BCA News Sheets

[cap n chris]

I thought (the) objection was to do with disenfranchisement of those members who do not use the internet

It is 2015. Anyone who does not use the internet is disenfranchised.

 

[menacer]

I'm slightly confused here.

Am I understanding this correctly, we now have a situation of no-one being allowed to be on a BCA mailing list, ( even if they would freely chose to)  so as to improve the " disenfranchisement " of those who chose not to (either submit their email or go online. ? )

 

[Simon Wilson]

No you are not understanding it correctly. You might want to start by reading the minutes linked to by Damian above.

 

[Bob Mehew]

1. Cookie has spent an enormous amount of effort to create an electronic system which will enable BCA to communicate with its individual members electronically, given that they supply an email address.  It is called BCA Online.

2. BCA is constrained by the Data Protection Act.  It is held that BCA can "In line with data protection requirements, users will have to opt in to receive general communications." (I quote from the draft AGM minutes page 13 Cookies report.)

3. I put a motion to the AGM which was debated, then modified to "This General Meeting recommends Council undertakes regular polling of its members by email and other means. The Association shall not be bound by the results of any such poll."  See pages 17 & 18.

4. The minutes record in the debate that:

"This issue was raised at the recent CNCC meeting. The feeling was that inclusivity would be an issue as not all members have e-mail. One person who has links to the Data Protection Agency also expressed concern about complying with guidelines on data protection."

and

"CSCC had similar concerns and JB has, therefore, been mandated to vote against the proposal."

5. I stated "We have already asked for people to give us email addresses and 38% have chosen not to. That is fine and their choice. However we see it, it has to be better to canvas the views of 3,500 people over the 30 people who are attending today?s meeting."

6. The motion was passed. 

I am unclear as to the dividing line between what BCA can and cannot send by email, so I understand a further requirement is being imposed which requires each member to opt in to receiving communications from BCA of a more general nature.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Should this be a new thread?

 

[Bottlebank]

5. I stated "We have already asked for people to give us email addresses and 38% have chosen not to. That is fine and their choice. However we see it, it has to be better to canvas the views of 3,500 people over the 30 people who are attending today?s meeting."

There's a difference between 38% "choosing" not to and 38% either not being asked or not having one.

I don't recall being asked by BCA for mine - although I may be wrong?

Having an opt in system for members newsletters is a crazy idea. At the very least email them and tell them they need to opt in, and most will.

Data protection would be better spending their time doing something about the genuine spam emails I receive every day.

 

[kay]

I thought (the) objection was to do with disenfranchisement of those members who do not use the internet

It is 2015. Anyone who does not use the internet is disenfranchised.

Yes. And that is not right, and is not something I would like to see encouraged by any organisation of which I am part.

Use new technology to the full, encourage others to use it, give them help to use it ... but provide an alternative so that you don't exclude those who are unable to use it. It was not clear that the original motion provided such an alternative.

 

[jasonbirder]

I thought CNCC's objection was to do with disenfranchisement of those members who do not use the internet?

Seriously - how many Caver's don't have internet access?
I've never met one...

 

[Bottlebank]

I thought CNCC's objection was to do with disenfranchisement of those members who do not use the internet?

Seriously - how many Caver's don't have internet access?
I've never met one...

Not many, I know one or two, but they wouldn't take any notice of BCA communications by any other means either.

The disenfranchisement argument is a red herring which allows BCA to get away with not communicating very well at all with it's members. It may have been a valid argument ten years ago but it becomes less valid each year.

As an example of poor communication, few of us would be aware of this latest BCA newsletter if it wasn't for UK Caving.

It's a fair bet many of the 38% have given BCA their email addresses because they couldn't care less about BCA.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Three of our 120-ish members do not use the internet. When you send out official notifications/newsletters etc within a club you know who they are, and you willingly accommodate them. Two are senior gentlemen. Just as I wouldn't ignore members of my family if they don't use the internet, neither would I do so for my caving "family". Of the remainder, there are a number who are basic computer users who prefer not to spend much time on the web.

 

[Bottlebank]

Three of our 120-ish members do not use the internet. When you send out official notifications/newsletters etc within a club you know who they are, and you willingly accommodate them. Two are senior gentlemen. Just as I wouldn't ignore members of my family if they don't use the internet, neither would I do so for my caving "family". Of the remainder, there are a number who are basic computer users who prefer not to spend much time on the web.

I'm afraid Peter that communication between members of my family nowadays who don't use the internet are far less frequent than between those that do.

More importantly those that don't use the net seem to recognise that's the case and live with it quite happily.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I would suggest that non-internet people are simply experiencing the same level of interaction with friends and family that they always have. The rest of us simply can't avoid each other any more!

 

[Bottlebank]

That's true to some extent - although letter writing has largely disappeared in my experience.

 

[Pegasus]

I simply cannot understand why, in 2015, cavers (as surely members of BCA are cavers aren't they??) would not want to receive e-mails from the BCA about caving issues.

Fair enough if you don't want to receive spam about PPI etc - but about caving, really??

BCA should simply e-mail BCA members, those (who are cavers but don't want to hear about caving issues {really?}) could then simply unsubscribe - if they feel so strongly about it (really??)

There's too much soul searching and worrying about this - for goodness sake we're talking about a few e-mails about caving to cavers - what on earth is the flippin problem??

I wonder how many young members of the BCA are insistent on receiving a letter by snail mail rather than an e-mail??  I wonder what the young cavers - the future of our sport think about all this??  I wonder what impression this ridiculous situation gives to younger cavers??  I wonder if members of BMC insist on letters and don't want to receive e-mails??  Sometimes we cavers make ourselves look ridiculous....

Come on, get with the times and move on!!

 

[Bob Mehew]

page 9 of the draft minutes "Action: Council to consider paper communication with the membership."  so as to inform membership that the electronic version of the newsletter exists. 

I would add that clubs with CIMs are under a duty to BCA to inform their membership of such developments.  So for example clubs were asked to supply email addresses for CIMs.  Some have, some presumably have not.  But it would appear that Bottlebank's club has not even bothered to communicate the fact that the request has been made to its membership (like several of the clubs I belong to).  That is the disenfranchisement which really worries me. 

I would also emphasise that the original motion stated "to poll its membership" ... "to obtain the view of its membership".  It was not proposed to do away with AGM motions etc.  Surely getting 300 responses by email is better than getting 30 who are bothered enough to turn up at an AGM?

 

[kay]

Three of our 120-ish members do not use the internet. When you send out official notifications/newsletters etc within a club you know who they are, and you willingly accommodate them. Two are senior gentlemen. Just as I wouldn't ignore members of my family if they don't use the internet, neither would I do so for my caving "family". Of the remainder, there are a number who are basic computer users who prefer not to spend much time on the web.

I wonder how many young members of the BCA are insistent on receiving a letter by snail mail rather than an e-mail??  I wonder what the young cavers - the future of our sport think about all this??  I wonder what impression this ridiculous situation gives to younger cavers??  I wonder if members of BMC insist on letters and don't want to receive e-mails??  Sometimes we cavers make ourselves look ridiculous....

Yes, you're right that it is a generational thing. But are you suggesting we should only be interested in young cavers, "the future of our sport", and that older cavers who aren't happy about receiving all their correspondence, newsletters etc on line should simply be forgotten about?

The motion that was passed was to use email "and other means" - there isn't really much disagreement, is there? We seem to be all agreed that the BCA should use email and the internet. The only area of disagreement is whether it should make any provision for BCA members who aren't as fluent in their internet use.

 

[jasonbirder]

Surely getting 300 responses by email is better than getting 30 who are bothered enough to turn up at an AGM?

I would guess that if the responses of the 30 that bother to turn up are significantly different to the responses of 300 who email then your attitude to that would differ depending on who you agreed with!
If I were cynical - regional councils preferring to stay with traditional methods...which probably aren't that "inclusive" hmmmm

 

[graham]

I would add that clubs with CIMs are under a duty to BCA to inform their membership of such developments.  So for example clubs were asked to supply email addresses for CIMs.  Some have, some presumably have not.

It is, of course, perfectly possible that some clubs have data protection policies by which their members can direct them not to supply such detail to a third party.

 

[Pegasus]

Yes, you're right that it is a generational thing. But are you suggesting we should only be interested in young cavers, "the future of our sport", and that older cavers who aren't happy about receiving all their correspondence, newsletters etc on line should simply be forgotten about?

The motion that was passed was to use email "and other means" - there isn't really much disagreement, is there? We seem to be all agreed that the BCA should use email and the internet. The only area of disagreement is whether it should make any provision for BCA members who aren't as fluent in their internet use.

No we shouldn't only be interested in younger cavers, of course all cavers matter.  However I would suggest many older cavers actually do have internet access, ipads the like (my parents certainly do, my Mum's just joined facebook!) and are just being blummin contrary.  Peter puts it very well above, of course provision should be made for those (few I suspect) older members who genuinely don't have/can't use the internet - however for those just being awkward, tough they've disenfranchised themselves.

 

[Peter Burgess]

As one grows older and wiser, one realises that one person's "being awkward" is another person's genuine lifestyle preference. Few people genuinely opt to be "awkward", but a tendency to resist peer pressure is no bad thing.