeguarded from the risks. It would also place ownership for strategic, operational and financial decisions squarely with the subsidiary Board of GB Climbing in a more transparent and accountable way. Importantly, GB Climbing would then have the discipline of needing to work within the constraints of its own bank account. Furthermore, the demands, culture and character of elite competition climbing are at odds with the rest of what the BMC does so it makes sense that it is managed separately by a Board that understands and is excited by the sport. 

Having GB Climbing as an independent subsidiary of the BMC is not a new idea. It was a key recommendation of the 2017 Organizational Review Report. However, the Board overturned that recommendation four years ago and instead set up a new oversight body (the CCPG). The CCPG has failed in every respect in meeting its responsibilities* and the competitions community has published an open letter of complaint**.

Finally, the BMC has not been open and transparent about the costs of GB Climbing and how grant funding has been allocated even when it has been repeatedly requested. Withholding this sort of information from the membership and the culture of secrecy that currently pervades the BMC needs setting straight and is addressed in the second proposed resolution.

Therefore, I am seeking support for the following resolutions to be included in the upcoming 2024 AGM. 

The Resolutions: 

1.The Board is required to publicly disclose a full and detailed breakdown of the finances for GB Climbing for the financial years 2022 and 2023 and its budget for 2024 within 6 weeks of this AGM and is urged to be more open and transparent in its affairs and more responsive with specific requests for information 

2. The Board is required to set up GB Climbing as a financially independent body that is no longer subsidised by the BMC. It would also be desirable if the Board made any subsidy, loan or bailout to this new body subject to a reserved matter that is included in the articles. 

Because neither of these resolutions require article changes, they will be presented as ordinary resolutions which require 50% of voting members to pass it (as opposed to 75% if classed as a special resolution). 

For these resolutions to be included in the AGM there is a requirement for it to be supported by 0.5% of the BMC membership (i.e. about 450 BMC members). 

To register your support for the inclusion of these resolutions please can you add your name publicly to this petition. Please note, you must be a British Mountaineering Council (BMC) member to sign this petition.

Thank you.

Simon Lee

* https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/CCPGReview2022FinalReport_v1_b.pdf

**https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2023/09/open_letter_gb_climbing_athletes+pa...

I'm broadly sympathetic to the motivations behind this but I'm not sure I could support the second resolution.  I'm not clear how the BMC could be protected from "the increasing financial, legal and reputational risks presented by GB Climbing" if GBC remains part of the BMC.  They may try to ring-fence the finances internally and have a separate management structure,  but as a subsidiary any financial shortfalls would still ultimately have to be met by the BMC, and similarly BMC would still be held responsible for any management failings.

As far as I can see, the only way for the wider BMC to fully escape any financial or other responsibilities is for GBC to become an entirely separate and fully independent organisation. I know there are some who want that, but that raises a load of other questions.

Even if GBC remains part of the BMC, I understand that the funding from UK Sport and Sport England is dependent on the BMC also making a contribution, so some subsidy seems to be unavoidable.

I agree it doesn’t wholly protect which is why I said “better safeguarded from the risks”. If coupled with a suitable reserved matter in the articles that will help too.

The current set up was meant to be an independent department or business unit as Rab described it but it never happened. It needs to be structural to work.

A fully independent body would be more desirable IMO but would be more difficult to achieve as it would require a change in the articles and create a difficult transfer as the BMC rather than GBC holds the NGB status. If the subsidiary is set up then it may lead to full independence in the future. Or not.

It seems a bit cynical to lump these two resolutions together. The second is far more contentious than the first.

Good grief. It wasn’t cynical it was to make things easier for signatories. Yes the second is by far the most important and it’s highly likely that those who support that will support the first. Might prove to be a mistake in getting the first through but it’s done now.

I said as much on Simon's post on the BMC Watch Facebook page:

https://m.facebook.com/groups/2241207952632038/permalink/7061011443984974/

To mimic other posters, I see merit in the first and would support it but not the second.

As per the others posts on here and on the BMC Watch group, I don't believe this would give the BMC any real protection from financial mismanagement and it would also weaken the governance and accountability that those on the receiving end of GB Climbing failings need to still be in place.

Ok, ok. Will separate them. I’ll post links shortly. 

I’ll keep the original open for those who want to, and have voted for both

For those who want to vote separately here are the links:

BMC Resolution: Disclosure of finances for GB Climbing

https://chng.it/DztL4x2KyV

BMC Resolution: Set GB Climbing up as a separate subsidiary:

https://chng.it/XPMn2xybGF

😅

Oh that’s a shame as I’d like the first to have been changed to ask the board to disclose how many of the employee contracts in GB Climbing are linked to funding cycles and how many the BMC are be obligated to keep employed (or go through a redundancy process) if SE/UKS reduced their funding?

I and others on Council can ask that, it doesn't need a resolution.

I pressed on points similar to Simon's first resolution several times from 2021 (also making points you had made) and it looked very much like the CEO was finally going to deliver after a Peak area meeting last year (before more financial issues on UKS grants were uncovered, and soon after CEO departure arrangements took over).

Simon's second resolution is a terrible idea right now, as many have pointed out on various forums and face to face. It would cause major disruption and workload when finances are already incredibly tight. The risk reduction is small (the BMC would still be liable), and it would cost more members money (due to the reorganisation work and the necessity to duplicate things like office staff).

In Simon's background the following statement is plain insulting:

The CCPG broadly did it's job last year. It listened to stakeholders' concerns and reported numerous serious issues up to the Board (ask the athletes reps on the CCPG committee), but a response to the report got bogged down at Board/SMT level.

You can always start your own resolution / petition..

Hardly. It was my summary of the linked internal report summary which was:

Report Conclusion

The ‘Purpose’ of CCPG, as drawn from its current Terms of Reference, are:
Purpose
The purpose of the CCPG should include, but not be limited to:
• Advise and report to the Board
• Support and challenge GB Climbing
• Develop its strategy and long term aims
• Advise GB Climbing on the management of resources at their disposal
• Exercise the delegated authority of the Board in accordance with these terms of reference
• Assess the performance of the CCPG and GB Climbing against set criteria to ensure that competition climbing is being governed in the best possible manner

We have not seen any evidence that would lead this Review to conclude that any of the above criteria have been met.This is clearly a breach of the operating mandate which CCPG and GB Climbing were duty bound to deliver, and a failure to comply with the Terms of Reference which were set out and agreed by the BoD and for which they are accountable

The review was produced for the Board. CCPG couldn't deliver on aspects which were lacking response elsewhere in the governance structure,  they are an oversight committee, not in charge. Sure the governance system they were a key part of failed in some respects but in that CCPG were at least sticking up action on stakeholder concerns.

Just bumping up this post as I think it needs bringing to the attention of as many people as possible.

John Gresty

If you could find that out I think it would be useful to know. It is obvious that, within a funding cycle, the BMC has obligations to SE that are inviolable so that if there are overspends (even if from GB Climbing itself) costs and job losses have to fall on the rest of the BMC but we also need to know what obligations GB Climbing still has if SE funding is reduced at the end of a cycle? If GB Climbing continues to spend at its current rate but on reduced income then that does pose a threat to the BMC. 

Sure... plus don't forget UKS elite funding is also in GB Climbing, but a significant part of SE participation funding is nothing to do with comps and so is outside GB Climbing. I think most new contracts link to the funding cycle.

The staff right across the BMC have been doing great work under considerable pressure, being very much under a cloud with all this seemingly endless public politics (since Climb Britain was democratically agreed by Council) and of course the stress of facing the redundancy and reorganisation process last year.

I'd say the same about the major contributing volunteers in the BMC, especially perhaps, given this thread's contents, those on the CCPG (who despite what Simon said were trying their best to help on serious issues raised by athletes, parents and other stakeholders)... the failure was in the combined governance across GB Climbing, SMT and the Board (and in SMT and the Board being late in informing Council... we first heard from Comp related Facebook groups, increasingly so from the end of 2022). Given the CCPG chair is now appointed as the next CEO I think it's reasonable to expect things will improve.

I'd also add GB Climbing haven't been "loss making for years"... funding was planned and met as planned until the complex UKS funding contracts were misunderstood in 2022, leading to a significant overspend. Jonathan White put up the agreed funding and staff  positions as of 2021 elsewhere (which were democratically agreed and workable). That's all despite it being true that a minority of members always wanted much less (or no) money spent in the GB Climbing area and that the vast majority of BMC members see access work in the ACES department as the main priority (on that, ACES funded staff FTEs are still about 20% up on the level in 2019, despite the recent changes forced by deficits).

Thank you and apologies I got SE and UKS mixed up (again!). Assume UKS wherever I’ve put SE

I’m not sure it was a minority of members, I think most were unaware/hadn’t considered how much was being spent. 

Thanks John. Have to admit I’ve been underwhelmed so far by the response. If members don’t get involved then we get the BMC we deserve.

We don't know how much though, do we (outside the comparative staff costs not covered by grant funding)? A fair full figure including a reasonable estimate of attributable overheads is the headline I still want to see, but that's not a simple task. Paul D gave what seemed to me a reasonable estimate, during a Peak area meeting in autumn 2023, but promised to confirm with more detail (before events took over).

I've debated this with you in detail in recent years, pointing out how complex comparing access and comp spending of members subs is. Most work in the ACES remit is done by an 'army' of access volunteers. Comps also have their own volunteer 'army'. Some ACES work is funded by internal BMC charities (ACT and L&PT). Some hillwalking work has been funded by SE grants. We also need to look at a fair assessment of departmental overhead costs (it was blatantly unfair to just divide the total by the FTE ratio, as that significantly over estimates the actual cost of GB Climbing in that category). Grants come with some audit costs and risks, but also may improve chances of sponsorship deals.

I'd rather look at this the other way round. If relevent to a bid and successful, grant income can act as a roughly 5x multiplier of the funding we decide to spend on a recieving area from core income. In 2021 the cost to members of a much bigger GB Climbing was likely comparable to the earlier period with no grants.

Give it a few more days, I'd say. It's midweek and I expect a lot of people have been busy. I've only just properly looked at UKC myself for the first time this week.

❤️

Hang this is a petition for a motion at the AGM. What is the mechanism for it being included? Can we, as members, not propose then directly?

Yes but need signatories of 0.5% of membership for any resolution to be included 

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=2145

Ok. I'm supportive but very suspicious of commercial petition websites. Happy to sign for a resolution.

It was the way John Roberts garnered support for the only member led resolution that has been included since the threshold was raised to 0.5%. And it’s free!

While I disagree with the goals of the splitting motion (I see it as a quick way of spending a lot of staff time to not actually solve the issues with GB Climbing), however Simon is just using change.org as a way of collecting names to support the motion that can then be submitted to the BMC. It's a bit tricky to get the necessary number of signatures on a physical letter so I think the method is legit.

Thank you everyone who has signed in support of the resolutions. 🙏🏻

I appreciate that it is a big deal to put your name to something like this and reflects your care in the BMC and how it is run.

The petition has been running for 3 days and so far 87 people have signed in support of the BMC disclosing details of the finances of GB Climbing and 78 who have signed in support of the resolution for GB Climbing to be set up as an independent subsidiary of the BMC.

This is an encouraging start but we need ~400 signatories for each of the resolutions for them to be included in the BMC AGM. 

To reach this figure please spread the word! 📣 Share on social media where you can and discuss with other BMC members about these resolutions and why members should have the opportunity to vote on them at the AGM. 

The links are:
To sign in support on the disclosure of finances https://chng.it/DztL4x2KyV
To sign in support of the subsidiary https://chng.it/XPMn2xybGF
To sign for both https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2 90

Best, Simon

Simon, petition 1 seems a no brainer, amazed more people haven't signed. I also signed petition 2. 

All the best Peter 👍 

p.s belated apologies for the Tippler Direct incident 😅 

Thanks Pete

Ummm you’ll have to remind me…or maybe best not?

Perhaps not on UKC!

I do not support this proposed resolution and should it be presented at the AGM, I would vote against it.

I recognise that the BMC is not perfect and that it has some issues.

However, I do feel that these should be resolved within existing structures and governance arrangements.

Splitting competition climbing from the BMC, even as a subsidiary, would, in my opinion, result in wasted energy.

Although I am not a fan of competition climbing, I do feel that it is an important part of the BMC.

I disagreed with the phrase "...the demands, culture and character of elite competition climbing are at odds with the rest of what the BMC does so it makes sense that it is managed separately by a Board that understands and is excited by the sport".

My opinion is that climbing is a broad activity/sport and the BMC should strive to support all who participate.

How? I see essentially no similarities, and certainly less overlap than with many other activities (e.g kayaking, skiing, cycling) which rightly have their own organisations.

I think that the fact that many top competizione climbers are also climbing hard sport or trad show the crossover.

Resolution 1 is long overdue 'apple pie'. I hope the Board sees sense and publishes more transparent member costs of GB Climbing soon (as Paul Davis promised back in the autumn).... before the organisation has to spend time and energy dealing with motions asking for something they should already have done.

I strongly urge members not to support resolution 2. It is based on misinformation in the background Simon wrote and is unclear to an extent in the motion itself.

Misinformation was the main reason I was so opposed to the way the motion of no confidence was presented a number of years back.... democratic disagreement is a right of BMC members but misrepresentation to garner support isn't.

There really is no evidence whatsoever the governance problems that led to the letter from parents and athletes (nor the misunderstanding of complex UKS contracts, that led to a genuine overspend) would have been avoided by GB Climbing being an independent structure. How many organisational scandals like the Post Office and Maturnity units do we need to demonstrate structure isn't the key issue in preventing governance failures?.... important people in reasonable structures should have done their job properly but didn't !?! A separate GB Climbing unit would be more expensive due to having to seperate and duplicate admin and some new governance (and other factors) to give independent budgets etc. The change to such a structure now would take over a year (it requires a BMC Articles change, being democratically contentious, despite Simon repeatedly claiming otherwise), it would be expensive and very disruptive... at a time when money is really tight. Any liability for failure of such a unit would still be the responsibility of the BMC to resolve, worst case using significant BMC expenditure, including income from members subs (whilst having reduced governance control to prevent problems arising). The parents and athletes reps are not the ones asking for this resolution and it will almost certainly distract from resolving the issuse they raised through CCPG. We have no clear idea how the grant awarding bodies would react to such a structure. I also see it as disrespectful and dismissive to our members who compete and our small army of volunteers who give up so much time to make the youth comp system work (I know as I've volunteered to help several times).

The CCPG oversight committee for GB Climbing is formed from volunteers (including athletes and parents) who worked hard to raise stakeholder concerns respectfully to the Board in a difficult situation.  The new incoming CEO of the BMC is the chair of CCPG. Simon says "The CCPG has failed in every respect in meeting its responsibilities" yet fails to consider why a review position (that he misrepresents) came about or how on earth such a failure would lead to a promotion for its chair.

Prior to the misunderstanding of complex UKS contracts (sometime after autumn 2021) GB Climbing wasn't running at a loss for years, as Simon claims. Jonathan White posted the 2021 situation which was agreed democratically and was on budget.

How would a (proposed new) reserved matter have helped, given reserved matters give power to Council, yet Council formally approved the Ratho spend by a large majority (to be fair: at a time when the seriousness of BMC finances wasn't obvious, nor were most of the GB Climbing stakeholder concerns)? Aside from CCPG, Council members have been the ones most strongly supporting action on behalf of GB Climbing stakeholders in BMC governance structures; Jonathan White in particular.

The BMC is in the middle of a financial crisis with other major issues unresolved....and staff and volunteer morale is hardly great... and the last thing the BMC needs now is more manipulation by members using a crisis to push their line on single issues. Simon (Shark) was always strongly opposed to the ODG agreed GB Climbing structure from the beginning.... a valid democratic view .... but please let's not see manipulation of information to help back a resolution based on unproved (ie unevidenced) assertions that  as a minimum will cause even more cost and disruption to the organisation with no guaranteed improvements.

Very few will fully read what you or Simon writes, most are not really that interested, and speaking for myself, I have not a clue what half these acronyms mean, and cannot be bothered  to find out.

But I think that the endless wittering you and others indulge in, brings the BMC into disrepute.

If Simon wins his vote on resolution 2 it will have to be formally considered and debated. It's not unreasonable in my view that proposed changes in a democratic organisation should not be presented partly based on misrepresentation.

In any case members always have a democratic right of reply and UKC kindly facilitates that outside BMC area meetings (where most say they have had enough of seemingly endless governance change debates).

I'd very much like to see #1 brought to AGM and would vote for it. They are pissing a lot of us off by hiding those numbers and there's no excuse. They need to be shown who's in charge by the members. They're way, way out of line on this one.

I wouldn't mind seeing #2 debated but would vote against, for the reasons you state. We've had the repeat thread here two or three times now and it was a no, so I'm confident the members would vote it down, but having it out formally and all the arguments minuted might not hurt.

You need to educate yourself just a little bit more on the subject, not much, to see that it's very much the BMC that has brought the BMC into disrepute.

Offwidth has been thanklessly defending the bits that aren't broken while trying hard to fix the stuff that is.

To reinforce Offwidth's (Members Council Rep for rock climbing) point about the length of time it would take to implement this, here is a timeline of what I would expect to happen IF motion 2 were to pass:

2024 AGM - Motion passes after a lengthy discussion where the legitimacy of the motion is potentially challenged as it's trying very hard to avoid being a special resolution (requiring a 75% vote to pass rather than 50% for an ordinary resolution) despite resulting in something which will directly lead to an articles change.

Summer/ Autumn 2024 - If legitimacy of motion is accepted, board gets some members to redraft the articles, some volunteers from different viewpoints are asked to look at it (as myself, Rodney Gallagher, Simon Lee (aka Shark) and Trevor Smith did back in 2021 with the support of Andy Syme as author of articles, and updates, and in capacity as vice president and Lucy Valerio as Company Secretary).

+ 1 month or so to allow for 2 or 3 sessions going over changes to articles depending on number of changes, at least 1 session for initial review of changes and 1 to confirm alterations following the first address issues raised (allows time to get volunteers schedules to match up).

+ At least another 28 days (Probably October or November by now) before an Emergency General Meeting can be called (a legal requirement IIRC?), significant extra expense for the BMC to do this, or wait until the next AGM (May 2025), the board puts forward a motion to change the articles which is a special resolution under the requirements of our current articles of association (and presumably future versions too). If motion fails I don't know what happens, the board is required to do this by the motion from 2024 AGM so presumably a second attempt involving another 3-6 month update and review process followed by another EGM, or an AGM.

Once passed several months pass while the BMC rearranges the deck chairs as per the motion all while competition climbers are baffled why the organisation can find time for this, but not to address any of the issues which are preventing them from being able to access sufficient numbers of competitions to have an even playing field with international counterparts.

It's worth noting that these young people are giving up a large chunk of their teenage years and early 20s to train and compete, to the detriment of any professional career they could otherwise pursue and their personal and social development. If the BMC can't sort itself out in a timely fashion it is letting them down. My impression from the letter about loss of confidence that was sent a few months ago is that GB Climbing (i.e. the BMC) is letting these athletes down, they are pulling their weight and doing what is being asked of them, but getting very little back for it.

As for Godwin's point, lots of people really care about the BMC and want it to work well, this can result in lengthy discussions and posts (like this one) about relatively dull procedural topics. The failure to clarify the finances after publicly promising to do so and public attempts to force out board members/ staff/ volunteers are what brings the BMC into disrepute (board members in 2021, targeted attacks on staff in Summer/ Autumn 2023 and the attacks on Lynn in 2021).

I wouldn't like to be the person trying to chair, or minute the discussion via an online meeting!

“Manipulation by members”! Did you really just write that? I’m appalled that is how you characterise a legitimate step by members exercising their rights in a membership organisation and it’s an insult to everyone who has signed so far. 

And yes if GBC was a separate body living within its own means a financial crisis would have been averted. For example with its own bank account it wouldn’t have been able to spend £150,000 last year of money that it didn’t have in expectation of budgeted grant money that was never going to arrive. 

A belief in and a request for a more independent GB Climbing was always totally democratically legitimate. Using misinformation and misrepresentation to garner support for such a view isn't. On a philosophical level what is so different here between what you are doing to get what you want you  and what Bob Pettigrew did to get what he wanted, other than the scale (his views and request were also democratically valid, his actions and his misrepresentation to garner support were not)?

In my view it would not have changed your "£150,000". It was money that no one knew was actually committed to be spent until it was too late. Such a situation would have required the rest of the BMC to bail them out. I do think it probably would have encouraged better financial control on the much smaller overspend they did know about but at a annual extra structural cost (at least tens of thousands) that would be of the same order as that. 

I had a double-take on that!!  The impertinence of mere members having views on the BMC when it could all be left to paternalistic wisdom of those who have let it get to this stage to begin with!!

Based on a conversation I had with Steve last summer he has been trying rather hard to avoid the position the BMC is now in, along with a lot of other Members Council Reps.

I don't agree with the wording that Simon has quoted Steve as using though.

Thanks.

My problem with such debate in formal meetings is when we allow it to proceed  based on clear misrepresentation, it has been proven to be more disruptive and expensive. The 2017 motion of no confidence shifted much of that debate online but costs in money, time and energy were still significant.

It was fantastic to see a big AGM 2017 turnout for the motion of no confidence but so much damage was already done then. I remember Rupert (opposing the motion) saying he had no properly clear idea what he was defending until Bob had proposed. This  cannot be repeated time and again, democratic debate should be fairly informed, by rule. It's why many democratic member organisations have a committee to confirm motions. The purpose isn't to block democracy but to interact with proposers to ensure motions are clear and meet fair process.

Simon calls on the spirit of the John Roberts' petition but John was opposing poor process and misinformation.

A big irony to me was that I and many others who cared passionatly about the BMC and campaigned so strongly against Bob's motion (because its process was dishonest) had common other concerns about changes being needed in the BMC. Similar views to ours were expressed in the AGM debate and are minuted there: it seemed to me that Bob was trying to utilise discontent with other real problems to back his position. These days it might be called political populism.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1467

Still it had 359 votes for (nearly 20%). 

Back to Simons second  recommendations he is supporting an ORG recommendation that was already further analysed, debated and defeated. ORG didn't cost their recommendations so the BMC implementation group "ODG" process had to look at full implications, including practicalities of working with the grant bodies and partners and of course costs. ODG recommendations were debated at Council then at area meetings and then were approved by membership vote at the AGM.

My background makes me particularly sensitive to manipulation (using misinformation) of membership votes in member organisations on formal motions. Certain SWP supported motions were like wacamole in my academic trade unions; our process forced these motions to be clear and fair (but 'offline' communications were normally the opposite). Debate had to happen but the populist behaviour divided us and sucked time,  money and energy from dealing with bigger common concerns. I see it's still happening: with UCU left in the election addresses for the new UCU Cheif executive. It's a viable exercise for them because most UCU members never vote but all their radical supporters do.

I make no apology for calling out misinformation and misrepresentation in Simon's background information. Instead of claiming I'm trying to block democracy you and he might more honestly address the very real concerns I've raised.

If anyone is being manipulative here, it's you.  The OP laid out a potential motion and reasons for it quite clearly and openly.  He is entirely legitimately attempting to get support for it to trigger a formal motion at the BMC.

If you disagree, then oppose it but don't try and smear the proposer as "manipulative", try to minimize the very apparent financial and other problems at the BMC,  and compare the proposer to political groups in entirely separate organisations.

Saying this simply doesn't make it true. GB Climbing haven't been running at a loss for years (I thought they werre only formally launched in 2021!)  CCPG are not a total failure (their input was just the opposite).

On top of that we don't know the BMC loss figure as the 2023 budget isn't signed off. So Simon should have qualified that as his best guesstimate (such distinctions are important on  budgets)

The biggest 'loss' by far will be down to a decision to include assumed membership growth in BMC budgets (a position now reversed),  it was not the GB Climbing issues. Other big costs in any deficit were insurance problems (not the BMC's fault) and the money for the IFSC Ratho event (voted for by Council).

Running a separate subsidiary does not to protect the BMC from most financial, legal or reputation risks. His proposed governance structure would not meet his claims.

The demands, culture and character of elite competition climbing being at odds with the rest of what the BMC does is a political view, presented as a certainty: there are other very different views.

The one point I do agree with is costs would be forced to be more transparent... yet that's not really resolution 2, it's more resolution 1. As far as we know in Council a full position is due to be presented to us soon after the (volunteer led) Finance and Audit committee report is made (in recent months member communications on finance have followed Council discussions by a few days).

A smear. I'm one of the biggest budget 'hawks' on Council, as others can confirm. My worry is resolution 2 will distract from real significant problems we are working to solve.

I was explaining why I'm sensitive on such matters ... the idea I think Simon is sharing any political views with the SWP is laughable. I am just sick to death of how misinformation is spiralling in the modern world.

Simon is entitled to his opinions but is also answerable for the accuracy of what he has written. I'm known to have on balance to have preferred the ODG recommendation that was debated and voted in. However, if a subsidiary had gone ahead I would have had no major issues with that then. Reversing the decision now would be expensive and highly disruptive at a time when are budets,are close to our resefve limit: it needs incredibly good and broadly agreed reasoning and some of the consequences would not be liked (the money has to come from somewhere and it's not possible for it  to come from contract based grant income areas.

As above, if you disagree, I have no issue with that. Just say so and why.  However, that doesn't make the OP manipulative.

It may provide some protection in that there would be clearer boundaries and it would be clearer what is going on earlier.  However, I agree and think the proposal should go further and aim for a full split.

Now you are sounding just bonkers.  There is no sane comparison between the OP and the Socialist Workers Party behaviour.

These are important matters, and as I said, Simon knows the views of major public critics of GB Climbing which are publicly viewable on Facbook BMC watch (linked above by spenser) and we have gone over this subject countless times since 2021. Given that I'm genuinely surprised he what he wrote in his background information.

Exactly what the motion of no confidence wanted and the opposing faction in the option debate. Members voted otherwise. The BMC would be left as a much smaller organisation with greatly reduced influence.

The rest is just not worth answering...more smears.

No, I don't

Because, not many care, but I am sure it keeps Offwidth entertained.

Unbelievably mean spirited. 

Mick 

Not really, this constant arguing in public is really bad form, and it's not just on UKC, this stuff pops up on other forums. As a reluctant member of the BMC, I would rather they pulled themselves together, in private.

As to people caring, have you attended area meetings, do you really think many people care about the BMC?

Having been to quite a few Peak Area meetings and AGMs, lots obviously do care and are trying to pull it together on the BMC's behalf, the access reps are still doing a great job, tech committee is doing its stuff etc etc and members reps on council are doing their bit to get things back on track.

The BMC doesn't have anywhere to hold such discussions outside its meetings and Alan and Co kindly support the BMC via various means, including providing a space for these discussions. BMC Facebook posts receive more views than threads on here, but trying to follow a detailed discussion on Facebook with multiple sets of responses is a total swine.

Where did you get the 'views' number for BMC Watch from spenser? I recall some BMC threads on UKC having tens of  thousands of views. This thread is heading for three thousand already.

I wasn't referring to BMC watch, I was referring to the BMC Facebook page itself, Dan mentioned at Tech Committee last night in a discussion about recalls that posts get around 100k views on Facebook which was quite surprising.

Ah.... cheers.

An issue one can have, when on committees and the like is to think "everyone", is super Interested I in the BMC or whatever, but the problem is, you have entered a bubble, where everyone is, and it is only when you step out of that bubble, you realize the true level of disinterest.

If people were so interested, Peak Area meets would need to be held at The Crucible, but how many attend 40 ish, over the hill in NW, 10 maybe, and some those only for the free chips.

We averaged over 70 in the Peak before GDPR  stopped us using our local mailing lists. Despite that, the last NW and Peak meetings were both between 30 and 40.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-areas

Everyone is very aware that too much time spent on governance arguments in local area meetings can be a problematic issue. I attended one area meeting as a guest where they voted unanimously to ignore it altogether!

It's why public forums like UKC and the BMC membership  open forums have become more important for those who do want to debate these issues. 

No one forces anyone to read these threads.

Absolutely. But people can see them, and it shapes their perception. As I said. In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, these threads bring the BMC into disrepute. 

I am under no illusions that many members don't give a flying fig about the BMC, but they are interested in having access negotiated to crags, technical safety issues being reported to manufacturers, engineering standards for equipment improved, having the liability insurance so that they know if there is an accident they won't be sued for everything they have, access to well trained instructors etc etc. The BMC is the vehicle we available to us in the UK for those things. I am going from Derby to Warrington today I don't much care what vehicle I use as long as I get there safe and dry in a timely and legal fashion (this winds up being my van given that the train service between the two is dire), but that doesn't mean I don't look after the vehicle I happen to use to achieve that. In the same way I see it as necessary for some people to look after the BMC as the vehicle to achieve other nice things. Just as I don't expect my girlfriend to participate in van maintenance tasks I don't take issue with people getting those benefits not contributing to the work needed to run the BMC, they have other interests, families, careers etc which are their contribution to the world. The BMC isn't some super duper important thing that HAS to exist, if it collapsed, climbers would quickly replace it with something else achieving most of the stuff the BMC does well, possibly with many of the same people involved. Possibly my views are guided by my BMC stuff being one way in which I express my special interest in climbing and attempt to put it to positive use which seems strange to an observer.

One of these threads (about the motion of No Confidence) is what led me to becoming involved in the BMC, the never ending discussions about governance do get old, however there is often a sea of negativity and lies/ incorrect information presented in these threads and I do my best to challenge that. The way the BMC behaved over the summer around communicating with its members was embarrassing and it has actively shot itself in the foot repeatedly with this poor communication over the years, that brings the BMC into far more disrepute with its members than any discussions between members about governance should do (of course some people take it as an opportunity to make targeted attacks on staff who have limited ability to publicly defend themselves against a member having a go at them).

You are a really nice bloke in person, we have several mutual friends who have attested to that in the past, as well as it being my view from having met you, but you can be profoundly negative about some things!

It's really hard to see how you could form that opinion if you knew just some of the backstory. It's definitely the BMC leadership that has made the BMC look bad. These threads have shown disagreement over just how badly the leadership have let us down, but nobody's so far argued that they haven't.

Oh, the political activists in the BMC have done their fair share of damage as well. As JR said in 2017.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rock_talk/is_this_the_bmcs_corbyn_moment-...

We all knew about the BMC 30 paternalism and bad behaviour in 2017.  I predicted some of the 'modernisers' had a worrying paternalistic "knowing better than the membership" attitude as well. I think it's really important that political moves for change follow internal democratic process and do not misrepresent.

My worries of risks of the organisation drifting from members' concerns was also why I was so happy with the compromise position after the option debate in 20. The new Council's power under its Memorandum of Understanding to hold the BMC Board to account was strengthened from the original proposal.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/crag_access/bmc_agm_etc_whats_happening-6...

And how’s that working out?

This is a fair statement. The vast majority of climbers could not give a toss about the BMC. It's just seen as some boring form of old boys club.

Of course they love using crags where access is maintained by the BMC, but most probably don't even realise that.

Most of us know that the BMC does a load of great work. All of this chat though is so tedious though, it's a massive turn off to many.

OK if strained and too slow from what I would like to see at times.  It's certainly better than any alternative (ie the original option weaker proposal for Council and especially the legally tangled position prior to the major governance changes). Council were not the source of the recent problems and did their best to help (on a no blame basis) as soon as they became aware (just like CCPG tried their best).

You once used to talk to me and so I knew you had fair concerns. From my first meeting on Council I name checked your concerns and urged better transparency on GB Climbing funding. I privately raised them with the CEO before that.

I'd ask: what stops you from talking with your Area and NC reps and hence ending up putting forward flawed nackground information on resolutions that are bypassing due process? Have you even spoken to Andy as Peak Area chair or the two Peak MC reps?

Would you prefer to see it stress an over full area meeting agenda, which as a keen volunteer doing useful things you have given up an evening for? I think UKC is the best place we currently have for such debates.

Honestly, I don't really care, I was just agreeing with another post about how I think the BMC is seen, or not even known about within the greater climbing community.

I contacted Andy on the 27th of January with that in mind. When he told me the next meeting wasn’t until the 8th of March I realised it was a non starter if I was to fall back on the current approach which requires a lengthy timescale to get 400+ signatories and left it at that. Also as you tightly said above:  “Everyone is very aware that too much time spent on governance arguments in local area meetings can be a problematic issue. I attended one area meeting as a guest where they voted unanimously to ignore it altogether!”

I intend going to the meeting and if there is the opportunity and appetite to discuss the resolutions I’d be delighted to do so. I have every sympathy with those who don’t.

Talking of which we are up to 132 who have signed in support of the Board revealing the detail of GB Climbings finances and 112 who have signed in support of GB Climbing becoming an independent subsidiary. Thank you everyone who has done so 🙏🏻

Interestingly I got a message from a senior figure who said he agreed with the motions but couldn’t sign publicly. Makes you wonder how many in associated organisations, on members council or in committees who have a good understanding of what is going on but are in the same boat and don’t feel able to speak out.

Is there an option to sign that is not via Change? The links you posted above have 47 and 26 signatures respectively, am I looking at the wrong ones and more importantly, have I signed the wrong one?

As I've said, my big issue is with the misinformation and misrepresentation in your background information (and to an extent bypassing due process.... for instance did Andy see your draft?).

Council do lots of work outside formal meetings so I see not discussing this with Peak MC reps as counter-productive (and rude). Peter Judd is also a Peak regular on Council with a 'wise head'. 

My all means email me via ukc to confirm you are a BMC member and the resolutions you want to publicly support. 

Petitions by their nature don't have a disagree option. Bob could always find  into the hundreds of members who shared his concerns about the Olympics; what he never managed to do was win a BMC democratic vote on the matter (despite trying many times). Although he lost, the BMC did listen and act on some related worries expressed during the debates... hence the compromise I linked above on strengthening Councils powers in 2018. We are a long way from being a tyranny of the majority in democratic terms.

Simon, I have signed the first but not the second. I was checking that it had registered as the numbers on the Change link were less than what you had reported!

I have signed the first as I believe this is something that should have been made available WITHOUT having to resort to this resolution but the fact that it hasn't, despite lots of people pushing for it warrants the resolution. Even if it fails, it will hopefully reinforce the need for clear communication, honest and prompt communication that we all know has been lacking.

I have not signed the second as I think firstly, this has already been debated and discounted, secondly, it will not achieve your desired outcome, and thirdly it fundamentally feels like we are "throwing to the wolves" all those parents and kids who have been fighting to have their concerns heard, instead of standing up for those BMC members and making the changes required to turn GB Climbing into the organization they deserve.

I was torn on the second resolution as, though I said above I disagree and believe it has already been discounted, it is a subject that has obviously not been put to bed and that maybe it was worth raising, debating (and defeating!) so we could stop looking for an easy way out and get on with the hard graft of sorting GB Climbing out!

There’s no misinformation or misrepresentation

Process has not been bypassed

A member led approach is in more ways an appropriate route as these are National rather than local issues. From a personal perspective I’d have been happier for the local reps to escalate to MC as that would have meant far less grief for me but as I said the timescales didn’t work. 

I made a suggestion once that there is a pre-meeting meeting with the area reps for those interested in governance to reduce questions at the actual meeting but got no response. I’ve never been aware or invited to non-formal meetings. 

I've listed detailed reasons why there is, above; which you have provided no detailed response as to why you think I am wrong.

It has. I understand and sympathise with why, given the news was after the Peak area AGM  and there was a long gap to the next meeting, but a petition leads us in the same situation we had if Bob had been more honest (it doesn't give space for any counter views or debate and has no weight until members vote). If you had spoken to me offline first I could have suggested constructive modifications that would not have altered the thrust of your 2nd resolution position. As I said, we all have democratic rights to raise motions, but not to misrepresent.

Which is why you should have contacted your Council Reps.

It's real easy for an individual to do this on zoom and the Peak area have a private discussion area for meeting logistics we are presumably both on. However I was referring to internal Council debate outside meetings (on Teamwork and in other discussions).

Hi Nick - I've downloaded the names and confirm you are just on the finance disclosure resolution

The figures are currently:

Subsidiary set up 25 (not including myself)

Finance disclosure 47 (not including myself)

Both 90 including myself

Kindly bullet point them succinctly and factually for me and I'll answer each in turn but I'm not getting led down the path of turning this into more of a bore fest than it already is for 9/10 readers

I don't think there is anything stopping specialist committee members from speaking out in a constructive manner if they think something is wrong, I certainly haven't been asked not to express my honest views and I wouldn't ask any members of tech committee not to express theirs (in fact I know at least one has been involved in several of these threads in the past and expressed frustration in them).

On paper no but anyone involved with the BMC will be reluctant to stick their head above the parapet lest it sours ongoing working relationships. For example they might be challenged or viewed as disloyal as these resolutions are implicitly contrary to the establishment stance. The Board has repeatedly chosen to ignore requests to make public the detail on GBC Finances and had voted against GBC being made a separate independent subsidiary (as recommended by the ORG) when it was presented by Rab as one of two options

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/crag_access/signatories_needed_by_bmc_mem...

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/crag_access/signatories_needed_by_bmc_mem...

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/crag_access/signatories_needed_by_bmc_mem...

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/crag_access/signatories_needed_by_bmc_mem...

I'd add ORG was stage 1 on a democratic process. You ignore the subsequent ODG recommendations and membership debate and votes on those (and misrepresent this as just being a Board vote).

Like I requested please list them factually and succinctly and I’ll answer each in turn.

Thank you.

Who are you calling "over the hill"?

And we've moved on; last meeting we had home cooked Spanish omelette and Dorset Apple Cake on offer.

I accept your general point. How many members of the National Trust turn out for their AGM I wonder?

If I were to go effing and jeffing about a staff member or fellow volunteer (not something I have any inclination to do) I would expect that to lead to a strained relationship with various people, but supporting a viewpoint that is inconvenient or not in agreement with the board? I also wouldn't take issue with someone signing the motion (or proposing it), however I wouldn't hesitate to state my concerns about the motion (as I did earlier in this thread). Loyalty to the concept of the BMC board isn't relevant, their contribution to tech committee is (and I have plenty of praise for everyone involved).

I am on record as repeatedly stating that the website is less use than a chocolate tea pot, I have openly expressed frustration with the board for their lack of openness/ acknowledgement of issues (both on here and directly to Martyn Hurn). The BMC is lucky to have the volunteers it does and there usually isn't any mechanism by which they could be disadvantaged for stepping down, or asked to step down. The worst that would happen to me is that I would have less evidence of how I meet the requirements of my employer's Corporate and Social Governance objective before my next performance review (which I comfortably meet without considering tech committee involvement anyway) and I would see less interesting stuff about equipment failures. People support specialist committees because they want to use their skills to make the climbing world better in some way, not because they receive any specific benefits (a total of 2 free T-Shirts and a couple of Christmas cards over the last 6 years in my case).

 But would the life partner of the National Trust, be constantly posting under a vaguely anonymous name on public forums.

The BMC, should have its own internet forum for these things, for BMC members.

It did at one stage but it didn’t gain traction to say the least

But you and Offwidth and the rest could all go there and argue it out, until the end of days. Because you will never agree because there are two conflicting ideologies here.

In person or voting at all?

Latter about 156 thousand.

The restore trust nutters helped get people voting though.

Edit to correct my freudian slip of beyond trust to the correct astroturf name.

Am I understanding you correctly here?

Are you saying that just because someone is a volunteer, it raises them above any criticism?

You have significantly misunderstood me.

I was trying to say that there is no reason for a specialist committee member (or the vast majority of other volunteers) to feel uncomfortable expressing concerns about anything relating to the BMC, or signing a motion which is inconvenient or damaging to the BMC, as the BMC has very little power over individual members. Simon suggested that volunteers may feel uncomfortable speaking out and I was pointing out that the potential consequences of speaking out are relatively minor, certainly much less than speaking out against an employer. 

If I say something that really angers my employer's board they could stop paying me money (the usual consequence of being fired), that would cause me fairly significant issues very quickly. I don't challenge them, because they do a decent job, I enjoy making a contribution to something useful in my job and I like being able to eat and live in a house.

If I say something that angers the BMC's board they can force me to step down and possibly remove my membership (that would kick up a fuss if they did that against a member who had done nothing "wrong" other than sign a motion while being a volunteer). I don't generally challenge them, because I enjoy making a contribution to something useful which I can do in my role, however if I feel concerned about something I don't need to feel concerned about the consequences of challenging them on something as they can't take much away from me.

I am certainly not beyond criticism as a volunteer, if I can make use of it I will take it on board.

Not really ideologies... my main concern is honesty of presentation when proposing change in a democratic organisation (and to an extent following due process.... unless that proves impossible... as that is less disruptive). I've been clear if the implementation committee decided the subsidiary was best I would have been fine with that.

On a separate point I agree with spenser. The worst that I have ever heard of happening in the BMC for some terrible behaviour is removal of a formal role. Given many members are club members it's really tricky to remove membership and I've never heard of the organisation threatening legal action...in contrast I've been threatened with legal action a few times and know of similar for other volunteers.

Those links contained lists. My mum would say 'what did your last slave die of?".

Belaying under The Oak? 

(Sorry to lower the tone. But some things you just can't resist!) 

Mick 

I think you just raised it!

Answer given when I was a young person: 'Backchat!'

I’ve heard from a couple of sources now that the loss for 2023 will be a staggering and appalling £500k. Please say it’s not true.

At the Open Forum on 13 Dec Roger Murray Chair of the Board of Directors said it would £300-350k. That was only 8 weeks ago. This in turn was up from the £250-300k cited in the November update.

is it possible without writing an essay how the BMC ended up like this? Was it fallout from the Captain Bob episode, and who signed it all off?

A facile question, but I don’t really pay much attention as long as access is being (brilliantly) looked after.

What I'm not understanding is what they hope to gain by not releasing the figures. It's not like the numbers will change if they wait long enough and wish really hard. What's all this "the accounts are not ready" bullshit going to achieve?

My take: The Board set up a weak structure for GB Climbing that was contrary to the recommendation of an independent report into its governance (the ORG report). That structure (the CCPG) allowed the GB Climbing leadership to do and spend pretty what they wanted unchecked. The Board was out of touch with the spending and activities of GB Climbing. Even when a damning internal report was produced into CCPG for them 12? months ago they have scarcely reacted in a meaningful way - seemingly in denial.

My proposed resolution to set up GB Climbing as an independent subsidiary (as recommended in the ORG report) goes some way to instilling separation, accountability and visibility into the spending of GB Climbing.

Petition link is here:  https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2

If the £500k is correct as an internal estimate then the Chair should say so as it significantly contradicts what he said only 8 weeks ago at the last Open Forum. As I said hopefully it isn’t true and would be very happy to have it denied. The next Open Forum isn’t until 13th March. 

It's more recent than the Motion of No Confidence, apparently it's an essay despite best efforts from me. As I understand it:

• 2017/2018 Organisational review process resulted in changes to governance mechanisms which allowed Sport England and UK Sport to recognise it as a governing body and provide funding to the BMC.
• 2018/2019? Organisational Development Group made a recommendation that GB Climbing was to be set up as a wholly owned subsidiary of the BMC (amongst many recommendations), the Board at the time looked at these and adopted some of them, while choosing to do some of the others differently. GB Climbing was instead set up as an internal department of the BMC (I don't know the detail of why, I suspect it was to share office and staffing costs for GB Climbing, Offwidth will probably remember the detail of why). Simon's motion 2 is looking to force a change to the Wholly Owned Subsidiary arrangement.
• 2020 COVID resulted in a membership reduction as people weren't able to travel as much (lots of people are members for travel insurance price reduction) and household finances were tight.
• 2021 - Membership started to creep up again in between lockdowns.
• Early 2022 - Board sets a membership growth target for 2022 and this is accounted for in the budget for the year. This is where things start to snowball.
• 2022 Russia goes to war with Ukraine, Truss and Kwarteng use the economy as a pinata, membership numbers fall again.
• Feb- September Climbing world cup round in Russia is cancelled due to their war against Ukraine, IFSC starts nosing about for somewhere to run the cancelled round of the world cup, BMC board volunteers Ratho with Members Council agreement. The cost of doing this is recorded as an "Investment" in the BMC's accounts. This was not budgeted for at the start of the year as people weren't expecting all international sporting events in Russia to be cancelled due to an invasion of Ukraine. 
• End 2022 - Membership growth target is not met putting the BMC significantly behind predicted budget, "Investment" in world cup funding puts the BMC further behind budget.
• May/ June 2023 - BMC AGM in Northumberland is barely quorate, discussion is dominated by GB Climbing Athletes and parents about issues associated with the way in which GB Climbing is (or is not) doing its job with regards looking after athletes, supporting their development and enabling them to access international competitions.
• June/ July 2023 - BMC Travel Insurance underwriter withdraws from the arrangement they had with the BMC without any warning, BMC don't explain this to members and link to a product with much worse cover for much more money as an interim measure, lose travel insurance motivated members/ don't get renewals. Almost simultaneously, news of financial troubles become known to membership as a result of the BMC notifying members of staff in the access team they are at risk of redundancy, BMC says nothing for several weeks with membership left to wonder what's happening. Small number of members resign their memberships in protest about various issues, but mostly spurred on by a perceived change in focus away from access. Redundancy process is concluded with some hours cuts and early termination, or none renewal of contracts for some temporary contractors, still more person hours devoted to access than there were before 2020. Massive hit to BMC finances
• July 2023 - Paul Davies (Previous CEO) agrees to provide Simon with a summary of BMC finances which were on the cusp of being finished. Origin of Motion 1
• September 2023 - Paul Davies resigns under immense pressure from a small number of members. Hasn't provided Simon with summary of finances. GB Climbing athletes submit a letter stating a loss of confidence in GB Climbing 2 days after Paul resigns. Further motivation for Origin 1
• October 2023 - Further overspend is discovered as GB Climbing finds out that some of the money it had believed was due as part of a UK Sport Contract wasn't putting the BMC even further behind budget.
• BMC Recruits new CEO shortly before Christmas, he should be joining in around a month's time (notice period), has previously been involved in the Competition Climbing Performance Group and has been pushing GB Climbing to address the issues raised by athletes at 2023 AGM, in the September loss of confidence letter and issues identifed by a governance review of GB Climbing undertaken prior to both.
• February 2024 - Simon's publishes the petition with the motions and creates this thread. Specialist committees told their budgets are very little (albeit Tech Comm's budget was minimal anyway).

The paragraphs with bolded text are the important points, those without explain how the BMC got from A to B. There are various other bits that have happened that are more tangentially related that have got some people riled up too which Simon can add as this summary is already much too long, however at least the majority of the context is in one place.

That’s a pretty decent run through of things. However, the circumstances of Paul Davies leaving are unclear to me and those I’ve quizzed ie to what extent he went of his own volition or was asked to go by the Board. It is unlikely his leaving can be attributed to the “immense pressure of a small number of members” unless you know something I don’t….

I suspect that said members doing their best to dig up dirt on him was beginning to make his position untenable. The exact reasons why he left are in the level of detail that would have made my timeline even more of an essay than it already was.

So is that supposition on your part (what dirt?) or do you in fact know the level of detail? I’m interested 

well done, thank you for a detailed timeline. It’s a mess isn’t it? 

Do you know this for a fact or are you just speculating in which case it's unhelpful and is beneath you

As I stated earlier, I don't know what caused him to hand in his notice, however at least one member of BMC Watch was going to significant effort to find negative stuff about Paul to apply pressure on him (which resulted in them finding that he'd bought a fancy road bike on the cycle to work scheme, which was probably not ridden to work very often, something I didn't view as particularly incriminating personally).

After a month or so of that kind of invasive behaviour of someone digging into my professional life due to their views of my performance in said position I may well decide that it wasn't worth defending my presence in the role (i.e. that it was untenable), particularly  if I was also getting the kind of hateful diatribes stated about me that David Lancely was regularly targeting at board members at the time (noting that he was flatout barred from commenting on one of the BMC related threads on UKC last year after making several deeply unpleasant posts in quick succession). 

I'm sure we have discussed this before? It is far from clear that that would be the case. Any subsidiary of remotely dubious cashflow tends to be required to obtain a parental guarantees by banks, creditors etc. It is entirely likely that a bank would require the BMC to guarantee GBCs bank account leading the BMC to remain liable for any over-spending just as it is now. 

Its a very common situation in group businesses. The Parent company manages the risk by having good controls and oversight at the subsidiary. That is also possible to do within a single entity structure with multiple divisions. Having separate entities as you propose can concentrate the minds of management but is also more expensive operationally - you have to maintain and file 2 sets of accounts, potentially have 2 audits and so on.

Without a clearer picture of the proposed structure and staffing and at least a semi-detailed costing of the requirements for staff and operational changes, the second proposal is a very risky gamble. It may or may not help and absolutely will be expensive in time and energy.

I'm sorry what?!!?

I knew it had been "considered" an investment, but was it really recognised as an investment on the balance sheet in the financial statements? Can anyone confirm? (I know I can find the FS on companies house but am too lazy right now)

How was that is it invasive to comment on an interest free loan of £8k from the BMC (presumably that he signed off) for a bike he didn’t need for commuting. I think the loan was actually cited in the accounts. It helps forms a picture. Would you do that? Especially on a big salary and in a leadership role where you are setting standards and in a membership organisation relying on unpaid volunteers. Smacks of taking the piss to me. In terms of invasion of privacy it is hardly Max Mosley.

Well said. I don't understand why Simon continues to deny this.

If the deficit is indeed anything like £500k (I despair that this is not a number I have heard, given I sit on Council), the distraction, controversy, time, energy and extra expense of a shift to a more expensive subsidiary structure is the last thing we need right now. Things looked so serious at a previous approximate predicted £300k deficit (I had hoped it might be lower,  given efforts to really tighten expenditure, and being a number not confirmed as far as I know, as Council have not been told 2023 accounts are signed off yet), we really need to concentrate on solving the much more serious problems first.

I have no idea of your investment point on the accounts but it seems unlikely. It was presented as increasing chances of future UK IFSC events and potential sponsorship, alongside some other benefits, when Council approved it with a majority but with some clear concerns expressed (and before we knew the increasingly seriously state of the finances).

It's a perfectly reasonable issue to question and yet seems irrelevant and pretty petty in the context of many much bigger issues facing the organisation, given he has left.

The BMC CEO hardly has a big salary.

Setting an example of trying to use a government encouraged standard loan for a bike rather than just use a car...seriously?

People volunteer unpaid for their own reasons and I really doubt this is a genuine widespread issue.

Not sure how someone who reads the guardian as much as you can say this. It's 6 figures. It objectively is. https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in

£8k. What c2w limit was applied when other BMC staff used it?

That was my understanding based on the discussions which have occurred over the last few months. I have definitely seen it described as an investment somewhere, but can't find the details right now, some discussion about it here:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/w43s5YEWF4Hee196/

I used a cycle to work scheme to buy a mountain bike several years ago, it has been used to commute a bit, but was definitely bought as a toy. My understanding is that government isn't very bothered by this given that it facilitates more people getting out on bikes and exercising.

I clearly don't earn CEO levels of money, if other staff were able to purchase bikes to the same value on the same terms I regard it as a none issue (despite being one of those unpaid volunteers).

RE: Invasiveness - the individual concerned (not naming as I don't particularly want to be faced with a threat of legal action for describing what someone said over a phone call 4 months ago) explicitly stated to me over a phone call that they were looking to put pressure on Paul, I can't remember what he was wanting to achieve with said pressure though.

Or maybe he was asked to leave because he had discussion with UKS about GBC separating from the BMC without Board approval or maybe it was for the personal reasons cited, we will probably never know.

What is relevant is that as CEO of a public facing membership organisation he should act above reproach and if there was a suspicion that this was not the case it is quite right that members should ask questions.

To suggest that he was hounded out is just innuendo and the sort of thing we'd expect from Offwidth but not you.

And no doubt if it's less than expected you will argue all is well after all and no changes are needed. It's almost like you don't want members having the temerity to want to change anything.

Were those discussions confirmed as having happened? I had honestly forgotten about that particular bombshell, my apologies for not including that in the timeline and misattributing his departure to being hounded out.

The details of using a government cycle scheme to erm… buy a bicycle, are trivial.

I watched Paul online say to Simon at the meeting that he could provide the financial detail once back at the office. I understood that he was saying the information was available, just not from memory.

It has never been shared. AFAIK there was no follow up communication to explain the delay. It makes it difficult to have confidence that the commitment was made sincerely. That’s not trivial at all.

The 2022 financial statements are on the BMC website here:   https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=2244

The only investments shown in the balance sheet are fixed asset investments of £4, which is unchanged from the previous year and is described as “investments in subsidiary companies”, so it’s clearly not in there.  

The point about the financial information not being shared was included in my timeline and highlighted as being the "Origin of Motion 1". I agree that it's absolutely not trivial.

Thanks for checking the accounts Simon, I had a quick look when challenged on it last night and couldn't see anything obvious in them.

Cheers Spenser, I did see that. Thank you for being so thorough. The stuff about the bike is nonsense but feeling you can't trust what the CEO says... 

It won't appear in the accounts as an asset because it isn't one; the description of it as an investment will be along the lines of "we are willing to incur the expenditure as we regard it as worthwhile as an investment to further our relationship with the IFSC and give us experience in running major international comps".

The whys and wherefores of the expenditure have already been discussed either on here or BMC Watch (or both.....) but in purely accounting terms, it wont be in the books as an asset.

The ensuing comments demonstrate that I got a couple of bits slightly wrong unfortunately!

None delivery of the financial information is a much bigger issue than the bike (hence me finding it so odd!).

Generally the BMC needs to be much more open about the stuff members are interested in (particularly to facilitate volunteers doing stuff) and around lessons learned which would improve institutional memory.

Edit:

Thanks for that Ian, that makes sense.

Inspired by your timeline I’ve been going back through my BMC update posts on UKB and there are a whole host of reasons that may have led Paul to the exit (escorted or otherwise) a lot of which were covered in Natalie’s excellent article* The attempt to publicly throw the IFSC under a bus re financing the Ratho comp stands out as an especially large blunder.

*https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/bmc_ceo_paul_davies_on_gb_clim...

It wasn't just Simon who was asking for a complete breakdown of GBclimbing finances. I was another and fully backed Simon at the Peak meeting. I also asked why the promised openness of communication with the members had not happened. 

Much of the current dissatisfaction is a result of the poor communication from the BMC, who appear to be trying to hide bad news, with the result that when it actually does become public the members feel deceived!

Shouldn't the Members Council of a membership based organisation be kept informed of the financial state of said organisation? Not to the point of actual micro-management, but a simple overview. 

If the deficit is bigger than £300k the board should be open about it! It is this vacuum of information that allows rumours to spread and cause trouble. (Unfortunately many of the more troubling 'rumours' turn out, eventually, to be accurate facts. Let's hope this is just a 'rumour' designed to promote unrest!))

Absolutely!

I've signed.  I am tired of the secrecy displayed the BMC leadership.  'Reputation management' seems to be the end goal of management types these days.  If we can't trust them, we should reduce their mandate.

To which end, in the absence of other resolutions being proffered, i also support the resolution to split GB Climbing into a separate entity.  It may not be perfect but what other practical offers are on the table?

To Offwidth et al:

If you don't like this one, can someone propose an alternative resolution please?

I've just checked the Board minutes. Dave T first outlined the comparative costs for a departrment vs subsidiary here (July 2018): 

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1647

Item 5.3.

We need membership transparency on the overall finances as soon as possible after the Finance and Audir committee and the Board have approved the budget for 2023. That it has taken this long is not a good sign.

On GB Climbing, I and others on Council will continue to press hard for the Board to ensure GB Climbing costs are ringfenced at a level we can afford and good stakeholder communications are restored (with improved  processes implemented where appropriate).

We were promised a nominal ringfenced budget of GB Climbing  back in 2019 when the department choice for GB Climbing was presented to a Peak area meeting.... to reassure those of us who had concerns (including Simon and myself).

I believe we simply can't afford to change GB Climbing to a subsidiary right now,  even if the members voted for it (very unlikely in my view). Budgets are so bad if the £500k rumours are true that we may need a new round of what was rather euphemistically called  'course corrections' but were in fact a redundancy and reorganisation process for BMC staff in 2023 (for those core BMC staff who are not SE/UKS grant funded).

Ask yourself is a debate on a subsidiary really where you want the energy of your representatives and more of your subs to go in times of real trouble. Go read the relevant thread on BMC watch on Facebook and see who supports this econd resolution amongst those who know this part of the organisation best..... just Simon so far.

The thread you are referencing is here:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/yJ7ZG67SxQnQKTXd/

Thanks Dave - spread the word - you are in good company. Unfortunately, the internal solution has been a costly failure compounded by inaction and is fast becoming an existential threat.

A new approach is needed. Personally I would like to see an entirely independent set up but don’t see that as achievable at the moment. Politics is the art of the possible. There are risks and flaws but when stuck on a burning platform it’s better to jump in the water. 

Yes.  I would have been very surprised indeed to have found an asset for this in the accounts.  But as that point was being questioned and I knew where to find the accounts I thought it worth double checking and clarifying.  

I've signed Simon.  I've being thinking about it and it seems like the right thing to do to try and change the current situation ,despite Offwidths eloquent opposition..  I object to the accusations of you misrepresenting. I can't see, having had as much of a read through as I can between watching coats of paint dry,  that you have misrepresented anything. 

I get the ' troubled times, don't rock the boat',  but if not now, then when..?

Cheers 

Huw 

Thanks Huw. 

I'm outraged, as someone from the North West I can assure you we haven't had free chips in years 😉.

My two penn'orth

Resolution 1. The BMC clearly needs to come clean with members on the financial mess it is in and the sooner the better.

Resolution 2. If it wears the same shoes as a climber, sometimes in a harness like a climber, and goes up and falls off like a climber, then it is a climber. So why shouldn't pennies in the pound of subs go to support (or subsidise if you want to put a possibly negative connotation on it) those climbers who identify as competition climbers?  If it saves money on duplication of roles to not spin it out then that makes sense surely. Let tge new CEO sort it out. Time to stop putting the blame on one part of the BMC otherwise why not spin out Access and crag ownership into an "Access Fund" as it is everyones favourite part of the BMC and be done with the rest.

👍🏻

I’m not anti competition climbing or the BMC supporting / subsidising it. However, that contribution has to be fair and proportional to the rest of the BMC.

Andy Say (a current Director) calculated that GB Climbing cost (ie after grant and other income) the BMC nearly £1m in the 5 year period from 2018-22 without including shared admin costs (add another £115k pa). Dread to think what the contribution will be this year. That level of money, and not to mention Board members time, is completely disproportionate. A case of the tail wagging the dog. 

To those who disliked the above kindly explain why that level on money/time spent on GBClimbing is fair and proportionate.

Not a disliker, but here's my take on it; by trying to get rid of GBC from the BMC, you are attacking the wrong part of the dog. If the tail is wagging the dog, cutting off the tail is the wrong approach when the rest of the dog is responsible for the actions and activities of the tail. You must be aware of my views on the financial control aspects of the BMC from our time on comp comm, and it clearly hasn't improved. Hiving off GBC wont improve that. The problem lies elsewhere (whilst acknowledging the very real issues within GBC, highlighted by the letter of no confidence).

Please note almost exactly 10 years ago I suggested at a Nat Coundil meeting that the comp section would be better off out of the BMC, due to funding restrictions and the unwillingness of the BMC to be more creative and expansive in getting external funding into the competition side of the organisation. I seem to remember a certain Commercial Manager having the same frustrations........

However I firmly believe that GB Climbing should stay under the umbrella of the BMC. It would be wasteful in the extreme to set up a new body separate from the BMC duplicating overheads etc. What is needed is tight financial control. People working to budgets and if there is overspend people being held accountable. With modern accounts softwear this is easily acheiveable and monitored. What is not acceptable is events being cancelled at short notice and climbers who have invested lots of time training for them as they are part of a selection policy being let down. With good financial management once a competition calander and selection policy is published it should be costed and budgeted for and then go ahead. I really hope the new CEO runs a very tight ship and has good budgets for each department which are adhered to.

I should emphasise that was a historic calculation based upon figures in annual reports! There's undoubtedly a bit of possible error.

I hope you'll understand that I'm a bit constrained in what I can say but I'm pretty sure it's not confidential to say that the Board is currently heavily focussed on getting the budget for '24 into shape. It's taking a lot of work by a lot of good people.

Hi Ian -

As a subsidiary it will still be part of the BMC.

I’m firmly of the belief that the financial controls you are after will not be instilled unless some form of separation is achieved.

As Offwidth said above ringfencing of finances in the past has been promised and not remotely delivered. Unfortunately the culture of the BMC does not lend itself to implementing change from within and instilling the financial and operational disciplines you’d expect in business.

From what Andy Say says, they are putting budgets in place which is good, however it is the control and managing of these budgets that will be required to move things forward. If GB Climbing was separated then this would still be required if The BMC was still the guarantor of the status of the company. Why not keep GB Climbing within the BMC, employ the necessary Chief Financial Officer and implement the same financial strategies of a normal business. It is having a strong financial control that will ensure staff work within budgets. Once those budgets are in place, and also the records of how much things cost, then debate can be had on whether to support this event or that project. Without the information then any debate is not formulated by financial considerations it is just on gut feelings. Most of us can understand that ‘we can’t afford to do this’ when we can see the figures and where money has been spent. It also requires GB Climbing to have better communications with the competition climbers, coaches and parents in GB, to discuss matters in a professional way. Hence why I strongly support your first resolution. 

I agree. And hopefully those budgets for GBClimbing will be tied to it living within its means and have robust controls in place to ensure that spending is kept within that budget. However, what will be different this time than before?

See my resolution that the Board is encouraged to put in place any bailouts being a reserved matter in the articles

Don’t put too much faith in that. We did have a CFO. She along with everyone else failed to spot a double counting of over £200k of grant money. Even though it hadn’t arrived £150k was spent on expecting it to arrive. As far as I know the recruitment of a CFO is still out there somewhere in the long grass

All very well in theory but what about in practice? Goodness knows you’ve been involved long enough to know that’s not how things generally happen. In fact things have got worse despite professional managers with sporting body experience brought in at considerable expense
 

So what are we not being told????

I think it will. A separate subsidiary operating within the constraints of its own bank account will be forced to be more disciplined and there will be a high level of accountability for the Director that runs it. Any additional income from the BMC will be a matter of accounting record and if a reserve matter will place financial problems in the public arena sooner

Totally support those two posts. Resolution 1 is apple pie. On resolution 2 on top of what you both say (and the other Ian W and David X etc.....), I'm far from convinced we can afford to do anything now, much more than ensure we are back on an even keel financially. Change to a subsidiary would be expensive and disruptive on top of it costing more to run once the change process is over.

Hardly surprising that the preparation of the 2024 budget is taking some time, many of the factors that resulted in the 2023 deficit, reduced insurance sales, unfunded GBC staff, low membership growth, general inflation haven’t gone away and even the most rose-tinted budget is likely projecting a deficit of at least £250k.  The “focus” will be on finding excuses for an increasing sceptical and disillusioned membership.

But don’t worry, the usual apologists will be along soon to tell us that everything’s fine, the new CEO is a financial wizard who is going to magic away all these problems and veg box sales are going really well.

Yes the problems are serious.  So the last thing we need now is expensive proposals that will do nothing to help, like putting GB Climbing in a subsidiary.

Sad to see your personal bitterness means you remain so unhelpful. It's a membership organisation, where the staff and volunteers do fantastic and important work. That's what always mattered most. Hence, the members should be pushing for focus on sensible responses to real problems, not excuses

Lets hope sense and realism finally prevails and the savings in the agreed budget are predominantly directed at scaling back the out of control expenditure at GB Climbing rather than Access and other departments.

It's a membership organisation, where the staff and volunteers do fantastic and important work. 

They've certainly made a fantastic job of wrecking the BMC's finances over the last couple of years.

Right or wrong, you're certainly making a fantastic job of wrecking your own credibility with statements like this.

And what's your personal contribution to staff turnover? You have behaved in a consistently aggressive and nasty fashion towards the BMC's staff and volunteers over the last few years. The more egregious stuff has been removed from UKC thankfully, but you present yourself as a bitter and deeply unpleasant human being.

If you have a look at David's posting history you will see this is one of his more reasonable comments unfortunately.

You know exactly what I meant. The governance structure of the BMC is a means to an end for the good work it does. People in senior governance roles may have failed on budgets and other areas but that includes no staff below SMT and only the tiny fraction of volunteers in leadership positions (and not all of those leaders either).

I really wonder what would have happened if you had stayed calm with  your concerns inside the organisation and not publicly insulted the entire Board. David Brown certainly needed more allies in his concerns, that only a few of us paid heed to: on membership growth predictions included in planned budgets (a bigger budget issue than that in GB Climbing).

People in senior governance roles may have failed on budgets and other areas but that includes no staff below SMT and only the tiny fraction of volunteers in leadership positions (and not all of those leaders either).

Pleased to see some acknowledgement and apportioning of blame.

I really wonder what would have happened if you had stayed calm with  your concerns inside the organisation and not publicly insulted the entire Board.

Simple, the BMC wouldn't be in this financial mess. 

I think you can exclude the ‘may’ in that sentence as the budget has definitely failed given the projected deficit at the start of 2023 was £70k!

It’s not clear to me who is on the SLT (Senior Leadership Team) as it’s not indicated on the staff list. Can you confirm which roles they are.

A sound beating for not doing what they were told.

Just re-read that you put SMT rather than SLT and I’m even more confused as I’ve not heard that acronym used in relation to the BMC.

Was that a typo or does it mean Senior Management Team ie all staff with management roles? 

"Senior staff" is what appears on the main governance page and I'm pretty sure they 'conspire' at times in meetings

Back being serious: there is no way I'm ever providing lists to those who have unethically publicly attacked individual managers who have no right of reply (ie those below the CEO). I had enough of that in my work and union and it saddens me it happens in the BMC.

The 'Senior Leadership Team' (as I'd have thought you'd have known!) nominally comprises the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Finance Officer and the Chief Commercial Officer. Hence some of the strains of the last few months, with only one of those people in post and having to cover a great deal of work! And some Board members who have practically gone full time....

The 'Senior Management Team' comprises those staff who are responsible for the individual 'departments' of the BMC: GBC, Marketing and Communications, Membership Services, Access, Sport and Community Development etc. Again, those staff have had to 'act up' in an extraordinary way over the recent period. 

And some Board members who have practically gone full time....

I can appreciate there are guilty consciences among Board members and they must be desperate to sort out the mess they’ve made.  However it would appear that all this time spent on BMC business only exacerbates the situation.  Perhaps they would be better advised to spend less time?  Easy to be a busy fool.

In my 5 years on the Board I never spent more than a couple of hours a week on BMC business and neither did any of my fellow Directors.  We made a modest surplus every year without increasing the subs and did all the usual BMC stuff including buying Wilton quarry .  Lucky?  Maybe, but as Gary P said the more I practice the luckier I get.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought I understood but Offwidth’s post got me confused. So as you say and going off the staff list

The Senior Leadership team (SLT) comprises:

CEO, CFO and Chief Commercial Officer

The Senior Management Team (SMT) is a bit more confusing as there are many with Manager in their job title who probably aren’t on the team. However my best guess is that they are:

Senior Policy & Campaigns Manager, GB Climbing Head of Performance, Head of Sport and Community Development, Finance Controller, HR & Office Manager, Marketing and Communications Manager and Membership Manager

The staff list is somewhat out of date. Do you know off hand how many employees there are  now?

You should get down off that high horse of yours. It was you not me that said: “People in senior governance roles may have failed on budgets and other areas but that includes no staff below SMT”

Just had a scan of this from 4 years ago and things seem to have gone downhill. The "don't rock the boat" response to your proposal really isn't very convincing 

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/rock_talk/bmc_announces_four_resignations...

I’ve had a look and I can’t see a reference to senior staff or a senior management team here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-governance

Should I be looking somewhere else? 

In my professional life, part of my leadership training was "if you succeed the success is the team's, if you fail then the failure is yours"

Seems like a little less blame on the BMC staff and volunteers, and a little more humility from those in leadership and governance roles is called for.

It’s a tricky one balancing being supportive and having accountability. Also the Board (bar one) are all volunteers but constitutionally the buck stop with them. 

An update

We are up to 230 who have signed in support of financial disclosure and 194 in support of GB Climbing being set up as an independent subsidiary so about half way there.

Thank you to everyone who has signed in support of a change.

For those who haven’t so far you can view the proposed resolutions and potentially sign here:

https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2

Fair point. I could gave worded that comment better. I see blame as unhelpful most of the time and have heard similar irony, but on the more serious side that some risk taking is intrinsic to a company so actively avoiding any possibility of failure is a very bad idea.

It really pisses me off when people publicly attack named staff who have no right of reply.

It is worth noting that signing this now is simply to get the resolutions onto the AGM agenda so they can be debated and voted on by the whole of the BMC membership.

This is the democratic process

And all of us in the NW are dead grateful about Wilton 1.  But you never increased the subs over five years? Honest?

But you never increased the subs over five years? Honest?

Yes, I think there was an increase in 2006 and another in 2014 but not on my watch.

It is not democratic to garner support using misinformation, it's no different in that respect (other than a matter of scale) to the Motion of no Confidence; which was defeated democratically but the dishonesty damaged the BMC (and alongside the disruption and wasted energy it caused us to lose around £150k of grant income).

Just because you keep repeating that there’s misinformation doesn’t make it so. 

Yep. One step at a time. 

Just because you say it isn't misinformation, that doesn't make it so either. Not supporting resolution 2 seems to be backed by all those who know the competition area well.

I've listed the reasons in detail above. In summary, in your background you don't say the change will be expensive (at a time of financial crisis), that once established it will cost members more to run, that despite being more accountable it won't reduce risk significantly (in particular the BMC will still be liable to make good financial problems). You exaggerated the time of GB Climbing overspends (in the autumn 2021 information J White posted things were on budget) and you failed to mention it's not the biggest cause of the BMC financial difficulties (all other factors which you ignore). 

I have drunk too much wine but thank you for summarising, at last. I will revert tomorrow 🥂

ps I don’t understand this bit: “you exaggerated the time of GB Climbing overspends (in the autumn 2021 information J White posted things were on budget)”

NB Overspends on budget are not the same as overspend per se

I might have known overspends are defined by you and not the agreed budget. Enjoy your wine.

Overspend = contribution/subsidy by the BMC to GB Climbing 

Seriously? The departmental budget is actually determined by the agreed levels of BMC input for the area under our financial governance, as leveraged up by the proportion of grant income. No wonder you see what you call years of overspends, as anything greater than zero would count. Frankly that's plain insulting to BMC members involved in comps, be they athletes, parents or other volunteers.

... as well as not being what 'overspend' means. 

This sounds like a very public sector mentality. If you lose money you deplete the reserves. Baking that in year after year is unsustainable whether it is in the budget or not. If the losses at GB Climbing are to be covered by income from elsewhere in the BMC again that can’t be baked in forever without growing justifiable unrest elsewhere.

The extent of that subsidy has not been open and transparently disclosed probably because it is known it causes unrest. 2023 may prove to be the crunch point to resolve this tension. The worst of it is that the way the money has been spent appears very much like empire building rather directed at the athletes and putting them first.

Other sporting bodies have to live within their means without subsidies from a benevolent parent. GB Climbing is not a special case. It is high time it was put on a path where GB Climbing cleans it face.

When Commercial Manager after securing the commercial partnerships and other sponsorships I put a succession of proposals forward to either make or save money for the BMC. Each one was kicked back. The final one was a holistic plan for GB Climbing that I was excited about and strongly believed would enable me to go out and secure a large corporate sponsor which included it supporting setting up a separate subsidiary that was already an ORG recommendation.

When presenting this plan I was getting nothing back from the CEO. In exasperation I said “I can do this Dave”. Response: “That’s what I’m frightened about Simon”. I resigned shortly after. Five years on and still no large sponsor despite it being an Olympic sport and GB Climbing will have cost more than £1.5million adding in shared costs. 

Public Sector thinking my 'arsenal' (good choice autocorrect). We need saving from those who believe such meaningless clichés, especially when trying to use them to deflect.

A budget is a  budget and an overspend is where you exceed the budget. What you are clearly concerned with is you think the budget is too big and it isn't transparent enough. I totally agree on the second point, given the massive sensitivity of the subject, yet the first is again misrepresentation when called an overspend. Budgets have multiple checks and balances so you are putting your view above all those staff involved and those who volunteer in governance on behalf of the membership (and above all the debates and the AGM votes).

Loses at GB Climbing, as far as I am aware, are only due to: a misunderstanding of the UKS contracts, a genuine overspend last year (of much smaller size) and arguably the Council approved Ratho spend (only opposed by a few from memory..... but where wide concerns were expressed that we had got ourselves to the position of being asked to take money out of dwindling reserves).

Saying other sporting bodies live within their means is gross misrepresentation. The Sport England (SE) and UK Sport contracts are the same for all, irrespective of governance structure. The BMC just gets to save a bit of money compared to some sports by sharing some back office functions with the representative side. The order of a million of SE contracts within the BMC are now outside GB Climbing.

I really don't see how your BMC history relates to any of this (except partly explaining your bitterness). Dave T hasn't been CEO for a few years now and the entire governance and management structure has changed. 

I’m sure most other readers will understand that overspending means spending more money than you earn and in that common sense use of the word means that GB Climbing has been overspending for years.

This isn’t semantics it means that GBClimbing has cost the BMC a fortune in cash chiefly money derived from member subscriptions the majority of whom do not place elite competition climbing as a priority. 

The point of the story is to illustrate that setting up the subsidiary should have been done long ago saving a vast sum of money and that being part of the BMC in some ways hinders GB Climbing from transitioning from a fledgling to more mainstream sport.
 

And as Colombo used to say - ‘just one more thing’ (before I head out climbing). I’m sure I am not alone in finding it bizarre that you are making and persisting with these arguments given your role on Members Council as the National advocate of outdoor rock climbing! 

I’m highly sceptical of the desirability of creating a new structure for GB Climbing, but signed both motions because I think they deserve to be discussed properly.

However, the reason why GB Climbing might possibly be better as a subsidiary is simple: the management of it in house has been inadequate. The split is a potential solution to the failure of management, without which there’d be little reason to go there.

Unfortunately, the more I read the less confident I am that management is getting its house in order. For that reason, Simon’s motion has merit.

It's possible to work in support of one thing without wanting the detriment of another (which I believe applies to Steve's role).

I don't quite understand what Dave was getting at in your quote? I think the BMC has cultural issues (it feels like it's spent 50% of the last decade with a serious issue at hand so dealing with the current crisis always takes priority before another thing comes along and longer term stuff is difficult to implement).

Your first motion probably doesn't go far enough in pushing the required culture change:

Minutes from meetings publicly available in a timely fashion (various stuff has been said about late published board minutes).

Much more openness with what is going on (I recognise that I can contribute to this in my sphere as a specialist committee chair, I will think about how best to do this without causing any problems for other committees and ensure that legitimately sensitive stuff isn't spread around).

Shift away from a blame game (members) and own up quickly when things aren't done correctly so the damage can be mitigated and learnt from.

Diversify the talent pool of volunteers and lessening reliance on critical individuals - the new volunteer management system should massively contribute to this by enabling people to take on defined tasks rather than defined open ended roles.

Sticking to commitments made to members - this hasn't happened with Paul's promise to you about finances detail.

Clarity about what it can do with its money and where the budget creates bottle necks (how many athletes are funded to what degree, can specialist committees get stuff published, can we have in person area meetings etc.

But arguing for the status quo and subsidising GBClimbing is potentially to the detriment of outdoor rock climbing as resources are directed there. As an example 6 months ago with the first budget squeeze it was the staff in Access (and Marketing) who were all given at risk of redundancy notices whereas none were issued to GB Climbing staff. 

Well I'm equally sure most readers can see through your rhetoric and understand exactly what an overspend is. If you were so right you would have gathered a few thousand signatures easily for a subsidiary, and those critics of GB Climbing, who know the area well would all be backing you (when none I know off are, who have posted on here or elsewhere).

Any costs prior to 2022 were part of known agreed budgets under the democratic governance structure. You think those budgets were too high, and that's a reasonable opinion, but for some reason you won't be honest enough to say that. Instead you use smoke and mirrors and semantics of 'overspend' to avoid saying that (presumably as it's easier to sell your expensive misrepresented 'solution'). In 2021, according to what J White posted, the BMC costs were about 30% of new staff contracts, plus some other overheads out of general BMC budgets.

The only way it would have been cheaper in a subsidiary is if the allocated BMC income part of the budget was less, hence limiting grant income below the levels achieved (and employing fewer staff). That very same choice could have been made as a department, at even lower cost, but it wasn't. As for the future, grant funded staff salaries are part of a contract.... that cost is likely 'baked-in' until those contracts end.

No one is arguing for the 'status quo'. The 2023 spending levels are simply not sustainable (thanks to the misunderstanding of UKS contracts leading to an overspend). I want transparency on what the GB Climbing budget is, so members can judge if it is too expensive in their opinion,  informing debate on strategic/financial direction via Council, Open Forums, Local Areas etc.

I'm also pushing for honest debate. I simply can't see members supporting the large cost and disruption of another governance change, to put GB Climbing in a subsidiary, which will be more expensive to run than a department and with no significant reduction in liability for the BMC.

On the restructure: grant funded staff salaries can't be included as they are part of the funding contract... it applies equally to those grant funded posts outside GB Climbing. Irrespective of the restructure FTEs in the access area are up 20% since pre-covid as the old Welsh post was split into two full time staff and Dave T moved entirely into the team.

We are a democratic organisation and so everyone has a valid opinion. If enough people back it, it cant be stopped from entering formal debate. However, as I don't believe starting the long process of a move to a subsidiary is even financially feasible right now, I'd rather we don't have to 'go through the motions' of yet another debate informed by misinformation.

The knock-on of being overly generous with allowing the final anodyne version of the Motion of no Confidence (vague words, acting as a 'coat hanger' for numerous grievances) going ahead was months of disruption, a big hit on staff and key volunteer morale and a subsequent loss of over £100k of grant income. Despite the misinformation and the 'car crash' of Bob's AGM presentation it got around 15% of over 2000 votes cast at the AGM. The BMC was in robust financial health back then, it isn't now. I'd add at least Bob's views had a genuine cost reduction attached: it would have removed all international competition costs from the organisation.

UKC was good as any place for national member discussions then and remains so now. It's well moderated and the biggest forum in use.

I understand your dismay at the prospect of anything that might resemble a rerun on the motion of no confidence. As far as I understood it, it was vexatious and hindered operations.

This however, is a different context. Although you accuse Simon of misrepresenting the situation, it remains the case that the budget deficit is very significant and despite assurances, no real clarity has ben provided as to how this came about and what is being done to ensure things run well from here on. Vague noises about misunderstanding grants are not sufficient. No one has stood up to be properly accountable and the backdrop of dissatisfaction from competitors and their families is grim.

The management of GB Climbing appears very dysfunctional. You can see, I am sure, that when the status quo is untenable there will be a clamour for change. If Simon's solution is undesirable, it's at least better than carrying on regardless, which, absent honest communication, is what appears to be happening. It's sad to see, but hard to ignore.

(I didn't downvote your reply btw, I never use ticks.)

The first budget squeeze occurred as a result of the inclusion of over optimistic membership growth figures in the budget (which both myself and Steve have criticised on multiple occasions), this resulted in the issuing of at risk of redundancy notices. This could possibly have been avoided if GB Climbing was not receiving any funding from the BMC, but probably only narrowly and it would only have delayed the membership becoming aware of the brewing problems until the impact of the travel insurance issue came to light (around 1 month).

I would imagine that the notices weren't issued to GB Climbing staff due to commitments made in the grants that require the role to be retained for the full funding cycle.

I'm explicitly not arguing for the status quo, I want to see the BMC address those cultural issues cited in this post:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/crag_access/signatories_needed_by_bmc_mem...

The BMC needs to do something to address the current issues (including the cultural issues cited above, the loss of athlete confidence in GB Climbing and the ongoing financial issues), the longer the current state of affairs goes on the harder it will be to rectify these issues. If the BMC is going to address this in a timely manner it will most likely either need to be achievable without changing the articles, or with a change to the articles at this AGM (something which your motion can't achieve because you've purposefully sought to avoid a special resolution due to a perceived lack of support for your proposal).

If your motion 2 passes at this AGM all the BMC is required to do before the next General Meeting (most likely an AGM given the financial cost of organising a General Meeting) for a revised set of articles to be voted on removing clauses 4.1.9-4.1.11 of the Articles of Association (necesstitating 75% support amongst voting members as this would be a special resolution). The BMC then spends a bit of time splitting off GB Climbing as a subisdiary achieving nothing which it couldn't have done with GB Climbing as an internal department (the separate bank account etc which you seem so fixated on can after all be implemented without requiring such a split.

What the membership really needs is to have details of what the board plan to do well ahead of the deadline for a motion to be submitted by a member for inclusion on the agenda at the AGM such that the membership can have a meaningful vote on something useful IF they conclude that the board's solution is unsatisfactory. The current options of your Motion 2 passing, or the status quo are both unsatisfactory.

It's not just a dismay about that. As you say there are many key problems in the BMC (including budgets) and under the BMC remit right now and they all need space for debate, and this 2nd resolution will be competing, if it meets governance limits: it will be another highly contentious thing, chasing limited room. The 2024 AGM is online, the open forums are not currenntly working well and the big majority of local areas are suffering so much governance fatigue that some have voted not to debate some such items at all. We have some vacancies on Council that have lasted a year and we have lost most of our diversity (also a risk for the Board).

I have no issues with Simon's resolution 1 other than the dodgy background information.

Go look at the projections inside the Board minutes from July 2018  (item 5.3 below), for the financial estimates on running costs. Then add on the disruption and cost of yet another change process that will take at least two years (and grant funded contracts can't be changed until the term ends). Add to that the wider risks of change: Sport England stopped funding before; the influence of the  BMC ethos will be reduced; the BMC takes all the financial risk at more cost and with arms length spending controls. 

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1647

The management of GB Climbing sits under a governance system led by the Board. All parties in that arrangement have a very strong incentive now for things to improve. The person who knows how to do that best is the new CEO who wrote the review report on the area (who will be attending the next round of area meetings).  It's simply not acceptable in a sport governing body to have poor relationships with stakeholders. There will be no 'carrying on regardless'.

I genuinely believe the structure will be worse than now (for some evidenced reasons) and it's notable that the GB climbing critics who know the area best don't seem to be supporting the 2nd resolution either. 

Hi, thank you for your reply. That’s quite a difference in running costs between an internal department and an independent subsidiary. If the figures are realistic, it’s clear which is the  preferable model from a costs point of view.

If there were confidence things were being properly reviewed and addressed, then most reasonable observers would say crack on. The problem arises because the lack of information does not command confidence. 

I'd say they are fantasy figures to discourage support for separating competition climbing.  Also, given the wildly inaccurate forecasts of the finances of the last couple of years (indeed the last couple of months),  putting any weight forecasts from 6 years ago is obviously ridiculous.

You can't trust absolute costs for anything from before 2022 (see HS2, Hinckley Point C etc etc) really, relative costs still have some value if taken with a pinch of salt though.

It’s not just lack of communication that does not command confidence. Let the figures talk. £300k loss is a disaster. Anything close to £500k is cataclysmic. Remember a £70k was forecast. The £50/60k insurance loss sounds like it was outside the BMC’s control. Everything else has been self inflicted. Through the year we have served up with platitudes that things are basically ok. It smelled wrong when Access was targeted for cuts - the most sacred cow in the BMC. Those cuts were only a couple of months after the AGM which flagged up no financial problems. The £200k+ double counting of grant income still beggars belief let alone £150k of it being spent before it arrived which it never would. It’s a major scandal yet no contrition in written communication or at the Open Forum for toileting members money. 

I would have to agree with MG that the figures in the board minutes look inflated. But that said, there is absolutely no doubt that a subsid would be more expensive than a department.

In reply :

Make GBClimbing a totally separate organisation.  Independent of the BMC.  Make it stand on its own two feet.  Are we saying that its organisational costs would be so high that it couldn't survive?  Gotta be a message there somewhere.

Yes, i know that the members of the BMC and GBC both wear rock boots but what else do they share, in term of aims, funding etc?  I can see us having tjis debate every few years until we eventually split.  There's a reason why over-extended companies eventually sell off non-core assets.

Access staff ( ACES department) wasn't targeted: all non grant funded contracts were included. I agree It's bad news this happened, but you previously exaggerated staff changes as up to 3 staff, the actual loss was a fraction of an FTE with no staff in the ACES department losing their job.

A cataclysm description of such a new deficit is rather exaggerated but it is serious and could lead fo further restructures.

I do agree lack of communication is a major issue for a membership organisation.

That's Bob Pettigrew's idea, that will lead the BMC to insignificance.

Listen to the Billy Ridal and Alex Waterhouse Jam Crack podcast if you want to hear the latest in a long line of crossovers from comps to significant trad.

http://www.niallgrimes.com/jam-crack-climbing-podcast/2024/1/24/jcpc-147-al...

The BMC lost a hige amount of influence by not recognising the rise if climbing walls and the new potential membership.

My kids, who both regularly climb indoors (as well as outdoors) are both working on getting their indoor mates climbing outside with them.

There is a huge crossover between competition and outdoor climbing. Some of my kids' mates who compete successfully at a regional / national level are beginning to take their first steps outdoors, despite having no family background in climbing. They want to do the outdoor thing, but find it hard as there is no obvious progression, and the clubs won't let them join until they are 18.

Your vision of the BMC has remarkable similarities to the Peoples Front for the Liberation of Judea.

It may be worth them checking where this has got to:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/youth-clubs-pilot

The BMC has run various youth meets over the years, but I think they were typically meets where parents already climbed? James McHaffie has been involved in running them but I don't know the details, or if they are still happening.

It has crossed the threshold to require discussion at Members Council (25 members according to clause 11.8.2 of our articles) which may lead to it being included on the agenda, or something alternative being tabled on behalf of the BMC to address the members concerns in a different way (although I can't see them not doing anything even without this motion as they are well aware of the financial issues).

It needs 0.5% of the membership (clause 11.8.1) with at least 45 clear days (clause 12.6) to be guaranteed a place on the AGM agenda. This is around 400 people, I am unsure of the exact membership size at present.

Hi,

173 is for those who have signed to support both. There are also individual petitions for those that support one but not the other so add in a further 66 supporting financial disclosure and 29 supporting the independent subsidiary. 

The requirement is 0.5% of the membership but the membership figure hasn’t been published yet. Assuming membership is 80000 then 400 members need to support the petition for it to be included so we are just over half way there. The deadline is 45 days before the AGM which is on the 12th of June.

I hope we can exceed the minimum in order to demonstrate the strength of Members feelings on the resolutions in particular and the state of affairs generally.

On the subject of the AGM the Board have unilaterally decided to have the AGM as online only. It’s been pointed out on BMC Watch that this is in contravention of the articles as they didn’t consult Members Council. The reason cited by the Board is cost saving. Given the issues that have arisen last year many members will want to attend in person to quiz the Board. The further worry is the way the Board controlled the last online members “Open Forum” making it the least open Open Forum that has been held. If scrutiny and criticism is managed in the same way at the AGM it will add further insult to injury. 
 

The history of the BMC is littered with missed opportunities. The NICAS scheme could have been run by the BMC and has been hugely successful. The original idea was Nick Colton’s IIRC but the BMC decided they didn’t want to run it 🤦‍♂️

I firmly believe that comp climbing should be part of the BMC, for financial reasons and because all climbing belongs there, but the failure to communicate is why I signed Simon’s second petition,

I think continuing to run up six figure deficits will get to ‘cataclysmic’ sooner or later. 

The BMC appears complacent. The former CEO, far from taking responsibility, departed with the organisation in disarray with a frankly unbelievable excuse about struggling with the commute.

Subsequently, a new CEO with an elite water sports background has been appointed but little change has been visible so far.  The incompetence at GB Climbing is such a betrayal of all the hard work staff and volunteers put in elsewhere within the organisation and still how this is being addressed is lacking clarity.
 

The more this goes on, the more worried members are going to be. Your own responses are a case in point because you’ve given me courteous and  considered answers which ignore my central point: the response so far is the problem now. People like me are thinking that GB Climbing may need separating not because it shouldn’t work within the BMC, but because its continuing  inclusion will harm the broader organisation. The failure to communicate effectively what action is underway suggests a culture unable to change to meet the challenge. Something’s got to give.

At the current rate of cash burn they will be looking at asset sales (the BMC offices, huts) to meet the reserve minimum which by now has probably been breached. 

I don't think the new CEO has started yet, he had a 3 month notice period IIRC.

Thanks. So how is the organisation being led? 

The Board may not yet be in a position to speak with one voice yet as it could be deadlocked on key decisions. A couple of new members have joined recently who I suspect might not share the same views as the existing team. Also I understand that the budget has been batted to and fro between the Board and Finance Committee a few times. Hard to trace what is going on especially as Board minutes haven’t been published since August.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-board-of-directors-meeting-summaries-and-minut...

Thanks Simon.

There's a Board meeting on the 5th of March to discuss the budget.

The BMC may be running excellent meets/courses/etc, but where are they publicised? On the poor/out dated BMC website. On BMC headed social media? These kinds of things should be all over climbing walls, BMC owned crags, local news sites etc. When GBclimbing are at a venue they should have loads of material about the BMC and what it does for new climbers, what it does for access, what it does for the environment, what it does for walkers. I could go on about the good that the BMC does. Unfortunately, unless you are a dedicated BMC member you will never know about the good stuff because it is not broadcast! GBclimbing staff are the obvious choice to publicise the good the BMC does, instead of being an isolated little empire building group. The athletes voices should be listened to and the athletes should be receiving more, and suitable support. They are the future leaders of the climbing community, but are being dissuaded from being so by the 'off hand' attitude of the GBclimbing department!

I presume the BMC survived quite happily before the advent of competition climbing.

So a few highly tallented individual get to benefit.  Not much use to 90 odd % of us.  Why would I (as a fading E1/E2 trad climber) want to join a separate GB Climbing organisation?  I wouldn't.   Some people might and that's fine.   I'm guessing that one organisation will have a rather larger membership than the other.

Yes, i agree that it seems daft that we can't all live together happily.  Humans are funny buggers 🙄

But times, members and revenue streams may change.

You're missing the point about how being an NGB may benefit the whole organisation. Comps are the pinnacle of the indoor sport which non climbers can  find interesting and be drawn to.  In time most active climbers will be predominantly indoor, if they’re not already. Most beginners are now, for sure.

And if the indoor climbers find an association structure linked to comps, not necessarily in favour of outdoor trad. 

It should make philosophical and financial sense for the BMC to include both indoor and outdoor. After all, the word ‘council’ refers to the disparate collection of clubs which the BMC originally formed to represent.

The problem for me - and it’s a make or break problem - is that currently, the organisation is unable to cope with the dual role. That has to be decisively addressed.

An update here. I have a revised report that the initial fear of a £500k loss, whilst provided in good faith, was overdone. This is good news insofar as we are likely to be looking at a turnout something closer to a disaster than a cataclysm and the reserves minimum won’t be breached. 

This is so true, the main (almost only) route into climbing outside is through climbing walls with the more keen climbers going on to youth competitions before moving outside. Almost all of our top young active climbers have followed this path. The BMC needs to be part of this to stay relevant and should be encouraging / facilitating the move from indoors to outside. The Youth Meets that the BMC has organised is a small step in the right direction. 

This is what I was told on the subject when Paul Davies resigned, presumably it is still the case:

This resignation is effective from 19th September. The Directors will be working closely with the Senior Management Team to ensure day-to-day operations are managed in the short term. A handover will be completed and we will update you in due course regarding next steps on recruitment.

That was sent by Andy Syme to Specialist committee chairs as part of a slightly longer email (nothing confidential, just a request not to disclose before the BMC did and clarification that normal points of contact for our roles were still in place) on 20th September shortly before Paul's resignation was made public.

He started about a week ago and attended an access forum on his first day. 

Oh, my apologies, I thought he was still working out his notice period at his previous role. Hopefully confidence inspiring for the access team?

Simon, I realise this is a bit semantic but:

Reading this it appears you would class GB Climbing sticking within the budget that the BMC Board had given them as overspending if that budget exceeded the income GB Climbing generated?

Is this right? You don't think a penny of BMC subs should go to GB Climbing?

Personally I would say sticking within budget is not overspending as if that budget is in excess of income, that is the board/whoever set the budget's responsibility to justify. In private sector business, there are often parts of the business that subsidise others for whatever reason. We don't classify any as overspent if they have remained in budget regardless of the income.

No it’s not semantics and a fair point but I don’t have the information to (despite requesting it) to factor in the membership income generated by GB Climbing. It is an item in the breakdown I requested (item 10) in my unanswered emails to Paul Davis and subsequently Roger Murray reproduced below.

If a subsid was created I’d envision some sort of scheme being worked out where BMC members could elect whether they want their subs to the BMC or GBC and the BMC charge back for the cost of liability insurance and the other costs of membership.

Re your other point I think we have established the way I’ve used ‘overspending’ is not the way others think of it. It was not my intention to mislead. My chief concern is to establish the  actual cost to the BMC of GB Climbing which with the figures below we should have a better idea about than what has been provided in the annual report so members can weigh up whether it is fair and proportional.
 

 Breakdown

1 The total cost of GBC staff employment costs to include Employer NI, pension contributions and expenses to include role and proportion of time

2 A fair apportionment of the total cost of Staff and Management who are partly involved in GBC to include Employer NI, pension contributions and expenses to include role and proportion of time

3 A fair apportionment of the total cost of BMC shared services support staff (ie IT, HR, Finance, Marketing, Communications) to include Employer NI, pension contributions and expenses to include role and proportion of time

4 The total running cost of competitions organised by the BMC broken down by venue, travel expenses, accommodation and other costs

5 The total cost of support to the GBClimbing team and talent development activities broken down by costs including unit E, participation in international competitions and domestic training activities, travel and expenses attending IFSC conferences etc

6 The total amount of grant income towards funding the GBC employees by role and amount

7 The remaining grant income for GBC identifying what it is for

8 Total Income from sponsorship

9 Total income received from parents, spectators and competitors broken down accordingly 

10 An estimate of total number of BMC members and membership income derived as a direct result of GBC with a suitable proportion specified and deducted for the costs of membership to the BMC 

11.  A confirmation that the above includes all costs and income that could be attributed to GBClimbing

Thanks for responding.

I think that lack of openness on the money and the obvious issues in delivery by GB Climbing will mean the Board will have to be more open with the finances so we, the members, can have an open and informed discussion on the way forward.

I am happy for a proportion of my subs to go to GB Climbing (though I would hope their ability to "self fund" - UK Sport, SE and sponsorship etc - would reduce this burden over time) but I am aware that that is not a universally held view and we need to have this discussion, agree a way forward and get on with ensuring GB Climbing deliver!

Are you seriously asking for staffing costs separated by role in an organisation with lots of unique roles (i.e. roles where the job title would make it trivial to identify the staff member in question)? If so, can you not foresee the possibility of certain people making attacks on individual staff members based on what they earn? 

I have a different take on this as I see it as a failure by the BMC to support and encourage clubs to take younger members. My local club tried to get help from the BMC but got no response.

Also I seem to remember in the Board minutes about a year ago that GBC was only focused on elite climbers and not the grassroots coming through the climbing wall route and there's plenty of anecdotal posts on UKC which confirm that this is the BMC policy so hiving off GBC wouldn't have any affect on youngsters coming through the climbing wall route.

If the BMC wasn't so focused on elite climbers they might have more time to support everyone else

This is a very powerful argument for separating GBC from the BMC so that GBC can focus on indoor climbing and the BMC can concentrate on outdoors climbing, hill walking and mountaineering.

One can but ask and Im a reasonable person!. If issues of that sort are envisioned it could be once I’ve verified the figures that only the total figures for each line are publicised or someone from Finance Committee verifies them.

Of zero relevance to punters like me, only of relevance to the elite comp climbers who become elite trad/sport climbers.

And why should you, as a member without any other current role in the BMC, have any more right to view that information than any other member (who shouldn't have access to that data)? That is not what the text of either of your motions asks for.

Despite being a specialist committee chair, and member, me having access to that data doesn't contribute any value whatsoever to the BMC so I don't have it (I also wouldn't ask for it).

There is no good reason to ask for that level of detail in the data unless you seek to single people out, which is exactly why the data should not be made available in such detail.

I’ve always felt that GBClimbing would flourish better if liberated as an independent body entirely in charge of its own strategy. If you love something set it free 😀

There is a trust issue here. I wouldn’t 100% believe anything produced internally. I’ve been down those rabbit holes before. The devil will be in the detail here. It would be cheaper for me (perhaps accompanied by your friend David Lanceley!) than getting an independent auditor to do it. 

See my answer above. It’s about digging into the detail to get at the truth. Ultimately I’m only wanting one figure. How much does GB Climbing cost the BMC each year. However with everything that has gone on I want to fact check that figure by looking into the detail to see how it’s made up.

David Lanceley is not, and never will be, my friend.

I’d already considered the idea that if / when the requested information was made available that a critical review was carried out and was going to suggest (a little tounge-in-cheek) exactly what you propose.  Forensic accounting is a significant element of my day job and after Alan and Yas I am probably the most familiar with the BMC accounts system.  However as we know from past experience there is almost certain to be a cover up / whitewash and I would be very surprised if the current establishment would be prepared to allow such a review, particularly by you and certainly by me.  

I can think of no better way for the Board to demonstrate that they welcome scrutiny, openness and transparecy.

I’m not holding my breath

Possibly because you can't be trusted not to use that information to act in an abusive manner towards staff? 

😂

Why do you think there will be attacks on individual staff members based on what they earn?

I think salaries should be a matter of public record in a membership organisation like the BMC, including costs to the organisation such as pension contributions. I work for the NHS and we all know what each other earn, its not a problem. Why the secrecy? or am I missing something?

In the past some members (part of the BMC 30 crowd) have made a fuss about numbers of staff and actively made statements about the worth, or not, of specific staff members (not the roles which people are in). Simon and David have similarly made a fuss about numbers of staff in GB Climbing and I am concerned that David, in particular, will similarly start targeting individual staff members and pushing to get specific people removed from the organisation partly on the basis of salary. If someone is not contributing the value of their salary + overheads to the organisation it should be up to their line management to address that, not for members to make abusive remarks about them until they decide to pack it in. I don't know how much BMC staff earn, but I suspect it would likely embarrass some of the more well paid members when they begrudge paying their subs, I know that the staff I interact with work very hard and more than earn whatever they are paid (given that the CEO's salary probably bounds the others).

The BMC has a lot less staff than the NHS, a job title like Clubs Officer, or Climbing Development Coordinator (both members of staff I hold a high opinion of) clearly indicate an individual person (to an extent roles are tied to individuals as some have been there a long time and picked up additional responsibilities etc). This doesn't really apply in big organisations as you can have hundreds of people in roles at a similar level of seniority to positions which have a single person at the BMC.

TLR Some members can't be trusted to treat staff with even a modicum of respect.

With respect to you and David, would you have given you company accounts to a surveyor or a recruitment consultant for a critical analysis.

I absolutely agree they should publish the financial information but I don't think it's reasonable to ask them to have the workings picked apart, particularly not by somebody who isn't formally bound by duties of confidentiality etc.

I don’t think you are affording David much respect. He was someone who was heavily involved in preparing and signing off the BMC accounts.

He is a Chartered Quantity Surveyor which is a qualification with a high financial content. His day job as I understand it is an adjudicator on contractual disputes over multi million pound international construction and engineering projects and I think sometimes acts as an expert witness.

He has been on the Finance Committee as well as treasurer for a number of years. At that time the Treasurer was on the Board and presented at AGM’s and accountability for BMC finances stopped with him. Furthermore he was prepared to get involved with BMC finances in a hands on way working with and helping Alan the accountant as well as people like me who need support on projects.

Clearly people don’t like his online manner but for me substance trumps style every day. The BMC was lucky to have him. 

I am a chartered accountant and a qualified auditor. My day job is 100% focussed on finding and correcting errors made by broadly competent professionals when preparing accounting information. 

I never claimed (or meant to imply) that David or you are idiots. I know you're not and a very simple web search turned up David's credentials.

However I think my point stands that neither of you is outwardly qualified to be an independent arbiter of the correctness of the BMCs accounting.

I assume the crux problem with all these ideas is that salaries will be treated as confidential information that needs protecting under Data Protection legislation, and that they could only be shared with someone within the organisation and only where there is a ‘business’ need to do so.

i imagine an E8 standard data protection specialist could find a way through this, but I’m not sure finding and tasking one should be top of the BMC’s priority list right now to give this level of detail.

Giving the cross-subsidy as a headline figure, however, is a no-brainer to me

Yes, but we* need to be shown the workings to be confident of that figure. 
 

*The 242 BMC members to date who have signed in support of the first resolution requiring The Board to publicly disclose a full and detailed breakdown of the finances for GB Climbing for the financial years 2022 and 2023 and its budget for 2024 within 6 weeks of the AGM 

https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2

https://chng.it/DztL4x2KyV

Make that 241. While I have signed the petition on the 1st resolution,  but not the second, I certainly would not expect a level of detail that goes to individual salaries. That would be a cleR breach of GDPR, and I could not support it. In fact the idea horrifies me

That was something requested in my ignored emails. It is not required in the resolution as you can see in the text of the resolution. Things move on. 

Also signed petition for 1st resolution only, but totally agree, Steve. That level of detail is neither needed nor acceptable.

240 in fact, there is absolutely no need for members to have that level of detail. I interpreted "a full and detailed breakdown" as being at a level of detail which doesn't present any legal issues, or expose personal details of staff, because that generally doesn't need to be said.

Quite. You interpret it correctly 

For the elimination of doubt the resolution stands in isolation without supporting papers. However, it would be reprehensible of a Board that fails to meet a resolution that is passed in terms of expected quality and quantity of information. If that was the case there would be a cohort of invested members who would rightly feel very let down. That’s a long way down the line and I don’t anticipate it anyway.

A number of Directors are up for re-election in the near future who in turn won’t be invested in defending or obscuring past decisions. 

If there are any CC members going to the AGM and Dinner next Saturday 24th I might have the opportunity to talk about the resolutions at the AGM under Any Other Business.

If anyone wants to quiz me then, at the dinner or the bar I’ll be around wearing a yellow BMC tee shirt to identify myself (hope there isn’t a dress code)

Simon

https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2

Did you manage to get an answer to this question?

We had the financial information in a special meeting on budgets (annoyingly the overview of these isn’t public yet, so I can't talk about them here until then) but I haven't had a meeting where I can raise the overview information you wanted on contracts.

I'm greatful Andy Say as a Board member is posting here now, so I can now post less.

No probs, thanks for the response. I do think this so significant information but it’s not beholden on you to provide it but if you do find out it’d be good to know.