UKC

The radio silence from the BMC Board last week was deafening. Are they just hoping the current crisis with GB Climbing and the finances will blow over? The Board is in charge but it doesn’t feel like it. 

There are three things that they should currently be acting on and communicating about in plain language to the membership.

First of all following on from the recent publishing of the damning internal report into the CCPG, the observations of the former Director who represented the Board on the CCPG and the open letter of no confidence from the parents and athletes there is clearly a cultural and therefore leadership issue at GB Climbing. Everyone involved and anyone who cares to join a couple of dots knows what is expected of the Board but they have neither backed the leadership of GBClimbing nor made changes. Sitting on the fence is not a solution and furthermore risks even further escalation and reputational damage to the BMC. 

Secondly, it is evident from the recent comments from within the competitions community that they want to stay within the BMC. It also appears that rather than clamouring for money that they also believe that the scale of spending and the way resources are allocated is a poor use of money that is ore focussed on empire building (now 14 full time GB Climbing employees I understand) than it is on the athletes and helping them realise their potential. Just because the majority of the £1m+ of GB Climbing spending is government funding does not make it morally acceptable to spaff it away.
Despite their eye watering spend the way GBClimbing has been poorly administered has heaped extra unnecessary costs on the the athletes who are largely self funded. If a proportion of the money GB Climbing spent went to reimbursing athletes expenses they would be able to accrue more competition experience and improve their performance and would increase the pool of talent GBClimbing could draw on rather than relying on athletes who had financial backers with deep pockets (typically parents).
A review of the current GB Climbing strategy that has been implemented by stealth requires a complete review focussing on bang for the buck. 

Finally, full and transparent public disclosure to the membership of all costs and allocation of grant funding relating to GB Climbing is long overdue so we can see the real extent that the BMC supports GB Climbing and evaluate whether it is proportionate to other areas of the BMC. In fact a public statement on BMC finances generally is required in terms of available cash and level of cash burn. How bad are things? Nobody seems to know. 

Listen to ... the sound of silence ...

Not sure whether its "head in the sand" or "caught in the headlights". Dont forget (as if...) there is no CFO and no CEO, so being able to analyse and communicate how things are likely to go cash wise is not as easy as it should be.....

Whilst from all I have read I agree with the points that need addressing, I do think that given the magnitude of it all the board should be given a bit more time to decide on and execute a way forward following last week’s events.  The right decision (whatever that is) implemented correctly  is more important than rushing something of this importance just to get a press release out. 

That is very decent of you. However, unlike the rest of us the Board has been privy to this information for months and, to be blunt, their decisions have led us to where we are now. 

Months? We must be talking cross purposes... the letter of no confidence and resignation of the CEO only happened last week, I believe?  Maybe the board knew they were coming late the week before?

Get real!

The CCPG report was I think commissioned last year and the issues arising from GB Climbing were surfacing then. I’m not sure when they first received the report but it was a few months ago. The Board’s plan in response to the CCPG report was weak and NC was asked to approve this plan without having sight of the report. The CEO proposals with respect to CCPG in particular would have weakened rather than strengthened it. 

Sorry that wasn’t particularly clear. Stuff just didn’t happen out of the blue recently. It’s been brewing for some time. There has been a lot of manoeuvring going on behind the scenes. My understanding is that the previous Chair had a run in with Paul Davies but the rest of the Board decided to back Davies so understandably the Chair stepped down.

Davies has been highly involved with GB Climbing and I understand he attended all CCPG meetings even though he wasn’t a member. Things were presented to CCPG as a fait accompli. Nobody seems to have taken an active interest in the real and growing costs of GB Climbing other than the Director representative on the CCPG Board and despite him being in that position was never able to get a full handle on costs. When I asked him about this on BMC Watch and whether this was a unique situation or whether the Board was generally kept in the dark his answer was to me shocking and indicative of an organisation that was undermined and out of control. 

“that’s actually quite a difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons:

1. It was a moving target and one that moved very fast.

2. The ToR’s for CCPG allowed for 4 meetings x 2 hours minimum and there was deep resistance to having more meetings despite my repeated requests that the work could not be covered within 8 hours per year.

3. Some of the CCPG members contribute very little but I will not expand on that. In essence CCPG is too small but the future proposals now suggest that it should be smaller.

4. The remainder are overworked even if that work is simply questioning what the heck is going on.

5. As soon as the SE contract was awarded GB Climbing started recruiting and spending before consulting with CCPG or partners.

6. In fact GB Climbing started spending money in areas that *might* be a partners area of responsibility before the partners had received their respective sub-contracts from SE.

7. Three of the four partners were pretty upset (understatement) this time last year with one stating that the only way it would be resolved would be a certain person being gifted a P45.

8. A number of the board (myself included) were totally overworked trying to recover the relationship with partners.

9. Many of the concerns were relayed to the CCPG review team but they were told that it was outside of the scope of the review based on time i.e. 2 years from its inception.

10. There was then deep resistance to the CCPG review even taking place to the extent that “BMC” office staff tipped us off that certain members of GB Climbing we’re digging up dirt on anyone connected to the review in order to derail, undermine or simply cast doubt on its findings.

I could go on….”

Re: “My understanding is that the previous Chair had a run in with Paul Davies but the rest of the Board decided to back Davies so understandably the Chair stepped down”

Edit: My recollection of this was incorrect. Please ignore. However, the point I was trying to illustrate was that problems between the Board and the CEO were long-standing rather than recent. 

Great original post - sums it all up perfectly

Appreciate it might look like this from outside but for parents and athletes this has been going on for 2-3 years. People engaged with CCPG review late 2022. Really thought something would change given what we heard about the findings. Over 6 months waiting for it to be released as apparently original had such damming findings about 'individuals' that release was delayed. When it comes out its underwhelming and there is no substantive response. 

The BMC (or more specifically the individuals the letter was sent to) have not actually responded to the signatories of the letter at all. An email, co-signed by one of the people the letter was stating no-confidence in, was sent to all GB athletes and parents (whether they had signed or not). This communication just appeared to basically say 'yes, we know there are some issues, we're working on it, there there'. Pretty disrespectful to all those who had taken the significant decision to sign

At the moment the impression is very much of sticking head in sand. 

Thanks - and to others - for the comprehensive replies.  I'll try and explain my view a bit more clearly

- there has obviously been a long, very difficult period of dissatisfaction [I know this is an understatement] building up to the seismic events of the last few days

- clearly many people think some form of action should have been taken before it got to this.  That action wasn't taken, but you can't change the past.

- No matter how long the build up has been, in my view, it doesn't mean the Board can respond immediately to the last few days.  You cannot respond to events until they happen, and the Letter of No Confidence and resignation of the CEO have only just happened.

The departure of the CEO - the only paid Board member - is a very significant change to the group of people making decisions, especially if, as you suggest, there were tensions.  So potentially an opportunity to revisit prior discussions, which takes time.

The departure of the CEO means a massive reduction in capacity to implement any decisions, remembering that many of the Board have day jobs and are squeezing BMC business into evenings and weekends.  And implementing decisions takes time, with the press release coming at the end.

Personally, if we haven't heard anything more in 2-3 weeks time, I'll share your assessment.  In the meantime I think it is fair to give the volunteer Board a bit of space.  With the resignation of the CEO [and no CFO] I imagine there is quite a lot for them to do, above and beyond the GB Climbing issue.   

No matter what has happened before, you cannot respond to events until they happen.

Thanks. I think that's a reasonable and sober assessment.

In reply: my 'get real!' reaction above was in response to your previous comment that 'the letter of no confidence and resignation of the CEO only happened last week, I believe?  Maybe the board knew they were coming late the week before?' After all, it's beyond obvious that things have been going bad for a long time. And it's also beyond obvious that the official statement from the BMC regarding the CEO's resignation is disingenuous.

I'm just an ordinary member of the BMC (by virtue of club affiliation.) I wish the organization well, and I am prepared to be patient. But I don't like bullshit. Better - and more honest - communication from the BMC would be very welcome.

Here’s my suggested plan of action FWIW:

Now

1. Remove the GB Climbing Leadership. There’s no credible alternative without raising the stakes higher. Let the volunteer community step up in the interim. There are indications they are willing to do so

2. Draft in a properly qualified Accountant (might be paid or a volunteer) to review the current cash position and rate of burn 

3. Communicate to the membership and concerned parties this is happening

10 days

1. Make a formal statement on the cash position and the burn rate and indicative  actions to be taken to put the BMC back on course to reassure all concerned parties

1 month

1. Advert out for new CEO and Head of GB Climbing

2. Decide how and who ensures finances don’t  get out of hand again. Communicate what the solution is

3. The membership can go back to sleep again

Sounds a remarkably sensible plan. Makes you wonder why it isn't in place already.........

Perfect. We could then all go back to sleep and hopefully the BMC could start to rebuild and put itself on a better footing. 

And ideally communicated exactly as above with no more words than this and zero corporate BS

What do you deem

1. Remove the GB Climbing Leadership. There’s no credible alternative without raising the stakes higher. Let the volunteer community step up in the interim. There are indications they are willing to do so

How far down do you go?  Just wondering as its difficult to determine who is basically incompetent and who is incompetent by association.  If someone has been following orders then is it fair to get rid because they were unfortunate to have been in the job at the wrong time?

Do you really want to just get rid of the leadership and find that the new structure/replacements eventually end up back at square one having to deal with the same people making the same decisions and mistakes?  Too many opinions coming in from BMC, BMC membership, parents, athletes, home coaches, GB coaches, ex GB coaches, ex BMC leadership.  I wish good luck to whoever takes over.

You make a very important point. There is far too much finger pointing at 'the BMC' by people who forget that 'the BMC' includes many skilled and conscientious staff. They are given a strategy/work plan to follow and do so to the best of their, often considerable, abilities. There are staff who do what they do because they are invested in the work of the BMC not because it pays well or it's a good career move.

It can't do morale a great deal of good....

BUT, balancing that, the opinions of "BMC membership, parents, athletes, home coaches, GB coaches, ex GB coaches, ex BMC leadership" do need to be taken in to account. They, after all, tend to be the people who actually pay for the BMC to function. And they tend to be the people who can spot flaws in what the BMC offers them.

I too wish good fortune to those people who pick up the baton. There could be a few tricky years to negotiate.

I'd vote for that. If the opportunity arose. If somehow there was a way to engineer an opportunity for it to be put to the members...

There's nothing to stop the board issuing a statement now that basically just says "We are looking at how best to sort out all these complex issues. We will issue further statements as and when we have made significant decisions or made concrete plans of action".

Just the fact that they would be communicating with the membership would go a long way to reassuring many of us.

They have had a lot of people saying that kind of thing and acknowledged that they need to be better at communicating, I haven't yet seen them acting on it though.

Somehow, from past experience, I will not be holding my breath waiting for any kind of coherent response. The financial problems of the BMC have been hidden, and promises of openness and even direct promises of specific information have not been forthcoming.

GB Climbing has lost the confidence of the athletes and their parents and supporters and even after a letter signed by many of them, the response was insulting!

As you say in a later post there is a way to sort this out, but I doubt that the senior management of the BMC will sort out their end and the management of the GB Climbing department seem to have adopted a position of invulnerability. I cannot see any of your listed solutions being given any serious consideration by senior management, that would mean they have to admit their errors!

Unfortunately the people who are suffering the most in this are the dedicated BMC staff who have been quietly carrying out their duties whilst there is chaos around them. The GB Climbing staff, appear to think they have done nothing wrong and are continuing along the road they have chosen. 

Currently, like many people, the only thing making me stay a member and pay my subscription is the insurance (I didn't need this fortunately during the summer when even this went under). If another place offers the same level of insurance the BMC will lose yet another longstanding member.

It all makes me sad. And angry!

Thanks for your considered reply.  Appreciated.

Of course you are correct the opinions of those listed need taken into account.  Maybe the phrase too many should have been different.  I was trying to demonstrate how with so many varied opinions and vested interests (both positive and negative) it can make it a case of trying to please everyone whilst achieving nothing.  A bit like this countries current political situation.

Is this liable to be more complicated than you make out? Presumably they've been there >2 years, so you either have some torturous performance management process or you have to pay them to leave (unlikely to go down enormously well if money is tight), or you get into a legal argument when trying to remove them for another reason?

And just a reminder that the majority of the board (if not all) have lives and other commitments.

I've literaĺly just come out of a board meeting for a charity and we struggled to find time in the next few weeks that 4 of us were available for an hour to chat... nevermind an extended meeting to deal with this crapstorm.

I want answers and action but I want those to be thoughtout and actually helpful rather than quick and not beneficial.

Organising specific adults to get together for an extended period of time without any prior expectation of it occurring is always difficult. It really requires time to specifically be set aside for it.

Its a bit of a halfway house (and therefore can be even more complicated). Some will be on normal employment contracts; some, while part of GB Climbing, aren't actually employed by GB Climbing, but by the EIS (or whatever its name now is), and some might be on fixed term contracts (especially those funded directly by SE / UKS). So yes, really complicated....... 

Sorry, but that may be true, but it's no excuse. If a board member doesn't have the time to fulfil their role then they should resign. And yes, I have been a board member, I knew what I was signing up for (time was the least of it) and I took my responsibilities seriously.

Good luck with that when recruiting Board members for a voluntary role.

It’s something that needs to be done. I didn’t say it is an easy thing to do.

The CCPG report and other findings were handed to the Board several months ago and you’d expect/hope a disciplinary procedure / written warnings were started then. Further mess ups have occurred subsequently. If disciplinary procedures weren’t started then that might be an expensive mistake unless specific employment contract terms have been breached (bringing the organisation into disrepute or whatever).

The alternative is to soldier on under someone who is reported to have woefully failed to deliver in terms of appropriate reporting, governmental procedure, financial control and  administrative competence and in the process has lost the confidence of the majority of the competitions community. 

Not acting would risk the competitions community taking further action such as going on strike or raising a motion of no confidence in the Board and who could blame them. 

If this has gone legal, I'm guessing the first thing anyone has been told is "don't say anything to anyone". Has anyone read that book by Joseph Heller?

Better than trying to fill an involuntary role! *All* directorships are voluntary - nobody forces you to do it. You take up the challenge because you think you can (and will) contribute to the good of the organisation. You don't do it for fun (it rarely is that). Even in commercial (private) companies, most directors are not paid (beyond expenses) for fulfilling that role, so I'm not sure why 'voluntary' BMC directors should not be held to account for their actions/inactions in the same way as other company directors.

I completely agree with the thrust of your comment but just wanted to say that the people suffering the most are the GB athletes, whose short careers are being damaged by GBC incompetence. BMC staff could always look for another job (not that they should have to!), but the athletes have no option but to keep working with GB Climbing. There is no other way to compete internationally.

It's now evident that the Board are willing to sacrifice the athletes' careers rather than take decisive action.

Voluntary roles for a director usually specify a few hours every quarter/ month. Not full blown day to day running of the organisation , that is the CE s role .

Any more than that is basically unreasonable and should be remunerated  especially if it’s a good few hours a week . Cast your eyes round similar roles in similar organisations. 

Any more than that and it’s not structured correctly.

That may have been the way it 'was' in the early stages of the UKS/BMC relationship. As far as I know all staff are on BMC contracts now. There may be a few EIS people who are 'contracted' though.

In law, of course, they will. Bizarrely I am considering standing for a BMC Director role....🤔

I totally agree with you on that point. I could have made it clearer that my statement meant exactly that!

Sorry.

No worries - wasn't meant as a rebuke!

  A clear understanding of the financial position and a fixation on personal liability would seem a sensible prerequisite based on some of the comments on here.I am sure you understand that anyway in your deliberations. 

No one knows!

BMC Directors have insurance cover but obviously this doesn’t indemnify against a Directors legal obligation such as not to steal things, so hands off the Climb Britain tee shirts in the stock cupboard Andy

Yes, but that's true of any job.  

Is that what they told you when you became a director ?   Executive directors of a commercial company are usually either owners of the business or senior employees who are paid to run it, and are rewarded accordingly.  Non-execs are also usually remunerated, sometimes very well. 

Of course directors and trustees of charities and other voluntary bodies are usually unpaid (apart from expenses), and this sometimes also applies to non-exec roles in the public sector. In these cases the 'reward' is public service. 

Of course they should. Their legal responsibilities are the same whether or not they are remunerated.  It is a demanding role, but as you say they should have understood that when they took it on, and given the BMC's recent history it is clearly never going to be easy.

I have some sympathy with the suggestion that it may be difficult to get everyone together to discuss the issues (I work for a charity, and am involved in other voluntary organisations although not in a formal director role, and know how difficult this can be).  Nevertheless a holding statement could have been issued.  It is disappointing, but hardly surprising given the BMC's track record for communicating with its members, that there has been nothing.

Good luck if you do decide to go for this.

And please, regardless of whether you feel you're making progress or not, keep communicating, the membership would much rather be informed of things both good and bad than this corporate wall of near silence.

There may be some things that have to be kept confidential but preserving an aura of the board's invincibility or the reputation of the BMC are not amongst those.

Not to be taken lightly and on a whim in this litigious day and age.