UKC

At Kendal Mountain Festival over the weekend we launched the BMC’s Organisational Review Group Report. It’s a bit of a tome at 40,000 words and 51 recommendations, but it’s critical that members do read it, and get involved in the consultation. It’s been a huge volunteer undertaking and the member feedback via the survey earlier in the year, and the focus groups has underpinned the recommendations.

It’s up on the BMC’s website now

More info: http://www.thebmc.co.uk/org

Download the report: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20ORG%20Review%20Full%20Report.pdf

I’m sure there’ll be lots of discussion on here, and I know the team will try and answer questions as we go, but please do get involved in the formal processes. Over the coming weeks there’ll be local area meetings, Q+As, a consultation survey, and the opportunity for clubs and partner organisations to feedback so that we can shape the BMC to ensure it’s fit for the future.

PS no prizes for spotting typos!

In reply to JR:

We the undersigned are utterly appalled that the BMC and its executive have yet again failed to comply with the basic tenets of corporate governance.

In order to decide whether or not to launch a consultation with the membership there should have first been a consultation with the membership.

We are also deeply concerned that the report of more than 40,0000 words and 51 recommendations has been deliberately lengthened to hide some nefarious proposal from the executive.

How long must we, the membership, put up with such a lacksidaisical approach to running a private members' club?

We need another MONC now.

Don't you know who we are?

Signed herewith:
- The Council of British Mountaineering;
- The Mountaineering Council of Britain; and
- The British Council of Mountaineering

PS - please note that all say Mountaineering not climbing.

In reply to Cusco:



Run that by me again..??

Should there have also have been a consultation withe the membership to decide whether to have a consultation with the membership to have a consultation with the membership as well ?

In reply to JR:
I have just fully read the summary on the BMC website.
I need a bit more time to think about it, but on first reading at appears to make sense and to be a professional attempt to solve all the gripes and complaints (mostly minor!) one has heard about the BMC and also to 'put to bed' the problems caused by the name change fiasco, and the grossly unfair, unnecessary and destructive MONC, and to ensure that the BMC complies will all the legal requirements for an organisation of it's type.
When (if) I have time I will read the full report, but I assume the summary is an accurate rendition of the report in an easily readable form.
If you are a BMC member the summary should be an essential piece of reading to inform yourself before you attend your Area meeting. Hopefully the Area meetings will be amicable and non-confrontational and decisive!
(Roll on the Peak Area Quiz to lighten the evening, although some do take this rather too seriously as well!)
Climbing calls!

In reply to johncook:

I know it's long but I'd urge you to tackle the full report.

One thing to clear up. The Partners Assembly doesn't refer to commercial partners but partners such as the Mountain Training Board, Association of British Climbing Walls who were consulted as part of the review

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

There go my plans to do coursework today...
See you on Wednesday.

In reply to Cusco:

If you're going to take the piss, please add a smiley to your post. It saves confusion.

Thanks

In reply to JR:

Written in 2 columns per page, what an irritating format.
As for the content, I'll leave that to people who GAS

In reply to artif:



Give A Shit ?

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

That is my intention. The weather looks bad for Monday and Tuesday so it will fill a few minutes!

In reply to Andy Hardy:
Indeed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

In reply to JR:

Well here is the report and I've only had time to look at the headlines ….. but the first impression I get is that what we have is an attempt to fundamentally shift the focus of the organisation away from the activities that matter most to ordinary members and towards a much closer relationship with competition climbing and the indoor wall industry. And by enshrining this change in a new set of memorandum and articles of association to permanently silence those who have criticised this drift in the past.

Now before I get misrepresented as part of some 'reactionary rump' let me make it clear that I have absolutely no problems with competition climbing per se, nor with the indoor wall sector - I have taken part in fun comps in the past myself and I go to the wall on a weekly basis. And I thought that the recent attempt to force a no confidence vote in the Executive (whilst reflecting some genuine grievances) was an unfair and silly way to approach the issues.

However, in common with many others, I have never felt that the BMC should get too close to the commercial interests that are involved in indoor climbing walls and I particularly do not want the BMC to be the governing body for competition climbing. I would prefer competition climbers to have their own independent governing body, that was free to set its own agenda, to seek its own funding and to develop its own relationship with Sport England. I would want the BMC to support and assist in the establishment of such a governing body for competition climbing and to have a very positive future relationship with that organisation.

And I would want the BMC to remain a grass roots organisation for ordinary climbers, mountaineers and walkers. I do not care if this separation might mean the BMC missing out on extra funding associated with Team GB and the whole Olympic circus - I do not think the needs and interests of BMC members are necessarily better served by a bigger, wealthier bureaucracy (although I fear that perhaps some paid officers and others of an empire building persuasion do)

Obviously this is just my opinion and others will have a different view. I welcome this consultation process and I urge all members to get involved in the debate. I sincerely hope that the outcome will reflect what the ordinary membership of the BMC actually want.

And I say this because, as Chairman of the NW Area of the BMC, I was very close to the process when the BMC last 'consulted' its members about climbing as an olympic sport receiving BMC backing. At that time I repeatedly argued that this was a fundamental issue that ought to be decided by an open vote of all members. I was told that this was simply too difficult to organise, or that it wasn't necessary as the BMC already had adequate structures for reflecting the views of members (i.e. the area meetings). So the decision was made without the active involvement of the vast majority of BMC members at a dozen or so area meetings. And in the North West what we saw was a sudden surge in attendance at the one area meeting where this matter was decided. Several dozen people, virtually all of whom had never been seen at an area meeting previously (or subsequently), turned up as an organised bloc and voted in favour of the BMC supporting the Olympic bid. So much for a decision that reflected the wishes of all members!

So, whatever the outcome of this organisational review/consultation could I please urge the BMC, at the end of the process, to present any fundamental changes as a set of clear options that can be put to

A VOTE OF THE ENTIRE BMC MEMBERSHIP

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:


40,000 words is TL;DR

Can't one of the BMC guys just quote us out of context the paragraph we're most likely to get angry about so the thread can get going.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Yep

In reply to colin struthers:

Hi Colin, I hope you will be reassured as you read a bit deeper than the headlines. You will find mention of members being "able to get directly involved in policy issues and decisions using digital methods", also see points 16 & 18. I share your concern about a flash mob being able to turn up and get an unpopular decision passed at meetings. I think these changes make this less likely. No 11 talks about commercial partnerships having non voting rights compared to members. Point 15 talks about clarifying the level of Olympics support, also see point 24. And so forth. Cheers. Paul

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:
The report says that the results of the membership survey that it conducted would be on the website - I don't see it. Can you provide a link please?

In reply to colin struthers:
I think you should have read the report (or at least the exec summary section) before writing your first paragraph, as I don't think it comes across in that way at all.

I agree with your final point but it does seem that is one of their recommendations - to poll the membership on questions of interest (pg 42.)

I agree with most of what it says in the exec summary and recommendations and I'm impressed at the high quality and independence that the BMC managed to put together for this review. However, I will put it out there that the author of the report appears inexperienced in writing things aimed at a wide audience. 40000 words is an order of magnitude too great and it could easily have been written to be much shorter with some of the details/evidence moved to appendices. I doubt more than 1% of the 85000 membership will read it all.

Edit: I've just realised they have formally issued the 'summary report' separately as well.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
There seem to be 4 pages on the survey in the full report, Keith. Pages 24-27. If you need more detail than that, you'd need to contact BMC / ORG. Cheers. Paul

In reply to Paul Evans:
Thanks - I have just downloaded the Full report and found those sections.

In reply to Si dH:
There’s a double sided one page summary too. I only gave Alex Messenger a copy of the pdfs at 5pm yesterday.

It’s available (temporarily) until it goes onto the BMC site here: http://bit.ly/orgonepager

More communications, including the survey report itself will be online soon (hopefully tomorrow). I see from your edit you’ve found the summary report. The presentation from yesterday was recorded to go on BMC TV too. The staff are run off their feet at Kendal.

The full and summary report are here: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/whats-the-future-of-the-bmc-report-launch-kendal-m...

Rest assured, communicating this level of detail to the broader membership is something we’ve spent a lot of time thinking about!

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

As per the message above, the staff will get this online soon. I’ve handed the pdf of the survey report to Alex to be uploaded once the melee of Kendal is over. We wanted to get the actual ORG report up as soon as we could.

In reply to colin struthers: if you're going to put this to a full vote I'd suggest a substantial exam to get you into that voting pool, to demonstrate you've read the thing.

It would be very unwise to have a vote on something most people haven't read nor understand else the whole thing will be railroaded by a bunch of old reactionaries with their own secret agenda.

Less politely, stupid idea

In reply to wbo:




Following the post review consultation and feedback a new set of Articles of Association will be prepared for next April's AGM and they will be subject to a vote by the whole memebrship

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Indeed, any changes that require changes to the Memorandum & Articles of Association (M&AA) will require the approval of 75% of those voting members present and attending (in person or by proxy) an AGM, and voting in favour, in order to be accepted.

Recommendations that don’t require M&AA changes can be dealt with in other ways, again, potentially a vote. How that’s dealt with will be able to be more detailed once feedback from the consultation is gathered.

In reply to wbo:





As a voting pool I rather suspect that the membership of the BMC is better informed than most.

Generally speaking the reactionaries are the people who don't want everyone else to have a say on matters that may affect them.

Presumably that's you then?

In reply to JR:

Indoor climbing is not an activity in its own right for BMC members. Only 1% of respondents to the survey said they exclusively climb indoors.

A majority of the members want the BMC to expand, but that is not a mandate to pursue the approx 700,000 who only ever climb inside.

This should not be done because:

1. The BMC has plenty of other things to be getting on with.

2. I can't see what the BMC can offer them.

3. If any significant percentage of the 700000 who only ever climb indoors became members it would, through the democratic process, change the whole character of the BMC.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:


The WHOLE membership? Not just those attending a meeting?

I do hope you are right as that would actually be democratic, wouldn't it?

In reply to ian caton:



But 72% of resppondants go indoor climbing along with other activities

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Exactly. Not as an activity in its own right.

In reply to ian caton:



And you will have noticed that also only 1% go mountaineering only

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:
But mountaineering is already part of the ethos of the BMC, indeed the original ethos.

Whereas this document says that the BMC wants to expand into an area which only 1% of its members do as an activity in its own right.

An area which is fundamentally different. It's inside, on plastic and the BMC has nothing to offer them.
It's a distraction.

In reply to ian caton:

You used the 1% only figure for indoor climbers to construct an argument that the BMC shouldnt represent this segment. Consequently it would be equally fair on the same grounds to construct the same argument against mountaineering. Neither is an appropriate interpretation.

The largest figure in the diagram is the 38% who participate in all 4 activities of indoor climbing, rock climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering. This statistic would suggest that the BMC should represent all 4 activities.

There are more reasons that just this to represent indoor climbing and these are covered in the narrative of the report.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:
But there aren't 700000 mountaineers out there who aren't members of BMC.

I have read the other arguments but didn't think they stack up.

I just don't think it is appropriate to target this 'segment'. Segment of what? The BMC, climbers?

I go to the gym but I don't need representing by anybody.

It's like there are all these people going climbing indoors only, and the BMC wants to be a part of that "because they are there."

I will leave it there, I have made my point

Good night.

P.s. the rest of the report is fine.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

This isn't an argument to include indoor climbing.

In reply to Stravaig:

I agree.

The narrative covering indoor climbing is on pages 34-35

In reply to ian caton:

This attitude towards indoor climbing sits at the heart of the BMC's problems. With just over 30k climbers within its membership of 83k; it attracts a small percentage of the active climbers in the UK. It has failed to engage with the mass of practitioners in the country. The activity it purports to represent is vibrant and expanding; yet to all intents it has turned its back to this. It doesn't have a climbing wall committee. It doesn't have a climbing wall officer.
With near on a million climbers in the country, membership could easily be 2-300,000. Lots of current BMC members are members for no other reason than it's the done thing to join the National Body of your chosen activity. Indoor climbers would be the same. They'd join. With numbers like this the BMC would have significant lobbying power. It would have funds to use. It would be representative.

In reply to Removed User:


I am not sure I believe that, climbers are pretty well known for being tight. I joined the BMC for liability insurance and the work they do with crag access, I joined Canoe Wales for the work they do for water access. I would be damned to join a national body just because it was the done thing, and from my experience so would most other climbers. If we had free access to every crag and hill in the country the BMC would have no further purpose for me.

In reply to Removed User:
Representative of indoor climbers and able to lobby on behalf of indoor climbers. Better lighting would be good.

Marginalising outdoor climbers? Maybe

Indoor climbing is a commercial space the BMC has no role there.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Well put.

The November round of BMC Area Meetings starts tonight, and each meeting will feature a presentation by Organisational Review Group members.

The meetings provide an important opportunity for members to discuss the group’s findings and provide feedback to help shape the group’s final recommendations, which will go to a vote at the BMC AGM in April 2018.

Further information about the area meetings can be found on the BMC website: http://www.thebmc.co.uk/org

In reply to JR:

Arrrgh!!! Anyone else think this could have been a tenth as a long and vastly clearer if all the management bollockspeak was removed?

In reply to MG:

Have you had a look at the “one pager” or the summary?

Summary: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20ORG%20Report%20Summary.pdf

One pager: http://bit.ly/orgonepager

In reply to JR:

I did read them, and they are better, but still contain guff like "Create a vision for the sector that includes the relationships with clubs, partner organisations and stakeholders"

In reply to MG:


The cynic in me suspects that the major impact of the review will be that the "management bollockspeak" will be updated to reflect current trends

In reply to JR:

I, personally, have read this as quite a damning report on the current leadership skills of the BMC. If I read this about the department that I run I would be ashamed of myself. I hope it is better than this, and I'll head over to the area meeting on Wednesday to hear what more informed folk have to say.

"The ORG is aware that staff often feel that they are not empowered to take decisions or have operational ownership over some areas of their work. This is due to:

• A lack of clear leadership.
• Limited communication between the management and staff.
• Unclear BMC policy on the issues identified in other areas of this report.
• Limited delegation of budgets to departments."
Page 11

To be told that you have a clear lack of leadership to the small number of staff beneath you must be gutting.

In reply to Jim Walton:

The document reads like the worst work bullshit I have to put up with - if there was a lack of clear leadership before then this won't fix it!

You don't need 40k words to define what it's about - try the "explain to your gran" method and distill it into one simple paragraph explaining why the BMC is here. If you must, call it a mission statement. If this needs to grow beyond four lines or makes anyone scratch their heads or upsets old timers then it is wrong.

Re: comps - while all the comp and Olympic bullshit has the potential to destroy a much loved and much needed institution (the BMC) farming it off to a third party (eg the ABC or SCUK) would be a complete disaster for the BMC and for youth climbing.

I think there is a lot to be learned from various equivalents abroad and I the BMC has become defensive and self pitying and taken to navel gazing and hand wringing rather than looking at the wider (magnificent mountain) view.

F*** me I sound like a rabid brexiteer! if only we'd stop talking the country down everyone would be banging on our door for a trade deal.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

I would really be interested to know why you think it would be a complete disaster for the BMC and youth climbing if competition climbers had their own independent governing body.

Surely that would allow competition climbers to advance their sport in whatever direction they wanted without the baggage of thousands of members who are at best unenthusiastic about their chosen climbing activity.

And many non competing members of the BMC (i.e. the vast majority) might be pleased that the focus and efforts of their representative organisation were no longer being disproportionately drawn towards the money, commercialism and media glitz that Olympic climbing has inevitably introduced.

In reply to colin struthers:


Go on, show me one bit of "media glitz". Bet you can't.

In reply to Oceanrower:


youtube.com/watch?v=hWe7wIHZZoI&

In reply to MG:

Excellent

In reply to MG:


Bastards. Throwing our subs away on no-expense-spared YouTube videos with MULTI-COLOURED CAPTIONS and MUSIC.

In reply to colin struthers:

"why you think it would be a complete disaster for the BMC and youth climbing?"

- a disaster for the BMC because it would consign it to an withering old farts organisation devoid of funding and new blood

- a disaster for youth climbing because plastic is a pale imitation of the real thing and should be a route to adventure - under SCUK we'll end up with a crop of pasty, over muscled, gymnasts with climber's lung. Given the pyramid is so narrow at the top the vast majority of these will be left sport-less. How many practising adult gymnasts do you know? that's the future for SCUK breed climbers.

For what it's worth, while the BMC haven't always covered themselves in organisational, glory in the comps it could be a lot worse and their heart is (usually) in the right place.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:


I don't think indoor climbing is pale imitation of the real thing, it's a related but entirely different activity. You could think of indoor climbing as cross training or you can regard it as a perfectly respectable and satisfying activity in its own right. Getting kids regularly to take the sort of exercise that they certainly do get as they get caught up in friendly competition isn't any kind of disaster, it's exactly what they need.

It's also the sort of exercise they can enjoy for their whole lives. I've never won (or even entered) a competition in my life but I first climbed on an indoor wall in 1975 and I still go more than once a week. I don't know about adult gymnasts but there are plenty of people cranking respectable grades well into their 70s and beyond (and plenty of runners, rowers, cyclists and skiers too). Indoor climbing isn't all about hot-housing and then discarding anorexic teenagers, it's a sport for life. One that I suspect I'll still be doing when I can no longer be bothered to go outside!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Well, I do think it is a pale imitation of outdoor climbing (and I climb indoors a lot) - my beautiful memories of climbing aren't full of "perfect moments on plastic, the strip light setting behind the campus board as I summit the 13 metre plywood panel on the headwall in perfect conditions on crisp plastic above a whispy cloud of chalk caught in the inversion layer" - they are somewhat more!

The massive rise in the number of kids doing comps goes hand-in-hand with a massive rise in indoor climbing and if we institutionally reorganise indoor climbing as a separate "sport" we lose another connection with the outdoors and adventure. When I first went to a climbing wall, it was where climbers went when the weather was shite and it was dark but now the majority of climbers indoors are just that, indoor climbers - the proportion of comp climbers who don't go outdoors is staggering.

Indoor climbing should be the gateway drug to adventure - it shouldn't be formally divorced from climbing.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:


Is it? The report says it also leads people to hill-walking. I don't think I've ever met someone who got in to walking from indoor climbing and I doubt it happens - why would it? I think these claims are nonsense.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

I agree that indoor climbing is a great way to get young people into outdoor climbing. To divorce the two would be an extreme backwards step in the pursuit of increased youth participation in climbing and the outdoors. No indoor climber should be forced to climb outside and quite a few won't, but equally we should be setting up the BMC so as to give them the best opportunity.

In reply to Si dH:


But its not the only way. There are lots of other routes which the BMC should also support. The BMC should not over state the importance of indoor climbing and use this to justify a disproportionate input of resources.

Also there is no evidence that indoor climbers would become BMC members and therefore increase the subs income. Lots of indoor climbers are already BMC members by virtue of being affiliated club members, and I can't see what the BMC has to offer to make indoor climbers want to join if they haven't already joined a local climbing club.

As has been said previously climbing walls are commercial ventures and they are continuing to evolve to maintain and increase their customers and income. We are seeing an increase in auto-belays and clip and climb taking indoor climbing further and further from outdoor climbing.

Indoor climbing is a useful training aid for outdoor climbing, but so is the gym, running, cycling, swimming etc

In reply to Si dH:


Considerate of you! In the same spirit I think the reciprocal courtesy should be extended to some of our more conservative bearded readers..,

In reply to MG:


Sorry to disappoint - I started climbing at an indoor wall, which soon lead to climbing outside. This gave me an appreciation of nature and the mountain environment, and although it started off as a wet weather alternative to climbing, eventually I started hill-walking as an activity in itself. I know plenty of people who've followed a similar pathway, and without indoor climbing I doubt I'd ever have discovered rock climbing or hill-walking.

I'd say that the great majority of people I know who walk and climb started off climbing indoors. I know a few who started off the other way around, getting into walking first, but they are the minority.

In reply to Stravaig:


There may be other ways but they are being used by small numbers. Few clubs now train U16's. The figure of less than 200 in the last few years has been suggested to me by a Youth Co-ordinator. In comparison the NICAS scheme (delivered in Walls) has brought in over 110,00 in that period. Difficult to overstate the importance of this second group in comparison.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:


Hang on a minute, your post and several others on here seem to be misunderstanding the point I was making.

I never said that the BMC shouldn't represent indoor climbers and I completely agree with you that it would be great if young indoor climbers were encouraged to get outdoors and have some adventures. All this can still happen if the BMC continues with its excellent policy of promoting progression from the wall to the crag.

And I haven't disparaged competition climbing either - its a perfectly valid and, I'm sure, very enjoyable sport for those who are in to it.

But the point I was actually making was that there is absolutely no need for the BMC to take on the role of National Governing Body for competition climbers. Competition climbing is an increasingly commercial, high profile, 'glitzy' activity (thank you MG for the perfect little video clip illustrating this) which does not really have much in common with mainstream climbing and is something which the majority of BMC members have little interest in. So why should it now become such a core activity for the BMC? - it's listed as one of the organisations key roles on the first page of the summary of their organisational review and the BMC is about to fix its role as Governing Body for competitions in its actual Memoranda and Articles of Association! And all this without ever actually asking the membership if this is what they actually want.

In the past competition climbers have used the BMC as a source of support (officer time and effort) and funding when none was available elsewhere and I don't suppose you can really blame them for this - even though it may well have been on the back of members subs. But now the Government is likely to be weighing in with funding to support Team GB and their Olympic effort isn't it time they took themselves off with their cash and allowed the BMC to go back to representing their core members and the things that actually interest them?

In reply to duchessofmalfi:


Really? Are you sure about that?

In reply to colin struthers:


C'mon Colin. Play fair From discussion tonight it should be apparent that there 'might' be some UKSport funding available for medal hopefuls as individuals (and not that many, maybe only one) but funding for 'Team GB' is a long way down the line.

Does the idea of a subsidiary organisation acting as 'Governing Body' but ultimately responsible to the BMC not float your boat at all?

In reply to Removed User:

The BMC doesn't just represent climbing, it also represents hill walking and mountaineering and climbing walls are doing little if anything to get young people out on the hills, whereas schools, the scouts and other youth organisations are getting 100's of thousands of young people out into the hills, many of which are disadvantaged.

One of the problems with the climbing wall route is that it is favours the financially better off - families who can afford to drive their children to the climbing wall and pay the centre fees.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

p46 - this interest will increase as the 2020 Olympics showcase the three climbing disciplines.

I would like to see the survey as an appendix, in the interests of transparency

Would also like to see the 'core values' as part of this process not after, personally think fundamental reasons we climb such as 'freedom', 'adventure' and dare I say 'fun' need to be at the top and guiding all this

Also concerned how much the proposed increased governance structure is going to cost and whether it is worth it.

It's obviously been a lot of work and does go someway towards addressing rifts. Have a bit more faith that we (all climbers) are being considered than before

In reply to trouserburp:

I suppose a quick answer to one part of your post; the cost is worth it because its is necessary. Not a nice to have, but necessary. And its a changed structure, not necessarily increased. I cant see the overall cost attributable to governance increasing significantly though.

In reply to trouserburp:


It's going on the BMC site ASAP! I've sent it to them

In reply to danm:


It's not disappointing but it is surprising. I think you are unusual.

In reply to Ian W:

I disagree. There are significant administrative cost implications in many of the recommendations and also some limitations on funding options.

Not a fault of the org review as there wasn't a requirement to cost the recommendations or even address finance in the terms of reference.

To my eyes the financial recommendations that are made are more aspirational than practical.

In reply to MG:
no, myself and five friends all did exactly the same thing., started climbing indoors then moved outdoors. But there was a two year time lag. The biggest thing holding us back from going outside was not really knowing how to make the move from indoor to outdoor

In reply to colin struthers:

Maybe if the BMC created a wholly owned subsidiary to Govern competition climbing, as this becomes more and more 'glitzy and commercial' there may be some good spin off, both financially and promotionally, for the BMC and it's objectives as a whole, and therefor, ultimately benefit all climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers. One has to speculate to accumulate!

In reply to pebbles:

You didn't know how to walk outside!?

In reply to MG:

some might say I dont even know how to walk inside!

In reply to johncook:


Recommendation 24... page 46

In reply to JR:

And already agreed internally before the review, but put on hold because of the review. Source - NC minutes late 2016.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:



There are many ways to skin a cat (allegedly, never tried it myself), but I still dont think a major cost increase overall is an absolute given. The costs attributable to governance itself may well increase, but I dont see why savings wont / cant be found elsewhere in admin as a result. And not just cutting other expenditure to balance the books; if the organisation as a whole is looked at, its not a given that there will be an increase.

Anyway, you used to be so optimistic and forward looking - have they worn you down so much?

In reply to pebbles:
I'll add myself and virtually everyone I've climbed with my own age to the list of people who went from climbing indoors to climbing outdoors. I'd skied and obviously I'd walked outside but it was a year or two after starting climbing indoors that I got into climbing outdoors and from there I started hillwalking regularly.

In reply to pebbles:


It's those bloody doors, isn't it. They just get in the way

(meant as a good natured joke rather than a snide attack upon your abilities!)

In reply to Lemony:

It was the indoor climbing>walking claim I was disputing. It seems unlikely to be common to me.

In reply to MG:
Off the top of my head I reckon I can name you 15-20 people who've gone down that path (so to speak), I can assure you it isn't rare at all.

edit: slight exaggeration, I reckon I can count 12.

In reply to Ian W:


Not sure about that Ian. Costs of administration are essentially separate from the costs of the governance structure. Indeed with new bodies like the Partners Assembly who need to be communicated with and serviced you may well see background admin. needs increase.

In reply to JR:

Why 'Members Assembly' rather than 'Council'? To me an 'assembly' is a pretty ad hoc getting together now and again. A 'Council' implies a formal role. I know it's a really minor, semantic point but unless we can unlock those details in the proposed timeframe we could have problems.

In reply to Andy Say:


We could call them "Soviets"

In reply to Andy Say:


p49

The National Council will be renamed the Members’ Assembly, be chaired by the President, have responsibility for holding the Board of Directors to account and have an important role in driving BMC policy and strategy. The Board of Directors will have to obtain the approval of, or consult with,
the Members’ Assembly for important management decisions.



p53

The Members’ Assembly plays an important role in
the BMC’s organisational commitment to diversity. To provide in uence on behalf of the members, it must also represent a diverse membership in its composition. A minimum of 30% of each gender should be represented on the Members’ Assembly to maintain gender diversity and the Members’ Assembly should work towards gender parity.
The Members’ Assembly shall appoint a person independent of the Members’ Assembly to act as secretary for the purpose of note taking and administration.
It is recommended that the Members’ Assembly should meet four times a year and a summary of each meeting should be published on the BMC website and circulated to Local Areas.

In reply to Andy Say:

In jest, but I wonder what the WAG thinks of that (Welsh Assembly)

In reply to Andy Say:

They talk about the glass ceiling, Andy, but the ####ers never tell you about the glass doors. It's shameful, I tell you, shameful.

In reply to Andy Say:

The National Council of the British Mountaineering Council was at least one use of the word "council" too many.
Quite happy that one of them is going, though possibly the wrong the one....

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

That all explains the intended function but completely evades my question! Why 'assembly' rather than 'council'?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Maybe a Management Committee instead?

But words ARE important. 'primacy', 'consultation', 'policy-making', 'accountability' all have a part to play!

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:





Purely binary gender identification? Contentious

In reply to Andy Say:


I wasn't evading your question I was quoting to show it was far from ad hoc and informal.

As for why "assembly" rather than "council" I can only guess they want to make it clear there is a fundamental change in the set up especially when the "C" in BMC is still Council

In reply to Andy Say:

No, I'm afraid it does not.

If, as I suspect, the majority of BMC members are uninterested in, or even uneasy, about competition climbing becoming a core element of the BMC's remit then it is not something that should be written into the organisations constitution (i.e. memorandum and articles of association)

Shipping it off to a wholly owned 'subsidiary' does not strikes me as anything other than a sleight of hand designed to deflect the legitimate criticism that the BMC, at the behest of vested interests, is embarking on a course that its members would not actually want.

Of course I could be totally wrong about what other BMC members feel about this…. but there is an obvious way to find out.

Instead of presenting all of the 51 proposals contained in the organisational review as a take it or leave it package (as I believe it is currently intended), the various elements of the report that logically hang together could be presented as separate items to be voted on by the whole membership.

So, for example, those who were not happy with the proposal to end the assumed sovereignty of the member based National Council and instead to give 'primacy' to an appointed Board of Directors would have the chance to reject this, if that was the majority view.

Similarly, those who don't want the BMC to be the permanent Governing Body for competition climbing would have an opportunity to express this view also.

Unfortunately I really do think that the BMC's relationship to competition climbing may not get fair consideration otherwise.

Indeed, I fear the debate at the AGM may well go something like this "its been too difficult to separate out the different elements of the report for separate consideration so members need to vote on it as a single proposal, oh and by the way, just remember that the report contains a lot of necessary and non contentious reform which we need, so if you vote against it just imagine the disruption and difficulty that you will cause"

And the actual issue of whether the BMC should be the Governing Body for competition climbing will have been neatly buried.

At the AGM I would like members to be give a simple choice. i.e.

A. Do you want the BMC to be the Governing Body for competition climbing and for this to be written into the organisation's memoranda and articles of association?

or

B. Do you want the BMC to support and assist competition climbers in setting up their own independent Governing Body and to develop a future relationship with this body that is amicable and constructive?

Would asking members this simple question really be so difficult to do?

I appreciate that I have gone on at some length about this issue, but I actually think the choice we make will have a major bearing on what kind of organisation the BMC becomes over the next 10 years.

So apologies to those I have bored and, if it turns out that I'm wrong and if a genuinely open vote of the whole membership does endorse the BMC's role as Governing Body for competition climbing, then yes I promise to forevermore STFU about it.

Cheers

Colin

In reply to colin struthers:

Indoor climbing and comp climbing tend to get conflated.

Indoor climbing is likely to be a beginners first introduction to the sport and many indoor climbers aren't especially interested in comp climbing.

Are you ok with the BMC being involved in representing indoor climbing? i.e. is it just being the de facto NGB for comp climbing that you take issue with (bearing in mind this has been the case since the 90's) ?

In reply to JR:
One thought here about the competition climbing element.
It is currently widely accepted in the UK that competition is for indoor climbing not outdoor and this is supported by the BMC.
If the BMC were to walk away from its involvement in indoor & competition climbing, might the new representative body of those aspects want to start competitions outdoors and come in conflict with the BMC and its current view?
This seems to me a good reason why the BMC should embrace indoor & competition climbing in order to influence it from the wider mountaineering perspective.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Yes, I think I explained in a previous post that, personally, I believe indoor climbers should continue to be represented by the BMC and that as many of them as possible should be encouraged to join the BMC

In reply to colin struthers:
Apologies. Just re-read your posts and you did say that.

From my point of view (as someone not especially excited by comps) it is obvious that many of the younger generation are very excited about this, and increasingly so. Comp climbing is likely to keep developing and for the BMC to remain relevant (horrid word) to younger generations then to continue supporting and championing and developing comp climbing seems like an obvious thing to do.

I appreciate your distaste for the glitz, glamour and commercialisation but times change.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

I think you are making a mistake in conflating indoor climbing with competition climbing. The BMC does, and in my opinion should continue to, represent indoor climbing. Relatively few of the tens of thousands of indoor climbers are involved in the competition circuit. Many of them are actual or potential outdoor climbers.

I don't think that there is any desire at all on the part of competition climbers to hold competitions on natural crags so such a conflict of interest is extremely unlikely.

But here is a conflict of interest that is perhaps more possible:

The BMC is a representative body, i.e. it speaks on behalf of climbers and their interests. There may be occasions in the future when the members of the BMC would want their organisation to question or challenge Government policy, possibly on environmental or public access grounds. In the past the organisation has been largely unfettered in doing so. Would that still be the case if the BMC became a larger organisation that was more heavily dependent on Government funding and commercial sponsorship because of the role it had taken on in respect of competition climbing?

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:


That statement just jumped out at me, like, why do indoor climbing need representing? What would that representing involve, and what would it try to achieve?

I can't see a use for a body representing people that goes to the swimming pool once a week, or people who go to the gym for a bit of a workout, or people that go to the club for a dance on Saturday nights for that matter. Can you give some examples of what 'representing indoor climbers' actually means in practice?

In reply to colin struthers:







I can't imagine that Sport England or UK Sport would even realise that we might be giving The Environment Agency or whoever a hard time, let alone threaten to withhold funding

In reply to colin struthers:

THe BMC don't currently represent indoor climbers. One of the recommendations is that as the National Representative Body for climbing, walking and mountaineering; they should.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:





i can put this one to bed here and now. The IFSC have as one of their basic "four pillars" that competitions should not take place on natural rock (as opposed to just outdoors). The BMC has always supported this view, and so it is safe to say that neither the BMC, nor any offshoot, subsidiary or other body involved in comps will ever have one in the UK on natural surfaces. Same goes for internatioonal comps organised / sanctioned by the IFSC. It would take a fundamental change in their core beliefs to change that. quite why people are so scared of the IFSC organising outdoor comps on natural rock is completely beyond me. IT AINT HAPPENING.
What we need to do is to pressurise the UIAA into taking the same stance. They have as recently as 2016 sanctioned, and provided prizes for outdoor comps held on natural rock. not comps as you would recognise them as part of the world cup for eg, but comps nevertheless.
This has been aired on other threads on here, and the paranoia about the intentions of the IFSC bewilders me. his isnt aimed solely at you Keith, but you put your head above the parapet a bit.
So to reiterate. Comps have no place on natural rock. This is basically the view of the international Governing body for comp climbing.
Ian W
Chair, BMC comps committee

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Championing equality, supporting youth and educating and providing opportunities to extend their interests outdoors if they wished. As well as provide discounts, liability cover and travel insurance of course

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Nice that you have such a benign view of civil servants, sports funding administrators and politicians. Did you get this from observing the conduct of Fifa, the IOC or the IAAF over recent years?

In reply to colin struthers:



THe governmrnt have a policy of reducing funding, so less of an issue in the (foreseeable) future.
In any case, UK Sport funding is purely to chase olympic medals. so VERY limited and VERY targeted.
And sport England funding is all about increasing participation and public health, and has been given to fulfil vertain specific projects, so has not put the BMC in conflict with the environment agency as a general rule. We would probably work with them to protect the environment anyway.

In reply to colin struthers:

None of whom are part of uk govt

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Can you try again without the blue sky thinking peel the onion synergizing? Please?

edit: Or to go into specifics. Lets say I'm going to the wall tomorrow. What diference would it make to me that the BMC is representing me vs the BMC not representing me. I pay a private company to use their facilities, i go in there, use their facilities, go home. What can the BMC add to that?

Supporting youth? Lets say i have a 12yo son who is coming to the wall tomorrow with me. How does the BMC representing him benefit him in practice?

Educating? What educating is needed indoors in addition to the basic skills already taught/provided in house by the (commercial private businesses) walls themselves?

I don't know, i just don't get it

In reply to colin struthers:

The BMC either has to be enthusiastic about indoor climbing and competition climbing or it needs to get out of the way and let somebody who is enthusiastic be the governing body.

Also, if the BMC wants a significant proportion of indoor climbers to join it needs to develop a service which is of sufficient benefit to indoor climbers that it justifies the subscription. A national discount scheme with selected partner climbing walls would be an obvious option.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Why indoor climbing AND competition climbing? These activities are not synonymous.

The BMC could continue to encourage indoor climbers to become members whilst, as you say, 'getting out of the way' and letting competition climbers develop their own governing body.

In reply to Mr Lopez:



The participation statement at the wall "... risk sport... etc." was produced by the BMC, as were the "check your knot" notices etc.


The BMC organises and runs the Youth Climbing Series, I'm not sure how many under 18s participate, but it's over 1000.


Who provides quality training for the coaches at your wall? (The MLTB actually, but they work very closely with the BMC, with BMC representation on their governing body.)

The above are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Thanks for that. So as it seemed, theres no much the BMC does/can do to represent me, as an adult wall user. There's no much it does/can do to support my fictitious youth, outside competitions, and the educating is done by a different organization, and that's in the form commercial services provided by 3rd party private businesses.

Not got issues with that, it just seemed like a bit of a lofty claim.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Yes - our current proposition is not as compelling for you than other types of climbers. However, if the ORG recommendations are approved in this respect then we have a mandate to develop our offering and representation of indoor-only climbers. This may lead to different categories of membership and reciprocal arrangements with other organisations. This is mentioned in the report:

p39

As the BMC looks to attract younger members, particularly from indoor climbing, it will need to consider how it can partner with organisations such as ABC, ABCTT and MTUK to create relevant membership packages that are tailored,
financially accessible, and perhaps non-voting in nature. These memberships need to have high relevance to potential new climbers and the partner organisation

In reply to colin struthers:

If the BMC doesn't present the report to the AGM in this way then members could table their own amendments. It only requires 20 members to get a motion onto the agenda.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

There are people who don't even climb or hillwalk anymore who stay BMC members as they care about the good work in access, conservation, safety etc, done to retain the future of activities they love(d). Just this week Mend our Mountains 2 was launched, with Parliamentary support, which includes planned work in most National Parks including the New Forest. As for indoors, the BMC are looking to improve what they provide, following member feedback, but you have 3rd party insurance, safety advice, training advice, competion support and member benefits....the member benefits usually more than pay for the subscription themselves (but the subscription funds the BMC work).

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:


Should the BMC be effectively promoting outdoor climbing and increasing the pressure on a limited resource of crags or should it focus on supporting those who have already made the choice to climb outdoors?


Those are synergies that are designed to boost membership, the question is should we be using them to promote growth merely for the sake of growth?

In reply to Mr Lopez:



The main scheme walls use is NIBAS (bouldering) and NICAS , run by the ABCTT. Over 110k young people have gone through the scheme in c. 10 years. The scheme operates (partly) through Sport England funding, and the BMC acts as the conduit for the funding application. Some of those that have gone through the scheme have gone on to compete, some have gone on to climb outdoors.

The BMC also has the fundamentals courses, in conjunction with MT: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/fundamentals-workshops

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Lobbying Parliament to get the law changed so that compensation claims have to take account of the risk of an activity. As happened in the early 2000's which ended up with the Compensation Act 2006. This was a result of insurance costs spiraling out of control in a way that threatened the existence of climbing walls.

In reply to timjones:




These are legitimate questions and were put to the stakeholders, partners and members (via the poll)as part of the ORG research.

The response was largely supportive of representing all types of climbers (including indoors) and hillwalkers as well as seeking to grow membership and promote responsible participation.

In reply to Mark Kemball:
Indoor climbing walls have a representative body which is already driving participation of youngster through their training trust and the NICAS scheme.

The posters are great advertising for the BMC but if the BMC hadn't provided them the walls or ABC would have done so to satisfy their insurers and the HSE.

And I'm sure the ABC would pick up the youth climbing series if the BMC ceased their involvement.

Climbing walls are commercial ventures and their owners are focused on increasing their income which means generally they will try to provide what their customers want. They even arrange discounts with the local retailers.

Local (outdoor) climbing clubs and members are also proactive at encouraging indoor climbers to try outdoor climbing, which if successful leads to club membership and therefore BMC membership. So Like others here I can't see what more the BMC has to offer and it worries me when they are making such a big deal about it.

In reply to Stravaig:

The ABC is not the representative body of indoor climbers. It is the trade body for it's member climbing walls. there is a significant difference.

Graeme, whose wall is an ABC Member

In reply to Stravaig:

The young are obviously the future. The evidence is that indoor climbing is the first experience the young will have of climbing for the vast majority today. To ignore the young commits the organisation to an increasingly aging demographic and decreasing relevance to the climbing population.

These points and more as to why it is such a big deal are covered on pages 34-35 https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20ORG%20Review%20Full%20Report.pdf

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:



Thanks for the reply and apologies for asking here rather than making it to one of the meetings.

One of the things that I have found best with reviews in other organisations has been the publication of the old MA&A/constitution with proposed edits highlighted and the aims of the edits explained alongside. It really helps to highlight whether change is necessary ir whether there is merely a failure to operate within or apply to current ruleset.

Is there any plan to produce something similar here?

I'm struggling to see how the proposed changes would prevent a repeat of the issues such as the rebranding debacle or the ability for companies to buy "BMC recommended supplier" status etc.

In short is the current structure wrong or have Council and Exec failed to provide the level of transparency and scrutiny that it requires?

In reply to timjones:

The legal feedback on the current MA&A/constitution is given clause by clause from pages 71-74.

Following the post report consultation (area meetings, emails, memeber polls, focus groups) the law firm will draw up a new set of articles which will go to memebr vote at the AGM which requires a 75%+ majority.

Not all the recommendations are necessarily constitutional.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:



Is there any evidence to support the theory that choosing not to promote greater engagement with indoor climbing will alter the demographic?

I would suspect that the expansion of the climbing wall industry will fuel a rise in outdoor participation without any need for the BMC to alter it's core focus.

In reply to timjones:

Can I just make it clear that the Review is independent of staff/the office and I am not representing the ORG in any of my comments. I'm just trying to make sense of the implications myself, pass on my own views and be helpful given that I am currently examining the report more than most.

In reply to JR:

The ORG member consultation survey is now live. 65k emails have gone out this morning from the BMC. You'll have a link in the email which will verify you as a member (please don't share your unique link, as you can only complete once per member). Using that link also avoids you having to input your membership details. However if you haven't got the email, you can complete this version with additional member verification:

https://www.warpsurveys.com/bmc2?id=sm213&s=1

Just to be clear, the BMC or ORG won't know who has completed. The datasets will be split after verification you are a member, and there is verification that you have completed only once.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:




That's not what I'm suggesting.

It would be nice to have the old MA&A/constitution with proposed edits highlighted and explained in a single document so that we can easily check it out for ourselves. What we have at present is someone elses opinion on "article x" and we then have to switch to another document to check out "article X" before repaeting the process for articles y and z ;(

In reply to timjones:


The full stats arent up yet from the poll but it was noted (p24) that "There are higher levels of dissatisfaction with the
activity of the BMC .......in its support to encourage the participation of young people (under 25)"

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:


Don't worry, your answers are appreciated and not taken as any form of "official line".

In reply to timjones:



As I understand it the proposed edits will be produced after the feedback from the consultation.

That's the way it should be yes? Otherwise it is presented as a fait accompli which it certainly isnt.

I'm sure they will present the changes in as clear a way as is possible for a legal document. I have no idea what that format will be. You could suggest your ideas as part of the consultation feedback.

In reply to Mark Kemball:


There is a delicious irony there in that at the next BMC National Council a request from MTE to reduce the number of BMC reps on its Board / Council will be discussed

In reply to JR:

The BMC should be seeking to represent all climbers in every discipline. That should certainly include indoor climbers, not only as an activity in its own right but because it is a gateway into climbing which may then lead them into the other disciplines.

If the BMC currently doesn't offer much to indoor climbers then that needs to change, and the review proposes to do something about this. The mistake of the failed rebranding was to try to reach indoor climbers without considering the impact it would have on the existing membership in other disciplines, but that has now been recognised.

Competition climbing is also part of climbing and it would seem very odd to me for the BMC to deliberately want to have nothing to do with it. There are of course concerns about commercialisation but surely it's better to have competition climbing inside the tent rather than outside and doing the proverbial...? Separating the proposed governing body from the wider representative one makes sense. Commercialisation affects all climbing disciplines at the highest levels, not just competitions.

In reply to timjones:


Good question. I made the point at our area meeting that I am uncomfortable with the suggestion that the BMC has been operating illegally for over 25 years. It might be more accurate to say we don't don't fit current norms of good practice and governance where a Board of Directors with overriding powers is usual.

In reply to colin struthers:

The thing is, it's not about sitting back and waiting for a proposal at the AGM, the time you're being consulted is NOW (and then later at the AGM, again, on whatever revised proposals they come up with based on this consultation period).

From the OP, first paragraph:
"...it’s critical that members do read it, and get involved in the consultation."

Did you reply to the member survey? Will you respond to the proposals at an area meeting or online? If any other methods currently or about to be in place for collecting members' views somehow evade you, will you write in to the BMC with your opinion?

I really don't see how they could be very much more open in asking for input at this stage, so I do feel that anyone who's silent until the AGM and then complains that they weren't asked is really missing out.

In reply to Andy Say:

The answer is simple: the current structure is wrong. It's a legacy issue that goes back 20+ years to when the current M&AA were drafted as a legal fudge in what seems to have been an attempt to placate those who did not want to decision making power to be taken away from the National Council whilst at the same time recognising that the BMC could not continue to operate as an unincorporated club.


The problem is more insideous than that. How can an organisation make good decisions when its own rules say it has to be made by one group of people and the law says that a different group of people is legally responsible for that decision?

In reply to kamala:






Having tried to reply to the survey I'm on the verge of emailing the BMC directly to suggest that they need to pull this survey and write a better one.

It is extremely clumsy to bracket the inclusion of indoor climbing with transparency and scrutiny or a review of target members with development of digital strategy.

There is not a single question that can realistically be answered using the support/no opinion/not support clickboxes.

If the original survey was equally clumsy then the entire review has been flawed from the outset.

In reply to timjones:

I’m told there have been a good number of completions already.

Send your concerns to me via the forum email Tim and/or fill in the open questions attached to each section.

In reply to timjones:

If you’re broadly opposed (or in support) to the headline recommendation category overall, that’s fine. Please clarify why in the open question that follows it. There needs to be a balance of complexity and ease of use, which is what the researchers designed for us. If you’re opposed, or in favour, tell us why. We want to know.

If we had 51+ questions, one for each recommendation, then completion rates would likely be very low.

I’m not privy to any interim results, but I know that completion is going well, many are engaging with it and completing the questions. All the views will be analysed, and any key trends, in support or opposition, brought out from the open questions will be reported. We’ll report back in due course and if the ORG has to change recommendation as a result, we will.

In reply to RupertD:


Well it was actually called the "Management Committee' until 2003ish which does imply a certain amount of power


Non sequitur? Of course it can make 'good decisions: and delegate implementation of those decisions. And my understanding of the proposed 'matters reserved' to the 'Members Assembly' is that in some ways that situation will be retained?

In reply to JR:

Do you know if the 'open response' boxes will influence the statistical results quoted: and did they on the original survey?
I guess some wariness is around whether a written answer will provide interesting background but not affect a headline '75% of members think....:.

The (previous, online) Membership Research Survey results which formed "the backbone to the ORG report" is now up:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20Organisational%20Review%20Member...

In reply to Andy Say:

You're right, it can still make good decisions despite the current structure. But any organisation is less likely to make good decisions when those legally responsible for the decisions are not making them. As a passing thought, it may also impact on the director's liability insurance cover. Delegating implementation doesn't solve the problem if the initial decision was poor. However, by and large there's little serious fallout from any poor decisions taken by the National Council, which is why the current system has been used for 20+ years without significant issue and why none of the members of the exec have been sued for a decision taken by the National Council. But that could happen under the current system so it needs changing.

In reply to Andy Say:

The open questions were analysed by 2020 and any trends brought out, yes.

Here's the link on the BMC site to the 2020 Member Survey Report: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20Organisational%20Review%20Member...

The same will happen here in the consultation survey, absolutely.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Your link gives me the Lakes Area Meeting!

In reply to Mark Kemball:


Whoops. Thanks. Now changed and is the same link as JR's above.

Information overload !

In reply to JR:




If it's ONLY about the headline points why are extra points included?

It would be significantly quicker to answer 51 questions than to answer this shambles and then type out the bits that you don't agree with and the results will have more veracity if you don't plant doubts in our minds from the outset.

Will the numbers supporting a greater focus on indoor climbing be adjusted to reflect those that support the headlines but indicate that they don't agree with the indoor climbing part in their written comments?

I'm really hoping that we haven't paid for "what the researchers designed for us" because it's not very impressive IMO

In reply to colin struthers:

Well thought out and stated post.
I have previously suggested that some issues are too big for just the management to decide but got howled down on this site
Incidentally I have been working with Rehan all summer and he told me that up to 80% of the proposals in the report were proposed or recommended by him
So how come it was him who resigned?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


I know that the ABC is not the representative body of indoor climbers. My point is that indoor climbers do not need the BMC to represent them as market forces will do that perfectly adequately as evidenced by the fact that the ABC through their training trust has introduced the NICAS scheme for youngsters to increase their incomes.

In reply to JR:

I've read the report which is very comprehensive and I agree with about 95% of it, and I've just completed the survey. Maybe its just me and surveys, but I found the survey a bit frustrating and a bit poorly designed. For example, on the question about my opinion on all 53 recommendations, having to say either: I oppose/no opinion/agree seems a bit black and white.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Thank you, I have read all 80 pages of the report.

My point is that the report does not make the case for indoor climbing being "such a big deal"

The report makes no mention of how the BMC is going to increase its appeal to the 2million or so hill walkers who are very under represented in the membership.

I accept the broad church approach and agree with the BMC being engaged with climbing wall climbers as they are at present but I and others here are sceptical whether increased support will have any benefit for the BMC and its objectives

In reply to timjones:

As no-one else has posted the link yet, the existing MAOA are here, obviously this doesn't have the potential edits for the future you suggest, but at least that's where it is now:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-memorandum-and-articles-of-association

In reply to Stravaig:


Indeed, and I rather doubt that setting itself up as the high profile governing body of competition climbing is going to increase the BMC's appeal to this constituency.

In reply to colin struthers:

Hill walking and low level scrambling are heavily promoted along with other mountain activities through Summit. Have you seen the latest front cover? The main headline is about skiing and the others are about innaccessible pinnacle, 'scramble snowdonia', 'sharpen up for winter', this ORG process, and - yhe closest relation to indoor walls(!) - an article about Pete Whittaker on El Cap.

In reply to colin struthers:

"High profile" - please explain why you think the BMC will be a high profile NGB. High profile to me means in the news all of the time. I can't see why the BMC will be in the news all of the time even if Shauna wins in Tokyo.

Maybe just say NGB of competition climbing instead of adding hyperbole.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Welcome to the BMC Pleasuredome! You have been lured in and I now look forward to some insightful comments on the competition issue from someone who knows about it.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Err, I have already added quite a few comments on this thread

Quite happy to answer questions on the ins and outs of comps! My insider knowledge of the BMC isn't quite what it was as I left the BMC over 10 years ago.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Point taken Graeme but I felt earlier posts were more factual and the 'High Profile' one was more of an opinion based post. I would like an opinion on whether you think Shauna, Molly & Will's chances of getting the right support to get to Tokyo & perform are improved if the BMC gets more involved as a Governing Body or is it irrelevant. I will respect your right to remain silent!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Fair point, but the fact that this won't do much to appeal to the 2million hill walkers who are potential BMC members still stands I think

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

A genuine question as you are better placed to know than most - why do competition climbers actually want to be within the umbrella of the BMC?

If I was involved in competitions I'm not sure I'd want to be.

In reply to JR:
Hi John,
The meeting last night seemed to be quite constructive and with a reasonable amount of grown up discussion, I'll try and get a report out to my local club via the newsletter if I haven't missed the deadline. There were a couple of other queries which I had in addition to the questions which I asked last night, I'll pass those onto you over the next few days once there's been some feedback from the committee.

For those who haven't had their area meetings yet but are interested I would strongly encourage you to go along, Ray and John were both very informative last night and took on board/ addressed people's concerns.

In reply to colin struthers:

Because... and this has been said many many times to you- They don’t just do competition climbing.
Take Shauna for example. Despite being world champ and (re)learning how to lead this year, every other post on her social media is of her going bouldering in the peak.
If comp climbing or indoor climbing in general isn’t represented by the bmc people won’t know what to do when they do eventually migrate outside. They’ll end up trying to do running double clutch dynos in trainers and ruining wet sandstone.... or something.

Hi

If you're interested, we filmed the launch of the report at Kendal, and that's now live:

youtube.com/watch?v=zIasTcd345M&

Alex.

In reply to timjones:


The actual "changed" articles haven't been written yet. That won't be done until after this round of feedback, but your suggestion is no doubt a good one!

In reply to JR:

What are the proposed name changes that we are to vote on then?

In reply to subtle:

The WGNGBCF

The Well Governed but Non Governing (excepting Competition Climbing) British(ish) Climbing Federation

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:



Its not very catchy is it?

Since the BMC encompasses all subsets of climbing then, oh, I dunno, what about something snappy and catch - like, say, CLIMB BRITAIN? Yeh, that would work.

In reply to subtle:



you could add a strapline "and hill walkers" but in a very small font

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

The British Union: Mountaineers, Climbers (Recreational And Competition)

In reply to Andy Say:

i.e. the BUM CRAC.

Who says we can't have catchy?

Mick

In reply to rocksol:

He resigned as the work required for the BMC, that started to peak in the MoNC period, was well in excess of what he could continue to meet given his business and family circumstances and because he was being faced by what amounted to hate mail in an area where he was volunterring out of love. The problem of the MoNC was never the real contention in the issues involved, it was the dirty method and the dishonesty of how it was done, and Rehan took the full brunt of that (and is probably too honorable to ever give full details)

Those watching carefully always expected his views to be mirrored in the ORG reports as he is as well intentioned and as well informed as anyone on what the members and focus groups were likley to say and the potential recommendations that could arise from that.

In reply to Offwidth:

You're not telling me anything I don't already know

In reply to Mick Ward:

Thought you'd go for that, Mick

In reply to colin struthers:


The solution is clear. This is obviously an issue that you feel strongly about, Colin (no sarcasm intended). You need to get a group of like-minded members together, from memory about 30 does the trick and submit a motion to the AGM. 'This house believes that the BMC should divest itself of responsibility for, and governance of, climbing competitions'. You can then let democracy take its course rather than worrying about why the BMC doesn't present you with such a vote. Whilst you are doing that there will be more bandwidth to discuss the broader governance issues?

In reply to Andy Say:


Yes, that's a fair point.

I would like to have an conversation with others who broadly share my views re the BMC's relationship to competition climbing. And I would then like to agree a motion and supporting argument that could be presented to the forthcoming AGM. So if that's of interest please email me through my profile.

Thanks

Colin

In reply to JR:

Here's a short blog summarising the 51 recommendations that we've made about the BMC, and what happens next, including the slide deck used at local area meetings. The grand local area meeting tour of England and Wales is over!

https://johnroberts.me/outdoors/climbing/2017/12/changing-the-british-mount...

Slide Deck: https://www.slideshare.net/JohnRoberts24/bmc-independent-organisational-rev...

And let us know what you think by filling in the consultation survey: https://www.warpsurveys.com/bmc2?id=sm210&s=1

Also, you can email the ORG: org@thebmc.co.uk

Is it time to go climbing again? Yes! See you all at the crag...

In reply to colin struthers:


Didnt see this post until now;

The answer is two fold; bcause at the present time, being part of the BMC is more advantageous than setting up another representative body / NGB, and because we would all want to join the bmc anyway for other access / training / conservation etc reasons, as we all climb outdoors anyway.
Its a bit of a self fulfilling thing anyway; you arent involved in comps, and so your perceptions and opinions arent based on hving all the necessary info. If you were involved, I'm sure your view would be different.

In reply to JR:

My perspective if that I've been on the climbing scene for over 40 years, member of the CC, go to a wall once or twice a week and still believe that the activities of rock climbing, mountaineering and hill walking have something special to offer people that participate - I have also done quite a lot of business process consultation so I read the summary report with interest.

I agree that the BMC needs a vision and a set of values - for me that is what is missing - this report (albeit from reading the summary only) seems to be a recipe of what is needed in the future to form an effective policy - it does not yet have a vision or espouse a set of values (although some examples are given).

For me - the content of these two areas are so vitally important that they should be in the report - once three directors and the HR department have been established and the values and vision are devolved to them its too late for the membership to fundamentally affect them.

Vision and values are about creating common purpose - helping to answer "what are we here to do" - surely the members need to be involved now and the new management team have to work out how to make this happen?

The following statement in the report is obvious:

Climbing is now an Olympic sport, and indoor climbing is booming as an industry as well as an introductory pathway for new climbers seeking to take their participation outdoors

And here you have it - significant commercial interests and the pathway idea - noble, aspirational and probably worthy - but what are the volumes of people who want to take advantage of this transition?

so it would seem to deliver the above (as well as land management / policy / technical / lobbying) will require an org that has core charity type skills as well as the commercial skills and attitudes needed to capitalise on the booming indoor industry and the Olympics. I don't mind if the BMC has a division to make some money from the commercial sector as long as there is another that is deemed more important that drives an ambition to make our sport healthier, happier, more inclusive, fun, promotes adventure and promotes dare I say a British style of outdoor performance and stewardship .

my brief and painful experience of working for a charity trying to manage commercial and non commercial aspirations is that the two sit very uncomfortably together

Overall I'd like to see the vision and the value at least in draft format - if these already exist please forgive me

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

>


REALLY ? That is astounding..............rough estimates / affordability of the new staffing structure / need to capitalise on the booming indoor industry - surely some estimate of affordability is needed - otherwise we might get a strategy that is simply not implementable ?

In reply to kettlebell:







If you go to the full report and skip to pages 32 and 33 you should be reassured

In reply to kettlebell:






I asked Fiona Sanders (of the ORG) about this at our area meeting. Her view (as I understand it) was that once the recommendations are finalised and if they are accepted by the 2018 AGM, then the BMC would organise a wide consultation to decide on the vision, which would then be adopted at the 2019 AGM.

In reply to JR:

Tune in on BMC Facebook tomorrow at 1300 for a live QnA with Grimer, Ray Wigglesworth QC and I about the ORG - fire away!

https://www.facebook.com/BritishMountaineeringCouncil