I'm against the no confidence motion. I attended the AGM and have followed the issues closely since then and saw no willful and deliberate withholding. The BMC decided on the rebrand only after pretty much full support of their democratic National Council and responded very well once the significant opposition to the rebrand became obvious and that's the only substantive issue I am aware of in any form of the motion or other documentation in circulation. As for the Olympics, so far, I've only seen proper discussion and democratic involvement at all levels. I really dislike the selected Olympic format and understand some members have concerns on how this is handled by the BMC but feel the BMC have to engage, given the balance of membership views democratically expressed so far. I also question why the signatories of the motion could possibly think things are so serious that a no confidence motion was the only route to deal with this; with success leading to the inevitable damage to the organisation, including resignations of key employees and volunteers that will occur and the rebuilding inevitably a major distraction to the function of the organisation (as the motion is right now). I find it highly depressing that so many climbing 'names' that I had so much respect for would attach their support to the bizarre series of accusations and misinformation in the original draft: http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27926.0.html The same goes for Leo's letter to the vagabond: http://www.vagabondmc.com/news/background_information_to_vote_of_no_confidence I regard the BMC response as sensible http://www.vagabondmc.com/news/bmc_response This original draft and letter from Leo is lobbying based on misinformation; all the points have been challenged (with no signatory response) by the BMC legal advice and independantly, on the web climbing forums (UKB and UKC), except with respect to the rebrand where it is completely disproportionate in my view. I'm worried some proxy voters have been duped. Yes major issues affecting the BMC are discussed by the National Council - that's what they are supposed to do. National Council reps are elected by their local areas and are volunteers who try to do their best. It's important we have some clarity on the technical governance accusations in the motion as the legal advice to the BMC doesn't seem to recognise any and no one other than the signatories know what these are. If the signatories can't back this up soon, I think they should withdraw the motion. We cant have the AGM debate involving rabbits getting pulled out of hats, where its likely most votes cast will be proxy votes. I thank Steve for his kind words to volunteers, but I can't see how some doing important work won't fall victims of any successful no confidence vote, given they were explicitly involved in the democratic and executive decisions. Also that such a mess won't put off future volunteers. Steve Clark, BMC guidebook volunteer