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?