UKC

The Tier One Proposal for the BMC

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Andy Say 20 May 2018

Hi all!

I'm back from Kalymnos and ready to pick up the cudgels again

I am glad to see that the thread devoted to John Roberts' daft proposal ('I don't care how you vote at the AGM so long as I get my way in the long run') has been archived.

I am saddened that Offwidth and others are still trying desperately to expiate their guilt over some prat pouring a drink over an 80 year old man by desperately trying to make out that the Tier 1 proposal is all some ghastly plot by the tweed knickerbocker crew.

And it is maybe time to try to make clear just what is wrong with the direction that the BMC* seems hell bent on pursuing.  The existing Articles were carefully crafted to give members power over the direction of the BMC.  That is the purpose of the National Council.  You may be aware that our much vaunted parliamentary democracy allows the Commons to tell the Cabinet to get stuffed?

The proposal being forced upon the BMC by Sport England is designed to remove member power and place it firmly in the hands of the 'Board of Directors'.  Check out the SE website if you don't believe me! And I'm afraid no matter how much waffle is expended to say otherwise you, as a BMC member will stand a snowball in hell's chance of affecting the makeup of that Board.

So the choice is pretty stark for all the BMC members.  Vote to become a 'National Governing Body' with a 'Board' that exercises its 'primacy' and gets some SE funding OR vote to retain the democratic basis of the BMC.  I'm afraid I've spent too many years extolling the structure of the BMC as a fantastic model of a member-led organisation to decide that, OK, actually we need to be like UK Athletics.  Or that model of probity and good governance, British Cycling......

 

*Exactly 'who' is the BMC is one of the issues at stake.  If you want a Board of Directors to 'be' the BMC then fine; vote away.  If you would like a rejuvenated Area system and digital engagement with the membership leading to a more representative and intelligent National Council then you need to vote against the Tier 3 proposal.

You've got a choice.  Exercise it!

 

31
 alx 20 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

This is the topic that keeps on giving.

 

OP Andy Say 20 May 2018
In reply to alx:

Sorry

But I am quite passionate about it.....

1
 Tyler 20 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

If you  sare trying to put things in simple terms it's probably worth you saying who will make up this board of directors, i.e. how they are appointed as some may not be aware (I'm not but I'm assuming they are elected in some way)

In reply to Andy Say:

> I am saddened that Offwidth and others are still trying desperately to expiate their guilt over some prat pouring a drink over an 80 year old man

Trust me, no one feels any guilt over someone getting their just deserts, no matter how old they are. The bloke was sexist, racist and quite happy to tell lies in pursuit of his aims. His behaviour was far below the standards expected of a normal human being.

As for the motions/proposals etc, I wouldn't vote for anything that had Bob's name attached to it precisely because of his documented behaviour and 1920s empire attitude.

 

 

 

9
 Offwidth 20 May 2018
In reply to Tyler:

An elected President. 3 elected NC reps, the CEO, an Appointed Chair (split off from the current president) and following the compromise agreed by NC on May 16th, all new Independant Directors to be elected (from those who meet skill needs). I think there may be one other.

Like Andy Say, I'm also passionate about member representation in the BMC, all members not just those with influence,  and I just can't see any serious risk of problems under Tier 3 and many benefits compared to the situation now. These are not Carrilion Directors they are BMC Directors, who in my experience are people passionate about the organisation and the key beliefs of the membership. We need to remember the members representatives in the current structure, those on the NC, have made major errors, like voting for Climb Britain (major errors like ManCom before them who nearly broke the organisations finances) and that Tier 3 might well have stopped such errors.

Tier 1 is only still a motion because of the oddness of BMC rules. It originally had 42 signatories but at least 28 have now withdrawn following the May 15th end of negotiation. In contrast, Tier 3 is voted in by a large majority of the current democratic members reps on NC, and supported by the Exec and the ORG and I expect most areas meetings soon. The negotiated compromise significantly strengthens members ability to hold the board to account through a Memorandum of Understanding.

The 80 year old man is in fact a highly destructive influential BMC politician  who has been caught being rather economical with the truth in important democratic matters on his leaked letter of the MoNC. and is at times a patronising sexist (a sexist and patronising verbal attack on a fellow volunteer is why he got the shandy dregs... I'm not defending such a response but it wasn't unprovoked). It's not a thing of the past either, as he is still letter writing to cause as much trouble as he can, as are others.  This secret distribution of misinformation damages democracy and should not be tolerated., His latest delightful letter includes (amongst other nasty content that is unfair to print here) the quip that Lynn is a 'new girl'. Being in her early 50s, a VP for a year and having spent 20 years in senior volunteer roles in the organisation and a George Band award winner for exceptional volunteer contributions over many years ( the youngest ever) and a Tier 3 supporter,  one hardly wonders on the motives of such patronising sexism. As Graeme regularly points out, he has done this sort of thing again and again (especially wrt Marco Scolaris).

Post edited at 21:07
5
 MG 20 May 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

> Tier 1 is only still a motion because of the oddness of BMC rules. It originally had 42 signatories but at least 28 have now withdrawn

On what basis are you saying this? 

 Offwidth 20 May 2018
In reply to MG:

Andy Syme's facebook post May 17th ~ 8.30am

https://m.facebook.com/pg/BMCYorkshireArea/posts/?ref=page_internal&mt_...

 

Post edited at 22:31
 JR 20 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

> I am glad to see that the thread devoted to John Roberts' daft proposal ('I don't care how you vote at the AGM so long as I get my way in the long run') has been archived.

Then you have the agency to vote against it!

I'm not aware of any of the 800+ signatories withdrawing their signatory from the motion I initially proposed.  The signatory list is available here: https://johnroberts.me/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Item-8.pdf

1
 Monk 20 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

For the record, are you a national council member? 

 

Sounds to me like you are fighting to retain your power. 

OP Andy Say 21 May 2018
In reply to Monk:

> For the record, are you a national council member? 

> Sounds to me like you are fighting to retain your power. 


For the record, I am

(On National Council that is!  Fighting to retain 'power'?  I don't think so!)  

7
OP Andy Say 21 May 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

> Tier 1 is only still a motion because of the oddness of BMC rules. It originally had 42 signatories but at least 28 have now withdrawn

On what basis are you saying this? 

> Andy Syme's facebook post May 17th ~ 8.30am

That's authoritative then

 

7
 Offwidth 21 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

If its wrong why not correct it, or better still provide a the list of the 42 who still remain on the motion instead of casting cryptic aspertions about Andy's reliability? Why would such self proclaimed democratic stalwarts need to hide? Why should the members accept a motion where we don't even know who supports it.

Not the first time this has happened  for those involved with the 30 as the first draft MoNC had several names included who not only hadn't signed on, they actively opposed it. Also, more recently, another of the 30 who used his son's UKC account to attack supporters of Tier3.

5
 Paul Evans 21 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

 

Morning Andy, welcome back from your hols. We’re told that the National Council option A proposal “is designed to remove member power and place it firmly in the hands of the 'Board of Directors”. We’re told that option B is a “vote to retain the democratic basis of the BMC”.

When I compare the option B proposal with the current articles, there are over 10 places in the current articles where the National Council has power over the Exec. They are in the definition of “regulations”, the definition of the National Councils role, in section 15.1, in sections 20.3, 20.4, 22.1, 24.4, 24.5, 30, 36, 39.2 and 40.

Without boring readers with the detailed “before and after” text, in every one of these areas, the option B articles remove or weaken the powers of National Council over the Exec / Board.

I can find no places where option B leaves in place any powers of the National Council to direct the Board, other than the power in section 15.1 to set broad strategy, which BTW is inconsistent with the definition of NC role earlier in the doc.

What option B does not do, is to put in place any of the checks and balances on Board powers (e.g. reserved matters, board minutes to be published, electronic voting) which are in Option A.

So sorry, but I’m really struggling to square off the statements made about option B, with the actual text of the proposal.  

Cheers

Paul

 

2
In reply to Offwidth:

probably a daft question....what's the motivation for proxy votes, when everyone got an email and can vote with a couple of clicks? Is it some kind of process for an AGM, not familiar with the process.

Paul

 Offwidth 21 May 2018
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

I guess the main reason is you can pass your vote to the chair or someone you know who will be there that you trust, because you want to exercise democratic rights but won't be involved on the day (usually because you can't but even, say, if you just don't want to lose hours in the middle of a weekend day when you could be out climbing or with your family). 

Removed User 21 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

 

> The proposal being forced upon the BMC by Sport England is designed to remove member power and place it firmly in the hands of the 'Board of Directors'.  Check out the SE website if you don't believe me! And I'm afraid no matter how much waffle is expended to say otherwise you, as a BMC member will stand a snowball in hell's chance of affecting the makeup of that Board.

 

Statements like this just undercut you position.

Yes, SE require the changes. But; and this is the big but. SE only require them if the BMC approaches SE with a bid for funding. This is a voluntary act by the BMC. SE is not sitting there saying we have money that has been allocated to the BMC; but you can't have it until you make these changes. There is no money 'allocated' to the BMC. There is SE money which the BMC can bid for; and may get if the bid is worthwhile.

The changes are not 'being forced upon the BMC'. The BMC can function without SE money. Don't bid for a SE grant and SE will have no interest in the BMC make up, operations and Arts and Mems. Bid for a SE grant and SE have terms and conditions which must be met in order to receive money from the public purse.

 

 

 

1
OP Andy Say 21 May 2018
In reply to Removed User:

> SE is not sitting there saying we have money that has been allocated to the BMC; but you can't have it until you make these changes. There is no money 'allocated' to the BMC. There is SE money which the BMC can bid for; and may get if the bid is worthwhile.

Actually Andy that is exactly what is happening.  You are aware that the much of the monies allocated to the BMC (and partners) for the last two years of the current funding period have been withheld by SE?  And will only be released if the BMC becomes 'compliant'.  That's why the BMC clocked up a £100,000 deficit last year!

I know that the bid for the next funding period has not yet been considered, not even sure if its been submitted but I yes, I am talking about money that was allocated to the BMC as part of the last, successful bid.

My position successfully reinforced?   

 

Post edited at 10:19
3
 Mark Kemball 21 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

Really Andy, I'm disappointed.

1. 800ish members including myself have signed John's motion - is that democracy in action or what?

2. Following last Tuesday's open forum, the main proposors of the tier 1 proposal withdrew their support and pursuaded the majority of the signaturies to do the same, as they felt the tier 3 proposal now had sufficient checks and balances. Unfortunately the rules do not allow the proposal to be withdrawn, even though it now has less than 30 signatures.

3. Realistically, you must realise that proposal B (tier 1) is very unlikely to get passed. However what we have is an either / or vote so it is quite possible that propsal B could prevent proposal A from getting the neccessary 75% required to change the articles. Is this what you really want? Yet another year arguing about dotting the i's and crossing the t's. (Not sure about the apostrophes there, we could argue about that too!) While this goes on, the main office is not functioning properly, morale is low (according to staff members I have spoken with) - this is not the way forward.

4. If, we do end up in the horrible stalemate position, at least John's motion points the way forward.

3
Removed User 21 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

> Actually Andy that is exactly what is happening.  You are aware that the much of the monies allocated to the BMC (and partners) for the last two years of the current funding period have been withheld by SE?  And will only be released if the BMC becomes 'compliant'.  That's why the BMC clocked up a £100,000 deficit last year!

> I know that the bid for the next funding period has not yet been considered, not even sure if its been submitted but I yes, I am talking about money that was allocated to the BMC as part of the last, successful bid.

> My position successfully reinforced?   

Bit more detail please.

Which partners have had their funding withheld by SE for the last two years.

Which BMC programs have had their funding withheld for two years.

I believe that SE withdrew (I think it was either £95k or £97k) of BMC funding in the last round as they hadn't achieved what they said they would..

 

1
 Andy Cairns 21 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

The following is taken straight from the introduction to the Option A "Tier 3" articles (the remaining 46 pages may be best left to the enthusiast!), but I think they answer several of the questions on this thread in quite simple terms, such as how the board members are appointed/elected, how ordinary members will retain a strong voice and have oversight, how this latest set of Articles has been accepted by the majority of the original Tier 1 proposers, and who is actually proposing them - the National Council (of which Andy is, of course, a full voting member)

 

"Option A - New Articles of Association proposed by National Council, the Executive Committee and the ORG.

Key points - The new Articles as recommended by National Council ensure the BMC: 1. Meets the highest standard of governance appropriate for the organisation;

2. Retains the core value of being a representative body;

3. Has a modern constitution fully compliant with the Companies Act 2006, and;

4. Remains the umbrella body for mountaineering and is eligible to receive public funding. ?

 

Highest standard of governance - The National Council Recommended Articles are compliant with the Sports + Recreational Alliance Principles and the Code for Sports Governance; the two ‘gold standards’ in sporting governance. They have been developed in conjunction with the ORG, in order to implement their recommendations where possible, and with input from the BMC Areas and Members. ?

 

Role as a representative body - The new Articles ensure a majority of Board Members are BMC Members of at least 12 months standing, and that a majority of Board Members are able to be elected by the Members. The Articles ensure National Council – the Member’s representative body – retains a strong voice in “holding the Board to Account”, has clear methods to engage with and challenge the board (through a Memorandum of Understanding) and the ability to call a General Meeting. In addition a list of Reserved Items ensure matters of key interest to members are always decided by the membership and their representatives. ?

 

Companies Act compliance - The ambiguities in the current Articles, and the changes in Company Law since they were issued means they are not fit for purpose in 2018 and beyond. The new Articles have been written to remove the ambiguities, improve clarity and to comply with current laws. ?

 

Umbrella body status and eligibility to receive public funding - As the body responsible for the distribution of public funds Sport England have stated that “… the tier decision for NGBs reflects the nature of the relationship, the type and length of the relationship and also the important leadership role NGBs play within the sector… National Governing Bodies who have received, and continue to receive, funding over a period of years, and are an established partner of Sport England are categorised as Tier 3 organisations.” The new Articles are fully compliant with Tier 3 of the Code for Sports Governance and ensure the BMC’s ongoing status as the umbrella body for mountaineering activities.

 

Moving Forwards - The National Council Recommended Articles represent a consensual starting point from which the BMC can move forward; as accepted by a majority of the original proposers of the Revised Articles (Tier 1). The BMC will be stronger and better by focusing on being an umbrella body for all mountaineers with transparent and clear governance that allows Members, Volunteers and Staff to work collaboratively to ensure the best outcomes for all Members.

 

The proposers of the new Articles are: BMC National Council, the BMC Executive Committee (Board of Directors) and the Organisational Review Group."

 

Cheers

Andy

 Andy Cairns 21 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

I think the other thing that might be useful, is that there has been a detailed comparison done between the current BMC Articles, the National Council recommended Articles, and the Tier 1 Articles.  It can be found online at -

 

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20Organisation/Comparison%20of%20r...

 

It is quite long and detailed,  but the conclusions at the end are stated quite simply

 

"CONCLUSIONS

1. The current M&A are out-dated and no longer fit for purpose.

2. The Tier 1 Articles are an improvement in terms of legal compliance and some aspects of governance, but transfer powers from National Council to the Board without providing alternative Member protection and are not considered satisfactory by Sport England.

3. The National Council Recommended Articles provide more in terms of legal compliance and governance and they also provide alternative Member protection and influence and are considered satisfactory by Sport England.

4. The risk of abuse of power is addressed by new provisions at NC6 and 7. 5. Governance and legal compliance are respectively improved and ensured by new provisions at NC 16,17 and 21-23 inclusive.

6. Membership empowerment is provided by NC 12.2, 17 and 19.3.

7. Membership engagement is facilitated by NC 14, 17 and 19.3.

8. A balance is struck between management continuity and turnover by NC 18.2, 20 and 28.

9. Membership control is ensured by a minimum of 7 directors being Members and possibly all of them.

10. They are based on extensive consultation undertaken by ORG and are supported by ORG.

11. They are recommended by National Council with the support of the Executive Committee and BMC staff as providing an appropriate governance model to ensure stable and accountable delivery of the work that Members want the BMC to do.

12. They ensure that BMC remains the single umbrella body for Mountaineering in England & Wales and can continue to assist funded Partners.

11 May 2018

Martin Wragg: BMC Honorary Solicitor."

 

It's worth noting that this comparison was done prior to the latest changes made to the NC recommended Articles last week, which strengthened them further, and resulted in the majority of the Tier 1 supporters withdrawing from that.

 

Paul Evans has already commented above about how the Tier 1 Articles do weaken the position of the National Council re the Board without putting in any protection for the members (Martin's conclusion 2 above), and at this point I feel Andy Say does need to address this and explain just how a BMC with the Tier 1 Articles as its constitution would continue to be a member "led" or "controlled" organisation, and how those Articles would protect the members if the board DID decide to misuse its powers.

 

Cheers, Andy

 

Peter Burnside 21 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

Hello all. We've just published an article about the relationship between Sport England Tier 3 and Tier 1. 

You can read it here: http://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-sport-england-tier-1-3-relationship/ 

Cheers!

OP Andy Say 21 May 2018
In reply to Removed User:

> Which partners have had their funding withheld by SE for the last two years.

I didn't say that, Andy. I know that Mountain Training got a partial funding; I expect that ABCTT did as well?

> Which BMC programs have had their funding withheld for two years.

Well I'd be guessing all of them that had SE funding attached! Though again I didn't say that all funding had been withdrawn for two years.

 

 

2
Removed User 21 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

It was my understanding (I may be corrected on this) that withdrawn funding was where the BMC failed to meet the targets it set when making the bid for that round of funding. Bodies such as the ABCTT received their grant; although the BMC did then apply an admin fee which they 'forgot' to mention when the bid was being put together...

 slab_happy 22 May 2018
In reply to Andy Cairns:

Seconded. Given that Proposal B would "transfer powers from National Council to the Board without providing alternative Member protection", it seems rather disingenuous to portray it as a heroic victory for member power.

Paul Evans wrote:

> Without boring readers with the detailed “before and after” text, in every one of these areas, the option B articles remove or weaken the powers of National Council over the Exec / Board.

Can anyone explain why Proposal B does this?

 Paul Evans 22 May 2018
In reply to slab_happy:

OK clearly I don't know as I didn't draft them. . However, an educated guess - there are two "legal" pressures (see earlier threads for detail) to change the articles, the first being to avoid the "shadow director" issue set out in the WBD advice (see ORG report for details) and the second being the option B objective to achieve Sports England Tier 1 compliance. Page 10 of the Sports England Code of Governance (which applies to ALL tiers) says under structure "Organisations shall have a clear and appropriate governance structure, led by a Board which is collectively responsible for the long-term success of the organisation and exclusively vested with the power to lead it." (my emphasis). So whether you're aiming for Tier 1 or Tier 3, you need to make very similar changes. Option A then adds a number of checks and balances on Board powers. Option B does not appear to. We have, BTW, not had confirmation (unless I have missed it) that SE have accepted the option B articles as Tier 1 compliant. 

Cheers

Paul

 slab_happy 22 May 2018
In reply to Paul Evans:

> So whether you're aiming for Tier 1 or Tier 3, you need to make very similar changes. Option A then adds a number of checks and balances on Board powers. Option B does not appear to.

Yes, that's the aspect that's puzzling me, especially as it's being proclaimed as the one that's all about member power and democracy and so forth.

I'm not implying they're up to anything dastardly, mostly because I can't see what conceivable point there would be. But it seems like Option B is at least poorly-written if it actually ends up being worse for member representation than Option A.

 

OP Andy Say 22 May 2018
In reply to Removed User:

Andy,

I'd guess that ABCTT, like Mountain Training, received a 'holding award' of partial funding to 'keep them going' rather than the whole lot.  But I wouldn't know in detail.  The 'admin fee' has been applied by the BMC to all of the funded partners for the last two 4-year funding periods if I recall correctly.

Personally this predates me going on to National Council (this time around ) so I don't know about any missed targets but as far as I am aware all BMC funding has been frozen hence, as I said above, the £100k deficit for 2017.  

1
 paul mitchell 22 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

The B M C has 51,000  individual members.As has been said at open meetings,we can tell the govt where to go and just increase membership fees.Simples.That way we keep control of policy.£5 or £10 more per member,that's all.

 

              However,certain ''modernists'' want govt funding for sport climbing

competition and training,and for sport climbers to be in the Olympics.For the vast majority,this level of competition,the ethos and publicity,are anathema.

      As usual,when there are problems,follow the money.Well intentioned volunteers are being a little naïve in thinking they can control an executive that is in hock to government funding.

      As I have said before ,the sport climbing side of the B M C should be hived off into an arm's length company,where it can fight for its own funding and set its own agenda.They are just going to bleed funds and independence from the rest of us.The b m c publication is already crammed with tedious advertising and little else..Just the thin end of the wedge.

     The modernists say they want the extra funding to extend the educational role of the b m c. That just smacks of increasing certification,institutionalisation,ethical standardisation,of which I disapprove, and nest lining. The bmc is there to protect our interests,not to further the interests of certain members of the executive.

   We are told ''just leave it to us,the wise elders of the executive''.That would be o k apart from the government input.

9
 Offwidth 22 May 2018
In reply to Paul Evans:

I think this and the who remains questions are so important I've started another thread. We urgently need clarity. Who are the proposers? Does the motion really give members primacy? Is it confrmed Tier 1 compliant?

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/crag_access/important_questions_for_the_p...

Post edited at 10:01
1
 Offwidth 22 May 2018
In reply to paul mitchell:

Thats a bunch of hyperbolic waffle Paul. I share many of your ideals and don't see any posibility of what you describe. If bad shit happens the proposed structure allows us to stop and even reverse.

The choice we actually face is a vote. Oprion A is something that has seen others with your ideals, like Crag Jones and Jonathon White,  work hard on a compromise. It is confirmed to be what it claims to be (compliant at Tier 3) and then voted in by our democratic reps on National Council. For all we know,  Andy Say and goodness knows who else could be trying to sell us a faulty knock off.

3
 slab_happy 22 May 2018
In reply to paul mitchell:

> As I have said before ,the sport climbing side of the B M C should be hived off into an arm's length company,where it can fight for its own funding and set its own agenda

So, to clarify, in your eyes this is explicitly about wanting to get rid of "sport climbers", and having the BMC cease to be a representative organization for all forms of climbing?

2
 UKB Shark 22 May 2018
In reply to paul mitchell:

Can you elaborate what you mean by the “executive are in hock to government funding” bearing in mind they are all unpaid volunteers, Dave Turnbull the CEO excepted.

Also which “certain members of the executive” are you referring to who you believe “are furthering their interests” in what way, and why?

 

 slab_happy 22 May 2018
In reply to paul mitchell:

> £5 or £10 more per member,that's all.

I'm presuming that's £5 more for the club members, £10 for the individual members?

OP Andy Say 22 May 2018
In reply to paul mitchell:

> The B M C has 51,000  individual members.As has been said at open meetings,we can tell the govt where to go and just increase membership fees.Simples.That way we keep control of policy.£5 or £10 more per member,that's all.

> However,certain ''modernists'' want govt funding for sport climbing, competition and training, and for sport climbers to be in the Olympics. 

Sport climbing, competitions and training all exist.  Climbing IS in the Olympics - nowt we can do about that. I would far rather we tried to have a 'broad church' approach and accept that there are may facets to 'climbing'.  It would be awkward if the majority of BMC members decided that since they don't aspire to Alpine routes then Alpinists should bugger off and start their own 'club' wouldn't it  

>       As usual,when there are problems,follow the money.Well intentioned volunteers are being a little naïve in thinking they can control an executive that is in hock to government funding.

I might agree with that.....

>       As I have said before ,the sport climbing side of the B M C should be hived off into an arm's length company,where it can fight for its own funding and set its own agenda.

That is a suggestion that actually gets a lot of support and was one of the recommendations of the ORG report.  It does make a lot of sense to separate out the 'Governing Body' side of the BMC into a subsidiary organisation (who can be as compliant with SE as they like) and that could involve the Scots and the Irish Councils as well as the ABC leaving the rest of the BMC machinery as a 'representative body'. 

>      The modernists say they want the extra funding to extend the educational role of the b m c. That just smacks of increasing certification,institutionalisation,ethical standardisation

I rather think you are re-running the 'Great Training War' of the 1970's there!  The BMC does not issue certificates, standardise ethics.....  Whether it's 'institutionalised' is another matter

 

 Offwidth 22 May 2018
In reply to slab_happy:

All these calculations on subscriptions miss several important points. Firstly many individual members are pretty much required to be BMC members in our partner organisations under the BMC funding umbrella from Sport England: if they have to make a different umbrella that might well change (although some will stay in the BMC as well). There is also a price point argument:  some might stop being members because the rise in subs makes it no longer worthwhile; others in protest against wildly above inflation rises (£10 is a 30% rise). Finally the current influential broad church is the reason many support the BMC: they might not stay if that breadth and influence is gone.

Post edited at 10:24
OP Andy Say 22 May 2018
In reply to slab_happy:

> As I have said before ,the sport climbing side of the B M C should be hived off into an arm's length company,where it can fight for its own funding and set its own agenda

> So, to clarify, in your eyes this is explicitly about wanting to get rid of "sport climbers", and having the BMC cease to be a representative organization for all forms of climbing?


Actually that suggestion IS one of the ORG's 51 recommendations.  Though not perhaps phrased in the same way

An arms-length governing body for competition climbing (not 'sport climbing', don't try to muddy the water!) does make some sense.

 slab_happy 22 May 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

Oh, I agree on all your points. I'm just pointing out that the proposed "simples" solution would fall far more heavily on individual members than club members.

 slab_happy 22 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

> (not 'sport climbing', don't try to muddy the water!)

I was replying to Paul Mitchell, who explicitly referred to "sport climbing".

OP Andy Say 22 May 2018
In reply to slab_happy:

Oh, if you mean 'sport climbing' as governed by the IFSC then that's OK (rather than 'sport climbing' as understood by the rest of the planet)

 JDC 22 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

Please can we have an option to vote:

"Like most of the members of BMC, I don't really give a shit about petty politics and power struggles. I've neither the time nor the inclination to get embroiled in this ongoing and, quite frankly, tiresome argument. Please cancel my BMC membership forthwith - I'll consider re-joining once you've got your house in order"

 

2
Removed User 22 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

> Andy,

> I'd guess that ABCTT, like Mountain Training, received a 'holding award' of partial funding to 'keep them going' rather than the whole lot.  But I wouldn't know in detail.  The 'admin fee' has been applied by the BMC to all of the funded partners for the last two 4-year funding periods if I recall correctly.

> Personally this predates me going on to National Council (this time around ) so I don't know about any missed targets but as far as I am aware all BMC funding has been frozen hence, as I said above, the £100k deficit for 2017.  

The 'holding awards' are there because the current funding round is stalled. Partners like the ABCTT received their grants up to the end of the last funding round. Yes, the admin fee has been applied; but during the bid process the BMC made no mention that they would apply an admin fee to the grant awarded to a 'partner'. Had they done so, this amount would have been built into the application. It was only when the first grant payment was received from SE that the partner was advised that an admin fee would be applied by the BMC. 

OP Andy Say 22 May 2018
In reply to JDC:

> Please can we have an option to vote:

> "Like most of the members of BMC, I don't really give a shit about petty politics and power struggles. I've neither the time nor the inclination to get embroiled in this ongoing and, quite frankly, tiresome argument. Please cancel my BMC membership forthwith - I'll consider re-joining once you've got your house in order"


Unfortunately no.  You are only allowed to vote FOR either of the two proposals or abstain.  You are not being allowed to vote against....,. 

1
OP Andy Say 22 May 2018
In reply to Removed User:

>  It was only when the first grant payment was received from SE that the partner was advised that an admin fee would be applied by the BMC. 

That was what we found in Mountain Training as well   (though I think it our case we were told before the money started to flow.

In reply to Andy Say:

Now, now Andy, you know that for the majority of the planet climbing on bolts = climbing, only the Brits and some colonial types call it sport climbing

 slab_happy 22 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

> Oh, if you mean 'sport climbing' as governed by the IFSC then that's OK (rather than 'sport climbing' as understood by the rest of the planet)

Well, *I* generally use "sport climbing" to refer to climbing protected by bolts, which I imagine is how it's understood by much of the rest of of the planet.

What Paul Mitchell means by "sport climbing" and what exactly it is he'd like kicked out of the BMC is up to him to clarify. Should he so wish.

Given that he's the one who started talking about "sport climbing", I'm not the one "muddying the waters" by questioning him!

 john arran 22 May 2018
In reply to JDC:

> Please can we have an option to vote:

> "Like most of the members of BMC, I don't really give a shit about petty politics and power struggles. I've neither the time nor the inclination to get embroiled in this ongoing and, quite frankly, tiresome argument. Please cancel my BMC membership forthwith - I'll consider re-joining once you've got your house in order"

Unfortunately, those at the helm of the BMC have to deal with this shit that seems to be stirred far to often lately by renegade dinosaurs. The shit-stirrers won't stop simply because membership of their club decreases - indeed they may even be pleased if it turns out that only people who think like them are left. They probably would be a little less pleased at the substantial decrease in subs revenue and eradication of government support potential, and even less so when elements of climbing start being hived off one by one to other bodies, leaving them with little or nothing more than Alpine Club Mk II.

So the only real way to make a positive difference as a member is to help the BMC to make the right decision and prevent the dinosaurs' shit-stirring from having any further damaging consequences.

Edit: spelling

Post edited at 15:22
4
 Jon Greengrass 22 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

Are there any examples of an NGB for another competitive sport which has represented and supported the interests of its member in the way the BMC has? What is going to stop the BMC ending up like the FA, British Cycling or UK Athletics?

1
 john arran 22 May 2018
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

In what way 'like' the FA, British Cycling or UK Athletics?

 Ian W 22 May 2018
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

The Angling trust wold be a good example of a body who lobbies for access, conservation, clubs etc, whilst running competitions in a sport / pastime where the many participants consider it primarily a leisure pastime.

Having a quick look at their website shows how similar they are to the BMC in many ways (ambassadors, organised via an area structure....), 

Post edited at 15:34
 Jon Greengrass 22 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

accused of corruption

1
 john arran 22 May 2018
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

You can accuse any body of corruption. I'm not sure what your point is.

 Jon Greengrass 22 May 2018
In reply to Ian W:

Angling is not a sport

Thanks that's a good example, but I don't know much about the world of competitive angling has it become mired in scandal since it became a Sport England recognised NGB? 

 Ian W 22 May 2018
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

is that accused of, or found guilty of........?

Mind you, with the 3 examples you have chosen........

But seriously, reason 1 would be size and potential for corrupt gain. Very small in the BMC currently.

The general honesty and openness of those in office. There aren't any career politician types at the BMC. 

The structure that ha been proposed will further enhance the BMC's ability to not become like the organisations you mention, although my first question still stands, have they been found guilty? 

 

 Ian W 22 May 2018
In reply to Jon Greengrass:

> Angling is not a sport

It is if you take part in the competitive part. Never heard of Sport Angling?

> Thanks that's a good example, but I don't know much about the world of competitive angling has it become mired in scandal since it became a Sport England recognised NGB? 

Not sure SE would welcome your inference that SE recognition brings about scandal.........I would have thought it would be easier without their beady eye and governance requirements.......

 

OP Andy Say 22 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

> So the only real way to make a positive difference as a member is to help the BMC to make the right decision 

So, John. What is the 'right decision' to your mind?

Yours Pliesiosaur Major.  Member of no club.

 

(p.s. I still find your characterisation quite insulting)

 

OP Andy Say 22 May 2018
In reply to Ian W:

But I couldn't help a good old chuckle when Dave Brailsford said on TV, in a tetchy interview about bullying, sexism and doping that they had some of 'the best governance in the world'. 

OP Andy Say 22 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

> In what way 'like' the FA, British Cycling or UK Athletics?


With a similar governance system that is mandated by Sport England.  'Like'.

John, I am really interested in where you are getting your view of the people that are daring to express dissent over this?  As far as I know we have never met (though we have exchanged emails) yet you accuse me of being a 'dinosaur' who simply wants to stir shit and get rid of sections of the climbing population.  Why do you view me that way?

Andy

1
 Ian W 22 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

> But I couldn't help a good old chuckle when Dave Brailsford said on TV, in a tetchy interview about bullying, sexism and doping that they had some of 'the best governance in the world'. 


Governance will never prevent such issues; they are created by people. Governance allows you to deal with them effectively.

 john arran 22 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

> Why do you view me that way?

I don't know you so can't say I view you in any particular way. However, I've seen the troubles the BMC has been facing in recent years from certain quarters, and I've seen online comments from people - including yourself - that seem to suggest that you may be one of the group that are intent on making it difficult for the BMC to be an effective and truly representative body for all aspects of UK climbing, and I've ended up with an opinion based on what I've read.

OP Andy Say 23 May 2018
In reply to john arran:

So, John.  You don't view me in any particular way but you have an opinion about me?

Bizarrely I also want the BMC to be an effective and truly representative body and that's why I am opposed to a governance structure based upon a Sport England NGB template.  How can you be truly representative of all aspects of UK climbing if you are in the process of taking decision making powers away from the very members you are supposed to be representing?

Genuine question.  I'd be interested in just why you think the Tier 3 proposal is the best form of governance for the BMC.

4
 MG 23 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

You've been asked a few times about option B taking power away from members.

Do you think this is the case?

If so, why is it better than option A in this regard?

 slab_happy 23 May 2018
In reply to MG:

> You've been asked a few times about option B taking power away from members.

> Do you think this is the case?

It's not a question of opinion -- changes are bolded and underlined in Proposal B, so if you want to spend some time in a soul-destroyingly tedious manner, you can go through and see all the points where power is taken away from the NC and given to the Board:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/AGM/2018/Option%20B_full.pdf

I don't recommend it as fun, but I did it and it's all there.

As I understand it, this is happening because the Sports Code of Governance requires that organizations be "led by a Board which is collectively responsible for the long-term success of the organization and exclusively vested with the power to lead it":

https://www.sportengland.org/media/11193/a_code_for_sports_governance.pdf

Ditto company law, so even if you don't want to follow the Code of Governance, there's that.

Basically, the Board has to have liability and responsibility for management and strategy.

However, Proposal A introduces a range of other measures designed to protect member representation, like the "Reserved Matters" that the Board can't decide on its own and that have to be approved by the NC and/or the voting membership.

Proposal B doesn't add any measures to protect member representation.

 slab_happy 23 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

> How can you be truly representative of all aspects of UK climbing if you are in the process of taking decision making powers away from the very members you are supposed to be representing?

> Genuine question.

That'd be the genuine question you keep refusing to answer, yes.

As has been pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, in clause after clause, Proposal B (the Tier 1 proposal) transfers powers away from the National Council to the Board, without introducing any alternative protection for member representation.

According to the BMC solicitor Martin Wragg:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20Organisation/Comparison%20of%20r...

'This necessarily involves National Council relinquishing powers it currently exercises but the Tier 1 Articles do not propose any alternative form of Member protection. Accordingly there is doubt about whether they achieve the intended aims of legal compliance and remaining a “Member-led organisation”.'

See also Paul Evans' comments in this thread:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rocktalk/the_tier_one_proposal_for_the_bm...

> When I compare the option B proposal with the current articles, there are over 10 places in the current articles where the National Council has power over the Exec. They are in the definition of “regulations”, the definition of the National Councils role, in section 15.1, in sections 20.3, 20.4, 22.1, 24.4, 24.5, 30, 36, 39.2 and 40.

> Without boring readers with the detailed “before and after” text, in every one of these areas, the option B articles remove or weaken the powers of National Council over the Exec / Board.

> I can find no places where option B leaves in place any powers of the National Council to direct the Board, other than the power in section 15.1 to set broad strategy, which BTW is inconsistent with the definition of NC role earlier in the doc.

> What option B does not do, is to put in place any of the checks and balances on Board powers (e.g. reserved matters, board minutes to be published, electronic voting) which are in Option A.

Proposal B is *worse* for member representation.

1
OP Andy Say 23 May 2018
In reply to slab_happy:

> That'd be the genuine question you keep refusing to answer, yes.

It was actually a question directed to John Arran, who I have a great deal of respect for.  I was interested in what has formed his opinion about this issue and the individuals involved.

maybe I should have just emailed him

 

 slab_happy 23 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

Why won't you answer MG's question?

 

 Ian W 23 May 2018
In reply to slab_happy:

He's pretty busy fighting his corner on a different thread...............

 

Say_Much_More 23 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

> That's authoritative then

You could always publish the names Andy.  You must know so why not?

 

Say_Much_More 23 May 2018
In reply to MG:

> You've been asked a few times about option B taking power away from members.

Maybe to be fair to Andy he thought that when the original articles were published in April, but I agree it's hard to see how it is now.  But some alleged 'loss of power' could be:

1.  The NC Recommended Articles (Option A) Board can only elect up to 7 Board members (President, 3 National Council Directors & up to 3 Nominated Directors), and appoint the remaining 4 (Chair and 3 Independent Directors).  Option B has 11 elected I think; but this rather undermines the recommendations from the ORG and governance specialists like the Sports & Recreational Alliance; let alone the SE requirement  about the necessity for appointing Independent Directors.

2.  The NC Recommended AoA has the NC holding the Board to account for the development and delivery of strategy, with the commitment for a transparent strategy development process, and how it best gets member input, being developed in Phase 2.  Option B has the NC developing strategy. 

 

OP Andy Say 28 May 2018
In reply to Frank the Husky:

> As for the motions/proposals etc, I wouldn't vote for anything that had Bob's name attached to it precisely because of his documented behaviour and 1920s empire attitude.

Wouldn't have thought that was a sensible way of arriving at your own opinions Martin.  Knife/nose/face? 

And if you were actually born in the 30's I guess some things will stick around in your psyche.

But lets take a hypothetical example of the way that the current set-up works shall we?  Suppose a concerned member from the Peak District is unhappy about, oh... guidebook policy on first ascent details for example.  At present that person could get in touch with someone from another Area and ask for it to be discussed; even though it is apparent that many believe that there is a policy to ignore FA details in BMC guidebooks   Subsequent to that discussion (held despite any sort of personal antipathy) that issue is raised at National Council and suddenly, bif baf bof there IS no such policy and, with one bound, FA details are free.

Isn't good when NC can help determine policy.....

 Cusco 28 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

I'll be glad when Tier 3 gets voted in, the BMC can be run with a more modern governance structure suitable for the wide panoply of all the climbing (and hillwalking) activities which is represents (rather than some who seem to hanker after some long lost age of exclusive clubs for mountaineering folk only) and tedious drivel threads about Tier 1, half or no answers given, whichever crap option it is, the MONC, the 30 and how everything is the fault of the BMC fall away.  

4
In reply to Andy Say:

Holding the opposite view to Bob Pettigrew MBE is a scientifically proven way of having a rational opinion.

Are you saying that whichever Tier proposal you oppose will stop NC from determining policy?

There was no personal antipathy involved in my decision to chase down the nonsense of excluding FA details from guides. It was a strong objection to being given silly reasons for their exclusion.

1
OP Andy Say 28 May 2018
In reply to Frank the Husky:

> Are you saying that whichever Tier proposal you oppose will stop NC from determining policy?

WTF does that mean?

> There was no personal antipathy involved in my decision to chase down the nonsense of excluding FA details from guides. It was a strong objection to being given silly reasons for their exclusion.

I was referring to my personal antipathy to you; despite which I did pursue your concerns.  As I should.

 

Post edited at 17:29
3
 Offwidth 28 May 2018
In reply to Andy Say:

Somehow I think a near unamimous and very well attended Peak Area meeting had more influence than you in getting the guidebook committee to change its mind. It was also possible to do this openly and honestly, in public, facing questions,  with no recriminations to said committee. Hard to imagine BMC trolls being involved in such open democratic change in BMC direction isn't it?

3
In reply to Andy Say:

> > Are you saying that whichever Tier proposal you oppose will stop NC from determining policy?

> WTF does that mean?

> I was referring to my personal antipathy to you; despite which I did pursue your concerns.  As I should.


OK, let me explain. You related the story of my successful attempt to get FA detail into BMC guides. You then wrote: "...that issue is raised at National Council and suddenly...there IS no such policy and, with one bound, FA details are free. Isn't good (sic) when NC can help determine policy....."

What I took from that was that you were saying that the NC is currently able to determine BMC policies (for the guidebook committee in this case). You oppose one of the Tier proposals and support the other. To me that meant that the Tier you support allows the NC to determine policy, whilst the one you oppose doesn't allow the NC to determine policy. If that's not what you meant, then maybe explain what you actually meant with the comment about NC determining policy. 

As for your personal antipathy towards me, what are the reasons behind that?

 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...