UKC

Despite my devil-may-care, laugh-a-minute, playboy image I do actually care deeply about the BMC. Honest.

The proposals included in the Organisational Review Group's report (see what I did there? I didn't use an acronym!) seek to increase democracy in the BMC by diminishing the role of the current National Assembly of Area Reps (to be re-titled the Members Council) and increasing engagement with the ordinary member online and through directly elected Member Representatives. There will also be a 'Partners Assembly' created to create a voice for other organisations (and they will have a Director on the Board). The 'Board of Directors' will have enhanced powers to direct the business of the BMC subject to some scrutiny by the 'Members'.

I've desperately simplified but, for me, this is the area that is the crux of the matter (see what I did there? Used a climbing term!) and although I understand that there are many other issues contained within the report I think that members need to debate this issue. It is a shame that such online debate has to be through UKC (no slight intended to UKC!) as the BMC Community http://community.thebmc.co.uk is pretty shameful and has no meaningful ability to discuss this issue.

So I would like to hear opinions about the broader sweep of the recommendations. What will happen to Areas? How is the Board held to account? What things can, and can't, the Board do without reference to the members? What influence will Partners play? Is the next AGM appropriate for a decision on this? How do we meaningfully contribute to discussion and cause amendment and consensus before a binding vote?

And if, on this thread, anyone mentions 'competitions' I will come and pee through their letterbox. I mean it.

In reply to Andy Say:

Hi Andy, this is Niall posting on Graeme's log in.
So what's this climbing competitions discussion all about?
Cheers Grimer

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

You'd better lock your letterbox, bum!

In reply to Andy Say:

Well you started it!

In reply to Andy Say:

C'mon folks. This IS important if you are interested in how the BMC is run. I do realise that for many this is a turn off. But it's NOT about competitions!

In reply to john arran:

John (and Graeme),
Maybe I did myself no favours by trying to start this in 'light' mode with no three letter acronyms and gobbledebollocks. Maybe I should start a new thread that is really intense and serious? But people DO need to get engaged because apart from the new survey and area meetings and 'phoning a friend' at the office there is nowhere else to kick this about other than here.
And I think it's an important thing.

In reply to Andy Say:


You're right, this is really important, I've now managed to read the whole report and we'll be discussing it at the SW area meeting tomorrow. Hopefully after that I'll be able to make constructive criticism, meanwhile, first impressions are very positive and I think, possibly with a little tweaking of the recommendations, this is the way forwards.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Agree too. I'm frustrated by people focusing on the competition aspect, which I viee as a very minor issue. I'm in favour of what the recommendations say on governance at the moment, but I do think Andy Say's questions should be answered before a vote.