UKC

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

So it’s official - the AGM will be online only. I had hoped the Board would reconsider this.

Worth mentioning this was a unilateral decision by the Board without due consultation with Members Council which was in breach of the articles: Article 11.2: "...the AGM shall be held at such time and place, or by such means, as may be determined by the Board, after consultation with the Council..”

There are lots of important decisions made by the Chair based on ‘reading the room’ which you can’t really do online.

The AGM is the only fixture in the year when ordinary members get to meet the Board and are able to hold them account and it’s been an extraordinary year 

- a budget predicated on unrealistic membership growth projections that rapidly fell apart

- cuts announced to the access and marketing teams but not GB Climbing now numbering 17 staff

- the resignation of the Chief Financial Officer after less than a year in the job 

- travel insurance having to be put in the hands of a third party over the summer (the busiest period)

- the suppression of a damning internal report into the CCPG (climbing oversight body) that when published concluded the CCPG had failed in every respect of its mandate

- the witholding of financial information by the Board from members and Members Council

- the discovery that over £200k of expected grant income didn’t exist but £150k of it was spent by GBClimbing even though it hadn’t arrived

- the resignation of the CEO leaving only one Senior Leadership team member left in charge

- an open letter of condemnation of GBClimbing declaring no confidence in the leadership of GB Climbing

- the least open zoom Open Forum ever held by the Board where it was announced (without contrition) that the annual loss could be £300k (budget was £70k)

In the above link cited the reasons for holding it online as:

The 2024 AGM is being held entirely online. The decision to return to an online AGM was driven by 3 factors:

Participation - The second largest attendance of an AGM in the last 10 years was in 2020 (our first online AGM).  It is hoped that by returning online many more members will be able to attend the AGM than are able to attend in person.

Cost - A physical AGM costs circa £25k, whereby an online AGM is £7-£12k.  

Effective use of funds - The savings are being put towards fully supporting physical Area meetings, area festivals and other member focused events.

Couldn't they do both?

I'd be fascinated to see how there is a £13k to £18k difference between an online and in-person AGM. The venues are generally at the affordable end of premises that are suitable (I attended one at the Castleton YHA), and travel and accommodation for officers wouldn't account for a significant amount.

I generally can't be arsed with the politics of the BMC, despite being appreciative of the work done by volunteers, but currently they're coming across as a floundering, inept organisation scurrying for cover and hiding from their stakeholders. It isn't attractive.

I'm more flummoxed as to how an online AGM can even cost £7K.  What are they spending it on?

I'd imagine the voting platform has a cost to it, as will the event hosting platform, but I'd be astounded if that comes to £7k...

I'm hoping that the registration platform is more effective than the one for the Member's Forum or Club Webinars too. Just tried registering for the March forum and the link only goes to the past one, so no registration possible. The webinars one goes to their events booking, but without the webinars listed so no registration possible. I've email them about this over a week ago and followed them up, but still no response.

Exactly, you hire a massive village hall in it's entirety for a few hundred quids, seats, tables,kitchen, wifi, toilets, parking.

For £25k I'd expect a hotel, seating for a 1000, buffet and welcome drinks. 

There is all of the work done by staff preparing for it as well which will have a monetary cost derived from their time (this would likewise contribute a bit more for an in person AGM given the need to sort a venue out).

The CC has pretty well executed AGMs in hotels each year, obviously the officers of the club don't charge for organising it, but I can't imagine the committee willingly forking over £20+k a year (probably a deal as they have the annual dinner a couple of hours later).

I would think that there are administrative costs involved in preparing for and organising any AGM, online or in person. If this involves posting out information to members beforehand, then that will also add to that cost. 

I entirely understand that, but that wouldn't be an incremental cost - staff costs are paid regardless of there being an AGM or not. I also fail to understand how the time taken on booking a venue would be significantly different to setting up an online AGM. I have organised many business events, and would estimate that making the necessary arrangements with the venue comes to about four or five hours, or a day and a half if a recce of the venue is required.

Jesus wept. Seriously?

F*&£ me

Is this effective use of funds in the room with us now?

Working as a freelance video operator in live events that often have a streaming component to them, I'm not at all surprised that it comes to £7k. Amateur results are obviously possible for significantly less, but unfortunately production to professional standards is quite expensive.

I'm happy with an online AGM.

I've attended many different AGMs over the years, including the BMC.

They are mainly tedious affairs.

Fewer meetings, more climbing - that's what I want.

On reflection you’re right - a professionally delivered online meeting can easily cost that, rather than being a fairly standard Zoom broadcast. Let’s see what level they’re going to.

Equally the time required to organise displaces other stuff that they can work on.

Not disputing that the additional time demand on staff for a physical AGM is relatively small, I was just acknowledging that it would make a small contribution to the difference in cost. I agree that a village/ school hall should be adequate if there is enough parking available.

there was plenty of parking available last year; it was inquorate before some locals were drafted in.........

An inquorate GM of a member led (supposedly) organisation with so many issues on the go is not a good look, so maybe an online only meeting is better because so many more people can attend without incurring expense and taking time they perhaps don't have.

As FactorXXX said it can be both - AKA a hybrid meeting

A hybrid meeting is an option, but it's much harder to get right than either pure option. Very difficult to arrange things so that those physically present and those online are equally on top of what's going on, equally able to contribute and fully aware of each other's contributions. My employer is a tech company that runs hybrid meetings regularly and still struggles to get it right.

Indeed - i think that would be the best way anyway; but no doubt the most expensive option. But maybe worth the money? Engagement and transparency need to be improved, and this would go a long way to do that, and probably cheaper in the long term (if cash is so tight currently) as these issues wont go away by themselves.

I think physical attendance is massively influenced by time and date, mid week, term time, evenings, automatically narrows the field. Kids or kids activities lose a few more, travel and transport etc... it's a once a year event, maybe the staff could cope with a weekend evening somewhere hilly or craggy? Win win for participation and other activities etc..

That's all true. However a cynical person might point out that it's a lot easier to control who gets to speak and who gets cut off.....

I'll be proxy voting anyway, because I've listened to enough of the board's bullshit.

" AGM & meeting costs" is a line item in the accounts section of the CC annual report. Spoiler: it's not £20k

In my time on the Board AGM’s were held alternately at Plas y Brenin and another climbing  / walking area, Northumberland, Gower, North Devon and Malham.  All were massively attended, usually with standing room only for the AGM itself.  Where / why did it all go wrong?

Small room? Everyone walking and climbing until AGM so they missed the Open Forum?

2010 to 2014 open forum numbers are here and they vary between 30 and 60.....we were around 50 last year (in person attendance):

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-minutes-and-national-open-forum-notes 

I will accept pre covid it was a much better social event but I was told 2017 was by far the biggest attendance in two decades (the Motion of no Confidence debate) and 2018 was pretty full as well.

I thought I'd add in Northubria last year tried the BMC tried to run a festival and AGM together, so attendance wasn't through lack of effort.

I think part of the costs issue is to do with current expectations. 

Once upon a time (the old man said....) voting was all physical / paper based and if you weren't there then, tough. The AGM was a weekend event with associated meetings, conferences, activities happening around it. The BMC admin staff would be in attendance en masse to register folks, check membership, hand out ballot / proxy papers and act as voting tellers. It was all pretty much handled 'in-house'. And maybe 100 or so folk had a great time.

Now we are looking at on-line registration and proxy voting, live streaming, electronic voting in real time, chat facilities; all of which undoubtedly should enhance participant numbers, inclusion and engagement if handled right. That means bringing in external agencies to handle some of the mechanics. They are going to charge and not just ask for a day off in lieu. It also means a certain 'distancing' of many participants.

For me, personally I loved the 'get together' nature of the old style AGMs and the chance to hear people get passionate about things and point fingers and get het up*. I know that for some others that was a big turn-off. And could be uncomfortable for those having the finger pointed at them😉

But if we are actually going to engage with the current membership we have to realise that not all of them are willing, or able, to devote a weekend to travel to Capel Curig (other venues are available) to listen to other people and cast a vote or two.

Apologies. I've got a stinking cold and I'm rambling. I would love to see a well-attended, and virtually accessible, AGM where people CAN ask awkward questions, CAN get a feel for competing candidates and, perhaps most importantly CAN hear debate before deciding how to cast a vote. Maybe we can get there....

*Come back Ken Wilson ....

I quickly counted and I still think David has rose-tinted specs:

2010 AGM Rhossili:  5 Directors,  58 voting members and 11 others (including 7 staff)

2011 AGM Plas y Brenin: 3 Directors, 64 voting members, 6 others (including 4 staff)

2012 AGM Malham: 5 Directors, 70 voting members, 8 others (including 5 staff)

2013 AGM Plas y Brenin: 4 Directors, 56 voting members, 12 others (including 10 staff)

2014 AGM Portland: 3 Directors 52 voting members, 7 others (including 5 staff)

.....the lower attendances above were similar to the 2023 AGM Northumbria number (and we both know there were some publicity issues with 2023 and some older members were still a bit nervous about public mixing).

I'm not the only one who doesn't enjoy angrilly pointed fingers in meetings. There is plenty of evidence of disengagement of members in part due to aggressive behaviour, be it local areas, open forums, and even some from key governance committees.

Personally I love a bit of mixing and I'm dead old! But I guess that was my point about trying to encourage inclusion by enabling a variety of forms of engagement.

I didn't use the word 'angrily'. Holding people to account can be done in a perfectly civilised way.* And I completely agree that there can be a turn off through people trying to dominate and dictate at a variety of levels. It's interesting though that my questions are the last AGM regarding finances were considered 'aggressive' by some 😂 I'm a total pussycat!

*ref Ken Wilson....

They always have.  BMC staff can be exemplary in their engagement and commitment.

Some people should feel uncomfortable having the finger pointed at them if only half of what is circulating is accurate. If you can’t defend your stance with evidence based facts, resign. 
I think this is a cynical ploy to control the agenda and attempt to shut down potentially embarrassing opposition.

The CC have a proper in person AGM supplemented by zoom for non attendees and it works.

As an aside, from my experience zoom meetings can be hijacked by people who like the sound of their own voice too much. Cost? Probably a fraction of what has been spent on taxi fares and expenses by the participants (not the actual athletes) on indoor comps.

If they want to play that game, that's fine. We just need to get Simon a room full of iPads with different backgrounds and a lot of guess-who style disguises.

Of course they should (if the finger pointing is actually justified!) And it should also be an opportunity to present a different perspective to 'what is circulating'; some of which might not be accurate! 

ANY meeting can succumb to that.

"Cost? Probably a fraction of what has been spent on taxi fares and expenses by the participants (not the actual athletes) on indoor comps." Different issue, from last year.

We DO need to acknowledge how we got where we are now, and try to correct things! But '24 starts with the budget for '24; an attempt to put the BMC back on an even keel which is currently being discussed by both Members' Council and the Board.

I'm probably going to tiptoe away and have some double strength lemsip now.

In terms of the online AGM meeting, Council made their disappointment clear in October.

On Phil's point I think the opposite, as I've experienced a few people who kept shouting in face-to-face meetings, despite being asked by the Chair to stop and allow another view. I’ve also seen staff insulted (who have no right of reply). In online meetings such people would be breaking BMC respectful debate rules and be muted.

I do agree it is possible to hold the organisation to account respectfully, even on difficult issues, but too often for a few that degrades to anger.

Seriously? Does such a document exist? Link please 

Thanks to people shouting in meetings, publicly insulting volunteers and staff, threatening legal action etc, yes. I didn't think so much about it at first, as I'm pretty hard boiled from trade union work, until what actually happened to Rehan became clear (later on, I got my own letters). Next, people I thought were the good guys started getting angry and publicly insulting people. More recently, most of the (too small) minority of women have left Council, some stating the behaviours around BMC politics makes them feel they are better off doing something else (some men have left for similar reasons). The diversity situation on Council, in particular, right now, seems terrible to me. The codes were put in place in the last three years:

Search "BMC Codes of Conduct" for the pdf (I tried and failed to get a working link in this post).

I fully understand what causes such public displays of anger, as there are big problems that should have been avoided, in areas people really care about......but in the same way I understand other bad behaviour but dont condone it..... it really should be kept under control in adult debate in a members organisation.

I’d like to think that it can be found by Googling “being an adult” but sadly debate about the BMC’s current woes often appears to become acrimonious. It’s a shame when a reasonable approach to raising and discussing issues breaks down, and it’d be utterly tragic if the document you’re wanting to see has even had to come into being.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/Events/Codes%20of%20conduct%20final%20...

Cheers.. not sure what happened...it was the exact same link text I originally posted. 

That document doesn’t appear to address how to behave in meetings as you implied

It's not specifically targeted at meetings, but it seems like it would apply to them as well. It's clearly written pretty broadly to cover all bases.