UKC

I am at the BMC AGM and the motion of no confidence has been: Rejected. 359 for, 2100 against, 62 abstained

The President: Rehab Siddiqui has resigned anyway.

Sub's are to go up

Time to go climbing now. More news to follow

Discuss if you want, but remember you had your chance to be here and add to the debate or to vote.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

2521 have voted out of 80,000. A general disinterest in the BMC then. Remind me again how much of club subs and taxpayers money is spent on it?

In reply to J1234:

Not sure that's exactly fair to be honest. A huge portion of those are students, kids, and people who don't wish to concern themselves with the politics of a vote like this, or indeed AGMs in general. Vast majority I'm sure didn't even know it was on. I'm glad the motion was rejected, but am curious to hear what Rehab has to say about the whole thing and his resignation.

In reply to myrddinmuse:

Did Bob Pettigrew offer to resign as an Honorary Member or did Doug Scott resign as a Patron?

In reply to J1234:


Yes you're right.
Better disband it and not bother.

In fact everything is pointless.

In reply to bouldery bits:

Did you vote?

In reply to J1234:

Yes.

Did you?

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Tangential note: I'm guessing that "Rehab" Siddiqui is an auto-correct error for Rehan? *g*

(Enjoy your climbing!)

In reply to J1234:

I suspect that's a huge increase on normal AGM voting.

Shame Rehan decided to quit.

Pettigrew: apologise you bastard.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:
Please could you advise on the subs...by how much? ...This is a big issue for clubs especially and in particular if as in the past there has been little in the way of managing a deficit ...At area meeting i have previously heard the notion of leading clubs addressing insurance (a leading reason for BMC membership) by grouping and sorting their own policy and ditching BMC membership.
In simple terms I would hope that any deficit is met by a mix of cost saving (overheads, project management, staff reduction) and increased revenue (improved commercial activity and increasing subs).

Just did the Maffs
of those who voted
14% supported MONC
83% against Motion
But if current membership is 80000 ish only 3% voted anyway...

In reply to simondgee:

But it is still a MUCH bigger number than has ever voted.

And if the Clubs don't want to pay their way, then leave the BMC. The AMA did this (the biggest ever BMC Affiliated Club) and the BMC survived.

In reply to simondgee:

Subscription prices:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1453

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Really sorry that Sid decided to resign, so, given that he'd probably just been re-elected, who's now president or acting president?

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Rehan is staying on until a replacement (permanent or acting is found). Since he was going, he took the chance to put forward a very emotional departing speech (his wife had to read it) that really pissed off the supporters of the no confidence motion as he was very direct about the damage done to the BMC and his home life in particular, with the extra pressure having such a dishonest and secretive approach to the MoNC led by BMC luminaries who should be acting as friends of the organisation. A few people shouted for Bob P to resign but he just ignored it.

Before this in the motion Bob got 15 minutes to speak and it was a brand new version of the same old conspiracy stories....Olympics (mainly raking up mud about the 2008/9 decision) Scolaris and the IOC, £75k taxpayers money wasted. Hints of a letter from Scolaris to the BMC similar to the Japanese (no evidence again and fully denied by the BMC). Parents of 8 year olds demanding the BMC look after their competing offspring...... He finished by complaining the 15 minutes was too short with no sense of irony given his consistent refusal to provide public information so the BMC could inform members of both sides of the argument. If it wasn't so obviously a group of self-rightous old fools spinning these conspiracy tales and blaming the current exec for stored up resentment you would think he was bat-shit mad with no relevant facts at all. In the questions lots of other complaints surfaced that dated back to before Dave was even CEO (useful warnings for the governance review but a bit irrelevant to the motion).

Ru replied for the BMC and went through issue by issue and aside from the mistaken rebrand there was nothing.

Someone supporting Bob's concerns about the Olympics etc asked Bob near the end of questions: since the discussion showed no clear issues beyond the rebrand, and new goverance issues clearly being looked at, could he withdraw the motion. He declined.

In reply to bouldery bits:

Yes

In reply to Mark Kemball:


Totally agree. The motion was crushed so very sad to see it had such negative consequences.

In reply to Offwidth:

And this is what really pisses me off. The motion on paper was nothing to do with comps and the Olympics. The 30 should be ashamed of themselves.

Still, time now to look to the future and put this behind us.

In reply to myrddinmuse:

A note I'd like to add is that the Summit magazine packs that student clubs receive did not include the voting cards. Obviously the members could have still downloaded the form and we told them to do so, but any sort of hoops to jump will inevitably result in a lower voter turnout, as people can be lazy.

In reply to Alkis:

Was that the club copy of Summit magazine or all the members' copies?

In reply to simondgee:

It's a bit late to get interested about the subs increases after the event. The info was easily available and I voted against the increase because it seemed excessive.
When I mentioned the subs increases to some committee members of my club the reply was that if BMC subs rise the club subs will have to rise accordingly, yet nobody in the pub that evening had voted.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

At best this was a misguided attempt to use a MONC in the exec as a proxy for a whole disparate litany of gripes and objections, most of which had nothing to do with the current exec, and much of which were only raised in private correspondence or on the day of the AGM itself. I agree with some of the 30's concerns (about Olympics, state funding etc), but they should have raised them as specific items (in some cases, several AGMs ago). Glad it was rejected, seems unfortunate the pres resigned. The BMC cocked up the rebrand issue, U-turned, owned up, lesson hopefully learned.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

The box of members' copies.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

For what it's worth, with regards to the subs rise.

Obviously nobody wants to see a rise in cost of membership. However:
Sport England funding is about to plummet.

The BMC knew this and knew that it was vital to tap the rich vein of the indoor climbing community and bring in membership fees from that arena.

A rebranding exercise attempting to allow this by making the organisation more relevant to indoor climbers as well as the traditional membership was devised.

People decided they didn't like change.

BMC will find it harder to appeal to indoor climbers who are clearly not mountaineers.


Now I'm not suggesting that if the rebrand had gone ahead then the subs wouldn't have gone up. I am saying that the BMC leadership, who had made a considered decision to take mitigating steps against the imminent drop in funding, have been hobbled by the same membership who will be complaining about either the increase in subs or the narrowing of the BMC's purview.

In reply to J1234:


Is it a disinterest, or is it a view that it's fine as it is?

In reply to jelaby:

That is not excessive.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:


I had a voting slip in my Summit (which I used). I am an affiliate club member, although not of a student club.

In reply to Neil Williams:

The null hypothesis is rejected if the p-value is less than a predetermined level, ?. ? is called the significance level, and is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis given that it is true (a type I error). It is usually set at or below 5%.

Ref:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

After all the hoo haa it is disinterest.

In reply to J1234:


That's an irrelevent use of statistical significance, which is used in statistical tests to quantify if there is difference between two (or more) sets of data. Do a chi square test for me then report the p-value of that and the p=<0.05 becomes relevent.

If the 77,500 members who didn't vote are all truly disinterested, then I imagine the increasing cost of the subs will disuade most of them from renewing their membership. As this hasn't happened yet (disinterest doesn't happen overnight) then I wonder how many members actually knew about the MONC or felt that they knew enough to vote objectively.

In reply to Will Hunt:

>BMC will find it harder to appeal to indoor climbers who are clearly not mountaineers.

Possibly (and the new name might have helped) but I think the significance of branding can be overstated. Most people don't even think about what acronyms mean. The DAV didn't let the 'A' stop them getting involved in indoor walls. The BMC will recruit indoor climbers if the BMC makes itself relevant to them - the name/logo is only a small part of that. The BMC can still use Climb Britain for an indoor focused campaign.

Personally not fussed by the rise in subs - the increase is less than RPI. Would be even happier if it helps reduce the reliance on state funding.

In reply to Deadeye:

I don't really care if he apologises or not, but he certainly shouldn't be an honorary member any more.

Merely bringing his motion of no confidence wouldn't disqualify him from this imo, but his spectacular failure to behave in any way you could possibly describe as "honourable" through the entire debacle certainly does.

If he doesn't have the decency to resign his membership it should be stripped from him. An honorary membership is awarded in recognition of services to the BMC, and the disservice he's done with his ego-driven bullshit is incalculable.

In reply to deepsoup:


I agree with everything else you say, but I feel the BMC as an organization has more important things to focus on (and shouldn't risk looking vindictive). It'd be tricky to work out a mechanism for stripping him of his membership without doing the same to the other signatories, and many of us suspect there are widely varying degrees of responsibility/malice involved.

However.

I, as an individual, have *no* intention of forgetting about his behaviour or allowing others to forget about it either. I hope the subject will be brought up as context if he wishes to contribute his views at area meetings. For example.

In reply to slab_happy:


I'm not talking about membership of the BMC, if he wants to pay his subs and be an ordinary member like any of the rest of us that's up to him - I'm talking about his *honorary* membership.

Looking at the BMC website, I see there are only 18 honorary members. I could be wrong, but I don't think any of the other signatories were among them were they?

In reply to deepsoup:

So, honorary members are not allowed to disagree and challenge the exec or risk losing their title?

Please show me the paragraph in the constitution that insists on compliance.

In reply to 3leggeddog:
You can disagree and challenge the exec without undertaking a vindictive and damaging campaign which actively avoids engaging wth the demcratic process and bases itself on lies and misinformation.

In reply to 3leggeddog:

Of course they are. They just need to be, y'know, honourable about it.

In reply to deepsoup:

maybe the BMC needs a disonourary membership category.

In reply to davidbeynon:


Spelling apart I would agree with this but there would be far too many nominees.

In reply to deepsoup:

Do we have to wait until the next AGM to suggest a motion to strip BP of his honorary membership?

In reply to La benya:

Is there an egm to elect a new president? If so potentially then. I'd happily support it.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

If the motion had been about democracy, accountability, consultation etc. I think that, even though it was never going to be passed, a sympathetic ear might have been given. After all the BMC'S National Council has asked for a governance review. But a rehash of old vendettas against the ISFC fought on behalf of Alan Blackshaw was exactly the way to lose the membership attending the AGM.
I am, personally, gutted for Rehan who has served conscientiously and ably as President. The only positive is that at least he's got his life back!
I do, however, think that it is over and the BMC shouldn't get seen as an organisation that will wreak vengeance on those who criticise it.

In reply to Andy Say:


I agree that the leaders of the BMC should be above such vengeance. However, the "grass routes" members of the organisation are entirely at liberty to seek an EGM with the motion of removing Pettigrew from his figurehead position as a direct result of his damaging and idiotic actions. The fact that he has shown such utter disrespect for the members by refusing to engage at any point prior to the AGM would make such a motion entirely understandable.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I'm hoping to get in on my spelling alone.

In reply to J1234:


Still a greater number than were vocal about the re-brand in the first place, yet the BMC backed-down in the face of such mediocre responses.

In reply to rj_townsend:
Just let it go. Pettigrew has behaved poorly and demonstrated that he's an out of date dinosaur. He's pretty much made himself an irrelevance. Hounding him out of the organisation is not the way a mature and democratic organisation should act. The membership has spoken and crushed him. Let's leave it at that and move on.

In reply to Andy Say:


I don't disagree with that but I do think it's important to stress that this was not simply "criticism". This was a massively destructive action even in its failure, with serious consequences for the organisation and, as has played out with Rehan, the individuals involved.

In reply to Monk:

But does he realise he's an irrelevance? Sadly there is nothing to stop him trotting out the same old diatribe every single year.

In reply to Lemony:

You are, of course, right. If the motion had transpired to be about the BMC and the decision making processes within it it could have been glossed as 'constructive criticism'. As it turned out to be the continuance of a feud with the IFSC, with the BMC and it's officers copping the 'collateral damage', then it can't be seen that way.
And we have yet to see the damage that may have been caused to the BMCs relationship with Sport England.

In reply to rj_townsend:

And there never will be. And thats ok. however, honorary memberships are given as a token of the BMCs regard for an individual given his / her contribution to climbing / the organisation itself over the years . With his recent actions. and especially how he has gone about them, BP has proven he is a malicious, spiteful and dishonest individual who is quite prepared to do whatever he thinks is necessary to achieve his own ends with no regard at all for the consequences. Without an hon membership, he would be quite at liberty to join the BMC as a normal member, individual or club, and still save his say, but to allow him to continue as a honorary; no way.
Its not as if its a massive deal anyway; all it is is "sorry, Bob, you are no longer an honorary member." Its not as if in entails 4 years hard labour.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:
As the chalk dust settles on the recent BMC AGM it is worth considering the 'Where next?' for the organisation.
A review of governance has been commissioned which is a positive move but I would suggest that this should be informed by the opinion of both the supporters & opposers of the MONC at the AGM. To this end I think that someone from the BMC 30 should be part of this process. Anyone from the 30 who wishes to take part and has an honorary membership should relinquish that position and become an ordinary member who contributes for the good of the future of the BMC.

In reply to rj_townsend:

That's my concern - that there's 350-odd people who might potentially be happy to keep trying to play wreckers in future.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

You forgot to mention the other vote - 2 exceptional candidates were nominated for the vacant vice presidential post. I'm sure I wasn't the only person in the room who had a real struggle to choose between Lynn Robinson and Fiona Saunders.

Lynn won by (iirc) 80 votes to 76.

Congratulations to Lynn and good luck - just the sort of person the BMC needs in these troubled times

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Having not met Rehan (or many of the exec) before I was pleasantly surprised at how well they handled the whole affair, Rehan chaired the AGM in a capable manner and when it came to the MoNC he stepped aside as chair and Rick Payne handled it (again, in a capable fashion with civil discussion on both sides with the exception of a couple of comments at the very end of the AGM).
There's a great deal going on behind the scenes with the BMC which members simply don't see outside of attending area meetings and the AGM. No right to complain about what they're doing if you can't be arsed to go to the meetings and provide feedback (yes, I was guilty of this with regards the rebrand, yes I now plan on regularly attending area meetings).

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Sorry that Rehan has felt he has to step down. From my view on things, he's one person who's continually come through with real credit. I find it disappointing that someone like Mr Pettigrew apparently seems able to make fairly spurious allegations that seem unsubstantiated, leading to a vote of no confidence and a president stepping down. Meanwhile, the one who makes the allegations is unrepentant, while a President is visibly and understandably deeply upset, with the emotional stress clearly having taken a deep toll. That someone treats others with that level of disrespect and lack of concern speaks volumes about that person. I did vote and easily voted against. Unable to attend due to working this weekend. I have no problem with the rise in subs. Bit of a sad situation tbh. What next? Hopefully something positive and hopeful. It's one thing for people to come in and point out all the problems and walk off into the sunset - but it takes real courage to come in, take responsibility, step up and bring positive change. Something that certain people have not done in this situation and those that have seem to have suffered. Just my two cents... Or at least two pennies...

In reply to spenser:

Rehan is going to be a loss. I had some disagreements with him regarding comps etc, but he had a really good approach to discussing / negotiating the situation, and we ended up in a good place.
Anyway, I've asked how we could propose honorary membership for him. I'm happy to propose; anyone willing to second?

In reply to Ian W:


I'd happily second that. A thoroughly decent guy who has been trying to manage his business as well as handle this issue.

In reply to simondgee:

Re the subs - the increase is £1 for club members and £2.50 for individual about 8%

I think that in most years this would have generated more debate (though there was some) but the sun was shining into a packed room and we all knew the main event was still to come, so forgive us.

It's actually the first increase in a few years, in fact I thinks subs have hardly changed in the last 10 years, largely down to the steady increase in individual membership. And the reserves are healthy and a profit was made last year, so why the increase ? Now personally I have no problem with the increase, but strategically I would have preferred a more gradual increase and dip into the reserves, but the reason given was that there is likely to be a major reduction in Sport England funding.

Now there are some who would rather we had no involvement in Sport England anyway (and it's pesky agenda on participation and inclusivity), but it's going to leave a big hole in the budget. One alternative is seeking commercial partnerships, currently being explored by Simon "tenacious" Lee. Another is to cut programs and staff. Someone even suggested that staff salaries be cut. But in the short term a rise in subs now is the best way to avoid a repeat of the crisis of 15 or so years ago

In reply to Andy Say:


Even though not a BMC member and living in Upsidedownland I'd like to add that 'Sid' *was* a thoroughly decent chap and if anybody could kindly PM him my details I'd be muchly appreciative.
Ta,
AP.

In reply to Ian W:

This was the general impression I got of him, unfortunately I don't know him well enough to be comfortable proposing/ seconding honourary membership but would certainly vote for it.

In reply to Ian W:


What a fantastic idea! It seems eminently well-deserved in itself, from everything I've heard, and especially so as he's had to go through this shit.

(And it would also be a nice sideways smackdown of Pettigrew, for those of us of a spiteful and embittered disposition -- I very much include myself in this category. But the beauty of it is that it's clearly *not* a point-making gesture; Siddiqui deserves it and his contributions ought to be recognized and acknowledged.)

In reply to slab_happy:

Its Done. Andy Say as seconder. Hope I've gone through the correct channels. We'll soon find out!

In reply to Offwidth:

The lies continue...

<<Bob Pettigrew said after the meeting that he did not regret tabling the motion of no confidence. “I’m unrepentant,” he said. “I expected to be pretty heavily defeated. They didn’t give me the opportunity to put my side when Summit [the BMC’s quarterly membership magazine] was published with this hysterical call to ‘save our BMC’.>>

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/04/23/tearful-bmc-president-rehan-si...

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

He obviously knows as much about publishing deadlines as he know about cyber squatting

He complained as he overran his allocated time that 15 minutes wasn't enough, but he could have made better use of his time by giving us less of his CV, less name-dropping and most importantly, not going through his personal grudges against somebody who isn't even a member of the BMC, let alone the executive.

Futhermore he had plenty of opportunity to put his case in public prior to the meeting - for example he turned down a request from the Peak area to speak. It wasn't until he spoke that it became clear that his main concern was not the rebranding but a decision taken 8 years.

In reply to deepsoup:


He can be a 'member', he's proved he is one after all.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Do you remember exactly how many at the meeting voted for the motion. My recall from hands was about 10 out of 160ish. This stuff about a man travelling from Devon is rather rich, given many more travelled specifically to vote him down. Bob was written to by the BMC several times asking for further information to inform the debate for the vast majority of members unable to attend the AGM (for Summit and the website). He is indeed telling porkies again but when a man is that brazen why would we be surprised?

In reply to Offwidth:

I'd say 10-15 but I didn't try and count. Was anyone stood at the back ?

Rik did a great job to try and give people supporting motion the opportunity to speak, but there weren't many, and I'm not sure whether all those who were critical of the BMC supported the motion.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I estimated 8 supported it but again didn't try to count specifically.
Bob's statement on Grough is shameful, he had plenty of opportunities to submit something to the BMC, Dave Turnbull said as much to me (both by email and in person).
Given his fixation with the primacy of AGMs he doesn't seem to pay a great deal of respect to the voting members at them when he peddles lies.

In reply to spenser:
It was interesting clicking through on the related links on the Grough report. It transpires Doug Scott has form, he was instrumental in the MoNC in Mike Mortimer the UIAA President about 5 years ago.

The very same Mike Mortimer whose 'regained' memory was the stimulus for Alan Blackshaw to start his feud with Marco Scolaris which ultimately led to the formation of the IFSC and Alan Blackshaw's resignation as UIAA President. All of which appears to have led to the BMC MoNC. Wow.

Et tu Doug!

In reply to Offwidth:
I thought no more than a dozen voted for the motion in the meeting. That suggests that the rest of those in favour voted beforehand basing their vote on the vague wording of the written motion and/or the mass of conflicting misinformation that was flying around the internet. I wonder if those 300 votes would have been cast in the same way had they known Bob's actual motion was just an excuse to re hash all his old prejudices and conspiracy theories regarding the Olympics?

In reply to Dave Musgrove:


I wonder how many people knew there was a MoNC at all. All the other motions were the sort you automatically tick "support" to, so I wonder how many people just automatically ticked all the "support" boxes and sent it in (like they may do every year).

In reply to Dave Musgrove:


And I do wonder whether they knew that the UIAA got IOC recognition in 1993 when Bob's old mucker became UIAA President. The UIAA received money every year due to this recognition, probably right up until last year.

Probably not as why would Bob want to bring actual facts into his vendetta.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Tangentially, I gather that the John Allen among the signatories might *not* be the gritstone John Allen -- can anyone confirm/deny? I'd like to keep my respect for one of my climbing heroes, if I can!

In reply to climbwhenready:
Well a good indicator would be to check how many votes were cast last year,or the year before, etc etc etc

My guess is that 2,500 votes is the biggest ever number of votes submitted at a BMC AGM. By some considerable margin. (Not counting the Dark Ages when Affiliated Clubs had block votes).

As an indicator, I am someone who is quite massively involved with the BMC and it's politics. I am on a BMC Committee, I am an ex-employee and I am quite vocal here. I am also not always supportive of decisions and the working practices of the BMC.

But this is the first time I have used my proxy vote. I voted against Bob Pettigrew's coup d'etat. He failed in the Doug Scott v Rab Carrington Presidential election. Thankfully he failed once again.

Edit: my post reminded me that I used my proxy vote in favour of Rab!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I don't think that would tell you much. I think maybe a lot of the 300 odd may not have read the proxy card / associated bumf - but out of 2500 votes it's impossible to say.

In reply to climbwhenready:

So the fact that the number of proxy votes increased by what, x10, x20 doesn't indicate that maybe people were really motivated to vote on the one headline issue. Really!!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

You misunderstand the point that I'm (badly) trying to make. I'm speculating on whether the 300 who voted for the MoNC all actually supported it, or whether some of them send in the proxy card every year and ticked all the "support" boxes - unwittingly also supporting the MoNC. It's not provable either way, especially against the background of everyone else voting against it (as you say). So it is pure speculation.

In reply to climbwhenready:
I made the point to several people the form is OK if you are used to it but you do have to think a bit as a first time user. It would be ironic if Bob got extra votes because people motivated to oppose him got confused with the form when using it for the first time although I can't believe many would have done this. I agree a few others may just have ticked everything: say someone who thinks the BMC are good but they don't have time for reading up on details but still want to help. In the meeting we were given clear and careful reminder advice on how to vote depending on supporting or opposing the motion. Ive seen results of many academic votes before from the count side and its amazing the silly mistakes intelligent people can make in the face of clear instruction. Sometimes things are less clear: my favorite was when my University stupidly decided to reverse the normal likert scale on its internal student feedback. ... quite a few anonymous students with glowing free text comments gave dreadful votes.