UKC

The British Mountaineering Council has announced four resignations from the BMC Board in an update which cites 'issues' and 'concerns' with specific matters and behaviours within the Board as reasons for the stand downs.

Read more

Fascinating. Read the article and now absolutely none the wiser. Thanks

I’ve always been in favour of supporting the BMC but reading that load of drivel makes me feel otherwise. BMC - please pull back from this level of bullsht drivel. The people that pay your way get enough of this in the rest of the world. If I might make an analogy you are abseiling down on top of the next climber, you are bolting Grit, you are chipping wherever suits you Sir, using POF (sic), you crap behind a boulder below Cloggy, you desire a pole to stop people walking into Five Finger Gully and you, routinely, refer to the Peak as.....sorry can’t say it. Please stop.

Deep breath. Apologies all.

The BMC is so out of touch with reality these days its just irrelevant but too big and unwieldy now sadly to self right and return to what it was and should be. 

Crikey,

Corporate nonsense ain't in it.

This. If this is the BMC's idea of communication then good luck with the future. I appreciate that organisations don't really want to air their dirty laundry in public but this style of communication will just lead to speculation, conjecture and recriminations.

I’ve just read the whole article on the BMC website. 😟😔🤨😩😫😢😡☹️😞💩

Sounds like a job for Pett Bobigrew... 

Bring back Denis Grey, at least his bull was entertaining. 

Ditto. 

Completely useless statement. 

I don't think it would have been too hard to actually specify if the primary issues were policy related (either specific issues or overall strategy), whether it was more about differences in approach/personality or leadership style or if there was an irrevocable deadlock in decision making that was proving detrimental and needed to be resolved somehow. 

Seems a very strange half way house between not saying anything at all and providing a candid appraisal of the disagreements. 

If they're going to be transparent about the fact the board members have stepped down due to problems they feel warrant their departure then the BMC should be honest about what those director's views are. 

This contentless article is purely a waste of my time, I'd say it fuels speculation but the corporate speak is so disengaging that I don't actually care anymore. It sounds like they're being run badly at the moment and that's all I can take away from it. 

A BMC member.

So the organisational review still has a way to go, it appears.

Can I just point out that not seeking a second term is not the same as resigning. There has only been 3 resignations from a board that is, in my opinion, too big. Differences of opinions occur in every organisation and even today I heard that the caving association is in a similar predicament with their organisation so the BMC is not unique. 

Was someone shagging sheep again?  Because that's the impression this kind of statement implying something bad is going on without saying what it is gives.

What is it with the BMC these days. They seem to be more of a revolving door than than the Trump White House. And about as good at communicating the truth.

Steve (a BMC member)

Inevitable when an organisation is high jacked by a bunch of second rate do-gooders.

There is some more discussion about this here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2241207952632038

I'm concerned about the workload placed onto volunteers if that's being cited as a factor in 3 directors resigning and a fourth opting not to continue in their role.

I was aware of the Temporary Executive post being advertised. But a new post of 'Head of Operations and Development' is a surprise.  Is the BMC in danger of becoming a tad 'top-heavy'?

The waffle about Covid19 is an irrelavancy I feel. For me the serious alarm bell is the resignation of the BMC Director who is a company lawyer by trade.

And I'm also concerned about the ambiguities in the way this statement has been phrased. It would be all to easy to assume Directors had been pushed rather than jumped.

The organisation is run by people who feel it has value and choose to volunteer their time (with the exception of the staff who are on the whole very helpful and still clearly feel the organisation has value).

Rather than making a low effort comment insulting said volunteers you could instead do something constructive?

Is anyone going to bother telling the membership what the problem is, in a short, easily digestible, non-management speak statement? 

BMC Treasurer for 5 years, Finance Committee Member for 12 years, Mountain Training Trust Chair for 3 years, Mountain Heritage Trust Treasurer for 6 years.  Constructive enough?

Still as feisty as ever, eh David? 😉

Hope so!

I'd say the opposite, it's not exactly top heavy at the moment, there's a CEO and a Deputy CEO/HOD (Nick Colton). With Nick going to run the Comp Climbing Department (I believe), they need a HOD. I think a proper exec is needed for what is a pretty big organisation, I would say the Head of Operations and Development position is basically "Operations Director/COO" and that role is pretty essential to most organisations, whatever the label it's given.

As I said on the Facebook thread, some clarity on what happened and what is being done/will be done to ensure it doesn't happen again would go a long way.

That record makes insulting the volunteers seem even more odd to me but yes you have clearly made a constructive input to the organisation in the past.

I have no idea, I would like to know the answer to that one myself (I am just a bog standard volunteer on the tech committee with friends on NC etc so in much the same position as most other active BMC volunteers).

I didn't know about Nick moving: but would have thought there be be open recruitment for such a post.

But if that IS the case then the new post makes sense.

This was the press release I was thinking of:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/competition-climbing-performance-group-cccg

I assumed (maybe wrongly) that the role would be a big one that would require all Nick's time, hence the HOD  role being created. I may be wrong though, I often am!

"One Council Nominated Director, Jon Punshon, has decided to step down because of issues that arose from specific matters he had been involved with."

I believe a similar line was rejected from the script of W1A for being just a touch too ridiculous.

Yep, that's a cracker.

Would someone who actually knows what's going on like to post something with some factual content and a bit of context?  Alternatively, perhaps they could they take down the current announcement and go back to pretending nothing has happened.

Ha, quite, who writes such a sentence and thinks it clarifies anything or is suitable for a press release?

Nobody would ever keep a job if we all resigned due to specific matters we had been involved with!

😂

That's because of the BMC's openness policy, which has been one of the main themes of this reorganistaion. The idea was that, as a member, run organisation, they would be more open and communicate with the membership more. Except, it appears, when obfuscation serves their interest better!

If all people commenting negatively here seem to have better ideas why don't you all apply to replace the people standing down? I think they are trying to be transparent, give the BMC a chance. It seems it has turned into a punch bag. They are not perfect, but some people's attitude here are far from helpful. Maybe you all prefer not to have a BMC and end up like a situation like in Australia were some of the best climbing has been banned because of a lack of a representing body? 

Resignations due to issues and concerns with specific matters. That is just so weird because last time I resigned it was also due to concerns with specific matters at work. What are the chances?

They became a bit of a joke when they pissed £15,000 up the wall on the most pathetic re-brand in history.

Why so much hate for the BMC here? I've been a member for 20+ years and although I've never had the time or inclination to get actively involved, it has always seemed to me that it does a lot of good work. Differences of opinion are inevitable, and this has been a stressful year for climbing as a sport and as a community. So I can understand why some people may feel they need to step back.

Yes I wish the announcement had been a bit more specific, but without knowing the details its hard to know if the details should really be public.

So why all the cynicism?

Nah that was well worth it even just as a wind up. But what about the word mountain!!! If I was president that would first on the agenda but I'd go even further and call it Sport Climb Britain. 

I'm sorry, but I just can't have you say that.  Absolutely outrageous statement.

Everybody knows the temporary re-brand of Cocoa Pops to Choco Krispies was the pathetic in history

I shit you not someone took a crap right at the start of Great Bow Combination at Cloggy! Right after the scramble at the belay spot... 

It didn't stink, when I was there two weeks ago, but I am still shell shocked.

Or Germany. Where loads of crags have been banned despite having a really powerful representative body?

To be fair: it WAS Sport England's money.

Just realised. The 'English Sports Council' changed to Sport England!  They do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

I don't think this is 'hate for the BMC'. Rather disappointment that something, on the face of it pretty seismic, has been communicated in this way.

It's almost 'we must tell them something but for Christ's sake told tell them anything'.

I would actually suggest that if people are making the effort to even read this thread and comment on that indicates some modicum of love for the BMC.

quote from original article: 

“if you liked what we did, then tell your friends about us” 

Sure will do mate.... maybe some of my friends can translate this into English 

Interesting non-article that leaves me absolutely non-the-wiser than prior to reading this corporate penned gibberish.. seems like whoever was in charge of sending our press releases had taken a day off too... come on BMC you can do better than this. 

Does not wanting to sit for a 2nd period as chair equal a resignation or is it simply just a way to create more drama? Surely technically it’s 3 people who’s resigned and 1 who’s decided not to continue when his tenure is over? 
Please enlighten me 

I promise this is the last time 

Fair response. The pandemic has been deeply polarising in it's treatment - groups, associations and individuals have all been compromised in the climate of ambivalence - leading to un-tenable stress as people take sides

Sad that our sport gets caught in the middle  

The overall work of the BMC via it's huge numbers of active and dedicated volunteers (some of who are commenting on this thread!) is not in question. Their efforts are amazing and result in our freedoms to enjoy the countryside and also it's climbing. Somehow that work carries on due to the absolute dedication of the said volunteers.

What is in question is the higher management/board of directors attitude to the members. Since the rebranding fiasco (someone's idea of a show of power? That failed!) and the subsequent re-organisation there have been numerous promises of more open governance, and more respect for the members. These promises do not appear to have been kept, and this is just the last phase of the ignoring of those promises. Almost fits the old saying, 'The members are like mushrooms! Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit!

Fair comment John. Thanks.

I get no direct benefit from my membership, I support them financially because I appreciate their work for the outdoor community in general. In these straightened times, I think next year I may redirect my my money to the ramblers, or Open Spaces soc. 

Below is the email that I sent on behalf of the Council to the Board on 6 August.  This was after over eight hours of meetings and online collaboration between the Council members and a full and frank Q&A session with the Board.  It does not answer the specific details of what happened, but I hope it does clarify that the behaviours in question were about how members of the Board interacted with each other, as well as their ability to operate as a cohesive whole.

To be clear there is nothing to suggest any ‘misconduct’ in a legal sense by any Director.  All the Directors have been trying to do what they believe is best for the BMC and we should thank all the Directors, current and recently resigned, for the considerable time and effort they have given to the organisation during their tenure.

The Board have been very open with the Council and the wider membership can be assured that the Council are dealing with the issues but I hope you will also recognise that it is by respecting confidentiality that the Council are able to operate most effectively on your behalf. 

It is worth noting that the Interim Executive post currently advertised and the Head of Operations and Development post to be advertised shortly will deal with some of the issues and the Council has already seen an improvement in the speed and transparency of Board communications.  While early days the initial signs are positive about the necessary changes in the Board.

I apologise that it has taken me a while to publish this, but I wanted to inform the wider Council prior to publishing and ensure the Board understood my reasons for publishing.  I am pleased to say that the Council and Board have supported the decision to publish. 

Council Statement on Board Resignations and Future Actions

Andy Syme

Thu 06/08/2020 12:56

To: Jonathan White; Huw Jones; Jonny Dry; Fiona Sanders; Chris Stone; Paul Drew; Dave Turnbull; Gareth Pierce; Lynn Robinson

Dear All

The National Council would like to thank the Board for the candid and open discussion on the evening of 4 August.  The Council hope that the Board will recognise the importance and value of this open and timely communications between the Board and National Council and the criticality of continuing this so we can effectively work together and carry out our roles now and in the future.

The Council recognises the commitment of the Board members to the BMC, and its Members. It was also clear the immense pressure that has been on the Board both in terms of issues they have dealt with and the me they feel required to put into 'nominally' non-executive and volunteer roles. While the Board acknowledged they have not achieved all they would wish, the Council recognise that much has been achieved which should be both acknowledged and congratulated.  Moving forwards the Board need to strengthen the Executive arm of the BMC which would be a significant step to ensuring that the volunteer non-executive Board roles remain viable, and desirable to future candidates.

However, it is very clear that the Board have, for various reasons, become fractured and have too often been unable to reach a collegiate decision or have reached a decision but have not been able to implement the decision. The Council understands the reasons for this but ultimately cannot condone the actions of the Board that have led to these resignations. The Board's suggestion of facilitated sessions to both reduce the frictions within the Board and between the Board and staff is very strongly supported by the Council and should be undertaken without any further delay. Further fractures and resignations would be severely detrimental to the Members and all members of the Board need to look to their own behaviours and actions to ensure that while there can be 'healthy debate' it is done always with respect and so that the Board are seen to act with common aims, goals and in a collegiate manner.

The proposed approach by the Board to move forward from this position is considered sound by the Council; this view is based on the assumption that no member of the Board will continue to act as they currently do, and will take the steps you all professed as necessary to build a solid Board which both acts and is seen to act consistently and collaboratively. Where requested the Council are able and willing to support the Board in this both from afar and through providing 'boots on the ground’ where requested.

The Council did discuss the filling of the CND post and agreed that it was not appropriate to appoint a CND when the appropriate skills and expertise to best fill this role are currently too fluid. The Council will keep the situation under review and will appoint a CND at the appropriate me. In the interim the CNDs were asked to confirm to the Board that the Council will provide support and assistance in lieu of a CND in the interim period.

Gareth Pierce requested a view from the National Council regarding if he should stand down with immediate effect following the Board meeting on Thursday 6th August. The Council feels that the loss of Gareth before a suitable handover is able to take place would be disadvantageous to the members. The Council strongly requests that Gareth remains in position until a new chair has been appointed.

Ultimately the Council believes that the individuals on the Board, and the plan that the Board proposes, are capable of producing an efficient and cohesive Board and a good platform to build on provided that each Director ensures their clear statements of intent are reflected in their behaviours and interactions with all of their colleagues. We remain committed to working with the Board as a critical friend to achieve what we all want - which is the best outcomes for our Members.

Andy Syme

Deputy President and Chair of National Council

Thanks for that Andy, that provides a bit more clarity.

Much appreciated, Andy. That does fill in a bit of the picture. There, obviously, are some important questions to be asked about what you have posted but I DO appreciate that there is a limit to name-calling and finger pointing that can be done in public without risk of implosion.

Many thanks!  T'other Andy 😉

I will add my thanks to the other posts Andy. A lot more informative than the official BMC "press release" and has put to bed the worst of the "theories".

Good post Andy, thanks for putting this together. Brings some much needed background. 

Paul E.

Me too, Andy, but can I please comment the email's about 650 words and could be reduced - i.e. shortened - by 75% without losing any meaning

Please don't be offended, Andy, that is absolutely not my intent

So another Board fight a few years after the last one, itself just after the "rebrand". Not very impressive.

'all members of the Board need to look to their own behaviours and actions to ensure that while there can be 'healthy debate' it is done always with respect and so that the Board are seen to act with common aims, goals and in a collegiate manner'

Anyone who disagrees with the leadership will be dealt with accordingly.

Not sure how you read it like that but certainly that is not what was said or meant.  

In reply to profitofdoom:

I did toy with just a digest for members but felt it better to share the full email.  That means I don't have to worry about inadvertently changing meaning or intent  and also I don't miss something that someone else felt was important.  Sorry if it was a little boring

I was more struck by "no member of the Board will continue to act as they currently do, " Really? Are none of them acting appropriately?

Holy shit, what's been going on?

In reply to:

With all this, I can't see too many people jumping at the idea of replacing them.

Sandbagging, pulling on gear and claiming dodgy ascents at a BMC Staff meet at Stanage?  

Yeah that’s what I thought. Thanks to Andy for shedding more light on this. It sounds like (some of) the Board members need to improve their communication skills! I imagine all the Covid related stuff coupled with working from home hasn’t helped and will have put additional strain on whichever tensions already existed. I hope they can sort it out between themselves!

Won’t be a problem finding replacements, there’s an endless supply of wannabe non-exec’s out there desperate for a first Board role.  Many are experienced mountaineers having once climbed “Mount” Snowdon on a school trip.  A rigorous selection process will ensure that only the most dysfunctional are appointed for a good fit with the existing Board.

Why...? Because the BMC has alienated so many climbers like myself. In a very broad sense they became a victim of there own success and desire to grow. They have become too big and are trying to have an influence  (control) and promote too many aspects of climbing (sorry do they monitor/run walking now too, I forget). 

Surely, that's an entry requirement? 

I have no idea what's been going on, but I know several of the current Board members and certainly no part of that characterisation would apply to them.

Could you expand on this? Why do you feel alienated? Why have they become a victim of their own success? Half the time I get people telling me they are no longer relevant which seems to be the opposite problem? How big is/was too big? They seem a pretty small outfit to me, paid staff wise. I think they could actually do with a proper exec structure.

As a volunteer on a BMC committee, I feel the BMC is a force for good in the climbing/walking/mountaineering world and an organisation worth giving my time to. It is not the perfect organisation, but one run a budget and mainly staffed by volunteers never will be.

My views (from a similar perspective but with less time on the committee) chime with yours. 

A lot of volunteers put a massive amount of work in to support the organisation (a lot more than me as I have two other committee roles in clubs). The BMC does lots of good stuff, I was well chuffed to visit Craig Y Forwyn last year and lead Duchess, without Elfyn's hard work we wouldn't have that crag available to us. I know that Steve Blake has done an astonishing job of pretty much renegotiating access to every worthwhile crag in Northumberland as lockdown ended to identify which crags were best avoided while everyone was really touchy.

I don't know about others but I see lots of volunteers doing good local work on the one hand.  On the other I see  execs/councils/boards squabbling, restructuring, rebranding, communicating appallingly and then storming off in a huff and using money I pay them to do this.  This second bit is problematic.

I was well chuffed that the Craig y Forwyn deal was one of the last things that National Council did before it lost the power to do such things.

Why! I do believe I even proposed the motion.

I agree. It's going to be tough times. One director resigned two years back, three more have gone, the Chair doesn't want to stand again, the deputy CEO is earmarked to be the staff officer i/c the new Competition department, a brand new Operations and Development Officer needs to be recruited and inducted and I've heard the current CEO AND the President are off sick.

The survivors certainly need a good deal of help!

The only person on the council or board you pay is the CEO.  Beyond that you pay for travel expenses for physical meetings or now for the Zoom subscription for the meeting calls.  

I would also say the the local volunteers don't work in a vacuum and most volunteers I speak to recognise the value the BMC as a body and through the staff provide to them being able to do their roles effectively.  For example Landowners are far more receptive to access requests from someone from the representative body for mountaineers than they are to being approached with "will you let me and my mates climb on/walk across your land".  

More generally:

The Board have got things wrong, and being human they will again.  Climb Britain then the MONC in 2017 and the subsequent scrutiny has meant that even small issues, which were not visible in the past, are now in the public domain; this is good in many ways but has made the job of the BMC and the Board in managing and responding to things much more difficult.  

No member of the Board should (or to my knowledge does) object to constructive criticism.  The Volunteer Board members are each putting in 25-40 hours a week of their unpaid free time (to the detriment of their families and their own enjoyment of the mountains) to try and provide the best BMC they can, that is no small sacrifice.  There would be no harm done if we showed some respect in how we speak to and about them and maybe even "cut them some slack" as I'm sure you would hope others would if you volunteered to be part of the Board.    

The Volunteer Board members are each putting in 25-40 hours a week.

Ah yes, the "busy fool".  I put in lots of hours so I must be doing a good job.  Might be better to focus on what is actually produced rather than the hours spent.  From what we've seen recently seems like most of this time was spent fighting amongst themselves anyway.......  

Andy, you really have my sympathy in dealing with what seems to be a corporate 'perfect storm'; resignations, a retiring Chair, senior positions 'empty' through sickness, internal conflict, internal investigations, questions about past accounts and the electoral processes within the BMC.

At the same time to try to deal with an organisational restructure AND a major shift in senior staff is mind-boggling!

The BMC is blessed that it has so many volunteers willing to do the work for the BMC.

David - we haven't met, but you appear to know much about me and my fellow Directors. I may be one of the 'busy fools', but unfortunatley didn't get the chance to climb Snowdon till university. Once I've finished spending my afternoon and evening telephone interviewing on behalf of the BMC, perhaps we could have a chat? I'm keen to learn from you how the Board can work more effectively.

Regards,

Jonathan

Sure, I believe you have my contact details in the email circulated recently.  I'm tied up this evening but 09.00 tomorrow would be fine.  Have your notebook handy.

David

I merely said that given the effort they deserved some respect.  You may feel they are fools and doing a bad job and you are perfectly entitled to this view and to stand against them to ensure a better job is done.  But regardless of their perceived failings as Directors being rude or unpleasant does nothing to help move things forward.

I wasn't being rude or unpleasant, just engaging in a bit of banter with an element of parody thrown in. 

I have to say I'm very disappointed with the reaction of some UKC'ers. Some of it smacks of the 'if only everyone was as clever as me, then all would be well'. 

References to ' shagging sheep' and 'crapping behind boulder' analogies are beneath (I believe) all of our intelligence thresholds.

What I read from this statement (I'd agree it's poorly drafted and done in haste) is that this is a major organisation important to all of us in deep distress. I would also argue that this is due to its growth and indeed success in may areas. It's engaged in conservation, campaigning, government liaison, competitions, access and insurance: all this before I draw breath and think.

This is all done by volunteer directors with the uncomfortable backdrop of the insults and dreadful treatment of Rehan Siddiqui in 2017. Directors that carry all the responsibilities of fiduciary responsibility with no reward and little respect. Shagging sheep, really!!

The BMC is a big organisation, If you were the wife/husband/partner of these people, I would be hitting the big 'why' question everyday. Away from your family, distractions from children and even work for a role that in all truth is simply too big now for volunteers., or as one of the respondents describes them as 'second rate do-gooders'. A terrible and uncalled for insult. I am fully willing to apologise for this if you have volunteered to sit on boards of major organisations with no reward.

We need good, well qualified and committed people to run this organisation. My take from this is that we are getting to the point where the BMC is going to have to start paying the rate for the job like many large charities have to. 

I think the persistence has crossed this line. Maybe time to be a little more constructive? I hope your chat with JWhite is useful.

That brings up back to the start. This official announcement from the BMC will have been the first that many/most of the the members of the organization will have heard about the underlying matters - but it was completely uninformative, and cryptic.  As you say: 'poorly drafted and done in haste.'

Is the claim that _nobody_ in the organization is now capable of writing well-drafted and considered announcements? Or are the internal feuds which are hinted at in the announcement now so bad that they make such announcements impossible? Either way, it seems a very bad state to have arrived at.

Hi Galpinos, 

I'll be completely honest with you...

I started climbing approx 25 years ago born and cut my teeth in Derbyshire. I was a member of the BMC for many years.  I appreciated their work with regards to access, and I bought/supported their guide books.

For me it was the following that put me off the BMC:

1) the rebranding disaster. Much is said about this. "Brand" is important for a commercial organisation such as an outdoor gear manufacturer, food, drink producer. The BMC shouldn't be driven by their own desire to be a big/important brand.  It was fine before. It's similiar to the North Face brand (Well only very, very slightly) ...they made good outdoor kit. They wanted to be big, they flooded the market,  went big into PR, now they are just another massive outdoor brand trying to stand out in the a crowded market. The company is worth more, but they aren't worth buying stuff from because it's now a fashion brand.

2) I personally don't think that climbing should be in the Olympics. It takes away the original spirit of why we climb. The BMC shouldn't be driving climbing that way. 

3) the media reports of BMC meetings constantly report the falling out within the crazy structure. Meetings for Meetings sake is the portrayal we see from the side line.

4) covid - Jesus! The advice during, or as lock down released hindered rather than helped anything. Climbing/mountaineers/walkers would have been better served by listening to government advice. The BMC, well meaning, confused matters further.

I know the volunteers give a lot of time to the BMC and aim to do good and I respect this greatly but I strongly believe that they are let down by the BMC management structure, squabbling and direction of travel.

I hope that the BMC returns to it's roots and becomes a small useless organisation again. 

All the best 

Totally agree. 

I also agree and resent being forced to pay them £20.50 because I want to belong to my local climbing club.

you might not resent it if you ever need to make a claim on the insurance provided by it!

"Small useful organisation" .. phone auto correct may have Freudian slipped..

Like a lot of people I have the same insurance cover through my home insurance.

I think it's more people are so worried about the reaction or causing an over reaction that they struggle to get a balance between transparency, over sharing and being concise. 

I think one issue is that returning to its roots means so many different things to different members.  

To some the roots might be back when bouldering wasn't a thing and 'bouldering mats' were 'liberated' from from the pub bar.   But to others the roots are the indoor centres where they started, and who see competition climbing as a great thing. And there are an infinite number of points between those 2. 

Ultimately the BMC needs members and the subs if it is going to be able to do the stuff you appreciate and if they want to keep subs down they need to get money from elsewhere too (or do less).  

I certainly agree that the BMC 'management' can look like it's excessively navel gazing, and doubly so in the last few years, but I think the real issue is that instead of slowly evolving we got stuck 5 to 10 years ago and we are now struggling to catch up and get it right.

Finally i'll reiterate a point I made further up, this thread which is that the volunteers work and reach is greatly enhanced by the BMCs status and a small and useless or useful ( ) organisation could well lose the status and hence reduce the ability of volunteers to do what you think is what the BMC does best. 

You are being rude and that is unnecessary. It’s easy to criticise and imply that you could do better in their place. Perhaps you could but it just comes across as arrogant. It’s fine to criticise, as long as it’s done in a constructive manner.

Besides... it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical that you’re criticising the Board of a climbing organisation for a bust up. I’m not going to go further on a public forum but you know what I mean. We are all fallible at times.

To be fair, it was pretty standard for a corporate announcement. I wouldn’t expect much more detail as that wouldn’t be appropriate. If anything, it provided a bit more detail that I would have expected. What inevitably happens though is people talk and the details eventually leak out, either on here or in private conversations.

On a positive note, I was involved in a BMC working group last year dealing with a ‘technical’ issue, which involved the CEO, Chair and a few volunteer ‘subject matter experts’. I thought it worked well and everyone collaborated effectively to get the task done. Let’s hope the (new) Board can go forward in they spirit.

I think lockdown and Covid generally is getting to everyone and tempers are frayed. The BMC is not immune to that - no one is. Particularly as they had a difficult line to toe with the various restrictions.

........

Thanks for responding. I think the issue here is the "return to its roots" phrase. Climbing now isn't the same as climbing was, back "then". It's a wide, vast expanse of activities form indoor to outdoor, from bouldering to big walls and beyond. I think it would be a shame if the BMC didn't strive to represent the many facets of climbing and walking and I believe that if it "returns to its roots" and ignores parts of our diverse group, it will become irrelevant.

I would also say, as a volunteer, I don't feel let down my the "BMC management structure, squabbling and direction of travel". I understand this is actually quite a transformative time for the BMC and as such there will be heated discussions as to what the BMC will be and there will be some fallout from that. I admit I get frustrated at the missteps, often glaringly obvious in hindsight, and wish their could improve their communications (vital for a member organisation) but I know that the very small paid staff team and the volunteers running the Board and Council are doing what they believe is in the best interest of climbers and walkers in the UK.

*freudian slip corrected.....

I think a phrase like 'return to its roots' is just too ambiguous.  

It doesn't necessarily mean everyone must wear tweed and carry a pocket full of pebbles. It could refer to a desire for a smaller, more focussed organisation providing services to, and representing,  the full range of its membership without getting involved in corporate, 'governing body'  complications.

I'm not actually arguing either way, please note!.  It's just that for an organisation to return to its roots doesn't necessarily mean that it expects it's membership to revert to the 60's. (oh...those were the days my friend....).

As an example I heard yesterday that the BMC is contemplating withdrawing from guidebook production.  Whilst that may make economic sense it could be argued that it is a dilution of service.

Agreed, my interpretation could be well off the mark.

I think the BMC is still a small organisation with a far bigger influence than its size. I also don't think the BMC can represent the full range of its membership without being the governing body for competition climbing. I realise this is quite a big "topic" though so don't want to derail the thread.....

If that's is true, I think it would be a real shame. The BMC guidebooks are some of the best on the market. The balance of history and humour in addition to the nuts and bolts of the route info combined with some lovely descriptions often knocks the socks of the competition. Maybe those traits in a guidebook are no longer valued though......

Well, again at the risk of derailment, I actually thought that the Organisational Review Group had it spot on with their suggestion of an 'arms length' body with separate governance to act as the 'governing body' of the sport of competition climbing. That would have created some clear blue water between the representative and governing functions and allowed, possibly a bit more focus.

Slightly more on topic the decision to keep it all in-house is undoubtedly leading to some of the senior staffing disruption and the need to recruit and induct fresh staff.  I CAN see the attraction of keeping 'sport funding' all 'in-house' though! 😉

Thanks for replying and you make good points. Thanks for correcting my (phones!) Freudian slip! I just think why does it like everything else in our society have to grow exponentially? It doesn't, but of course it needs to evolve and change. It's like capitalism .. it's driving itself, now slightly out of control. The more the BMC does and gets involved in, the more money/members it needs to continue this approach. It's not sustainable ultimately. But I wish you well 

I agree, I thought that was the right solution.

Its not an ambiguous statement it simply implies the need to focus on the issues that affect the vast majority of the climbing community rather than peeking over the fence at British Cycling and wanting to have the same Money, profile and competition success might be a start. 

I agree that climbing has changed over time. I don't think it would become irrelevant if it didn't cover every aspect of our sport/hobby/interest. 

I'm glad that as a volunteer you don't feel let down by the management. 

If I think I understand you correctly I think we are saying roughly the same thing?  

'Back to roots' doesn't need to mean ignoring those members who are into 'newer' disciplines. It can mean an organisational retrenchment as opposed to expansionist wishes of 'proper: Sport Governing Body status..

It doesn't mean banning bolts, walls and mats.

Chalk.

Sticky rubber.

Nylon ropes.....

Serious question (unusually). Under the current articles how could someone 'stand against' an incumbent Director?

i can't see how that is possible.

Despite the best efforts of the BMC’s Independent Chair to gloss over the recent resignations of two of the three Independent Directors and a Council Nominated Director, together with his own wish to resign with immediate effect, it is clear that the problems facing the BMC are more than mutual intolerance amongst directors caused by the stress of Covid 19.

The e-mail sent out by the National Council to the remaining Board members suggesting therapy (“facilitated sessions”) to reduce “friction” should be seen for what it is - a plea to bury the “issues” that have given rise to the resignations. As if members of the National Council were the only adults in the room.  Resignation of two out of three Independent Directors is an alarm call to all members of the BMC. There are critical problems that need to be addressed and which remain unresolved. The loss of three directors, including a Council Nominated Director over “issues”, rather than simply to spend more time with their families, should be a wake-up call to everyone involved with the BMC, especially its membership. 

Changes to the Articles of Association over the last couple of years have left the membership marginalised in the affairs if the BMC, an entity that they used to own and run, largely through a network of volunteers. The Board which now has the sole right to run the BMC as it thinks fit, purports to support openness and transparency, as mandated in the Articles. This is the same Board that has not even bothered to put on the website all the Minutes of Board Meetings from 2019 and 
has published no Minutes of Board Meetings at all on the BMC website for 2020. The National Council has made no public comment on this failure.  

It is obviously too big a step now to ask the remaining Board members and the National Council to come clean with the membership over the issues involved. In the absence of individual statements from the directors who have resigned, which are likely being held back by the threat of legal action, the membership needs to consider the alternatives.

I thought you'd never say!

In that one instance JR!  Don't get cocky.

Actually, when I went initially went through  the 40-odd (?) recommendations I immediately ticked about 30. Scribbled a question mark against another half dozen and put a bloody great cross against only 5 or 6.

Curate's Egg or what!

To be fair I don't think it has ever been the case that full Exec/Board minutes have been publicly shared.  And when minutes went to National Council there were inevitably sensitive issues. You wouldn't want to publish staffing problems, salary discussions, forward strategy etc too widely.  Letters of resignation may also create problems if they are blunt and personal. (And let's not forget that another Director also resigned a couple of years ago subsequent to queries about the accounts)

I think a summary is all the NC now get?

I'd be lying if I didn't say I agree about the disenfranchisement if the membership, however.  And if the National Council are 'champions' of the membership how are they to represent their views if they know nowt.

It does appear to be a real boorach for sure  

And, of course, given a big drop in insurance profits courtesy of Covid19 coupled with a drop in membership subscriptions (Covid19 again?) expansion plans could be fragile unless external funding is found.

Yes we get a summary from the Chair (that all members get) and a summary from the CNDs which is fuller and less redacted.   

We knew more than nowt, but probably not enough, or we'd have had a bit more warning on the problem.  That has markedly changed already and while it's early days I think it is looking very positive.  There will always be some stuff that is rightly Board confidential and some which is Confidential to the Board and NC, but the delta between the two is, I honestly believe, rapidly closing.  In addition the Council members are all keen that as much is shared with the members as possible (while avoiding the problem of boring people at Area meets etc with unnecessary stuff).   If there is no legitimate reason not to share it you can be assured the Councillors will share and they will also question to ensure they are happy the reasons are legitimate.  

Thanks, Andy. My basic point was if the membership don't know about things it's hard for their representatives to reflect their opinion on them 😉

Fight the good fight!

Well that's a truism if ever I heard one.  Is that a Rumsfeld "Unknown, Unknown" or an "Unknown, Known"

The reliance on insurance commissions for me is big problem. To qualify: to my understanding the BMC earn an annualised commission that is more of a dividend i.e. it is dependent upon the profit yield not on the number/value of policies that were sold? This (again please correct me if i'm wrong) was critical financial issue when a certain celebrity adventurer, not of this parish, sustained an in growing toenail while in a remote polar region (probably Fulham...)...the costs of repatriation bollocked the insurers profits that year and resulted in a much reduced dividend to the BMC...a dividend it had become reliant upon. I believe this is correct?
To be speculating and hedging on and reliant other companies profits is for stockbrokers not for what IMHO should be prudent management of a representative sporting body e.g. a true per capita sales commission. 
There are multitude of other quasi commercial empire building activities that ultimately require management time and resources that stress the system. Long gone is the Keep It Simple.

Having spent a bit of time in therapy over the last 18 months I can comfortably say that it is the complete and utter opposite of burying anything, it's more akin to to turning over a minefield using a shovel!

If it's genuinely at the point that there needs to be some kind of group counselling/ therapy I think it's a massive shame that things were able to deteriorate so far, however if the members of the board involved are willing to properly engage in it and can settle the issues between them without causing further damage to the organisation and each other I think it's a good use of a couple of hundred pounds to cover a few sessions (going off my individual sessions being £30 an hour so a couple of hundred should allow a reasonable amount of time to address whatever the issues are and provide appropriate follow up).

The members very much still own and run the BMC. If the volunteers or the staff were to disappear off the face of the earth for a month members would notice pretty quickly, it would take longer for the absence of the board to be noted (at least it should do as I haven't seen much sign of micromanagement of stuff by board members).

Let's not forget that you pissed and moaned about the new articles prior to their implementation prior to the membership overwhelmingly voting in support of said articles with a good number of members in the AGM wishing they owned ear plugs so they didn't have to listen to the ranting put forward by the strongest proponent of those articles in the room (Rodney Gallagher).

The BMC really needs to put all of this governance stuff to bed and publicise what it actually does and is either very good at or working to do better (access, comps, clubs, huts, safety/ technical recommendations, insurance, equality/ diversity, competitions, guidebooks, supporting young climbers, promoting responsible use of our upland areas, supporting a record of our mountaineering history and providing a forum for discussions about local issues amongst various other things).

The BMC is desperately in need of young people being involved in supporting these activities if it wants to be still doing them in 30-40 years time, some areas are well supported in this respect (comps, youth, technical and equity as far as I can tell), some areas will hopefully feed through from clubs (if said clubs can get their houses in order in terms of being attractive to young members, some are more capable in this respect than others so a mechanism for sharing what does and does not work would help clubs work together) and some need the BMC to attract young members to area meetings and so on so that they get involved with access work etc.

A frustrated 27 year old volunteer who may attempt self defenestration if subjected to another meeting involving discussions about governance.

There's no compulsion about it. 

Unlike with certain other sports such as orienteering, BMC club affiliation is absolutely voluntary. Your local club can stop paying affiliation fees any time it wants.

The Army Mountaineering Association did this many years ago so there's a clear precident for a club committee just voting to stop being a member club. 

The reason that almost all local clubs are BMC affiliated is that they've looked at the options and it is the most sensible option, especially for the smallest. Only a complete moron would willing serve on the committee of a club that didn't have comprehensive liability insurance. That cover is provided by the BMC leveraging it's large club membership but it is not easy or in most cases economically viable for small clubs to obtain similar cover independently.

You will also find that contrary to your simplistic protestation, any personal insurance policies would absolutely NOT provide cover to anyone operating as a club official.

As with many people, you don't seem to understand the main reason clubs are BMC affiliated. It's not due some altruistic support for the organisation or some sinister monopoly run by the BMC. It's just the SIMPLEST way for clubs to ensure that committee members who are volunteering their time and effort are guaranteed not to loose their houses and livelihoods in the unfortunate event of an accident and any compensation claim.

I do think the BMC club membership fee is now on the high side, but there's absolutely nothing to stop any individual club investigating alternative options. 

With the level of diplomacy you are demonstrating on this thread, it looks like you're just the man to smooth any discord within the BMC...

I think that was exactly what many suggested at the time of the rebranding fiasco; use the 'Climb Britain' brand as governing body for the competitive offspring of the sport.

I think it's probably 'how do you know what you think about something you don't know about'?  😉

Mark exactly right.

I think they have since rejoined as they put the BMC logo on the website but I may be wrong (as a member I probably should know !!)

I'm a member of 2 clubs and 'upgraded' to Individual Membership.  I actually think Clubs get a good deal as they pay £19 less than individuals but as a club member benefit from the insurance for their club and it's officials, albeit they lose 3 copies of Summit. 

Even at £40 per year to me it seems a small cost compared to my other annual costs for climbing (new or resoling rock shoes for example); let alone when compared to the impact of being in a position where I needed the insurance that is included (my house insurance covers many things but not the cost of compensating someone if I fell on them, or messed up a belay, and injured their spine). 

You mean Bear Grylls and his shoulder dislocation whilst on a sponsored expedition on BMC insurance?

I actually have no idea, whatsoever, about how that impacted in the BMC finances.  Maybe I should have asked 🙄

Well said that man!

Firstly I'm not a club official so the BMC insurance is of no benefit to me as I have already said I'm covered on my home policy if anyone should make a claim against me.

Secondly, if it's all about club officials being covered then say for a club with 200 members and say 5 club officials a £4100 premium, £820 per official, does seem excessive.

My solution is not to belong to a BMC affiliated club like a lot of other climbers.

Latest developments at the BMC

youtube.com/watch?v=qwSLxuN6v_w&

Hiya Steve

You trying to tell me something??? 

Cheers, Andy  (CC Memb Sec!)

Hi Andy

No, and that's my point. I resent being forced to pay the BMC tax because I want to belong to a club and ideally I would like the option to opt out. Someone then raised the insurance issue which I disputed.

Interestingly if I’m interpreting the BMC accounts correctly the insurance is only about 21% of the BMC subscription and salaries are 63%. To me it seems like the BMC should cut its cloth accordingly and reduce the salary bill rather than loading the cost onto the members under the disguise of increasing insurance premiums.

How about putting a motion to the next CC AGM to disaffiliate from the BMC?

But it is of benefit to you because without it (or an equivalent) your club would struggle to find people to act in the committee roles and do all the things that make a club work.  No home policy will cover you acting on a club committee so I assume you either wouldn't fill those roles, or your club has enough people willing to take the risk to their house/savings etc to do the job without insurance.  

While we could have a discussion about whether the new HOD role is needed, I'm not sure what existing areas of the BMC staff roles you think should be cut back?  And are you saying these things should not be done, or that you think that there are volunteers who should do more, or new volunteers who would be able to replace those functions?

I'm not trying to be provocative but genuinely interested in what you think is worth the money and what you don't. 

You are right that insurance is only about £6 of the BMC fee. It is surprisingly cheap even after the recent multi-£m claim. That is because, on the whole, there have been very few claims over the years, while the number of people insured (= premium income) is sufficiently large for it to be worthwhile for the broker and underwriters.

If you tried to get third party only insurance for climbing, you probably won't be able to get it anywhere - the premium won't be large enough for it to be worthwhile for an insurer (I imagine hypothetically it would be somewhere between £6 and £20). You can get 'fully comp' from the BMC and others but that's more than £20 a year even just for the UK.

You say you are covered by your house insurance. I have no idea if that's typical of an average house insurance policy but, even if it is, many people don't have house insurance because they rent or live with parents or live in a flat (I live in a flat and don't have contents insurance as it would be a waste of money, whereas the buildings insurance is arranged by the managing agent; so I don't have any insurance in my own right and that is far from unusual for those living in flats). So a lot of people won't be covered.

It's bad enough that there are lots of uninsured climbers out there as it is - people who aren't members o fa club which provides insurance through the BMC or elsewher. We really don't need to make this problem worse - and it is a problem because one day there will be a serious accident where it is someone's fault but that person has no insurance or assets to speak of and the casualty will not be able to get compensation for loss of earnings or lifetime care costs or whatever other six or seven figure costs they will end up with.

For a large club it may be possible to find insurance which costs a bit less than the £20 but, frankly, no club official would want to spend (= waste) their time researching, negotiating and managing this insurance policy. With the BMC there is a relatively simple process in place which does not take up loads of volunteer time to administer (it still takes some time, as Andy will tell you!). And that's ignoring the point that most of the £20 goes towards supporting the various good work the BMC do. Of course they aren't perfect and we like to give them a bit of a kicking on here and at the AGM etc (helps to keep them honest, so to speak!) but at the end of the day the climbing community would be worse off without the BMC. We should continue to support them while offering constructive criticism.

But again I'd say.. why does it need profits.. why expand... expansion isn't always sustainable or the best approach. I won't labour this point any more though.  

Yeah... Re: bear grylls.. That's what it said on the claim form...

my recollection this was a factor in the bmc almost going bust. 

Firstly; the starting point has to be that the BMC has to operate within its budget.

Secondly; the Organisational Review Members Survey 2017 gives a good representation of the members’ priorities which I wouldn’t argue with.

The clever bit is making the budget fit the priorities and there are various approaches to this but it’s basically Priority Based Budgeting. This is a budgeting approach that allocates the BMC’s resources in line with different service levels for the established priorities.

Once the resources (principally the BMC staff) have been allocated and the service levels that can be afforded are established members can volunteer if they wish to raise the service level or add new services, which is basically how it operates now.

A couple of open questions –

What is the estimated increase in subscriptions? Because the increase in the insurance premium is shown as £250,000 and my guesstimate of the increased subscription is around £750,000.

What are the “Specialist Activities” shown in the financial presentation costing £620,263?

You are correct there are a lot of uninsured climbers out there. You would also have to prove negligence, easy if they are belaying you and drop you from the top of a climbing wall, not so easy if you get hit by a rock, who was it, was it an animal or just an act of god?

If loss of earnings or lifetime care costs were of concern to me I certainly wouldn’t rely on them having insurance, I would take out my own accident insurance.

So it's Margery?

£4k for a d&o policy for a large organisation engaged in high risk activity sounds about right to me actually. The way that market is going this year they'll be lucky to keep it as such. 

It's irrelevant if you aren't personally an officer. You're paying for their insurance which they require to organise stuff for you to do as a member. 

The BMC does operate within its budget.  What you seem to be suggesting is that the BMC reduce that budget and my question is what do you think it should stop doing?

What is the forecast surplus/deficit this financial year?

I believe we're actually predicting a surplus this year although only a small one but next year will be the challenge. The half year results - that will include a prediction for the end of the year - I understand are being worked on with the intent they will be presented to Council in Sept. 

I don't think the clubs are "engaged in high risk activity" it's the individual members which is different. When did you last hear of a club or its officers being sued because of something to do with an offical club activity, never?

£164,406 loss last year and an increase in the members subs of around £500,000 in addition to that necessary to cover for the increase in the insurance premium. That doesn't sound like operating within its budget to me.

It seems to me that it’s volunteers who are doing all the priority activities so I would really like to get under the hood of the BMC to see exactly what the 30 or so salaried staff are actually doing because I’m pretty confident I could save 10% with no noticeable impact on the BMC priorities.

From memory, in the past couple of years when a first year medicine student was dropped at a climbing wall and got paralysed.

How much of that is because the BMC has furloughed 10 members of staff, nearly a third?

I’m Treasurer of a 150-member Yacht Owners Association (http://www.bavariaowners.co.uk/).  Our 2020 liability insurance premium was around £550 so about £3.50 / head.  In the murky world of liability insurance difficult to make direct comparisons with the BMC Club cover, risks insured are similar but level of cover is lower, in the millions, not tens of millions.  Similarly for a 1,500 member Classic Car Club (http://scimitarweb.co.uk/sgwrs/homepage) the 2020 premium is around £530 so about £0.35 / head, the economies of scale kicking in.  Again similar risks covered but level lower.  I would guess that the club activities climbing / motoring / sailing don’t have a big effect on premiums for this type of insurance.

As others have mentioned anyone with a home contents policy will likely enjoy TPL cover and many life policies also include.  Non-student club members, generally being older, are more likely to have these kind of policies.

So if your Club is fed up funding BMC corporate excess then there are insurance alternatives out there, happy to provide further details to any club officials who might be interested.

But was it the club or a club official that was sued or the individual club member who was belaying?

Running any sort of club is risky.  It's not just the risk of accidents while climbing or walking, it's the possibility of any claim arising from the club's activities.  A claim could arise where a club has to cancel booked travel or accommodation, for example, or where members cause damage.  Clubs with huts could fall foul of any number of regulations, as well as any liability to users.  A club with members under 18 could face safeguarding accusations.  A member might claim sexual, racial or some other form of discrimination. Whether or not any of these result in formal legal claims, at the very least they will require legal or professional advice to investigate and defend them.  It is the club's officers who will be liable, this insurance protects them against this.

Besides insurance, clubs get quite a lot of other support from the BMC, although a lot of this is very well hidden.  This is on top of the other work the BMC does. 40p a week to support both your own club and all the BMC's work doesn't sound outrageous to me.

It is disappointing that the official announcement is so bland and lacking detail, since it has inevitably led to speculation which could have been avoided.

I can see two possible scenarios.  One is simply a clash of personalities, to the point where they can no longer work together.  The other is that a minority have been unable to accept a majority decision by the Board, in which case it is entirely proper that they resign.  I suspect this is the main reason, although there may be elements of both.  What is concerning is the hint that before resigning these members may have been actively trying to undermine the Board's decision.

I think that is REALLY dangerous speculation, Howard!

But understandable. Looking at the phrasing of the statement, if I was one of the resigning Directors I might be having a wee chat with my solicitor.  Remember these are people with positions / directorships outwith the BMC.

I prepared the projections that Andy refers to.  The furlough cash has an effect but more significant is the lack of spend in other areas, events, travel, office running, new recruitment etc.  The morals of an organisation with £2m in the bank taking furlough cash has not really been discussed, we’re quick to criticise the major corporates for this but seem happy enough to take it ourselves.  2020 year end surplus is likely to be in excess of £100k although producing a balanced budget for 2021 could be quite challenging.

Exactly.  I'm certainly not making that accusation, but it's not an unreasonable interpretation of the announcement, in fact it seems to be strongly hinted at, which is why it is so concerning.   I can't decide whether this was careless or very careful wording.

Or just fecking stupidity....?

Sometimes a desperate attempt to say nothing let's people assume whatever they like.  But to even hint that about a corporate lawyer, the boss of a charitable trust and an ex-head teacher....🙄

So Andy was being a bit economic with the truth when he said "The BMC does operate within its budget." Ironic it took a global pandemic.

Maybe you can answer the two questions I have about the BMC finances –

1. What is the estimated increase in income from the increase in subscriptions? Because the increase in the insurance premium is shown as £250,000 and my guesstimate of the increased subscription income is around £750,000.

2. What are the “Specialist Activities” shown in the financial presentation costing £620,263?

May be it was because as good non-exec directors they were trying unsuccessfully to maintain good fiscal discipline within the Board and in failing to do so they felt their positions were untenable.

Steve

I think you're being unfair here.  I'm not on the Board and am providing my best response to a question.  Last year we took a loss as we carried the large insurance loss for the injured student (which was an unpredictable event and certainly not in the planned budget) .  Most years the Board have hit their budgets. I'm sure David could provide chapter and verse but to suggest we routinely don't is wrong and to use I years figures to suggest I'm lying is unwarranted. 

Budgets can be elastic….  The pandemic made accurate forecasting quite a challenge and we looked at three different models to establish a best, worst and probable scenario.  On the income side the probable model is proving quite robust and is pretty close to what is actually happening.  We also took a hard look at the costs, identifying many areas where we were unlikely to incur the planned expenditure, events and competitions being a good example.

Difficult to establish a precise effect for the increased subs due to timing issues and the overall complexity of the model but you’re right, the increase would (pre-pandemic) have been far more than the increase in insurance premiums, I think the point you’re making.  Since March subs income has reduced significantly as members who drop out of the system are not replaced by new members from travel insurance and training.  “Pure” membership remains pretty constant.

Specialist Activities are all the stuff the BMC does, access and conservation work, property management, training, youth, clubs etc. etc. much of it grant funded.

Probably not the best arena to be debating the minutia of the BMC budgets but I’m doing my best!

Can you explain why the relationship with the insurer is one in which you receive a performance related dividend (which you cannot possibly budget around) rather than a per capita sales commission (which you can build a budget on)? 

Think you're being a little mischievous here Simon - I would have thought you already knew the answer...... 

Is there not some confusion here between the two types of insurance provided by the BMC. There is the 'umbrella' liability insurance which is an escalating cost; met by subs and other activities. I wouldn't have thought the BMC gets any 'commission' on that. And then there is the travel insurance sold to members upon which the BMC does get a financial return.

Now I could well be wrong here but for the BMC to receive commission on sales would it not have to be a registered insurance broker?  

And, of course, you might be able to build a budget on predicted 'sales'. But they are only predictions. I would guess that travel insurance 'sales' have plummeted in the second quarter of this year?  That may well have had a knock-on to memberships as Pepe no longer 'had' to be a member to get the insurance they didn't now want?

Now I AM confused. Surely the point of having insurance is to transfer the risk to the insurer so that you DON'T carry the financial hit yourself? 

I see that the premium may go up as a result of a claim but this is not a unique event. There have been claims before. 

It was the premium increase (amongst a few other things) that caused the hit.  I have all the figures here in front of me but as I've said before this is not the place for a detailed discussion of the BMC accounts.

Now that IS worrying. If the 'churn' in membership still depends upon those who 'must' join, as opposed to those who 'want' to be members, then there is something wrong with the 'offer', surely?  There are an increasing number of insurance competitors and if, heaven forbid, Mountain Training felt that the financial burden on candidates from mandatory membership was just too much then where are the new members coming from?

Right in one......

Thanks for clarifying/correcting my poor language.  :=)

The critical point for the model is when the downward trend in member numbers changes to an upward trend.  Hopefully later this year but could be well into 2021

Sorry, this reply was meant for Andy Say

I'm not precious about it 😉

Youth comps, largely.

Going to be a challenge to extract 40-odd quid from the pockets of their skinny shorts......

I’m watching this thread with a mix of reassurance and frustration. Reassurance that some of the comments are spot-on (some very pertinent questions BTW – e.g. we could do a whole webinar on finances), and frustration that I’m bound by Board confidentiality (and respect for my fellow Directors) to not give full and frank explanations in response to those comments that are way off the mark. This is really too long for a UKC posting, and far too short to respond to everything, but here goes in the hope that it’s of some use with a fraction of it…

To start with I want to say that the Board is acutely aware that we are in a position that none of us wanted to be in, and we are taking prompt actions to address this. Members can be reassured that National Council is being very effective as a 'critical friend' (both aspects in equal measure), and as lead representatives of the members (aka owners) of the BMC.

Tone & content: none of the Board exchanges that I’ve seen (and I think I’ve seen most of them) have been as uncivilised as some of what appeared earlier in this thread. I’m aware of one that crossed the line, but that was subsequently retracted with a full apology and that apology was accepted. Compared to what appears on UKC, you’d find the Board to usually be a pretty polite bunch when it comes to disagreeing on something.

Most Directors (departed and remaining) agree with most other Directors about most things. We also disagree on a few things. None of us are completely aligned with any other of us – we all have our own opinions, and there aren’t any fixed ‘sides’ – people are frequently on different sides in different discussions. It is a (statutory) requirement of our roles to provide constructive criticism. There’s a fine line to tread: too much and you might not be seen as constructive; too little and you risk ‘group think’. The former could lead to e.g. resignations, and the latter could lead to e.g. a disastrous rebrand. Both need to be avoided.

The make-up of the Board was heavily debated in 2018 in order to ensure a fair balance of perspectives, and we’ve had that. We’ve had a good mix of individual and club members, representation of almost all sectors of our sport, and a good range of business/directorial experience in the public, private and charities sector, and a range of those fresh to the organisation and those who go back 25+ years. Members should be reassured that things don’t go through ‘on the nod’, but after due consideration of the best (or sometimes least-worst) options.

None of us get our own way all the time, but we do ensure that the minority perspectives are aired, and where possible accommodated. Consensus is the standard that we aim for at the Board, and achieve at least 90% of the time. However, in trying to accommodate all angles, it sometime doesn’t result in the desired consensus, but a compromise that doesn’t achieve what anyone actually wants, or a clear direction/message. A pertinent example might be drafting a press release by committee, where efforts to respect personal positions have become so ambiguous as to be counter-productive! To scotch that rumour, no-one who has resigned has done so because of anything they have done – their professional integrity is not in question. As it happens, the resigning Directors did approve the words used to describe their departures!

Sometimes you just have to hold a vote and go with a majority decision, and over the last few months we’ve got better at that. Those in the minority can either live with the decision or they can’t – it depends on how deeply the matter in hand conflicts with one’s personal values and professional codes as to whether you can still be collectively responsible for decisions made (or not made). I don’t believe this was the cause of the resignations, but was a factor in one of them.

To my mind, Misha was spot on with the comment: “I imagine all the Covid related stuff coupled with working from home hasn’t helped and will have put additional strain on whichever tensions already existed.” That’s about the best brief summary that you could have. We do have some conceptual differences of what we think the BMC should be (and what we think it currently is), and that probably (hopefully) reflects the views of our members. However, when rapid decisions are needed to mitigate the impact of a crisis such as Covid19, then things do come to a head. One person’s major priority can be another person’s non-issue, and another person’s urgent actions can be way down another’s priority list. That has brought frustrations and tension, without doubt, and so far as I understand them, these seem to sit at the root of the reasons for at least some resignations.

Time has been and remains a factor for all of us – departing and remaining. We’ve gone from quarterly main Board meetings last year, to weekly meetings during lockdown, and are now getting back to monthly meetings. Beyond those though are all the subcommittees, working groups, trusts, directorships and representative roles that we carry co-ordinating responsibilities for, as part of our statutory duty to provide effective oversight of the organisation. I produced a list of these last year to try and quantify what we’re responsible for – if anyone who doesn’t already know the answer would like to guess, have a go. My view (and I’m not alone) is that the solution to this is more a matter of structure than of scope, and the flattened structure that was an unintended consequence of the changes a couple of years ago needs grouping and shaping – coupled with clear delegated authority.

The plus side of the last 5 or 6 months is that through rapid, targeted actions and a lot of hard work by volunteers and staff, our current reforecast (2/3 through the most uncertain of years) is that we will still balance our books, and hopefully repay some of the reserves that were drawn down last year. Not many companies can say that in 2020. David raises a valid question of whether elements of this are a moral thing to do – I think they are, primarily because of the lag (and accrual accounting): the impact of Covid will hit the BMC rather harder financially in 2021 than it has in 2020. In that, we will be like many companies. Also, like all companies, it’s good people that will get us through it.

Of the areas that the Board can learn from National Council – one is that after NC meetings, they go to for a meal and a drink and socialise. Perhaps if we’d done a bit of that, we’d have been stronger as a team, and been more effective at resolving the inevitable tensions and frustrations that trying to serve our very broad church can generate.

Thanks Jonathan, a bit of a tour de force and maybe a prize for the longest ever post on UKC.

However we both know that this is a very rose-tinted view of what has gone on with the Board over the last 18 months or so.  This is not the place for further discussion on the topic but I would be happy to take off-line sometime.

I really think a straight statement of what the disagreements are is needed. Mealy-mouthed boilerplate like this is just disrespectful to members.

Plus one.

This is becoming increasingly bullshit.

I can’t see how any club huts would be open in any capacity at the moment if club committees did not have insurance.

It was a unique event in that previous claims had been relatively small. The insurers had to increase the premium because of that. Alternative options were explored and it was concluded that the insurance on offer was still best value. It’s still only a few quid a year per member - I forget the actual amount but it’s under £10. The rest of the £20 subs goes to the BMC.

As for the profit share, I think that relates to the travel insurance. Profit share arrangements are fairly common in the insurance market. 

That’s a grays response, thanks. 

It wasnt unique. The financial  relationship with the insurers is fundamentally wrong for a stakeholder serving organisation that has had difficulties demonstrating mature financial stability. 

Not really, you get a hundred or so new members pa from the YCS; the bank of mum and dad tend to pay.......and if memory serves, junior membership is less than £40.

But that insurance could be obtained at a much lower cost - see David Lanceley's early post.

There is always the option of forming a limited company. I don't know enough about this except that it has been used in some cases.

My point on the insurance is that the BMC have used it to force the thousands of club members into contributing towards the BMC without having a choice

But they already have to become a BMC member so it's not new money

If you think you can get insurance cheaper as an individual entity than as a group, go for it...

Hi Steve

Quite possibly, but not without volunteer officers having to put in a lot of initial, and probably ongoing, work on top of (as you know) an already high workload.  If nothing else the BMC does make it easy!

Not sure how you work that out!  I can't see that there is any force by the BMC, and clubs always have a choice - they can de-affiliate from the BMC at any time.  Affiliation is entirely voluntary on a club's part. 

Speaking entirely personally, both clubs I'm in were founder members of the BMC, the BMC does a huge amount of really useful work, and if, as at present, it seems to be in a mess, I'd rather my clubs were able to exert any influence they can from within.

People have made the point above that the BMC liability insurance is a major factor in folk deciding to be club officers, but I think there is another - I think being a BMC affiliated club and participating in its work is a very constructive thing for a club, and I would see de-affiliation as a major negative move.  If that was approved by a majority of members, I think it would change the nature of the club to the point where I no longer wished to volunteer my time for it.

Cheers, Andy

Hi Andy

Your comments are very valid and shared by a large number of people. For me it's about the BMC not taking us for granted because we're tied, and the expansionist polices they are pursuing on a very dodgy financial footing.

Hope to see you on a meet when this Covid thing is over

Cheers

Steve

There ARE one or two paid staff knocking about as well!  Not everything has to devolve to the volunteers, surely!

It is there's a couple of hundred new competitors every year - I think that was the point Ian W was making.

I assumed Andy was referring to volunteers running the clubs in this instance.

Hi Andy

I was talking about club volunteers, not BMC volunteers.  If a club was to start shopping around for insurance outside the BMC, or re-structuring for liability (or any other) reasons, it would be quite a lot of work, and in a large club, there's already no shortage of that.  I don't think you can find Climbing Club Liability Insurance on GoCompare or via the sodding meerkats - not so simples

Cheers, Andy

That may be the case but how many don't continue?

Also there's a cap on the total number of competitors of about 900.

Thanks. I sometimes lose the thread 😉

Thought we were talking about changing BMC corporate status!

Cheers, Andy #64 😉

My error!

Exactly this

If they weren't competing previously, then it is. And in youth E, that means most of them.

NB in the days when membership was optional for a competitor, the split was almost exactly 50/50 for categories cde and about 70/30 for a and b.

I have seen the historic claims data for the third party liability insurance, which is what I was referring to. The recent multi £m claim was higher than any other claim by a factor of well over 10 (almost 100x in fact). An insurer is bound to increase the premium in light of that. This is completely separate from the travel insurance. Nor does the profit share relate to the liability insurance, as far as I know. 

I don’t think insurance could be obtained for significantly less and I don’t think David’s examples are really comparable (particularly the motor club one - of course it’s cheap, all the members already have standard third party car insurance so this is just to cover the few bits which standard car insurance would not). If a typical club of 50-100 members tried to get insurance, I suspect the broker would say thanks for your enquiry but it’s not worth it as you’re too small for what is a fairly nice product. For a large national club it may be feasible but the per head cost would probably be higher - say £10 as opposed to about £6, so a saving of about £10 per person compared to the BMC fee. It’s just not worth the bother for a club committee to faff around with seeking their own insurance to save the members £10 each. I certainly have better things to do with my time... like writing UKC posts

Besides, as Andy Cairns pointed out above, the clubs generally take the view that the BMC is worth supporting and the large clubs in particular have some sway. Better to argue for reform from inside the tent than piss from outside the tent.

I don’t think clubs are generally keen to turn into limited companies. Too much work involved all round and formal statutory responsibilities for whoever will be the directors. I think one of the big clubs has done it but it’s an exception as far as I know.

Anyway, in what way would forming a limited company protect the Committee? They would need to become directors. That’s a very formal role and carried various statutory responsibilities with it. It still requires directors and offices insurance. If you think that incorporation would obviate the need for insurance for the Committee, I am afraid you are wrong.

Jonathan. (Not really aimed at you - more the whole thread).

I think discussion about insurance is a bit of a side issue.  

Not so very long ago membership voted for a new system of governance. Efficient, streamlined and with power vested in the 'right hands'.  A governance system that was to be open, transparent and full of checks and balances.  

I think for many members the announcement of resignations and the subsequent drip of information can only lead to the question, 'So just how the hell did we get here then ?!?'

Knowing characters like you and Andy Syme you will be even more keen to work that one out.  Was there an inherent flaw in the new structure? Were personalities too wedded to 'the old ways'? Is this an inevitable but temporary trauma for the transitioningotransitioning  Has the new structure enabled closer examination of long-term problems in the organisation?

I REALLY hope this doesn't smack of an old git having a bit of 'afters'! I do think that a successfully functioning BMC is essential for the climbing community (in all its forms).  And I most certainly don't have any answers to the above questions!

Hi Misha

I wasn't going to respond as everything has already been said re the insurance , although I was very impressed that you could write such a coherent post at 11pm after a hard day's climbing.

But I just wanted you to know it wasn't me that gave it a negative thumb

All the best

Steve

While as said above there were some issues in the 'early warning' Board to NC communications broadly I would say the governance worked.  The Board were open and transparent to the Council, the Council have not tried to replace the Board (and challenge the legal primacy), but have worked with the Board to identify a way forwards that they believe will fix the problem and in a way that is to the greatest benefit of the members.

Were the Board comms right?  Well no given this thread, but actually they were probably as open and transparent as they could have been (for example they did flag up it was about behaviours) whilst remaining within the bounds of respecting peoples privacy.   The gap between what people 'need' to know and 'want' to know is more difficult to address, but I suspect this is more about members wanting confirmation the NC are not somehow 'in cahoots' with the Board and hiding things that members need to know.  I can assure you we are not but I can't prove it to you.

And I think trust is the basic problem.  Since Climb Britain there feels like there has been a significant drop in trust in the Board and NC and in turn this makes the Board more cautious (probably over cautious) about the reactions when they try and explain.  And of course Climb Britain was really an argument about peoples perception of the 'roots' the BMC should return to or the future the BMC should embrace; which appears in this thread and almost every other BMC thread on UKC.  Unless and until there is a shared vision of what the BMC should be this will remain an issue.

Believe me or not I can say the Council have done much to be better able to exercise their 'critical friend' role with the Board and to better reflect all members views; and will be able to do more when the Article changes that were postponed in 2020 are implemented.  In the Council we are your representatives and if you don't think we are doing the right things you can tell us and ultimately use the Articles to replace us with people you feel can do better.  

I also know that the Board members I talk to are doing their absolute best to ensure the BMC remains a viable organisation that reflects the views and needs of members.  That they haven't got everything right, and some things wrong, is unfortunate but not that surprising given the situation they are in.  Ultimately though the decision members need to make comes down to raising a motion and putting forward 'better candidates' or allow the system to work; which as I said before I believe fundamentally it is doing.   

I'm not convinced that is wholly correct. I think the name itself didn't sit well with folk - "British Climbing"  may have been better received by those other than out and out mountaineers*. Overall the bigger mistake it was the lack of broader membership consultation on a new name that smacked of corporate branding that created such a backlash.        

A shared vision in an activity that has branched into different sports is not possible. What should be shared is a mutual respect for the different branches of the climbing and hillwalking and that the BMC works to support each aspect to the best of its ability without fear or favour especially now it has backtracked on having comp climbing managed by an independent subsidiary body.   

* 'British Mountaineering and Climbing' could have been a compromise name to appease the Alpine Club - aka BMC 

In reply to Andy Say:

My view, and based on experience of within the Board, is that Andy Say is somewhat correct that the changes have brought about better support, scrutiny and accountability at BMC, and that some of these issues are coming to a head as a result of "closer examination" of some of the existing practices, processes, and behaviours.

Equally, the gaps created by some of the reforms needed to be treated with great care while new norms were established. I'm interested in what has, and what hasn't yet been done with respect to the ORG recommendations (which members did overwhelmingly vote for over 2 years ago). 

I wrote a short twitter thread about this last week, when the issues were first announced. Re-written here with a few tiny edits so it makes sense for ease:

https://twitter.com/johnrobeds/status/1293168907713499136

The article highlights some very worrying developments at BMC with 3 directors resigning over "specific matters" and concerns about some behaviours within the Board, and the Chair also effectively moving on.

I have high hopes that these issues can be resolved quickly, and I can imagine the stress and workload the remaining directors are under. It's really very concerning that such issues are continually taken on the shoulders by volunteers. Having sat on the Board at BMC as a Vice President, I know that issues and concerns do extend prior to Covid-19. I served with some of the outgoing Directors who I know will have acted with the utmost integrity and professionalism.

I personally raised concerns about culture and behaviours at BMC when I left the Board and resigned the Chair of the Organisational Development Group around 18 months ago. I imagine that some of these issues are now coming to a head. The BMC is critical to climbers, and in particular now due to Covid-19; access and environmental issues have very much come to the fore as climbing walls are (or have been) closed, and more people head into the hills. Climbing walls as a commercial sector also need support.

Indoor climbing is in the Olympics for the first time next year (postponed!), and we do, as a sport, really need to get the house in order to ensure our incredibly capable athletes like Shauna (and many others) are supported.

It's good news that there are new senior staff hires being made. I also know those staff committed to BMC will be working incredibly hard to support broad church of climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers.

The article does raise many more questions than it answers, and given that there will be only one independent director remaining I think it will be very challenging for the Nominations Committee to be quorate so I'd assume Sport England are also involved.

Hopefully the actions being taken do signify that the governance changes put in place a few years ago are working, but it's a huge shame that it has come to this, and I do hope that is not a case of too little too late in terms of tackling those behaviours.

The Board and Council really needs to be on top of this, in particular the communications, and to move quickly to avoid speculation. Many members eyes will be acutely focussed back on the BMC in ways which it could really do without + we'd hoped it had moved on from.

As an organisation it really does need to just get on with creating and delivering a strategy, supporting its staff, and supporting the membership and wider climbing community.

In reply to Jonathan White:

"To scotch that rumour, no-one who has resigned has done so because of anything they have done – their professional integrity is not in question. "

This may be purely the way it has been phrased, but the way it is written does beg the question: and what about what those that are incumbent?

In reply to Andy Syme:

It is also in the Council's gift to raise those motions, and/or call General Meetings, on the behalf of the members (and equally put forward better candidates in respect to some roles) if they feel it's required. That's where the trust comes in!

For what it's worth I do trust that you will be doing your very best to do the right thing, noting and interested by your sign off as "Chair of National Council".  Clearly everyone (board and NC) has some tough decisions to make. Good luck!

"Indoor climbing is in the Olympics for the first time next year (postponed!), and we do, as a sport, really need to get the house in order to ensure our incredibly capable athletes like Shauna (and many others) are supported".

For what it is worth from a mere member, the above "assumption" is part of the broader problem. From my albeit relatively limited observations, attitudes towards competitive climbing remain ranged between enthusiasm to indifference to hostility and all points north, with very polarised views in many cases. Simply acknowledging this situation, would in my opinion be less divisive than portraying the goals of competition and particularly Olympic success as supported (or should be) by all.

John, If we thought the right approach was to require a GM to replace some or all candidates we would have done it.  If I considered it the right thing in the future I would propose it to the Council for us to discuss and decide on.   As you say the Council, like the members, hold that power but as with all power it needs to be exercised wisely! 

We need to get to a position where if not everyone supports all the BMCs broad church of activity they at least all feel that they are not 'losing out' in position, ethos, money or whatever, to any other part.

There have been many votes on whether the organisation should support it, going back decades. Divisive, yes, but always supported. You are well within your rights to individually not support, lobby against, and change that view! Good luck!

It’s certainly not the primary goal of BMC, and the recommendations 2 years ago were to ensure that competition management was sufficiently separate in its governance and activities.

Good post Andy,

I’m disappointed that the new Board structure hasn’t led to more action in modernising the BMC in implementing the recommendations made in the ORG report.

I think that Board primacy is still the best (least worst ) option and we shouldn’t be thinking of throwing the baby out with the bath water just yet. 

In trying to interpret the announcement and Andy Syme’s and Jonathon White’s post that there are some on the Board that aren’t fully bought into the new way of doing things (governance) clashing with those that are. As Jonathon said: ‘one person’s major priority can be another person’s non-issue’. 

Last year we had the issue of the full finished accounts being signed off by the CEO and President before the rest of the Board had sight of them and maybe that was deemed as acceptable in the past but it is not good governance. The Board has legal responsibility for the submitted accounts and this led to (yet) another set of Accounts being submitted by companies house making the above clear. 

I have no inside track and don’t know if there was a similar flare up this year but it seems plausible. We can deduce from the statements that the people at the heart of the breakdown are the ones that are still in post, not the ones who have left. If those remaining Board members aren’t fully up to speed with new ways of doing things by now then I have little confidence that “facilitated sessions” are the answer.

Feel free to correct me if my conspiracy theory is completely off track. Maybe it was just a disagreement that got out of hand on what level the air con was set at..

I believe that, at the very least, the Finance Committee has normally had the opportunity to examine the  accounts prior to 'sign-off'. Never having been a Board member I don't know whether all Directors have normally had oversight at that stage.

Thinking back to my time with MTE the norm was for the Company Secretary to get the accounts from the auditors and circulate them to all Directors prior to an Exec. meeting. After discussion attat meeting they would  then be signed off by the Chair and the Company Secretary prior to submission to Companies House.

Subsequently a summary was circulated to the full Board (in the BMCs case that would be National Council/membership).

There is a distinction to be made between draft accounts and what is put forward to the Board for final sign off.

The supplementary note in the re-submitted accounts on 25.9.19 reads:

"Note that on page 4 of the Accounts under the heading Emphasis of matter where it refers to the oroiginal financial statements being approved on 19 February 2019 this is incorrect in that it was only the financial data that had been reviewed by the Board at that date. The Accounts and Report.....were approved by the Board on 5 March 2019"

The above was clearly the compromise that was reached after a lot of 'discussion' on the matter by the Board from what I gather between those who felt it trivial and those who felt it important. 

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02874177/filing-history

So the statutory accounts were refiled, which is a big red flag to the outside world, just so some frankly unimportant wordings could be changed*. That is completely ridiculous and a sign of neurosis not governance.

* two completely boilerplate paragraphs that add nothing and a 'by the way' note about some obscure mountain hut

Its not neurosis it's correcting a factual inaccuracy which, once they became aware, the Board could not just ignore. 

 The governance failure was in the process that submitted to Companies House with the error in, and that I'm assured has definately been addressed. 

An experienced and confidant Board would have shrugged its collective shoulders, recognised this as an insignificant error and moved on to do something useful.  Hardly surprising that Board meetings take for ever and agendas are rarely completed if this is the kind of stuff the Board concerns itself with.  Paranoia indeed.

You are looking at the wrong page not that it matters especially. The amendments are not substantial but a seemingly endless amending of accounts info to members and the AGM last year doesn’t look great for an organisation that says it is looking to follow models of good governance. I even picked up some wrong companies house info on a BMC Director appointment which had to be corrected. Bear in mind that we have a lawyer employed for governance stuff and you’d think a national body would be good at this sort of thing.

As mentioned above whilst I have no idea about the specifics I suspect that generally the rift is between individuals who don’t much care about good governance and those that do. So in a sense it is a struggle between the old guard and the new if my reading of things is right.

Whilst this particular incident may well have been trivial I think that the base issue was around the submission of full accounts to Companies House 'on behalf of the Board', signed off by just two Board members, without the rest of the Board having any opportunity to inspect them?

If I was a Director that process, even if the accounts were perfectly sound, might cause me some concern.

Andy, you are, for your sins (😉) the 'go-to' man for the current BMC governance as defined by the Articles!

A couple of idle speculations...

If the whole Board was to resign what on earth happens?

If the membership is unhappy with one, or a group, of the Directors there would seem to be nothing, effectively, they could do about it? (I forget the threshold for a motions now. 5% or 10% of the membership?  Even if it's 5% that equates to over 400 members when normal AGM attendance is about 100). I'm not sure that National Council could do anything about it? 

The only person actually voted in at the AGM is the President now?

I may well be wrong! (It's a long time since I was really engaged with this!).  Thoughts would be welcome.

Small companies like the BMC are not required to have actual board meetings, resolutions, etc. These can be dispensed with quite easily in company law. This governance thing is a joke.

I'm sorry but, 'rubbish'.

Especially since the current articles specify that those things must happen.

The BMC, as a Sport England recognised governing body, with the number of 'shareholders' it has and the turnover it records does not require Board meetings?!?

The BMC, no matter how it appears, isn't a little group of pigeon fanciers. It needs to comply with the Companies Act.

Did you not know this when you voted for it?

Sorry, but it's my job to know these things

I think that is aimed at ABSOBLOODYLUTELY the wrong person 😂

I would love your explanation of why the BMC doesn't need Board Meetings etc.

You could have saved the BMC so much angst.

Apologies, there were so few of us that voted against it that I was making an assumption. It was clear at the time that this would be the case.

A factor of ten out! 5% is the default in Companies Act. For BMC it’s:

• 1% of members to call a GM
• 0.5% of members to add a resolution to a GM/AGM

Both achievable, with the right justification.

So is it not also your job to know the difference between minimum statutory requirement and best practice (or even acceptable practice or fit for purpose)? And the potential consequences for the Bmc given the specific requirements of the IFSC and UIAA and Sport England?

What a bizarre statement. How then do you propose that the stakeholders direct the management of the organization?

Sounds like a walk in the park.

Motion of no confidence anybody?

That's the problem, it's been quangoed by policies and procedures morons.

LOL

Stakeholders, maybe you should drop the jargon. Companies have members and directors.

Absolutely spot on.  Couldn’t have put it better myself!

Whatever, the question still applies.

No answer huh?

Ok, lets try to explore a few points. I own a company, I am a shareholder and director of said company and so is my wife. I do not need to hold a Board meeting because there are only the two of us who are owners although I am expected to maintain my Minute Book. I simply tell her what to sign, she signs it and away we go.

The term "Governance" simply refers to the decision making system employed by the group, family, company, organization etc. In the example of my own company, the decision making system is simple (what I say goes - unless, of course she says different ), this negates the need for a board or a board meeting so, sensibly, company law allows us to avoid this exercise.

Let's move on to look at an organisation such as the BMC. It has thousands of members, shareholders, directors etc. and, yes, stakeholders (because the BMC uses public funding, government grants etc.). So it needs a more formalised decision making system in order to allow for accountability and for the management to receive direction from its membership (insert whatever alternative term you want to use). In this case, the BMC employs a Board structure to do this.

The fact that the Board is not operating as it should is a different issue. There is very definitely a need for a formalised governance system. It would just be preferable if it was a functioning one.

GM and new appointments and/or elections is only option.  Might need some sort of 'hold over' Board to enact all that but not sure about that; would need a legal or company law expert. 

As JR said 1% - GM, 0.5% - Resolution and 25 people to ask Council to review a resolution which the Council can decide to take forward (or not).    Resolution would be the way to 'discuss' any Director(s). 

NC can always raise a resolution at a GM and can require the Board to hold a GM if they wish, once they have gone through the resolution process. 

President - Always

Nominated Directors - Depends.  All 3 current NDs were but this is not required if the board want to instead go to specific stakeholders for an appointee.

Chair, IDs and CNDs - All appointees but need to be approved at an AGM.

Nationally Elected Councillors will be elected at AGM when this is implemented. 

Does that answer your questions?

I'm not arguing with a fool thanks.

I AM getting senile....

So about 425 signatories needed?

Yes. Cheers, Andy.

Anyone care to explain, in one short paragraph, what is going on with the BMC?

There’s been tensions that have that have come to a head. Two of the Independent Directors have left in protest at what presumably became an unworkable situation. The Chairman offered his resignation to National Council presumably for not managing the situation. National Council has accepted a recovery plan presented by the Board. The causes of the breakdown and individuals involved are unknown but still on the Board. Hopefully NC reps will offer some more insight at the next round of Area Meetings.

When considering the ability of the members to call a General Meeting both JR and Andy Syme are of course correct when they set the bar at 1% under paragraph 11.6 of the articles.  What they have not mentioned is that it is 1% of the Voting Members, defined in 11.9 of the articles as the total of those who voted at the previous AGM.  At the last AGM about 1600 people voted.

This means that to call a General Meeting sixteen (16) people need to come together and sign a requisition under Article 11.6 addressed to the Board.  (Not the 450 figure that Andy Say suggests.)  The Board must then call a General Meeting of the members.  Members would then table a Resolution, 45 clear days before the meeting, that addresses their concerns.  The resolution may be a MONC in the Board, or it could address other issues. 

For example, the Resolution could call on the Board to appoint an independent person to report to the members on the issues that have given rise to the resignations of two, out of three, Independent Directors, a Council Nominated Director and the refusal of the Independent Chair to serve a second term.  The independent person could also be asked to make recommendations on the way forward.

However as Andy Syme has set out, this is far from the end of the matter.  Due to the new articles of association the problems for the members are only just beginning.  Under the new articles the power of the members to propose, second and elect Board members is highly circumscribed.  The members can only elect the President, despite the fact that the members are the owners of the company. 

Appointment of other members of the Board by the members is, by design of the new articles, beyond their powers.  The Nominations Committee of the Board has to nominate to the Board the three Independent Directors and the three Nominated Directors.  The National Council appoints three Council Nominated Directors without any role for the members.  The Board selects and appoints the Independent Chair, not the members. 

The only role for the members at a General Meeting in respect of Board appointments, other than the President, is to either approve what is put in front of them, by the Board or the National Council or not. And if not, then they have to wait on another “approved” and/or “nominated” appointee to be put to them. 

The new articles were intended to strip the members of their powers to directly propose, second and elect members of the Board, other than the President. Yet members are still expected to maintain the BMC with their subscriptions and to guarantee the finances of the company. 

Members have all the financial responsibility but none of the power.  But we could make a start by having sixteen people come together and requisition a General Meeting.  At least we could then get to the bottom of the “issues” which have given rise to the resignations.

With you and me we now need only 14 people......

You’ve (wilfully?) misinterpreted 11.9 which reads:

 The determination of the threshold percentages or numbers (as the case may be) for the purposes of Article 11.6 and Article 11.7 shall be determined by reference to the total Voting Membership numbers reported at the previous Annual General Meeting, rounded down to the nearest whole number.

 

Total Membership numbers are reported at the AGM ie c.80,000. Those members all have voting rights. The wording could be tightened up though. The only class of non-voting membership I can think of is corporate membership which is why the distinction might have been made.
 

Rodney and David, you may be misreading 11.9. The term "Voting Members" is capitalised and therefore has the meaning set out at the beginning of the articles. The context set out in 11.9 says "... by reference to the total Voting Membership numbers reported at the previous Annual General Meeting, rounded down to the nearest whole number."

The key word is "reported" - which I think may mean the report given of TOTAL membership numbers at the previous AGM. NOT the report given of the total people attending the current meeting. 

I await clarification from someone who knows the definitive answer

Paul E (I see Shark and I were typing at the same time...)

This sounds to me like members of the Board are acting ultra vires, or worse.

I had to look up 'ultra vires' = "beyond one's legal power or authority"

I'm of course aware of what 11.9 says, just being a little mischievous.

Only 1,600 votes out of a membership of 80,000-odd gives a good indication of the membership's enthusiasm for all this nonsense.  Can't be because it takes a lot of time and trouble to vote electronically, only took me a couple of minutes to tick "against" in all the boxes.....

Good post. As you say governance means “decision making system“ and we all want a clear decision making system with checks and balances don’t we?

One anecdote I heard from BMC proceedings from 20+ years ago is that a National Council decision was later reversed in the bar on the basis that there were enough members still left (standing anyway) to be quorate. Obviously things have improved since then.

You are also right to mention stakeholders as well. Not just Sport England and UK Sport but also Mountain Training and the Association of British Climbing Walls for example not least to act on their behalf for whole-sport applications for grant money. To get government money there are thresholds of standards of governance that are stipulated. These standards have been thrashed out and tinkered with over many years so its not like the BMC has to reinvent the wheel to devise standards of best practice.

Sporting bodies have their own Association - the Sporting and Recreational Alliance - who have devised their own code which meets government stipulations and no doubt they lobby against stipulations they consider unreasonable. Their code is surprisingly readable and it is hard to find much to disagree with. In fact it was used as the model to benchmark against by those leading the Organisational Review Group.

www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/pages/principles-of-good-governance
 

And SE code of sports governance mainly mirrors the SRA principles, except the code mandates some stuff that the SRA recommend.  I did a lot of comparison in 2017 & 2018 and as I remember it the net effect of either would be little different in the governance structures we would have needed to implement.

But as discussed in 2018 if we want to be eligible for the funding from SE and UK Sport, which we have received since then and are in the process of applying for now, then we have to comply with the SE code.   

It would also seem to be a reasonable indication that not many people are nearly as exercised about it as you are.

Quite. But I also think it worth emphasising the positives of applying this code rather than implying that it is a wholly onerous imposition by Sport England. It might be politically expedient to use SE as a whipping boy but the net effect has been that it has forced the BMC to head towards being a better governed organisation.

For a few members all this stuff is interesting and exercising🙄

I would guess, however, that maybe 90% of members have joined the mountaineering equivalent of 'Green Flag' and couldn't give a stuff about the governance structure.  They just want a service.

I think that's a shame. But that's just me.

And here we are discussing resignations, Board in-fighting, and the National Council having to kick arse.  😂

Ah-ha. So it is all about governance!

Simon

That was what I was trying to say.  

Andy

I suspect that to be very unlikely. 'Voting Members'will be defined as "Members entitled to vote". Not those Members who attended (the last? or which?) AGM and voted.

Now we just need to know what aspects and who was opposing or not following procedure or implementation.

It doesn’t seem right for NC to spare the blushes of an individual or individuals in this matter. 

As John Cook said above it seems open and transparency only applies except when it is inconvenient. This is suitably material matter to put in firmly in the area of member interest rather than interesting to members. 

If you are talking about the resignations, the Council have shared what we feel is appropriate in the circumstances.  It's not about saving blushes or embarrassment but about telling members what we know to be facts, as opposed to feelings and hearsay or theorising about behaviours or motives.  If we believe that releasing information is legally and morally correct and it is to the benefit of members we will do so. 

The Council"purpose shall be to act as a representative body of the Members and to consult with the Board, constructively challenge the Board, and to hold the Board to account on the Members' behalf as applicable." (Art 16.1) and we are doing that to the best of all our abilities in a balanced constructive way.  

I suspect very few people are interested in the mechanics of how an organisation operates; we'll leave that to the barrack-room lawyers, wannabe politicians and those who can chuck about the odd Latin phrase, but don't seem to understand English. Or maybe choose to deliberately misunderstand English to justify their position...

Most people just want an organisation to 'just get on with it, and do the right thing, I  a reasonable manner'.

At the risk of this becoming a game of Cluedo I’m going to cut to the chase and guess that at the heart of it is Lynn Robinson with a piece of lead piping in the BMC offices (which doesn’t have air con)

Reasoning?

As stated in my UKC article* last year: “Whilst Robinson has shown herself to be an outstanding President at the Public Relations and ambassadorial elements of her role, she appears to have been less adept and enthusiastic with respect to the nitty gritty detailed ODG work of governance and policy changes.”

Also it was odd that there was no statement in the BMC article - you would expect a statement from the President during a time of crisis. Furthermore, she is no longer Chairing National Council as you have stated you are despite this being the role of the President as well as being the Champion of National Council to “hold the Board to account” (her words at the Peak Area meeting. She also says was championing openness and transparency at the same meeting which later proved hollow words when she refused to disclose the number of proxy votes at the 2019 AGM.

Feel free to correct me. I’m just guessing.

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

Wow!

I don't know how strong or not Lynn is on highly detailed stuff about governance but frankly if I were her I would have quite happily allowed Andy Syme to do the heavy lifting on that front due to his previous high standard of work and willingness to discuss issues in that area in minute detail.

Being able to recognise that you either don't have the time, or that there is a better person to do the work whom you can delegate it to are important skills that I am confident Lynn will have nailed.

Let's please remember that these people ARE volunteers and that they will make mistakes, it serves no-one to undermine the confidence in the board or individual members.

Simon

Will probably get slated for a "crappy politicians answer" but ...

I chaired the NC Board discussions because I was asked by the President as she recognised she was conflicted.

Lynn was away for the second Council meeting, and is away at the moment, and the Council decided that given the situation they wanted to ensure there was a defined Chair who could act/respond on their behalf if, as has proved the case, there was ongoing work to be done.  I was voted by all the Council members to take that role (I abstained obviously) but when Lynn returns she will revert to Chairing NC by right. 

At the meeting between the Board and the NC there were no names mentioned by the Board as specifically being wrong or difficult etc.  What there was however was a general acceptance that all of them had to varying degrees done, or not done, things which ultimately resulted in the Board becoming uncohesive.  They all recognised that they individually and collectively needed to act differently in order to rebuild the cohesion which is necessary to ensure the members get what they need which is a functioning BMC with no 'backroom dramas'. 

Those are the facts as the council know and hence can comment on. 

Now clearly people talk to me, as they do you and others, and express views on people they think are doing good, bad or indifferent, and funnily enough another person will then ring and that person sees it differently.  If we were talking some form of 'gross misconduct' then the Council would rightly want to delve further but nothing I have heard from anyone, including the resigning Directors, suggest that.  Whether, based on similar conversations they have had, Council members should have delved further into the realms of who said/did/did not do this, that or the other is I guess up for debate but no councillor chose to do so.  The Council did however satisfy themselves that, subject to the Board doing what it said, the remaining Board members and the plan the Board presented to the Council was the best way to resolve the situation.  

The council continue to work with the Board and ensure that our decision remains appropriate.  If the situation, or the information, changes the Council will decide how best they can exercise their duties and powers to the benefit of members. 

I don’t think anyone should slag you off. I certainly appreciate you (and to a lesser extent Jonathan) being prepared to discuss. 

Thank you for explaining why you are currently NC Chair not Lynn but for the sake of clarity can you confirm she is not in any way suspended as President 

Of course if there was gross misconduct then there would be more resignations or suspension at least pending investigation 

I think you (or someone else) said the NC meeting lasted 8 hours discussing the matter. It surprises me that in that time the ins and outs weren’t probed more deeply to understand the parts individuals played and whether the Boards collective responsibility story washed or whether individual blame was attributable and so in fact a further resignation or resignations might be expected as a solution to the dysfunction.

A final point. Whatever the governance issue that led to the final breakdown is can we take it that the issue is now fully resolved to the satisfaction of the Board and NC or is that still part of the recovery plan?

Absolutely.  Lynn is NOT suspended.

It did last over 8 hours, of which in session 1 about 1 hour was with Jon, 2 hours was with Lynn and the CNDs and in session 2 about 2 hours were with all the remaining Board, except Lynn (who was away).   There were plenty of hard questions asked and there were statements made or answers given that the council could have followed up further if they had wished but they did not.   My take was that the 'mood of the room' was that nothing of the Board interactions was of a nature that would suggest that anyone did anything so 'bad' that pinning 'blame' on a person (or persons) or trying to force resignations was going to either decisively fix the problem, or move the BMC to a better place.    

It appears to be moving very much in the right direction, but I would say this is 'work in progress' and until we are further down the road of the recovery plan we can't make any final statements.  And as work in progress clearly things might change as the situation evolves. 

I'm not really a sport climber but as you are maybe the best summary is "The beta looks good, most of the moves are dialled, they are making good progress on the linkups, but we're not yet ready for the redpoint and we're definitely not at the chains"

Thanks Andy

As I'm sure you know from the 2017 Members Survey only around a quarter of BMC members are making a conscience decision to join the BMC because they want to support the BMC's work for climbers, hillwalkers & mountaineers. Of the rest -

21% joined to obtain the travel insurance. Therefore are unlikely to have any wider interest in the BMC

23% joined because it was a requirement of registering for a Mountain Training award. Therefore probably have little wider interest in the BMC

22% became members by virtue of joining a local club. Based on my experience a lot of these don’t even know they are BMC members and where they do most have little interest in the BMC

I have always felt that giving everyone equal voting rights was wrong and that voting should be limited to members with full membership, with the option for the others to be able to upgrade to full membership (as the club members can now) if they wish.

I don't think you can draw this conclusion, "Therefore are unlikely to have any wider interest in the BMC". Many will have multiple purposes which are not captured by the survey. Granted if the was a question which read, "Was your sole purpose joining for the insurance and, even though you are now a member, you retain no other interest in the BMC Y/N", you could draw that conclusion but since there wasn't you can't.

I reckon there are a lot of people generally interested in the BMC but which are driven join things for other reasons (insurance, comps, MTA, clubs). I reckon these outweigh those that have no other interest.

So join for MTA - highly likely to be interested in other BMC stuff, join for comps - highly likely to be interested in at least a chunk of BMC stuff and highly likely to be interested in governance, join for insurance - probably a fair bet they are interested in mountains hence interested in the BMC etc etc.

Who on earth would have the power to 'suspend' a President elected in by the membership?

It gets even more serpentine.

Can I say, though, Andy, that I REALLY do appreciate you, as a volunteer, taking the time to engage with all of these awkward questions!

Leaving 35% or around 28,000 "pure" members of whom 1,600 voted so around 6% "turnout" assuming that all the votes are pure members.

Pretty unrepresentative I would have thought....

No idea.  Could remove from board if legally unable to remain a company director I suppose but they would still be the Predident.  And before any more twists are added that is a theoretical statement with nothing that should be read into it!!!!!!!!

NP I like to be helpful where I can  

Do you know what other organisation participation in AGMs is?  I seem to remember being told by someone who I thought was authorative that 5% is a very good turnout for AGM voting, but happy to be proved wrong if there are authorative stats to say otherwise. 

Perhaps not, but if people joining by virtue of obtaining travel insurance, registering for a Mountain Training award, or joining a local club were given associate membership with the option of upgrading to full voting membership then we'd know

Strictly it wasn't an AGM vote but an online vote, you didn't have to be there or mess around with a proxy as you would with many (probably most) AGM's.  Good or bad turnout why do so few vote?  It's easy and quick, the issues are simple and you don't have to leave your armchair.

My own view (mainly from talking to members I come across outside the volunteer pool) is that most just aren't interested in all the admin / governance stuff that the BMC have been beating itself up with for the last couple or years.  They simply want the organisation to be there doing useful stuff with the minimum of their involvement and fuss.

But a step in the right direction

But at some point will there be member kick back at excessive subscription increases because of incompetent financial management

I think it is totally possible to be a member of an organisation, contribute to it, support its aims and be interested in it progress without attending the AGM!  In my case that would include CAMRA, Mountaineering Scotland, National Trust for Scotland, Historic Scotland, and the Civil Service Motoring Association - I've never been to the AGM of an of them, and if I went to all of them it would cost a fortune and I'd never have time for any climbing.  I have been to the last 3 BMC AGMs though, as I felt my presence was needed to ensure constructive progress.

Cheers, Andy

I suspect that this applies to almost any governance of any entity. 

I agree there has been a lack of joined-up financial management in recent times.  In part external effects but also due to an inexperienced and interfering Board.

In my 5 year term as Treasurer from 2008 to 2013 we made a modest surplus every year, didn't increase the subs, bought Wilton Quarry, published a rake of guidebooks and did all the stuff that the BMC should be doing.  There were no great dramas and AGM's were a walk in the park.  Lucky?  Maybe, but as Arnold P said the more I practice the luckier I get.

Rodney

These are the same arguments you made in 2018 and I see no point going back over the same arguments that were discussed then.  Anyone who wants to read them can find them all at https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/crag_access/the_bmc_proposals_to_go_to_ar... and https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/crag_access/bmc_agm_etc_whats_happening-6...

Others have pointed out that you've misread the articles but to confirm it is 1% or 0.5% of the total voting membership,  not the total numbers of members voting at the last AGM.

If you cannot get the 400(ish) members for a resolution, you can still get 24 others and raise it to the Council who will review it under article 11.7.2.

Hope this helps

Andy

I think we all know that interpreting the articles as gallam1 has done and that 16 members raising a motion on the basis that it's a percentage of AGM attendees, not Voting Members, isn't going to wash. In fairness, the drafting could be clearer, but we all know the intents.

That said, the easiest route out for the Board is to probably hold a General Meeting, with a proper strategy and plan for the future, and a new Chair and directors proposed ASAP, so that it gets the house in order, draws a line, and allows the air to clear. The Board (or NC) can of course call this themselves.

The Articles do state that the figure used to calculate the 0.5 or 1% figures for members' resolutions or members' raising a General Meeting:

"...shall be determined by reference to the total Voting Membership numbers reported at the previous Annual General Meeting..."

I'm pained to point out that I specifically raised at this year's AGM that the BMC Annual Report presented didn't include this current total membership figure, and therefore a total Voting Membership figure against which you could reference 0.5% or 1% was not reported.

For many obvious, and less obvious (like this) reasons, reporting these numbers annually is critical.

The CEO committed to updating the Annual Report to include these figures in response to my question. I'm not aware that this has been done and the 2019 Annual Report is not currently available on the BMC site: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-annual-reports-and-annual-accounts

Obviously Covid-19 has caused some disruption, but BMC ought to confirm that this has been done, and clarify what total Voting Membership figure should be used to calculate the 0.5% and 1% thresholds, and put the 2019 Annual Report online.

If anything, so that this is completely clear for Rodney, or anyone else, what the thresholds for members' resolutions are. Nonetheless, I hope this approach isn't necessary, and the Board and NC sort it out.

For reference, here were the three full questions submitted to AGM:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTLd6Fks-CZT4Nb3UnBA6kDrQU1w1-Z...

In the reply to UKB Shark, Andy Syme explained that the NC members had held a total of eight hours of discussions with the President, the resigning Council Nominated Director and the remaining members of the Board in order to fully understand the “issues” that had given rise to the resignations.

It would appear however that this rigorous questioning did not extend to the two Independent Directors who have resigned. Is this the case? Have NC heard directly from the Independent Directors the "issues" behind their resignations?

David,

Can you elaborate in what way the Board has been ‘interfering’ ? With overall accountability don’t they have the right to get behind the numbers ?

A meeting is taking place tonight to discuss and make decisions about further steps we will take, acknowledging the concerns that have been raised by members – including on UKC. We will be sending a communication to members (with a link here)  following that with an update on the progress that has been made in the last couple of weeks and additional steps we are taking to address the situation.

Chris Stone

Thanks Chris, I hope the meeting is productive and that you are all able to bring it to a close at a sensible time!

Hi Chris. Board meeting? Or a joint Board/NC meeting?

It's the National Council's role to articulate and represent member views, obviously. The Directors' primary responsibility is to 'the company'.

Board Meeting, but as a CND Chris will obviously be representing members views to the Board. 

He'll be the only one though?

Lynn as members champion?

And other board members are active members

If the President 'attends' then yes; but I thought she was ill?

And to say Board members are "active members' does beg a few questions: 'climbing activism' is not required. It fact is has been argued that all Board members will be 'BMC members' because they get given BMC membership I think.

I'd go back to my previous point though; any Director primarily owes a legal responsibility to the company first and foremost.  It is the role of National Council to say, 'hang on a bit!'

Fiona is a CND and hopefully she will also attend

You are of course correct, as Board members their primary responsibilty is to the company. So once the Board has reported on their meeting we will see how the NC responds. The local area meetings are going to be interesting.

My apologies are due. Somehow I had forgotten Fiona.

So we're going to get a statement from the Board which could be immediately be challenged by National Council 😆

Ain't life grand. I'm really hoping I have a decent phone signal for the area meetings (I'll be somewhere in the Vosges around then I think).

The 2 IDs provided the council with a statement for session 2 but did not attend in person.

Whilst I will not share the full statement, which they can do if they wish, but I think that the following extracts from the statement are appropriate to share here and that has been agreed by Matthew. 

• We are comforted that National Council are taking the current governance circumstances seriously.
• Our resignations were not as a result of any specific allegations and/or grievance(s).
• We remain supportive of the organisation and we remain members.

Lynn is still away so I'm assuming she isn't attending but I don't know given I assume it's a webex type meeting.  And Fiona as you said.

I'm pretty certain all the Board were members prior to appointment.

Yes the Board has a legal responsibility to the Company, but as members themselves I think it's wrong to suggest that they don't take members views into account, but clearly there is a primary legal duty.

I believe that everything being discussed is know to the Council but yes the they will say 'hang on' if they feel it's appropriate.