UKC

NEWS: BMC release President's Statement on No Confidence Vote

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC News 10 Mar 2017
BMC, 3 kbPresident of the British Mountaineering Council, Rehan Siddiqui has released a statement announcing that a recent vote of no confidence in the Executive Committee of the BMC on the grounds of the “wilful and deliberate withholding of future policy decisions from the members in attendance at the Annual General Meeting,” and hence their "poor governance" will be discussed at the council's AGM on 22nd April. 

Read more
 olddirtydoggy 11 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:
This is 'non news'.
Some bloke said something about some stuff.
Post edited at 10:21
25
 bouldery bits 12 Mar 2017
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

> This is 'non news'.Some bloke said something about some stuff.

This is a 'non comment'. Some bloke just typed something about some stuff.
1
 olddirtydoggy 12 Mar 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

True words, I was just trying to keep within the theme of the article.
3
 Rob Parsons 12 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

The actual statement from the BMC can be read at https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-presidents-statement-2017

Given that the text of the no-confidence motion has yet to be published, I find the above statement curious; curiously defensive; and also somewhat patronizing. Specifically:

"It is understood that the “future policy decisions” referred to in the motion relate to the Climb Britain rebranding exercise ...

"The motion of no confidence specifically does not mention subjects such as the Olympics and governance of the IFSC (International Federation of Sport Climbing) and members should not be confused into thinking they are voting on these issues through this motion."

'It is understood that'? By whom? And is that the intention of the proposers? I think we should be hearing that from them, not the BMC.

As to the second of the above two paragraphs: since there might well be an implied linkage between the governance issues which lead to attempted rebranding, and the Olympics (and related matters), it seems disingenous to explictly deny any link.

I'm not trying to stir things up here, but I am disappointed with that statement from the BMC. Before launching pre-emptive strikes, I would think that the BMC ought simply to publish the text of the motion. We can then also hear from the proposers, and draw our own conclusions.
Post edited at 18:49
 Offwidth 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Those behind the motion could have posted it. It would be good for democracy if a someone tried to defend it on a public forum (I'm not aware of anyone who has yet).

I suspect the BMC have to follow rules (but they have said it will be in March Summit).

For those interested in how daft Bob sounded on this subject a draft was posted on UKB. I'm shocked that so many important names in climbing and the BMC allowed themselves to be associated with such a bizzarre collection of accusations.

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27760.300.html
1
 spenser 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Bob clearly had a bee in his bonnet about IFSC governance last Tuesday and he said he'd warned the BMC and been ignored so he was rather hacked off.
 Offwidth 13 Mar 2017
In reply to spenser:
Last Tuesday and all the tuesdays before for as long as I can remember.

Why is this so important the 80, 000 membership should vote out the BMC exec? Its a bit rich accusing the BMC exec of being high handed and undemocratic when they had democratic National Council blessing and backed down following democtratic process when the wider strength of feeling was apparent. Now those involved in the motion are attempting what looks like an 'old school army officer coup' in a meeting with ~0.1 % membership attendance. So far not a single person has spoken for their motion here or on UKB. Why can't Bob and co debate this issue in public so the plebs in the membership, who don't go to such august meetings, get their chance to see what its about and so have the chance to exercise their democratic right to proxy vote.

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27760.300.html

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

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=659423
Post edited at 09:57
2
 Ian W 13 Mar 2017
In reply to spenser:

It would e interesting to know the context of last tuesday (was this the AC meeting?). Could you give more details?
 Offwidth 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:
Why on earth would someone concerned with the sort of 'governance' Bob seemingly wants, be publishing stuff when it can be kept secret.
Post edited at 10:04
 Ian W 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

As to the second of the above two paragraphs: since there might well be an implied linkage between the governance issues which lead to attempted rebranding, and the Olympics (and related matters), it seems disingenous to explictly deny any link.I'm not trying to stir things up here, but.....

Any such implication is just that - an implication based on rumour rather than fact. I'm sure the BMC hierarchy will be hugely flattered to think that they are so influential within the IOC, but it simply is not true. The rebranding was to make the BMC more relevant and better able to represent the changing face of climbing / walking / mountaineering.


 MG 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> As to the second of the above two paragraphs: since there might well be an implied linkage between the governance issues which lead to attempted rebranding, and the Olympics (and related matters), it seems disingenous to explictly deny any link.I'm not trying to stir things up here, but.....Any such implication is just that - an implication based on rumour rather than fact. I'm sure the BMC hierarchy will be hugely flattered to think that they are so influential within the IOC, but it simply is not true. The rebranding was to make the BMC more relevant and better able to represent the changing face of climbing / walking / mountaineering.

Which includes climbing in the Olympics.... Until this motion is published, this is all speculation. However, particularly given the Climb Britain debacle, I'm not sure the BMC is doing itself any favours publishing opposition articles to motions no one else can see.
 Ian W 13 Mar 2017
In reply to MG:

Probably right; thats the downside of the internet; I would much prefer to wait until the actual motion is published / publicised, but couldnt resist answering some of the more lurid speculation. My bad.
 RupertD 13 Mar 2017
In reply to MG:
> Which includes climbing in the Olympics.... Until this motion is published, this is all speculation. However, particularly given the Climb Britain debacle, I'm not sure the BMC is doing itself any favours publishing opposition articles to motions no one else can see.

I have requested that the full motion be published, but I feel that it should be done officially and not by me, here. However, to quell further speculation, there is little more to it than the extracts quoted in the President's Statement. It is a motion of no confidence brought on the basis of "the wilful and deliberate withholding of future policy decisions" at the 2016 AGM, which is "an example of very poor governance." The only additional allegation is that this governance does not conform with the recently published Sport England Code for Sports Governance (published after the 2016 AGM on, I believe, 31 Oct '16).

There is no further detail. There is no mention of the IFSC, nor of the Olympics. The proposer was invited to clarify the motion and provide further detail and has elected not to do so.

Edit: I should add that one reason for the late publication is that the names on the proposers list needed to be clarified after some of them were contacted and stated that they did not in fact support the motion.
Post edited at 12:01
 Dogwatch 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> As to the second of the above two paragraphs: since there might well be an implied linkage between the governance issues which lead to attempted rebranding, and the Olympics (and related matters), it seems disingenous to explictly deny any link.

Not really. It's (apparently) a motion of no confidence. It's not inviting a discussion on a set of issues, it's not a motion of censor, it's calling for resignation of the Executive Committee because that's what a motion of no confidence means. It's not clear that those sponsoring the motion are prepared to step up to replace the Executive Committee and if not, what exactly do they expect to happen?

Removed User 13 Mar 2017
In reply to MG:

You can follow Offwidth's link which includes the motion.
 Offwidth 13 Mar 2017
In reply to RupertD:

I really question the ability of anyone to fairly assess the qualities of such a motion in order to be able to vote on it. This is serious stuff as the exec could be forced to resign if the no confidence vote is successful and the issue will quite likely be decided on proxy votes.
 Rob Parsons 13 Mar 2017
In reply to RupertD:

> I have requested that the full motion be published ...

Thanks.

> ... but I feel that it should be done officially and not by me, here.

Quite right. There ought to be a process - and it's certainly nothing to do with individual commercial websites like this one.

It might be that that process is the official publication of the AGM papers - in which case, fair enough. But the statement already made by the BMC officials - in advance of whatever the actual process is - seems very poor practice to me.

 MG 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Removed UserFuchs:

Isn't that a leaked draft posted on UKB?
 RupertD 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> But the statement already made by the BMC officials - in advance of whatever the actual process is - seems very poor practice to me.

Unfortunately a draft was published by a different party and a response was felt necessary.
 spenser 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

It was one of the Oread Mountaineering Club's evening meets, once the speaker had finished Bob spent a couple of minutes speaking about the no confidence motion and gave a list of gripes about the BMC mainly focusing on the rebranding and the IFSC. Personally it convinced me to vote against his motion as I didn't see any sign of him having a plan for what to do should the motion pass.
I agree with Offwidth that the issue needs to be debated in public, although I would hardly call our evening meets "august meetings"!
1
 Simon Caldwell 13 Mar 2017
In reply to spenser:

> Personally it convinced me to vote against his motion as I didn't see any sign of him having a plan for what to do should the motion pass.

Surely it would be for the outgoing committee to come up with such a plan
 JR 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

Indeed. As a membership body, there are two parts to this, with balancing importance: Correct democratic processes and an openness and transparency that allows those processes to function correctly.

If the BMC are to ensure they have the proxy votes required to defeat this, then the members need the full information and argument laid out and communicated clearly on which to make a decision, and the faith in the exec that they're doing the right thing to mitigate these issues and plan for the future.

However, whether or not one holds confidence, of equal or greater consideration in my view, is what happens as a result of a motion of no confidence led by such a party. Handing a mandate to that party, given that party's intentions, will be a wholly negative outcome for the BMC.
Post edited at 14:06
 Ian W 13 Mar 2017
In reply to spenser:

Thanks for that.

I'm sure, as Rupert D says above, it wont be long until we all find out what its really about, and then it can be debated and voted on at the AGM. And put to bed one way or the other.

And I was about to spout forth on how its bad form of Oread to let only one side of the debate be put to the gathered throng, but given it appears to have convinced you to vote against without even hearing the "defence" , I think his arguments speak for themselves............

 Dogwatch 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> Surely it would be for the outgoing committee to come up with such a plan

Yes but it is a short plan. Exit stage right and leave the proposers of a no-confidence motion to pick up the pieces.

I've seen exactly this scenario play through at a club I used to belong to. (No, not why I left.)



In reply to Ian W:

Will you be at the AGM Ian and if so can I proxy you?
Removed User 13 Mar 2017
In reply to MG:

It seems like it, but if it's genuine (and I don't see a reason why it wouldn't), then it makes their intentions clear, and that's what we're discussing, right?
 Monk 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> Thanks.Quite right. There ought to be a process - and it's certainly nothing to do with individual commercial websites like this one.It might be that that process is the official publication of the AGM papers - in which case, fair enough. But the statement already made by the BMC officials - in advance of whatever the actual process is - seems very poor practice to me.

process? No one would even know about this no confidence vote yet if it wasn't for online forums. The proposers appear to have been scheming behind closed doors, yet we all still know about it. I think the largest two public forums for British climbing are exactly the right place to be having this debate and it would be very odd for the BMC not to respond publicly.
This is too big to follow the 'proper' channels of area meetings and the AGM attended by a very small and likely unrepresentative selection of the membership.
Post edited at 19:27
1
 MG 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Removed UserFuchs:

> It seems like it, but if it's genuine (and I don't see a reason why it wouldn't), then it makes their intentions clear, and that's what we're discussing, right?

Well according to RupertD (who is in the know??) it appears not as he says all the Olympic stuff isn't in the final one. But since we can't see that, as above, speculation is probably unwise here.
 Chris_Mellor 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks for posting this. The number of and calibre of the additional proposers implies there is much more to this than the "Climb Britain" name change attempt. It's the first I've heard of this IOCC Sport Climbing nonsense and Marco Scolaris for example. Looking forward very much to the BMC debate on the proposal.
 Rob Parsons 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Monk:

> process? No one would even know about this no confidence vote yet if it wasn't for online forums.

The BMC has processes - in this case, procedures for accepting motions to be tabled at their AGM. I am not claiming that their processes are sound - indeed, perhaps they're not; in which case other questions are raised - but if you're not prepared to follow procedural rules, then you open any organization up to chaos.

> The proposers appear to have been scheming behind closed doors ...

'Scheming'? They have tabled a motion in the official manner. The fact that you (or I, or anybody else) mightn't agree with their point of view is irrelevant.

3
In reply to Rob Parsons:

When people are saying that the list of names isn't correct ie people haven't signed up to the motion yet their names have been added, then yes 'scheming' might well be justified.

1
 Rob Parsons 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> When people are saying that the list of names isn't correct ie people haven't signed up to the motion yet their names have been added, then yes 'scheming' might well be justified.

We have to assume that, since the motion has now been accepted, it does have the requisite number of signatories.

I have read the earlier speculation you're referring to about names being added without the knowledge of the people involved, but I have no idea whether it's true or not. What's the full story on that? Presumably the BMC can officially confirm or deny.
Post edited at 20:39
 Ian W 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Very sadly not. I'm working in London that day, but will br making sure my vote is proxied. I would dearly love to hear first hand the reasoning of the proposer(s) having read the original letter, and having seen various others try to get their tuppenny worth in at various NC meetings, it would be good to hear the main protagonist speak in the correct forum, rather than (see above post) gripe on at a club meeting.
 Ian W 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

The correct wording should be that they weren't aware of the full wording of the motion. Their names may not be on the final version - who knows apart from them? - so maybe the speculation and rumour should be left until the official motion is made public.
In reply to Rob Parsons:

I don't think it was speculation, it was Neil Foster saying that checks had been made and people had denied seeing the original draft motion let alone signing it.
 Ramblin dave 13 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris_Mellor:

> Thanks for posting this. The number of and calibre of the additional proposers implies there is much more to this than the "Climb Britain" name change attempt. It's the first I've heard of this IOCC Sport Climbing nonsense and Marco Scolaris for example.

It does sound pretty daft, but I understand that that stuff has been removed from the submitted motion, presumably because it risks causing confusion as to whether the motion is "I think that the Executive Committee can't be trusted to run the organization properly and that they should all resign immediately" or "there are some things about the governance of competitive climbing worldwide that I'm uneasy with".

The latter isn't an unreasonable point of view, but it should probably be pursued via a slightly more nuanced approach. As, arguably, should the whole bloody thing, but there you go.
 Rob Parsons 14 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

There's another aspect of the BMC's statement here which puzzles me a bit, and which perhaps those speaking for the BMC in this thread might clarify. We read:

"The BMC fully accepts that there are a number of important and pressing issues which require attention ...

"The BMC will address these issues and other concerns through an independently Chaired and comprehensive Organisational Review process which will begin in April 2017 and which is planned to report to the BMC AGM in April 2018. The details of this review will be published by the BMC office in mid-April and will be available for discussion over the AGM weekend in April 2017. This far-reaching independent review was instigated by National Council on 11 February 2017 before the no-confidence motion was filed."

1. Is it a complete coincidence that this review has been proposed at more-or-less exactly the same time as the motion of no confidence has been brewing? Or is there some back story here?

2. Under the current circumstances, it would seem important that the full remit of this review, as well as the names of the people who will be undertaking it, should be published as far in advance of the AGM as possible. Why leave it to 'mid-April' (at most a week or so before the AGM I think) if this review has already been the subject of advance planning, as implied by the BMC's statement? Proxy votes on the no confidence motion might wall have been cast by then.
 galpinos 14 Mar 2017
In reply to MG:

> Which includes climbing in the Olympics.... Until this motion is published, this is all speculation. However, particularly given the Climb Britain debacle, I'm not sure the BMC is doing itself any favours publishing opposition articles to motions no one else can see.

In the BMC's defense, I think their hand was forced somewhat by the speculation, the "leaking" of a draft memo, the lack of clarity as to whether the motion was correctly submitted, the "scandal" of the signatories not knowing what they had put there name to. They couldn't put the motion out there into the public domain until it had been submitted properly but things seem to be moving on and being discussed regardless.....
 Simon Caldwell 14 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Or is there some back story here?

You mean other than the rebranding cock-up?
 Rob Parsons 14 Mar 2017
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Yes, other than that. The timeline here seems a little weird.
 RupertD 14 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

The BMC has comissioned a report setting out all the timelines re: governance reviews, rebranding and the olympics. I beleive this will be published very soon.
 Team BMC 14 Mar 2017
In reply to RupertD:

The report mentioned by Rupert is now available to read on the BMC website:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-agenda--motion
 Offwidth 14 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

So now from the BMC legal advice it seems the only weirdness is the motion. When is Bob going to defend this publicly, and in that challenge the legal view presented alongside the motion.
 toad 14 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News: is the "lhosehill" spelling in the motion deliberate or a typo?

 Steve Woollard 14 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

The reason why I’m supporting the motion of no confidence against the BMC Executive is because of the way the rebranding proposals were handled last year which were at best appallingly bad judgment, and at worse a cynical attempt to bypass the membership. I have no confidence that this won’t happen again as the BMC is making decisions about its future role in Olympic climbing without any consultation with the membership, and these could have major impacts on its traditional role, e.g. changing the role of the BMC from a representative body to a governing body.

I have a great deal of respect for the volunteers who give up their time to support their clubs and the BMC and the motion of no confidence is not aimed at them. But there is a real disconnect between the BMC Executive and the membership which should be dealt with by the National Council and area meetings but isn’t. There is little if any dissemination of information downwards from the BMC to the membership and therefore decisions are being made without any consideration of the views of the membership.

You only have to read the National Council minutes to see that major issues affecting the BMC are being discussed and agreed on without informing the membership let alone consulting them.

The BMC needs to improve how it communicates with its members so that any decisions it makes have the support of its membership. The objective of the motion of no confidence against the BMC Executive is to get them to address this as a matter of urgency.
4
 Marek 14 Mar 2017
In reply to Steve Woollard:

> ... The objective of the motion of no confidence against the BMC Executive is to get them to address this as a matter of urgency.

It was all a perfectly valid statement of opinion up to this point, but a motion of no confidence has almost by definition only one objective, to force the Executive to resign. Is that actually what you want?
 Chris the Tall 14 Mar 2017
In reply to Steve Woollard:

> You only have to read the National Council minutes to see that major issues affecting the BMC are being discussed and agreed on without informing the membership let alone consulting them.

Of course major issues affecting the BMC are being discussed by the National Council - that's it's role. If you aren't happy with your NC rep speak to them, or consider volunteering for the job yourself. We need people on the NC who are willing to take decisions - if you refer everything back to the areas then you have the recipe for stagnation. But ultimately any major change is subject to the approval of the membership - the whole membership - on a one person-one vote basis. The speed with which the name change was suspended, then dropped (after consultation at the area meeting) was quite reassuring IMHO.

But bear in mind that the aim of this motion isn't to introduce greater democracy to the BMC - quite the opposite. It's an attempt to go back to the era when the BMC was solely answerable to the presidents of the big clubs (and one club in particular)
1
 slab_happy 14 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

Out of interest, does anyone know what the outcome of a successful motion of no confidence in the Executive Committee of the BMC be? Would they be required by the rules to resign en masse, or is that more a tacit expectation here? Would some sort of leadership contest be required? Who would run it in the meantime?
 Offwidth 14 Mar 2017
In reply to Steve Woollard:
First of all thank you for posting. Your viewpoint desperately needed representing.

I obviously think you are wrong. Its rather unfortunate your concerns don't really match the draft or the final version of the motion that you signed, where for instance pretty technical governance accusations still need clarifying. You sadly come across as a bit spiteful and ill informed in the way the BMC handled Climb Britain, as this happened despite democracy (they followed a democratic remit from National Council -who's role you clearly misunderstand as Chris indicates - and made a fast climb down following democratic area meeting input). Its also plain ridiculous to say the BMC isn't democratic; in fact the elephant in the room is Bobs views have lost again and again in democratic votes that I witnessed in my area and at the AGM last year. It is impossible for the BMC to change anything in the future without democracy: Olympics or whatever else worries Bob this week.

Very unlike the furore surrounding,Climb Britain, you are the first person on UKC to admit clear support of the motion, in the face of much opposition, so how do you view your representativeness of the full BMC membership.

I welcome your supporting words towards volunteers, but fail to see how it could not be possible that some of these will also fall victims of any successful no confidence vote, given they were explicitly involved in the democratic and executive decisions.

No confidence means the exec will likely have to resign (assuming, worse still, there isn't a grass roots revolt to any success in a small chamber for the motion to which you add your muddled and mis-informed thinking). Is this really what you want... the exit of the exec committee and possible civil war in the organisation?
Post edited at 19:38
 Ian W 14 Mar 2017
In reply to Steve Woollard:
I have a great deal of respect for the volunteers who give up their time to support their clubs and the BMC and the motion of no confidence is not aimed at them. But there is a real disconnect between the BMC Executive and the membership which should be dealt with by the National Council and area meetings but isn’t. There is little if any dissemination of information downwards from the BMC to the membership and therefore decisions are being made without any consideration of the views of the membership.
You only have to read the National Council minutes to see that major issues affecting the BMC are being discussed and agreed on without informing the membership let alone consulting them.

The disconnect isnt between exec and the membership, if indeed there is one, its between the area reps and the membership. The area reps are elected by area's to act on thier behalf and give the area's a vote in the direction of the BMC. I note none of your / Bob Pettigrew's criticism is of the area reps who voted for the rebrand , but only of exec, who described the process openly and objectively to NC and were surprised by how well it was accepted. Perhaps the motion of no confidence should be aimed at National Council rather than Exec?...........
And there is a forum for discussing and consulting membership used for major and minor policy issues; its called area meetings and reports.
I also note that the list of names supporting the motion is dominated by AC members. Whilst the AC's part in British climbing mountaineering and climbing history - and that of the BMC itself - cannot be overstated, might I be bold enough to suggest that maybe the AC should look at itself and assess its relevance to the modern climbing world, and if appropriate, change itself, rather than be so hostile to the BMC's attempts to modernise and better represent todays climbing / mountaineering / hillwalking cohort (and that of the near future).

Whatever the outcome of the vote at the AGM, the end result will not be positive. Either the BMC will have to reassess its position, or those proposing the motion will have to retreat with tails between legs and be much less influential in the future than they should be. There should always be entites such as the AC (and other historic clubs) to remind us where we have all come from, and it would be a massive pity for that influence to be lost over what seems to be a bit of a personal feud played out publicly.
 slab_happy 14 Mar 2017
In reply to Steve Woollard:

> The objective of the motion of no confidence against the BMC Executive is to get them to address this as a matter of urgency.

But they're not going to be able to address it if they've all been forced to resign ...
In reply to Ian W:

> And there is a forum for discussing and consulting membership used for major and minor policy issues; its called area meetings and reports.

I am taken back to the days of the Individual Members furore of a decade or more ago, when it was suggested that maybe the BMC ought to embrace electronic methods of such communication, given that IMs dominated membership, and area meetings aren't easy for the nationally-distributed membership to get to.

ps. I'm not a member of the AC, or any club. I couldn't even get past the dread portal of the AC when I did make a significant effort (5 hour round trip) to take part in a BMC consultation process...

I also won't be supporting the motion. But that doesn't mean I am happy about the way the rebranding process was handled; I'm hoping lessons will be learned.
 Ian W 14 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

Thats fine; lots of people arent, the bmc got a bit of a bloody nose, but are taking steps to improve / change consultatoin etc. I have had, and will continue to have, disagreements with bmc management over various issues, and have been highly, and vocally critical of them. I will however, continue to engage with them and try to negotiate a position acceptable to both parties. They are far from perfect; I am far from perfect. But we'll work it out. A vote of no confidence? Simply not the way to do it.
Kipper 14 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> .... if the no confidence vote is successful and the issue will quite likely be decided on proxy votes.


Or club(s).


 JJL 14 Mar 2017
In reply to Steve Woollard:

> The reason why I’m supporting the motion of no confidence against the BMC Executive is because of the way the rebranding proposals were handled last year which were at best appallingly bad judgment, and at worse a cynical attempt to bypass the membership. I have no confidence that this won’t happen again as the BMC is making decisions about its future role in Olympic climbing without any consultation with the membership, and these could have major impacts on its traditional role, e.g. changing the role of the BMC from a representative body to a governing body.I have a great deal of respect for the volunteers who give up their time to support their clubs and the BMC and the motion of no confidence is not aimed at them. But there is a real disconnect between the BMC Executive and the membership which should be dealt with by the National Council and area meetings but isn’t. There is little if any dissemination of information downwards from the BMC to the membership and therefore decisions are being made without any consideration of the views of the membership.You only have to read the National Council minutes to see that major issues affecting the BMC are being discussed and agreed on without informing the membership let alone consulting them.The BMC needs to improve how it communicates with its members so that any decisions it makes have the support of its membership. The objective of the motion of no confidence against the BMC Executive is to get them to address this as a matter of urgency.

Thanks for posting.
In my opinion you are utterly wrong.
The rebranding was a) paid for by someone else b) followed sensible focus group work c) was thought ok by some of us and d) was reversed once wider membership views were known.
I'm not a fan of Olympic climbing, but accept that some are and a single BMC is a sensible broad church to oversee it. Just as I'm not a fan of bouldering to be honest.
I'm pretty underwhelmed by the idea that forcing a entire executive of capable, and usually highly effective, people to resign is helpful or progressive.
Pettigrew wasn't a particularly wonderful president; time to stop chucking rocks from the sidelines.
 JJL 14 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> I am taken back to the days of the Individual Members furore of a decade or more ago, when it was suggested that maybe the BMC ought to embrace electronic methods of such communication, given that IMs dominated membership, and area meetings aren't easy for the nationally-distributed membership to get to.

This. Some people want to stay in the past. Most don't.
 Chris the Tall 15 Mar 2017
In reply to JJL:

The IM campaign of 14ish years ago shifted power from the clubs to the area meetings. Now I know not everyone finds it easy to attend Area meetings, but you do get a interesting mix of opinions. Admittedly not a genuine cross section of the membership - it tends to be the activists, the volunteers, those with specialist knowledge an experience etc etc.

As I've said many times on here I would oppose electronic voting at area meeting just as strongly as I fought against the block vote - it would be the death knell for area meetings if people could stay at home and vote having merely read the arguments on-line. And area meetings usually have more important issues to discuss than national council matters - in my experience that only gets interesting once every 5 years.

When we (BMC working group on voting) looked into reform after that infamous EGM we looked into different models, but I think what emerged has the necessary balance between safety and democracy, fairness and informality.

The one time you can vote remotely - and I urge everyone to do so - is at the AGM. The difference being that it ought to be more formal, and that motions are put forward in advance
 Will Hunt 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Steve Woollard:

> The objective of the motion of no confidence against the BMC Executive is to get them to address this as a matter of urgency.


It's really concerning that one of the proposers of the no confidence motion does not even seem to understand what he is supporting. A motion of no confidence is not a rap on the knuckles for the executive, it is a clear order for them to resign their posts. It can't mean anything else because that is what a no confidence motion is.
 Rob Parsons 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:


> Whatever the outcome of the vote at the AGM, the end result will not be positive.

Weird comment. Disagreements, discussions, arguments etc. are a healthy sign.
 Rob Parsons 15 Mar 2017
In reply to JJL:

> Pettigrew wasn't a particularly wonderful president;

In what way(s)?
 slab_happy 15 Mar 2017
In reply to RupertD:

Okay, that makes the timing seem even weirder.

I notice that the draft motion as posted on UKB called for an independent comprehensive review of the BMC's "modern purpose and structure", but that's now been removed from the final version.

The chain of events in the report seems to go back to "At the Alpine Club (AC) AGM on 26 November 2016 Bob Pettigrew proposed that the AC should call for an independent review of BMC management and policy."
,
There's then assorted to-ing and fro-ing, which as presented gives the impression of acknowledged concerns about sorting out the relationship between the Executive Committee and National Council, and meeting the Sport England code of governance.

Then we have "There was further debate at the National Council meeting on 11 February 2017 when a decision was made to set up a working group to review governance and to report to National Council and make recommendations. Subsequently BMC received a letter/email from Bob Pettigrew dated 16 February 2017 giving notice of his No Confidence motion."

So ... he wants a review, drafts a motion demanding a review, there's going to be a review anyway, so he just takes that out of the draft and calls for a vote of no confidence regardless?

Also, what's the role of the Alpine Club here?

As well as the original demand, there's further mention in the report of a meeting between senior representatives of the BMC and the AC. And someone's mentioned that most of the signatories of the motion are AC members -- obviously they've signed in their capacity as individuals, but I'm confused as to the quasi-formal role the AC also seems to have here.

I realize that the AC are affiliated to (and, I believe, among the original founding members of) the BMC, but this rather gives the impression of one particular club trying to determine the direction of the BMC.

As I am not privy to any of the inner workings and behind-the-scenes discussions here, anyone mind explaining to me?
 toad 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

I think there is scope to expand the role of the AGM. It isn't unique to the BMC, but it is rare for AGMs to have any sort of meaningful debate, and when they do, it seems to be because something has gone off the rails earlier that should have been intercepted and resolved at the time. I know the model the BMC use isn't unique, but there is a danger that these "lower" meetings can turn into a bit of an echo chamber.

Again, I know why meetings are held in climbing areas, rather than populated areas in the summer, but it would be interesting to see a map of members home postcodes vs meeting locations. And, yes, I think that there is a place for more virtual interactivity, if only to expand and diversify the voices heard.
 Offwidth 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I wonder how much blood needs to be let for you to see disagreements and arguments are not always healthy. As for discussions bring them on. Steve is the only one with enough guts so far to talk here and in my opinion nothing he says makes any sense and the key governance issues raised in the motion were not addressed. If Bob and co want discussions they can come and show us where the BMC legal advice presented alongside the motion is wrong and what the governance issues they raise are about and why they are serious enough for the exec to have to resign. Instead of publicly defending his views it appears he is moaning in club meets based on misinformation and collecting votes intending to exploit the lack of true democratic representation at the AGM, just like the bad old days when the big clubs sometimes forced their own views.

This all reminds me of when the radical left in my union utilised the unrepresentative nature of representatives at a particular congress to pass a motion on a boycott of Isreali Universities. It sure woke up the membership that their democracy was being exploited. An emergency congress was formed and the motion easily overturned. The whole episode was a massive distraction from the main purpose of the union, very expensive indeed and has left wasteful animosities that will last for decades. Some people just can't stop their ideology driving them to cause damage and will call black white in the face of genuine democratic rejection of their ideas.
Post edited at 10:10
 Offwidth 15 Mar 2017
In reply to toad:
I'm with you on this. I dont see area meets as anything like echo chambers as I've seen my area challenge the BMC as often as following the official line. They are also where the local experts can make informed input on complex local matters that have national import (by attendance or by proxy). Yet when it come to highly polarised national votes on national issues, for instance on motions that might remove our exec, or major new policy like how we interact with the Olympic arrangements, I'd prefer much more electronic input to be safe (good as the area debate often is). Bob has been chasing these same issues for years with no democratic luck and even less signs of support in the wider membership.
Post edited at 10:20
 Rob Parsons 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

Blimey. I think you protest too much.

There's clearly disquiet and disagreement; and there'll be a vote. That seems a good way to resolve the matter.

> ... boycott of Isreali Universities ... Some people just can't stop their ideology driving them to cause damage and will call black white in the face of genuine democratic rejection of their ideas.

'Boycott of Israeli Universities ... ideology ... Call black white'? What are you talking about?
1
 Simon Caldwell 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Steve Woollard:

Out of interest, why a motion of no confidence, rather than putting up a slate of people for election to the committee? Isn't that the usual method for replacing an elected committee you don't approve of?

I assume you're not just wanting to kick the existing committee out and then expect someone else to stand to replace them...
 Ian W 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

That was one short sentence in a much larger whole.

As I have said, I hve some pretty major disagreements with EXec from time to time, and discuss / negotiate / argue etc, but dont feel the need to call a motion of no confidence. That simply isnt the way to do it. As is picking one tiny sentence out of a long (ish) post to pick up on. You should try to follow the thread more fully, so that the context of the posts is better understood, and comment on the whole, rather than small pieces.
Ian
 Tricadam 15 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

What does the BMC think about Teresa May's plan to rebrand the organisation as Climb Brexit?
 Rob Parsons 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

I read your entire post, and fully understand the context. I was commenting on your statement that 'Whatever the outcome of the vote at the AGM, the end result will not be positive.' That seems a weird perspective to me.
 JR 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Tricadam:

> What does the BMC think about Teresa May's plan to rebrand the organisation as Climb Brexit?

At least we're all more used to cliff edge scenarios.
Post edited at 11:48
 Offwidth 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Why don't you give us your views Rob? That fence you are sitting on is looking flimsy.

There is clearly a view of no confidence in some quarters, but so far from a small number of people who are mostly hiding from proper debate. Yet, as they followed process they will get their motion discussed.

I think the damage, as Ian said, is real....either the exec lose their roles (and jobs in some cases) or there will likely be a nasty backlash against ideas that need a hearing. Not everything Bob P says is wrong in my view but I've watched the way his approach in BMC meetings put some people off everything he says.

My union point was to illustrate in big organisations that ideological drive (in the face of the true democractic position of the membership) can win battles but never the war. They cost a lot of money (an emergency congress like democracy doesn't come cheap) do a lot of damage to organisational solidarity and are a major distraction from the real purpose of the organisation (for most, access in the case of the BMC) and this can go on for a long time afterwards.
Post edited at 12:05
 Offwidth 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Doug did stand and lost. I still think a lot of his expressed views were important.
 Simon Caldwell 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

Yes I know. But it's the whole committee that would need replacing if the motion passes.
 AlanLittle 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Weird comment. Disagreements, discussions, arguments etc. are a healthy sign.

Not if they are carried out by means of tiny cliques trying exploit their insider knowledge of processes whilst rigorously avoiding public debate.

Has any of the signatories made any attempt to enter into public discussion to convince the climbing public at large that their concerns are legitimate and serious? Their focus appears instead to on be making sure enough of their cronies turn out to win a vote at the AGM.

 Rob Parsons 15 Mar 2017
In reply to AlanLittle:

> Their focus appears instead to on be making sure enough of their cronies turn out to win a vote at the AGM.

I have no idea what their 'focus' is in that respect. Do you?

At the end of it, it's 'one member; one vote' - in an organization of some 80,000 members. It would take quite a lot of 'cronies' to stack that.
Post edited at 13:01
 Ian W 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

How can it be weird? Either there is going to be massive unnecessary upheaval at the BMC, or a number of previously well respected mountaineers are going to look like grumpy old men with a grudge.
 Chris the Tall 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

Bob was of course Doug's proposer back in 2009 - always got the feeling that Doug wasn't 100% committed to the campaign and was persuaded to stand by Bob and Ken Wilson

Whilst there is much sense in his statement https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1802, the bit on restoring the powers of the clubs was worrying - and odd for a legendary anarchist.

Not that we heard either Bob nor Doug at that AGM - Doug was at the Piolet d'Or (again odd given his feelings on competions and awards) whilst Bob was delayed by traffic, leaving Ken to try a filibuster. Given how Ken could talk, that would have been quite amusing had he not made the rookie error of asking permission to filibuster, thus allowing the chair to say no and move on to someone else
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> I have no idea what their 'focus' is in that respect. Do you?

The focus of their intentions: what they are working to achieve. Fairly obvious meaning to me.

> At the end of it, it's 'one member; one vote' - in an organization of some 80,000 members. It would take quite a lot of 'cronies' to stack that.

But the vast majority of members will not actively vote, or even have any awareness of the motion or the background. So it doesn't take many cronies at AGM to swing a vote. Sadly, most members are self-disenfranchised.
 Will Hunt 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Unless of course people don't exercise their voting rights. I'd be interested to know how many proxy votes are made each year. Offwidth, can you point us at any figures? I'm guessing the results are published?

OK, just checked the last AGM minutes. About 90 people in attendance. About 540 votes on each matter. A membership of 80,000.

So 0.62% of the membership voted - a far cry from representative. There were 53 club members, and 36 individuals. So, 80,000 members, the vast majority of whom are individuals, and the majority in the room is club representation. And of that tiny percentage that voted, 17% of the votes were in the room. So if Bob and the boys are doing the rounds of the clubs and marshalling votes then it is very possible that their coup attempt will come off.
Post edited at 13:24
 Rob Parsons 15 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> The focus of their intentions: what they are working to achieve. Fairly obvious meaning to me.

Yes, I get the semantics. But the sentence I was referring to was: "Their focus appears instead to on be making sure enough of their cronies turn out to win a vote at the AGM." I'm not sure that that's a fair or reasonable statement.

> But the vast majority of members will not ... have any awareness of the motion or the background.

Every member will get information about this, via their March 'Summit' magazine.

> Sadly, most members are self-disenfranchised.

That's up to them. If people don't/won't vote, then I am afraid there is nothing to be said, nor any debate to be had.
Post edited at 13:24
 Chris the Tall 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

In 2009 over 900 votes were cast - Rab Carrington won the presidency by 639 votes to 289 - and the attendence was somewhere between 100 and 200. Bob Pettigrew was carrying an unknown number of proxy cards but missed the vote due to traffic.
 Rob Parsons 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

> Unless of course people don't exercise their voting rights. I'd be interested to know how many proxy votes are made each year.

In an average year - and for the usual uncontroversial AGM matters - probably not very many. The current situation is very different, and anybody with a vote should use it if they have any preference on the outcome.
 Rob Parsons 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

> ... OK, just checked the last AGM minutes. About 90 people in attendance. About 540 votes on each matter. A membership of 80,000.So 0.62% of the membership voted - a far cry from representative. There were 53 club members, and 36 individuals. So, 80,000 members, the vast majority of whom are individuals, and the majority in the room is club representation. And of that tiny percentage that voted, 17% of the votes were in the room.

Well, now you're raising questions of governance. Very topical! Reading the BMC's own rules, 'The Quorum for an Annual General Meeting or an Ordinary Meeting at an Area Meeting shall be not less than five Voting Members entitled to attend that Area Meeting.' A quorum of *5*? For an organization of 80000? F*ck me - have I read that wrong?

 Chris the Tall 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

2009 was the only time in experience where we had a contested election - even that year the election of a competition climber as a VP went unchallenged.

One issue I do have with the BMC is that they don't do enough to tell us about the candidates - how many people were aware of who Scott Titt and Rehan Sidiqqui were before they became presidents ? Don't get me wrong - these guys were very well known to those of us who had been involved in the BMC - both had been VPs and suffered many hours of committees - but how about outside of the bubble.

We only seem to get details of the candidates after their election - here are the current VPs
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-executive-committee?s=5

Maybe the "official" candidate - i.e. the choice of the Exec/NC - should be announced prior to the close of nominations ? We should certainly get a profile of them prior to the election.
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> 2009 was the only time in experience where we had a contested election - even that year the election of a climber who also climbed in competitions as a VP went unchallenged.

Fixed that for you


 Chris the Tall 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I stand corrected and embarrassed !!!
 JR 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> 2009 was the only time in experience where we had a contested election
> Maybe the "official" candidate - i.e. the choice of the Exec/NC - should be announced prior to the close of nominations

I very much agree, and this does draw question on the health of democracy, transparency and accountability directly to all members, and demonstrates why an independent review is necessary. It is a shame that it's got to a "crisis point" like this which could be incredibly damaging to the whole organisation.
 UKB Shark 15 Mar 2017
In reply to JR:

Paying a modest salary for at least the President would open up the field. Most are not in a financial position to do it voluntarily. To lead reforms will be time consuming. I gather Dave Musgrove worked pretty much a 7 day week to get the BMC out of a hole.

 Chris the Tall 15 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:

> I gather Dave Musgrove worked pretty much a 7 day week to get the BMC out of a hole.

And had to install a second phone line to deal with one persistent caller !
 Team BMC 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Hi Chris
Re. your post at 13.40: We do endeavour to provide members with information about candidates in the run-up to an AGM.

If you have a look at the website articles promoting the previous two AGMs, you’ll find links within them to information about candidates, both for election and re-election.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2015
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2016

And in 2009 the promotion of that year’s AGM and the presidential election included personal statements from Rab Carrington and Doug Scott.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-annual-dinner-2009
(unfortunately, the link to the statements now appears to be broken)

Tony Ryan, BMC
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Yes, I get the semantics. But the sentence I was referring to was: "Their focus appears instead to on be making sure enough of their cronies turn out to win a vote at the AGM." I'm not sure that that's a fair or reasonable statement.

Okay. But that's not the question you asked:

"I have no idea what their 'focus' is in that respect. Do you?"

Your question seemed unnecessary, given the clarity of the original statement, which was regarding where the focus appeared to be, not where it might actually be.

Whether that opinion is fair or reasonable is an entirely different question. Given that the proposer appears to have made no effort to publicly argue their case, they certainly don't appear to be engaging with the general membership, and we can thus only speculate on what their focus is, or appears to be, based on their actions. Given that the supporters are largely drawn from the AC, it appears that the proposer has been engaging support privately, from within the AC. Whether you'd call those supporters 'cronies' is open to debate.
 Mark Kemball 15 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

I've posted this on one of the other threads, but am reposting here - wouldn't want anyone to miss out!


A letter from Leo Dickinson, one of the proposers of the No Confidence Motion has been published on the Vagabond's website: http://www.vagabondmc.com/news/background_information_to_vote_of_no_confide... Make of it what you will, but to me the drive behind it seems to be that the BMC should not be involved with competition climbing in general and the Olympics in particular. A point of view which I profoundly disagree with.
 AJM 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Mark Kemball:

I wonder if he's deliberately lying about the rebranding money or whether he's just been "misinformed"/duped...
 Monk 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Mark Kemball:

Enlightening. Thanks for posting. Someone had a pop at me higher up for using the word scheming. Looks like I was right!

The Olympics appears to be a major underlying issue yet isn't in the motion. Bad form.

How do proxies work? I don't know anyone going to the AGM. Can a BMC bod be my proxy?
In reply to AJM:

> I wonder if he's deliberately lying about the rebranding money or whether he's just been "misinformed"/duped...

You could ask the same question about lots of the things he says. I suspect that Leo has not done his own research, especially about the IFSC related stuff.
 Offwidth 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Monk:
Go to the BMC website or wait for your March copy of summit. Proxy to the chair (best) or a nominated person. Make sure you sign it. Scan it and email the scanned file well in time. It's clunky but that's the current rules.

It was obviously scheming from the beginning, the draft on UKB proved that, so those making such pops have their own agenda.
Post edited at 20:16
 Mick Ward 15 Mar 2017
In reply to AJM:

> I wonder if he's deliberately lying about the rebranding money or whether he's just been "misinformed"/duped...

'This undercover re-branding exercise cost the BMC £25,000 ….yes... thats an awful waste of money and representative of what we are complaining about...'

Hmm... if this is incorrect, when what else is also incorrect - everything? Nothing??

At the risk of being boring, it seems to me that if you're going to excoriate the modus operandi of an organisation, you've got to be absolutely sure of your facts. To be really blunt: your own modus operandi must be above reproach.

This seems like a palace revolution with decidedly rusty knives. (But no less potentially lethal for all that?)

I was against Climb Britain. Against the inclusion of climbing (particularly speed climbing) in the Olympics. But this dodgy palace revolution just seems all wrong.

Having said that, at least Leo Dickinson's gone into the public domain with his arguments (right or wrong). And Steve (bless him) has put it out. So some (long-overdue?) transparency.

Mick
 Rob Parsons 15 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> ... Whether you'd call those supporters 'cronies' is open to debate.

It's one of those English 'irregular nouns', isn't it?:

"I have fair-mind and diligent associates;
You have co-conspirators;
He has cronies."

But, really, let's drop the semantic debate: the actual points at issue here are important, and the whole discussion/argument is better when people resist the temptation to resort to name-calling.

 Rob Parsons 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Having said that, at least Leo Dickinson's gone into the public domain with his arguments (right or wrong). And Steve (bless him) has put it out. So some (long-overdue?) transparency.

Agreed. There is also further context at http://www.vagabondmc.com/news/bmc_response


 toad 15 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

some of the people I am angry at here are ThinkFarm, who dropped this nonsense on us and then walked away.
 AJM 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I'm never sure whether its more charitable to assume someone's being led by the nose, lending their name to the lies of others, or to assume its their own work.

Neither is a terribly flattering outcome really.
 Offwidth 15 Mar 2017
In reply to toad:

As I said before, I know people surveyed for the BMC who had no idea a name change might be in prospect.
In reply to Mick Ward:

Leo is also saying

"What the fk is the IFSC ??? . The International Federation of Sport
Climbing is an organisation which Scolaris invented of which he is its
first and apparently lifelong President whose first action was the
immediate distancing of ‘his IFSC ‘ from the UIAA in 2006 and whose
sole intention appears to be getting Sport Climbing into the Olympics."

Where did he get this all from, Bob Pettigrew I suspect.

The IFSC Statutes, of which Bob is fully aware, state that elections for the Exec Board (including the President) take place every 4 years, the last election was last Saturday. Marco was unopposed and has just started his 3rd term.
 AlanLittle 15 Mar 2017
In reply to toad:

I would have thought ThinkFarm probably delivered what their customer paid them to deliver.
 Offwidth 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

What issues exactly are important? I know the motion is but what evidence is it based on? . The only concrete issue that we know that has a governance impact was the rebrand. Are you seriously saying thats so important we need to discuss this in the context that the exec might be forced out? In this context the scheming behind the scenes collection of proxy votes indicated by Leo's letter and based partly on clear lies, I find disgusting behaviour for anyone, let alone respected climbers, so please excuse me if I sound upset.
 Mick Ward 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Thanks. Hadn't seen this... grow more dim-witted by the hour.

Eight golden words from Dave Turnbull:

> 'we would be more than happy to talk.'

Would strongly suggest that his critics do exactly that. They may want to keep their powder dry but... brinksmanship, hmm...

Ffs talk. With enough tolerance and decency, most of people's conflicts can be sorted out.

Mick
 gavmac 15 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

This whole episode, no confidence etc, seems driven by elitist shite. Bloody politics honestly.
1
 Will Hunt 15 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

Shameful behaviour. To try and mislead people in order to get their vote by telling outright lies. How will they hold their heads up at the AGM after this?

I might proxy Bob Pettigrew with my "against" vote, though he'd probably not make it on my behalf.
 Ian W 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

i agree. I've seen the leaflet Bob produced regarding the setting up of the IFSC and the supposed slight against Alan Blackshaw, and it contained much of the same bollocks as Leo's letter, as well as the letter to the BMC Bob sent last year.
This whole thing is getting depressing. You know the IFSC as well as anyone around these parts, and the general views on comp on natural rock. Pure invention.
Removed User 15 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

Christ - this nonsense appears to be being delivered to the standard of the infighting in my local Village Association.
 Chris the Tall 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Mark Kemball:

You do get the sense of muscles being flexed, old grudges resurfacing and scores being settled

It's all very Game of Thrones isn't it ?
 Rob Parsons 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> You do get the sense of muscles being flexed, old grudges resurfacing and scores being settled

Alternatively, perhaps: frustration that historical complaints and/or differences have never been adequately addressed or resolved; and a willingness now to attempt to finally force the matter?
 Rob Parsons 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> i agree. I've seen the leaflet Bob produced regarding the setting up of the IFSC and the supposed slight against Alan Blackshaw ...

What is that leaflet?; can you make a copy available?; what was 'the supposed slight'?

 Chris the Tall 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Team BMC:

Hi Tony

The information may be on the website if you go looking for it, but there is very little in Summit. No don't get me wrong, I think Summit is a great and informative magazine and does an excellent job of promoting the organisation, but at times like this you realise how little it tells you about the running of the organisation.

Has there been any mention of Nick Kurth or Emma Flaherty other than than nominations as VP ? I looked through the last 3 issues this morning and couldn't even find any mention that Emma had actually been elected !

When people claim the BMC is undemocratic I point out that every voting member of the NC is elected via open meetings - 20 or so reps by area meetings, the Pres and 3 VPs by the AGM. However that argument is undermined that it is very rare for any of these elections to be contested and by the fact that people may not know anything about who they are voting for.

I see the agenda is now up - https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-agenda--motion - has this been announced anywhere other than on the BMC website.

Ironically the agenda and voting card do not include a nomination for a new VP - any explaination ?
 Ian W 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

i think they are, unfortunately, freely available from the signatories to this motion. I was given one by Doug Scott at the NC meeting last year at which the decision was taken to not rebrand. He was most keen that I get a copy. The argument is around the creation of the IFSC and what he perceived to be the unfair treatment of the then UIAA president Alan Blackshaw. Further than that, I dont regard it as my place to publish / copy it on here. I've expressed my views on here (as have others) regarding the standing and respect due to those involved, and this wouldnt help. And as the motion of no confidence has nothing to do with the IFSC / UIAA / Olympics etc etc, it isnt relevant to the matter at hand. If you want to discuss it privately, then feel free to contact me.
 slab_happy 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> Go to the BMC website or wait for your March copy of summit. Proxy to the chair (best) or a nominated person. Make sure you sign it. Scan it and email the scanned file well in time. It's clunky but that's the current rules.

Looks like it can be sent by post too -- there's a business reply thing. So, scanner not required, unless I'm confused.
 Chris the Tall 16 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

I strongly recommend that everyone commenting on the merits of Bob's motion should read the analysis of it by Martin Wragg - the BMC solicitor

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1441

Of course it would be much better if it wasn't in a f***ing PDF file that was hard to post a link to !

If the above doesn't work, go to https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-agenda--motion and select the second document, whilst considering the sound a tree makes when it falls in a forest etc etc
 Will Hunt 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

I would say post it, Ian. From what Leo has written in his letter to the Vags, and from the response that Graeme has given on that point, it sounds like there is a lot of information going round that is at best conjecture, and at worst deliberately misleading. If this is the case then it ought to be exposed. If a leaflet has been produced then its publisher ought to be happy to either stand by it or retract it.

The motion of no confidence might have been chopped down to exclude the stuff about the Olympics and the IFSC, but the early draft makes it pretty clear that there's more context here. If there was any doubt then Leo's letter published on the Vag's website makes it clear that the proposers are trying to drum up support for the motion based on issues which are not discussed in its wording.
 Offwidth 16 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

Yes you can post it.
 Offwidth 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:
I agree. Meetings in secret and in clubs with no clear counterpoint, with secret documents; clear links (in the draft and Ian's letter) to involving the Olympics and IFSC in the arguments (and no public forum debate), used to attack the BMC on its openess and governance. Rank hypocrisy and the power politics of the gutter.
Post edited at 12:15
 Rob Parsons 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> .... Further than that, I dont regard it as my place to publish / copy it on here.

That's perfectly reasonable.

> And as the motion of no confidence has nothing to do with the IFSC / UIAA / Olympics etc etc, it isnt relevant to the matter at hand.

The motion of no confidence is just that - a motion of no confidence in the executive. It will now be voted on, and nobody has to abide by a pre-ordained set of reasons when they cast their vote. Since there is obviously a back story here, it's probably unproductive to deny it (although I can understand the tactical element in doing so.) For my part, the more open and public any debate regarding this whole subject, the better.
Post edited at 12:52
 Offwidth 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

People need to be pretty motivated to vote out an executive. What is the motivation here, just Climb Britain?, really?? To me the Olympics and IFSC are intrinsic to this vote and anyone saying otherwise is either naive in the extreme or dishonest. The mis-information is real (the counter evidence from the BMC and on the forums seems undeniable) and both are now public in two places. Ian has identified further potential misinformation. Those who don't use internet forums and have just heard Bob speak or read the draft motion or Leo's letter or anything else in isolation may have been duped and not have access to the counter information to realise this and may already have given Bob their proxy.
 slab_happy 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:
Has anyone pointed out to Dicksinson and the Vagabond Club that they are disseminating false information?

It seems like someone should, just in case they don't know the facts (which seems extraordinary, given that the fact that the BMC didn't pay for the re-branding was repeated ad nauseam in discussions and area meetings), and that there's an onus on them to retract/correct the letter.
Post edited at 13:48
 MG 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

This getting ridiculous.

On the BMC side we have a statement from the BMC solicitor inisting Climb Britain was "(not [a] name change, which would have required a resolution of the members at an AGM)", yet at the same time the original webpage is still up on the BMC web site with the title "BMC to change its name to Climb Britain"!
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-to-change-its-name-to-climb-britain
This after the article commenting on a draft proposal leaked on a internet forum.

On the other we have, complaints about the abandoned name change, innuendo(??) about links to the Olympics and some sport climbing organisation driving everything.

A no confidence motion probably isn't helpful but it is very difficult to decide who is making stuff, who is incompetent and who is playing political games.
In reply to Offwidth:

Proxy forms will be available on the desk at The Works, we will post them all at an appropriate time.

I am sure that we can get a few filled in over the weekend
1
 Rob Parsons 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> People need to be pretty motivated to vote out an executive. What is the motivation here, just Climb Britain?, really??

I can only assume you didn't read what I have written.


 Offwidth 16 Mar 2017
In reply to MG:
That was a press release at the time with subsequent press releases in the same area. Do you want the BMC to rewrite its press release history? The BMC have published their position on the allegations repeatedly for public scrutiny, unlike Bob.

Where is the problem in the legal advice? The BMC didn't go back to the area meetings following the furore because they were compelled to in law.

In stark contrast many areas of the draft motion and Leo's letter are factually incorrect or clearly misleading and two original signatories denied any knowledge of the original motion submission to the BMC. Then we have this new leaflet that apparently has been distributed but is still not public.
Post edited at 14:25
 Offwidth 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Which bit? Also you could just answer the questions anyhow so we can all be clear about what you think and what your position is on the vote. Its not just a no confidence vote, its a vote backed up by known misinformation and lies and possible other material in the same mode.
Post edited at 14:21
 Martin Hore 16 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

I've tried to follow this, with some dismay I'm afraid. Surely the correct way to address the dissatisfaction that some members have with the BMC executive is to put up candidates to oppose them, not to vote out the entire exec in a no confidence motion and leave the organisation rudderless. Are any of the motion's protagonists prepared to do that? It's "put up or shut up" I'd say.

I've not received my Summit yet. I hope, through this or another medium, the full BMC membership will receive a concise summary of what this is about, with brief statements from the proposers and the exec in support of their positions. We can then exercise our proxy votes in an informed way. It does seem that there is a danger at present that this motion could pass by default.

Martin

 Simon Caldwell 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> For my part, the more open and public any debate regarding this whole subject, the better.

I agree.
It's a shame therefore that apart from Steve Woollard's welcome contribution to this thread, the only arguments put forward by the proposers of the motion appear to be behind closed doors to carefully selected clubs.
 AJM 16 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

> Has anyone pointed out to Dicksinson and the Vagabond Club that they are disseminating false information? It seems like someone should, just in case they don't know the facts (which seems extraordinary, given that the fact that the BMC didn't pay for the re-branding was repeated ad nauseam in discussions and area meetings), and that there's an onus on them to retract/correct the letter.

I am not a member, but given its one of the more vocal pieces of material on one side of the current argument i had thought about emailing them to point out the fact that at least one of the assertions is a lie (the rest is evidenceless hearsay, in the most part, so unprovable, but the funding point is just a lie) and that they have a certain obligation to their membership to ensure that incorrect communications to them are corrected.

It would be better from a member, mind you, if anyone here is one?

 Chris the Tall 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

please see my post at 11:34 - there's a very good analysis on the website but I think it's highly unlikely to appear in Summit
 Will Hunt 16 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

I would like to see the letter to the Vags left up for all to see. It's useful for people to see that the motion is being marketed using lies and loose conjecture. It also proves the ulterior motives behind the motion - it's not just about Climb Britain, but it is a convenient vehicle to recruit votes from Mr and Mrs Outraged of Surbiton. It's so easy to see through that anyone even half informed about the issues can see it for the baloney that it is.

If people are asking them to take it down could someone mirror it somewhere first?
 deepsoup 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:
Will you be attending the AGM Offwidth? If so, would you be up for a bit of proxy-ing?
 Offwidth 16 Mar 2017
In reply to deepsoup:

I am going but if you have decided already, its much better if you can proxy the chair, its also safer in case I have a 'Bob style' car problem. If you need someone to hear the debate independently and vote, I think its near impossible for me to say I can do that now. The only thing that will sway me is genuine new information of serious BMC wrongdoing (Bob's Hollywood ending?)... this is despite being very much a trad climber with disdain for the IFSC and the proposed Olympic format.
 Will Hunt 16 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

I have created a Facebook event with the aim of mobilising votes against the motion. If you are against this then please join the event and share it widely on Facebook. Information is provided therein about how to vote. Given the tiny minority of members who vote each year, and what we know about the proposers marshalling votes, it is essential that the opposition should begin canvassing votes.

https://www.facebook.com/events/219657878510461/
 Martin Hore 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Thanks Chris - I had read that. I'm not sure it fully answers my point.

There is a real issue here I feel when proxy votes are permitted (and are likely to dominate the votes of those who attend) but when those casting proxy votes have such unsatisfactory information to base their decision on. It would require a constitutional amendment I suspect, but it really ought to be a requirement that anyone proposing a motion of no confidence be obliged to present a concise argued case which is circulated to the full membership along with a response from the executive. Martin Wragg's report is a bit too detailed to serve that purpose and addresses points that don't appear in the actual motion but which are being presumed to be behind it.

I will cast a proxy against the motion myself, but I think the BMC is not adequately serving the membership on this unless something explanatory is circulated to all members encouraging them to vote. I regular receive newsletters and other emails from the BMC - why not on this? Perhaps it will yet happen.

Martin

 Rob Parsons 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

> ... it really ought to be a requirement that anyone proposing a motion of no confidence be obliged to present a concise argued case which is circulated to the full membership along with a response from the executive ...

I agree, but would suggest: not just in the case of a motion of no confidence (which, after all, is about as drastic as it gets.) One might expect that, given the potential number of voters acting by proxy rather than by physically attending the AGM, *any* motion being raised by a member at the AGM (or any similar meeting) should merit such treatment.

That's yet another 'governance issue' raised by this current business.

 Team BMC 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

Hi Martin
We’ll be sending an email about the AGM to all members next week. I don’t yet know the contents of the email, but I'm sure it will encourage members to read the resolutions and cast their vote.

In reply to Chris the Tall’s post earlier today (10:58), we also have an AGM page on the BMC website, which will contain links to all relevant AGM paperwork, including biographies of all the candidates (new nominations and re-elections); all the paperwork will be added to the website in the next few days: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2017

And I will pass Chris's comments about AGM content in Summit to editor Alex Messenger. The Spring issue of Summit has now gone to print, and will be landing on doorsteps very soon.
 Offwidth 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I'd agree with those concerns but since we are talking about the very rare event of a no confidence motion I fail to see any connection (as it would be a self referring loop).

It's actually a very real democratic reason to propose those who have signed the motion either explain what they mean now or stand down, as they still make some unspecified accusations of poor governance by the BMC. How do those who have given proxys know what they have signed up to vote for and if proxy votes dominate (likely), how can the supporting vote be trusted. Remember the original draft had two names who didn't even know what was going on. Also from rumours I suspect others who signed don't support what was written on their behalf on the UKB version of the draft, which has now moved to a split off thread:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27926.msg547384.html#msg54738...

The BMC has given its clear legal view, and acknowledged a review of governance is happening (and was being put in place before the motion was received).

I note you are still refusing to answer the questions I asked above or to clarify your position on the motion.
Post edited at 19:04
 Andy Say 16 Mar 2017
In reply to JJL:

> Pettigrew wasn't a particularly wonderful president; time to stop chucking rocks from the sidelines.

He said, chucking a bloody great boulder in from behind a bush. Lets get away from character assassination and just focus on the issue, please.

P.S. Were you a wonderful BMC President and/or Chair of the Mountain Leadership Training Board and/or a pretty big wheel in the CCPR? Bob, for all his faults, has done his time!

 Andy Say 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> What is that leaflet?; can you make a copy available?; what was 'the supposed slight'?

My grasp of the history is not perfect but I think that Alan Blackshaw (a very close friend of Bob Pettigrew) only served one year of his term as President of the UIAA. He was forced out, fairly humiliatingly, after a vote of no confidence intitiated as a means to clear the way for the setting up of the independent ISCF by Mr Scolaris. I could, of course, be wrong
Post edited at 21:51
 Chris the Tall 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

> Thanks Chris - I had read that. I'm not sure it fully answers my point.

I think we are largely in agreement here - it's not really democracy if you don't know what you are voting for. This is the why I've been frustrated regarding the info on the presidential and VP candidates.

With regards to the vote of no confidence though, I don't think the BMC can be blamed. It's Bob who has failed to provide any supporting documentation, leaving the BMC to issue a rebuttal to every complaint it can think of. However it's not really a constitutional issue to quantify the standard of a motion - we the electorate should decide on it merits.

As to the voting procedure, you can instruct your proxy on how to vote, or you can leave it up to them to decide how to vote. Which means that if Bob is hoping to win the day with stunning revelations at the AGM, it may be too late by then. Which may mean that rather than appoint the chair as your proxy, it may be better to appoint someone you trust (and can trust to turn up on time!)
 Offwidth 16 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

"leaving the BMC to issue a rebuttal to every complaint it can think of."

Thats rather unfair Chris. They were rebutting issues raised on the letter and the draft motion.
 Chris the Tall 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:
Unfair ? On who ?

Bob's motion is light on detail and Leo's rambling rant doesn't add much.
Martin's rebuttal addresses issues not specifically raised by either,

 MG 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> That was a press release at the time with subsequent press releases in the same area. Do you want the BMC to rewrite its press release history?

No but if it was presented as name change when announced, the BMC can't now argue it wasn't a proposed name change! If they are happy to attempt to mislead here, who knows whether there is also misdirection over the Olympic and Sports climbing aspects?
In reply to Andy Say:

Possibly because the rest of the members of the UIAA felt that the time was right for the IFSC to go it alone and Alan/Mac/Bob/Roger tried to block it so that particular vote was brought about by the same attitudes that remain.. Maybe someone should check the minutes of the UIAA AGM's from 2005 and 2006 to see who proposed the vote.
 Chris the Tall 17 Mar 2017
In reply to MG:

Martin Wragg is referring to the legal name, which requires an AGM motion to change, as opposed to the trading name, which doesn't.
The CTC did something very similar when they changed to Cycling UK
 Andy Say 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Possibly because the rest of the members of the UIAA felt that the time was right for the IFSC to go it alone and Alan/Mac/Bob/Roger tried to block it so that particular vote was brought about by the same attitudes that remain.. Maybe someone should check the minutes of the UIAA AGM's from 2005 and 2006 to see who proposed the vote.

Agreed. But I do think that's where a lot of the 'antipathy' comes from.
 Ian W 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I've had a quick look at their website but cant find anything - do you know who it was?

In reply to Ian W:

No I don't, I didn't stand for re-election to the UIAA-ICC ManCom in 2005 because I was in an impossible position where the President of the organisation that I worked for (Mark Vallance/BMC) was trying to use me against the organisation I volunteered for (UIAA-ICC).

It is worth remembering that in 2007 the UIAA and the new IFSC held their AGM's simultaneously, now if the split which was voted on at the UIAA AGM in 2006 was so acrimonious do you think the joint meeting would have taken place.
1
 Martin Hore 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Team BMC:

> Hi MartinWe’ll be sending an email about the AGM to all members next week.

Thank you. I'll look forward to it.

Martin

 Martin Hore 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

>Bob, for all his faults, has done his time!

Definitely agreed, Andy, but perhaps the most important contribution any of us can make who have "done our time" in whatever capacity - great or (in my case) small - is to recognise when we have become "time-expired".

I used to tell everybody I worked with to ignore anything I said after I passed the age of 70 - the trouble is it's now only 4 years away............

Martin

 Ian W 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

So the split was fairly harmonious except for those few who wanted to prevent it happening?
 Andy Say 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

> Shameful behaviour. To try and mislead people in order to get their vote by telling outright lies.

Irony. Right?
 Offwidth 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Unfair on the BMC rebuttal. There was additional material on the mad draft (surely you must have read this.. linked back below) there is the leaflet that Ian has seen and probably feedback from various other sources on what Bob had been saying in meetings.

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27926.0/topicseen.html

I don't expect the organisation, you and I and many others have worked so hard to support and improve, to just roll over and be tickled while Bob feeds it a poison pill.

What is as scandalous as the content in the draft, is the underhand and secretive way those like Bob who are behind the motion have behaved (except I still hope for reputations sake some of those signatories have been duped) ... this is in the context of a no confidence motion that critisises 'withholding' from membership!? We still dont know what the arguments are and as Bob seemingly is not yet in touch with the BMC neither will we be any the wiser in Summit. I'd ask again: can we have a fair vote in such circumstances as after Summit there is no fair mechanism to inform some members what the detail of the debate is about.

I'd add that we still don't know what else Bob has up his sleeve for the AGM (there must be something or some of the better informed of the other signatories should know 'the game is up' and should have disowned him already). There is no logical possibility of him winning based on the arguments we have seen (motion, draft and letter); and surely there must be some legal/article problem with him casting proxy votes on something as serious as a no confidence motion based on information he reveals for the first time at the AGM.
Post edited at 10:33
 Chris the Tall 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:
Simply following the threads on UKC takes up too much of my time already without me going looking on UKB !

I hadn't seen the original daft draft - as I mentioned on another thread I was in Canada !

Did you see the email I sent to Lynn last night ?
Post edited at 10:42
 Ian W 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

> >I used to tell everybody I worked with to ignore anything I said after I passed the age of 70 - the trouble is it's now only 4 years away............Martin

You've got 4 years left, mate - make them count!!.......

 Andy Say 17 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

For what its worth I'll be voting against the motion at the AGM. But not because of who I like or dislike. I'm unhappy at some of the vilification going on here and elsewhere apparently based upon the fact that those supporting the motion are elderly and that people disagree with them. I mean, Doug Scott's just a drug-raddled old hippy, Tut Braithwaite dry tools gritstone quarries and Steve Venables is suffering the long-term effects of oxygen deprivation. As well as Leo Dickinson being an easily led old fool. 'Bob Pettigrew wasn't a very good BMC President' is pretty class as an insult; it was 40 years ago and subsequently Bob was made one of the very few Honorary Members of the BMC. Equally I am unhappy at the references to Dave Turnbull in the published letter to the Vagabond's. DT is a voting member of the BMC Executive Committee but is 'the hired help' - he gets told what to do!

There ARE issues to be resolved and I'm glad that the National Council has decided that the BMC needs to conduct a review of governance. Symptomatic is a post higher up this thread which indicates that the Executive getting agreement from the National Council over the proposed re-brand was an example of proper 'democratic' process but once the wishes of the members became known 'democracy' then kicked in and the decision was reversed. That strikes me as a confusing view of how the BMC is supposed to 'work'! Equally the statement from one of the current Exec. members that he believes that some recent decisions about governance are actually in breach of the Articles is concerning. But the end of the governance review and discussion about implementation of any changes is, I would argue, the time to get upset/argumentative.

I perfectly understand the tensions that can arise as a result of the 'democratic process' where an Executive arm gets frustrated by delays and the constant need to refer 'downwards'; it can feel like wading through treacle to get anything done. Equally, if nothing else, the sturm und drang over Climb Britain has shown that BMC members like to feel that their opinions really count and they are not paying subs to a governing body but to a representative body.
 Offwidth 17 Mar 2017
In reply to MG:

In the next press releases you can track the apologies and admission they made a mistake. For those who love their conspiracy theories, it might of course be a really cunning plan so they can fool the membership the next time the 'mistake' is made. How the Bond villian BMC exec will laugh when the horror of realisation occurs ... this time they won't back down and Schlerosis is going to be made an honorary BMC member.

Its almost as good as the accusation made to Shark on the other channel, of manufacturing this fuss with Bob to act as a BMC recruiting drive for younger performance sport climbers and boulderers.
 Offwidth 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
I'd say the insult to Bob is perfectly forgivable under the circumstances, a lot of people are very angry about what he has done. Past glories are naught in the face of such behaviour. Age simply isn't the issue, its the behaviour. When the process around a no confidence motion (as per the draft and alledgedly the leaflet) villifies, the moral high ground is lost at the start.

There are always governance issues to be resolved as organisations adapt to their current needs, especially in a time where pre-internet meeting, magazine and letter processes are no longer the most efficient methods but some still rely on them.

Show me one person who said the NC decision was a "proper democratic process". It was a mistake for the exec but an understandable decision if you talk to the NC reps who made it and clearly a democratic based one.

As for the issue on the articles, yes its a concern but maybe because small parts of the articles need to change. I agree the review will be helpful in that.

I simply don't recognise your caricature of an exec feeling themselves dragged back by membership; they seem to me just the opposite, even with the rebrand mistake, they moved to do everything they could, to ensure full engagement. They may well be frustrated by some members with agendas unfairly trying to regard themselves as more important than other members. There sure is treacle about... Bob and co poured it for reasons they are yet to make plain (that those who know them can easily guess from the draft, but in an underhand way as they must know such reasons would never get wide membership support). Don't underestimate how hard and distracting it is for key staff and volunteers to do the day job in such circumstances. Bob and co could have fully disclosed their arguments in public from the start, or even do it now, at this late stage.
Post edited at 11:23
1
 AJM 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> As well as Leo Dickinson being an easily led old fool.

The statement that the £24k spent on Climb Britain was the BMCs money is a lie. Either that or the BMC are lying about it being a Sport England grant, in which case their accounts should make this fairly obvious.

So how would you phrase it? He's either stuck his head over the parapet to knowingly mislead, or he's stuck his head over the parapet based on not having researched claims made to him by others which he's then repeating and therefore standing behind.

Given the publicity around this money and it's provenance it seems incomprehensible to me that no-one involved in the process at that end knows that claim isn't a lie. Let's face it, if they had found evidence in the accounts that the BMC had lied about the money this would be a whole different discussion, wouldn't it?
 Chris the Tall 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> Show me one person who said the NC decision was a "proper democratic process".

I think I did - or at least I said the NC was democratic and this decision was within it's remit. There was logic behind the decision to change and to launch the change without wider consultation. The subsequent u-turn was also correct and correctly handled

 Chris the Tall 17 Mar 2017
In reply to AJM:

The money paid to Thinkfarm etc came from Sport England, but there was also officer time and some investment in merchandise and stationary - I think this has been quantified somewhere.

Mind you if the BMC still has any ClimbBritain t-shirts left they should auction them at the AGM - they will be quite collectable !
 Andy Say 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> Show me one person who said the NC decision was a "proper democratic process".

I couldn't remember! But I guess I was actually quoting Chris the Tall

'Its a bit rich accusing the BMC exec of being high handed and undemocratic when they had democratic National Council blessing and backed down following democtratic process when the wider strength of feeling was apparent. It was a mistake for the exec but an understandable decision if you talk to the NC reps who made it and clearly a democratic based one.'

So the Exec. was NOT being undemocratic because they had the democratic backing of NatCo. However at a later stage they realised that 'democratic process' indicated disquiet and went hard astern? But it was understandable because the decision to re-brand was democratic.

I've got that right?

And I'm not trying to 'caricature' anybody; stop being so tetchy. I'm saying I understand some of the frustrations that democratic governance processes can cause

 Andy Say 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> The money paid to Thinkfarm etc came from Sport England, but there was also officer time and some investment in merchandise and stationary - I think this has been quantified somewhere.Mind you if the BMC still has any ClimbBritain t-shirts left they should auction them at the AGM - they will be quite collectable !

I've got a mug! Its cracking up quite quickly though.....

But you are right. It is wrong to say that the BMC paid for the rebrand consultation. It is equally wrong to say that it didn't cost the BMC anything (financially I mean, of course). I'm sure the cost will be shown in the treasurers report at the AGM.
 Andy Say 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> As for the issue on the articles, yes its a concern but maybe because small parts of the articles need to change.

Alternatively we could ensure that governance is in compliance with the Articles of Association of the BMC?
 MG 17 Mar 2017
In reply to AJM:

> The statement that the £24k spent on Climb Britain was the BMCs money is a lie. Either that or the BMC are lying about it being a Sport England grant, in which case their accounts should make this fairly obvious.

It's not so black and white. A lot of the BMC's income comes from grants. Does none of that count as the belonging to the BMC? Either way the money, intended to expand extneral income, won't be replaced. It has been spent with nothing to show for it.

2
 AJM 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Fair. But was it £25,000? Because that's the claim being made.
 AJM 17 Mar 2017
In reply to MG:

It was a specific grant for a specific purpose though, remember.
 RupertD 17 Mar 2017
In reply to MG

> It's not so black and white. A lot of the BMC's income comes from grants. Does none of that count as the belonging to the BMC? Either way the money, intended to expand extneral income, won't be replaced. It has been spent with nothing to show for it.

No. The BMC received money specifically to pay for the consultation that resulted in the rebrand. If the money was not spent on its intended use it would have had to be repaid. It *wasn'*t general grant money that was allocated to the rebrand but that could have been spent elsewhere.
 AJM 17 Mar 2017
In reply to RupertD:

> In reply to MGNo. The BMC received money specifically to pay for the consultation that resulted in the rebrand. If the money was not spent on its intended use it would have had to be repaid. It *wasn'*t general grant money that was allocated to the rebrand but that could have been spent elsewhere.

This.

Rupert, do you know "what happens next" if the vote passes? The exec are expected to resign right, but assuming for a second the earlier items on the agenda have passed they've just been elected unopposed. How does that work? And how long does it take to organise a new election, assuming that's basically what's required?
 Offwidth 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
Its quite simple really, in plain english: on big issues they need to go back to the membership after an NC vote. A full proper democratic process can contain individal democratic stages within. A mistake was universally acknowledged despite democratic stages. The problem wasn't a lack of democracy it was a flawed process that was acknowledged (despite mitigation) and the problem was then properly democratically reversed.

I'm techy as its not a nice Friday lunchtime chat about the grade of 3PS. What you said simply doesn't match what I see and that is important to me in the context of this motion that implies the BMC exec and NC are out of touch. I think those behind the motion are the ones out of touch. The motion is a massive distraction from the important activity of the organisation, could cost jobs and volunteer roles and even if defeated will leave lasting damage.

The governance of the BMC is what its members want it to be (within the complex legal arrangements). If they want the same fine, if they feel it could be improved fine: that's democracy, the articles are not fixed in stone.
Post edited at 12:01
 RupertD 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
> Equally the statement from one of the current Exec. members that he believes that some recent decisions about governance are actually in breach of the Articles is concerning.

Andy, to what are you referring here? I wonder whether you are confusing it with something else. There was a recent attempt to rationalise the articles of association by making a matrix that specified which body (exec/NT/staff etc) was responsible for a long list of types of decision. This was abandoned when it was decided that the best draft didn't in fact accord with the articles. This is one of the reasons that a governance review has been initiated becuase squaring the articles with the companies act was very difficult when trying to make the matrix. I'm not aware of any decisions actually taken that do not accord with the articles.
Post edited at 12:01
 Andy Say 17 Mar 2017
In reply to RupertD:
Well I'm basing that on the report, on the BMC website, attached to the motion of no confidence, by Martin Wragg (BMC Honorary Solicitor) which says 'BMC had made available to the AC a document adopted by National Council on 5 December 2015 entitled ‘Agreed Split of Responsibilities between National Council and Executive Committee’ which had been prepared to clarify the respective roles of National Council and Executive Committee. By reason of my appointment as chair of LMG at that same meeting I became an observing/non-voting member of National Council, but was not aware of this document prior to the AC AGM. At the National Council meeting on 3 December 2016 I offered my view that it was not consistent with the Articles in some material particulars.'
Post edited at 12:13
 Andy Say 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> A full proper democratic process can contain individal democratic stages within. A mistake was universally acknowledged despite democratic stages. The problem wasn't a lack of democracy it was a flawed process that was acknowledged (despite mitigation) and the problem was then properly democratically reversed.

If that's plain English please don't get complex on me

Three Pebble Slab? Classic VS, just like Sunset Slab but a bit thinner.

 MG 17 Mar 2017
In reply to AJM:
> It was a specific grant for a specific purpose though, remember.

Sure, but granted to the BMC. If anyone was saying this was general money spent on a rebrand, that would be a lie, I agree. But pointing out the BMC spent this grant money as it was intended but to no effect, and that is a bad thing, isn't, as far as I can see.
 Offwidth 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

The plain english was the first sentence.

VS would the 'luminary' view then and the membership must learn to accept that.
 RupertD 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
Yes, that's the same thing I'm referring to. Martin is not saying that actual decisions were taken that weren't in accordance with the articles. Rather an attempt was made to define the split between the NC and the exec and this failed on its first attempt.

PS If you would like to pen an academic paper on the practical solutions to governance issues that arise when a membership organisation is constituted as a company limited by guarantee with specific reference to the tensions between the legal duties of a board of directors (as set out in the Companies Act 2006 and other places) and the desire for policy decisions to be taken by an elected council of member representatives, then the BMC would be most interested.
Post edited at 12:41
 AJM 17 Mar 2017
In reply to MG:

Have you read the text, and is that what it says to you?
 Chris the Tall 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> I'm tetchy as its not a nice Friday lunchtime chat about the grade of 3PS.

But you get really tetchy over the grade of 3PS

 MG 17 Mar 2017
In reply to AJM:

> Have you read the text, and is that what it says to you?

The whole thing is a bit of rant but I don't think "This undercover re-branding exercise cost the BMC
£25,000 …." is a lie, no (except perhaps the undercover bit).
 Andy Say 17 Mar 2017
In reply to RupertD:

>Martin is not saying that actual decisions were taken that weren't in accordance with the articles. Rather an attempt was made to define the split between the NC and the exec and this failed on its first attempt.

Sorry Rupert. I took it that he meant that the decision to split the NC and EC as proposed wasn't in accord with the articles. And the document IS still current isn't it? But we're chasing our tails a bit aren't we; the governance review should get clarity.

> If you would like to pen an academic paper on the practical solutions to governance issues that arise when a membership organisation is constituted as a company limited by guarantee with specific reference to the tensions between the requirements of the Companies Act and the desire for policy decisions to be taken by an elected council of member representatives, then the BMC would be most interested.

NOT really my area of expertise But I certainly can empathise with those tensions!
 AJM 17 Mar 2017
In reply to MG:

Really? Given its a direct pass-through of a grant received for that sole purpose, that seems like a retreat into semantics to be honest.

If I gave you a fiver and told you to get yourself a drink with it, and you spent £5 on a drink, would you really say that drink cost you a fiver, when my money paid for it?
 MG 17 Mar 2017
In reply to AJM:

> . If I gave you a fiver and told you to get yourself a drink with it, and you spent £5 on a drink, would you really say that drink cost you a fiver, when my money paid for it?

If I had carelessly dropped it on the floor (Climb Britain), yes. I'd be without a drink and the only option would be to spend my money to get one.

 AJM 17 Mar 2017
In reply to MG:

At the risk of extending this scenario too far, you (in this case Pettigrew etc) don't want another drink. You never wanted a drink in the first place.

And you're claiming you've lost £5, whereas if you'd returned from the bar without buying a drink I'd have asked for my fiver back. But given you bought a drink, despite the fact you threw it on the floor, I'm happy my money was used as intended and i don't want it back.
 Rob Parsons 17 Mar 2017
In reply to AJM:

That's enough metaphors - Ed.
1
 Andy Say 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> That's enough metaphors - Ed.

Is that a bit like you calling 'Time!' before they've worked out who the fiver belongs to?
 Hugh Cottam 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

So let's get this straight. The BMC were buying everybody drinks (up to the value of £5). But Bob Pettigrew spilled his. And now he's blaming the BMC.
 Andy Say 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Hugh Cottam:

Naaah. Keep up. Sport England said, 'it's our round' and gave BMC some cash to get them in. When the drinks tray came back with 25 drambui shandies on everyone said, 'that's not what I ordered - that would make me puke' so the drinks went back. But no refund! At that point Bob came in from the toilets and was really hacked that no-one had told him Sport England was getting them in. So he said he wasn't going to trust them to go to the bar for him again.



I think that's about it.
In reply to Andy Say:

Very good but there was a couple of people out there who think drambui shandies are the dogs

(Not me of course, I am strictly a single malt, no ice or water guy, but whatever floats peoples boats).
 Andy Say 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

What about the expensive red wine fetish, Graeme? There is a need for total openness here.......
 Ian W 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
Naaah.

Sport England had a bit of spare cash and the BMC said they might like a drink, but dont know what. Sport England said thats ok, we know some people who can suggest some drinks you might like. We'll buy them for you. So This drinks agency suggested some drinks, and the BMC sniffed some, thought about it a bit, and asked some of their friends if they should drink them. These friends, lets call them "national council" liked these drinks a lot, and thought the BMC should definately adopt them as "their new very favourite drink". Unfortunately, when they told all of their friends, lots of their friends didnt really like the new drink , and told them to stop drinking new drinks and stick to the existing ones. But it was all ok, as the BMC didnt have to pay for the new drinks, just a few beermats and the taxi home.
Some of the BMC's very old friends really, really didnt like the idea of drinking new drinks suggested by some London based drinks analysts, and are cross at the BMC because they think they were going to be forced to drink the new drinks, and that competitive drinking was going to be compulsory, and even in some big sports day held all over the shop every 4 years or so.
They even suggested at one point that we were talking to some of our Japanese friends to get everyone to drink Sake, but everyone now knows that just isnt true.
And we are having a talk about it in wales next month to decide if enough people are cross enough to stop the BMC ever telling us which drinks we should have.

That right isn't it?
Post edited at 21:14
 AJM 17 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

According to the CCs Facebook feed MPs (parliamentary working group on the outdoors or something) are concerned and Bonners has weighed in asking them to withdraw the motion. Littlejohn also name checked calling for more discussion instead of this.
 Andy Say 17 Mar 2017
In reply to AJM:

> According to the CCs Facebook feed MPs (parliamentary working group on the outdoors or something) are concerned and Bonners has weighed in asking them to withdraw the motion. Littlejohn also name checked calling for more discussion instead of this.

Wouldn't know; not being a member of a powerful senior club
 toad 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
Can't even find the CCs Facebook page. Not for plebs, I fear
 Mark Kemball 17 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

Copied from the CC facebook page:

It seems that the MoNC in the BMC Executive has been discussed by the Mountaineering All-Party Parliamentary Group in Westminster with some degree of concern expressed – hardly surprising!

Chris Bonington has made this appeal:
I believe we can still avoid this divisive and damaging process

I appeal to Bob, Doug and Dennis to withdraw their motion of censure.

To be aware of Tony Grieve’s perceptive comments, to listen to Pat Littlejohn’s appeal for more discussion.

I was in the West Way Climbing Centre in London a couple of nights ago and it was a delight to see that range of people from the age of four to white haired characters like me getting so much enjoyment and fulfilment from a couple of hours or so, not just under the same roof but on neighbouring panels. I wondered what those youngsters would be doing in the future. Quite a few might might become competition climbers – as indeed did Catherine Destivelle, Leo Houlding and many of the top competition climbers who now are deep into trad/adventure climbing at the very highest and committing levels. Some will get outside as trad or sport climbers at what ever level or explore other activities and some might never go beyond the Westway. They are all finding their own fulfilment and a lot of joy.

Let’s keep our broad, inclusive church. Let’s have that forward looking review that we all seem to agree is needed.

Chris
 bouldery bits 17 Mar 2017
In reply to AJM:

> According to the CCs Facebook feed MPs (parliamentary working group on the outdoors or something)

Now I'm cross. Politicians can stay out of our sport thanks.

Bumders the lot of 'em.
3
 UKB Shark 17 Mar 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Now I'm cross. Politicians can stay out of our sport thanks. Bumders the lot of 'em.


We want climbing on the political agenda when it comes to influencing access and conservation bills and management of National Parks and, and, and...
In reply to AJM:

I was having a conversation with a member of the AC Committee and I was told that the Committee was dead against the motion. Which was a bit of a surprise but one that was welcome.
In reply to bouldery bits:

So climbers, mountaineers etc who happen to be MP's shouldn't be allowed to form a club (which is what it is) to help with the interests of climbers, mountaineers etc.
 bouldery bits 17 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> So climbers, mountaineers etc who happen to be MP's shouldn't be allowed to form a club (which is what it is) to help with the interests of climbers, mountaineers etc.

No.

They can do one.

Climbing is not a political football.



8
 bouldery bits 17 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:

> We want climbing on the political agenda when it comes to influencing access and conservation bills and management of National Parks and, and, and...

Not Climbing no.
Conservation yes.

Climbing is better off if they don't notice it's there.

Politicians can't look at anything without thinking 'now there's an opportunity for a Public / private finance initiative'.

9
In reply to UKC News:

So it turns out the President Elect BMC is actually a dead ringer for Donald Trump! He's gonna build a wall and the sports climbers are gonna pay for it. No bolters here. SAD.

The @POTBMC Twitter feed is a glorious piece of work, thanks to @PunterWatchUK for the link.

 Dell 18 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

My god, this is all so dull!

Does anyone fancy a pint?
In reply to Ian W:

> the BMC sniffed some, thought about it a bit, and asked some of their friends if they should drink them. These friends, lets call them "national council" liked these drinks a lot, and thought the BMC should definately adopt them as "their new very favourite drink".

I believe those "drinks" caused a few hangovers for many of the NC. Not me though, I decided I didn't want one :p

 Andy Say 19 Mar 2017
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

> So it turns out the President Elect BMC is actually a dead ringer for Donald Trump! He's gonna build a wall and the sports climbers are gonna pay for it. No bolters here.

Who's the President Elect? You've lost me there.

And presumably it's a climbing wall he's gonna build?
In reply to Andy Say:

> Who's the President Elect? You've lost me there.And presumably it's a climbing wall he's gonna build?

You need to find the BMC Presedent Elect on twitter via @POTBMC as in my post...
 Andy Say 19 Mar 2017
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

I don't twit.
1
 Adam Long 20 Mar 2017
In reply to bouldery bits:

>Climbing is better off if they don't notice it's there.

Really?

So you'd be happier if the CROW act had gone through without climbing being specifically mentioned as a permitted activity on open access land?

You'd also be happier if climbing instructors had not been given their exemption from the Work at height regs, meaning they'd all have to work in a full-body harness with a second back-up rope at all times?

You'd prefer if climbing equipment was not covered by PPE regs and standards and you could buy any old crap with no quality control or minimum strength standards?
 Rob Parsons 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> I don't twit.

You don't need to. Just visit https://twitter.com/potbmc
In reply to Adam Long:

Well said Adam.
 fred99 20 Mar 2017
In reply to AJM:

> and Bonners has weighed in asking them to withdraw the motion.

I seem to remember Bonners weighing in on the side of the zip-wire at Honiston.
Just because the fabulous Bonners expresses an opinion it doesn't mean that he's right.
1
 The New NickB 20 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

Whilst I agree 100% with Bonington's sentiments, you are right, the fact that they come from him don't make them any more right or wrong. The same applies for the luminaries supporting the motion of no confidence, the motion is only as good as the evidence which back's it up and the pedigree of the climbers supporting it, or indeed their wider contributions to the sport, should have no bearing. As it happens, we have not seen any evidence and we are not even sure if some of those luminaries have even signed the motion.
 AJM 20 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

I don't disagree.

I thought it was interesting (or rather, that others might find it interesting) and a counterpoint to the simplified "old Vs young" narrative which might otherwise be seen in some of the discussions...
 Rob Parsons 20 Mar 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

> ... we are not even sure if some of those luminaries have even signed the motion.

I think we *can* be sure of that.

2
 The New NickB 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> I think we *can* be sure of that.

I am aware that the BMC were checking and some people seemed pretty clear that they hadn't. Obviously the motion needs 25 signatures of members and will no doubt have that now, but it may not be the same 25 as the original list that was published, which as someone else has pointed out, was a few names short anyway.
 Rob Parsons 20 Mar 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

The signed motion is on the BMC's website - see https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-agenda--motion and, specifically, the link 'The full wording of the motion ...'

Something would have had to have gone very wrong if any of the people named there were not in fact signatories to the motion.

(Note that this is all simply in answer to your specific claim; it's not about the rights and wrongs of the motion itself.)
Post edited at 14:05
 The New NickB 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Thanks, it does appear that they now have more than 25 signatures, which have presumably been checked by BMC officers. It's noticeable I think, that four of names on the original list of 23 are not on the final.
 Martin Hore 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Team BMC:

Just received my copy of "Summit". It arrived together with a proxy AGM voting form and a statement entitled "Background to AGM Agenda Item 9" (the motion of no confidence).

The statement contains just the motion, and the list of proposers, and the report by Martin Wragg.

I'm waiting to see if anything else arrives from the BMC by email. As it is, I fear what has been circulated will not raise a great number of proxy votes against the motion to counter those being gathered by Bob Pettigrew and his fellow proposers. Martin Wragg's report is thorough, but really too long and detailed to serve the purpose I feel. Most people who have not been following this thread (or similar) will quite probably ignore it.

I still don't know whether the executive are obliged to resign en-masse if the motion passes (which would presumably leave the BMC rudderless - I've not heard whether anyone on the proposers' side of the argument is actually willing to step up to the plate and stand in their place).

I think a clear and concise statement from the current CEO or President would be helpful.

Although I've received a proxy form, I'm not sure I'm entitled to vote. As a member of a BMC affiliated club, I don't have a BMC membership number, as far as I know. Without the number the proxy form appears invalid. Can anyone advise?

Martin


 Team BMC 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

Hi Martin,

All members of affiliated clubs are entitled to a vote.
As a club member your membership number is included with your summit mailing. It should be in 2 places (directly above your address, and on the membership card on the bottom right hand of the address label).

Suzanne
1
 Dave Garnett 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

> Martin Wragg's report is thorough, but really too long and detailed to serve the purpose I feel.

Too long? Really? Given the need to address the frequently repeated 'alternative facts' in the motion it seems to me a pretty concise review, but you could just cut to the Conclusions if it's too much.


 Chris the Tall 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

>I think a clear and concise statement from the current CEO or President would be helpful.

I'm sure both Dave and Rehan would love to give a very concise statement on what they think, but tradition dictates that they have to choose their words more carefully than those who accuse them.

I agree with you that if this motion is carried the BMC will be plunged into a period of uncertainty - my guess is the resignation of the Exec pending an EGM in which all positions are subject to election.
It seems to me that Bob and his friends have taken the view that creating such chaos is a suitable way to stop the BMC being involved in the Olympics, which appears to be their primary concern.

And if BMC members aren't prepared to spend 5 minutes reading the background and casting their votes, then they might just succeed.
In reply to Chris the Tall:

I was reminded at the weekend that the initial talks about the formation of the IFSC were amicable between the UIAA President and the UIAA-ICC President but they went sour once Mac got involved so maybe Bob should stop castigating Marco and let sleeping dogs lie.
 Andy Say 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Adam Long:

> You'd prefer if climbing equipment was not covered by PPE regs and standards and you could buy any old crap with no quality control or minimum strength standards?

Whilst i totally agree with your other sentiments I would just point out that, yes, you can. It's all on eBay.
 Andy Say 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

>I still don't know whether the executive are obliged to resign en-masse if the motion passes (which would presumably leave the BMC rudderless - I've not heard whether anyone on the proposers' side of the argument is actually willing to step up to the plate and stand in their place).

Hi, Martin. I think resignation en masse is the accepted etiquette. I think it would also be possible for the current Executive Committee to say, 'stuff off. If you want us gone do it properly by a contested vote for places and positions'.

There is one other issue that might come up. There is, currently, no nomination for Vice-President. It would be 'interesting' if a nomination was launched at the AGM.......
 Andy Say 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> I was reminded at the weekend that the initial talks about the formation of the IFSC were amicable between the UIAA President and the UIAA-ICC President but they went sour once Mac got involved so maybe Bob should stop castigating Marco and let sleeping dogs lie.

MacNaught Davies? Or Blackshaw - who WAS president at the time of the separation? It might seem sad but I'm actually interested in our history and worried that so much of the way 'we' have evolved will simply be lost/made up.
In reply to Andy Say:
The UIAA President at the time was Alan Blackshaw.

I think Mac was one of those Ex-Presidents who had no formal role but of course wielded a fair bit of influence both because of his previous position (as UIAA President a bit like what is happening now with Bob and Doug ) but of course also because of his personality.

.
Post edited at 21:49
 Andy Say 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
> The UIAA President at the time was Alan Blackshaw.I think Mac was one of those Ex-Presidents who had no formal role but of course wielded a fair bit of influence both because of his previous position (as UIAA President) but of course also because of his personality. A bit like what is happening now with Bob and Doug.

I always liked Mac after I saw him pull into Snell's field in a pristine white Triumph Stag. No. Maybe 'liked' is the wrong word. Thought 'wow'! :-O is probably more accurate (I was 17.....)

Edit for historical accuracy. Doug Scott was in the car with him.
Post edited at 21:54
In reply to Andy Say:

I edited my post for some clarity but it doesn't affect your reply. I think.

I liked Mac, great guy to have a beer (or 10) with. Maybe his take on climbing politics wasn't quite the same as mine so not all my memories are positive.
 Martin Hore 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Too long? Really? Given the need to address the frequently repeated 'alternative facts' in the motion it seems to me a pretty concise review, but you could just cut to the Conclusions if it's too much.

Don't get me wrong - I certainly have read it all. I'm just not sure that the average member will do so. I hope I'm wrong.

I don't think there are any "alternative facts" actually in the motion (unless you mean the miss-spelling of Losehill Hall). There really aren't any facts in the motion at all.

Martin





 Martin Hore 20 Mar 2017
In reply to Team BMC:

> Hi Martin, All members of affiliated clubs are entitled to a vote.As a club member your membership number is included with your summit mailing. It should be in 2 places (directly above your address, and on the membership card on the bottom right hand of the address label).Suzanne

Thank you Suzanne, I've found it. It's on a sheet I've normally in the past thrown away as advertising material (even though I now see it includes my membership card!).

Martin
 Dave Garnett 21 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

> I don't think there are any "alternative facts" actually in the motion (unless you mean the miss-spelling of Losehill Hall).

Sorry, Martin, you're right - I was thinking of the persistent 'misunderstanding' about the consultancy fee, repeated in the Dickinson letter and hinted at in the original draft motion.

 Martin Hore 21 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

I've just emailed the rest of our club committee (Ipswich Mountaineering Club) to propose we recommend to all our members to exercise their proxy vote. I'm hoping the committee will recommend our members vote against the no confidence motion, though we may have people on both sides of the argument.

I think it's important this isn't decided by the small number present at the AGM together with proxy votes gathered predominantly by the proposers.

Are others doing similarly?

Martin
 Ian W 21 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

Proxy forms were out at the CWIF at the works in sheffield at the wekend; we will be having some at Leeds for the regional YCS round on saturday (and we hope other regions do the same). So yes, others are doing it as well.
 Mark Kemball 21 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

Good idea - I'll take some to the SW round as well as the area meeting. Are under 18s entitled to vote?
 UKB Shark 21 Mar 2017
In reply to Mark Kemball:

> Are under 18s entitled to vote?

I'm afraid not

 Ian W 21 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:

Plenty of parents and other over 18 customers there though..........
 Rob Parsons 21 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> Plenty of parents and other over 18 customers there though..........

What are you suggesting? The only people entitled to vote are BMC members, each of whom will have been sent a proxy form at their home address.
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Maybe he is suggesting that lots of parents of young competitors are actually climbers themselves. A bit like Ian himself, his 2 kids both did comps and Ian is a climber himself.

And maybe some of the other customers at the wall will also be BMC members.
 Rob Parsons 21 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Maybe he is suggesting ...

I assume he can tell us himself.

> ... lots of parents of young competitors are actually climbers themselves ...

No argument with that.

> ... the other customers at the wall will also be BMC members.

In which case they will have already been sent proxy forms, won't they?

 Ian W 21 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

I am suggesting that maybe some people will not be fully conversant with the matter in hand, and would not normally vote on such matters; Votes of no confidence are pretty serious shit for an organisation, and it is best if the maximum number of people are aware of whats at stake and why, and that they should be encouraged to cast their vote. Just because you get the proxy form doesn't mean you will automatically use it. I am helping to organise an event at a major climbing wall at which I expect there to be number of BMC members who may need encouragement to vote. I will be happy to be proved wrong if every BMC member there was ready to cast their vote, but old cynic that i am, i simply don't believe that will be the case.....
Andrew Kin 22 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC News:

I had a long chat with my 9yr old daughter about this last night. We sat and discussed our opinions, decided on what to vote for then realised that it was only for over 18's.

It was a worthwhile exercise, however I was kinda hoping I could use her vote on her behalf. I take it this is not the case.
 johncook 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

It will be interesting to see what percentage of members actually bother to vote!
I my experience from normal politics, the ones who complain the most are the ones who didn't vote because their "vote would make no difference"!
 Rob Parsons 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Thelittlesthobo:

> ... I was kinda hoping I could use her vote on her behalf. I take it this is not the case.

All BMC members over 18 are entitled to vote. That's it.

 Ian W 22 Mar 2017
In reply to johncook:

Indeed. Or dont think they have to do anything, and realise too late ................
In reply to Ian W:

I found Alan Blackshaw's booklet yesterday, or UIAA President's Report to give it it's real title. It can be downloaded from his website http://www.alanblackshaw.com/3.html

If anyone is suffering from insomnia then it's a surefire cure.

The UIAA General Assembly did not accept the report and that is what led to his resignation https://www.thebmc.co.uk/uiaa-president-resigns
 Ian W 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Zzzzzzz.....

There is also the separate booklet I referred to with copies of various emails. Ive got it somewhere, Doug Scott as only too pleased to give me one, so it must be in general circulation somewhere, and its odd that none of the signatories or principals to the motion wish to publicise it, or anything. Only one of them has had the balls to put anything on here or the other channel, and nobody has backed him up - it didnt even entice any of the others to post, and i cant believe UKC and UKB would refuse them the right to speak.
 Offwidth 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

At last! (Yet Bob digs that hole deeper):

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660614
 Andy Say 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> I found Alan Blackshaw's booklet yesterday, or UIAA President's Report to give it it's real title.

But as reports go it's fairly anodyn: why was it rejected?

Graeme, you MUST have read the section - 'In order for the UIAA Competition Sports to get into the Olympic Programme, at the time of the decision, a positive two-thirds vote will be needed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Fortunately, we have good links with other international federations including those already in the Olympic Programme and others, such as the World Squash Federation, that are also seeking entry into the summer Olympic Programme. The UIAA can learn from their experience and guidance, and the other contacts that we have developed in the Olympic Movement. I hope that all of us in the UIAA can help our Competition Sports to achieve their Olympic Programme aspirations, by strengthening their own links with national Olympic Committees, and by emphasising how important mountaineering and climbing are in their countries, and how they can contribute to wider Olympic objectives of using sport for the benefit of the community.'

What on earth was the problem?

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