UKC

https://chng.it/WRLdt7wGJ2

First of all a big thank you to everyone who has signed the above so far. 🙏🏻 Please share.

These are the first member led resolution since the articles were changed which raised the requirement of supporting signatories from a threshold of 30 to a current 380! 

Whilst direct member democracy might be (overly!) difficult this campaign is proving it is not impossible. 

The current tally on the online petitions is 370 signatures for disclosure of finances and 320 for ringfencing GBClimbing by separating it off into a subsidiary body. 

This is an amazing show of approval when you consider that only about 600 members voted on resolutions at the last AGM*. 

All that is now needed is a final push to get it over the line so please sign the petition if you want the whole of the membership to have the opportunity to decide on the direction of the BMC at the upcoming online AGM on June 12th. 

To bullet point some key reasons to vote to separate GB Climbing:

- To legally ringfence GB Climbing and it’s finances to help protect the BMC’s traditional activities such as Access

- To create a structure and route whereby GBClimbing is no longer subsidised by the BMC

- To introduce full legal accountability for the governance, operations and finances with the subsidiary GB Climbing Board

- To facilitate better and faster decision making within GBClimbing by a Board comprised of members who are knowledgable about competition climbing 

- To instil the financial discipline within GBClimbing of operating within the constraints of its own bank account encouraging it to develop ways of generating third party income 

- To create a divide between the representational and governing aspects of the BMC 

Since I have last posted the threshold of signatories required has been confirmed by the Company Secretary at 380.

Examination of the clauses has revealed that the Articles are quite frankly a dogs dinner with many ambiguous or unclear clauses yet are silent on other key things. 

Amusingly I’m told that it has only just recently been realised that member generated resolutions are the only described way to include resolutions at the AGM!  The articles do not allow for either Members Council or even the Board to include resolutions. Obviously they have done so even though technically it is not allowed.

Members Council have discussed some of the things that were unclear in relation to my resolutions and Jonathan White speaking on their behalf has said the following on BMC Watch:

“Members Council discussed the process for Simon’s motion at our meeting on Tuesday night. In summary:

- This is the first time that anyone has brought a motion from the membership since the 2018 Articles came in, so as we don’t have a tried and tested method of administering that we’ll need to work our way through it pragmatically.

- If the BMC office has a preferred approach to make administration easier for themselves, then Simon should be given whatever assistance that we can give to use that.

- That in Council and beyond, there’s full support for Simon’s right to bring a motion, and recognition that he has a sufficiently high level of support (i.e. we shouldn’t get hung up on absolute numbers, not least because the BMC’s hasn’t published precisely how many voting members it has as the basis for the calculation, but more because that clause was about ensuring that there is a high level of support for any motion, and there is clearly a high level of support.

- That in Council and beyond, there’s a very high level of sympathy for Simon’s request for more transparency and for the costs of competitions to be firmly ‘ringfenced’. The real debate will be on how we do that, not if.

A function of the BMC as a Council is to be a forum for debates between members, and in that ‘the organisation’ should be neutral independents facilitating the debate, and then actively supporting the implementation of whatever is decided.

I’ve sent the Company Secretary the downloadable info available (name + location) from the Change petitions to see how they might cross check against the membership database. 

I also made the points that Members Council did not agree with an either/or (but not both) interpretation of progressing member resolutions or that the articles support the webform route and that the info from Change was more verifiable than would be gleaned from a physically signed resolution that is also allowed by the Articles. I also confirmed that if he felt that  further verification was required I would be happy for him to send out a bulk email to the identified members saying “It has come to our attention that you have been identified as supporting a BMC resolution through Change.Org. If this is not you please get in touch with the office”. 

Think that’s about it. 
 

Simon

* https://www.thebmc.co.uk/results-of-the-bmc-agm-2023

You'd think it'd be easier at this point for them to just publish the f****** accounts

I’m not sure what you mean. You do appreciate that the historically adopted form for the annual accounts or annual report does not provide a full breakdown of how grant income is spent or the whole cost of GB Climbing? 

That was the stated intention to Council three weeks ago.

The first motion is 'apple pie' but it should be overtaken by events. If all members are not given more financial openess soon I shudder to think what will happen. The latest open meeting was reported to be a welcome change but we need an official press release at least. Our full membership need access to this information not just those who visit open forums (where registration and motivation problems are still clear issues).

As for the second motion please do not support it: the change will add extra cost and disruption to the BMC for no gain (financial risks will be similar and other risks will increase) and slightly higher ongoing BMC contributions (because of admin and governance duplication) and a diluted influence of Council (the full membership's main route of holding the Board to account will largely be taken by the subsidiary governance routes for elite comps). Even an AGM debate takes time away from discussion of other much more pressing serious issues, where members have a right to ask searching questions. I see no signs the second motion will gain majority support from Council, although Simon's right to democracy very much is supported. Higher costs to set up and run a subsidiary will come partly from higher subs increases than otherwise required,. The latest bad news on third party insurance costs already add a lot of pressure to the 2024 decision on subs for 2025.

Council still urge resolving stakeholder concerns in GB Climbing as soon as possible. I personally think full international quotas should be filled, given costs are met by athletes and parents.  Council support the promised better financial control in the department (that meets the original ringfence promise).

Think you’re being a bit pedantic. What I think the poster meant, and we would all very much like so this could all be resolved, is if they could publish the spending of GBC in 2022 and 2023 in a way that normal people could understand so we could see where member and taxpayer money has been going eg amount on travel, staff, accommodation, competitions, unit E, setting etc

Sorry. Publishing the accounts only means the published statutory accounts to me. Genuinely didn’t know what the poster meant. 

Just to be clear that when you say ‘please do not support the motion’ that you are not seeking to dissuade members from signing the petition which only seeks to have the motion placed on the agenda so the membership have an opportunity to have a say in how the organisation is run.

No, you know full well I don't even want it debated as there are too many other important issues and I feel it's certain to lose with nothing to learn from the debate other than what we already know. You have a right for it to be there if it makes the cut but the debate was had in 2018 and was lost for good reasons back then. Change  to a subsidiary now would be much mire expensive in itself and less ideal than a department for the same reasons it was seen to be in 2018. I congratulate you on your political effectiveness but you are selling an expensive substandard solution. All we need to do is apply what we were promised.

You do realise that such phrasing has normally been coming out of the mouths of the current Government and associated organisations. Take care, you're turning to the (dark) blue side.

That’s not correct as it was an ORG report recommendation and then later put to the Board by Rab (in 2019?) as an option and only defeated by 6 votes to 7 (I gather) in favour of the internal ringfenced solution. 

As a National Councillor for Outdoor Rock Climbing you are diametrically opposing and undermining the views of a sizeable politically active portion of your constituency by not wanting it to even be debated! 

Yeah, I mean for them to release what they're pretty much certain to be compelled by the AGM to release.

Yes I understand now thanks to Pushing50. I have suggested to three Board members in separate conversations now that they but only have to release a public statement committing to meet the content of the proposed disclosure resolution for it to be shelved.

I'd say it's progressive to ignore rhetorical sales messages to members that a subsidiary will reduce membership cost and risk, that according to most who know such change processes say will increase costs and risk. It sort of reminds me of the tory rhetoric used to convince the public it was good to denationalise rail and utilities. No one other than Simon has posted detailed arguments for this subsidiary, plenty have pointed out simlar to what I do.

There were 12 Board members at most (not 13) and they have Board collective responsibility on any majority decision. The Organisational Review Group (ORG) wasn't strickly speaking democratic, it was a smallish expert working group that took wider evidence and made recommendations but without costings and other factors (including partner implications) which related to implementation. After that the recommendations went to the Organisational Development Group (ODG) which then had various working groups with specific expertise for the areas under consideration and access to wider evidence. ODG recommended implementation actions to the Board and, where agreed, these were ratified at Council (democratic reps of members) and then ratified democratically again by members on AGM votes. 

As a representative on Council my duty is to listen to all sides of my constituency and look at other evidence and speak for what I feel is right for the BMC. It just happens to seems to me to be a clear majority of members who have expressed opinions (including some pretty compelling the expert advice) that a department is a better choice than your hopeful rhetoric.

It was already debated, and you were clear you were against the choice made by ODG, Board and subsequently AGM. A change now to your subsidary position adds even more cost and risk on top of the original reasons ODG chose a department.

We actually agree on some factors; in particular we were promised an effective ringfence on departmental spending and in that context what happened is highly disappointing. A significant minority want the BMC to have nothing to do with elite comps but they lost votes on that position in the 2018 options debate.  I still think it’s important to keep costs under control to reassure them that the BMC isn't being irresponsible.

Curse you - you’ve made me wade through old Board minutes.

I was told by someone who was a Board Member at the time that it is was 6 votes to 7 for an internal ringfenced department. The Board minutes don’t record how the voting went just whether it was agreed or not agreed. My informal conversations with Rab at the time was that he presented options (looks like 3 from the minutes) but one was definitely a subsidiary (“The Board agreed that Option 3 – a joint subsidiary – should be rejected”) which accords with what Rab told me. 

The option that was selected (the Board agreed to progress new arrangements based on an internal department but with the same formality and robustness of arrangements as if a subsidiary was being set up)and typically of the BMC was never implemented. I predicted this outcome at the time and I suspect you did too.

November 2019 Board minutes: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1872

Maybe it was 5 to 6 

I first argued about this with you around that time

Just read those minutes again (that I'm familiar with). The department option (1) was clearly recommended and the only persons in the  minutes potentially supporting the subsidiary were FS and MB (who both somehow forgot to mention a C.O.I. on that debate as members of ORG, who made the subsidiary recommendation). Irrespective, we have this:

..and then this:

I disagree that nothing was then done. Jonathan has been clear it was being set up that way (ringfenced in a sensible way). Something went wrong with ringfencing after Jonathan left the Board in 2022.

The point I was addressing is that you said “the debate was had in 2018 and was lost for good reasons” and yet the subsidiary option was still being debated at a Board meeting in November 2019 and the internal department option was voted through. Rab said to me that having the internal department set up as if it was a subsidiary was a way of preparing it to potentially becoming an actual subsidiary. That preparation never happened; hopefully it will now.

Maybe you personally had drawn a line under it but that doesn’t mean everyone else had.

The model voted on has failed and failed catastrophically and therefore it makes sense to revisit the alternative model.

Your faith in the BMC being able to reform itself internally flies in the face of everything that has happened - suppressed reports, labelling whistleblowers as conspiracy theorists, platitudes about the finances being ‘fundamentally ok’, reports ignored, voices ignored, arrogance, governance rules ignored, little in the way openness, transparency, accountability or personal responsibility etc etc

I have faith that the membership can see what you can’t which is that the BMC can’t reform itself and that an intervention is required.
 

I apologise. That particular mention of 2018 was a typo, its obvious the debate had been in 2019. You'll notice too many typos in my posts, my eyesight isn't what it was. 2018 was the Options debate.

Rab said that having an internal department set up as if it was a subsidiary was a way of preparing it to potentially becoming an actual subsidiary if that proved necessary.

Calling a car faulty and going for a more expensive model because a driver crashed it and failed  to follow proper maintenance is just foolish. The model didn't fail catastrophically it was in part mismanaged wrt the defined form (especially on nominal ringfenced funding) with inappropriate governance response.  Partly, it seems, the governance problems arose because the CCPG were not fulfilling some of their defined role until Paul R became chair in autumn 2022, partly as the Board were unaware of some issues until late 2022 and most shamefullly as Council had to force involvement, having found out from parents and athletes, in (ie  kept out of the loop until) March 2023. Various people problems in not following our governance arrangements, NOT a governance structure problem.

You've linked the Board minutes (which always proved my point), where the Board's decision on a department was very clear, despite four members of the ORG review (who had earlier recommended a subsidiary) being involved in the Board decision and the two chairs of the Implementation group (ODG) both being ORG members.

No one is arguing the BMC hasn't had problems but you regularly overblow those. On that subject I'm not aware of any whistle blower being labelled a conspiracy theorist. Sure I'm defensive, where that's due (otherwise we risk unnecessary damage in fixing the wrong problems), but you fail to mention we agree ringfencing failed, financial openness being inadequate and stakeholder concerns being urgent (something I'd much rather be focussed on than your second motion)

I accept your point about the unanimous vote on the Sept 2019 Board meeting. It was not what I was told. I suspect the Director who told me was confusing it with the preceding vote on the subject that was evenly split.

On a more general point I really think you should think more carefully about your role on Members Council and the role of Members Council when you say things like “you know full well I don't even want it debated”

To re-quote part of Jonathan’s summary of Tuesday nights MC meeting: “A function of the BMC as a Council is to be a forum for debates between members, and in that ‘the organisation’ should be neutral independents facilitating the debate”

This doesn’t just apply just to you but also to for example who Chairs the AGM and how neutral and independent they might be with respect to their own conflicts of interests of declared biases on the subjects and personal reputation protecting.

The solution is easy... stop publicly posting such communications without always being clear they have been leaked to you but are not formally confirmed by the organisation.

Jonathan is referring to the BMC staff effectively acting as civil servants would. In my opinion Council should be free to speak their mind after viewing evidence and accounting for all sides of the debate. Of course providing they do that under our rules (wrt some necessary confidentiality etc). The Board should put forward positions in the best interest of the company as a membership organisation. They are not neutral.

I know you are unhappy with various issues on rules around the AGM chair. You've even made claims before that a Chair voted the wrong way (despite the candidate you supported pretty clearly coming bottom on membership votes). I think the current position is a workable compromise for a membership organisation but whoever handles proxy votes, I think they should act in the best interests of the company, on behalf of the membership. I'd urge members to direct proxy votes where possible, rather than leaving them up to the chair to decide. A chair who spits proxy votes to avoid influencing a vote is taking a risk in contentious situations as technically that is destroying votes and could potentially lead to legal action from a member.

I'd strongly argue the best interests of the company do not include chasing a needless and expensive governance change in a time of serious financial difficulty and pressed staff capacity. However, I certainly won't be AGM chair.

If you’re a young man who’s devoted over a decade of their life to achieving international competition, beat the performance standard, and then still gets left out of the team which has spare places going, and sees an ongoing strategy that means they might as well give up, all because the BMC hasn’t got the ability or courage to get its act together w.r.t. to GBC, then I’m pretty sure that young man doesn’t think the BMC’s problems are overblown.

For anyone interested in what he’s referring to it’s all set out here:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/the_bmc_agm_2019_-_an_alternat...

You should be careful because your messages are not helping your argument and are alienating those who hold similar view points.

I'm not in favour of separation but I'm not in favour of keeping this under a bushel either. You give the impression of having a vested interest which undermines your commitment to a unified BMC and sows distrust. Keeping to this formula, the more vocal you become the better you make the case for the opposition.

I see your passion for the greater good but you are not coming across well in the face of clear and reasonable arguments. 

I can see the danger of discussing a split but I'd counter that the risk is wholesale destruction and a demise through irrelevance if it isn't brought into the open.

100% this. His arguments to stifle the debate have convinced me that it ought to be had.

Signed the petition this morning.

Thank you.

We’ve now cleared the threshold for the financial disclosure resolution. Just 36 more virtual signatures required for the subsidiary to be debated and put to the vote. All subject to verification by the Office of course..

Great news. I wonder if they'll realise they can't hide whatever it is they're trying to hide forever, and stop trying to hide it. Or will they hang on for a couple more months of hiding it in the hope it somehow goes away, when it's now been demonstrated that it won't.

Come on now. You're obviously going to have to tell us what you spent, so FFS just tell us what you spent.