UKH

If you signed the petition for the BMC resolutions can you email me your membership number and postcode to: simon@simonleeconsulting.co.uk

Whilst we have sufficient numbers signed up to include the resolutions (ie over 382) the BMC Office was unable to verify a substantial number from the Change petition info as being BMC members so I need this additional info for the unverified signatories. The deadline is April 27th.

I have also sent a further new 29 new signatories for verification today. If you’d like to add yourself to the list the petition is here:

https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2

This will give the membership the opportunity to vote at the online BMC AGM.
 

Thank you

Simon

In reply to UKB Shark:

Done. I've emailed you via this site as well, so don't count me twice!

In reply to UKB Shark:

Emailed 📧 

In reply to UKB Shark:

Just signed and emailed you my postcode.

Change had me at LA8 not LA21, so I corrected it before signing . I wonder if this is part of the problem for the BMC to align petition postcodes with membership postcodes? 

There is nothing on the petition page to indicate that getting matching petition and actual postcodes is crucial for the BMC to accept them as valid.

In reply to Rick Graham:

Likewise - i live in Newcastle NE7 and Change shows me living in NE2.

Amended and signed.

In reply to UKB Shark:

Dare it say it but this might actually suggest that engagement through the BMC 'webform' system might have saved a lot of blood, sweat and tears (and over 6 person days of staff time)? Using a system that seems to allocate postcodes fairly randomly is really not going to help it be a smooth process.

In reply to Andy Say:

Dare I say it but as the problem seems to be one of trust and confidence in the BMC.

FWIW, I used to try to do my bit for the organisation but until it gets its house in order, I am out.

In reply to Andy Say:

I didn’t know it worked the way it did till yesterday but it is definitely not random.

From the sample of 40 or so I have looked at so far it will normal identify the user to within a few miles of their postcode.

My request is if the name is a match on the BMC and is in turn matched to within a few miles of the address on the database (especially if there is only one person of that name on the database) then it ought to count. 

In reply to UKB Shark:

Simon. I can understand your frustration; you've put a hell of a lot of effort into this. AND, to be fair, you've also been helped by BMC staff and volunteers. But, to take an extreme, are you asking that a John Smith who signed your petition should be counted as a BMC member if there happens to be a John Smith who is a member that lives a couple of miles away in a city like Sheffield?

And, to Rick Graham, it really hasn't helped that the BMC 'webform' system is pretty obscure. In fact as far as I know it's never been used! It would be really helpful if there was an upfront statement on the website stating that if you want to put a resolution to the AGM then this is the way to garner support and we will even publicise it on the BMC site for you. The BMC hasn't been perfect over the last few years; though when was it ever? 😂. 

And maybe we need people like you back in the fold helping to get the house tidy again?

In reply to Andy Say:

No I’m not asking that hence: “especially if there is only one person of that name on the database” as I wrote above

In reply to UKB Shark:

Unfortunately, it very much depends on your IP address. I just tested it and it's autodetected my work IP address as EC4R, and my EE mobile IP address as E5. I'm currently sat at NG2. It's very possible that some people just didn't notice that bit, is it possible to email all signees through Change?

In reply to Alkis:

Yes I’ve done a mass email update through Change but I suspect many will have blocked or will miss it as unfortunately Change overdoes it with marketing emails once you’ve signed something. 

In reply to Rick Graham:

Fixed it for you

In reply to Andy Say:

Maybe you should be advocating for the BMC to simply allow this should be debated while it makes its own system fit for purpose?

As it stands the chances of ever bringing a members motion to debate looks incredibly tough by design. 

I'd be happy to accept that it is the lesser of two evils and that it is simply incredibly tough due to incompetent systems / mis-mangement / "an unfortunate chain of events" or whatever you want to call "being sh1t but not deliberately so".

However, this belief in a cock-up over conspiracy will only last out if the BMC accepts this needs to be debated and does what is required to make it happen no matter what extraordinary chair's intervention is required to get the motions on the cards.

To fail to do this would be to be seen as acting in incredibly bad faith especially given the circumstances leading to the call for the motions in the first place. To even be counting and fussing over the margins in these circumstances looks like the BMC is actively looking for any reason to keep this off the cards and it is not a good look and it doesn't bode well for the future.

There is a significant trust issue with the management of the BMC and for good reason.  Restoring the trust in members is fundamental to restoring the effectiveness of the BMC.  Doing the right thing and being seen to do the right thing are paramount.

Have the debate and make the case for transparency and a unified sporting body.  Shying away from this, or worse being seen to frustrate this, spells disaster.

[I'm not trying to say you personally are trying to frustrate it]

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

Bizarrely I have just logged out of a Members' Council meeting where that principle was supported.

I'd understand that view. The benchmark used to be 30 members. But changes were made to try to prevent mischievous motions....

I anticipate that we may well have an open forum dedicated to exactly this debate prior to the AGM!

Damn right👍 All I can say is 'watch this space'; changes are afoot.

Thank you everyone who is got in contact so far - 94 so far. 

This is likely to increase the verified numbers from 176 to 225 for the financial disclosure resolution and from 150 to 199 for the subsidiary resolution. In addition there are 49 new signatories since the 15th April who haven't yet been vetted by the Office of which 12 have have sent me their member numbers.

The total petition signatories (verified and unverified) now stands at 490 and 440 respectively and the threshold required is 382 verified members.       

The mood music I have heard is that if I escalate this to Members Council they won't vote either through on the basis of the current wording though may vote through a more watered down version.

Therefore if you want to see the resolutions on the agenda in the current forum please email if you haven't already with your postcode and member number.

If you haven't signed already you know what to do...    

https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2

In reply to UKB Shark:

Ok now I'm disappointed in both the board and the MC. What's the MC's job again?

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I’ve had another report from Tuesday's meeting  that felt that might not be the case 🤷‍♂️

Recommend you (everybody!) contact your local rep to lobby them, get their take and see how they might vote.

In reply to UKB Shark:

If only you could tag people on here....

Hey @Offwidth, @Andy Syme, @Andy Say, @JWhite, you remember how "Members' Council acts as a representative body of the members, consulting with and constructively challenging the Board of Directors, and holding the Board to account on behalf of the members."???

Well, here's your chance. 

Yours,

The members

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

Whether you like it or not and whatever your views...they are bound by the Articles of Assocaition.......no if's or buts.So whilst it appears to be a case of oh just got on with it...legally its laid down oh such procedures must be followed.And if you act as a volunteer in a legal capacity its even more important as you are personnally exposed to legal claims ( even though there maybe insurance). You just do not want , nor should you carry that responsibility for not following the Articles.

So have some patience.Its a fraught area.

In reply to UKB Shark:

Signed and details sent.

I have signed it not because I agree with it. but I agree that it should be discussed.

In reply to Andy Say:

If 'changes are afoot'. Please ensure that the members of the BMC are very quickly and very clearly informed of the changes, what departments are involved and who is taking responsibility for ensuring that the changes happen effectively and in a, very short, timely fashion.

Obfuscation and time delaying currently seem to be the order of the day at the BMC. The 'watch this space' delaying tactic is perceived as the format for everything at the BMC! Eg last years promise of the financial details requested at a Peak area meeting to be delivered the next day. It never happened and since then there have been a constant list of (poor) excuses for non-delivery of this and other important information! 

In reply to neilh:

The verification requirement isn’t laid down in the articles though

I made this point to Andy Syme:

Andy Syme responded: 

On that basis and precedent I accept I made a mistake in not ascertaining the verification requirement which isn’t recorded anywhere and will consult in the future.

Can I now have the resolutions on the agenda..?

In reply to neilh:

So I think what you're saying, Neil, is that the Articles are sacrosanct....?

Presumably, except when they're not (see Andy Syme's comment on Simon's observation that the terrible decision to hold the AGM online, didn't follow the procedure set down in those same Articles).

Simon said:-

Andy Syme replied:-

Seems like there might be more wriggle room than you imply, Neil - or perhaps that wriggle room is only available when it suits those running the show...

In reply to Neil Foster:

Yes they are sacrosant.Anybody who is been a director or held a legal position etc knows this.

And the worse part of it is if you are a volunteer in that position you can be held legally responsible ( your house etc is potentially on the line).And even with insurance you have to have everything recorded and done correctly.

So you have to get it right in issues like this to protect those who have taken voluntary roles

Wiggle room is not a valid legal argument.

In reply to neilh:

It’s a bloody good moral argument though when the Board can get away with bypassing the Articles despite being bound by the Directors code of conduct and an ordinary member is held to a higher standard of adherence. 

In reply to Neil Foster:

Yes, it is getting a bit like that 🤣

In reply to UKB Shark:

Morals do not come into it...you should know that --its an issue with a legal entity( ignore the personal side of it) .If you consider they have bypassed the Articles then get a solicitor on board.But you will not do that without funding. So let them sort it out and keep  applying pressure for it to be sorted...which you are doing.

Very very messy.

In reply to Neil Foster:

My view is the 0.5% was an arbitrary number set to cut the risks highlighted by the 2017 Motion of No Confidence (which led to major disruption and withheld grants of around £150,000, that BMC non grant income then had to cover), without unduly restricting the possibility of future members' resolutions. This was in addition to a much less onerous option of 25 members required for a Members Council motion (which if supported, goes to the AGM).

If the Board now have 'binary' advice on that exact number of 382, I think the 0.5% needs reassessment in Council, as it seems to me to breach the spirit behind the reasons 0.5% was selected, and leads to potentially serious issues (for those who support or oppose) as the exact number 382 is likely not exactly accurate to the nearest member as 0.5% of voting members at the defined time.

A key issue is Simon's subsidiary proposal has significant extra resource implications (including governance change), significant extra risks, and reduces inclusivity for competition members affected, as compared to a departmental (change) solution soon to be proposed by the new CEO. This is at a time when budgets, staff time, and govenance volunteer time are all under severe pressure. I suspect that's why no one on Council has stated support for it. Everyone on Council supports Simon's democratic rights,  supports the need for debate on both proposals, and supports significant improvement in financial openness and transparency. Council have been told that much more open financial detail will be presented to members as soon as audit completion allows us to give exact numbers. Council have repeatedly stressed the core BMC funding of GB Climbing (as promised by Paul Davies to the Peak Area many months ago now) is a crucial part of this. In this, the audit is nearly complete and no major differences are expected from what we were told in Roger’s estimates, as Board Chair, in November.

In any case, the BMC should be continuing to help Simon verify members (and a problematic close result to 382 seems unlikely to me).

In reply to UKB Shark:

A moral argument is valid but that doesn’t alter the fact that Directors (despite having made some past mistakes under our Articles) still have a legal responsibility to do their best to follow the Articles in future.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

The irony. It's where the vast majority of our time went and continues to get spent.

One of my biggest regrets is so much positive work proposed by the 4 Nationally Elected Councillors (NECs) on behalf of our constituencies of Hill Walking, Indoor Climbing, Mountaineering, and Rock Climbing has 'fallen by the wayside' during these difficult last two years. Stuart and I are feeling pretty battered and Rose and Aaron are finishing in June. My opinion is my three NEC colleagues were the exact right people at the right time to influence positive change in Council and the BMC, then we faced 'events dear boy, events'.

The causes were an unfortunate combination of significant institutional change in a cost of living crisis after massive covid impacts, where some things went badly wrong in process and communication between Board, Council, the paid Senior Management team and members (& our wider community). Despite this the core BMC work we all care most about 'soldiered on' and in my view even improved in some areas (especially Access, Conservation and Sustainability).

Things are looking hugely improved now with the recent management changes and more openess from the Board and much better internal communication across the governance structures. External Comms are better and should improve again in the area meets in the next few weeks (please attend!) and next Open Forum (please log on!)

In that context a post based on rumours from a meeting this week doesn't help anyone (Council just haven't shifted at all). Members are of course encouraged to engage with their reps (and quite a few do) but reps have to do their best for all their constituency.

In reply to neilh:

Unsure why the dislikes on this one; this seems like an opportune time to restate my point made well upthread that if a decision is made that was arrived at by not following the Articles, it can be challenged and potentially reversed. As one of these motions is going to result in severe dissatisfaction on the part of some members of the BMC, whichever way it falls, there is every chance the decision will be challenged. Good luck to the directors if that happens, as they have agreed to abide by the articles of association; as neilh explains, they are sacrosanct; the articles are rules that the directors agree to follow when running the company on behalf of the members, so if there is any chance of something being challenged, be very careful. If all members agree to it, decisions can be taken that dont follow the articles, but agreement ain't going to happen in this case (and should never happen anyway).

In reply to Offwidth:

FTFY.

In reply to Ian W:

The validity of a moral argument is important, it's why we might sometimes change our Articles.

In reply to Ian W:

I think you will find that both me and Simon have significant experience of Board level responsibilities and we are well aware of the need to follow provisions in the Articles.

But that responsibility extends to the Board not deciding to host a critical AGM online, in contravention of the Articles procedure, rather than face the members who deserve proper answers and the chance to interrogate the Board in person, at a time when the BMC's reserves have taken a massive hit in a very short space of time.

That was the point of our earlier posts, and the repeated failure to follow up on promised financial disclosure and transparency is the reason behind one of the 2 motions Simon has proposed.

In reply to Neil Foster:

not disagreeing at all. My post wasn't aimed at you, it was replying to you to reinforce what you said.

And that motion is imho a no brainer. The other one is going to be the contentious one.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm referring to the current situation. The company can always change its articles, but has to abide by whatever is in place at the time....

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm grateful for what you do and the role you've voluntarily taken on. Let's get that out up front. I get that it must feel pretty uphill and thankless a lot of the time.

But I'm going to point to this again:
"Members' Council acts as a representative body of the members, consulting with and constructively challenging the Board of Directors, and holding the Board to account on behalf of the members"

So

doesn't fly.

MC's job isn't to agree with members; it's to represent them. So it's not up to you which of their opinions get carried forward. Both the letter and spirit of your commitment are to represent the views of the members, not to pick and choose from them.

A sizeable number of members pretty obviously want this debated at the AGM, so.......

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I partly disagree, it's both to represent members but also take into account all factors they are aware of as a Councillor in forming decisions on votes that have wide impact. I can't speak for everyone else on their exact reasons but I have no reason to doubt their reasons, for not personally supporting the subsidiary motion yet supporting AGM debate on the future structure, are honest and I'm happy mine are. Representative democracy on significantly consequencial decisions involves taking everything into account honestly.

I have raised numerous issues at Council and Area on behalf of members on subjects that I don’t agree with (disagreement based on my impression of both what most members would think and the significant information and experienced viewpoints I have been lucky enough to have had access to). Yet when it comes to AGM motions from members we have formal processes on taking them forward. As such the BMC should assist Simon in his validation effort. I prefer more flexibility than some but he must meet a realisticly close position to 0.5% for his proposals to become a formal AGM motion. 0.5% is the sizable number that counts as it's defined in our Articles which were agreed democratically by members on super-majority AGM votes.

In reply to Ian W:

I know. I was just referring to both.... what is in the Articles and moral concerns which might lead to change if enough members are unhappy. There sometimes seems to be a muddle in some BMC politics that relates to our Articles. The Articles apply until they are changed by a super-majority membership AGM vote.

In reply to Offwidth:

You may prefer flexibility , but that flexibility is not allowed in the articles.This is why these things can get in a real mess. There is really no alternative but to follow those. 

Think of it this way by doing that you are protecting the volunteers who have taken on voluntary legal responsibilities.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

I don't think that's an entirely fair assessment. I could put forward a motion through members council saying that "indoor climbing is clearly in the ascendancy and is therefore the future of the BMC so all work on outdoor access is a waste of money that should stop immediately". I could maybe even find 25 trolls or indoor climbers to sign a petition to that effect. Or I could certainly find 25 names of likely BMC members and estimate their addresses accurately enough from social media to get their postcodes within a few miles and enter them onto an online petition site.

I could then insist that as I'm a BMC member, it's the duty of members council to put the motion forward to the AGM. And hopefully you would agree that Offwidth would be quite right to use his judgement, his knowledge of opinions of other members and his estimation of the consequences of such a decision and refuse to waste the AGM's time on it. If members council weren't supposed to consider such factors, there'd be no reason to even have support thresholds for bringing resolutions to the AGM. Anyone could bring any motion at all through members council because you don't seem to think they should have any say on it.

To be clear, I hope these motions do get debated at the AGM, and I hope the requested financial disclosures do happen. I would be disappointed in members council if they become the only viable route for that to happen and choose to block them. But I think the council would be absolutely doing their job if they're taking the time to apply some scrutiny and consider whether they'd like to tweak elements of the motions.

Offwidth has been very clear about his concerns over the proposed organisational changes, and whether or not you see them as necessary, it would be naive or disingenuous of anyone to claim that changes of that significance could come without risks or downsides. Lots of people here have clearly weighed those risks and come to the view that the upsides probably outweigh them, but no reasonable person could say there's no risk or complexity at all. So I don't think it would be undemocratic or against the spirit of members council for them to say, for example, "there's clearly a large segment of the membership with strong concerns about the management and finances of GBC, but we think the proposed organisational changes are too complex to risk rushing through after just an AGM vote without full details, so we'll put through the financial disclosure motion, but we'll alter the reorganisation motion to require a period of consultation and feasibility checks before another vote". Not necessarily saying that's the right answer, just that there are many ways members council could be following their remit to represent members without necessarily committing to rubber-stamping these motions.

In reply to Luke90:

RE: your point about guessing signatures, someone who is a member of a couple of clubs could easily enough get names and mostly accurate postcodes from the membership lists and put them into Change.org, it would be thoroughly unethical and a significant misuse of the data, but there's no practical barrier to it being done (and this is a very good reason for the BMC to require their web form to be used).

In reply to neilh:

I'm not so sure. 382 is a calculation that is likely unreliable and 0.5% was a fairly arbitrary decision and is what it says (ie it's not 0.500% as it is being interpreted). Such a decision would require care to avoid risk but I'm sure its possible as I've worked in governance in organisations where similar borderline work-arounds operated in situations that seemed against the spirit of a specific decision.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Well that is debatable, considering the amount of Bandwidth this has had on UKC and other forums and Facebook, I am surprised that Simons petition has not got thousands of signatures. Possibly the vast majority just do not care or perhaps the vast majority do not agree with the petition.

In reply to Godwin:

Many have stopped caring!

They (me and some friends) are waiting (I have stayed a member, others have not) for the BMC to get it's corporate act together and start communicating effectively with it's member base. Most of the current problems have been caused by poor communication, allowing the rumour mill to get established. Once doubt has become ingrained, every action is then looked upon with a cynical eye. If the BMC don't learn to communicate with the members, this cynical eye will gain strength and make the current problems much much harder to recover from. 

There are important questions from last year, and earlier, which remain unanswered. If they had been answered in a timely (promptly, as promised by the then CEO) and honest fashion, much of this current fiasco could have been avoided. At a Peak area meeting the MC reps told us that finances had been discussed but they were not allowed to tell the members present what exactly the discussion concerned and what any resulting action was needed! 

The BMC senior management need to very quickly formulate a plan of action, designate a controller/manager for each action, and publicise regularly how that action is being carried out and how effectively! 

Tell us what is happening. Prevent the rumour mill from gaining the ascendency. Make public a broad outline. Then, as quickly as possible, fill in the detail, including time/finance scales, who has responsibility for leading the action, etc!

At the moment all we know is that 'things are afoot', but not what and how long it will take or cost.

Informing the members is key. There will always be some who do not like a decision/action, but many, like me would accept them if we knew how they were arrived at, and why!

Communicate! It is still not happening!

In reply to johncook:

I broadly agree, but think it is a dangerous place, as we see in wider society.

Let me help, it will take a long time and cost a lot.

I agree, but do people actually see themselves as members. Being a member of an organisation, suggests a relationship stronger than a consumer, something maybe emotional, I wonder how many consider themselves members. As a club member, I consider myself to tythed by the BMC and it angers me when I hear of them spewing money they have tythed from me, on things of no interest to me. 

Yes

In reply to johncook:

While I agree too much communication has been poor until recently, the following isn't really fair:

Firstly the specific area of concern from our Chair was a request related to a sensitive negotiation with funders that was close to conclusion and secondly I did choose to speak, as having attended more of the relevant Council meetings I was confident I could explain to the meeting the broad thrust of what was going on, and actions, without adding risk.

In reply to Offwidth:

But they did say they were not allowed to say! Is that not a fact!

In reply to Offwidth:

Possibly it would help if you amended your UKC profile to show that you are a BMC committe member and your user name, posdibly to, Offwidth all round nice guy and BMC person, or create another profile for your BMC posts 

In reply to johncook:

If they said there were elements they couldn't discuss or details they couldn't go into, but then proceeded to give an overview anyway, it seems somewhat misleading to only report the first part and omit the fact that they did actually share information.

In reply to Luke90:

They didn't. They moved to another topic! Quickly!

Repeat update post from the other thread:

So in terms of what went wrong I now understand that the Change location isn’t as exact as I assumed it was as it was often drawn from the IP address and often comes up with a nearby post district. I have asked that given this that the verification by location is relaxed more ie member name matches approximate location but this isn’t seen as acceptable.

Of the 45 ‘non members’ I have received emails from 7 of them so far including our famous alpinist. I don’t know whether their middle name is on the database or not. I don’t know the reason for the other six being counted as non members. I have agreed with the Office to park that for the time being.

Thank you to everyone who has emailed me. This has enabled me to gather the membership numbers of 62 signatories for both resolutions who were classified as non members or no matches in the verification process. Keep the emails coming.

Additionally there are 58 new signatories for both resolutions of which I have the membership numbers of 20 of them. Please sign the petition if you haven’t already.

I have chased those I know via Facebook and will email those in the CC handbook who I can name match.

I wanted to publish a list of the 200 or so names of the unverified signatories so others can chase them for member numbers on my behalf but that appears to conflict with GDPR and a post I made on UKC to that effect was pulled.

I will submit the updated back to the Office on the 27th which is the deadline. I have made a request that if the verification thresholds aren’t met that the Office sends out emails to the unverified to see whether confirmation can be ascertained that way 

I’d like to thank Arun, Josh and Thom for the work they have carried out so far and the further work that is heading their way. We are working in less than ideal circumstances to unclear rules. I’d like to stress that I believe they are working diligently as neutral parties. 

I won’t be able to devote as much time to this as I have recently in the run up to the deadline as I have a significant birthday tomorrow and off to Kalymnos on Monday.

Thank you everyone who has supported me and the campaign so far. 

In reply to UKB Shark:

I have signed your petition, and forwarded my details, my choice. However I would not be happy receiving an email from a person pursuing a personal obsession from information they glean from the club handbook, that is IMHO totally out of order.

In reply to Godwin:

Ok. Maybe not then. I thought that was the sort of thing the handbook was for.

In reply to Godwin:

I've considered this but it's a bit like the petition: most people involved in BMC governance know who I am, I'm easily identifiable here by humans, my email link through UKC is open for posters I trust are genuine. However I do have to be 'me' when voting on Council.

I've been involved in (obsessive) climbing, guidebooks and BMC politics for decades and this is my main online home so I don't want to keep changing my profile here.

In reply to johncook:

Yet I did speak at that meeting on that point John. Both Peak reps are pretty new in experiencing the 'rougher end' of BMC politics and are understandably nervous about limits at a sensitive time. I'm a 'battle scarred old hand' and am clear where the limits lie and what the meeting could be informed of sensibly.

In reply to Offwidth:

Why is the 382 unreliable? It's 0.5% of voting members recorded at the previous AGM. If the member data is in the AGM minutes/documentation it's there in black and white?

In reply to galpinos:

Jonathan explained the complications in determining the exact number of BMC voting members at a fair particular defined date in one of these threads. Doing this will be more reliable in future as more work has been done recently to disaggregate multiple club memberships, slight variations in names etc and a member being 18 on a motion submission date (alongside Council looking at reducing the future voting age, as Andy Say raised).

I see the more important factor is that 0.5% was a fairly arbitrary number set at about the right level to retain a viable member democratic route for an AGM motion, if there were major membership concerns. O.5% was set in the Articles as just that, it's now being interpreted as 0.500%. In maths rounding terms (to the nearest  significant figure/decimal place) plenty of signatories numbers below 382 are also arguably 0.5%; so it all depends on interpretation of definitions that are maybe currently not exact enough. The BMC with Council input will decide on these motions informed by formal advice but I think there is already clear evidence this 0.5% number and the process probably need looking at for future AGMs (especially so if we do stick to exactly 382).

In reply to Offwidth:

to be fair thats not the issue, if it  is taken as the number reported (even if that is inaccurate, or just plain wrong) then the 0.5 can be calculated.  I think that it would be easier if the articles were updated annually to reflect an exact number based on the .5%  rule /calculation and  eg

Minimum number for 2025 AGM is XXX (calculated as 0.5 * YYYYYY  as reported at 2024 AGM)

or similar (and updated the document i linked to be clearer).   I dont actually care much about what the calculation is  (though the number seems high to me and 250 would seem reasonable), but it would be unambiguous. The rule could of course have an upper bound eg MIN(.5% , 250 )

In reply to UKB Shark:

Thank you for that. A decent statement of appreciation.

In reply to UKB Shark:

Fair play.

TBH reading the handbook can pay dividends, you will surprised how many reciprocal rights huts you can access.

Also, if going to a new climbing area or doing a specific route and want some inside knowledge ring the guidebook writer or first ascencionist.

Also if one reads the handbook, or we could say instruction manual, it saves asking busy officers of the club, stupid questions that one would have known the answer to if the handbook had been read.

Same applies to all clubs the handbook is something organic developed over generations of climbers and there is a wealth of information if one chooses to look. <rant over>

Good luck with your endeavor and enjoy Kalymnos and have a Mythos for me.

In reply to lithos:

I agree but the articles say 0.5% of voting members reported at the previous AGM (actual Articles details copied below) so that is what we should use. However, it's not certain these Voting Member numbers were clearly enough defined in recent past AGMs, the spirit of why 0.5% was set seems to have been forgotten, and the Articles definitions of what constitutes Voting Members are arguably not all as consistent as they should be. Hence my view on some flexibility consistent with advice and a new look at the Articles after the AGM.

In setting a suitable level for a members' AGM motion, percentages were considered up to 5% (a common value for Company AGMs) but 5% was felt to be much too high for BMC democracy.

Most of the relevant section of the Articles ( in sections, with some comments of mine between them):

Also relevant is the definition of "Voting Members" at the start of the Articles:

Then 16.1 that the definition refers to (which is less well defined on Voting Members than in 11.10):

In reply to Offwidth:

I may be dreaming but isn't the cleanest way out here for "someone on a committee" (not sure which committee has the power and this is not aimed at you) to say , ok, we will put them on the agenda because there is an obvious significant interest in them being discussed - and dispense with this stupid game of verification that is wasting everyone's valuable time.

I think these should be discussed, if only to potentially rule out the split option (I don't have an opinion on it but would back the status quo unless a very compelling argument could be made that the split would be better)

In reply to Snyggapa:

The idea of Members Council doing exactly that has been discussed quite a bit on here. 

In reply to lithos:

The reported figure in the last annual report is lower than the figure used to calculate the 382 which I am presuming is because it included non-voting (ie under 18) members so I am glad that was subtracted. The number of Memberships, Members and Voting Members quite often gets confused, understandably. 

In reply to Godwin:

Thank you 🍻

In reply to Snyggapa:

That would require the Appointed Officer of the Gumption Committee to raise a Request for a Significant Deviation from The One Way. As I am sure you know, this has to be done using the Rune Stone, which has recently been put in for repairs following the incident in 2004. If you could show a little faith and patience whilst the repairs are completed etc…

In reply to Snyggapa:

That's exactly what Council are trying to do. The difference is Council supports the CEO's new plan (a changed departmental structure with 'GB Climbing' funding ringfenced, as it should have been all along) and wants a debate on comparative benefits cf other possible structures, including Simon's proposal. Council don't just want debate on a motion on the BMC forming a subsidiary. We were told the CEOs paper should be ready for debate at the next area meetings (soon), the next Open Forum and the AGM.

Verification isn't stupid by the way it's a legal requirement in member democracy. It's just a lot harder to verify a few hundred votes than 25.... hence the BMC recommended Web form route

In reply to lithos:

The number of members reported at the '23 AGM was 83,018. When the request for a resolution came in the staff immediately 'cleaned' that number of non-voting members; largely under 18's. That why the threshold for Simon is significantly lower than 0.5% of 83,018!

Thom and I have agreed that it might be a good idea 'for the avoidance of doubt' to report both numbers to the AGM.

The idea of changing the Articles annually to give a definite figure would, unfortunately, require a resolution to amend the Articles be be put to the vote of the members annually. Trying to refine the 'formula' might be simpler. A working party is currently looking at aspects of the Articles focussed on the idea of lowering the voting age but we might be able to take that in.

In reply to Snyggapa:

'Some people on a Council' are prepared to consider exactly that. As well as going direct to the AGM there is the facility for someone with support from 25 members (yes, that's 25 not 250!) to request Members' Council to consider the resolution and if adopted approve it for the AGM.

No request has, as yet, been made to Council. 

'Stupid game of verification'? Honestly? Someone produces a list of names and says, 'they're all Members, honest', and the BMC is supposed to say 'fair enough, crack on'?

In reply to Thugitty Jugitty:

Fixed that for you 👍

In reply to UKB Shark:

Also fixed that for you. I'm on a roll....

In reply to Andy Say:

That's pragmatically what the BMC have done, but I don't recall Voting Members ever being reported at the AGM, as per 11.10, since the Articles change. Also my recall of the old debate was 0.5% was not meant to be so exact as it was codified.

If it makes people feel any better other organisations run into problems when rules change and the BMC is the best organisation I have ever formally represented or been employed by in terms of taking member democracy seriously.

I'd further add Thugitty Juggity made me smile as having spent nearly 40 years involved in high level governance issues the BMC, and especially it's Articles, still sometimes make my head hurt.

In reply to Offwidth:

OK, so why doesn't the Council just put Simon's motions on the AGM agenda, together with a motion of it's own supporting the CEO's plan, so that the options can be debated, and the members can decide? This would circumvent the dog's dinner of a verification process which seems to be taking up way too much valuable officer time, and would be entirely constitutional. (I'm assuming there is a constitutional way for the Council to place items on the AGM agenda). 

If the Members Council is convinced of the validity of it's case in support of the CEO's plan, then it should surely be confident of persuading the membership to support it too. It is, after all, the Members Council. I, for one, will be paying careful attention to the arguments on each side before casting my vote. I don't have a predetermined view, except that something needs to be done to ensure that members' subscriptions are used, and are seen to be used, to support the aspects of the BMC's work that serve members' interests.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

Putting two mutually incompatible motions on the same agenda doesn't seem like a good way to structure a meeting to me. What if members were persuaded by Simon's motion and voted it through, then were later persuaded by arguments in favour of the CEO's proposal and voted that motion through too? More realistically, how do you keep debate tied to a single specific motion when another motion to be debated later is so inextricably linked to it? Having a combined debate and decision on all the options seems much more sensible to me, and seems like what MC are considering.

In reply to Martin Hore:

It reminds me of the old joke:

Driver "Excuse me, can you please help me?  Can you tell me how I can get to X".

Local pedestrian "Don't start from here"

We are partly stuck because Simon chose not to use the web form (designed to avoid such staff effort) and I'm guessing partly as the subsidiary motion has significant extra resources implications and serious potential risks that could be regarded as irresponsible for the governance structures to actively encourage, in a time we are overstretched on finance and workloads, and given we last had that debate in 2018, and given it's hardly being inclusive to our comp members.

We were kind to proposers in 2017 and the motion ended up doing real damage to the BMC (despite being defeated), and we rightly set off a process that ended up with much tighter rules for the future.

Yet despite the many obvious issues in the last year member communication from the BMC has been terrible at times and never as good as it should have been (although with the new CEO there are real signs this is likely to change quickly). This is why I have posted so much on the subsidiary subject as I knew extra costs and real risks of a subsidiary option were known on Board and Council but nobody was saying enough to members on the website, Forums or Areas. I repeatedly asked for more to be said, then decided to start posting.  I don’t think it's making me especially popular on any side of the debate, as: I've not towed the line the BMC might prefer; I have pointed out real issues on the subsidiary proposal;  I have annoyed some UKC regulars who just wish it would all just go away. I did it because I care passionately about the staff and volunteers of the BMC, whose good and important work governance structures just facilitate. Their work has been impacted enough by unintended consequences of formalised governance arguments and we don't need more such impacts in my view.

The new department structure proposals are new because the CEO is new, and he has a plan, despite working in parallel on numerous other big issues.

In reply to Offwidth:

Steve, you can’t decide not to use something that you didn’t know existed. Simon’s dealt with that already. You’re doing him a disservice by perpetuating this.

Please see my response on the other thread.  We’ve all had our fill of this.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Simon was told about  the process in Feb by Andy Syme after he returned from a holiday. The web form was only required when the proposals had garnered enough support (much more recently). The web form or paper submission was advertised less well than it should have been by the BMC but was in web news and AGM notifications on several occasions since 2020 (when it came in force). Most BMC governance 'wonks' knew about the process and Simon is certainly one of those and I'm surprised he missed it. Andy also told him about problems with Change.org verification.

In addition on your other two assertions, no issues as yet have been identified of incorrect BMC database information nor in transfer of club data, wrt these proposed motions. 

I do sympathise with Simon (when putting myself in his shoes) with some aspects of what happened, but he also hasn't helped himself on other aspects (I feel no need to list these again). I've been open about other problems that concern a few of us on Council.

I'm tired as well but I'd thank all those members who have privately supported me for trying to clear up information and statements that needed clarification and making a position on the very real issues associated with a subsidiary proposal (that given risks, are in my view something the BMC should have publicly done from February).

I'd certainly never trust anyone indicating someone should 'shut up' on important issues in a democratic debate around potential formal motions with big resource implications and institutional risks. 

In reply to Luke90:

Agreed in part. Yes, the debate needs to be combined, with all the options on the table. That's three options: Simon's proposal, the CEO's proposal, and no change. Then, if the constitution/articles permit, conduct a single transferable vote to decide. Voters put 1, 2, 3 beside the three options. The least favoured option is discarded and the second preferences of those who favoured the discarded option are redistributed. Pretty standard stuff. If the constitution/articles do not permit this, then do it anyway, as non-binding, and subsequently (if necessary, at a quickly convened EGM) put the winning option forward as a single binding motion.

I would reasonably confidently anticipate victory for the CEO proposal which I understand will have the support of the Members Council.  If not, the Council have seriously misread the membership's views, or seriously overestimated their ability to convince the undecided (eg me) of the merits of the CEO proposal.

Martin

In reply to Offwidth:

He was told about the process by Andy after he had already started the change.org petition. You can’t claim someone chose not to close the barn door if the didn’t know the barn door even existed when the horse bolted.

The claim that all 80k records in the BMC database are 100% accurate is laughable. I’m sorry but that would be completely unprecedented. And there’s anecdotal evidence of people on here saying they’re not members and are still contacted as if they are, and others who are but can’t be matched. Or found at all.   I’d happily bet my house on there being errors in there.

Not sure what your last paragraph in reference to?

In reply to Offwidth:

 

Simon did not know about the web form when he started his Change petition.

Please can you confirm which part of that sentence you don't understand, Steve, because frankly your attempt to argue black is white by means of endless repetition is verging on Trumpian behaviour.  And I know just how offensive you will find that comparison...

Yours

Puzzled of Tideswell

In reply to Iamgregp:

In my view the petition was the fastest way to register interest. Simon chose not to use the web form later, for his own reasons. In terms of registering member concerns on openess and transparency the petition has been really useful evidence for Council.

I'm not claiming total accuracy on databases,  I worked professionally alonside computer scientists, so I 'know the score'. I'm just saying that it's wrong to blame the BMC database and club transfer when the data is provided by individuals or clubs is correct in the BMC in Simon's 'test cases' but member information is just different on Change.org (including postcode generation that is plain shoddy). You should have known better than to perpetuate those points.

In reply to Offwidth:

I've kept out of this debate up till now, but I have a couple of questions/observations:

(a) If Simon had followed the 'approved' procedure an got the require 0.5% would you and MC been happy to see the proposal debated? Yes or no. If 'yes' then why doesn't the MC accept that the proposal has merit and put forward the proposal for the AGM? If 'no' then please admit that you (and the MC) are avoiding this debate purely on a technicality (postcodes and the precision of 0.5%). Neither outcome contravenes any Articles.

(b) At the risk of raising a cliché, "Justice needs to be done and NEEDS TO BE SEEN TO BE DONE". Whatever the outcome of this process, there a real risk that the BMC (and MC) come out of it as dismissive of member opinions, seriously lacking in transparency and not worthy of members' trust. Organisation that lose their members' trust are doomed.

In reply to Neil Foster:

It's hardly black or white.

The reason this happened is Simon didn't find out from the BMC what the process was first. Any of the Peak Area officers or 5 Council rep regulars could have found out for him or he could have emailed other parts of the BMC direct. Andy Syme was unfortunately on holiday but responded as soon as he was back.

In reply to Marek:

a) It's a requirement the debate MUST happen if 382 verified members are reached on a motion by the deadline. I've urged a bit more more flexibility in Council given some real issues I've outlined above and as much assistance for Simon as possible on reaching that. The BMC have defined what that process means and Council haven't rejected that. It's really not technicalities, it's legal requirements.

I've also been clear on the subsidiary proposal another structure has been proposed by the CEO that is preferred by Council and that will be debated as a minimum alongside a subsidiary option and we would expect other suggestions to be reasonably made in that debate. It's a start position for resolving the very real issues that have occurred in GB Climbing to the satisfaction of the membership.

b) unfortunately different people can have different views on justice when they hold opposing strong views where a vote goes one way or another. 

Council is made from a wide set of opinions and constituencies and their dedication to fairness in process (despite strong opposing member views) never stopped in my opinion.

Council have been internally critical of failures in BMC openess and transparency whenever it happened and formally so as a body from last April. We saw some improvements after April and have seen significant improvements recently.

In reply to Offwidth:

In Simon’s view the petition was how he was going to get his motions tabled. Because he didn’t know about the form until later. I’ll go with his view on his actions rather than yours. 

I suggested that there are inaccuracies in the database (which you’re now agreeing with?) but didn’t say that these are the only, nor even largest cause. It’s a factor undoubtably, but I also said there’s no fault or blame on this so painting me as blaming the issues on this is yet another misrepresentation.

In reply to Offwidth:

Sorry, but you're dodging the question. I didn't ask what happen if the criteria are met, but if they are NOT met.

The issue is not whether the MC sees 'justice' or not. It's what the members see, and at the moment it looks like the MC is more interested in protecting the BMC management from the members than representing the members to the BMC. This may of course not be reality, but in this situation 'appearances' are critical to maintaining trust. Perhaps as you say with the new CEO things will eventually improve, but regaining any trust lost is far, far harder than working to not lose it in the first place.

In reply to Marek:

Two separate things here. 'Happy to see the proposal debated' is different to accepting 'the proposal has merit'. Don't you agree?

And NO. Members' Council are NOT avoiding this debate on a 'technicality'. We are trying to follow 'rules'. If the BMC broke those published rules can you imagine the screams of outrage.....

And one of those 'rules' currently is that Members' Council has no power to put this forward to the AGM unless Simon asks us to. Bonkers? Damn right. And I'm trying to get an amendment to the Articles that says explicitly that the body representing the members CAN simply put a resolution to the AGM.

Could I be cheeky and ask how you voted seven years ago when the members voted to remove power from the then National Council and give primacy to the Board?

In reply to Offwidth:

Apologies from posting from the sidelines, but "your comp members" appear to also be really quite unhappy with the status quo, non? And, as voting members, are surely capable of voting as they wish at tha AGM - non? 

In reply to tehmarks:

Of course they can! I bloody hope they do!

All BMC members can vote. And some of us are working to get under-18s able to vote; which might just empower some of the youth squad members?

In reply to Andy Say:

I do indeed. Perhaps I should have chosen my word more carefully to avoid the ambiguity.

Err, the BMC have track record of breaking rules, but perhaps only when it suits them?

I wasn't aware of that detail. Bonkers indeed. I assume that Simon hasn't done so due to that other Byzantine rule about 'either/or but not both'?

Yes you can. But unfortunately I can't remember. I don't generally get too excited about matter of governance but in this case I can't but feel that the BMC seems to be trying on its 'governing body' hat - which frankly doesn't fit too well - and has forgotten where it put its 'representative body' one. As I said before, that may not be the reality, but it certainly is the appearance.

In reply to Andy Say:

Does it have to be Simon that asks the MC to consider the resolutions, if not I would like to make the request?

In reply to Steve Woollard:

you need 25 votes Steve - easy - i wonder if the bmc have a survey tool to help you   (not that it hadn't occured to me or everyone else - but not to piss on Simon's parade ...)

In reply to lithos:

I was thinking whether I could use the members that have already voted for the resolutions and been verified as they don't belong to Simon but are linked to the resolutions

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Are they kept in a basement in a locked cupboard with a sign saying ‘Beware of the leopard’. It’s all a bit Vogon, this caper. Promises that the new CEO has the same idea as Simon, but better, are a bit rich but others testify to their substance. Weird old world sometimes.