UKH

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-annual-general-meeting

Some people were expressing frustration that the results hadn't been published yesterday and I hadn't seen anyone mention that they had now been released.

In reply to spenser:

Thanks.

It's brilliant that that 'election results' web page is dated 21/05/2024 - i.e. about three weeks before the actual AGM.

That all fits very nicely with the North Korean style of the elections, in which there was only one candidate for every single post.

Should we all give up?

In reply to abcdefg:

Who’d have thought that not many volunteers would be keen to commit a lot of time to the BMC at the moment. The ones sniping from the sidelines prefer to do just that and others are disinclined to volunteer because of those sniping from the sidelines!

In reply to David Bowler:

If you look at the breakdown there are three categories added together. Firstly, AGM Chair (the President's) large number of proxy votes; including a set of pre defined directed proxy votes, combined with (most likely many more) proxy votes to be decided by the chair. Then a single directed proxy vote for someone else attending. Then the votes of those attending on the day.

The actual results are produced by an independent polling company and are included in the linked pdf below (dated June 13th), but were added to the May 21st post yesterday (when I was shown them).

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%202024%20AGM%20voting%20outcome.pd...

In reply to abcdefg:

They have repeatedly updated the web page for the AGM rather publishing each update as a new article (which makes it difficult to find what you are looking for due to the utterly decrepit website's appalling search functionality). It shows the original published date for the content which can occasionally look a little bit odd.

Given the number of vacancies on council at present it would seem more beneficial to have had people standing for vacant positions rather than competing for a single position which already has an incumbent. I suspect everyone on council and the board would be ruddy delighted if there were competitions for multiple posts and all posts were filled!

In reply to the thread:

No one actually cares then. That’s disappointing. Oh well, back to the talking shop for those who were elected. Watch your change, people! And try to look like you care for 12 months or so. 

In reply to pencilled in:

I'm sure most people care but sadly not enough vote.

I wanted to present a position here on UKC, from my perspective on Council, when there had been too few official BMC communications in some bad situations that needed explanation. I respect some here who have disagreed with me and debated on specific things I said, without ad hom insults.

My election had 106 who said no or abstained out of 1512 votes. Yet the first time I stood, three years ago, an online campaign was run against me, so a vocal opposition is no recent thing:

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/JYf1hbPVBMdLnuve/

Our new President, who is highly qualified and has never been involved previously in BMC politics, got 71 votes which were either against or abstentions. It seems weird to me the difference from my vote is 35 (and that 35 includes 9 more of of those who attended the meeting, plus the single directed proxy!).

In reply to galpinos:

There was only candidate for every position to be voted for, and the voting turnout was about 1400 from an electorate of 80000 (or so) - that's less than 2%. I don't think that either of those facts suggest a very vibrant or healthy organization - but you might disagree.

However, back to my 'North Korea' wisecrack. I myself cannot remember any public call for nominations for any of the contested positions. Was there one? I accept that I might have missed it - but I am pretty certain I never received any mail about it.

In reply to spenser:

Probably shows my ignorance but I've spent at least an hour reading the various threads on here over the last year, a few minutes looking at the papers that were sent, went through the first few voting forms with no obvious decisions to vote on and decided I can't make an informed contribution to this process. Maybe it makes more sense to people actively involved in the BMC or with a lot more time to spend on researching it. Maybe a simple opinion poll during the year would help with getting the wider membership involved in prioritisation 

In reply to abcdefg:

Every member got an email (provided the BMC have their up to date version, which members can now check themselves on the BMC website*) and the AGM and voting was publicised here on UKC a few times in news and forum threads and those linked to the locked May 21st article on the BMC website.

There was even a second call for vacant roles where no one had stood.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-jobs

*At the top of the BMC home page you can register, by clicking the "Sign In" button. Once done you can check your membership information and status.

In reply to David Bowler:

It’s worse than that. 90%+ of the votes were given to Andy Syme, the President to vote. I guess at least those that did that could be bothered a bit unlike the ~78000 who didn’t. How bad do things need to get.

The way the votes are recorded is wrong. Should be a definitive number for: “For”, “Against” and “Abstention”. Using a % figure  is unhelpful.

In reply to Offwidth:

I didn't receive the email. I suspect it ended up in a spam folder as it was from Civica, not from the BMC. Strange though as I did receive emails from Civica in previous years.

In reply to UKB Shark:

Andy carried proxy votes for himself as chair to decide on the day and directed proxy votes where he just transferred decisions already made. We just don't know how many of each type he had but you can estimate from comparing percentages on votes submitted in the meeting to his percentage: I'd guesstimate it must be nearer 50% under Andy's decision than 90%.

I'd urge people in future to direct chair's proxy votes where possible and if things are contentious and might need input to the decision from debate on the day, give your proxy to someone you trust most (which for many this time will have been the chair, irrespective of how much you personally disgree with him).

I agree we should have votes 'for', 'against' and 'abstain' recorded for members and I'd expected chair proxy votes to be highlighted, as they were previously.

In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks. I confirm that I received the AGM emails - what I can't recall receiving is any 'call for candidates' emails.

However in view of what you've written, I accept that that is my mistake.

In reply to UKB Shark:

+1 for all of that.

(Btw, my recollection of the Civica email/web interface is that it stated that abstentions weren't even formally registered. So anybody abstaining as some sort of 'protest' vote was wasting their time. It seems obvious to me that abstentions should be formally recorded, and presented in the final tally.)

In reply to scope:

I received it, but I don't remember seeing it. I may have seen "election" and tuned out, as it wasn't obviously from the BMC and Civica means nothing to me. Besides all the motions to vote on were routine and uncontentious. Had I wanted to vote against something then I would have made more effort to find out how to vote.

I couldn't attend the AGM itself.

In reply to Howard J:

There were votes for people to represent you. That's hardly uncontentious.

In reply to abcdefg:

With only one person standing for each post. Tbh I'd assumed they'd be elected nem con without an actual vote. 

In reply to Howard J:

Well, exactly. (And I've already made that same 'North Korea' observation.)

But you could always have voted 'no.'

In reply to abcdefg:

People are not standing or Council because they don't want to, not because they can't. As it is, a few have been arm twisted.

In reply to Offwidth:

Who has had their arm twisted?

You are painting a picture of an institution in utter decline.

In reply to abcdefg:

It would be a shame if it was, but doesn't seem much succession planning. Nothing to attract people to take over the running whilst also trying to become an SME.

In reply to abcdefg:

Not me 🤣

In reply to UKB Shark:

Yeah right, you won an election to join Council like all others on Council.

In reply to Offwidth:

Simon Lee wasn't on the ballot at the 2024 AGM. What are you referring to?

In reply to abcdefg:

I only know of one election to Council in recent times from an area  that had more candidates than places ( Peak about 5 years ago) . Simon was elected years before that as the only Peak area candidate standing. On the new NEC roles only hillwalking was contested three years back and this time no-one stood. If Council was such a great and powerful role why are hardly any elections contested and why do some people need to be persuaded?

President was only contested twice in decades Doug vs Rab and Lynn vs Les.

The idea this is something new is ridiculous.

In reply to JoshOvki:

If posts are filled, I'd argue too much succession planning and too little encouragement of open democracy.

In reply to Offwidth:

Classy.
Do you not think as a representative of the BMC that you should perhaps consider your posting style as at the moment you're coming across as taking everything personally which is really not doing you or the BMC any favours.
Additionally, maybe you should consider having two UKC profiles:
A new professional one with your real name and role within the BMC where you can relay information about the BMC in a factual way.
Your current one where you can be as shouty as you want about non BMC matters.

In reply to FactorXXX:

It's easy enough to verify which other area elections to Council were ever contested in the last few decades. Pre 2018, Council had much greater powers, with serious risks of being regarded as 'shadow Directors'. 

If UKC allowed me two profiles (like Dom ha kindly been allowed recently), I'd happily use them. UKC have behaved incredibly well in my view; especially on highly sensitive moderation around democratic BMC issues. In the post I linked above, about the online campaign against my previous election 3 years ago, serious accusations were made about my posts here. Alan James made the point they had looked into the detail of this and no such posts existed on this site (including no deleted posts).

In reply to Offwidth:

Maybe that's an indicator of someone with a logical thought process that asked for it as opposed to someone who hasn't?

In reply to Offwidth:

Just use another email account to make a second account and then you can continue posting as Offwidth and then a more ‘professional’ BMC profile. 

In reply to ro8x:

I'm not representing the BMC though, I'm mainly representing my personal and political opinions on the organisation. My user name doesn't stop the fact it's hardly hidden what my real name is (unlike most 'proxy' usernames here). When acting as an elected Councillor I try to stick to straight factual stuff on BMC information or policy, where it helps inform debate (where sadly no one else has posted it already).

In contrast Dom will very much be representing the organisation in his capacity as President and members' champion; except where he isn't, when on non-BMC matters.

I'd be happy if UKC/H think it would be useful for the four BMC Nationally Elected Councillors ( Hillwalking; Indoor Climbing; Mountaineering; and Rock Climbing) to have a profile linked to the incumbents. It seems impractical to me if everyone involved in any organisation relating to UKC/H interests had two accounts. In the BMC alone there are 12 Directors, over 30 voting Councillors and quite a few Council observers (and others may be less OK than I am,  partly as things do get too personal here at times, despite very good moderation). I can think of quite a few other organisations that fall within the UKC/H remit.

I think this discussion is all getting rather 'meta', so I'll change back to what's more important. My key point is nearly all on Council for decades were the first and only one to volunteer. They did that because they cared and the BMC needed someone, but mild arm twisting was common. I don't think that's a particular sign of unhealthiness as long as the posts are mainly filled and the overall representation isn't too far from the profile of the membership. In this last year, for the first time, I am genuinely worried, with way too many vacancies and only one remaining woman: that is unhealthy and Dom knows that, and I know he is already working on it.

In reply to Offwidth:

I only suggested it as you are quite vocal on here, and the lines between your personal / BMC role is becoming a bit hard to read at times. 

The whole first one to volunteer is quite common, I am involved in cycling and it's often the case that you see the same old faces at races in terms of the organising teams and safety. There is very little in the way of new blood coming into the sport and it is probably 'cos it's more fun riding your bike / climbing (delete where appropriate) than it is being involved at some organisational level, so I suspect it won't change much for the BMC in the future. 

In reply to Offwidth:

It isn’t going to help the appeal of these vacancies if the BMC sometimes looks like a club for middle-aged men who enjoy arguing online.

In reply to Catriona:

it’s a shame I could only give this *one* like, it deserves more 

In reply to FactorXXX:

I love the Urban Dictionary……

< Fan Boy

An extreme fan or follower of a particular medium or concept.

Known for a complete lack of objectivity in relation to their preferred focus. Usually argue with circular logic that they refuse to acknowledge. Arguments or debates with such are usually futile. Every flaw is spun into semi-virtues and everything else, blown to comedic, complimentary proportions.

Insult/chastise others for using public forums to express an objective opinion, no matter how constructive or, respectful it may be. This fact and anything else will be promptly ignored in favor of cherry picking the negative, and beating you over the head with it.

Tend to resort to petty annoyance replies when backed against the wall. Usually grammar attacks and non-replies. >
 

QED

In reply to Catriona:

Whilst I agree with you, I hope you're not using the composition of posters on UKC (especially on BMC threads) as a proxy for the demographics of BMC membership.

UKC is (unfortunately) lacking in diversity being "dominated" by middle-aged men (guilty unless I'm now in the "grumpy old men" group 😁) of whom the majority are almost certainly white. It's a bit of a self-perpetuating conundrum. Whilst the diversity in the BMC could/should be better, I sincerely hope it's at least better than on UKC.

In reply to ro8x:

Council and Board were a lot more diverse just 5 years ago.

In reply to Offwidth:

It’s fair though surely? If members think your recent form in, say Member engagement, has dipped, or if the role is seen as utterly toothless, for example, then one should expect a vote of No. I voted No. I wouldn’t want you to negotiate anything on my behalf. 

In reply to Offwidth:

What happened in the meantime?

In reply to ro8x:

Arguments about governance and financial failures, too many meetings, too many negative issues to deal with (and too few positive). Reduced diversity in our new Councillors.

In reply to pencilled in:

I have no concern at all with disagreement as its inevitable in representative politics. I won't resent it and will still help those who have been vocal against my views. I always try and put forward the range of views I'm aware of within my Council contributions. 

What isn't acceptable to me is when those who disagree make up lies to try and 'torpedo' candidates. I'm massively greatful for everyone on that linked thread who called that out when it happened  to me.

In reply to spenser:

Thanks Spenser for posting these. I'd like to offer my congratulations to all those who were elected at the AGM: Hanne Doherty, Agustin Guardiola, Steve Clark (a.k.a. OffWidth), Trevor Smith and Andy Say. More importantly, I'd like to register a huge vote of thanks on behalf of myself and all BMC members for these volunteers who are committing so much time and energy to a cause that is so important to the UK outdoors community (and to all the hundreds of other volunteers who are the lifeblood of The BMC). THANK YOU!

Reading the rest of the thread, it is clear that The BMC could do more to publicise the various volunteering opportunities and tap into a groundswell of enthusiasm to 'get stuck in' (I am not sure I would have spotted the Presidential vacancy if I hadn't been prodded in that direction - time will tell whether that was a blessing!) I will take this on board and start a separate thread to draw attention to the numerous ways in which people can get involved volunteering in The BMC, as well as encouraging publicity via other channels.

Specifically there are a number of vacancies on Members' Council (to represent Hill Walkers; Club Members and MT Candidates) https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-jobs as well as representatives for several BMC Areas: Cymru North and South Wales; Lakes; Midlands and London & SE (there are two representatives for each area, and one of these is currently vacant in each of the above). Get in touch if you are keen to learn more and I will point you in the right direction.

Cheers, Dom [email protected]

In reply to Dominic Oughton - BMC President:

Possibly a summary of vacancies in the newsletter/ Summit (not just Summit as there are many members who won't even open the envelope).

The recruitment process could also do with being sped up, the BMC obviously wants people in the roles it is recruiting for, however the time between applying and being given the role of chair for tech committee was something like 3-4 months last year (possibly prolonged because the board were busy dealing with financial issues as a priority which would make sense).

In reply to Dominic Oughton - BMC President:

A webpage with the name https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-jobs and headed "Vacancies at the BMC" appears at first glance to be about paid employment opportunities and I suspect many will look no further.  That's if they can find it - I can't see an obvious link to it from the menu.

Maybe it would help to separate out volunteering onto a separate page?

In reply to Dominic Oughton - BMC President:

The other thing is unadvertised positions on ‘task and finish’ or other project groups.

Would be a good idea to start a thread to recruit for these they otherwise tend to go to the select electerati who are already devoting a lot of time and get some fresh blood in outside the bubble. 

In reply to UKB Shark:

This would also reduce the time demand on councillors (who already have a significant time demand placed on them).

In reply to Catriona:

You say "It isn’t going to help the appeal of these vacancies if the BMC sometimes looks like a club for middle-aged men who enjoy arguing online." Imagine if a bloke had written ""It isn’t going to help the appeal of these vacancies if the BMC sometimes looks like a club for middle-aged women who enjoy arguing online."

It really doesn't help if people who could contribute decide not to because they are prejudiced, ageist, and antagonistic to other groups of people.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

Said the middle aged man, argumentatively on the internet.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

This is exactly what the panel did at the AGM - blaming women and other groups for not volunteering, instead of reflecting on what they themselves could do to make the BMC more inclusive. 

In reply to RedGeranium:

I may have missed the panel making that point in the AGM (I don't remember it being made by anyone on the panel, however I was busy painting a model for a colleague while listening to the AGM).

Someone did ask something along the lines of "Why are we bothering with this ED&I BS, we don't have the money for it" and I responded with an observation that was made at the IMechE's AGM a few weeks ago that taking actions to improve the inclusivity of the institution had resulted in a wider range of people getting involved in voluntary roles (i.e. it has become easier to recruit people into volunteer roles). Given that the BMC is apparently struggling for diversity on council, possibly other areas too, I think it's reasonable to surmise that something about the BMC is putting off potential volunteers (including ones from diverse backgrounds).

I haven't personally encountered anything within my tech committee capacity which causes me issues (autism/ dyspraxia/ ADHD) which I cant deal with on my own and have seen staff acting in an inclusive manner on multiple occasions, but the tone of discussion online is far from encouraging at times.

I will also note that all of the responses to the "ED& I BS" message were very measured and made it clear that quite a lot of people were vocally supportive of continuing ED&I efforts, it's certainly not the fault of people from diverse backgrounds if the BMC is struggling for volunteers.

In reply to spenser:

Yes - totally agree that the responses to the "EDI BS" comment were encouraging. 

And maybe it was unfair of me to say that was 'exactly' the board's response. I take it back. I was remembering that the initial response was along the lines of 'well more women need to volunteer', at which point the (excellent) moderator stepped in to challenge that view.

In reply to RedGeranium:

Was that in the post AGM Q&A? I had to dip out before the end of that which may be why I don't remember it. 

I agree with you that a remark of "more women need to volunteer" would be the sort of thing I would expect to see challenged in most cases if it's not qualified with actions to encourage it.

In reply to spenser:

Yes, it was towards the end of the post AGM session I think.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Actually YOU are the middle aged man.

Chris Mellor is a retired gentleman.

That is, assuming both your profile ages are correct.

In reply to fred99:

Guilty as charged m’lud!