UKC

Apparently 92% of the BMC membership have voted for option A.  

 

James 

In reply to james mann:

Great news, thank goodness. Any idea of the numbers / percentage of members voting? Does Andy Say get to keep his clothes on?

In reply to Mark Kemball:

No idea about that. At least we don’t have a flying buttress in the SW!

In reply to james mann:

And Lynn’s President!

In reply to james mann:

Here's a copy of Andy's post (I kept it just in case):

All I've tried to do is suggest that BMC members are not a uniform bunch and that for some all of this governance shenanigans is completely irrelevant.  They don't care!

But I'm happy to put my body (not my money!) where my mouth is.

If more than 10% of the current BMC membership vote, in person or through proxy, at the next AGM I will solo Flying Buttress* stark bollock naked (but with shoes and chalk bag).  Photographic proof will be uploaded to UKC.

Of course if less than, say, 5% (see how generous I am!) of members vote, in person or by proxy, then I will expect a reciprocal action.

 

*I reserve the right to decide which Flying Buttress - I don't want audiences....

Apparently it was over 7000 votes so it looks like everyone keeps their clothes on...

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

Does this mean we can finally go back to talking about ring ouzels, parking charges and what Gary G has been bolting at area meetings now Mr Chair? Please, please say yes.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

But what %age of the membership actually voted? 

(I’m assuming the 92% was 92% of those who voted, voted for Option A)

In reply to galpinos:

Over 7000 out of 84000, I believe.

 

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Not quote the 10% threshold, Andy’s dignity can remain intact.

 

In reply to james mann:

Very good news.

On the back of this it's probably now time to sort out the areas - NW and London seem to be the problematic ones - and look at the process for removing bestowed privileges.

 

 

 

 

In reply to Kipper:

I think the next stage is to get on with implementing the second stage of the ORG's recommendations.

In reply to james mann:

Or round about 8% of the membership. Interesting.

In reply to TobyA:

I really, really hope so

In reply to Kipper:

You forgot 'punishment beatings.'

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Good point

In reply to Mark Kemball:

The vote is clearly overwhelming  and that must be the end of the governance arguments but I find it interesting that even with the most fraught, fractious and highly publicised campaigns in BMC history with facebook and email reminders, endorsements from prominent climbers and clubs pushing the 'Please Vote' message plus could-not-be-simpler electronic voting still less than 1 in 10 BMC members could be bothered to vote.

I think there is a strong message for the BMC here that most climbers/walkers find it either  totally irrelevant and/or are heartily sick of it. There is a lot of ground to be made up here and it will not be easy

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

An alternative view is that this is the highest number / % of members that have ever voted in an AGM. Perhaps things are improving. About 7000 members care enough about the BMC's future to want to vote.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Maybe Mark. Glass half full/glass half empty but given all the hoohah about this 8% (if my maths is right) strikes as a pretty low turnout - especially when you did not actually have to 'turn out' to vote

 

In reply to james mann:

The most important election in the country (General) normally gets turnout in the mid-60s. Given that there will be loads of people in the BMC who are members through membership of a club (inc Uni clubs) or because they wanted to buy insurance, I'd say it was a fairly decent turnout. By now means gobsmacking, but pretty good.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

But most importantly, let the BMC get on with doing what the members want it to do, that is to continue with the goods works it has done, is doing and will do, instead of having to defend itself against a few wreckers!¬

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Not to mention that very many climbers and walkers aren't even members in the first place and therefore weren't able to vote.

 

In reply to Mark Kemball:

He does. Count yourselves lucky!

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Really? People don't generally continue paying money to be members of organizations that they find irrelevant or are heartily sick of. I'd say that there's a strong message that most climbers/walkers are generally happy that the BMC is doing roughly the right sort of stuff to the extent that they don't feel the need to pay much attention to the precise details.

As far as I can tell, this sort of turnout is pretty normal for a large membership organization. CAMRA, for instance, recently voted on a set of Special Resolutions to fairly significantly update their objectives and they got a bit under 10% turnout for that.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

I reckon that around 1000 votes were cast in the last contested election (Rab vs Doug, 2007?) and rather less on the MoNC last year. Introducing online voting, along with the various methods to explain this really complicated issue to the membership, has clearly been very successful.

4000+ votes is also a huge endorsement for Lynn. Also really good to see John Roberts elected VP - two very enthusiastic and committed volunteers.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I think this is quite a moot point.

Many people do not pay to be members of the BMC per se. It is a compulsory levy for being members of many if not most clubs. I think that when the BMC claims the support of its entire membership it is either a) living in a fool's paradise or b) being being deliberately disingenuous. It can only  really legitimately claim the support of individual members plus an unknown (and unknowable) proportion of club members.

Plus of course some individual members only pay in as part of their insurance. I fully accept the BMC is entitled to count them as individual members because that is exactly what they are and  have joined because they value this BMC service. However, I think the BMC would be foolish to believe  thatis some kind of vote of confidence (sorry about that choice of words) in the BMC as a whole.

 As I hope was implicit in my earlier post, if I were an official or a member of whatever body is now running the BMC I would be asking myself 'Why are 11 out of 12  members so disengaged that they even cannot be bothered to tap a keyboard for 30 secs to take part in our most contentious vote for years and what can we do to put that right?"

In reply to Andy Say:

Andy, despite all of the naysayers Option B was actually very important for the BMC. First of all it made changes to Option A. Secondly it engaged the BMC membership in the debate of what was best for the BMC instead of just accepting what was put forward. It might not had been popular but it was still a great thing. Thank you for pushing it on UKC.

In reply to Andy Say:

Do it anyway - that'd show 'em!

In reply to Andy Say:

I didn't get to tell you yesterday that I thought you presented the case of something I disagree with really well. In a way I'm disappointed the vote beat 5% as a naked solo of any Flying Buttress is something I've not yet done in climbing. Might even do it anyway. If I do, I'll post a time in case you fancy starting a new climbing game of naked competition speed climbing. We could safely say it will never make the Olympics.

In reply to Offwidth:

Are rock shoes allowed, or does it have to be barefoot to qualify? Presumably chalk bags are definitely out?

In reply to JoshOvki:

It's a strange situation: most of the votes for A will have been proxy votes - and therefore cast before the 'Memorandum of Understanding' had been been published. In that respect, people voting for A don't know exactly what they've voted for.

Was the MoU presented at the AGM itself?

In reply to Paul Evans:

Shoes???!!! Don't you understand the ethics of the overweight midlle aged men's naked speed solo game?

In reply to Offwidth:

Well, Andy originally specified shoes and chalk bags would be worn. Don't let me stop you uping the stakes though.

In reply to Paul Evans:

I imagine that depends where the chalk bag is positioned.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

It was the same with Option B - there were fundamental changes that would have been needed to be made to the draft presented if it had passed. Some of the key terms were undefined, the role of the NC vs the board was defined differently in different articles and one of the articles was rendered void by statute.

 

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:
some kind of vote of confidence (sorry about that choice of words) in the BMC as a whole.

 

Or perhaps many were reasonably engaged but the consequences of either choice were not fully understood/known or were equally unattractive, so they chose not to vote at all.  

 

 

 

In reply to RupertD:

Indeed. All of which renders the entire vote somewhat unsatisfactory, don't you think? It all seems like a rushed job; never a good thing.

Edit: *was* the MoU presented yesterday? (I wasn't there.) If not, then *nobody* who voted for A knows what they voted for ...

In reply to Rob Parsons:

The MoU is an early part of phase 2 as you must know since you are independant and post so often on the subject.

Dave Turnbull, BMC CEO, said “This was a truly historic BMC AGM. Not only did we have a record voting turnout – nearly three times our previous record – but the BMC now has its first female president. We all look forward to working together and to take the BMC forward into a very strong future for all its members.”

In activist dominated elections like the BMC, tripling voting numbers, especially over the record last year (which was itself a big record, largely down to bulk membership annoyance with the MoNC) is an astonishing result. Crag is right in the other thread (post at 13.20): people need to work together now, and as far as I can see that is already happening (arguably easier now the vote is so decisive). I agree with another poster above that the compromise announced in the Open Forum significantly improved the democratic National Council supported modified Option A

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/crag_access/bmc_again_sorry-685194

In reply to Offwidth:

 

In https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/andy_syme_on_the_bmc_agm-686788?v=1#x... , Andy Syme, speaking for the BMC, said:

"The MoU is being worked on by Pete Stirling and he hopes to have a draft by the AGM."

Hence my question.

I'll take your typically obtuse answer as a 'no.'

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Members don't vote on drafts and I guess circumstances confounded the hopes. The AGM Option A vote was clearly for Articles which included the MoU as defined in outline therein.  I fully expect the MoU will have significant input from those on the Tier 1 side who compromised.

Something forgotten by many in the debate was this AGM had extended deadlines for motions so that the remaining Option B supporters  or other interested groups of 25 or more members could submit late motions alongside the modified Option A. None chose to do this.

In reply to Andy Say:

come on Andy, I pledge £10 to a charity of you choice if you do the stunt anyway ????

anyone else like to pledge ?

 

In reply to phil456:

I will give £15 to a charity of Andy's choice to not do the stunt

In reply to james mann:

Just out of curiosity how has vote A result been taken by Pettigrew?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

 

Yes Pete Sterling at the Open Forum said he was going to negotiate hard on the MOU making it sound like he was going to tie the Exec up knots with it. The actual wording of the MOU in our new! articles indicates that it is more of a friendly rather than adversarial agreement on how matters are communicated between National Council and the Board so that the proposed actions and intent on both sides is fully understood and is to be reviewed on an ongoing basis.

Prior to the AGM Pete Sterling announced on Facebook that he was stepping down from NC (not sure when his term of office was up anyway) so its not clear whether he will still be involved in the MOU drafting. This was aired at the AGM but he didn't respond - or if he did I didn't hear what he said.

So the MOU hasn't yet been drafted by NC never mind agreed by the Board. It is also not as important a document as it seemed to be to me when discussed at the Open Forum. 

In reply to Rob Parsons:

What I voted for was for the BMC to remain a unified voice for all types of climbing, with the credibility and the structure to speak as such to government agencies. I am personally satisfied that I knew what I was voting for.

In reply to Dogwatch:

I don't believe we've met before Dogwatch, however you have articulated much of what I voted for there rather well!

In reply to Dogwatch:

I think that is what just about everyone voted for.

 

The options presented different ways of achieving it.

In reply to timjones:

Those 'different ways' included: more useful time in the organisation burnt dealing with articles, as Option B could never win (it could only stop the fully consulted and National Council democratic mandated Option A progress); continue the massive stress and significant extra workload for BMC and partner employees and many key volunteers in the democratic structures; a 10% increase in subscriptions (and very likely the same again next year); a real risk to government influence (concrete examples were presented at the AGM); the potential break up of the umbrella structure wanted by our partners in mountain training and walls and the bulk of our democratic representatives on National Council; much reduced support and funding where the umbrella and Sport England funding opportunities predominantly operated: mountain training, indoor climbing (especially youth work) and hill walking.

I am really glad that the vast majority of the voting membeship saw through the smoke and mirrors (and fake news that the organisation was in crisis) presented around Option B after the compromise was made at the Open Forum. Even at AGM those proposers still supporting it over option A were unknown and its claimed Tier 1 Sport England compliance was still unconfirmed (important as the membership primacy claimed by the proposers seemed incompatible with the board primacy SE required).

The Times describes the AGM result as a culmination of a bitter struggle between the sport's modernisers and a small band of diehard purists.who had accused the organisation of selling out its members.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'd say that we're all glad that it's settled.

 

However there was fake news on both sides and it's time to look forward rather than either side banging on about it.

In reply to timjones:

OK Tim, point out some fake news from the Option A leadership. Where was our George Osbourne?  The most juicy I can think of was a few area volunteers who mistook the status of abstentions in the option vote. Brexit voters and their concerns were clearly real. The size of Sexit concerns turned out to be so overblown even I, as a massive supporter of the newer compromised Option A, was gobsmacked. I always said the BMC membership were much better informed and nothing like as gullible as some implied from the Tier 1 side, but the clear volume of anger present on social media clearly represented very much more of a minority than my cynical estimations. I'm hoping that more people still can get involved and ensure, as Crag said, that the detail of phase 2 is as representative and carefully scrutinised as possible.

After the Open Forum there were not really 2 sides in the activist positions any more. With the notable exception of Andy Say and Jules the only activist names you could track from public or private leaked statements were also MoNC signatories. It wasn't even clear until the morning, that it was Andy presenting...if he only had a morning to prep that much more impressive than it appeared.

 

In reply to Offwidth:

The abstention misinformation was a genuine mistake and then corrected by providing the opportunity to re-vote.

Fake news, as I understand it, is deliberate and mischievous misinformation.

 

In reply to Offwidth:

Do you really want this to drag on, as someone who didn't instinctively sit in eoither camp there campaigners on both sides that could have conducted themselves better.  Option A won the day and that was probably the best available result but part of the process of reconciliation has to involve those who championed it climbing down of their high horses so that everyone can focus on looking forward.

If you really want an example, I would consider that the claim that we would lose lobbying power if we weren't taking Sport England funding was at wilfully alarmist. Should I call you George

 

In reply to timjones:

I was repeatedly called a 24/7 BMC troll, in writing, during the campaign. A question was even asked of Lynn at the AGM if this 'notorious' relative will unduly influence the BMC. She pointed out that her extensive record stands for itself and despite being married it might shock the questioner to know that she forms and holds her own opinions (to great applause). In contrast to these false pictures painted of me I would be delighted if the rump of Option B supporters got involved on phase 2 and I think some already might be. My main point in these threads has always been the distributed politics of the organisation needs to play in public and be accountable by the membership for what is said and if people want to be players they should stop being critics from the wings and be more like Andy Say, elected to positions and fully involved in the structure. Fake news and private letter circulations of this to subsets of the membership to influence democratic votes are simply not acceptable to me, whatever the side.

Being in the middle of the options of course means you are on the far wing of those voting. If I'm George you should be able to point out my fake news easily enough even from there. As you know from past conversarions I really do respect your views but I've said many times I care pasionately about preventing dirty tricks and fake news in the BMC, won't be silent on this and I supect it hasn't gone away quite yet. 

In reply to timjones:

I may need to be corrected on the precise details but at the AGM, and as an example of this, John Roberts cited an attempt to get Michael Gove along to a Mend Our Mountains event and one of the first questions asked by the person responsible for his diary was whether we were one of those few bodies left that wasn’t compliant

In reply to UKB and BMC Shark:

Pete Stirling resigned from NC as he could no longer support the Option A proposals.  Whilst he generally liked the new Articles he couldn't support the cutting out of the members from the decision making process.  His term of office wasn't up; it was a matter of principle for him.

There are some 'broad brush ideas for the MoU but it hasn't been written.  Consequently there is a reference to it in the Option A Articles but no detail. 

 

In reply to UKB and BMC Shark:

I'd call that a positive result

In reply to Offwidth:

'It's so much more than that. Yes the funding from SE is one thing but it ultimately is about the BMC operating legally as it is currently not under company law. If option A isn't adopted then it could lead to the dissolution of the BMC as we know it.

The BMC isn't compliant with company law as it is currently. That is my understanding of the implications of the vote as an National Council representative.

Essentially, if we don't fundamentally change how the BMC operates then it's possible (probable) that there will be a number of redundancies and, worse no BMC.'

A National Council member on Facebook.

 

In reply to UKB and BMC Shark:

Sadly that is likely to be an issue when both lobbying and accepting public funding ;(

In reply to Andy Say:

Who the hell said that? I hope they were corrected, as it is clearly bollocks.

In reply to Andy Say:

The parameters of the MOU are spelled out. To save anyone searching it out (as I did) the clause in the new articles is:

16.2 The National Council and the Board will agree a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to ensure communications between both bodies are timely and appropriate to allow both bodies to understand the proposed actions and intent of each party. The MoU can be reviewed at the request of either body, and must be reviewed when the chair of either body is changed.

 

 

In reply to Andy Say:

Ive never voted Tory and whilst he may be swivel eyed on Brexit  Gove is one of the most interesting and innovative Ministers we have and I personally admire his capability to get things done. 

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't regard myself as being on a "far wing". I just feel that the current result is a little untidy. If we had taken a little longer over it we might have found a tidier answer that didn't leave the lobbying so closely linked to public funding.

In reply to UKB and BMC Shark:

I'd generally agree with that, having met him and seen him speak a number of times since he came into his current post it is very apparent that he does listen and learn from those who talk to him.

In reply to UKB and BMC Shark:

  'Gove is one of the most interesting and innovative Ministers we have and I personally admire his capability to get things done.' 

Well yes, he does get things done. Gove's legacy as Education Secretary is a trail of destruction still actively damaging our education system. Whilst some of his intention was perhaps well placed, we are now stuck with an unimaginative  curriculum unfit for purpose, privatisation of our schools, crisis in funding, school results coming before children's needs and appalling teacher retention numbers. 

I bet that he does like the concept of 'Mend our Mountains'; a way of switching the funding of our wild places from government to charity! 

 

James

 

In reply to UKB and BMC Shark:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/cartoon/2012/mar/16/1?CMP=twt_gu

He is a conviction politician and he does indeed implement this will on whichever department he is in charge of very effectively. I guess your opinion of him depends on whether you agree with his decisions. In my case, he was a disaster in education, seemed quite good in justice and we shall see in DEFRA but the future looks interesting.

In reply to UKB and BMC Shark:

Yes, but the things he gets done are *terrible* ...

However, my loathing of Gove aside, because it's probably off-topic: having a situation where government ministers aren't interested in talking to the BMC (because it's not compliant with some pretty standard principles of governance) would clearly be a problem.