UKH

The findings of the BMC's Independent Organisational Review Group (ORG) were announced at Kendal Town Hall on Saturday 18th November. Amidst the hustle and bustle of Kendal Mountain Festival this was major event for many, with the report and its findings - which had been conducted completely independently - being a total unknown to both staff and membership alike.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

That bloke stood on the right of Rab Carrington looks like he cares as much as I do. This is news?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Loving the venue for the NE area meeting. 'The Honest Lawyer'......

In reply to olddirtydoggy:


Yep. It is. For everyone who cares about the BMC. For those who don't then 'pass along please; nothing to see here'.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

That 'bloke' is the review chair, you muppet! If recommendations for reorganising the BMC isn't news on a UK climbing and hill walking website, its hard to think what is.

In reply to Andy Say:

'pass along please; nothing to see here' - I think I will thanks (what I load of ....)

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This is the antithesis of what I love about Climbing.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

I've actually sent Ray an email apologising about the use of this photograph, it was an unfortunate choice on my behalf, but the only one I'd got. I was originally going to put a more witty caption, but thought it might not be appropriate in the topic at hand.

Dry though it might seem, it is important and (potentially) a good thing. That said, this is very much up for the membership to decide.

Keep an eye out for that online survey to express your opinion, or if you're in the Peak Area see you tomorrow night

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This is a depressing lot of corporate news-speak. What's changing?

In reply to bouldery bits:
Totally with you on this. The bigger and more corporate the BMC have become in the last few years the more I switch off and become disengaged.

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

Don't apologise, the pic of his face perfectly captures the mood many of us feel about all this BMC material.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:
So whats new... you have been anti BMC and claiming universality in that for no obvious reason, other than illness, since you turned up here on UKC. Your posting history is there for all to see. There is a lot to be careful and concerned about in these changes but the tiny minority of rabid haters like you are of no help in that.

On the plus side of your blinkered baleful view of the BMC we have the analogy of the Roman's joke. Access work, government lobbying, technical work, safety advice and training links, crag purchase and stewardship, free 3rd party insurance, guidebooks, .... the list goes on and on and most of it down to volunteers. Tomorrow in Grindleford we are questioning the head of the PNPA about the future of Stanage, alongside the Q & A on the review.

In reply to bouldery bits:

But as Off-width says, the BMC deals with "Access work, government lobbying, technical work, safety advice and training links, crag purchase and stewardship, free 3rd party insurance, guidebooks". Dull it may be, but without them (to take one example) our access to various venues would be diminished/non-existent. Not much use having a love of climbing if you have nowhere to climb (other than indoors)...

In reply to Mark Kemball:

It's not a good idea to post your unique email links! They verify your membership to the researchers. However, the BMC or ORG won't know who has completed. The datasets will be split after verification you are a member. If it then looks like you've completed twice, your result may well be removed...

If anyone wants to complete it from a public link use this: http://bit.ly/ukcbmc1

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
One thing I would really like the BMC to do is to make comment on the purposed EIGHT Zip Wires that a company Treetop Trek together with United Utilities is at the moment trying to get permission to erect them across the lake in the Thirlmere Valley. . I have hinted to them several times to make an official comment but with no success. It is a ridiculous idea that will ruin this beautiful tranquil area of the Lake District National Park.This area is home to quite a few crags , one being the impressive Raven Crag .

In reply to USBRIT:
This was discussed at the last Lake District meeting which included a presentation by the proposers . I happen to know as I was present. A vote was taken and I understand that we are working on this closely with the Friends of the Lake District.

Last meeting's minutes here: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/Event.aspx?id=3902

Next meeting next weds.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I can't believe there's so many cynical climbers out there. If you don't like what the BMC does, then shut up and move along, what do you care anyways? If any of you do actually any climbing, which I doubt, who do you think is going to make sure you can keep accessing the crags? Who will keep lobbying to protect the outdoors? Are you bunch cynical old farts be dealing with land owners? But again, I don't think you venture much further than the sofa...

In reply to Southvillain:

All very valid points.
Perhaps I failed to make myself clear. The BMC is important. However, leadership struggles, politics, governance restructuring and external reviews are not what it should be about. Can we focus on the important bits please rather than self centred, inward looking corporate silliness.

There is no need for the leadership of the BMC to take itself so ridiculously seriously. What the BMC does is very important. However, the issue at the minute is the leadership seems to think the leadership is the most important element - it is not.

In reply to bouldery bits:

Maybe we have three types of member? The 'RAC': joins the BMC for insurance, Summit, discounts etc. 'The National Trust': joins the BMC as a financial contribution to it's good works and the ''Party Member': joins the BMC and gets involved in areas, committees and the politics.

In reply to bouldery bits:

Hmm, the BMC do all their good work - much cited here - by handling large amounts of (our) money and shepherding the efforts of volunteers and staff, represents thousands of members and funded international athletes, and I for one am pleased to see someone taking seriously the governance (ie rules by which it operates) and structure (ie how it makes decisions and gets work done). It may be boring but you've got to want it done properly. It's not a cottage industry any more.

In reply to bouldery bits:

Fair point. I presume all the review stuff has been prompted by the recent proposed name change debacle/vote of no confidence.

In reply to Southvillain:

It was actually suggested by National Council before the motion of no confidence as far as I'm aware. Although, of course, that did give it some impetus!

In reply to Andy Say:


Two additional types of members -

those who have to join in order to get a MT qualification.

those who don't even know they're a member because they are in an affiliated club

In reply to Offwidth:

I think the volunteers such as yourself are a fantastic resource and if it needs something like the BMC to bring people together then thats a great thing. There does seem to be this idea thought that without the BMC there wouldn't be access on places like Stanage and I just don't agree with that. I'm greatful for any work I benefit from, most of which I'll probably never know has been done but lets not get too carried away here, if the BMC vanished tomorrow, we would all continue climbing. I just feel it needs to be scaled right back. Thanks for everything you guys do.

In reply to Stravaig:

Aye. I forgot the 'you must' of Mountain Training candidates. And they provide the BMC with about 3000 members every year!

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Anyone had problems trying to respond to the organisational review via the survey?

I have tried the various links on the BMC site, but they either say that I have already completed the survey (I did the previous one, but not this latest one) or I'm taken to an error page.

I did try and get to tonight's Peak Area meet, but events decided otherwise - it's a shame they meet so far from Sheffield!

Ian

In reply to Ian Carey:

You should have received an email with a 'personalised' link to the survey. If you haven't contact the office and get your email address updated! This has been a major stumbling block in communication

In reply to Ian Carey:

Can you email me via the forum messaging describing the issue and we’ll get it checked out.

Sorry for the brevity, just about to jump on at the Peak meeting...

In reply to Ramon Marin:
I understand your frustration with 'cynical climbers' but actually I don't think you fully understand that a lot of climbers like myself actually (did) like the BMC, and feel its important for the access work (and other stuff) they do, but don't like the direction they have gone in, and I guess like me are annoyed with this. I was a member for over 10 years I think, and very happy with the organisation, I enjoyed reading summit and hearing about what they were doing ... but it all went sour and I really don't like the corporate direction they have gone. I don't think they should promote climbing into the Olympics (speed climbing, are you serious), promote/run climbing competitions (don't have a problem with comps, but it shouldn't be run by a quasi governing body), sidle up with corporate partners, try and name change, have an ever expanding overly complex structure when really it should just focus on access/safety stuff.... etc Sorry haven't got time to expand this as I want a cup of tea since getting back from the climbing wall... I would love to support the BMC again (I admit I feel disenfranchised by them), but they would need to go back to their roots, which I guess they never will as the pandora's box has been opened. And I do climb a lot as well as sitting on the sofa at 10pm at night!

For those of us who have to deal with more than enough bureaucratic management-speak at work already...

...please can somebody summarize this in sentences you wouldn't be ashamed to use in the pub?

In reply to Andy Say:

Hi Andy,

I've just found the email and the link works.

However, the links on the BMC site still don't appear to work. I have sent details to JR and the BMC office.

Overall I think the review recommendations are good. I did manage to read most of it today in preperation for the Peak meeting, but unfortunately at the last minute I couldn't get there.

Having been involved in the BMC via the Peak area during the mid 90s I was surprised to get the impression that there is still a lack of clarity about leadership and decision making. I felt it was an issue in the 1990s, and I'm concerned that it still appears to be an issue today.

The challenge will now be to try and get the recommendations implemented (assuming that they are agreed to).

It will require a lot of work, much of it terribly dull and at first glance unrelated to climbing, which I suspect will be off-putting for many members. However, from my interpretation of the recommendations, my experiences from the 1990s and my more recent experience in the charity sector, governance and leadership is vital for success.

This is not to say that the BMC has not been successful, as overall I think that it has, but it looks like it is going to have have take some pain (well more like tedium) to get the governance and leadership in better shape.

If we get this right, the BMC could go from a good organisation to an outstanding one.

Ian

In reply to Stone Muppet:

I'll try. Currently the National Council (largely area reps) is held to be the body which sets policy and direction for the Executive Committee to implement: it is proposed that in future a Members Assembly will have an oversight role and a Board of Directors will have 'primacy' (there will also be a Partners Assembly). There is, however loads of other stuff some of which is dependant upon that change and some of which isn't but it all comes as a complete 'package'. Sorry. Two sentences .

I'm off to dig my bunker now....

Hi

If you're interested, we filmed the launch of the report at Kendal, and that's now live:

youtube.com/watch?v=zIasTcd345M&

Alex.

In reply to Andy Say:

Thanks Andy. Appreciate the normal language. Multiple sentences are ok just not the power talk!

So this raises the questions

Is the BMC trying to be democratic, or effective?
Are these in conflict?
If so, which should take priority?
Why is it thought that a members assembly would be any more democratic/effective than a gathering of area reps?
Where would the board of directors get its agenda from? Who chooses them?
If the board has 'primacy' (a borderline word there but you did use quotes!), does that mean they can overrule the members assembly, and if so, what is the point of the latter?

In reply to Stone Muppet:
I'll try to be neutral here


Both.


Possibly.


The intention is to have ONE entity responsible for the actions of the BMC rather than split responsibility as current.


The suggestion is that there will be fewer area reps BUT an introduction of directly elected members via development in online participation and voting (only a small minority of members ever get to area meetings).


The members assembly will set broad policy and 'mission'; the directors will set their own agenda to implement those. Some directors will come from 'within' (staff, members assembly, partners assembly) but many will come from outside as 'independents'. The chair of the Board will also be an independent - candidates to be selected b.y a nominations committee, yet to be constituted (The President will only chair the members assembly)


'Primacy' has two meanings The common usage of 'the part in charge that controls the other parts' and a legal usage that identifies the part that had legal responsibility for the BMC actions. It is intended that the members assembly WILL have oversight of the actions of the Board and those actions should comply to agreed policy. But, yes, this is a downgrading of the role of the National Council. At the end of the day the whole shebang is answerable to the AGM like last year.

Bear in mind I'm NOT on the ORG so this is just a personal interpretation.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

It really depends on what you mean by access to Stanage. There are clear results from the Stanage Forum etc and it the estate was broken up or say purchased by shooting concerns there could be very real changes at times on parts of the edge. More importantly the BMC have by their access work in very concrete terms retained access to some venues in dispute and by lobbying helped support subsequently gained access in major areas (like coast paths) and supported efforts fighting enviromental blights, some shamefully in the National Parks. Their safety work also has concrete results. If the BMC didn't exist and all our memories of it were wiped tomorrow, something like it would be in the process of being invented within a month. If you want some of the BMC scaled back, at least try and be much clearer what and why.

In reply to Andy Say:
Again thank you for answering all those.

It would seem who chooses the nominations committee is a key unanswered question?

The idea of increasing participation by voting/discussion online is a good one. Discussion would probably get most attention on the UKC forums. The people who actually go to area meetings (admittedly not me - I've only ever been twice) would also need to be happy with their station in this brave new world. As we all know elections can go awry and so can dictatorships so the question of how to balance the two is a good one.

From your summary (and caveats) this all sounds vaguely sensible. However I would say that promoting the report in this format projects the image of a very corporate BMC out of touch with its membership! That is, unless all the bums I used to climb with are now actively enjoying upward mobility on the middle management ladder, without secretly hating their company politics, and no new kids have joined to replace them hanging out on the Argentiere campsite, Cromlech boulders, local climbing wall, etc...

In reply to Offwidth:

<If the BMC didn't exist and all our memories of it were wiped tomorrow, something like it would be in the process of being invented within a month.>

The late, great and much missed character, Ian McNaught Davis, who served as BMC President and UIAA President (twice) would often say, at the end of a long meeting, how much he wished the BMC could be abolished. However, he followed that with the comment that if we did that we'd just have to set up another one the following day because it was vital that we had an organisation that government, land owners, grant-aiders etc etc would talk to because, for sure, you would not stand a snowball's chance in hell that those bodies would talk to individual climbers or clubs. A BMC is vital in so many ways, not always obvious to individuals.

In reply to Stone Muppet:

You have until 22nd December to send in your response, so you might want to read the report as it will answer most of your questions

In reply to Stone Muppet:


I think a large proportion of what I quote of you above is true.........

In reply to Becky E:
My point was that reading the report is too much to ask of the average member who doesn't enjoy corporate mumbo jumbo and isn't very good at reading between the lines to understand what it even means then condense and consider the long term implications.

If the BMC really want my feedback they can read it right here on this thread (I am a member - please drop me a PM if you need my real name). Or is that not a valid channel for feedback until the new digital strategy is implemented? Oh the irony

No disrespect meant - from my point of view, discussing this here has been far more communicative than publishing the report.

In reply to Stone Muppet:

The thing is the devil is always, ALWAYS, in the detail. The review group (NOT the BMC*) could have just released the 2 page headlines and the 17 page summary. And then everyone would have angst about the detailed implementation! To be honest there is a Brexit element - vote for the package and we'll sort the bits we haven't thought through yet - so some detail is shady. But I'm glad we have the full picture so far as it stands.

* I DO think this is important! The BMC have published the report of an independent review group. I know that staff and Executive (apart from those ON the group) and National Council (again apart from those on the group) have had no sight of the conclusions until last week. This isn't really the BMC saying 'this is what we want', it's a commissioned group saying 'this is what we think you should do'.

In reply to Andy Say:

Good point - it is good to have this level of transparency.

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:




Alex, How many actually attended that launch? I can see some of the Group there, and Mr. Grough snapping away

But just how excited was the Kendal crowd?

In reply to Stone Muppet:

You can also email org@thebmc.co.uk if you want to ask questions directly.

In reply to Andy Say:

I attended. Didn't count attendees but I'd say over 40 easy. Maybe more. Was I excited? Wrong word...I was (and I think others were) paying close attention. Personally my overriding impression was of a very thorough job, and a huge amount of work, done by an impartial group of unpaid volunteers. I think that the team were trying above all else to reflect the views of the membership, of volunteers, and various other "relevant individuals and linked organisations" to use Ray's phrase. Have since read the full report and submitted my comments online. Would urge others to do the same.
Cheers
Paul

In reply to Offwidth:

Just to amplify what Offwidth says about the BMC.
The other weekend bouldering at Badger Rock, access agreement with Landowner, BMC signs and agreed route in are worth the membership for me on its own, let alone virtually every other crag I climb on. I’m afraid all the ‘corporate bumf’ associated with delivering on this is unavoidable in any funded, accountable body.
I haven’t had time to read all the BMC pages relating to the report, but I guess the ‘democratisation’ described is important going forward to deny Small, unrepresentative groups of ‘gentlemen explorers’ taking the BMC back to the 1960s?

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


That's the crux of it. I was at the Peak Area meeting, and after an hour or so of management speak from the Peak Park representatives I couldn't bear any more from the BMC, but the reality is that this stuff is necessary for the BMC to be able to do what it does. I think the rather damning legal assessment that the current BMC framework was not fit for purpose was a bit of an eye opener for most.

I also liked the bit about wombles.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

edit: think you mean the 1860s

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

If by "corporate bumf" you mean doing serious things that don't directly relate to climbing - then yes I agree this is necessary and I do support the BMC in doing so. I did vote against the MoNC after all.

However there is a huge variation in the institutional world between organizations which keep "corporate bumf" to a minimum necessary versus those where it overtakes the institution at the expense of its stated goals. See also a more cynical view than mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Pournelle#Iron_Law_of_Bureaucracy

I would hate to see the BMC go down that route. Presenting this report without a more everyday summary (in addition to the main report) is a bit of a warning sign in my view.

In reply to Stone Muppet:

Name me some good examples where the dumbed down language doesn't risk hiding things and where governance in non profits is regarded as being truely great. We are surrounded by organisations with fully compliant governance structures who too often treat members and the public interface with disdain, even on core 'mission statements'. Stack up the BMC against other sporting bodies, School Academies, Universities, Hospital Trusts, Quangos, Councils, National Park Authorities, Building Societies etc; even some Ombudsmen or Charities. The fuss being made about the BMC governance is completely disproportionate and much of the change required is either technical (legal compliance) or enhancement based. There are risks to change but the members are in charge through the AGM.

In reply to Stone Muppet:
Hi there,

I've just lead the turn around of an externally funded business unit which was on the brink in too many ways to believe.
We achieved this by implementing good governance, compliance and open process practices which have required reams of documents in some very precise language in order to capture all the nuances of what operational procedures are going forward. You could probably capture all of this with 'legal, decent, honest, truthful' followed by accurate record keeping of everything. However the reality is always a bit more opaque. The price we pay is its now a process to buy a paperclip, but at least no-one loses their job or goes to jail

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This is all about money isn't it?

BMC needs funding from Sport England/Lottery funding. To get that the BMC needs to be a National Governing Body or a Fully constituted club, association or trust or A Private Sector Company. It's currently a Company Limited by Guarentee under the 2006 Companies Act meaning that it's a non profit making company and I suspect that if we looked into the M&AA we would find out that it can't distribute any of its profits to the membership etc etc.

It seems, to me anyway, that Sport England took a look at the BMC and realised that it's not being run correctly. Obviously funds are tight at the moment and no ones playing the Lottery as much therefore the grants being given out are shrinking. If you got given grants before when times are good then you can't expect money when times are bad, especially if your not seen as being a credible and honest company.

The BMC need to remain the NGB for Climbing Competions to enable that possible form of income and it needs to change its M&AA to enable Sport England to look at them again. The BMC needs funding to enable the amazing work they do on ACCESS and CONSERVATION.

In reply to Jim Walton:

Its a lot more than just money. The technical legal risks in the current M&AA and elsewhere remain a problem needing resolution even if Sports England have nothing more to do with the BMC. Other recommended enhancements, if implemented and operated well, will benefit the BMC irrespective of money.

In reply to Jim Walton:





Para 1 - 2/10
Para 2 - 8/10
Para 3 - 2/10. Sport England funding is all about increased participation via specific initiatives or projects.

In reply to Jim Walton:
Hi Jim,


Not really - though funding is a part of it.


The proposal is that it STAYS a company limited by guarantee. The BMC can survive without Sport England funding but would have to trim its activities. The intention is that ALL core work is not dependent on external funding. As far as Sport England is concerned the BMC is a 'Governing Body' now.


Not happy with the suggestion that the BMC is neither credible or honest It might be truer to say that the BMC constitution does not match up to the template required by Sport England; and is those situations it always tends to be 'one size fits all.......poorly'. And yes; funding is tighter. I think its called 'austerity'.


No. Sport England funds grassroots participation. The health agenda is as, if not more important, than medals (which are the province of UK Sport.


Yes.


No. Little, if any, of the Sport England funding goes there. It is core work and is funded through memberships and commercial activity (insurance mainly).

In reply to Jim Walton:


No it isn't: it's about representing the membership in a way that is accountable and transparent, and not exposing the organisation, volunteers and paid staff to unacceptable legal risks.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

One of the major issues around Recommendation 5 is at the moment I cannot see any reason why someone who only climbs indoors would want to join the BMC and I cannot see how the BMC could materially change this. This is actually a very similar situation to affiliated club members and the solution could be a similar approach - putting a BMC levy onto their climbing wall registration fee. Interestingly the affiliated club member’s levy raises about £326,000 and if you added the registered climbing wall members with the affiliated club members you’d get nearly a million members so the levy could be reduced to as low as 33p per member, plus a bit for the increased admin. This is a lot lower than the current affiliated club member’s levy of £13.25.

In reply to planetmarshall:

An interesting point. I raised my concern at an area meeting about the suggestion that the BMC has, somehow, been operating illegally for 27 years. Especially since the Memorandum and Articles were drawn up by a current BMC legal advisor! Mountain Training England has/had (I'm not sure how far down the line they are changing THEIR articles) a similar structure of Members Board and Executive Committee since 1995. The MTE articles were drawn up by Farrars; a London legal firm used by the Sport and Recreation Alliance to advise sporting bodies on drawing up appropriate and compliant Articles. I would be more than surprised to hear they did a dud job.

So whilst I can accept generalisations like 'muddled', 'fudge', 'not current best practice' I would be keen to hear which specific parts of the 2006 Companies Act we are in breach of.

In reply to Andy Say:


Sorry. It might be more accurate to say does not fit the template required by Sport England, recommended by the Sport and Recreation Alliance and the norm on mainstream business.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm not an expert in these matters but they seem to have got it sorted in skiing with the Skiclub GB representing recreational skiers and the British Ski+Snowboard representing competitors and being the NGB.

So why can't climbing do the same?

In reply to Andy Say:

Have a look at the legal advice on the current M+AA at the back of the full report.

In reply to Stravaig:



Clang! the resounding sound of a nail being hit on the head.

In reply to JR:

I have. Nowhere does it say we are in breach of any aspect of company law as far as I can see?

In reply to Andy Say:


It's because the phrases "illegal" and "in breach of" don't really apply here. The CA 2006 says that the directors of the company (which in the BMC's case is the exec) are "deemed" to have the power to make binding decisions and carry the liabilities, notwithstanding whatever a company's constitution says. So, at risk of over simplifying, in the BMC's case, the M&AA says the NC has the power to make binding decisions instead of the exec, and the law says it doesn't. This situation isn't illegal, its just legally muddled and has the potential to make volunteers personally legally liable for decisions they have had little control over. It's slightly confusing, because it involves the legal concept of "deeming," which is where something is considered to be the case in the eyes of the law, even if reality is different.

In reply to RupertD:

Hi Rupert, Hope you had a good summer after the travails of the AGM?

Whilst I, obviously, tremble at the idea of jousting with you over legality I am gratified that you seem to accept my suggestion that the BMC is not currently operating in breach of the Companies Act. We're not 'illegal'. Phew - that's a relief.

And I do accept that, in law, IF someone decided to take action against the BMC (personally I'm more worried about lightening strike) then the members of the National Council AND the Executive Committee could conceivably be regarded as 'Directors' in any action any litigant brought against the BMC.

So it's not a matter of 'must' its a matter of 'we might like to'.....?

Hi Andy.
Re risks of legal action against the BMC, there is a case that the volunteers who are in the potential legal firing line should probably get the casting vote...

Paul

In reply to Paul Evans:

Hi Paul,
Well if the final vote is 'for' the new structure then they're out of the firing line Whoops. 'We're' out of the firing line.

If the vote goes against, or there is a delay in implementation then it's just 'status quo'. I'd hate to think that it was down to National Council to decide this - it has to be a membership vote at the AGM.

In reply to Andy Say:




My understanding is that the issue of primacy which I think is what is being referred to, together with the other changes to the Memorandum and Articles of Association (MAA) has to go to the AGM and get 75% of the votes to be agreed.

For this reason the recommended changes to the MAA should be voted on separately or in packages to avoid a situation where the whole thing fails because of one unpopular recommendation.

In reply to Stravaig:


Correct, 75% of attending members and proxies.

In reply to colin struthers:


Ffstphmff! The resoundng sound of a sock puppet being smacked across the chops.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Well, having read the report and attended a presentation at the local area meeting (SW), it all seems very sensible and the way forward. There are things which could be changed slightly and now we have a consultation period. The more people who complete the consultation survey and / or give feedback to the ORG the better.

In reply to USBRIT:



BMC article now up: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-objects-to-proposed-zipwire-development-at-thi...