UKC

More BMC foot shooting

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.

Have a read of the latest issue of summit.

Page 74,independent directors profiles.

Whoever wrote these, whilst fluent in business bullshit, clearly didn't "read the room"

 David Lanceley 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Second rate do-gooders......

 Red Rover 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Presley Whippet:

BMC press releases have sounded very corporate lately.

 David Lanceley 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Red Rover:

> BMC press releases have sounded very corporate lately.

They're being written by a PR outfit.

 Jim Lancs 09 Apr 2021
In reply to David Lanceley:

> Second rate do-gooders......

Whilst it's unforgivable to up-load this BS straight from Linkedin or the like, I don't think we can use the lack of foresight by the production staff of Summit to make judgements about the candidates themselves.  Give them a chance.


 Red Rover 09 Apr 2021
In reply to David Lanceley:

Don't PR people realise that the public are fed up with corporate nothing-speach? They must be pretty out of touch to imagine that normal people, nevermind climbers, will be won round with talk of 'implementing visionary roadmaps for new ways of working to our competencies' etc.

 DaveHK 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Jim Lancs:

> Whilst it's unforgivable to up-load this BS straight from Linkedin or the like,

Full house in the bullshit bingo there!

 David Lanceley 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Red Rover:

> Don't PR people realise that the public are fed up with corporate nothing-speach? They must be pretty out of touch to imagine that normal people, nevermind climbers, will be won round with talk of 'implementing visionary roadmaps for new ways of working to our competencies' etc.

It was PR people who kicked-off the BMC name change proposal and although it was subsequently supported by National Council and the Board it was perhaps the start of the current difficulties.

 toad 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Jim Lancs:

dear Lord. I have to confess I didn't bother reading this in the mag, that is just.... words fail....

 PaulTanton 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Presley Whippet:

the outdoor world is becoming more corporate. Before COVID I met several people who were becoming outdoor instructors. On talking to them I got to realise they didn’t appear to have a background love of the outdoors. Maybe it’s just me. 

 mrphilipoldham 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I had been contemplating rejoining but stuff like this makes it one step forward, two steps back. 

 Red Rover 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Jim Lancs:

Surely somebody with expertise in 'driving forward communication and engagement activities' would be aware that this corporate stuff is going down like a lead balloon.

Post edited at 09:13
In reply to David Lanceley:

> Second rate do-gooders......

Make your mind up.  Either it's over-blown MBA froth, or they are do-gooder amateurs.

It seems pretty standard to me, and it might well have be written by someone in PR.  After all, it's for... public relations.

Anyway, why don't you give us an example of how it should be done better, using your profile as an example? 

Post edited at 09:17
 neilh 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I read those cvs and just thought where is the background in climbing or hillwalking or mountaineering. 
 

something missing. 
 

They could have a very good background , the fa to that it is not stated is a bit of a blind spot. 

 tehmarks 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Head. Wall.

 John Gresty 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Took me a while to realise that NED stood for non executive director, as at least I hope it does.

John

In reply to neilh:

> I read those cvs and just thought where is the background in climbing or hillwalking or mountaineering. 

Given all the recent ructions, perhaps the brief was to communicate the business and professional experience?

The other two profiles do contain climbing and mountaineering experience.

 galpinos 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Presley Whippet and all the other whingers......:

I'd not seen that page in summit and agree it's a bit corporate. It also seems to be missing why Di is a director of the BMC, i.e. her love of the outdoors. But.......

My personal opinions of the BMC through volunteering and taking part in the ODG/AoA meetings is that it is working really well. All this online chat of it becoming too corporate and bloated doesn't seem to actually be materialising. There is definitely a more "professional" attitude from the paid staff but, as far as I can make out, it's still staffed by people who love the outdoors, be it climbing or walking or skiing etc, in both the paid and voluntary positions. The ODG/AoA meetings have been excellently run, and it seems there is light at the end of the tunnel there, and the specialist committee has moved pretty seamlessly to online working, streamlining of projects in line with Covid limitations and budget, and is working effectively.

I know it seems the UKC forum's "thing" to BMC bash but from my experience, it's working as well as ever.

 tjdodd 09 Apr 2021
In reply to John Gresty:

> Took me a while to realise that NED stood for non executive director, as at least I hope it does.

> John

According to Wikipedia

"Ned is a derogatory term applied in Scotland to hooligans, louts or petty criminals.  It also appears to be a backronym for a non-educated delinquent."

 mcdougal 09 Apr 2021
In reply to PaulTanton:

> the outdoor world is becoming more corporate. Before COVID I met several people who were becoming outdoor instructors. On talking to them I got to realise they didn’t appear to have a background love of the outdoors. Maybe it’s just me. 

It's not just you. Non-climbing climbing instructors for example, are very common. Non paddling paddling instructors less so - they actually have to paddle in order to supervise. I recently got into trouble for talking about fat MLs, so I'll learn my lesson there and shut up.

I'm sure that Di is a lovely person and that her linkedin profile doesn't do her justice. Unfortunately, I can't be the only person who heads outdoors (and reads Summit) wanting to escape from nearly everything her profile seems to represent. 

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

These Independant Directors are highly experienced professionals giving up their time for free in the knowing context that the two most recent Director resignations quoted social media hounding beng very much part of the reason they left. That members would still put trivia like profiles over all the amazing work done by key volunteers and staff saddens me. Quite a few key volunteers privately say they have just about had enough of the seemingly endless dirty politics from people with grudges. Do these key governance positions really need to become volunteering for a war zone? The organisation has to work with the best people it can from those who stand. As someone ( Nick G?) pointed out somewhere there is a good deal more to useful experience in BMC governance positions than company house profiles (where public sector or third sector experience won't even show, let alone very relevant stuff to do with the activities of the organisation).

It also saddens me that a highly experienced BMC stalwart like David continues to insult such volunteers. I don''t get why someone with his profile and experience suddenly became so childishly nasty, especially when dealing with a genuine serious problem (and hence triggering his disciplinary removal). I agree with David that the treatment of the Finance and Audit Committee in 2020 was wrong and that he was effectively whistle blowing to the Board, and was justified in some anger. His subsequent removal from that committee was based on those insults (not a good look for the BMC in dealing with a whistleblower on a genuine issue, irrespective of the things said). Despite thinking these insults are highly inappropriate, I do think that David's 'punishment' stands out unfairly compared to some BMC Patrons who behaved much worse during the motion of no confidence, with no disciplinary consequence, and even compared to near equivalent behaviour in recent times (Shark is now making input on a BMC governance working group despite fairly similar attacks on a Director and on the organisation). I agree with David that the BMC needs to distance itself from PR style led approaches, like the Climb Britain debacle, and hopefully has learnt the lessons to avoid any future push for marketing led growth. Where I don't agree with David was Council "supported" Climb Britain... Council was the formal decision making body of the BMC at the time. They decided almost unanimously that was the way to go and made it happen. Council let the membership down. If people care about the BMC future they need to help resolve problems to get the focus back to where it needs to be, on the core activities: like access, conservation and sustainability; lobbying governments; technical and safety information and support; purchasing and managing land with access risks; working with our funding partners in mountain training and indoor walls; hill walking, climbing and mountaineering initiatives; helping protecting our heritage and assisting guidebook production; club support; international links on shared values; youth competitions and elite performance development..... things that improve the quality of the activities we love...the Monty Python Roman's joke very much applies.

Post edited at 10:13
 galpinos 09 Apr 2021
In reply to mcdougal:

> I'm sure that Di is a lovely person and that her linkedin profile doesn't do her justice. Unfortunately, I can't be the only person who heads outdoors (and reads Summit) wanting to escape from nearly everything her profile seems to represent. 

Not wanting to state the obvious but maybe she heads outdoors to escape work but the skills present in her profile help in her director role at the BMC? 

 galpinos 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

>  If people care about the BMC future they need to help resolve problems to get the focus back to where it needs to be, on the core activities

I'd say the focus is already on the core activities.

I've no knowledge of David's situation but I think the fact Bob Pettigrew (of the BMC 30 fame) has been at the ORG/AoA meetings and has been constructively contributing shows where the BMC is now.

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to galpinos:

Engagement with some activities under the BMC remit and shared core values (like access conservation and sustainability) are a normal part of the job specs for all BMC Directors. 

 Red Rover 09 Apr 2021
In reply to galpinos:

I agree that the BMC is great. But for many of us, climbing is an escape from the totally false corporate world, a chance to get back to reality where a spade is a spade. To see the poisonous corporate speak come and find us even in climbing just gets peoples' backs up I suppose.

In reply to PaulTanton:

> the outdoor world is becoming more corporate. Before COVID I met several people who were becoming outdoor instructors. On talking to them I got to realise they didn’t appear to have a background love of the outdoors. Maybe it’s just me.

I could entirely get why someone who hated IT, for example, might get into that as a career because it is disproportionately highly paid, and thus if you're going to do a 9-5 desk job and hate it it is probably one of the better choices, as the money can be put to doing stuff you like in your spare time or having a nice house, car etc.

But outdoor instructing - just why?  It's poorly paid and a lot of effort.  Why would you even think about doing it if you didn't see it as being an option to combine doing what you love with earning just about enough to live off?

Post edited at 10:28
 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to galpinos:

I'm not looking to punish 'the others' I'm questioning why David was singled out for such unique treatment. I never resented Bob (and co's) politics, just the dishonest actions in the Motion of no Confidence (select distribution of misinformation and the odd lie, away from the public eye, to try and game the low turnout on AGM voting).  It's simply not OK for members to behave in such ways or to insult key volunteers and staff (as is too common on these threads), so we do need a culture change on that.

In reply to mcdougal:

> It's not just you. Non-climbing climbing instructors for example, are very common.

If they're just running a "taster session" type wall that's fair enough, to be honest.  At our Scout wall I'm interested in whether someone can do the setup correctly and supervise safely, not if they can get up the routes themselves as they have no need to do so per-se.  Doubt I could at the moment due to a combination of health issues and lockdown belly!

Though if you're looking to engage people in climbing and improve their movement skills it probably helps to be able to do it yourself!

 PaulTanton 09 Apr 2021
In reply to mcdougal:

i also wish the new independent directors all the very best of luck.
I read the article in Summit last night. I was thinking of what skills would be suitable for these jobs. 
I see the role of the BMC as a negotiation body between the outdoor world and the general public.  So as a director of that body Id be looking for people with experience of negotiation and PR. Possibly from the public sector, local authority but not exclusively.
I’m sure the people in the article have an absolute passion for the outdoors. Their commercial background does not negate this. I think the Summit article could have been better written to put greater emphasis on their outdoor credentials. 

 PaulTanton 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

I get what your saying. This is probably the topic of another thread, but anyway.

I met someone who was a nightclub bouncer at weekends and wanted some means to make money during the week. He’d done some courses, navigation, scrambling etc and hey presto he was an outdoor instructor. Prior to the training they had never been up a hill. 

In reply to DaveHK:

> Full house in the bullshit bingo there!

Isn't bullshit meant to impress the impressionable? That is just unintelligible, meaningless gobbledegook. Does anyone know what any of the letters actually stand for (apart from BMC)?

 galpinos 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

Sorry, my post wasn't meant like that. I can't comment on David's situation as I don't know enough about it and am reluctant to wade into something ill informed.

Re my second comment, it wasn't aimed at you/a reply to you post, but a general comment meant to illustrate that despite some pretty big ructions in the past, there is a high degree of collaboration and effort from all sides to get over all that, get the AoAs done etc and move past it.

 duchessofmalfi 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Jim Lancs:

She may have worked for a variety of blue chip companies but what has she done on grit?

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to PaulTanton:

I'd agree with that point for Di (whom I've been told is a keen hillwalker) but the other two Independents have a significant portion of their Summit p.74 entry given to outdoor passions and values.

Since the organisation is recruiting quite a few senior staff right now (including a new CEO), I see Di's already significant input to this as very timely.

 David Lanceley 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Isn't bullshit meant to impress the impressionable? That is just unintelligible, meaningless gobbledegook. Does anyone know what any of the letters actually stand for (apart from BMC)?

If you want a good example of a no bullshit approach to director profiles for a NGB / NRB take a look at https://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/chiefexec/Board%20Profiles.pdf

 Iamgregp 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

>  If people care about the BMC future they need to help resolve problems to get the focus back to where it needs to be, on the core activities: like access, conservation and sustainability; lobbying governments; technical and safety information and support; purchasing and managing land with access risks; working with our funding partners in mountain training and indoor walls; hill walking, climbing and mountaineering initiatives; helping protecting our heritage and assisting guidebook production; club support; international links on shared values; youth competitions and elite performance development..... 

I agree completely that the BMC needs to get back and focus on it's core activities, but I think your post has highlighted the issue.  There are roughly a dozen different activities that you've listed here.  There are far far too many for a small organisation like the BMC to be able to carry out effectively. 

I know they have a great deal of volunteers who do fantastic work but this is the same for all NGOs, and many of those which are much larger in size and membership have nothing like as many or as diverse a range of activities.

All of these activities are important, and they do need to be done, but they don't all need to be done by the BMC as right now, it's not doing any of these well enough in my humble opinion. 

Post edited at 11:00
In reply to Presley Whippet:

The role of independent directors is essentially corporate, and these skills are of far more importance than their participation in the outdoors.  In business it is common for non-execs to come from outside the industry, to bring a different perspective and different skills.  It seems very unlikely that anyone would volunteer for such a role with the BMC without a strong interest in the outdoors, but it is far more important that they have the skills and experience to fulfil the role.  

Yes, many of us climb to escape this sort of thing, which is why most are content to leave it to others.  However it cannot be avoided if the BMC is to be run effectively, which is what climbers overwhelmingly want. Someone has to do it.

 galpinos 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> All of these activities are important, and they do need to be done, but they don't all need to be done by the BMC as right now, it's not doing any of these well enough in my humble opinion. 

Could you expand on what you think the BMC isn't doing well enough? Not all areas, just the ones you are passionate about?

 galpinos 09 Apr 2021
In reply to David Lanceley:

They seem remarkably similar in style to Flavia and Caroline's profile.

I agree that Di's is a bit "corporate speak" for the average palate* but "two out of three ain't bad".....

*but more informative than any of the RYA profiles for anyone in the same sector 

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to galpinos:

I agree the public face indicates movement in the right direction but I still see this next six months in particular as a sensitive period. I'm from a trade union background and know that busy activists can come up with plans that look good to them but the members don't like. If everything can be resolved without some push to significantly shift values (like say an attempt to quickly grow the BMC out of financial trouble, or new major governance changes) and there are no more public ructions at the top, I will be happy. I don't oppose major change where evidenced as being required but recognise it simply can't happen in a democratic membership organisation without broad membership support and a super majority of members' votes

In reply to thread:

I actually think the BMC is doing a fine job. Discussions like this distract from all the ace work on the ground from paid staff backed up by armies of unpaid volunteers. If you're not happy with the organisation perhaps think about joining in with the stuff that matters to you?

In reply to galpinos:

> I know it seems the UKC forum's "thing" to BMC bash but from my experience, it's working as well as ever.

Within the eyes of the vocal minority I feel that the BMC are damned if they do and damned if they don't - this is no exception.

This isn't to say I particularly like the style in which it's been written, but is one I've seen used many times before within a professional capacity, where it is common currency. If it was written in a more casual style, focussing on their outdoor experience and interests, then it would be the exact same people who be up in arms - they'd just find a different angle

As such, whilst I'm not supportive of the way in which it's been written, it's an all too predictable a response from the usual naysayers.

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

Maybe sometime in the future the organisation will choose to slim down but it always worked well enough in the past and the core activities are still currently intrinsically linked in my view. I also see it as important risk mitigation right now given we are at a very difficulty time politically (nationally and internationally).... I'd rather the BMC stays involved across all those areas. As crises or work needs develop in the organisation the volunteers usually just sign up to meet any gap. I experienced that directly in guidebooks where we had hundreds (many new) working on the ones in which I had most involvement (not all volunteers were BMC members, I'd add).

Post edited at 11:23
 Iamgregp 09 Apr 2021
In reply to galpinos:

No, I'd rather not get into specifics.

I think the proof is in the pudding.  Are the membership all happy, content and confident in the organisation? 

Is the leadership of the organisation strong, unified and harmonious? 

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

> As such, whilst I'm not supportive of the way in which it's been written, it's an all too predictable a response from the usual naysayers.


And at least one new one.
I've watched the shenanigans of the past year go by and largely ignored it with a small sigh and some hope that they'd grow up. After reading the bollocks in summit I really hope they throw a six and start again. That was an awful lot of words they used to say absolutely nothing.
I really want to like the BMC. Their work is indisputably of massive value to me and everyone else on here. But FFS they need to grow up. Urgently. And stop appointing more/different 'directors' and yes men thinking it'll fix the fundamental problem, which is that they've lost all organisational credibility in the eyes of those they represent by endlessly pissing around with their internal structure as if it's a spectator sport.

Post edited at 11:29
 galpinos 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> No, I'd rather not get into specifics.

Fair enough! As a member of a specialist committee (and one mentioned in Offwidth's post), if we aren't doing something well enough in the eyes of the membership, but no-one tells us, how do we change/improve?

> I think the proof is in the pudding.  Are the membership all happy, content and confident in the organisation?

Apart from a very small but very vocal minority, I would say yes?

> Is the leadership of the organisation strong, unified and harmonious?

Well, the leadership is in flux at the moment but after the new CEO is appointed and all other positions post AGM confirmed, we'll find out I guess?

 Iamgregp 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I'm not looking to chuck the baby out with the bathwater here, I think the BMC is a vital and fantastic organisation that does some wonderful work.  

But, having worked with many NGOs in my career, mission creep is something that happens to organisations like this,  and every once in a while it's good to refocus on core goals. 

If there are ongoing issues that they can no longer able to administer, they are either passed on to a different body, or a new one formed to focus on that issue - for example when WWF helped set up the MSC.

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

Read the other two profiles again and tell me what is so bad that it needs changing: it looks like cherry picking that profile for criticism to me. I think it would be beneficial to see Di add something on her outdoor passions but for specialist expert skills I think the tone can be different (there is space to add a small paragraph).

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

There has been lots of refocus in the last year despite the political problems and the pandemic. In my view the staff and key volunteers outside of governance roles deserve exceptional praise for their practical member facing acheivements in the last year. We have had new initiatives the climate project being the latest. There have been pragmatic staffing changes... Niall has moved from direct guidebook production (but his skills remain if needed to help the BMC or other definitive producers in any future developments). There has ben some internal reorganisation: the competition climbing work has been put in a separate ring-fenced team (after member consultation on ORG recommendations).

I do agree with part of your proof is in the pudding post to Rob... things do need to settle down and the BMC does need to demonstrate a more clear and undivided leadership in the direction that most members want. On the broad membership I think most are either unaware of the politics or see it as an unhelpful side show. Most ordinary members I meet are very supportive. More politically engaged members who work hard on behalf of the organisation did occasionally need more respect in the last year when they were expressing genuine concerns.

Post edited at 11:57
 Iamgregp 09 Apr 2021
In reply to galpinos:

> Fair enough! As a member of a specialist committee (and one mentioned in Offwidth's post), if we aren't doing something well enough in the eyes of the membership, but no-one tells us, how do we change/improve?

I mean that's a fair point but I don't know enough about individual issues, but if you look at the members survey here https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Download.aspx?id=1528 it's pretty clear from the graphs presented on pages 14 & 17 that there's some priority areas that members for the most part, aren't particularly interested in, and for that matter aren't particularly satisfied with the job that the BMC is doing.

There's you answer right there.

> Apart from a very small but very vocal minority, I would say yes?

Again looking at that survey there seems to be a generally positive view on the performance of the BMC, but even the staunchest supporter would have to admit that there is certainly areas that need to be improved.  

Post edited at 11:54
In reply to Offwidth:

> it looks like cherry picking that profile for criticism to me.

I think that was pretty much the exact point of my post.

It was said within a previous thread that "this was what scrutiny looks like", but I think - at least from where I'm standing - this isn't scrutiny, it's a witch trial. If the BMC sinks, it's a witch; if it swims, it's also a witch...

In light of this I don't envy Di or the other Independent Directors, but wish them the best of luck.

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

Apologies Rob, it just read to me like you implied the other two profiles had the same problems.

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

I'd be careful with too much extrapolation of quantitative analysis of membership surveys. They are important for assessing broad member support but the qualitative statements in that survey and elsewhere, in particular on the work of some of the volunteer specialist committees, contain some of the best indications of small but vital areas of work that the BMC does.

In reply to Jim Lancs:

Maybe I've been in the corporate world too long but I think it's 100% clear from her profile what her experience is, and how it's relevant to the BMC (senior roles in comms and change management in large organisations with lots of grumpy stakeholders with conflicting views... sound familiar?).

If you want an organisation to be run professionally, get in those with professional experience who are motivated to use it for something they care about (let's face it, she is not going to be doing it for the money...). Not just whoever is most effusive about the outdoors or climbs the hardest grades.

 Iamgregp 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

So let me recap....

I say the BMC's list of priorities is too long. I get asked which, so use the BMC's own data to show which are of lesser importance to it's members, and aren't regarded being particularly well done and now you're saying that's not as important as anecdotal evidence?

If I could post pictures this paragraph would be the Inbetweeners "I dunno, I think that's a bit dodgy, mate" meme here

 galpinos 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

Thanks for responding and sorry if you felt “put on the spot”. It was a case of genuinely asking for constructive criticism! I am a supporter of and volunteer for the BMC but obviously understand there are areas for improvement.

I think everyone who works or volunteers for the BMC is happy to get feedback/constructive criticism, none of us think we are doing a perfect job. It’s just the snide attacks get a little tiring and they undermine the genuine effort put in.

Interesting looking back at the 2017 survey, the BMC feels like it’s changed a lot over the last 3 or 4 years......

 gravy 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

Thanks to recent history it doesn't seem unreasonable, to "every once in a while it's good to refocus on core goals", however, what seems to be worrying people is the core values being expressed in these statements seem to have very little to do with what we hope are the core values of the BMC.

I see this as an artless re-writing of a linkedin profile which clumsily missed the mark.  Danger is that there has been an awful lot of this recently and people are a tad sensitive about it. You'd hope that someone who prides themselves on "driving forward communication and engagement" would know their audience a little better.

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

Maybe give some concrete examples from the committee link below. Things I'm talking about include the committees that most members don't even know exist but do important work. Focus has changed to meet broader member wishes...much more input on hillwalking issues for instance.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-specialist-committees

Written qualitative input from members to BMC surveys and other democratic processes are most certainly not anecdote.  Attention needs to be paid to both types of input as well as input from other linked parties (other stakeholders in business speak).

Post edited at 12:34
 Iamgregp 09 Apr 2021
In reply to galpinos:

No that's ok, it's fine to ask for more detail, I could see that you were absolutely genuine in your question!

I'd agree that snide attacks and bad mouthing do little to help an organisation and just undermine the efforts of the very hard working staff and volunteers, it must be exhausting to constantly be on the receiving end of baseless criticisms 

My criticism, if you could call it that, is not aimed at individuals or even the work that the BMC carries out, but at the size and scope of what the BMCs aims are.  Like I said I do have some experience of working with NGOs and I know that it's difficult for organisations whose aim is to do good not to continually take on more and more projects and areas of responsibility that aren't all self funding, nor come with the resources required to run them!  

After all, it's difficult to say no, when it's clearly a project or area that will be of benefit.

It is interesting looking back at that survey and I'd agree that it's a little out of date now.  Maybe once the current period of change has been settled it's time for another, and to see what's changes in the meantime, and what needs to change in the future? 

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to gravy:

The core values and strategy have been defined and agreed through democratic proccess but some members would like slightly different values (based on political diferences).

Current values and strategic themes are here:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1902

 Marek 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> I think the proof is in the pudding.  Are the membership all happy, content and confident in the organisation? 

> Is the leadership of the organisation strong, unified and harmonious? 

There is no meaningful evidence to the contrary (assuming by 'all' you mean a significant majority). And I don't consider a few people with apparent axes to grind on this website to constitute 'meaningful evidence to the contrary'. I suspect that the vast majority of the BMC membership really don't care that much about this sort of politics, posturing and group argument.

Also, from a corporate point of view 'strong, unified and harmonious' leadership can be very dangerous - there's a lot of value in people having different opinion and perspectives (that's why you have NEDs) and being outspoken about them. As long as it's done the right way.

Post edited at 12:35
 Jim Lancs 09 Apr 2021
In reply to OG:

> Maybe I've been in the corporate world too long but I think it's 100% clear from her profile what her experience is, and how it's relevant to the BMC  . . . 

That's fine - I've made no criticism of her or the role of independent directors. My point was simply that whoever put together that piece in Summit, missed an opportunity to present her  professional competence and her enthusiasm for the outdoors in a way that would best connect with the magasine's broader readership.

 wbo2 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp: I am going to make an observation and then back out. If we look at that survey we note that competitions fall at the bottom, and indeed its a common cry from some that the BMC should 'lose indoor walls and refocus only on outdoor 'proper' climbing.

 This is foolish - if there is no BMC for indoors climbing then there will be something else to replace it, and that will be very quickly connected to outdoor sports climbing.  Do you think that will have a huge interest in trad, and preserving trad, as is? There's another thread complaining about indoor climbers not cleaning their shoes etc... who will be helping educate then? 

Be careful what you wish for.

To Hardonicus; do better, you're not 13. 

Post edited at 12:39
 gravy 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

I don't think I need you to point this out - it's obvious that they aren't going to be encapsulated in this corporate bullshit.

Di: know your audience: mostly they like the outdoors and mostly they can't be bothered to read on past the first paragraph so start everything with how much you love [insert outdoor activity] and how long you've been involved with [outdoor activities] possibly insert something emotional your relationship or history with [insert outdoors topic]. Wiffle on about the importance of the outdoors, heritage, access, equality, etc.  Possibly mention the old and new generations. Possibly mention the heritage of the BMC. Pass a glance at challenging times. If you have any achievements [in the outdoors] big or small now is the time to mention them either to impress with your skill, impress with you commitment or impress with your down-to-earth mediocrity.  Now you can cut and paste your boring business CV headlines and no one will care. Job done, no startled rabbits or foaming old codgers. Then you can claim to be a master at communication and engagement.

Post edited at 12:50
 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Marek:

There lies a crux issue. Some have told us we should know everything going on in the Board due to openness and transparency, but a Board can't function properly in that way. There has to be room for internal debate and even disagreement on some issues but when decisions are made they should be public and respected collectively by Directors (providing they don't compromise individual Directors 'red lines': in which case they should resign). I'm pretty sure Ian is referring fairly to inappropriate external signs of disagreement.

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to wbo2:

Members linked to indoor BMC comps (especially the Youth series) have become a lot more vocal and better understand the need to fill in surveys than they maybe did for the last survey. Hundreds of BMC members joined as part of those youth comps. They have been widely consulted in the formation of the new internal unit that deals with competition climbing in the BMC. The area comps are usually completely volunteer run.

 Andy Gamisou 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I could entirely get why someone who hated IT, for example, might get into that as a career because it is disproportionately highly paid, and thus if you're going to do a 9-5 desk job and hate it it is probably one of the better choices, as the money can be put to doing stuff you like in your spare time or having a nice house, car etc.

Must admit I was a coal face coder for 30 years and mostly hated it.  Now I've given it up professionally I love it and do it as a hobby, even spending my dosh to do a postgraduate in AI.  Thinking about it, it was working with people I hated, rather than IT as such!

> But outdoor instructing - just why?  It's poorly paid and a lot of effort.  Why would you even think about doing it if you didn't see it as being an option to combine doing what you love with earning just about enough to live off?

I agree, yet I've met several individuals doing just that whilst clearly having no affinity for the outdoors at all. 

 Iamgregp 09 Apr 2021
In reply to wbo2:

>  This is foolish - if there is no BMC for indoors climbing then there will be something else to replace it, and that will be very quickly connected to outdoor sports climbing.  Do you think that will have a huge interest in trad, and preserving trad, as is? There's another thread complaining about indoor climbers not cleaning their shoes etc... who will be helping educate then? 

Personally as someone who doesn't climb trad at all I'd be well up for that.

Joking aside, here's another way to look at it. 

If the BMC takes no action, this could very possibly happen.  Do they want this body to be made up of BMC members who have a good relationship and shared values with the BMC, or unconnected people who don't give a shit?

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to David Lanceley:

Quelle surpise: the RYA finds it easy to find a good mix of relevant corporate and boat experience. So maybe its best to look for something rich white folk might find a bit more difficult..... no search results on their website for equity and diversity.

In reply to gravy:

Maybe she thought BMC members would be interested to know what skills and experience she can bring to the role, which were presumably the reason she was appointed to it.  But no, apparently all that matters is "what has she done on grit?"

I can't imagine anyone volunteering for such an unpaid and probably thankless role, which carries heavy legal responsibilities, unless they were pretty committed to the outdoors and to the organisation. That should go without saying.  Frankly, I'm surprised anyone would put themselves forward, if they're going to be attacked like this before they've even done anything.

 ian caton 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Presley Whippet:

One of the major downsides to being a member of the BMC is receiving Summit. If it cost a couple of quid more to join and not get summit, I am in. 

In reply to David Lanceley:

> If you want a good example of a no bullshit approach to director profiles for a NGB / NRB take a look at https://www.rya.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/chiefexec/Board%20Profiles.pdf

Not this bit though:

“She has re-energised brands with a compelling vision and strategy transforming them from a milk/exit status to brands businesses have wanted to support and grow again. She now co-owns Flintlock a marketing consultancy. She is also well versed in the digital space and understands how social media works, the importance of content and the use of influencers to drive the eco-system.”

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to ian caton:

I'm pretty sure you can opt out of receiving it (for eco reasons) but am struggling to find the link on the webpage.

 David Lanceley 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> Quelle surpise: the RYA finds it easy to find a good mix of relevant corporate and boat experience. So maybe its best to look for something rich white folk might find a bit more difficult..... no search results on their website for equity and diversity.

Take a look at the strategic plan https://www.rya.org.uk/about-us/rya-policies/Pages/rya-strategic-plan.aspx plenty there on equity and diversity.  While you're there note how clear, concise and drafted in plain English it is.  Compare and contrast with the BMC strategic plan.

I agree much easier for a prestigious organisation like the RYA to attract quality people to its Board - but not all of us are rich and white, even the paid hands are allowed to join these days.

In reply to gravy:

My other thought is that maybe this is a cut-and-paste placeholder to put on the website until she gets around to writing something more specific.  Whilst it would be good to see something about her outdoors involvement, it really is the least important thing for the purposes of this role.

When announcing the new appointments the BMC said "All three new directors also have strong connections to the outdoors and are passionate about the BMC’s crucial work in protecting and promoting the interests of the BMC’s membership. We’ll be interviewing them soon to help everyone get to know them more."

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to David Lanceley:

I'm actually aware there are some initiatives in place (through rich white pals) but even the dysfunctional search on the BMC website gives 40+ results. Maybe such dialed-in high powered Directors should already have fixed the web profile.

On the BMC strategic plan maybe members who care could have helped on that during the feedback. I remember this eminent Prof gloriously critiquing a Uni mission statement once.... he got the message over. His final line was something like "aside from all I have said, it doesn't even scan" (I was nearly crying with laughter given the look on the VCs face). He's a marshal arts high level black belt as a well as a world expert in international relations.

https://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff30738.php

Post edited at 14:10
In reply to Offwidth:

> I'm actually aware there are some initiatives in place (through rich white pals) but even the dysfunctional search on the BMC website gives 40+ results. Maybe such dialed-in high powered Directors should already have fixed the web profile.

I don't entirely get why anyone uses the search feature on any website, it's invariably awful.  Try this - use Google and put site:www.thebmc.co.uk before your query

Hi everyone

Thanks for all the comments.

We wanted to feature all three of the new independent directors in Summit: Flavia Alzetta, Diane Hopper and Caroline Worboys.

However, due to coronavirus life factors, we had to use Di Hopper’s LinkedIn text. This wasn’t ideal, but we thought it was much better to include her rather than miss her out.

Hope this helps

Alex.

Post edited at 14:23
In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:

Hi Alex,

Thanks for the clarification.

All-in-all it sounds like a case of best intentions (and not the end of the world that some are making it out to be).

As per my previous post, best of luck to each of the new Directors.

Rob

Post edited at 14:29
 El Greyo 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

You might like to look at that survey on page 17 again. In every category the 'Very satisfied' and 'Fairly satisfied' greatly outnumber the 'Fairly dissatisfied' and 'Very dissatisfied' by at least a factor of three, even in the worst case.

I don't think that survey supports your position that membership 'aren't particularly satisfied with the job that the BMC is doing' in any field.

It does probably support your point that 'there's some priority areas that members for the most part, aren't particularly interested in' going by the number of 'Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied' but I don't think that can be used to support a radical change in how the BMC is operating.

In reply to Presley Whippet:

Her skills involve "right-sizing", if you work for the BMC, be afraid... be very afraid

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to CantClimbTom:

You say 'toe-may-toe' and I look forward to her cam and nut placement selection.

Post edited at 14:50
In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:

Usual UKC running off down a path making a mountain out of a molehill without knowing all the facts. It is something that UKC forums have achieved (and continue to maintain) excellence in 😁

It's almost amusing to watch but it would be much better if it didn't inevitably happen.

Edit - to CantClimbTom: a manager at one place I worked at (who was just as likely to be a "victim" as anyone else) used to call it "happy sizing", I don't think he appreciated all the corporate bullshit that usually accompanies downsizing, etc.

Post edited at 14:53
In reply to Michael Hood:

I must admit I do wonder why those who are so anti-the-way-the-BMC-is-going don't harness that and create an alternative mountaineering association.  It's not like the BMC has a monopoly on it, it's not really an NGB like say the BCU (or whatever it's called now) is for canoeing; Mountain Training is the "regulatory" body and is very much separate.

In reply to Presley Whippet:

I’m a BMC member with little knowledge of what’s going on internally. It was clear from several slips in that issue of Summit that it had been put together hurriedly/ in difficult conditions. No surprise there. It’s weird to judge individuals on that basis.

I don’t expect the BMC to be perfect or to run smoothly- few organisations that blend volunteers and professionals ever do. But I am happy paying my subs because it does a lot of good work that nobody else would if it didn’t exist.

I don’t understand the animosity from some posters on this thread (well, one has a well-known grudge). If you don’t like the BMC, don’t join. It won’t stop you climbing. You’ll still benefit from the work it does.

 Iamgregp 09 Apr 2021
In reply to El Greyo:

Yes I take your point, and I'm aware of the proportions of positive and negative responses.

But there are quite a number of those categories where the "neither satisfied nor dissatisfied" and negative responses dwarf the number of positive responses. 

If I was at the BMC I would look at these priority areas, look at the amount of money and resource they absorb and ask myself is the BMCs continued stewardship of these offering value?

Take, for example "Purchasing and managing property" this sounds like quite a costly, and resource heavy endeavour yet only 35% of members, have a positive opinion on this.  The majority either have so little interest as to neither have a positive or negative opinion, or have an actively negative view.   They're not bad, they're just not creating a positive feeling for the majority of members.

Could the money, time and resource be put to better use in other areas that the BMC's membership have more interest in?

If the less well performing categories take up very little time, money and resource, no worries keep them, but at least look and see if money and resource is being put to best use.

Like I said, I've seen this happen at just about every NGO or Charity I've worked with (and I've worked with a few!) this isn't a radical suggestion.

 Martin Hore 09 Apr 2021
In reply to ian caton:

> One of the major downsides to being a member of the BMC is receiving Summit. If it cost a couple of quid more to join and not get summit, I am in. 

I've normally found Summit a pretty good read but this latest edition has led me to question that a little. And I'm generally very supportive of the BMC - its role in access and its support for clubs especially.

A key requisite of good journalism is "know your audience". The new non-executive director profiles no doubt relate to skills and experience that will be very valuable in the role, but they just don't come across as written to impress an audience of climbers and mountain goers. Yes, three out of eight paragraphs do describe a passion for our pastime, but the remaining paragraphs read rather too much like the CV of someone who is writing to impress an appointment panel rather than a mountaineering membership.  I wouldn't be blaming the new directors themselves - it's not their role to edit for the readership. And why was there no mention that these are unpaid positions? "Non-Exec" doesn't generally mean that. Readers could easily have thought otherwise.

I saw with anticipation that this edition of Summit had a main feature article on the winter ascent of K2. I'm keen to know more about that - how was it achieved - what were the logistics involved and the teamwork required to get 10 members to the summit together etc. But 90% of the article could have been written before the ascent took place. Just three paragraphs with the actual thoughts of the key participants Nimsdai and Mingma G, and one of those from an interview before the ascent. I was disappointed.

Martin

 David Lanceley 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I assume that all BMC Directors are under a three-line whip not to engage in UKC banter. 

 galpinos 09 Apr 2021
In reply to David Lanceley:

> I assume that all BMC Directors are under a three-line whip not to engage in UKC banter. 

If I was a BMC Director, I'd be steering clear of car-crash UKC threads started by agenda driven critics.

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

Purchasing and management of property is pretty much all based on volunteer work and much of the cost from donations made for that purpose. It doesn't matter what the average member thinks if some members care enough to volunteer to do that and donate for it. If access to the BMC owned properties ceased there would be plenty of complaints.

https://thebmc.co.uk/bmc-owned-and-managed-sites

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/land-management

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-land-management-group-lmg

As I said, member survey quantitative views on some aspects of BMC work don't give the full picture. Try another example.

Post edited at 15:54
 David Lanceley 09 Apr 2021
In reply to galpinos:

> If I was a BMC Director, I'd be steering clear of car-crash UKC threads started by agenda driven critics.

Yes, doesn't usually turn out well for those that do appear.  I don't think we're missing much, before they were appointed to the Board most of them thought the BMC made Morris Marina's.

 Iamgregp 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

All of those links that you just gave relate to the BMCs ownership of land not property which is a completely separate category on the survey. 

In any case the priority you pick doesn't matter, inevitably if the BMC were to shrink its remit there would be some people who would be very upset and complain, but if by doing this they can perform better in other areas and grow satisfaction amongst their members, and indeed grow membership, then is that not worthwhile?

 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

As far as I'm aware, any property, aside from the Manchester HQ, is managed through semi- independent trusts.

I still think that these areas you allude to get less support than they deserve, based on below par member information and take little extra BMC resource given they are volunteer led (and for land ownership if access was lost would be a disaster). Land management has become the most important area of work for some of the most impressive BMC volunteers.

Post edited at 16:18
 Iamgregp 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

If that's the case why is that still listed as a core priority on the BMCs remit? Doesn't sound very core to me...

What resources are used on keeping it there?  Could they be better employed on other priorities?  Would it be better to make those trusts fully independent and if so, what would that allow the BMC to do instead?  If there's nothing to be gained then by all means keep it. 

But aside from that example my point is that any organisation like the BMC needs to, from time to time, look at what it's doing and make judgements as to whether what it is doing is delivering value for it's members and whether they are the best placed organisation to deliver on the requirements.

That is by no means a radical suggestion, yes radical action may come of it, but the suggestion to have a periodic sense check on your operations is pretty healthy.

In response to your second paragraph (which you added after I began typing).  You're again confusing land and property and ,secondly if something uses little resource, and nobody and the BMC membership knows little about it, is that a core activity? 

Post edited at 16:36
 Offwidth 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

Property is hardly central, from memory the only mention in the strategic plan is the BMC Land and Property Trust. Maybe you should ask for more details.

Some of the emphasis might refer to helping BMC clubs who own huts (something that proved vital to some clubs in the pandemic given the risks and complexity involved).

I know some of the huts owned by Independent trusts uses some BMC and partner organisation time as trustees (including Mountaineering Scotland)

 Iamgregp 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

This is kind of my point.  If it's just something that the BMC does, but spends little time or resource on, and the majority of it's members aren't aware of, just drop it from the list of priorities, make it independent or look after itself as much as possible, free up resource and money, and make your messaging on the other more important areas stronger, or at least less buried in amongst all the other stuff.

The BMC probably does all sorts of other stuff that isn't listed in it's mission statement, or as a metric on the survey, this is as much about strong messaging and communication than operations.

I mean let's take the example of the post you made when I first replied to you.  You listed about a dozen different things, some of which are the activities the listed in the survey, others which were similar but not the same, and there were some completely missing.

If there were just 4 or 5 core activities, would this not be a stronger message?

Post edited at 17:02
 hang_about 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Presley Whippet:

And who begins a sentence with "And..."?

 El Greyo 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Take, for example "Purchasing and managing property" this sounds like quite a costly, and resource heavy endeavour yet only 35% of members, have a positive opinion on this.  The majority either have so little interest as to neither have a positive or negative opinion, or have an actively negative view.   They're not bad, they're just not creating a positive feeling for the majority of members.

Hang on, that is coming across as disingenuous - only 5% have an actively negative view. I do not think you can come to any conclusion from the 60% with a neutral view, and should not be lumped together with the negative view.  I think there is a good chance that many simply did not know enough to make a judgement. That was probably my response for the competition climbing - I have no idea whether they are run well - but it should not be assumed that I disapprove of the spending. I wonder how many actually know what properties the BMC owns and/or manages?

> If I was at the BMC I would look at these priority areas, look at the amount of money and resource they absorb and ask myself is the BMCs continued stewardship of these offering value?

I think that might be why they commissioned a survey.

 El Greyo 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> In any case the priority you pick doesn't matter, inevitably if the BMC were to shrink its remit there would be some people who would be very upset and complain, but if by doing this they can perform better in other areas and grow satisfaction amongst their members, and indeed grow membership, then is that not worthwhile?

Sounds like you're volunteering. Good luck!

 UKB Shark 09 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> ...BMC Patrons who behaved much worse during the motion of no confidence, with no disciplinary consequence, and even compared to near equivalent behaviour in recent times (Shark is now making input on a BMC governance working group despite fairly similar attacks on a Director and on the organisation). 


😂 You’ll have to take that up with Andy Syme as he sweet talked me into it but if it makes you or Lynn feel any better it feels more like punishment. 

In reply to Jim Lancs:

Thats quite a scary bio... Jesus! Wtf has that got to do with climbing... Clearly a city heavy hitter.. buy, buy, buy...

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Totally agree

 Morty 09 Apr 2021
In reply to CantClimbTom:

> Her skills involve "right-sizing"

Does this mean she is amazingly good at gear placement?  She doesn't faff about trying six different bits of gear - just looks at the crack and places a bomber nut first time.   Skills.

In reply to Presley Whippet:

It's not business bullshit. It makes sense to those who know about such things. I got a general idea, although I don't know some of the HR acronyms and can't be bothered to look them up. My criticism is that it's too technical (that is NOT the same thing as bullshit - some people's reaction on here seems to be "I don't understand it, therefore it's bullshit" but you could say that about a lot of things which work perfectly well).

Having said that, they would have been better off simplifying it and explaining how it's relevant to the BMC. I can see how it might be relevant but it would have been good to spell it out (eg X has Z years of experience of working as an HR director in a number of large companies and she will bring here extensive HR experience to help us to improve comms both within the BMC and with members and other stakeholders, as well as to improve HR processes within the BMC itself). The BMC seems to have had a lot of issues with internal and external comms and people falling out with each other, so they could do with an HR professional!

In reply to David Lanceley:

Yes, David. What the BMC really needs is your vast knowledge and experience so you can tell them exactly how you think it must be run.

In reply to neilh:

> I read those cvs and just thought where is the background in climbing or hillwalking or mountaineering. 

Yes, that would have been helpful as well.

In reply to John Gresty:

> Took me a while to realise that NED stood for non executive director, as at least I hope it does.

Correct.

In reply to David Lanceley:

> I agree much easier for a prestigious organisation like the RYA to attract quality people to its Board - but not all of us are rich and white, even the paid hands are allowed to join these days.

Says it all.

 David Lanceley 10 Apr 2021
In reply to Misha:

> Yes, David. What the BMC really needs is your vast knowledge and experience so you can tell them exactly how you think it must be run.

Indeed.  I'd start with a new criteria for Board membership, 25 routes on Cloggy and / or half the routes in Hard Rock.  Can't see any of the current Board qualifying on that very modest basis.

 David Lanceley 10 Apr 2021
In reply to Misha:

>

> I agree much easier for a prestigious organisation like the RYA to attract quality people to its Board - but not all of us are rich and white, even the paid hands are allowed to join these days.

Says it all.

I see parody is lost on you

Post edited at 08:45
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Usual UKC running off down a path making a mountain out of a molehill without knowing all the facts. 

And you think management speak is bad...!

 Offwidth 10 Apr 2021
In reply to UKB Shark:

I'm glad we have your contribution to that governance group.

That doesn't stop the fact that (like David) your behaviour has been unacceptably personnal at numerous times in debate over recent years. In an organisation with healthier and more consistent governance on member behaviour your attacks on a staff member and your hounding of a Director would have required an apology or a departure.

In reply to Jim Lancs:

> That's fine - I've made no criticism of her or the role of independent directors. My point was simply that whoever put together that piece in Summit, missed an opportunity to present her  professional competence and her enthusiasm for the outdoors in a way that would best connect with the magasine's broader readership.

This, 100%.

In reply to ian caton:

> One of the major downsides to being a member of the BMC is receiving Summit. If it cost a couple of quid more to join and not get summit, I am in. 

This too! How many members value Summit!

 SteveX 10 Apr 2021
In reply to David Lanceley:

> Indeed.  I'd start with a new criteria for Board membership, 25 routes on Cloggy and / or half the routes in Hard Rock.  Can't see any of the current Board qualifying on that very modest basis.

As a Climber who is also a keen Hillwalker, I consider the BMC has too much of an emphasis on climbing anyway, so consider that poor idea.

 Offwidth 10 Apr 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

Lets try again. The BMC doesn't own that property as far as I'm aware; trusts do. Property is not on the list of BMC priorities in the current strategic plan. Property wasn't on my list of what I've seen groups of members really care about as a well informed ordinary member (my views, not the BMC).  The Land and Property trust is in the plan, as a BMC internal charity, but the focus is on land purchase when facing major access issues. The resource use is nearly all volunteers who really care about the property (mainly huts). Money is raised by the trusts. You seem to be inventing a problem that doesn't exist.

All areas I listed are core and in my view the sum is greater than the parts. An especially important area for me is the BMC influence and guidance for the best young indoor climbers (future role models) transitioning to outdoors; the latest in a long line.

You imply the BMC is long in the tooth and might ossify as other NGOs you know. Yet it's a completely revamped body.  The old men in smoky rooms are now forced to input like the average member (their reduction in power is one of the reasons behind the political trouble making).

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:

One fundamental to any good comms is, know your audience. 

It would have taken 2 minutes to txt Di, and ask her to address her comments to this audience! 

Sorry, but you can't lay this at the door of Covid.

Thanks for engaging tho!

 Offwidth 10 Apr 2021
In reply to SteveX:

Hillwalking was the most common activity undertaken by members in the latest survey. The BMC is listening even if David wishes he could set such daft criteria.

It is very important the Directors understand what members care about, so I'd expect Directors to be involved in activities under the BMC remit and the Board to have a balance of those activities. However genuine enthusiasm would be more important to me than any childish willy waving about difficulty. It's not like the BMC struggles with access to talented input.

 neilh 10 Apr 2021
In reply to Misha:

Totally agree with that. All features no benefits as they say in sales. 

Its just poor rushed communications  and no reflection of clearly capable people.

Nest of vipers on here. 
 
I wish them congratulations  in a voluntary role. 

 UKB Shark 10 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> I'm glad we have your contribution to that governance group.

> That doesn't stop the fact that (like David) your behaviour has been unacceptably personnal at numerous times in debate over recent years. In an organisation with healthier and more consistent governance on member behaviour your attacks on a staff member and your hounding of a Director would have required an apology or a departure.


You say tomato I say tomato. You say ‘attacks’ I say scrutiny and justifiable criticism.

Yes I criticised the CEO and your wife, the President. Cant have been wholly without substance as subsequently one has been demoted and the other was severely reprimanded by National Council.

The criticism of the handling of the 2019 AGM and Nom Com and subsequent lack of disclosure and transparency detailed in my UKC article has also proved well founded given the raft of reforms that all the mistakes triggered. 

If fact checking whether Huw Jones was a qualified accountant and the Director of a specific dissolved company constitutes hounding then guilty as charged. There were more red flags surrounded him than Lenin at his funeral. 

 Babika 10 Apr 2021
In reply to Presley Whippet:

If I didn't know better I'd say that some of these posts are a lot of old men getting snarkey about a bright and successful woman. 

Not very edifying

 Offwidth 10 Apr 2021
In reply to UKB Shark:

The President and CEO are fair targets for public criticism, we have very different views on what happened, and we've done that subject to death.

Your continued childish exaggeration about Huw shows your nature and proves my point about your behaviour being similar to David. You publicly accused him of lies on his CV and in his information provided to the BMC, none of which turned out to be true when investigated.

You also insulted a member of staff doing their job at an area meeting (and subsequently online).

That you feel the need to behave in such ways is a real shame.

 UKB Shark 10 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> The President and CEO are fair targets for public criticism, we have very different views on what happened, and we've done that subject to death.

> You also insulted a member of staff doing their job at an area meeting (and subsequently online).

You mean the Governance Officer acting as a kind of personal lawyer for Lynn at the Peak Area meeting aggressively defending Lynn’s refusal to disclose proxy votes whilst Lynn sat there and remained schtum?

Yes that was out of order by Lucy - but in reality Lynn should have taken the floor not Lucy to defend the stance she took.

All highly ironic given that Lynn had declared in previous meetings how much she was championing openness and transparency 😂

 SteveX 10 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

Thank you for that reply.

On the occasions I have attended area meetings, as a climber really, I felt that walkers had no representation, but then generally walking is pretty simple, but a butty in your pocket and go for a wander, so other than access, not too much to think about.

But, I have recently started seeing PROW, not as telling me where I can go, but as telling me where I cannot go, ie if I step from the PROW I am guilty of Trespass. I would strongly support any campaign to gain access rights such as enjoyed in Scotland and certain Scandinavian countries.

 Offwidth 10 Apr 2021
In reply to SteveX:

Things have changed a lot in the last few years. Every area has a hillwalker rep now, some have two.

In reply to everyone:

Due to the personal nature of some of the comments we’re going to have to lock this thread until Monday, when it can be better moderated.

When we do re-open the thread can I remind people to keep criticism polite and constructive.

In reply to everyone:

This thread has now been re-opened, but please - as per my previous post - keep any criticism polite and constructive. Rude and abusive behaviour will not be tolerated.

 David Lanceley 12 Apr 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> Things have changed a lot in the last few years. Every area has a hillwalker rep now, some have two.

A pity there's no longer a hill walking officer but I suppose an in-house lawyer is far more valuable to the organisation.

 SteveX 20:04 Sun
In reply to David Lanceley:

What precisely do you mean by there is no longer a Hill walking officer.

Offwidth has said that ever area has a Hillwalking Rep, which sounds very positive, however you appear to be saying that there has been a retrograde step within the BMC with regard to Hillwalking.

 Rob Parsons 20:13 Sun
In reply to SteveX:

> What precisely do you mean by there is no longer a Hill walking officer.

See the 'What's Next?' section of https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-and-hill-walking-position-update

 Offwidth 20:31 Sun
In reply to SteveX:

I think it was a retrograde step but budgets are budgets and the post was Sport England funded and they wouldn't renew. Note the article was dated Aug 2019 and the hill walking groups and local area reps have done a lot of very positive work since then.  What will be the loss of all the named Directors in that article by May 2021 AGM (add Chris Stone as well) is also disappointing for hillwalkers. On the plus side there is a new Council representative for hillwalkers nationally (with a reported contested election for that).

 Offwidth 20:59 Sun
In reply to David Lanceley:

There is no "in-house lawyer" position. I guess you are referring to the Governance and Compliance Officer who being a staff member has no right of public reply and as such you and Shark should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves for attacking someone in that way. The role includes: being Company Secretary and managing and advising Board meetings and  minutes; to arrange the AGM and manage voting; governance liaison with partners.

On Shark's point, before the thread was locked, the Officer was presenting to the area meeting a long established Board position that he seemingly refused to accept, despite nearly half a year having passed since the AGM, where it was first reported (that discretionary proxy vote numbers would not be released retrospectively). There had been a clear message that future discretionary proxy vote release would be investigated by the governance working group (and for the 2021 they indeed recommend it). It's legally standard to retain such a position on retrospective changes. The really sad point about the nasty and seemingly endless campaign against a properly formed decision (that the area meeting also voted to support, despite preferring future release) was the information that had been released meant it was certain the two candidates Shark supported in this campaign were bottom of the actual membership votes and almost certain they could not have won irrespective of discretionary allocation. I prefer democracy to Shark's view on who should or should not have been elected (despite voting for both the candidates he supported).

Post edited at 21:01

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Loading Notifications...