UKC

After watching Tuesday's debate, I was optimistic that a compromise had been reached and that we would only have one version of the constitution on offer, however, looking at the BMC website, https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-alternative-constitutions-comparison  it would now seem two are on offer and two candidates for president. Is this correct?

It's a bit complex but basically

Jonathan and Crag withdrew their names as they said.  They also said they had spoken to the majority of the other proposers most of who also said they would remove their names as well; which I'm sure is true (some of them also confirmed it to me).  But:

A.  The BMC has not had chance to verify who did and did not remove their names.

B.  There were a few who definitely wanted the Proposal to remain.

C.  The Articles have no process to withdraw a proposal once submitted.

Without unanimous withdrawal it was decided that the Proposal could not therefore be dropped.

It is worth saying that both Crag and Jonathan worked tirelessly on Wednesday to both contact the co-proposers and explain why they were withdrawing and how the compromise was the best way forwards in their view.  

The 2 Presidents is unrelated.  You can alway have contested Presidencies,  we just don't often see it.

So you need to get out and exercise your democratic right.  Proxy voting opens tomorrow or come to Kendal on 16th

Thanks for the clear response Andy, that was an unexpected positive change at the end of the meeting, somewhat frustratingly nullifying 20 minutes of the committee meeting I was at instead of the forum which we spent discussing the position as I could see it at 8PM on Tuesday evening! I will get something in the Oread newsletter to explain to members what has happened.

Thanks for the explanation, Andy. I'm quite pleased that the presidency is being contested - after all,what's the point of being in  a democratic organisation if there's no choices to vote on.

What are the two proposals - to rename as Climb Britain or to rename as Sport and Speed Climbers UK? 

What was the basis on which those withdrawals are based? That is, what compromises have been agreed on, and are those compromises now a formal part of the proposals to be voted on at the AGM? (If they're not a formal part of those proposals, how are any such agreements binding?)

Thanks. Just trying to clarify what is now - to me anyway - a very confusing and confused picture on which I am now being asked to vote.

Details of the candidates

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-candidates?utm_source=BMC+Monthly+Newslett...

You missed the British Motion Committee.

My advice is wait a bit before voting as the information output from the BMC is understandably a bit behind the changes as things have moved so quickly.

As far as I'm aware, National Council agreed the compromise arrangements so the two biggest changes in the new Tier 3 proposals are: that there will be an MoU to further protect things like the ethical and enviromental membership view in the National Council link to the Board and any new Director candidates who meet the skill requirements for the Board will have to go to election at the AGM (currently the best candidate is chosen by the nomination commitee and the AGM ratifies or rejects). The Option B motion (Tier 1 compliant) stands, as despite not having 25 votes now, it did when submitted and currently 13 of the 42 won't back down such that it can be removed from the AGM schedule. However, the message to members seems pretty clear to me. 

Apologies if I've got anything wrong here.

The timing is because those involved let things drift (Exec and NC). Sport England gave everyone seeking funding 2 years to resolve governence arrangements in 2015. We got exceptional permission for a year extension in summer 2017 and we are now out of time. Hence, although moves to compromise in the way things happened are not ideal, in my view they are a much better solution than any likely alternative. Everyone has moved to help: SE, IG and most of the 42 and now NC. As a Tier 3 supporter I much prefer the new Tier 3 version of the articles to the old one.

The three election candidate statements were also obviously produced before the compromise. I wont be posting on those as I have a direct conflict of interest.  Like Mark, I am happy there is an election.

In reply to:

Yep, it can be pretty hard to follow the details. 

This is the best article to start with

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2018

Voting goes live at midday today, when all members will get an email with codes and links.

If anything is not making sense or needs more detail then do let us know and we'll update the pages on our site. 

If the Memorandum of Understanding and other changes turn out severely restrictive of the Exec’s ability to make decisions then we are no further forward and maybe even backward. The way Pete Sterling was talking at the Open Forum it sounded like he was going to negotiate hard on this MoU. If National Council end up micro managing the Exec this will be even worse than it is now to get things done.

The 5 changes were voted on by the NC and agreed.  They form the basis of the proposal now out to members to vote.

What Pete and I agreed was the start point to move forwards from was:   

1.    The MoU will form the control by which the National Council are able to hold the board to account when they believe the Board is acting outside the agreed Object, strategy and policies of the BMC, or the intent of the Membership. 

2.    Phase 2 will need to provide the methods/processes by which the Members input to strategy and vision of the BMC and through which the policies of the BMC are developed and approved. 

3.    This Phase 2 work needs to be cooperative and inclusive to ensure any and all members views are taken into account when developing the methods/processes. 

4.    The outcome of Phase 2 MAY be that the MoU is the vehicle for Members input to future strategy if there is no better method identified in Phase 2 

5.    The strategy and policies of the BMC will ultimately be owned by the Board and their delivery must be transparent and, wherever possible, measurable.

Pete will now start working on a draft MoU, with input from others, which will then be discussed at the next NC meeting.  The aim is to have something in advanced draft by the AGM.   The ultimate bodies needing to agree it being the NC and Board.

Can you explain why this is being done via a seperate MoU rather than being written into the articles which we are voting on?

Tim

1.  It was the way we agreed to do it.

2.  It means that if both the NC and Board agreed to change something it can be done there and then without another article amendment.

3.  There's a whole load of legal stuff about not committing future boards to actions which having an MoU avoids.  You can commit them to having an MoU you can't commit them to specific terms is my basic summary.

This Article, along with the work we will do in Phase 2, will mean that we have the processes to ensure member involvement in formulation of strategy etc and the ability of the NC to exercise their role of holding the board to account; which was what the NC, Board & T1 proposers all wanted and what we believe members would want to.

Dont vote for any join the Austrian Alpine club much better value...

In reply to

Voting is now all live. Check your email for your personal link to vote. It's very easy - you don't even need your membership number. 

Yeah, but they are rubbish at opposing inappropriate windfarm / hydroelectric schemes, or negotiating access to various peak crags. its almost as if they dont care......Cheap for insurance doesn't mean good value........

The MoU has to be voted in by the NC and AGM. I trust the Board not to exploit their new primacy and to listen properly to membeship views (or suffer the consequencies) and the new NC to put the membership position more fairly than now, being better informed under the new proposed structures.  So any sensible MoU should be fine and not effect proper operation of the Board. Whatever Pete brings to the NC in terms of a workable MoU has to be different from what he appeared to say or it will be full of contradictions and unworkable and won't be voted for... like any organisation there are different opinions on some matters so you can't choose to support every view at the same time. The sort of things covered by this are in practical terms items like  democratic determined local bolting 'policy'... such items would rarely become a Board primacy issue.

AAC are not paticularly cheap for insurance as their cover is limited. Most will want seperate insurance cover on top of the AAC policy.

So, they are expensive, and don't care about the UK. Don't have much going for them as far as i can see......Jim 1003 must be on commission.

He appears to be on something, thats for sure, if only a BMC negativity mission. Maybe they insulted his mother once?

The wording of the most recent website and email, about the "why the" instead of just the "what the", was a better explanation than anything I read throughout the whole consultation. 

Governance so the BMC can get SE funding.  You finally nailed it. Cheers.

That appears to be what it has descended into. As posted elsewhere, it started out as governance to improve the organisation and allow the BMC to become proactve and ready to meet the challenges it will face in the coming years, but seems to have been diverted into how much SE funding should be chased. Mind you Crag Jones has put a really good post on the longer thread here with the point that it should free the BMC of the decision making shackles it has worn for so long. Whilst I have disagreed with a lot of what he has said, I absolutely applaud this intended aim.

Cheers.  I still don't get why "governance" had to be in the form of such an insanely complicated bureaucracy as was presented by the consultation.  But governance will prevent Alex and JR from spending all the sport england grants and the access fund money on coke and hookers .

Cocoa and a stairlift more like, they're both middle-aged now.

There is a school of thought that it could be simpler......

I think it gets complicated when you represent such a broad church, and try to please most of the people most of the time. Bloody frustrating, though....

What, you mean they (like the DAV) aren´t periodically wracked by petty clique disagreements, struggles to come to terms with a traditional membership and the modern world and all that stuff? At least the BMC doesn´t has to come to terms with their failed attempts at de-Nazification and institutional anti-semitism (though there probably some homophobia from the 30´s that hasn´t properly been discussed).

I don't recall anything that they have ever done to represent the interests of British climbers?

Even if Jimtitt is right that there are still a few Nazis and anti semites among the AAC's ranks, who can say no to a cheap discount on Alpine hut entrance fees?

Whoah there, Jim lad!

If you're making a serious point, please do go ahead and discuss it.

Otherwise maybe, retract?

If it's good enough for UK politics it's good enough for me!

I'm personally very up for emmigration, and not just because emmigration is the logical solution to immigration.

Guys, lets all quit the BMC and join the AAC, and use the BMC's new founding articles as a basis for change.  We can be a force for good for the AAC from within. 

The old guard have had it their way for too long! 

It's time the AAC embraced trad climbing! 

End the unfair dominant disproportionate influence of mountain regions on the Austrian climbing scene!

It's time Austria explored its seacliffs!

Who's with me????!!!!

I was liking it - but it's 'emigration' man, not 'emmigration.' Spelling. These things matter.

You're right.  Damn!  So it's like Emigre.  Cool. 

So it's not the emmigrants after all?  One must instead swear about all the bloody emigrants, cluttering up the Costa, taking jobs from honest spaniards, giving us brits a bad name.  But the bigots may swear about the 'bloody immigrants' all they like.

No wonder some people elect to take their time before learning our crazy language.

Anyway now you've glanced at it Rob, it's good to know there can't possibly be any other fundamental flaws in the master plan/coup. 

I just enjoyed the rant, man. But I am fussy about use of language.

Don't confuse one thing for another: I see absolutely no sign of any 'master plan.'  However, good luck to all of us - including me ...