UKC

In the spirit of democracy I thought it would be a good idea to gauge UKC support for this possible BMC no confidence motion, that certain 'luminaries' are pushing for. So are you a BMC member and are you for the no confidence motion, against or just don't care.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=659398

As a BMC member I am against, as I think its a waste of time and currently it looks more like a small group extracting procedural revenge than institutional improvement supported by the membership.

In reply to Offwidth:
I'm a BMC member, I see absolutely no reason for a no confidence vote, although I'm not sure what it means. Is it no confidence in the full time officers (CEO etc) or the elected officials? What happens if passed?

Who's behind it?

In reply to Tyler:

All we have is The Grough link at the top of the thread I linked. I am not aware of anyone involved as yet.

There was also another thread here (JR posted part way down):

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=659136&v=1#x8508060

In reply to Offwidth:


The way that they went about the name change was clumsy and could almost have been designed to offend members.

However, I would hope that they have learned from the experience and that no further action is needed.

In reply to Offwidth:

Irrespective of anybody being 'for' or 'against' something which is still currently shrouded in mystery, presumably the *only* thing that matters is the rules of incorporation of the body involved. That's to say: in the current case, if the BMC's own rules allow motions (of any kind) to be tabled by the membership at the AGM, then that's that: one can't then pick and choose which such should be debated, and which not.

In reply to Offwidth:

Agreed. So this is a vote of no confidence in those who are bringing in the no confidence motion.

In reply to Offwidth: Excellent post. Pretty much sums up my thinking on this issue.

I previously thought those displaying high dudgeon over the 'Climb Britain' issue were guilty of making a storm out of a tea cup. There were certainly issues worth debating but the levels of outrage some people expressed were just laughable.

This just confirms my view of who is actually behaving in a grown up manner over this issue. If the issue is put before the AGM, I will be making a point of voting against for the simple reason it is a distraction and a complete waste of time and effort that could be better spent.

In reply to Rob Parsons:
I'd disagree on that 'only' point (if nothing else because of how UKC was obviously used to browbeat the BMC when Climb Britain was announced) but even if you are right my aim is to assess UKC views on the matter and encourage wider debate here.

I have stated my views and others clearly have an opposiing view, since this no confidence issue has been raised. It would be good if someone said why. BMC national meetings are hardly the place most BMC members will have a chance to debate such issues.

In reply to Offwidth:


If you think the reaction here was bad you presumably didn't see what was said on Facebook!

In reply to timjones:


My view exactly.

I just hope that they agree to accept the motion for debate so it can be defeated and forgotten. If they try to block it then they'll just create further discord and ensure the subject limps on for the foreseeable future.

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

^This.

I'm a BMC member, wasn't in favour of the proposed name change, but certainly would not support any "no confidence" motion coming out of that.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Where would I or other ordinary BMC members see what you saw on Facebook? UKC is a public forum.

In reply to Offwidth:


The BMC Facebook page is public. I assume that he was referring to that:

https://www.facebook.com/BritishMountaineeringCouncil/

In reply to Offwidth:

Definately against this proposal. As others have said it would be interesting to know who the indivuals are behind this motion and are they simply representing themselves or, if they are club members are they claiming to also have the backing of their respective clubs.

John Gresty .

In reply to John Gresty:

On the other thread Neil Foster has said

"From what I've heard, Simon, nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than trying to block the motion, the proposers have merely been advised that, in its current form, the motion does not comply with the requirements of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the BMC. And in purely legal terms, such things matter.

The mem and arts require such a motion to have 25 signatories to be eligible. If the motion submitted actually has no signatories - merely a list of names - and when some of those names were contacted, they denied having ever seen the motion, let alone that they support it....

.... well, then it would not seem unreasonable for it to be deemed inadmissible - luminaries or no luminaries.

Neil"

In reply to Offwidth:
I think I'd like to know what the no-confidence motion is trying to achieve; i.e. if it is passed, what will then happen? Full scale re-election of elected officers? Slap on the wrist? Or what?

If nothing's going to happen then it's a waste of time. If all that it's doing is showing that some are disgruntled with how the BMC is run, then again a waste of time.

If something were to change from it, then there might be something for me to have an opinion on.

Edit: Hmmm, I notice that some have asked this same question on the other thread, but there also seems to be a load of cr@p to do with the name change fiasco and what/who the BMC is/should be for.

In reply to Offwidth:

On the public BMC facebook page

In reply to Offwidth:
As someone who was pretty unhappy with the name change and the way it was initially launched as a fait accomplis, even I'm at a loss as to what this will achieve, beyond a bit of gratuitous bloodletting. To my mind, The BMC still has some questions to resolve around governance and accountability but I don't think this is the way to do it.

In reply to toad:

Totally agree.

Mick

In reply to Offwidth:

Against. They've no doubt learnt a lesson from the name change debacle and this motion would appear to serve no useful purpose.

But I guess if it's "legal" they have to allow the motion in which case push for it to be voted down.

In reply to Postmanpat:

See my post at 13.55 about the legality or otherwise of the 'motion'

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm against. I didn't agree with the name change, but this vote doesn't seem like it would achieve anything positive.

In reply to Offwidth:

Obviously the no-confidence vote is rubbish. My guess is that it's an attempt to change the leadership to help achieve other, undeclared objectives within the organisation. Unless the person or persons involved have the spine to declare their ulterior motives, the vote should be treated in the most perfunctory way possible.

In reply to john arran:


That seems a very odd way to look at things.

The crux - as both myself and Neil Foster have said in these threads - is that the rules need to be followed. *If* the motion is correctly tabled in a way which satisfies the rules (I repeat: if), then it must be debated, and voted on, as any other motion would be. In that respect, it's irrelevant whether or not you, or me, or anybody else agrees or disagrees with it.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I completely agree; my point was that I wouldn't recommend any professional or volunteer time be wasted on it, beyond what was legally required. Shouldn't be hard as there should be very little to debate.

In reply to Michael Hood:


A committee that loses a vote of no confidence is expected to resign.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_of_no_confidence

"A censure motion is different from a no-confidence motion. Depending on the constitution of the body concerned, "No Confidence" may lead to compulsory resignation of the council of ministers or other position-holder(s), whereas "Censure" is meant to show disapproval and does not result in the resignation of ministers. The censure motion can be against an individual minister or a group of ministers, but the no-confidence motion is directed against the entire cabinet. Again, depending on the applicable rules, censure motions may need to state the reasons for the motion while no-confidence motions may not require reasons to be specified."

In reply to Offwidth:

I actually think the BMC does a very good job and I like it as is. I certainly won't be partaking in a vote of no confidence.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Thanks Graeme and Neil... very useful.

"... the proposers have merely been advised that, in its current form, the motion does not comply with the requirements of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the BMC. And in purely legal terms, such things matter.

The mem and arts require such a motion to have 25 signatories to be eligible. If the motion submitted actually has no signatories - merely a list of names - and when some of those names were contacted, they denied having ever seen the motion, let alone that they support it....

.... well, then it would not seem unreasonable for it to be deemed inadmissible - luminaries or no luminaries.

Neil"

You would think luminaries would know better. Incidentally being a luminary yourself, how many other luminaries does the BMC have.. speaking as more of a BMC firefly... it would be good to know.

In reply to Offwidth:

I am a member, and was against the name change. For me it depends on when the signatures for a vote of no confidence were collected. Initially the BMC were all for pushing forward with the name change and screw what the majority thought. If they changed their mind due to seeing the petition come forward then it was a useful tool at the time.

However seeing as they decided not to go with the name change in would vote no against the no confidence, had Climb Britain come in I would have voted yes.

In reply to Offwidth:

Offwidth. I haven't a clue. I've not seen the detail of the no confidence motion. No one has. So it's really difficult to say that it's irrelevant.

If it transpired that the motion was prompted by evidence of financial impropriety....?

If it transpired that the motion was prompted by evidence of breach of the articles...?

Until we see the motion no one can really express an opinion.

In reply to Andy Say:

Its pretty clear in the article in Grough and people here have said it was submitted (albeit not in the right format). Odd that of those seeking openess in the BMC no one sems prepared to defend it here. How did Grough get it?

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/02/28/british-mountaineering-council...

"Further, this withholding of key and vital information to its membership is an example of very poor governance by the executive committee in their role as company directors, in a registered company limited by guarantee, and does not conform with the recently published Sport England code for sports governance".

In reply to Offwidth:

Loving the idea of Grough as the mountaineering wikileaks!

But how can you support or oppose a motion without seeing the whole motion? Is this about Climb Britain or about other stuff. At the moment we just don't know.

In reply to Andy Say:


Hahahaha! I like this.

In reply to Andy Say:
Pretty easy. I wrote the thread and it happened. The meaning is clear enough for debate without the exact words and I'm much more interested in people's views on continuing 'the punishment' now the name change has been reversed; and more widely in the BMC being more open and functioning for its membership, irrespective of the arcane rules and politics at the AGM. I guess I'm cynical having experienced in real life how highest level commitees and processes, can be used to manipulate change that is almost certainly unwanted by broad contituencies. Such systems were the only way to function prior to the IT revolution. These days, alongside the formal processes you can interact with contituents direct, or just read the forums, to make sure the latest particular patriarchal process suggested by luminaries is actually wanted by most ordinary members. If you want a concrete example outside climbing my trade union UCU is in the middle of a leadership contest where the 'lefter' SWP linked group is terrified of input from the 'plebescite' because their entire power base comes from the fact more of them can find the time and energy to go to poorly attended meetings that elect earnest but often unrepresentative committee members and national congress delegates. Sound familiar? To be fair such union politics are clean compared to University senate and academic board manipulations... often real emperor has no clothes stuff where black becomes white to suit the latest senior management requirements. I've found surveys nearly always expose blatant manipulation.

Wikileaks was stolen information, my guess was this Grough article was the more usual UK press trick of insider informers (politiclally advantageous 'leaks' that suit both parties).

In reply to Offwidth:

I was also against the name change and not happy with the way the BMC tried to bulldoze it through without first consulting the Membership. However, as I've said on the other thread I hope that lessons have been learned. Without knowing who is proposing this vote and the the wording and reasons for putting it forward, and unless there is something going on that we don't know about such as a plan to resurrect the name change proposal, I can't see what a no confidence vote will achieve?

In reply to Trangia:
If the 'luminaries' proposing this vote of no confidence feel they are justified, why are they not putting their views out to the members and the public.
As you can see from my user name, if I have anything valuable (in my opinion) to say I put my name to it. (It sometimes gets me grief but life ain't easy!)
On the name change thing, from talking to people their main concern was the process rather than the outcome. This could be the same.
It would be good if these 'luminaries' had enough belief to make themselves and their reason for this motion known. Then they may have an impact and gain some respect and support (or not).
(Trangia. This is not aimed at you personally, but my response to the thread.)

In reply to Offwidth:
According to the CC newsletter:
"A vote of no confidence in the Executive has been tabled for the AGM by Bob Pettigrew calling for a review of the governance of the BMC."

Personally, I would not support this.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Now his name is out maybe Bob can come and explain what the real issues are here.

In reply to Offwidth:

He is certainly a luminary. It would be interesting to know what the aim of the motion is.

In reply to galpinos:

I like Bob (despite disagreeing with him often) and luminary is certainly apt but only one of many names I've heard him called. He certainly doesn't normally lack words or seem unfazed when presenting less popular views.

In reply to Offwidth:

My knowledge of this came about through a aslightly bizarre, unconnected (non-climbing) coincidence so its very interesting to see how the world outside of climbing and the world inside of climbing (well UKC anyway) reacts.
Bob Pettigrew is a former BMC president and awarded MBE for services to mountaineering. He has certainly walked the walk so (subjectively) i would say seems to be in a good position to talk the talk on governance.
I suspect he doesn't play much in the UKC schoolyard.
I am also aware of others who support the motion but think it more appropriate to see the motion presented than contribute to hearsay (as it was hearsay to me). Neil Foster might be able to comment better, as i am assuming from his comments, his information is as a BMC rep/officer and someone who has been party to the submitted motion.

I am sure, Bob, given his background and advocacy (that paved the way for much of the good work of the BMC), has been torn on how to deal with the shortfalls perceived in our National Representative Bodies governance, which ultimately is the interface with the wider world at levels that affect funding legislation and representation. I really don't know the detail and personally prefer to hear the issues and draw own conclusions when they are aired in debate.
I get that the name change was a culminating moment, but it was the process and how it was was managed that is more fundamental and is bed fellow with other management approaches in the past.

Personally I see climbing, mountaineering etc will always have issues interfacing as a 'sport'. The BMC is our representative body it is not a national governing body (NGB)....the rest of the world like Sport England like NGB's as climbers we don't like being governed. The BMC is caught in a cleft but clear governance is fundamental to credibility.. As I say I await to see the motion and debate and to understand the concerns raised before leaping to conclusions.

In reply to simondgee:
I climb and know people equally experienced in governance, who can also walk the walk and yet often disagree with Bob. He has always been concerned about something or other in a way that only a small minority of others are, anything to do with Scolaris in particular (where he has made some valid governance points in my view) . I still always appreciate his input.

When we are talking about problems with openess, some wider debate is important. I've been to National Council and I'm so sad I know the majority there (by reputation and position if not personally): they are mainly 'really good eggs' in how they try to represent issues but they are neither typical of the membership nor the wider climbing public. So I see debates that are restricted to internal meetings as very much part of the problem.

I have no intention of blocking valid motions or normal processes but have often seen the sense-check benefit of direct constituent contact where top-level committees are potentially drifting from their constituent needs. I think the BMC exec and National Council had good intent, were likely misinformed by the branding company and if anything over-reacted slightly in their response when the public row erupted. Governance becomes a problem where intent is to disguise and force change. I've seen this time and time again in my working life and in areas where I have political interest and I simply do not recognise it in the way the BMC handled this.

In reply to toad:


Agreed.

Too vague to be of any practical use in fixing any problems.

In reply to Offwidth:

Against. They're doing fine. Made a smallish mistake but this reaction is bobbins.