UKH

Following the recent announcements of five resignations from the British Mountaineering Council's Board of Directors, and the further resignation of Chris Stone announced today, we sent CEO Dave Turnbull twelve questions about the state of the BMC, the reasons for the resignations and the organisation's next steps.

Another pointless statement that puts a rosy tint on a leaking bucket!

Looks like Sport England are concerned enough to move some external muscle in.

Does that mean that the NC approved recovery plan for the Board has now been ditched?

And I also note that the Nominations Committee is to now get professional oversight?

AND, since my thread on this topic has been shut down, my initial thoughts were

What on earth is happening?

Late on a Friday afternoon (a good time to bury news) comes the announcement that the Chair has now decided to step down immediately. And hidden in the article is the news that another National Council Director has resigned!

Can't be many actually elected Directors left?

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/statement-from-the-bmc 47

As I said in the other thread: Time to bring back 'Climb Britain' I say!!!! This BMC thing was never going to work

As someone who is completely over the whole thing, largely because multiple threads with hundreds of replies didn't seem to get anywhere whatsoever, I clicked on this article hoping to get some concise answers to the following question: 

That question is quite clear on two points: a) specific answers would be useful, and b) the membership clearly don't want corporate bollocks. Summarising that answer point by point, we get:

• Thanks to those who are leaving
• The BMC is having to deal with the results of the 2018 AGM and covid
• Some Board members left, some moved to other roles
• Some corporate bollocks ("embedding new ways of working", really?)
• A "multi-disciplinary management consultancy" firm has been enlisted

All this on the same day that more resignations are announced.

Good shit lads, I'm glad everything has been cleared up.

External management consultant appointed to try and sort out the mess and a recruitment agency for the Board replacements.  You couldn't make it up.....

I'm guessing that until the consultants report then any remedies agreed internally between National Council and the Board are in the back burner. If not scrapped.

Damn, I see Marjorie's hand in this...

Appointing 'recruitment companies' and 'management consultancies' is pissing members money away. How did we get here?

How did we get here?

I know exactly how but I was sacked as a BMC volunteer for saying it..... 

It's quite simple, trumped up board members chasing money from the sports council, with the caveat the the glorious british win medals.

Whilst the everyday climber is simply cast a side. 

The phrase "couldn't run a bath" comes to mind. 

Who's 'Marjorie'? 🤔

So now you're free to serve the interests of the membership and tell us.

Facts only

According to the Board statement, the management consultants are being provided by Sport England. Its only taxpayer's money being pissed away.

Just noticed - 'questions submitted on 9th September' have only just received a reply?!?

It's taken three weeks and further resignations to elicit a response?

'Provided by....'. not necessarily 'paid by...'

I have repeatedly “gone in to bat” for the BMC on these threads but this takes the biscuit.

A consistent criticism has been the lack of regular quality communication. This improved massively during the lockdown but vanished into thin air at the first sign of crisis. The lack of content in the BMC statement, the “slipped in at the end” further Board resignation and the length of time it took the CEO to come up with these poor responses all point to this message not being taken on board. If this criticism, a reasonably simple one to remedy in my eyes, is being ignored, are all the others?

CT are the Sport England go-to consultant for this sort of stuff.  Capable but I struggle to see what they will bring to this mess.

And the minutes of the recent National Council meetings have just gone up on the BMC website.

Not pretty reading.

If you are after insights into what is going on  then forget the flannel in the article and the ‘interview‘ and read the September webinar NC minutes instead 😳

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-national-council-minutes?fbclid=IwAR1t4ujLgEKp... 4

I have Simon........ Quite eye opening.

It’s like there are two BMC’s, the party line and the truth.

Will you ever learn? Offwidth will be along shortly to re-educate you and prove that everything is hunky dory. 

Conspicuous by his absence so far.....

However I look forward to the verbal gymnastics  likely to be deployed in defense of the BMC party line.

Very rare for this level of candour (well done NC) You have to wonder how bad things things got for this to get in print when it would normally be off-the-record stuff

I do wonder if this has been released in error it so contradicts the party line.

Section 6 of the minutes for September 16 appears to imply that.

I’ve screen captured it just in case!

No it was not released in error.  It was released in line with the Articles and because the Council know we can't criticise the Board for lack of transparency if we don't eat our own dog food! 

But Section 9 suggests it was agreed the minutes would be published unredacted.

True. But they are minutes from a meeting of a different date - which on my brief reading appear to contradict Section 6.

In any event I welcome the publication.

Noted and appreciated.  I’m sure OW will be along soon to explain how the NC minutes reconcile with the latest statement from the Board.

Good work Andy

What's holding up the minutes of the previous meetings? 

Rob

On 16th after 4 hours at nearly 11 PM and we all felt we were too tired to consider and make a sensible decision so we reconvened at a later date.   The minutes just record that.

Thanks. I welcome the publication of the minutes, and am very happy to leave it at that.

Simon

Minutes are normally produced as a draft and then agreed at the next Council meeting.  On 19th minutes of previous meetings were agreed and I assume will be published shortly, the 19th will be agreed at the next NC Meet. 

Yup. I am mostly neutral on this. On the older threads there does seem to be a lot of grudge settling and insider/ex insider infighting but ffs I like the idea of the BMC representing my interests (mix of hillwalking, limited outdoor when I can get away and it wins over my other weekend stuff and inside wall climbing) and also those of the outdoor community in general but ffs when we have people resigning left, right and centre it doesnt instill confidence.

Own up to mistakes and explain why without a bunch of managerial bollockise. If I want that I can just go and look at whatever my companies boss is coming out with on his dime not mine.

In reply to MG:

I’ve been told that the....”the BMC is one of seven sports governing and representative bodies that does not have enough women on the Board to comply with Sport England funding.”

If that’s the case can they afford to lose her?

As the NC minutes says they are supportive of her till her role ends in June 2021.

Will she have the gall to stand for a second term though?

In reply to MG:

Council been open and transparent about issues and that these are being addressed. 

Council have clearly stated we believe that we can and should move forward with Lynn as our Chair and the President.

Lynn agreed the minutes have to be published, despite her concerns about how people will react.  

So, whilst you could get 1% of members to request a GM and vote her down I would suggest it's not a great response to what I think is a really positive move in ensuring we embed transparency in all the BMCs work.

Well she simultaneously doesn't seem to exist anymore as a members' advocate yet be at the core of the problems. She should go. The fact she is women is irrelevant. 

Don’t get sucked in by all of Offwidth’s propaganda

It is certainly good to see the  clear statement in the form of minutes at long last. 

And also that she ".. did not  act  in  the  open,  transparent  and  honest..."  Given the fallout and her silence, I can't agree with the Councils view. 

I am really not convinced. 

Think about it from someone who is a fairly lazy member perspective. I do appreciate and admire those who do put the hours in to argue for access rights/getting out there and cleaning stuff up etc as opposed to just lobbing in a few quid a year but from that fairly unknowledgeable perspective no one is coming out well so far on these threads.

Sell it to me and explain how I and the wider community (whilst obviously I am somewhat self centred I am happy to consider others eg once the BCU started considering the general population and not just competition paddlers I threw them a few quid despite mostly paddling down lee valley) are best served.

That's always a risk with being open and transparent.  But from my previous experience in aviation and the NHS I do know that transparency rarely flourishes when it's used to punish people who are transparent.

By having a competent, well functioning Board who are totally focussed on maximising and dispensing resources to the best interests of all climbers and hill walkers

As an example the BMC Competitions schedule has been cancelled in its entirety as being too Covid difficult yet the recent Bouldering Cup (or whatever it’s called) at Rock City in Hull has demonstrated that comps are possible when there’s a will. 

I sure that's correct but I don't see any transparency from the President, or indeed the President at all. She didn't attend either of the meetings, or give apologies. She has been silent throughout. 

I've been pretty busy and staying quiet through a lot of this.

I'm a member of the Tech Committee, hence a "BMC Volunteer". I've never felt I'm particularly useful in this, but it's been interesting for me at least and I've seen some of the good work that gets done

The recent events don't just make me question if I want to continue volunteering for the organisation, but whether I even want to be a part of it. I never expected to be in that position.

Which is managerial/lawyer approved statement from my perspective.

That really doesnt sell it to me. After all the orange retard said precautions were overrated and look what happened to him. After evaluating the risks I think it is acceptable for me to climb inside but I can see why others would disagree. I am fairly low risk and have very limited contact with those who are higher risk and, before that happens will avoid risky stuff.

I know that the BCU isnt running competitions despite them having the advantage of being outside and even on the artificial/semi artificial courses it is far more easy to separate than a wall (having spent time both at lee valley white water and several london walls recently).

From chatting with people at lee valley I also know the BCU are still running  training at restricted numbers for their youth team and separating them over different nights to limit the numbers.

Are they right to do so? Dunno but I am confident the risks outside on mildly chlorinated water are less than at the arch,stronghold or castle.

So it comes down to risk assessment and willingness to gamble. At the moment I wont judge the BMC for deciding to err on the side of caution. After all how do you handle a competitor from a locked down area?

In reply to MG:

FFS - is there a mechanism for explaining, briefly and in clear and simple 'layman's terms' what the F has gone on, from start to... well. not finish I guess, but wherever we're up to? I've read (ok skimmed) those minutes linked higher up and and am still little the wiser - although tbf I do feel ever so slightly better informed than after reading the UKC news article.

Please, if it's possible without committing libel, someone give me the idiot's guide?

As far as the NC minutes go the multiple responsibilities of the Presidents role and it’s inherent conflicts of interests has required the post holder to act with adroitness and deftness of touch but instead it has been executed in a cack handed and partisan way.

To be fair that is an error in the minutes and all on me as I lead on drafting them.  Sorry. 

No Directors, including the president and CNDs,  attended due to the obvious conflicts of interest.  This was agreed by all council, including them, at either 1 or 7 Sept meeting and should be minuted there. 

Thanks for publication of minutes, at last we get some honesty

Although the NC are still supportive of the president, given the level of the rebuke she really should do the honourable thing and resign because there is a loss of confidence

I haven't really got into the nitty gritty of this being an ordinary bumbler, so thought, on seeing this article, that clarity would dawn!!!

Whoever wrote that wants sacking or at least moving to other duties. Completely incompetent. 

OK. I would say your approach to all this has on here been truly transparent, exemplary and welcome. 

Those minutes don't seem to be published. 

I see also my post asking about how to remove the President has been removed... ! 

Read the minutes - they give some sense of reality. 

Steve

While you may have lost confidence, Council were very clear that we continue to support Lynn and believe there remains a good basis to move forwards.

Andy

I think that National Council are to be applauded for the publication of these minutes in a timely fashion: it must have been a pretty intense meeting!

It almost feels like they are actually back in charge.

When you have titles like "director of operations and development" you wouldn't think it was an organisation that had anything to do with the base activities 99.9% of the membership enjoy on a regular basis. 

Too big and too diverse, when it starts worrying about gold medals, funding, climbers with sponsorship from non mountain related companies etc you know it's a million miles away from the grassroots topics like access, conservation  and guidebooks that most would hope their membership fees go to towards. 

Time for a split. Have 'Climb Britain', it can focus solely on the competitions and the medal chasing side of things as an entirely separate organisation, allowing the bmc to get back to basics. 

Andy, it is appreciated that such candid minutes have been released.

Having had an evening to reflect (and let the anger at such poor official communication subside) I am heartened by the NC minutes. They may highlight the problems but also they show a clear will to address these*. Bizarrely, those minutes are, imho, the most positive communication to come out of the BMC in a while!
 

* I realise not everyone will agree with the NC but we should give them a chance.

Yes. Let’s hope that the Board follow the example of NC’s openness in their overdue minutes when published

No, the comms is the interview. It's like a politician talking. Which is particularly bad considering the audience they are talking to. They at least need a proper comms person. Truly awful. 

I agree but the minutes do, at last, give some real information, if still partial. 

“2.1. The Task & Finish Group was convened by the National Council (NC). Its remit was to enquire into and report upon the conduct of the Interim National Council meeting on 1 August 2020 and its continuation on 4 August against the Council Code of Practice

Andy,

Re the above was the work of this group solely related to how Lynn conducted these meetings?  (minutes still not public) and on a minor note I’m curious how this group got its name?

What they need is to stop the corporate bollocks. That interview was painful, like an episode of the apprentice. 

Struck me as a military euphemism for 'seek and destroy'. 

My attempt at a precis of those National Council minutes:

General Confusion.

1. Documents clearly marked ‘Confidential’ have been shared with staff and external agencies

2. Board members were led to believe that a grievance had been raised (Director v Director?) but that might not have actually been the case (process was not followed).

3. Council wants to know why there was significant delay in instigating an investigation of concerns and further, why that investigation was not given support with staff and others being made clear on its importance.  This led to the resignation of Jon Punshon.

4. One Director took it upon themselves to seek legal advice without the agreement of the Board that may have influenced their conduct.  Given ‘the reluctance of the President to be clear to National Council about the legal advice’ one could infer that it was the President that had acted in that manner.

Board and National Council.

1. The formal communications to the Council, particularly in the Board Summaries, Chair and CEO Reports, did not meet standards of openness and transparency.  In essence National Council was being misled.  

2. The CNDs and President did not challenge those reports to Council, or provide alternative views, when they were presented to Council. However, the Council recognised that to do so would have been almost impossible, given the Board disagreements and the Board’s approach to ‘Board confidentiality’, which was overly focussed on hiding uncomfortable facts.  'Let's not tell them'.

3. Council nominated Directors (members’ representatives) were ‘muzzled’ and felt unable to report back to National Council.

4. BMC needs to develop short guidance notes for future CNDs, which agree the role of representation on Board whilst at the same time acting within the requirements of being a director.

Role of President

1. The Report into meeting conduct was accepted but two members thought stronger action needed against the President as the President ‘did not act in the open, transparent and honest way that is necessary to ensure the mutual trust between the Council and the President’.  Does that translate and ‘secretive, opaque and dishonest’?   It seems there is a current conflict of loyalties between the roles of President in chairing NC and that of being a BMC Director. It was felt that too often the President acted as “the Director with responsibilities to Chair NC” and not as the “Members’ Champion”.

2. The role of President should be reviewed with the aim of deconflicting the roles of President and Director (with its attendant legal responsibilities); providing independent oversight of the Board; and achieving greater clarity about the relationship between the President, the Chair of the Board and the CEO.

3.The President is backed ‘until the end of her term in June 2021’. But ‘actions need to match words’.

😀

I’m now led to understand from Andy that this is a project group that is available to NC to act on any specific tasks that arise and the term has common parlance in certain large organisations 

In the interview Dave says:

“All members of the Board except myself as CEO and the Company Secretary are volunteers.“

Something of a slip there.

Has the Company Secretary (ex solicitor and governance officer) Lucy Valerio assumed such importance that in Dave’s mind at least she is now on the Board!!!??

interesting idea. do you think that the organisation would be taken as seriously and have the quite the same influence when it comes things such as landowner and access discussions, if it's not the national representative body for the activity as the public see it and understand it?

The average landowner will neither know or care which is which governing body, it's just a world acronyms he or she doesn't likely care about. What matters will be how personable the representative is when they approach a land owner. I suspect Fred from the local mountaineer club will be better received that Joe the Director of Land Access.

You have British Shooting which represent most Olympic shooting sports, and there is BASC (British association of shooting and conservation). Almost a direct split of sport versus competition. 

then I guess we don't need the BMC after all.

It's this sort of nonsense that made me rethink being a member. I didn't want my subscription fees paying for corporate crap.

They aren't it's your taxes paying for it as Sport England pay and require an external review every 3 years.  This one has been pulled forwards by about 6 months

What do you think the BMC is?  It's a large organisation which has to be managed, and corporate crap comes with the territory.

Its problems stem from being run largely by amateurs in their spare time, and being largely dependent on them having acquired the necessary skills in their day jobs.  Its structures were shown to be deficient, and although they're being reorganised it is very clear from this latest debacle that there is still some way to go.  Whilst it is easy to mock management consultants, I see bringing in professionals to try to sort it out as a positive step.  They are being provided by Sport England, which despite doubts raised above I think can only mean SE is paying for them.

Its problems also stem from having an unruly and argumentative membership with very different, and sometimes irreconcilable, ideas of what the BMC should be doing.  All the more reason for having an effective Board and effective structures, which unfortunately still seem a long way off.

Who exists for who? Who is funding who? 

That's not the point, the point being made is that whatever the Executive do, and believe it or not they are trying to do what the membership are asking, a portion of the membership are unhappy. Add to that the portion of the membership are very vocal and you get the current situation.

Comments like this are why I get so frustrated at the poor communications. If the office actually explained this stuff, we wouldn't have threads and threads of sensationalist nonsense every time something comes up!

The BMC aren't paying, you're not paying, Sport England are, as it is there requirement. The BMC is really primarily a volunteer run association. The Board who are taking a hammering are nearly all voluntary and the National Council who are getting it in the neck are all voluntary. There is a small payed staff but no one is exactly rolling in it due the working at the BMC!

In a democracy, not everybody is usually ever happy with a situation, that's why we have elections.

They don't do too bad.

We should be grateful to Andy Say for his summary of the NC Minutes of 16 and 24 September and to Andy Syme for the example set by NC in producing such a timely and transparent record of NC meetings. The Board would not be in nearly such a mess had they had the courage to follow the example of the NC in respect of transparency.

What is surprising is that despite the efforts of the Board to mislead the NC and indeed the membership at large as to the scale of the problems within the Board, the many serious issues that needed to be addressed and the managerial, financial and structural problems facing the BMC, it was still the decision of the NC to allow the Board to muddle on.

Since 24 September 2020 there have been further resignations, Sport England has become directly involved with the appointment of its tame consultants and the role of the President in the whole debacle is increasingly questioned.

Whilst one might have some sympathy for the position that the NC finds itself in, no doubt wanting to avoid the problems associated with attempting to take unilateral action against the Board by calling a general meeting under articles 11.5 and 12.2, surely the time has come when everyone can see that the current position of the Board is untenable.

The members now endure a Board which has lost all credibility with the membership. Half of its directors have gone, external elements are being drawn in as emergency support, management and operational problems are apparent and financial irregularities are being investigated. The current Board bears little or no resemblance to what the members were offered at the last general meeting.

It is now time for the NC to re-consider its position and in its role as custodian of the interests of the members, act decisively to call a general meeting, where a new team of directors can be appointed with a clear mandate to reform and re-build the sad creature that the BMC has become.

"Each year we invest more than £250 million of National Lottery and public money to help people play sport and take part in physical activity."

Its public money being spent, so we are paying. Regardless of the source its still money being spent which people feel could be better used.

It exists for its members, and its funding comes largely from its members, with some from Sport England.  But its members aren't united and there is a good deal of disagreement, so its not as simple as saying they should do what the membership asks.  This is to be expected and perhaps even welcomed in a membership organisation, but it needs strong leadership and good structures to keep everyone happy.

The "it's OK to be crap, we are volunteers" line is utterly lame. 

An organisation representing the needs of climbers and mountaineers. Not a large multinational company with a bloated  middle management layer.

I joined in 2009. Since then there appears to be a perpetual management crisis or self inflicted internal strife (not consulting on rebranding, anyone?). Although I still support the core aims and objectives of the BMC and enjoyed the membership magazine I felt I was merely paying for a lot of people to argue amongst themselves. I ceased being a member circa 2015 or 2016.

"Still seem a long way off". Right, not exactly a great endorsement to encourage me to rejoin any time soon.

I read the minutes. All I could determine was that nothing of any climbing or mountaineering interest was discussed. If I was a volunteer Director I would have thought it was a waste of time.  It just appears as though it’s a meeting for the sake of a meeting and discussions over meeting procedures and bureaucracy. Quite sad really for all those people volunteering their time. 

It's nevertheless an organisation with an annual turnover of around £3.5m.  That does need to be managed properly.  A commercial business of that size could probably manage with a small board, answerable to the shareholders. It is because the BMC is answerable to its members that it needs the additional oversight of the National Committee. 

I do agree that the BMC seems to have been going around in circles for several years, and all it has to show is a mountain of reports and a complicated structure, which nevertheless seems to have failed when put to the test.  I wonder how much of this structure is really necessary?  Perhaps the consultants will be able to bring a bit of focus, which for all the undoubted hard work of all those involved, seems to have been lacking.

I tried in my post of 9.55 Saturday.

As the public see it it's a load of loonies scrambling around in rocks and stuff.

I think competition climbing is way off the radar of the general public although it is hoped that the Olympics will change that.

Graeco-Roman wrestling was an Olympic sport but never really gripped the nation.....

You did, and it's appreciated, but I still feel like I don't fully understand.

Is it true to say the root cause of the problem(s) is entirely summed up by your first point:

1. Documents clearly marked ‘Confidential’ have been shared with staff and external agencies

And that all the subsequent fallout is over failure satisfactorily to address this issue? It makes me wonder what was in those documents - but I guess the fact they were marked 'confidential' means I'm not supposed to know...

"What is surprising is that despite the efforts of the Board to mislead the NC and indeed the membership at large as to the scale of the problems within the Board, the many serious issues that needed to be addressed and the managerial, financial and structural problems facing the BMC, it was still the decision of the NC to allow the Board to muddle on."

Not sure that's entirely fair. If you are assured that everything is hunky-dory and there are no problems then you aren't exactly allowing 'muddling-on'; you are saying, 'keep up the good work'.

For me, one of the positives of this debacle is that NC has regained some 'muscle' and authority. AND have tried to act with integrity.

Yes but Sport England require all recipients of money to be subject to external review at Sport England's expense every 3 years.  All they have done is decided the review be done a bit early

I think the sharing of a confidential document is actually fairly minor. (!) And comes late in the story.

The crux seems to be that some Directors felt they were being stymied by other Directors when they tried to investigate some of the 'working practices' in the office. Eventually three of them quit.

Underlying that is the suggestion that National Council were either misled or not informed about some of the Boards work. (Hard to practice oversight if you're not being told things) And when someone tried to be frank and open (as they should!) lawyers were called upon to try and shut them up.

And of course we STILL have no idea about what the issues were that some Directors thought needed investigation!

Indeed - and as you say, this (probably!?) is the crux...

Can I just say that I applaud your words of common sense in this thread

Gripped the nation - very good

absolutely; competition climbing will definitely bring Climbing, in broader terms, to the attention the wider public; and in that could be the opportunity to benefit other forms of climbing, particular in terms of public understanding.

it doesn't usually help any cause, to be seen as an isolationist niche activity perpetrated by small group of beardy weirdos who are easily ignorable.

whether trad climbing might go there, is going there, or has already arrived, is possibly moot. Exhibit A for the prosecution - these forums  

"Gripped the nation - very good"

Nice to have your work appreciated 😉

But if the "general public" gain awareness that 'climbing' is 'that thing where they race each other up a wall' I'm not quite sure if that's an advantage or not.

OT but not so sure about that. Entirely anecdotal but my dad who knows absolutely nothing about climbing but watches literally any sport there is called me to ask what the point of speed climbing actually is as they all do the same thing over and over again. I have a feeling that the idea of adding it because it is a spectacle might not actually work as well as the IFSC has hoped.

Like Gladiators,  innit ?

But that's what runners, cyclists, jumpers, etc all do. The same thing over and over again.....

Agreed, it's off-topic - but yer old Dad might as well make the same complaint about the 100 metre sprint.

Rodney 

We did consider a GM and as stated in the last para of our statement (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/statement-from-the-bmc).

The Council has considered other options including calling a General Meeting and concluded they would provide little benefit to members, and would in all probability delay the implementation of an effective Senior Management Team which is critical to the long term stability of the Board and the efficacy of the BMC more generally.

We will review this position again, and would expect to provide a further update to members in late October after we have seen how the acting chair delivers on his proposals and the Open Forum has been held as the Board have committed to.

I'm sure some of you disagree with the decision Council have taken but as I hope people can see Council are not making decisions lightly. 

Two common reactions you get from non climbers when you mention climbing are:

1 The monty python sketch

2 Oh what’s the name of that french women who free climbs

Bearing in mind that it turned out that even the Council Nominated Directors weren’t being fulsome with the truth wasn’t it the case that you weren’t in full possession of the nature of the issues when arriving at that decision and perhaps it was the wrong decision with hindsight compared to having the clean break that a GM would have provided

Simon

After 1 & 4 Aug there was a a definite change in the flow of information and at the point of the review meeting on 24 September there was no issue with the Council not having the appropriate information from the CNDs.   The statement published yesterday was not based on a lack of information. 

Remember, the T&F Group minutes are talking about events that actually happened almost 2 months ago.  The position now is significantly different and better.

You're so out of date!

Nowadays its:

What's the name of the bloke how climbs without ropes?

And

Have you seen the Dawn Wall?

Then

"I don't know how they do it"

Points accepted.

However, from where I’m sitting it still seems to be the case that problem people are still in post and in charge.

Leopards don’t change their spots. 

What is happening with the replacement of Chris and John as Council Nominated Directors? How soon will their replacements be in post? 

I am utterly unconvinced that replacing the people would resolve the issues.

Lynn was identified as being conflicted by virtue of the two governance roles which belong to the president of the organisation. The CNDs didn't feel able to communicate everything back to NC for reasons of board confidentiality and because they felt unable to seperate opinion from fact associated with the board meetings from what I remember reading when things kicked off and in the recent NC minutes.

Being directors they have legal responsibilities associated with being on the board, they also have a moral responsibility to represent members' interests. If those are brought into conflict (or perceived to be brought into conflict) it is going to tie the hands of the CNDs and president to meet their moral responsibility to members. We need to make damn sure that a method of resolving those conflicts is found either before replacing the board or very early in the term of the next board or we will just have a repeat of the issues again. Perhaps a trip back to the ORG report and a conversation with some of the other representative bodies is required to see how they resolve this situation?

Not aimed at Simon specifically:

The general tone of these threads has been pretty vile towards board members. I know some of the board members from area meetings, committee meetings, AGMs and club meets and have a general perception of them being people who warrant my respect while sitting somewhere on the scale between aquaintance and friend. Regardless of the perceived scale of any wrongdoing they are still human beings, it's possible to express disappointment with the situation, the organisation and what is being done about it without being openly abusive to people. For a community as close knit as the climbing community (I reckon 2-3 degrees of seperation would enable you to put a link between any 2 regular outdoor climbers and many indoor climbers) this behaviour is disgusting, if the board members were paid employees and those remarks were being made by management I wouldn't be surprised if a constructive dismissal claim would be brought.

Spenser, Your loyalty is admirable but you are very selective in your interpretation of the NC minutes.

Lynn was very obviously reprimanded even whilst NC also recognised the conflicts, pressures etc. She was not absolved from blame ie

“that the President did not act in the open, transparent and honest way that is necessary to ensure the mutual trust between the Council and the President"

and

“The Council recognised the conflict of loyalties between the roles of President in chairing NC and that of being a BMC Director. It was felt that too often the President acted as “the Director with responsibilities to Chair NC” and not as the “Members’ Champion and the Chair of the Members’ Representative Body; who is also a Director”. Until this conflict is addressed through changes in governance, the President must ensure that they balance these conflicting loyalties“

It is also obvious that Lynn was the instigator of the legal action to try and constrain what John Punshon had to say about the blocking of the procurement investigation.

In short she is not a passive victim of an impossible role.

We have been here before in a previous thread. Can you be more specific about which abusive posts you object rather than being vaguely general. Nothing constitutes abuse as far as I can see and I am acutely aware of abuse as a forum owner.

If someone is being genuinely abusive you should report it to the UKC moderators.

That is the point! BS are they trying to do what the membership are asking, they are wrapped up in the internal quagmire of argument and no focus because the organisation has spread into too many different areas. 'a portion' of membership unhappy.... when it gets to the level it is now the organisation should disband

So does anyone actually know what is going on with BMC? I'm still none the wiser after the article and a load of comments. Why the resignations? What was the a common reason or aim?

I would further add that the burning issue over the last 6 months, Covid,was not even there. 
 

I would expect any board meeting to at least as a minimum have had a summary of current critical  issues from the CEO for information purposes. Usually via a written statement. it should only be about a page and include finance and other Members responsibilities.

I am amazed nobody has asked for this.

Should  be standard.

I've read all of these theads, with a lot of confusion, and it seems only now like we're finally getting somewhere in understanding what's gone on. So thanks to everyone for your input in this one.

Several of us raised concerns at the time of the reorganisation that the new governance structure would lead to less influence and control from members. Maybe these concerns were only raised in the NE area? It was obvious that national council having such little power and oversight over the board was a recipe for disaster,  especially when the board had proved themselves so out of touch with the rebrand embarrassment. (Yes, I know it was a different board and NC supported it, but the point that the board was too removed from membership accountability still stands).

In any governance structure,  there is the actual constitution and then the way it is applied. The UK parliamentary constitution is pretty weak, but we've managed to avoid a dictatorship so far in this country by there being such a strong culture of accountability and the public's willingness to remove MPs (not to mention a free press that informs the public of what's going on). If the BMC is to continue with this obviously flawed governance setup, we need a shift in culture where NC reps act boldly to represent their areas (as I'm sure Jon P did) and we are far more willing to remove the president if they do not fight for the members' interest and the members' interests only. If we have a situation where NC reps are complacent and the president is not in fear of being removed,  we'll continue to have a total lack of accountability and an ineffective organisation, where the board can do whatever they fancy, unchecked.

Franco (NE Access and Conservation Volunteer)

The Council is made up of a diverse group of people.  The 3 things that combine them being, they enjoy the outdoors, they are willing to volunteer and they didn't expect NC to have to spend so much time on governance rather than "things that are important to members". 

They have spent hours and hours over the last few weeks weighing up the options and trying to decide what is best for the BMC, which is wider than just UKC aficionados.  Decisions are not taken lightly.  

Council are a representative body and value feedback from our Area members which is reflected in the discussions we have.  So you can tell us at area meetings you want something different and you can replace us if you don't like what we do; it only takes 25 people in an area to write to the Area Chair and require a councillor to be subject to a re-election.

The President has been more active and visible to the average member than any President I can remember.    Council recognises the excellent work the President does as an ambassador for the BMC and her commitment to the organisation.  It remains supportive of the President in role until the end of her term in June 2021.

Making a mistake or not being perfect is a fact of life, being transparent about it is hard but the right thing. 

Despite everyone on the Board working for the good of the BMC they failed to reach a common vision of how this was achieved and became fractured and fractious.  Probably because of this, and the wider public arguments over Climb Britain, the 2018 AoA changes etc, they developed a culture of 'confidentiality' which in the Councils opinion was inappropriate for a members organisation and not in line with the MOU. 

IMHO Jon's resignation brought it all to a head and possibly gave people a reason to leave where they had previously tried to stick with it for the "good of the BMC".

Non of that is what people wanted and some members are annoyed, some are concerned and probably a huge number are not even aware as the day to day business of the BMC has continued to be done by the staff and volunteers.

The Council have looked at the Board as it is now (Oct 2020), the vision they have, their commitment to deliver  (if you don't like the way the Board have put it then read the 4 bullets in the council statement https://www.thebmc.co.uk/statement-from-the-bmc) and whether we believe that the commitment is genuine and they have a realistic ability to do it.  We believe the Board both have the ability and capability to do this.    

More importantly possibly is that there has been a huge change in the openness and transparency between the Board and Council over the last 2 months.  The issues of early August which the minutes refer to may not all be fixed yet but they are all being addressed positively.  The Open Forum the Board are holding late October is a further move in the right direction. 

This whole process has cost the members almost no money, as the Council and Board are unpaid volunteers, and has had not affected the the day to day delivery of the things most members care about, access and conservation.  What has been lost is the opportunity cost (management BS for the things the Council and Board have not been able to concentrate on).  The Council were quite clear that there are some key priorities the Board must concentrate on addressing now and the Board agree.  The 6-12 months to hold an election and bed in a new Board is not the best way to achieve these priorities.

The Council has considered other options including calling a General Meeting and concluded they would provide little benefit to members, and would in all probability delay the implementation of an effective Senior Management Team which is critical to the long term stability of the Board and the efficacy of the BMC more generally. 

Council will continue to monitor the situation and if things change or the Board don't do what they say Council will not shy away from making difficult decisions if they believe it is right for the BMC.

2 final points.

1.  A Board on which every Director agrees with me on everything is not likely to be a good Board for an organisation as diverse as the BMC.  But as long as the Board is open and transparent and learns from it's mistakes then it's probably going to be a good Board.

2.  Openness and transparency is not the same as full public disclosure.  The Council have tried hard to get this balance right and provide an exemplar of where the Board should also be; and I honestly believe the Board get it and are moving as quickly as they can to transform.  But if we the members want to build the culture of transparency people say they want then we need to ensure that we don't continually 'punish' people when they are transparent or use transparency as a cover for wanting to 'out' people we don't like; which too often is the theme on UKC in the last couple of years.  Yes challenge, yes question but if we really want to get out this mess and move forward then a greater tolerance of difference of approach, view and perspective would go a very long way.

Quite - but with respect to both individuals - not from OW or Shark - who might be less than objective ...

In reply:

Great news!!!

All the hot air generated by this thread, and the previous BMC threads, is being siphoned into a new fleet of cargo airships. It will keep them running for years!!!

Some good is finally coming out of all of this!!!

In reply to Andy Syme:

Just to be clear, because I think this is aimed at me as much as anybody, that I ‘like’ Lynn personally - and Dave for that matter.

I don’t ‘like’ how she carrIes out her role. I thought she would be a breath of fresh air to the stuffy BMC. I encouraged her personally to stand as president and backed her publicly.

It was at the 2019 AGM that raised concerns about how she carried out her roles in the recruitment and election of Directors in particular and subsequent refusal to disclose the number of proxy votes at her disposal and how she applied them.

You supported the view that she should reveal this with a motion at NC which was defeated - NC voted not to know! 

Characterising criticism on here as “wanting to out people you don’t like” is something I’d expect from Offwidth but not you.

Also at what point does punishment come in to play? How many mediated Boards sessions does it take?, how many reprimands by NC?

To quote Franco just above: “If... the president is not in fear of being removed,  we'll continue to have a total lack of accountability and an ineffective organisation, where the board can do whatever they fancy unchecked”

I can assure you that there was a NE/NW axis! Lots of concerns raised at our meetings over in Lancashire about the new arrangements and where they might lead.

No Simon it wasn't specifically aimed at you but more generally at the tone of some previous threads recently and back around other issues. 

As I said the Council are a diverse group and have come to decisions after much debate. Comments here by you and others have influenced the debate, but I guess they have not swayed it how you think it should.

I do try and keep my comments less argumentative than exchanges between OW, yourself and others.  I note you think I've failed in this case and will try and express myself better next time. 

I don't think there ever should be a punishment of volunteers doing what they think is right, even if I disagree.  I think if a change is for the good of the BMC then the Council should and would recommend it.

The Board accountability is not solely through the President and the Council can't remove the President, only the members could.  At most we could say to members we no longer supported the President and/or request a General Meeting.  The Council are not at that place.  If the members want to remove the President anyway there is a route for that.

Is the Board really unaccountable?  I thought the Council had been pretty clear and transparent about the failings.  That we don't agree that the next step is a wholesale removal of the Board is something that you may disagree with but it is what the Council believe. 

Can I just remind people that the original ORG recommendation was to have a president who was NOT a board member. Due to a large volume of concern from various vociferous members (a number of whom are on this thread) the ORG changed this and made the President a board member. See page 30 of the final ORG report - download here - https://www.thebmc.co.uk/organisational-review-final-report where this is clearly explained.

This is the report and the resulting articles which 93% of BMC members voted for in 2018. This created a situation where any individual in the President role would be pulled in conflicting directions. Which the NC minutes clearly recognise. 

Setting aside any discussion about the actual decisions made by any one person, if we want to know why the role of President is conflicted, I suggest we all look in the mirror.

Paul

Andy, one thing I'm not clear about. 'We' have a plan to remedy shortcomings in the Board performance agreed between the Board and National Council. But now external consultants appear to have been brought in/imposed. Could that result in the 'plan' being postponed or adapted? 

" This created a situation where any individual in the President role would be pulled in conflicting directions. "

To be fair, Paul, it didn't 'create' that situation; it perpetuated that conflict. And exacerbated it.

The President has actually been the Chair of the effective 'board' and a Director for ages. When National Council and Executive Committee were essentially parts of a whole (a 'Board' with an 'Executive' arm) that wasn't so important. Now that the two elements have been separated it has suddenly become a problem.

Given that one of the issues seems to be 'poor communication' between Board and NC in not sure how having a President who doesn't sit on the Board would help, as opposed to hinder, that communication.

The way you have used the previous issue around votes at the 2019 AGM as a club to beat Lynn round the head with while questioning her integrity and claiming that she was trying to fill the board with people who would not challenge her comes to mind as an example of harassing behaviour. This was discussed at length at the area meeting we were both at, and subsequently by NC and the decision was made to let sleeping dogs lie in this instance as it would undermine the position of the elected individual (Nom Com and qualification issues aside as no-one had raised any concerns about this at the time). IIRC the areas then requested to have a split of discretionary votes provided at subsequent AGMs. I shared your concerns about the president's ability to sway the election of board members using proxy votes as a procedural issue, I also felt that letting the result stand on the basis of trusting Lynn's integrity and addressing the issue for future AGMs (while recognising that the articles were undergoing fine tuning and in a state of flux) was the most productive way forward.

Immediately crying foul of the fact that Gron wasn't approached to take up the vacant board position when he doesn't appear to have been on the board for quite some time (noting David Lanceley is still listed as being on there on the BMC website and he's been gone since at least August). It's possibly reasonable to question the choice of Rosi for the position given that she seems to be quite new to the committee, however if she has the skills and will be supported by those with additional historical knowledge of the committee's activities and what does/ does not work for the BMC I do not feel concerned about her acting in the role until the AGM.

David Lanceley's email to Gareth Pierece describing as being a "disaster".

"Inevitable when an organisation is high jacked by a bunch of second rate do-gooders." from David Lanceley when things kicked off.

"Won’t be a problem finding replacements, there’s an endless supply of wannabe non-exec’s out there desperate for a first Board role.  Many are experienced mountaineers having once climbed “Mount” Snowdon on a school trip.  A rigorous selection process will ensure that only the most dysfunctional are appointed for a good fit with the existing Board." - more unpleasantness from David

Various instances of people having a go at Lynn for being absent when all of this kicked off, in the middle of the summer holidays when I understand she had taken time off to help her get her head in a better place to actually address the situation.

Those are the most obvious ones, I could probably find more and from other sources, however yourself and David have both been shining examples of the behaviour which makes me disinclined to ever have a public facing role within the BMC (similar behaviours were displayed by "friends" in my local mountaineering club which led to me stepping down as meets secretary) as I would display rather less tolerance than the people targeted in your comments have displayed toward you. You don't have to stand in someone's face and scream at them for it to be abusive, never letting go of previous wrongdoings where amends have been made is also abuse, just in a different format.

I have decorating to do and intend to step back from this whole debacle. NC and the board are working to resolve the issue, I trust NC to support the board in addressing the issues and I trust the members of the board who I know to accept that help. If I felt that I couldn't trust NC to do this then I would either accept that the situation was not going to change, or I would be forced to put myself forward at the next Peak area NC election, fortunately I do trust NC to do the right thing.

I suspect I am like most members, and take little interest in the workings of the BMC until they go wrong.  I suspect I am not alone in not realising that NC members represent the Areas.  Personally I don't much identify with the Areas anyway, but perhaps that reflects my own situation- I live in the North West Area and the club I belong to is regarded as being based there, but I climb mostly in the Peak, Lake District and Wales, so I am not much interested in NW local issues. Having looked them up, I don't know the individuals for any of these areas, and the minutes don't show how they voted, so I'm not sure how I can be expected to make a judgement on how they are performing.  However I am conscious that they are volunteers trying to do their best for the organisation in their spare time, and getting little thanks but many brickbats.

I also question how useful the Areas are as a way of understanding the mood of the members.  Those who attend meetings are by definition a self-selected minority who take an interest in these things.  Most members pay no attention until a crisis occurs.  Surely in this day and age there are better ways to communicate with the membership?

Returning to the main issue, it is clear that mistakes were made but it is not clear whether there was a deliberate attempt to conceal information or mislead the NC, or whether it was more a question of misjudgement, perhaps compounded by the conflict of interest inherent in the President's role.  Since the NC has said it continues to support the President I suspect the latter.  However since we still don't really know what the underlying issues were all about, it is hard to form any judgements.  

Even if it were to come to a General Meeting, I'm not sure that ordinary members have been told enough to enable them to make an informed vote.  I don't feel I know enough even to decide whether this shows that the system is broken, or that by the NC taking control it has worked.

“More importantly possibly is that there has been a huge change in the openness and transparency between the Board and the NC over the last two months.”      

It is wrong to suggest that the directors of the BMC are only now being presented with the need for transparency in their dealings with the members and the NC and that their conversion to transparency must be handled delicately, lest they refuse to conform.

The issue of transparency was fought over when ORG proposed that the Board should only issue “communiqués” following each meeting, rather than the Minutes. Framers of the current articles will remember the demands from members at the time that Minutes of Board meetings, albeit redacted in certain circumstances, were required.

Accordingly all the remaining directors knew before taking up their positions that they had a duty to embrace transparency. The revised articles require that directors, acting collectively, must publish Minutes on the BMC website. But some Minutes from 2019 were not available for almost 12 months after the relevant meeting. In July 2020 no Minutes for any of the Board meetings that year had been put on the website.

Rather than attempting to cover for the failings of the directors in respect of transparency NC should do its duty on behalf of members and call on the six remaining directors out of an original twelve, to resign and call a general meeting. All the current directors failed in their duty of transparency to members.

I was struck by an earlier post about 'member priorities' and who serves who. So I looked at the current staff list on the website.

If we disregard the people who answer the phones, process the memberships, do the insurance, handle the money, organise the events and generally keep the place working (and we NEVER should disregard them - they make the BMC tick!) and the high headyins (CEO/Deputy CEO) we find:

Access - 2.8 people

Guidebooks - furloughed

Technical - furloughed

Training - furloughed

Comps/Squad - 2+

Partnerships - 2

Clubs/volunteers - 1

Youth/Equity - 1

Governance - 1

Marketing and Communications/ IT - 6

I can’t believe that anyone including Gareth thinks his term as Chair has been anything other than a disaster.  Why do you think he’s leaving 6 months before the term is up – because he’s done a good job?

Second rate do-gooder is a pretty accurate description for three of the recently departed Directors.

I see that parody is lost on you but having spent many hours interviewing aspirant non-execs that, unfortunately, is how it is.

Enjoy your decorating, we’ll miss you.

Why am I reminded of this? 🤣 

youtube.com/watch?v=NX45hc0aZt0&

I was kind of shrugging until the last line. 6 on Comms and marketing, yet the current situation!? 

Yes it is unaccountable if all they have to do is repeatedly say they are sorry and carry on regardless.

According to the minutes two members felt that stronger action should be taken against the President. Nearly always bold, stronger views are in the minority on NC and with the majority IMO too easily swayed by lawyer counsell, Dave’s soft words, Lynns expressions of contrition,  Director flannel, the practical difficulties of a GM etc etc.

The innate conservatism and forgiveness of NC is one reason the BMC is so mind bending slow to change and improve.
 

What in fact has NC achieved so far? It has not asked for resignations and it has not truly grilled all concerned to bottom out the Board issues and relayed what on earth is going on to the Membership. When it boils down to it, all NC have achieved is to sternly wag its finger.

The external consultants are the Sport England external review team.  Required for any organisation taking SE money on a rolling 3 year basis and brought forward by 6(ish) months given our current situation.  I think I heard that they were also running the facilitated session, but I may have misheard that.

The 2006 Companies Act placed seven statutory duties on each Director of a company, and that includes all the BMC Directors.

In summary these duties are –

1. To act in accordance with the company's constitution, articles of association, MOU etc and only to exercise his/her powers for the purposes for which they were conferred.

2. To promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, having regard to:

- the interests of the company's employees;

- the need to foster business relationships with the company's suppliers, customers and other stakeholders;

- the impact of the company's operations on the wider community and the environment;

- the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct;

- the need to act fairly and in good faith;

- the likely consequences of any decision in the long term;

3. To exercise independent judgement. Directors are meant to develop their own informed view on the company’s activities. They should not avoid their responsibility to make independent decisions by relying on the knowledge or judgement of other Directors or experts.

4. To exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence. The benchmark is that of a reasonably diligent person with the general knowledge, skill and experience that could reasonably be expected from a person carrying out the Director’s functions. Also, Directors with specific professional training or skills (such as a lawyer or accountant) are held to a higher standard in related issues than less qualified colleagues.

5. To avoid conflicts of interest – in particular the exploitation of any business opportunities.

6. Not to accept benefits from third parties.

7. To declare to the other Directors any interest in a proposed transaction or arrangement with the company.

With this in mind I am struggling to comprehend why the President should have a conflict of loyalties by being a Director on the board, the Chair of the NC and Members Champion as these three roles should be mutually compatible in terms of the duties. It is quite normal for board members to represent specific groups, i.e. a significant shareholder, while still acting in accordance with these duties.

The need for minutes of board meetings is also crucial for providing a record of the board’s decision-making process and to be able to demonstrate that the Directors have acted in accordance with these duties.

You have a view of what the Council should do, others have different views.  The Council try to balance all those views to come to what they believe is the best outcome for the BMC.

If you think you can do a better job than your Area Reps you know how to get yourself elected to do that. 

I think it's worth looking at the full recommendation here. "Fought over" is certainly a bit strong. Admittedly the first report didn't specifically reference publishing the minutes, that was an oversight rather than an intentional omission. It was explicitly referenced as those consulted were right to question whether the intent was recommending to only release a communiqué. I don't think there were any arguments against including this in the revised report nor later in this articles. Below is the text from the amended report:

Recommendation 31: In addition to publishing minutes (excluding any sensitive matters) after every meeting, the Board of Directors should produce a communiqué (summary of key themes and discussions), to be published on the BMC website

Some comments in the feedback questioned the value of a Board communiqué, in the absence of publication of the Board minutes themselves. Others wanted clarity about the type of matters that would or should be covered in such a communiqué. In the ORG's view, the content of the communiqué must be for the Board to decide on each occasion, but the principle is that it should contain a member-focused and easily digestible summary of the issues discussed at the meeting. For clarity, it is also recommended that the Board minutes of each meeting should also be published and available to members, recognising that the Board may not be able to report (and will have to redact the minutes for) sensitive issues such as personnel matters, or for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

The original report included:

We envisage that the Chair will have responsibility for ensuring the communiqué is prepared from the minutes of each meeting, for approval by the Board before issue. The final item on each Board agenda should be review and agreement of the contents of the communiqué. The communiqué should be published within two weeks of the meeting.

I think most members will agree that timely release of both; a member-focused and easily digestible summary of the issues discussed at the meeting released within two weeks following the meeting, and after the following meeting, the minutes, is not an unreasonable ask and helps prevent creating the vacuum that leads to conspiracy and concern. Trust goes both ways, and the membership shouldn't be made to felt that the Board, NC or any of their members holds the membership in contempt.

I think it's reasonable to say that the recommendation above was implemented straight after the 2018 AGM, then took a significant backward step following the 2019 AGM. Hopefully this last week marks a change in this approach, however a significant gap still remains in the list of published minutes for both Board and NC.

It's interesting in your earlier post you state -

"Lynn agreed the minutes have to be published, despite her concerns about how people will react."

This doesn't sound like someone who is fully embracing the concept of openness.

Also in the T&F Group observation, 6.5.1, they cite “the reluctance of the President to be clear to the National Council about the legal advice”. This sounds like someone being evasive, not open and transparent.

So on what evidence did the Council come to the conclusion that they continue to support Lynn and believe there remains a good basis to move forwards?

Andy - I asked the above higher up the thread of you. What is the situation here? Surely it is a matter of urgency? 

I've seen less drama at the top of a billion dollar multinational.

It is, thankfully it wasn't my line, you must have mistaken me for someone else.......

My point was in response to:

I was pointing out their subscription fees hadn't paid for it. I made no comment on the analysis of performance being swayed by anyone being volunteers.

People might feel it could be better used but it is a mandated three year review by Sport England. If you don't approve of their review system, complain to Sport England?

You are better informed of the details than me Graeme......

It's come up a few times but your "The Board who are taking a hammering are nearly all voluntary and the National Council who are getting it in the neck are all voluntary." sounded as if because they are voluntary you thought they should be above criticism.

Agreeing to publish minutes in which she is criticised is a fairly major step towards openness.  Given the comments above, being concerned about how people will react is a fairly prescient concern. 

The evidence is in para 3.2, 13 voted in favour, 2 voted against & 1 did not reply in the time.  

I don't know why each person reached the decision they did.  And to avoid the follow on question, yes I did vote in favour and I would be happy to explain my reasons to my area members, who I represent, if the ask at the next area meeting but do not feel it is appropriate or necessary here.

Simon

Clearly having only 1 CND is not good when the Board is so under strength.  Lynn and I have prepared a paper on the options and I expect that to go to the Council early next week and depending on the outcome I would expect Council to hold an election soon after.

Andy  

Ah! Yes, that comment does read like that but that does not reflect my opinion. I have raised my criticisms in person at Area Meetings and by e-mail to the relevant people. Doing a job in a voluntary capacity does not absolve you from criticism. It does mean I give people more leeway at times though.

However, I try to avoid repetitive criticism in these threads as the insightful critics gets swamped in these dumping grounds of general whinges, personal attacks and the raising of old grievances, I prefer to try the official channels first! 

Thank you for the update. The sooner they are in post the better. 

Excellent questions Nat!

I was pleased to see the openness in NC minutes and I support the NC in getting this mess sorted, and this post is not intended as a criticism of the NC who has clearly been left in the dark the same as the members.

But my point is that the conclusion that the NC came to in deciding to continue their support of the President doesn’t seem to fit with the level of criticism outlined in the minutes.

It comes across a bit like Trump’s impeachment, when the charges went to the Senate all his Republican mates ignored the evidence and voted the charges out.

The role of Members’ Champion is absolutely fundamental to us as ordinary members in protecting our interests, so how can we be sure that she is performing this role ahead of all others as she clearly hasn’t been doing so over the last few months?

I can assure you that over about 10 hours of meetings evidence wasn't ignored . 

4.1.5 and 4.1.6 were both clear that "the Council felt", not "the President did" (or did not) because there is no black and white distinction of what is right, except that in the Councils opinion it wasn't what happened on, and leading up to, 1 Aug.

Ultimately 13 out of 15 Councillors decided that they felt that they did/could support her, probably for 13 different reasons.

The Board are holding an Open Forum at the end of October, so maybe that is a question you need to ask the President yourself at that forum so you can make an informed decision on the evidence of your own ears.

4.1.5 says "We believe that the President now recognises this fact and we hope that she will work with Council to ensure that the mutual trust necessary is re-established going forwards"

but did she confirm this?

4.1.6 says "the President must ensure that they balance these conflicting loyalties"

not that she will

She has clearly failed to follow the principles of the MoU to which she was a signature so how can we trust her going into the future?

If she is to regain the confidence of the membership she needs to make a personal apology to the membership and confirm her commitment to acting in an open and honest way.

Could it be that with your noses up against it for 10 hours that distance, perspective and objectivity is lost?

We are maybe at risk of developing a bit of a 'witch hunt' here.

Lynn, as President, may have been seriously at fault over a number of issues.  It certainly sounds like it. And we have certainly had revealed that there are serious issues about the way that CEO, President and Chair have related to Board and NC and kept them informed about what is actually going on.

But underlying all this, surely, is the hidden issue that the Board tried to investigate; that was apparently 'blocked' and that led to resignations by three Directors. One of them a corporate lawyer, one a respected CEO of a charitable trust and the third the person who was tasked to undertake the investigation.

It may just be a 'symptom' rather than a 'cause' BUT that certainly needs to be bottomed out and a resolution communicated to the membership. "Procurement issues'?

Sorry. That was a bit meanly expressed. But it’s a serious point

Yeah I'm sure if we just made a decision in an hour you would be very supportive.!!!

We have made a decision, you don't like it.  I get it but reasking the same questions here repeatedly isn't going to change that. 

We make the best decisions we can, if you think others can do better then change the Council or get the 1% and force the Boards hand.

Update, written before your clarification post. So sorry a bit of a grumpy response but also a serious point. 

Simon

I would also say Council have a fairly big incentive to get this right as each problem takes up hours of our free time.  If we thought a different approach was better for the BMC; and therefore less likely to require more meetings, calls and UKC action; then do you think we would do anything different? 

Sorry if I'm being a bit dim here. Why do we as ordinary members require a "champion" in an organisation such as the BMC? Shouldn't everybody, at all levels of governance, have the interest of the clubs and members as their main objective? If we need a champion, does that suggest that there are factions within the BMC that don't have the interests of the membership at heart?

Agree with the sentiment, and this isn’t intended to undermine your major efforts here Andy or those that are working to make this happen, but it’s worth highlighting (as someone who spent a couple of years trying to reform/change various areas and got 90%+ voting members support for it) that since that vote in 2018 National Council still is the National Council, and hasn’t (yet) reformed to the Members’ Assembly/Council.

In particular, the four independent member representatives (who are directly elected from the membership) don’t yet exist.

Recommendation 33: The National Council should be restructured and become the Members’ Assembly, and its role redefined

The ORG considers that the detailed operations of the Members' Assembly should be determined by the Members' Assembly itself. However, in that context two core features are proposed.

First, the quorum should be weighted in favour of Local Area representatives and the four independent member representatives (who are directly elected from the membership). Second, it should be for the Members' Assembly to determine the process for appointing the independent members. However, the ORG recommends that the Members' Assembly should cast the net wide when seeking candidates, taking advantage of the various methods of improved member engagement recommended elsewhere in the original ORG report to identify candidates and invite applications. This will assist the Members' Assembly to capture the best candidates and improve its prospects of meeting the diversity targets to which it should aspire.

The ORG recommends that the Members' Assembly should undertake a three yearly review of its effectiveness as a check and balance on the Board, and in ensuring the voice of the membership is heard in debates about the BMC's policy and strategic direction.

Similarly, the ORG also recommends that the Member’s Assembly should commit itself to the same diversity requirements as the Board of Directors. It should review itself annually, in partnership with the Board of Directors, to reflect on whether or not it represents the diversity of the membership and the participant landscape of climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering. The Members’ Assembly should publish the outcome of this review to all members including, if required, the steps it plans to take in order to address any issues it identifies.

The original ORG report recommended that a summary of each Members’ Assembly meeting should be published on the BMC’s website and circulated to Local Areas. As with the Board, we consider that the minutes of Members’ Assembly meetings should be similarly published.

I appreciate Covid may well have got in the way here with disrupted AGMs, but I hope that recent events don’t disrupt this further.

If anything not having completed this critical reform earlier may have made the recent issues even more challenging. Is this happening summer 2021?

As you are aware, everything was prepared to do this and run elections at the 2020 AGM but were not implemented as the AGM was truncated in response to the COVID pandemic.    

We couldn't have implemented the new Nationally Elected Councillors prior to the AGM as they need to be elected, but the Council are fully committed to implementing the changes and are already, in practice, working to the new TORs. 

The review process R33 recommends has not yet been conducted, though to an extent the T&F Group did something similar and I think we have shown we are willing to be transparent about such reviews.

I fully expect the changes that were ready to go for the last AGM will be implemented at the next GM, if the members vote for the changes.

This is a bit off topic but as a member of the 'R33 Members' Council 'working group I'd just like to assure you that yes, despite everything we're still hard at work on this! We're currently producing the final draft of the ToR incorporating the recent feedback, and we're also taking the opportunity to review the new Councillor roles in the light of some of the changes and other reviews that have happened this year. We're definitely still on track for this to happen at the 2021 AGM, whenever that is.

And as Andy says, although we haven't been able to change the structure we have been making some changes to our working practices and are effectively using as much of the spirit of the new ToR as we're able. 

That also includes IT though. Would expect at least 2 to be aligned with that probably more.

Interesting point.

Whilst in theory a Board should have the members at heart there is always the danger that it becomes detached from its activities and purpose and there are many businesses and organisations that have drifted that way with bad consequences.

I don’t know if they still do it but IIRC McDonalds Directors were required to do a few days of burger flipping which on the face of it seems like a waste of their well paid time but it kept in touch with what was happening at the front face of the business.

I applaud Lynn for her efforts of gallivanting around the country attending area meetings and events (at least before Covid struck) to keep in touch with the grass roots. Ideally it is something that all Directors should do to keep it real but they already seem to be overloaded with obligations.

Having someone as the go-to person who personifies the soul of the BMC *seems* like a good thing but perhaps it requires closer examination and thought

This is a very good question and in theory you are correct. I’m probably not the best person to answer, but here goes.

Prior to the organisational changes to the BMC that resulted from the Organisational Review (OR) the BMC was run by members for the members by the National Council (NC) whose membership was elected directly or indirectly by the members, and the Board was effectively a sub-set of the NC but without clear primacy.

Following the OR and largely influenced by the Sport Council recommendations the control of the BMC shifted solely to the Board. The composition of the Board also changed so that only 1/3 of the Board is now elected directly or indirectly by the members, the remainder are appointed by the Board; three representing other stakeholders and three independent directors.

Because of member concern that this would result in the members losing control of what is essentially a members’ organisation the concept of a Members Champion was created, e.g. the President who is the only person directly elected by the membership and who chairs the NC and is also a Director on the Board.

The idea being that the President, Board Chair and CEO will work closely together to ensure the smooth running of the BMC and there is a matrix of responsibility to reflect their respective roles.

The theory being that the President will have the ear of the members both directly by attending area meetings and indirectly by chairing the NC and makes sure their interests are taken into account by the Board, and also to report back to the NC and members if they feel that the Board is going in a direction which is not supported by the general membership, e.g. preventing a repeat of the rebranding fiasco.

So do we need a Members’ Champion?

Great summary!

 "I applaud Lynn for her efforts of gallivanting around the country attending area meetings and events (at least before Covid struck) to keep in touch with the grass roots. Ideally it is something that all Directors should do to keep it real but they already seem to be overloaded with obligations."

Don't know if the system has been scrapped but instead of just the President tear-arsing around it used to be the case that Directors would be allocated a couple of areas as 'theirs'; and attended area meetings.

Of course that was when most Directors had come from those very 'grassroots' themselves. I guess it's a price you pay for having 'Independent Directors'.

To be fair, Simon, Matthew, & Paul all were long standing members of the BMC prior to being Independent Directors.  I'm not sure about Amanda.    

Is the BMC not run by the members now? Aren't the Board all members? (genuine question)

Has the President's role changed or has the "Member Champion" role just been appended? (genuine question)

As I remember, didn't the National Council, whose membership was elected directly or indirectly by the members, vote through the "rebranding fiasco", back in the good old days when the BMC was run by members for the members? (facetious question)

I would say that everybody in the BMC should (and probably does, those many here may disagree) have the interest of the clubs and members as their main objective. The issue comes when people disagree about is best for clubs and members.

Having a "Members Champion" does not imply that there are factions within the BMC that don't have the interests of the membership at heart imho. It does mean that the President and National Council can step in when the Board make decision that they believe is in the membership and clubs best interest that the actual membership and clubs disagree with.

This doesn't always work, as with the re-branding fiasco which the National Council voted through and it took a "members revolt*" to get it overturned. 

*whinging on social media

In reply:

Anyone like a little bet? Place your bet now, choose one of the three options 

How much longer will these BMC threads run??

A: Till June 2021

B: Till Xmas 2020

C: Till July 2045

Good luck 

Don't know, but the AoA says the majority should have been members for at least one year. The difference is before they would have been elected directly or indirectly by the members, now 7 are appointed by the Board.

Both I think, but others can give a more detailed answer.

Probably the strongest justification for there being a Members' Champion

"Aren't the Board all members? (genuine question)."

I did raise this and was assured that as all Directors get free BMC membership then all Directors WOULD be BMC members 😆

" Didn't the National Council, whose membership was elected directly or indirectly by the members, vote through the "rebranding fiasco", back in the good old days"

Well yes. BUT after the CEO and Executive Committee had spent time with consultants provided by Sport England who did presentations and led in developing the idea. Then the National Council was given a presentation on what a great idea it was, how it was confidential so they couldn't consult the areas/members and could they decide right now, please. Maybe they should have kicked off but that would have taken more bottle than they had.

And let's not forget that that farrago led to the resignation of a respected Director who had been assured that the membership would be consulted.

It's one aspect of the history that needs to be cleared up. I wasn't there so I'd be open to folks saying I've got it wrong.

To suggest it was National Council's fault is a bit unfair.

My comment was general; not personal.

The BMC has been given good service by Simon McCalla (resigned) and Matthew Bradbury (resigned) over the years.

I don't know Paul but hear he's pretty good.

But I thought, to quote Steve, "the Board was effectively a sub-set of the NC but without clear primacy"? Surely the National Council couldn't be railroaded into a decision by the subservient Executive Committee?

I'm actually not trying to blame National Council, I'm just trying to make the point that things weren't all rosy prior to organisational changes, despite some of the posters on here's very rose tinted glasses.

B: into 2021

I suspect by mid 2021 the two Andy's, Shark and Offwidth may have got what they need to say off their chests... I might see if BetFred will take a wager on this..

In case you think I'm one of those who think things were better before the organisational changes I'm not. I think the new structure while not perfect is a great improvement

I did. It turns out we both hold the same opinion! 

I promised on a fb thread that because I was no longer a BMC member or volunteer i would refrain from commenting on this topic......... but..........

Not quite; after said consultation with SE consultants, Exec in the shape of Dave T and Nic C gave a presentation on the proposals to NC in what was a very neutral fashion, and expressed some misgivings about the whole thing. Rehan stayed quiet, not getting involved as it turned out he had severe misgivings, but went along with the wishes of NC. They basically said "we can see good and bad points, we'll go along with what you (NC) decide". They were also taken aback at how positively it was welcomed by NC and that it was voted in favour of immediately (no against, only one abstention).

It was entirely Nat Councils "fault" for not saying it should go to the membership (they were the memberships elected representatives though). 

Exec and NC were 2 separate bodies, but with some shared membership; NC held primacy, and could theoretically tell exec what to do. One of the main reasons why the ORG was kicked off was that whilst NC made policy with Exec being charged with putting that policy into practice, it was entirely possible that this would potentially put directors in conflict with the company AoA's and (more importantly for them) the Companies Acts. Hence the requirement for a board of directors with primacy, reinforced by Sport England's primacy requirement for continued access to funding.

"But I thought, to quote Steve, "the Board was effectively a sub-set of the NC but without clear primacy"? Surely the National Council couldn't be railroaded into a decision by the subservient Executive Committee?"

One would have hoped so.

Cheers, Ian. I wasn't there!

Is it true that the BMC wanted to change the name to 'Champion Member'?

LOL

Thank you, Alison. For many reasons, not an easy task.

‘Champion’ seems to be defined as going to area meetings attended by a minuscule self-selecting sub set of members and then going into radio silence 😂

In seriousness, judging by Andy Syme’s diligent activity on here, if that reflects the BMC management, then members’ interests are in safe hands.

In fairness to Lynn until a few months ago she was doing a lot more than this. My point is she needs to re-establislish the contact with and confidence of the members.

Unfortunately Andy is not on the Board so ineffective unless informed of the problems by the President and CNDs

Absolutely!

Which emphasises the need for National Council to fill it's vacant Director 'slots' as soon as possible. ( I would really hope that process is well under way?)  and ensures that those people feel empowered to report back to NC: warts and all.

Even though the articles are 'loaded' to prevent the National Council Directors from ever having anything like a majority say on the Board (to the extent that if some 'proper' Directors don't attend then some of the NC appointees aren't even allowed to have a vote) it's obvious that NC must be fully represented.

Thank you for your answer Steve. Much appreciated.

Unfortunately Andy Syme isn't the 'BMC management' 😉

I'll go for D: Good luck 😉

Thanks Andy, for taking my feeble jokes in/with good humour!

The kind words are appreciated but this needs to be fixed for the long term, not reliant on any individual.

It is not just the President or the CNDs who need to be transparent.  The MOU (para 22) is clear:

The Board will be open and transparent, taking account of legitimate confidentiality
restrictions as detailed in the Board Terms of Reference, in all its dealings with the
Council.

The issue is that the Board took a view on legitimate confidentiality which in the opinion of Council was excessive to the point of making the communications useless; exacerbated by the failure of the Board to publish minutes which, with hindsight maybe, do expose some of the issues when you read between the lines. 

I am pleased to see that Paul (the Acting Chair) and the President are keen to work with Council to ensure everyone has a common understanding of what legitimate confidentiality actually means and  that it is ONLY used when absolutely necessary.  I hope this will also include how CNDs can address the grey areas where there is both a legitimate need for confidentiality and a legitimate concern about the Boards actions.

As a final throwaway for discussion I firmly believe that this has shown that the original ORG recommendation that the President is not a Director was right.  The President needs to be a Board observer by right; and ideally an observer required to attend (or have a nominated alternative attend) to achieve Board quorum; but be unfretted by the legal responsibilities of a Company Director so they can always have only the members interests to consider when an issue comes up.

A well considered process change sounds like a good idea to address some of the underlying issues.

Clearly the board need to respect the president's views where they are voiced and the president needs to feel able to disclose issues to the membership, balancing that with a legitimate need for confidentiality will take some careful thought.

Using a hypothetical rebrand as an example the board could have lined up all of its ducks such that the rebrand wouldn't have been compromised by public release of the information (website addresses and so on), if the president has serious concerns about the rebrand (as Rehan did) they could raise this and if the board insist on going ahead take it to a GM vote.

Board has primacy and responsibility, members can nix any really silly ideas coming out of the board and tell them to come back with a better idea meaning the board can't be forced into breaking law which IIRC was part of the reason for the board needing primacy?

"The issue is that the Board took a view on legitimate confidentiality which in the opinion of Council was excessive to the point of making the communications useless; exacerbated by the failure of the Board to publish minutes which, with hindsight maybe, do expose some of the issues when you read between the lines. "

So, effectively, the Memorandum of Understanding was breached before the ink was dry?

And sorry to labour the point but Lynn and Gareth were the signatures to the MoU

Not sure that's fair, legitimate confidentiality was specifically included for good reason.

The generous would say that they applied legitimate confidentiality by their definition (wherever that came from) and it was just the the term wasn't understood by all the same way.

The less generous would say they used legitimate confidentiality excessively because they were embarrassed about the fractures etc.

I suspect as so often is the case they had good intentions in trying to apply confidentiality correctly so they could have open debates in the Board where they didn't agree but as things got worse it became harder to 'fess up'.  Once a culture has been set in any group it is very hard to break out; Jon was the little boy pointing out the Emperor was naked!

The key thing is that we find the correct balance (and definition) so no one is able to (miss)use it in the future and the Council can become involved at the right time to help the Board before things get too far.

Is there not a fundamental problem of having an organisation that ostensibly is run for members with two competing bodies providing accountability, only one of which is really connected to the members? 

If the Board doesn't consider itself ultimately responsible to the members, the BMC is no longer a members' organisation.  If it does, then why have the NC between it and members at all?  How can the NC hold the Board to account when it is the Board that is the ultimate decision making body?  The NC appears powerless, really.  That the NC and the Board have a large degree of common membership seems to make this all much worse.

Could anyone briefly sum up what is going off here? I have seen the numerous threads but I still don't really understand the starting point. 

If public cash is used it means all of the consultant output will be available for the public to review. Normally you have to agree to freedom of information of your output when tendering for public contracts, so at least there is some transparancy on the output. 

As a Company, the BMC needs Directors and a Board.  I would not agree that the Board don't see themselves as accountable to members but they have legal responsibilities as Directors too and these could conflict with the members interests (or maybe desires). 

The Council, and through the Councillors the Areas, are there to bridge the gap in terms of representing the members and providing an interim step rather than taking everything to members at AGMs etc.  

The ultimate decision making body is actually the members who have the ability to remove Directors or the whole Board.  The Board know this (only too well after 2017 and Climb Britain).

Neither are the Council powerless.  They have reserved matters but also the ability to force a motion or a General Meeting if they think the members need to make the decision.  This is a really strong 'incentive' on the Board.

It's also worth noting that having Councillors on the Board is IMHO good for the BMC but what is difficult is the atmosphere that we have had over the last couple of years where the Board are looked at, by some members, as some sort of 'bad' others.  The Board are almost all long standing BMC members and volunteers and if not are people who want to do a good job.  They have got things wrong, and may do again, but we need to find the balance so that justifiable scrutiny and challenge does not become, in impact if not intent, an attack that drives the Board towards a bunker mentality.  Respect and understanding all round will go a long way to moving us forwards together. 

Me? Fair? 😆

A memorandum of understanding where the two parties don't share a common understandung of its meaning would seem to be inherently flawed. Especially when party 'A' controls the information released to party 'B'!

'Confidentiality' should be confined to carefully defined specific areas - staffing, commercial sensitivity etc. in terms of release to NC. And some of those should be time limited. The Board should only be allowed to 'sit on things' for so long.

AND if papers are presented to NC in a timely fashion clearly marked 'Confidential' and giving a reason there should be no reason to regard members of NC as having less integrity than Board members.

An inquiry was started into some questionable practices. At the same time the Board was suffering interpersonal clashes.

Two directors resigned and the Chair offered his resignation. Then the Director conducting the investigation resigned stating that he was being obstructed. Then the Chair did resign along with another Director.

It has subsequently transpired that the Board have not been communicating openly with National Council - the body supposed to represent members' interests. Also two of the resigning Directors were NC appointees thus reducing their influence over the board.

The whole saga has been notable for the lack of information actually provided to the members and questions have been raised about the extent to which the President and others felt able to represent the membership.

It's thrown up a lot of associated issues....!

Unfortunately a director in all but name, which is what this sounds like, is still a director for purposes of company law (a 'shadow director')

Yes, it's the national council that is the novel organ here, something new inserted into an established legal framework and now nothing works.

A good point and would need to avoid that but I believe it's possible with some thought,

When we wrote it it seemed fairly clear (if not bleeding obvious), but clearly it isn't and as I said we are now working to make it clear.

Agreed it needs clearly defining along those lines

Nay, lad!

National Council has been the de facto Board for years (Management Committee previously) with an Executive arm to implement it's direction. In theory... 

The only novel thing about National Council in the new BMC structure is that it's lost its power. Apart from the power to press the 'nuclear button'.

This keeps coming up.  In what way is there a conflict?  Broadly a Board has responsibility to ensure an organisation follows the law, the company aims, and treats stakeholders, especially shareholders/members fairly.  How does this conflict with members' interests or desires?

Novel in terms of Companies maybe but not novel to sporting organisations (the English RFU have a similar body for example) or in BMC.

The giving of primacy to the Board, rather than the past where NC was considered a shadow board, is the change and while the Council is working IMHO there have definitely been issues getting the system to work as smoothly as hoped.  

The aim is still that the process should be:

1. Board have idea/decision that will affect members.
2. Board liase with Council
3. Council discuss with Areas and members to get a considered view
4. Board take account of this and make a decision, or decide to go to members to vote.
5. If Board make a decision and Council feel the Board have not taken account of the views then Council and Board have a discussion and either:
   1. Come to a decision that both believe is in the best interest of members; or
   2. Go to members; either voluntarily or at the insistence of Council. 

To be fair this was a rallying cry of the Tier 1 in 2018 and maybe we are making too much of it when really the issue at the moment is more related to personalities and the Board not being able to work collectively.  

But a conflict example is that the Board decide that the legal liability of owning land mean it is no longer an acceptable risk to the BMCs financially viable (which is a legal duty) and therefore decide to sell off Crookrise etc.

Cutting through all this, it's obvious what the key issue is here, and what seems to have been kept very quiet, for reasons I can only begin to guess at...

...what biscuits do they have in their committee meetings??

What? When they've finished hob-nobbing and digesting information?

They all get a finger of fudge and a rock cake. Obvs.

I guess a few members see themselves as the 'owners' of the BMC rather than just 'investors' in it. Technically they are.

And rather than just being treated 'fairly' they see the membership as having a 'right' to determine direction. There is a tension there.. !

"really the issue at the moment is more related to personalities and the Board not being able to work collectively."

You sure it's not really about the unwillingness of the Board to inform National Council about what was going on, Andy?  And muzzling those very people who were supposed to be instrumental in that communication? And 'breaching/bending' at least the spirit of the MoU if not the, undefined, letter.

And we STILL have no idea what the original investigation was about or its outcome.

That strikes me as a good example of why the Board/NC split is problematic:

-With just a Board you would have the decision to sell made cleanly because of the financial risk, which is surely in members' interest to have managed.  If the members really disagree, there is an EGM and a new Board (and potentially the BMC goes bust due to the financial consequences).

-With a Board plus NC, you have the Board decision, the NC say no, the members don't like it.  The Board say yes, f*ck you.  The NC can't do anything because half of them are Board members too and comprised.  The members never hear about anything until there are resignations and lawyers. Result, a complete mess.

There are 4 voting Councillors on the Board & currently 17 not on the Board (will raise to 21 when Nationally Elected Councillors are introduced).  The Board can not out vote the Council. 

Is this for real?

Come on, Andy! They don't vote together. That's a nonsense.

And the Articles are structured in such a way that NC Directors and President can never hold a majority voting position.

And, patently, the Board can just do what it wants and neglect to inform NC.  No vote needed.

Absolutely. I was quite proud that one of the last acts of the National Council, as was, involved voting through the purchase of Craig y Forwyn despite reservations from some Directors.

The final say on land holdings probably does sit with the Board now.  I wonder how much Wilton would raise as a landfill site....

AND and and.... currently there aren't. Two of them have walked.

How long before the NC representation on the Board gets back up to strength!  Or is that presenting difficulties?

MGs point was Board members on Council could out vote non-Board members, they can't.  Your point is that Council members on the Board can't out vote the rest Board, yes that is right.  Not sure who you are referring to voting together?

I don't think that was his point at all. What he said was:

"-With a Board plus NC, you have the Board decision, the NC say no, the members don't like it.  The Board say yes, f*ck you.  The NC can't do anything because half of them are Board members too and comprised.  The members never hear about anything until there are resignations and lawyers. Result, a complete mess."

It's not about 'out-voting'; it's about the ability to ignore, mis-inform and by-pass.

And since they are two separate bodies the idea of one 'out-voting' the other is a non-issue.  Unless the nuclear button gets pressed and they square up at a General Meeting. 

The NC can't do anything because half of them are Board members too

That was what I was replying to.  

If there is competition between these 2 bodies, imaginary or otherwise, then there are big problems.

The board are answerable to the members of a company in all cases, whether they become members by buying shares, or in this case, a subscription. 

Well yes. As we are seeing.

So why the NC? 

This was what I was trying to get at. 

Good question.

The NC exists because of history I believe. Getting rid of NC and just having a board is an option members could request. 

I think NC provide a good balance to the Board and a proven way for members to input which will improve as nationally elected councillors are implemented as recommended by ORG, but there are other models if members wanted.  My only worry is whether another reorganisation now would be a good thing for the BMC to focus on. 

Maybe I would rephrase rather than repeat MG's question. Why do the BNC need both a board and a separate NC? Why can't NC reps be member elected directors, supported by professionals, whether volunteers or not, as advisers accountant, lawyer etc, to rein them in if something iffy is ever suggested.

Agree another reorg would be disruptive, but clearly the current situation is not acceptable, and is the last reorg actually finished?

The BMC only NEEDS a Board.

The Board has constraints placed on it by both Company law and by Sport England (if we want to access SE and UK Sport (Olympic) funding).

Can't remember full list but 4 key requirements of a Board that meets the above are:

1. No more than 12
2. Must have a Chair
3. no more than 33% elected by members
4. no less than 25% Independent Directors 

Seems low but not unreasonably so - an SE requirement?

A given, I would think.

Is this SE?  It sounds very like they don't want a members' organisations if so, and also perhaps the root of all these problems.

Independent of what?  Disinterested comment and judgment does seem sensible, however.

History (from memory so I stand to be corrected!).

Originally the BMC was 'run' by volunteers from the senior clubs. Eventually, with the advent of a paid 'Secretary' a Management Committee came into being.

When the BMC incorporated (1995?) the Management Committee created an Executive arm - still answerable to ManCom - to look after the day-to-day management. Whilst only the members of the Executive Committee were registered as Directors with Companies House the rest of ManCom were de facto 'shadow Directors'.

Only about 15 years ago was the Management Committee renamed as the National Council. And only 3 years ago was the Executive Committee renamed as the Board.

So rather than 'why do we have an NC', an alternative question could be 'why did the Executive Committee' usurp NC'?

Ian W's question is relevant as it queries why the original organisation was discarded.

Sport England work with Governing Bodies of Sport. Whilst they recognise that the BMC is a slightly different animal they still have a template applicable to all.

You can't have footballers running the FA and you can't have cricketers running the ECB. So you can't have climbers running climbing. That's just the way it is.

And re. 'Independent Directors'. There is always a need to get fresh blood and new ideas and awkward questions on any established Board (Looks like Jon Punshon was in that mould and paid the price).

But you could make the case that the membership can provide that rather than having a small sub-Committee selecting the people they want.

I was wrong it's no more than 33% Council Appointments. 

From SE code

1.4 Where Councils are permitted to appoint directors, such appointments shall reflect not more than one third of the directors.
Commentary
By promoting Boards with skilled, diverse and independent opinion this Code seeks to ensure better informed and more rounded decisions.
Striking the right balance between those who have an intimate knowledge of the sport and those who bring experience from outside is also important. All directors should, however, act in the best interest of the organisation, as set out in Requirement 1.2.  

It's a common concept in Boards to avoid 'group think' so independent of the organisation 'management'.

Sports & Recreational Alliance, for example, say the same "The board must have a minimum of 25% of independent non-executive directors to include the right balance of independent thought and subject matter expertise." 

Again from SE Code 

Independent - a person is independent if they are free from any close connection to the organisation and if, from the perspective of an objective outsider, they would be viewed as independent. A person may still be deemed to be ‘independent’ even if they are a member of the organisation and/or play the sport. Examples of a ‘close connection’ include:
(A) they are or have within the last four years been actively involved in the organisation’s affairs,
e.g. as a representative of a specific interest group within the organisation such as a sporting
discipline, a region or a home country;
(B) they are or have within the last four years been an employee of the organisation; or
(C) they have close family ties with any of the organisation’s directors or senior employees.

SE's Code for Sports Governance defines Independent as:

"Independent - a person is independent if they are free from any close connection to the organisation and if, from the perspective of an objective outsider, they would be viewed as independent. A person may still be deemed to be ‘independent’ even if they are a member of the organisation and/or play the sport. Examples of a ‘close connection’ include: (A) they are or have within the last four years been actively involved in the organisation’s affairs, e.g. as a representative of a specific interest group within the organisation such as a sporting discipline, a region or a home country; (B) they are or have within the last four years been an employee of the organisation; or (C) they have close family ties with any of the organisation’s directors or senior employees."

The Code is clear that the Board is fully responsible for the running of the NGB, and that any Council can only have reasonable rights to consult and challenge the Board but cannot override it.  It is also clear that Boards must be appointed to achieve the required mix of skills and diversity, which could be difficult where they are elected by the members.

The crucial thing about achieving the standards of governance required by SE is that roles and responsibilities are made clear and distinct.  The BMC has admitted that this was not the case before, and whilst it may now have changed on paper it appears that there may be some way to go in practice.

The questions in my mind are:

are the roles and responsibilities now clear and distinct, and clearly understood by everyone?

are the communications between the NC and the Board now clear, and working properly?

Are the Board and NC able to communicate clearly with the membership, and receive feedback?  This does seem to have been sadly lacking in the recent debacle, the official communiques have been vague and even defensive, leaving the debate to be carried on here.

You're having a laugh, right?