UKH

Dear Simon

The BMC Staff have now validated the member votes in support for your 2 resolutions as detailed below. Validation of membership is an important part of the integrity of this process; Article 11.11 allows the board to verify that all signatories are valid voting members. To ensure this the BMC have spent a considerable amount of staff hours and resource ensuring the validation is accurate.  

 Resolution 1 

Validated Members 320

Validated not Members 42

Unvalidated 146  

 Resolution 2 

 Validated Members 279

 Validated not Members 39

 Unvalidated 140

In both cases the resolutions failed to reach the threshold defined in Article 11.8.1 that would require them to be raised at the AGM. 

The Members’ Council understand that the subject areas are important to you and others and appreciate the effort made to go through this process.   I also thank you for taking the time to present your proposal to Council on 28 April, having written formally to the Council on 26 April 2024, to review your proposal under Article 11.8.2.   

The Council have considered your resolutions at the Council meeting on 28 April and reached the following conclusions: 

Resolution 1 

Council fully supports the principle of transparency of accounts both in line with our legal obligations and to ensure members understand where money they contribute, or the organisation receives, is used. 

The 2023 accounts and 2024 budget will be published before the AGM and the Board has already committed to providing a clear explanation to members of the GBC and wider financial position as part of the AGM paperwork.  In addition, the members will have opportunities to discuss any concerns further at the Open Forum in May or at the post AGM ‘Drop-In’ Discussions already advertised. 

The 2022 accounts have already been finalised and posted in the 2022 financial audit.  The Council accepts the opinion of the CEO and Chair of the Board that it would be an unacceptable cost in staff and volunteer time to re-open and restate the accounts to provide the information required, and such effort would not move the BMC forward or be a use of BMC resources that would benefit Members.  

The Council therefore rejected the proposed resolution. 

Resolution 2 

The Council recognise the need to discuss the future of GB Climbing within the wider BMC structure.  This has already started, is being facilitated at the current round of Area Meetings, as well as in the Open Forum in May and will be discussed with staff and stakeholders and at the post AGM ‘Drop-In’, which we encourage you to be part of.  

The proposal made would, in the opinion of Council, be very detrimental to a significant section of our membership.  Holding a vote at this time could also significantly damage the BMCs reputation with partners and potentially further jeopardise the funding we receive.  This would not be in the interests of the BMC or its members.  As is detailed in the implications paper. 

The Council fully supports the proposals and process of consultation outlined by the Chair and President in the statement published on 28 April https://thebmc.co.uk/bmc-member-update. 

The Council therefore rejected the proposed resolution. 

In line with Article 11.8.2 (b) “The decision of the Council is final in this regard and the proposed resolution, or materially similar resolutions, may not be raised again under Article 11.8.2 until at least 12 months have elapsed since the date of the submission of the first resolution to the Council under this Article 11.8.2.” The date of submission is recorded as 26 April 2024; i.e. the date you sent the email requesting Council review. 

Whilst recognising you may be disappointed with these decisions Council hopes that you can agree that we have followed the processes defined in the Articles and made our decisions based on what we collectively believe are the needs of the whole of our diverse community of Members and participants across our range of activities. 

kind regards

Andy

Andy Syme ‑ President​​​​

Email: President@thebmc.co.uk

Web: https://thebmc.co.uk

Working for Climbers, Hill
​Walkers
​& Mountaineers since 1944

Manchester

M20 2BB

Thank you everyone who voted and gave other support.

I don’t have anything else to say at this point

"Holding a vote at this time could also significantly damage the BMCs reputation ..."

Hah!

Ha hah!

Hah hah hah hah ha!

I see this as a partial win, and good enough as far as I am concerned. You have achieved a much higher degree of accountability for GBC spending by the BMC - well done. Additionally your work has helped publicise the organizational issues in GBC which have led to significant disquiet among the athletes. Again, a valuable piece of work, and one that has led to staff changes at GBC.

I never supported the second motion, although I supported it being discussed, and it was very clear it had much lower support than the financial transparency petition.

Overall, I think that however imperfect the process has been, it has arrived at the right result. I know it is not what you had been arguing for, but I do think your work has improved things. Thank you.

It's now time to see what the new BMC CEO and GBC management do over the next year to improve GBC spending, and athlete confidence on GBC.

I personally have lost all confidence in the BMC being able to move forward. These petitions were very different to the the the vote of no confidence a few years ago, this seemed like someone genuinely getting involved and trying to improve things for all of us as members.

I personally probably wouldn't have voted for the split but it damn well should have been discussed, but for me the biggest shame is the not even being willing to discuss how much GBC is costing. Then there is how the BMC has been openly treated Simon! With this much clear support for atleast one (if not both) motion he couldn't get it tabled I hold no hope at all should anything else come up. 

I will be cancelling my membership as soon as I can work out how.

I'm inclined to think the same way. May I ask what the main difficulty is? Replacing the public liability or other insurance? Entanglement with the MLTE training/awards? Something else?

I’ve just cancelled my direct debit 

You can't beat 'The Establishment' mate.

The BMC lost any respect off me since Aldery Cliff.

They've got cronyism written all over them.

There are a few things you could accuse the BMC of; and a few of us would hold our hands up and say, 'its a fair cop'.

But Aldery Cliff? Are you thinking of the duff lower-offs and tree destruction of a few years ago? That had nothing to do with the BMC; it was a 'lone wolf'.

And 'cronyism'?

It was more the HOW. A cursory Google doesn't come up with anything, I guess cancelling my direct debit might do it.

I will join MS for public liability, I don't use my MLTA tickets any more so not worried about that. Supporting access negotiations is a massive moral bind but I'm sure somewhere will take my money 

"Piss of pesky members. The mighty   board/council/exec know what's best for you"

The Council voting members are all elected by you.  They made this decision.

https://thebmc.co.uk/bmc-members-council?s=5

They are a very disperate group who all are volunteering to make the BMC better.  We often have very different views from each other we have to work through, but on this were united.

Maybe you might give them some credit for actually being intelligent enough to have considered the options and implications and making a decision which they feel is best for the BMC.  

If you think they are doing a bad job you can talk to them, or even stand against them so the decisions in the future are better because of your input.

The same applies to the Board BTW.

I think the membership is also intelligent enough to be allowed to have the opportunity to consider the options and implications and make a decision which they feel is best for the BMC but that is now denied to them. 

It is a paradoxical twist of fate, Mr Lee, had you adhered to the prescribed procedure, the prospect of securing ample votes in favour of your resolution(s) would have been well within your grasp. 

Maybe this will serve as a poignant testament to the consequences of obstinacy, impeding your own progress, as you have unwittingly thwarted your own aspirations through sheer obstinance. 

Good grief!

We set rules on BMC voting processes which were ratified by large majorities at an AGM by members and are enshrined legally in our Articles of Association under company law. Simon's motions did not come close to meeting the threshold.

I'm saddened some think Council should just have to follow what such failed motions ask for, instead of voting on conscience based on the knowledge they have (as our Council process requires). Passing such a highly contentious motion as the subsidiary motion automatically to AGM would just negate our rules (and due to the significant implications might even cause legal challenge, from an equally significant minority who strongly oppose Simon's ideas). It would mean the 0.5% of voting members requirement would become legally meaningless, despite being included as a legal requirement in our Articles.

You may as well say "piss off agreed democratic process and company law" if Council have to mindlessly back something that fails to make the 0.5%.

There are also major ethical issues if Council had to ignore what they know, and agree a motion that they unanimously saw as incurring extra costs, extra staff resources, serious extra risks, disenfranchisement of comp members and a risk to the future of viability of what is currently covered within GB Climbing (a real risk given Simon wanted all 'subsidy' phased out, despite that being in place for decades... at a steady 1.5 FTE staff, plus IFSC costs and contracts for coaches etc). I'd say that's letting way more members down, as all those  known costs (and potential extra costs from risks) would go on increases in subscriptions. Important work would be delayed to meet staff time on the subsidiary. Last but not least, comp climbing members would end up suffering even more disadvantage than they already have.

I have no confidence. Just sayin'. In case anyone were to ask....

Wouldn't want those stupid thick annoying members who they represent to have a say. They might get it wrong.

It might have been mentioned.

Anyway, 

youtube.com/watch?v=p8aulstjbV8&

In the largest vote ever at the 2018 AGM 6057 Members voted to change the articles to 0.5% for a resolution, or via Members Council  Those are the criteria the members thought were correct.

If you or any member wants to discuss this or anything else then come to the open forum or an area meeting and have your say.

https://thebmc.co.uk/open-forum-webinar-series

320 members want to discuss this so I anticipate someone will. And we all know what the outcome won't be.

Not everything was done to try and validate. 

I requested that the validation criteria was relaxed in recognition of how the Change location info worked such that if a name was unique on the BMC database then if it matched a signatory with a postcode within 5 or 10 miles of the BMC recorded address. I’m fairly sure this didn’t happen. 

I also requested that if the thresholds weren’t met that a last ditch email was sent out by the BMC Office to the non matched names to ask if they had signed the resolution. This definitely didn’t happen. 

Given the numbers submitted (512 for financial disclosure and 462 for the subsidiary) a common sense view is that there were at least 382 members in there.

MC as a members representative body had the power and should have supported inclusion on the AGM.

It is as out of touch in my opinion as it was when it voted unanimously for rebranding the BMC to Climb Britain.

Less than 12 months to put things in order and reconcile conflicting aims, funding and cost of supporting a very broad church of participants in outdoor recreational climbing, hill walking and mountaineering with a much smaller group of juvenile indoor competition climbers. If not then motions will no doubt arrive at next year’s AGM via fully compliant processes.

I signed the petition for Resolution 1. The existence of the petition has caused the BMC to agree to greater financial transparency, which is a good thing. So I'm happy with the result.

Many years ago Sun Tzu pointed out that actually taking to the field of battle was often the worst option.

I don't even have confidence in the processes. 512 names went in. 320 came out. Who says so? Oh, yeah, that's right, the BMC does.

I've no doubt the staff doing the validation were thorough, but I have my doubts about what was allowed to be called valid. 

Well there wasn't a motion was there. It was blocked.

So no representation...

If petitions supported by large numbers and, from posts on here, clearly overwhelming wider support for consideration are met with blank refusal to do anything, I somehow doubt a quick chat will have much effect.

The validation process the staff used is the same they always use and had no input to change from others. Not only would I suggest the staff would not accept being told to validate differently if they had I'm sure they would have talked to friends and said so. It is very unfair to suggest staff, many of who have worked for the BMC for years, would not have had the nonce and moral courage to allow or not let members know if they were being asked to do 'the wrong thing'.

512 went in 362 came out as 42 were validated as not members (eg ex members)

This issue is change org provides a name and postcode (often based on IP address).  The form Simon was asked to use would have included BMC number and other items so it would have been easier for all.

I’ll criticise the BMC until the cows come home, but I don’t see how they could put this to a vote if they didn’t have enough valid signatures. Where does the line get drawn next time somebody wants to put something forward? The threshold is presumably there to prevent having to deal with 300 resolutions at every AGM on everyone’s pet peeve. Maybe it’s too high, I don’t know, but the BMC are in bit of a bind here, and I don’t think it’s on them to do all the proactive validation work. Again, where would this end? I could claim 1000 signatures for a motion that the BMC gives everyone free beer and then burden them with validation work for weeks on end.

it was supported by less than the number of members than a much larger number of members though was minimum necessary to go on the AGM. 

We can't know how many people didn't want it on the AGM as that option wasn't ever tested so we work off the processes we have.

I think a quick chat is often far better in understanding issues than discussions on these type of forums.  Please join one.  Or DM me and I'll give you my number for a chat.

Presumably one reason why there is a members council  - to filter vexatious proposals. When however, as here, the council blocks clearly supported and obviously desirable proposals (answering: where has all the money gone?), something is wrong 

The validation process has never been used before so I don’t know how you can say it’s the same process as has always been used. This has been new territory and I’m not criticising the staff here. I don’t know exactly what your guidance was in how the parameters were set but I suspect it was significant. You stated from the outset you were against it and have been unhelpful every step of the way which is remarkable given your remit as members champion.

I’m still waiting back on why 7 people who were counted as not members from the initial search emailed me to confirm they where with their membership numbers 

Yes I think everyone following this knows this now. If I was able to start again I wouldn’t use Change but I also wouldn’t use the BMC webform either. Instead I would ask people to email me so that I had their email addresses as another data point for verification and so I could chase them up directly for member numbers and other info if required by the Office. I would advise others thinking about next years AGM to follow that process. 

You seem incredulous, having eschewed the straightforward process on this occasion and subsequently experiencing failure. Consequently, you are advocating against its utilisation by others in the future. Such a suggestion could be deemed imprudent. 

And neither should it have, as far as I'm concerned. If something is required to be voted on by BMC members, the validation should be that they "are BMC members", not "people who know the names of BMC members and live near enough them map an IP address to a postcode within 10 miles of them". You could probably have signed up half of the Sheffield scene under those criteria, had you wished.

To an extent yes, but so what, when that's only due to a genuine practical problem: we can't present detail on 2022 information that we don't know and wasting valuable staff time digging in the old accounts system for something we dont know won't help. No one in the BMC is trying to hide information we do know, just the opposite.

The 320 members will get there answer on where the money went in 2023 (the year with by far the biggest problems) as soon as the 2023 accounts are signed off and, worst case, that has to be on the deadline for publication of AGM papers. However, we already know pretty much all of the news of financial problems though leaks to Simon (not always accurate) and Council replies (where inaccuracies were important to correct).

No one is stopping debate on anything but our Articles must be met for members motions to be submitted directly to the AGM and Council agreement can never be automatic.

Council have a list of concerns they want to look at following this mess and if critics want to make sure these are taken seriously they should stand in their Local Area ( I think we currently have 6 vacancies), or as an NEC (2 vacancies). Anyone representing any diversity would be particularly welcome.

I stated in 2018 I was against splitting off competitions and have never changed that view.  

I did contact you as soon as the petition was raised, and I got back from the FI, to tell you that there was a better easier process.  You didn't want to follow that process.  After you took that decision I'm not sure what else you would have expected me to do?

I would imagine you think everyone knows who you are, but I thought someone called Lynn was President of the BMC. Could be helpful to the uninitiated  if you sign off your posts as President of BMC.

Fair play to you for attempting to engage though.

That implies that I would have invented names. The number of validated names indicates that is not the case. If there was doubt a sample audit by the Office of contacting a random selection of signatories could have been undertaken. 

The staff validate members all the time even members who move house and forget their BMC Number.  They designed the form based on the information that is necessary to validate members from their extensive experience of doing this.

Will you could now do what I’ve requested and send out a bulk email to the unverified signatories asking if it was them

Why do you not just use this webform thingamajig that the BMC tribe keep saying you have to use. When dealing with a bunch of jobsworths they love hiding by procedure, they will always try and hide behind it until you get frustrated and clear off.
Just start again with the web form thing, frustrating I am sure, but a clear path.

That requires trust and that seems to be the largely limiting factor at the moment 

I'm pointing out that your proposal opens the door to rampant fraud, not suggesting anyone did. The possibility is more than enough to render it wholly inappropriate.

I struggle to see what you think the problem would be with members adding a few pieces of data on a webform. Bottom line we just need a member's name as it appears on the database,  their postcode as it appears on the database and their membership number. Even if the automated IT system broke, such data could easily be checked by hand ( unlike change.org data).

Your recommendation seems to me to stray towards, Peter Cook territory  "I learn from my mistakes. I can repeat them exactly."

In reply:

Good grief this thread now has the all-time UKC record number of dislikes. More than Jeremy Corbyn's manifesto got ha ha ha

Storm in a teacup? If this storm escapes the teacup it'll wreck half of Texas

I was once in a climbing club where too many members were focused on procedures and rules than on actually climbing. Good for them and I don't care but...... hit the rock folks

Thanks for listening rant over

Nothing stopping anyone setting up a new organisation entirely focused on what the BMC should be doing. Access, conservation, crag maintenance. Rather than politics, councils, rules and mismanagement

 It doesn't imply you would have done it. The point is that anyone with internet access could do it, the petition site has no guardrails at all. It probably hasn't happened in this case, but there has to be a reasonably robust verification process or anyone could get anything they wanted on the agenda.

The number of validated names indicates nothing at all about the validity of the remainder. How could it?

I’ve answered you on this already:

OP UKB Shark17 Apr 2024

In reply to Offwidth:

Hardly declined - I didn’t know it existed - nor did hardly anyone else. It’s not in the articles or on the governance page of the BMC website. You didn’t flag up its existence on the initial thread where I publicised the petition and it was only flagged up by Andy Say some time after the petition got going. It is also an unproven system and likely not to be as easy to use as the Change website which could be detrimental to getting the absurdly high level of numbers required. I’ve had a couple of failed passes to follow the MSO invitation link and given up and the webform could be equally clunky.

It also takes ownership and control away from the person starting the petition with information going in a black box handled by the Office who are not always neutral parties.

The BMC database could also be flawed. We would never know if there was mistakes in the systems and process. Where would the checks and balances be? 

I’m sure you will say the website and comms are great and the webform will be efficient, user friendly  and accurate but you don’t know that - no one does as it has never been tested.

I am not a fan of the BMC as is, and would like to see you succeed, however could I gently say, step back, reassess. What you are doing is clearly not going to work, and slowly you are going to lose any sympathy you have. So maybe just maybe try something else, possibly the BMC webform. 

Infact, I bet someone like Andy Say would even help you set it up.

But get it done soon, before the weather improves and everyone totally loses interest.

All the best.

It has also been pointed out to me that the form for validating members for resolutions is the same one used validating peoples registrations for competitions and other events where BMC Membership is a requirement.  It is not untested.

Fair point.  I assumed as the thread started with an email with the signature block and I post under my name, not a username, it was understood.

Plus signing off posts on here as BMC President seems a bit odd.

It’s too late now and the way the articles have been interpreted in the letter at the start of the thread the resolution can’t be added until the 2026 AGM st the earliest. 

Okay. For the common person, and I am very common, all these articles and guff are a bit tedious and seem designed to frustrate.

Is there no way that The Committee cannot say, if you do the Webform and the required votes, they could get it added to the 2025 AGM.

Which seems to be meeting in the middle.

Sorry if I am being oversimplistic.

"It also takes ownership and control away from the person starting the petition with information going in a black box handled by the Office who are not always neutral parties.

The BMC database could also be flawed. We would never know if there was mistakes in the systems and process. Where would the checks and balances be?"

You have really jumped the shark here. You don't trust the BMC office staff and you don't trust the BMC membership database. It all sounds very Trumpian.

Make Climbing Great Again?

Oh for goodness sake! Every organisation I know has procedures in place for submitting resolutions. It is reasonable that to get onto the agenda that they should be able to attract a reasonable level of support, otherwise anyone with a bee in their bonnet could put forward resolutions which would have no hope of getting passed, a lot of time would be wasted and nothing material could be decided. A threshold of 0.5% of the membership does not seem to me to be unrealistic or unachievable.  It is also essential that those supporting it should actually be members, for what should be obvious reasons, and that their membership can be verified.

You chose to raise these petitions on a platform which does not allow the BMC to verify those signing it. You say you were not aware of the webform, but a brief search of the BMC website quickly took me to the page announcing this year's AGM which spells out the procedure for submitting resolutions and which explains that a webform will be set up to allow members to support it.  Even when this was pointed out to you, you declined to use it.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-annual-general-meeting

Despite this, the BMC has devoted resources to trying to verify memberships, but has been unable to do so in a number of cases. It did not have to do that.

You seem to forget that processes have to be followed if the outcome of a vote is to be valid. This isn't just bureaucratic faff for the sake of it. These are part of the Articles of Association, which is a formal document for the governance of the organisation. If, despite failing to reach the threshold, your resolutions were put to the AGM and passed, the results would be open to challenge because the correct procedures hadn't been followed. I'm sure you would (justifiably) be quick to complain if the rules were bent to allow in something with which you disagreed.

You have asked some important questions (although I don't agree with your answers), but if you intend to submit resolutions to an AGM it seems obvious to enquire how to go about it, which is not difficult to find out. By failing to ask this basic question you have brought all this on yourself. It seems to me the BMC has bent over backwards to try to assist you, which they need not have done.

That webpage is dated 29 Feb. which I think was after the petition started. Was the information readily available previously? If so, Id say you have a point, otherwise not.

I have to say you come across as an AI trained mostly on Jacob Rees-Mogg’s public pronouncements.

If not, it is clearly set out in the Articles of Association. Or he could have phoned the BMC Office.  I repeat, if someone wants to submit a resolution to the AGM surely the first thing to do is to find out how to go about it?

This is quite clearly a sock puppet account made by an existing user.

At least have the b*lls to post this from you own account mate. We all know who you are.

As I understand it, only by ignoring binding agreements that have been voted for by members at an AGM. Aside from any company law implications, the phrase “be careful what you wish for” comes to mind; if they can be ignored at will, there’s nothing binding the organisation  to respect the outcome of resolutions that do get to AGM. 

Ignoring the agreed processes strikes me as an odd thing for so many to be calling for in a dispute about accountability and good governance. 

The suggestion was to follow the official procedures to try to get these motions added to the 2025 AGM - i.e. next year's. How would that be 'ignoring binding agreements' and 'ignoring the agreed processes'?

From the BMC response shared in the OP “the same or materially similar” resolution can’t be raised again within 12 months. It was Simon who said that effectively means the 2026 AGM at the earliest, I assume because 12 months would take us past the point where it would be possible to submit a resolution to the next AGM but I don’t know.

If it can be done legally in time for the 2025 AGM then crack on, but Godwin seemed to be asking why the “tedious” articles needed to be followed. 

No, I was not asking why, just pointing out that they are tedious and possibly why many people cannot be bothered to engage, probably losing the will to live at Para 10, Sub Section 1a, Line 6.

As to, "From the BMC response shared in the OP “the same or materially similar” resolution can’t be raised again within 12 months.” I would say it is arguable to say it has not actually been raised, as Simon did not follow the correct procedure, therefore the raising was actually rejected, so never actually happened.

Can’t see that argument getting very far. It was rejected as a direct addition to the AGM because it didn’t have enough verifiable signatures, and was put to the council (as it did have enough signatures for that) and was turned down on the merits of the resolution itself, not on some technicality or irregularity in the process followed to get it there. Nowhere have I seen it suggested that Simon’s approach was fundamentally invalid and couldn’t even be considered for inclusion at the AGM if it had the votes. 

You got me!!!

My name is Rishi Sunak.

Sorry but there is currently a cruise missile flying towards your place. You have 6 minutes 20 seconds to get out. Good luck.

I think, as a member of both Members' Council and the Board, that is about right. Unless this gets turned round financially by the start of next year and organisationally by AGM '25 then we can call it failure.

.

In my opinion the staff involved in the process are straight as a die. They were asked to verify memberships. They tried. And it took considerable staff time to go through them all manually.

I know many people are unhappy but, at bottom, 'valid' is 'valid' (i.e certain) not 'might be OK'. I know that seems harsh and isn't what Simon wanted but we do have to be mindful of challenge from 'the other side'!

More Vogon admin I see. ‘Yes, we may have lost track of the finances, but you didn’t raise the correct chitty to challenge, sorry.’. Regardless of the process Simon, and whether or not you followed it, you have certainly outed some priceless member feedback in all of this. Well done; it’s a good thing. 

That's my opinion as well.

Yet I'm still worried about various aspects of what happened around these motions in terms of ensuring our processes are as fit for purpose as they should be and publicised in more obvious ways.

Can English residents join the MCofS instead of the BMC to meet the membership requirement for the MTA awards, and the public liability. Thus avoiding the BMC.

The BMC is incredibly important in the maintenance and continued access to climbing areas, plus sustainability, training and hardware standards. Even if there was no insurance associated, I would still buy membership to support it. 

I was informed that my signature was one of the ones diacounted, as I wasn't on the database. I contacted the BMC office and they told me I was indeed a member and gave me my membership number! Not sure what that's about, but seems strange. 

As a past Access Rep, this line is peddled far too often. There are a couple of staff who do a great job on access, but (at least in the North) most negotiation is done by the volunteers.

This could easily be run from an access fund instead. The idea that we need this huge behemoth, with its obsession on growth for growth's sake, in order to do the work that can be done by a couple of people, is really not very true.

How?

Like in the USA?

The last few years from what I've seen...

"We have this big organisation. It's great. 

Oh wait, it's quite expensive. But look how many people go in the hills - if we just get more members, we can pay for this massive organisation. 

Oh damn, we haven't really got any more members and now our overheads are even bigger.

Let's just try and grow more and stop the members seeing what we spend the money on"

Many of the original members then get annoyed and leave...

90+% of people only care about access and the liability cover. That's a tiny part of what the BMC spends its time doing. 

We need to go back to basics. 

I would take the exact opposite view, I'm a club member and the liability insurance is essential for the club to continue to operate but if there were any alternative I would be lobbying hard at club level for it.

The financial performance of the BMC over recent years has been dreadful, they continue to throw money away with no coherent plan to change the way they operate.

This seems absurd. It may now be too late for 2024, but it would be daft for this not to be resolved at the AGM in 2025. I've not read the articles, but presumably they are written to prevent a defeated resolution being re-submitted the following year. Simon's resolutions will not have been defeated - they will not have been put to the vote at all. If a resolution on these matters gains sufficient validated member support between now and March 2025, it must surely be on the 2025 AGM agenda. 

Martin

The response says that the date of the proposal is 26th April because that’s when Simon sent his email. The intention is fairly clear. 

Training isn't BMC, it's MTA. How is the BMC 'British' when a lot of Britains mountain areas are in Scotland, and not in their remit.

Training IS part of the BMC's work. Safeguarding training, training appropriate bolt placement, training footpath repair..... Formal, qualification, training isn't MTA - that is an Association for candidates and award holders that provides CPD. It is the organisations that make up 'Mountain Training' who are responsible for the delivery of training and assessment for formal qualifications.

The BMC is 'British' because that is the name it was given in 1944 and whilst Mountaineering Scotland certainly is the representative body for mountaineers in Scotland it's actually the BMC who represents the whole of Britain at international level (UIAA/IFSC).

Complicated, isn't it?

This doesn't seem to be getting the attention I thought it would..... 

Seems most likely that he just forgot to set his postcode to the right value on Change. Or accidentally entered a postcode from a different address*. It doesn't seem astonishing given what we already knew about the issues with postcodes on Change.

*i.e. an older or newer address than the one registered with the BMC

Exactly this. I “signed” the first resolution on Change when away and it picked up the postcode of where I was (I didn’t realise this would be an issue) so can up as not a member, so I just e-mailed Simon my postcode and membership number. Job done.

It’s not a conspiracy, just a one of the disadvantages with using Change. They’re the same issues that were found last time Change was used for a resolution I believe.

Rubbish. The BMC office provides very limited support to access reps who are volunteers. And again, very very limited support for crag maintenance. Try asking them for money for anything, you won't get much in my experience so far. This is what alot of people think the BMC do at it's core.

It hasn’t been MCoS in while, it’s Mountaineering Scotland now after their re-brand.

No idea on MTA awards.

The BMC have validated than Mr Tzu does not have current membership. 🤣

I requested some training for local volunteers on bolt placement. Got a 1hr webinar when practical training is needed. It was ruled out as it was too expensive and/or not "green" as the trainer would have had to travel. To call that training is a stretch. Also I was expecting to have dates provided last week for safeguarding training, yet to receive it. 

The 12 month stipulation in the response is preceded by “members council decision is final in this regard” so it’s not about resolutions that have been defeated at the AGM. It’ll be to avoid members council being handed the exact same rejected resolution to repeatedly consider on a weekly basis in the hope they eventually get so sick of it they give up and pass it to AGM just to be shot of it.

If the dates work out in such a way that the 12 months elapses before the deadline for getting something on the 2025 AGM there’s presumably nothing to stop it being put forward for the next AGM.

It states a March 25 deadline in the response. 

They manually check each signature and then tell Simon that they've checked the database and my signature isn't valid as I'm not a member. Then I email (without giving a postcode) and they email straight back saying I am a member. That seems a bit weird to me. 

In my experience the people who work at the BMC are honest and hard working, so I'm not sure what to think. But I mustn't be alone in being a member and having had my signature discounted. It seems excessive to expect each person to sign the petition,  keep reading these threads, contact Simon to see if their signature was accepted, contact the BMC, then contact Simon again to give a membership number. I'm not surprised the petition hasn't reached the threshold. 

Add this to the fact that It's evident that the organisation don't want to share this basic information for whatever reason and it does start to seem like an odd coincidence. 

I don't think you need conspiracy to explain that. Presumably your email address provided the extra validation.

Yeh, I'm sure that's what they needed - to differentiate me from all the other Franco Cooksons on the list... 

If they'd have really wanted to check, I'm sure they'd have had my email address from the multiple climbing festivals I've helped organise for them over the years.

It's not just about differentiating you, it's also about whether anyone could have just taken a punt on putting your name into the site to boost the numbers. And as has been pointed out before, that doesn't mean anyone's suggesting funny business in the case of this particular petition, just just there has to be a meaningful validation process.

But the result is a ludicrously high bar for member participation in the democratic process. National petitions for issues to be discussed by UK Parliament seem less strict in their requirements. Bit OTT no? 

If this process was being suggested as the preferred option, then yes, I'd certainly object to it. But there's already a better alternative that any future submissions would hopefully use.

Trying to organise a petition that requires membership through a third-party with no means of verifying that membership was always going to be chaotic. That doesn't mean the BMC should just give up on validation.

As for petitions to Parliament:

1. It's rather easier to verify that a signature comes from somewhere in the UK than from a BMC member
2. Petitions are only 'considered' for debate when they reach the threshold, so they retain the option to just ignore any they really don't like
3. Parliament meets rather more often than once a year, so they can afford to give away relatively small amounts of time to the odd petition

0.5% doesn't seem like a high bar to me, even less ludicrously so. It's only about 400 or so people assuming a membership of around 80,000.  Shark's petition came close, and if he had followed the recommended procedure which would have allowed for better validation then it might well have succeeded, especially as it would then have come to the attention of all BMC members, and not just those on UKC and wherever else he publicised it.

If not 0.5%, what do you should it be? Any figure will to some extent be arbitrary, but to justify taking up time at an AGM a resolution should be able to show a reasonable level of support.

Petitions to Parliament  are a different matter with a much higher base, it would be unrealistic to achieve 0.5% of all registered voters. 

What people seem to overlook is that these requirements are set out in the Articles of Association, which are a formal document under the Companies Act. The Articles were adopted by a Special Resolution, which requires a vote of at least 75%. They cannot simply be ignored, especially when the issue itself concerns governance.

I’m reading 26th April in the response copied in the OP, can’t see any other dates relevant to the 12 month deadline, but either way I’m not sure of your point. Is it just that you think Simon is wrong and it would be possible to get another proposal sorted in time for the 2025 AGM?

400 may be a lot because 1. Many members are only a member because they have to be or are part of a club, 2. Most members are completely turned off by all this shit and would rather the BMC just get on with doing a good / better job.

3. There is no way to communicate with the 80,000 members

4. The "recommended" approach only seems to have been publicised after this whole fiasco started. Possibly better than never but doesn't sound very fair criticise to UKBShark for not following it

5. There is a.strong impression for me that if it hadn't been this adminstrative gotcha, it would have been another. The council and board are clearly both implacably opposed to change and openness.

Wrong. And I sit on both.

my mistake sorry. I was sure that Andy Symes had mentioned a March deadline for next years AGM. Having re read it I was wrong.  For what it’s worth I’m hugely supportive of Simon’s first proposal and pretty supportive of his second. My point was to highlight that Council must have considered at length how to deal with the same proposal in the future, by effectively controlling it to death. 

Why aren't we seeing any change or openness then? We've seen the proposals to shuffle round the structure of GB Climbing and change the name. But the reality for athletes is getting worse this season, not better. 

You've seen proposals for a structural change in how we manage the competition side. There has been a radical change in staffing. We've got a new CEO. Who has made enormous efforts to actually get out to area meetings. Change takes time, you know that.

We have a Board meeting next weekend. Can you pm me with instances of how it is worse this season than it was last season?

However these proposals from Simon have achieved something. They've basically put BMC management on 12 months notice to sort things out otherwise proposals that they may thoroughly dislike will be "properly" submitted for the next AGM.

Hopefully, even if the management of GB Climbing isn't sorted out, they'll at least sort out filling competition quotas etc so that there isn't another 12 months where the development of aspiring athletes isn't hamstrung.

Will do - might take me a day or so to sit down and write it.

Hold the front page!  “CEO of membership organisation attends some members meetings”

[slow clap]

The unfortunate aspect of this is that the BMC are very poor at telling the wider outdoor community what they do. When GBC have a comp or training session they should have a large display explaining the excellent work the BMC actually does. When I asked a GBC person about this I was told that they didn't want to be distracted! I was later informed by a BMC senior that 'from now on they would take a display board' None of the GBC activities I have seen since then have had any mention of the BMC. (Apart from a tiny logo on the front of the athletes shirts) Even the latest missive from GBC has no mention of the BMC anywhere in the missive. When I am home and have time I will attach the link to this GBC posting.

I am no longer a member (and haven't been since the end of 2020 due to the leg/shoulder breaks that August), yet still am getting invites to BMC Area Meetings to which I am not entitled to be at - the latest came within the last week.

Now Offwidth has informed me that my name won't be on the membership list - but given the continued invites to meetings I am not entitled to be at I'm not sure I can believe that to be 100% the truth.

Can we really believe the numbers of people that BMC Office says are members ?

Sadly not... Although the BMC publicly accepted the principle of filling quotas and undertook a review of selection decisions in the light of that, the review resulted in not one additional athlete being selected. So they pretended to listen and then doubled down on their original approach.

That's under the new regime. And yet we're supposed to believe things are changing.

As I understand it, non members are welcome to attend area meetings but not to vote, at least when I was chair of the SW area I always tried to encourage any climbers who were interested to attend whether members or not.

No, that would make sense. If there is a deadline in March for submissions to the 2025 AGM, and Simon’s motion can’t be reconsidered before the end of April 2025, then that’s why Simon has said that it can’t get to AGM before 2026 at the earliest.

 > My point was to highlight that Council must have considered at length how to deal with the same proposal in the future, by effectively controlling it to death.

I could be wrong, but I think it’s a pretty bog standard condition for these sorts of things across similar organisations. I’ve definitely seen it elsewhere. It makes sense to say that if something has been rejected it can’t just be immediately and repeatedly submitted in an attempt to grind people down, with the organisation being obliged to validate and consider it each time, despite nothing having changed in the meantime. Either way, this isn’t something that’s been specially written to frustrate Simon’s specific proposals. I also suspect it is a requirement that has been voted through by members at a previous AGM, like the 0.5% requirements for signatures, rather than a unilateral decision by members council.

Oh, also, I emailed off a new email account that I only set up a few months ago. There's no way they'd have that. So no, there really isn't an explanation. 

As promised, the link to GBC posting from two days ago, that doesn't mention the BMC, not even in the heading! Are they wanting to be separate from the BMC, are they embarrassed to be part of the BMC, or are they worried that mentioning the BMC will 'be a distraction'! Answers on a postcard please

https://gbclimbing.uk/news/25-gb-climbing-athletes-to-compete-in-salt-lake-...

That's pretty impressive, even Mountaineering Scotland get a mention as a partner.

You'd have thought it would say "part of the BMC"

It was voted through as a part of the update to the articles that was introduced in 2018 which included the 0.5% stipulation as well so not specifically voted on in isolation, but agreed by members as part of a large tranche of changes to the articles.

The submission deadline for an AGM depends on the AGM date and this often moves around a little bit, it would have been a none issue (as a similar motion could have been submitted after 1 year had elapsed but before the deadline for motion submission for the 2025 AGM) if it was submitted to Members Council earlier, however I appreciate that there was uncertainty about being able to submit via both routes and Simon believed he had sufficient numbers to force it onto the AGM agenda until the last minute (no negative connotations behind the word "force" here).

The BMC could do with being more easily understood by its members but I would hope that members would give volunteers and the staff the benefit of the doubt in terms of their intent, talking to them they are generally reasonable people doing their best to improve things, some are probably obstructive at points (and that needs to be flagged and addressed within the organisation), but that doesn't justify attacking the people who are genuinely trying to make things better just because they are involved in volunteering, or working, for the BMC.

Thanks, that’s a helpful clarification. Whether voted on in isolation or not, what I was trying to highlight was that the requirement has not just been thought up recently and imposed by MC with the intention of sinking Simon’s resolution.

I’m presuming that this is just a general observation, but if not I hope I haven’t come across as attacking volunteers or staff. Certainly wasn’t my intention - quite the opposite. 

Oh, very much intended to reinforce your point and give a bit of context.

The last bit was indeed a general observation, not directed at you in the slightest!

@Andy Say Just checking you got my PM/email?

I did. Many thanks.

I've only just got home from a van trip, need a bath and I'm going to need to go back to your information to try and put it into 'bullet points'.

There is a Board meeting this weekend. Agenda is being evolved. I'll be absolutely honest here; I will try to raise some of your points but there are a wider variety of issues that need bottoming out.

I'll get back to you directly after the weekend.

Andy

Totally agree as a couple of recent examples-

I attended an excellent Access Network session yesterday evening and some more previously. I asked beforehand about opening it up to others to attend (as its great) and was told there were 50 places allocated to others outside of the Access Network (great!). Except the BMC didn't communicate it to anyone.

The previous 2 (very successful) BMC clear up events I have held in Avon have got zero mention that I have seen, despite full reports and photos being submitted. Just such obvious good PR wasted!

I enquired about the logistics/rules of setting up an emailing list for local issues to add another channel of BMC comms locally, had no response. Classic.

OK, thanks - I do appreciate your willingness to listen!

The quota issue is being strung out like it’s the most complicated thing in the world. It doesn’t need any more listening, more consultation etc. The BMC has been told over and over again what the issue is, and most of the sensible people there seem to agree. From my understanding (which tbf is at least third hand info) that includes the CEO. More consultation and listening followed by no changes (again!) is just insulting people’s intelligence and, frankly wasting scarce BMC resources. They could just take the bleedin’ action required NOW and instantly solve 90% of the problems with the comp community: appeals, bad reputation with potential sponsors, complaints to IFSC, UKSport etc. It’s seriously risking the BMC’s long-term status as the NGB, and yet we seem to be dragging the organisation into this mess for a few internal people. It’s extraordinarily simple: You tell the few employees that are being obstructive that they work for the BMC which itself represents its members. The overwhelming majority of the comp community (see LONC) have rejected the idea of making comp access only for the ready-made elite and have demanded the same development access available to other nations’ athletes. Therefore, respect the BMC values of opportunity and access. If you can’t, perhaps this organisation isn’t the one for you.

“Listening” has now become an excuse for inaction. How many times does the BMC need to be told? Stop messing about and JFDI !!!