UKC

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/2021-strategic-review-consultation

The opening paragraph says let us know by Sunday 20th September but when you click on the survey it says that consultation is only open until the 11th September. Is it too late to provide feedback?

I posted the above question on the BMC website but not had a response. Anyone know?

In the area meetings Chris said the consultation was extended until the end of today.

So we now have three possible dates!  Good to see BMC improvements in communication coming along.

Could do with a definitive answer on this. Disappointed that the question on the website wasn’t answered. I’m not going to spend time considering the document and filling in the survey if it’s not going to be included. 

You are black comedy gold at times with your incessant negativity towards the BMC. Some members suggested they put back the deadline a few days and the BMC are to be blamed for responding to that with an extension!?

You should really have done it a week ago since you were at the Peak area meeting where it was discussed; and Henry made a very significant contribution so it was hard to miss. However since the deadline extension stated publicly by a Director (Chris) at area meetings hasn't passed I can't see how it could possibly be a waste of time to submit today.

No, they are to be blamed for failing to communicate clearly. Communicating a deadline clearly and consistently is pretty basic stuff.  If it moves, communicating that clearly is similarly a basic task.  Expecting people to remember conversations and meetings to know when a deadline is is comical.

Meanwhile, all those members who have been busy and unable to attend meetings may still, quite understandably, be going by the prominent information on the front page of the BMC website, which still gives a deadline of 20 September. 

What's the thinking there? That there's no need to issue a new statement, update the website and email all members, because - why? Because opinions of members who can't regularly attend meetings don't count? Or that it's ok because they'll probably read about it on a UKC thread?

All’s well. Jon at the Marketing dept has replied:

“Responses are open until the 20th September. The survey introduction has now been updated to match the article.”

Better get my thinking cap on

As far as I'm aware no one pointed out the 11th vs 20th error publicly until today!?  I was  pointing out the information given in the area meetings, in response to requests there, was that submission today (Tuesday) would certainly be OK.

On the deadline now the error in the email is known I can't see how the organisation has any choice but to stick with the 20th (the later of the two dates copied to members in the latest email).

Thanks for pointing out the info from the Area meetings. Regarding the matter in general, a number of questions spring to mind ....

Obviously the published dates don't correspond, but what is less obvious is which was the error: 11th or 20th? And why was a third date, 15th, introduced, and why only at Area meetings? At what level was that authorised?

It may have only been made public today, but has everybody at the BMC really been unaware of the discrepancy since 27 August? After all, we are talking about a major piece of UK wide admin, with feedback from membership invited - the submission date is a pretty important bit of information. Surely you'd double and triple check that, if nothing else?

Following recent events, the BMC management (yet again) has some work to do in reassuring the membership that it is a happy ship, which can communicate with members clearly, and run things effectively. This sort of messy incompetence really doesn't help.

Yes, of course!

The Director (who is dealing with the initial collation and it's practical timing) authorized it, clearly unaware of the 20th date when he did that. I wasn't aware either of that 20th date until today and I read the email and missed it, as clearly did countless others. It's rather a significant stretch to claim a typo in an email relates to anything meaningful wrt company Directors.  At least the BMC will get hundreds more submissions wth all this extra publicity

Holy crap. I've had a first pass at the background document and I'm drowning in verbiage, extraneous info and noting acronyms that might not be as familiar to members as the author presumes. All seems worthy, on-message stuff but lacking clarity of vision much like previous BMC strategies. Thought we'd moved on. Maybe I'm being too harsh but could definitely benefit from being more concise and written in plain english. Will try again later.  

Off for a walk.  

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/2021%20Strategic%20Plan%20Review%20Con...

I didn't make that claim - I phrased it as a question, implying that it might be the case that some at BMC were aware of the discrepancy but chose to attempt to gloss over it. It doesn't seem a stretch to me at all: how am I to know? Transparency has not been the BMC's strong suit of late, and trust is in short supply.

What is a stretch is to refer to this discrepancy as "a typo in an email". It may have originated that way, but it became much more than that when it appeared prominently on the website homepage, not properly checked. 

I decided I really should have a look at the consultation and make a contribution. I have to say it a very difficult read, in fact I would say it’s gobbledygook, and I am used to reading Government consultations. If we put aside the use of unexplained acronyms, strange numbering system, corporate w*nky-speak, use of individuals names, weird explanations...even the main content is difficult to get your head around.

Anyway, to the substance:

Is now the right time to actually consult when everything is so uncertain and when the BMC is haemorraging directors?

I think the BMC(like many institutions) needs to reconsider its purpose. The first priority they give is to grow the membership. I think the first priority is to have a useful purpose, sell the idea, then the membership will follow.

I see what you mean.  Clearly hasn't been proof read and the text is barely English.  On p5 we have

"Headline priorities", as a title but I can't see them listed anywhere.  This is followed by

"Four key objectives" that apparently "underpin" the the unstated priorities, followed by

Strategic themes, which appear to to be numbered 4a to 5e

"I think the BMC(like many institutions) needs to reconsider its purpose. The first priority they give is to grow the membership. I think the first priority is to have a useful purpose, sell the idea, then the membership will follow."

Well I'm glad they have rebooted the strategy and done this consultation. I think the BMC has been suffering in recent years from two politically opposed positions trying to pull it too far in their directions (the 'ultra traditionalists' and the 'ultra modernisers'). It already does a series of useful things, some essential, where the sum of the combination is more than the parts. Hopefully this will become obvious in this consultation and the organisation focuses more on input from its broad membership and less on noisy critics on social media and velum (an old BMC 30 joke). Membership has been slowly growing over the years and this hasn't been at the expense of long term core values like: access and conservation; being the main national voice of climbers and hillwalkers to government and other bodies; the importance of clubs, training and safety (including the risk participation statement); being the UK governing body for competition climbing; celebration the rich history of our activities. Plus practical benefits like the inclusive 3rd party insurance, good rates on specialised insurance, and various discounts. The organisation's reputation with partner organisations over the covid period seems very high and they seem to be working together as well as they ever have. I think National Council and area meetings have been working better than they ever have.  The politicised critics don't want the members to hear this good stuff and want the members worrying, so they can better sell their particular biased solutions to exaggerated problems.

In terms of 'foot shooting', even including this Board hiatus, the main constant problem I see in the BMC relates to the Monty Python 'Romans' joke. The webpage and organisational information (like handbooks) needs a lot more up-front on what the organisation does for the membership and the wider overlapping crag, mountain, hill and indoor wall communities and landscape in the UK and for the future of the areas they enjoy.

So what in a nutshell is the strategy? I’m struggling to find the motivation to look at the document again. These things are meant to be inspiring and exciting that most can get behind. Maybe it is but it’s not articulated that way.

There is a link in the opening section to another document which I think is the actual strategy. It starts OK and then also gets bogged down