BCA stuff we voted on

[mikem]

But if the organisation refuses to cooperate with the BCA, then the result will be the same, whether the statement exists or not

 

[Ian Ball]

Although they won't be able to say the BCA are acting against their constitution as a way of deflecting from having to justify their decisions that may effect caving else where in the country?

 

[mikem]

They aren't beholden to the BCA to say anything anyway. The statement was put in there to discourage the BCA from wasting everyone's time & effort in the first place. It would be different if the BCA had existed first & the clubs etc created as part of it, but that's not how it happened.

 

[Badlad]

But if the organisation refuses to cooperate with the BCA, then the result will be the same, whether the statement exists or not

This was about speaking to third parties, such as the Severn Wildfowl Trust (landowners), legal advisors, regional councils, etc.  As I understand it the organisation themselves were unco-operative, they were not the only ones in play but they did prevent the BCA speaking to anyone else.  Of course, this is not aimed just at Charterhouse it could apply to certain Welsh issues which had significant effects on British caving.  There is bound to be more in the future where BCA is unable to represent its members where smaller organisations use 10.1 to put a block on them doing anything.

 

[andrewmcleod]

It really doesn't matter what happens to 10.1, it will make no difference to the powers that the BCA actually have.

Probably true... which is an excellent reason to remove it. Removing it will reduce the size of the constitution and remove confusion.

 

[droid]

his is not aimed just at Charterhouse it could apply to certain Welsh issues which had significant effects on British caving. 

I'm struggling to understand how a couple of entirely local issues affects British caving *as a whole*.

 

[andrewmcleod]

I'm struggling to understand how a couple of entirely local issues affects British caving *as a whole*.

I'd say the longest (dry) cave in the country is probably of national importance?

And then there's (at least) three more substantial systems of national significance with the wide gamut of access controls from open access, key access and permit access.

 

[2xw]

his is not aimed just at Charterhouse it could apply to certain Welsh issues which had significant effects on British caving. 

I'm struggling to understand how a couple of entirely local issues affects British caving *as a whole*.

People have cars and can use trains to get to other caving regions init

 

[Badlad]

If there was substance to the legal reasons which were claimed to be behind the banning of under 18 year olds at Charterhouse, then clearly this could become an issue for other access controlling bodies in other areas for other caves.  If Charterhouse were banning under 18s on legal grounds then other landowners and their ACBs might well do the same.  This could have caused serious problems for young cavers and those who take them underground.  BCA's role would have been to investigate the facts and try to mitigate any consequences of the Charterhouse action or prove them to be unnecessary.

 

[Oceanrower]

If there was substance to the legal reasons which were claimed to be behind the banning of under 18 year olds at Charterhouse, then clearly this could become an issue for other access controlling bodies in other areas for other caves.  If Charterhouse were banning under 18s on legal grounds then other landowners and their ACBs might well do the same.  This could have caused serious problems for young cavers and those who take them underground.  BCA's role would have been to investigate the facts and try to mitigate any consequences of the Charterhouse action or prove them to be unnecessary.

To quote JoshW, ? All views are my own and not that of the BCA or any clubs for which I'm a member of?.

However, though I would obviously not take anyone under the age of 18 down a Charterhouse cave, for example, GB,  because them?s  the rules, innit?

If I had (which,obviously, I haven?t), the amount of  sleep I would lose over it would be roughly zero?

But, clearly, I haven?t so it doesn?t matter?

 

[mikem]

Anyroad, limit is now back to 16 years.

There's nothing to stop the BCA member concerned (or anyone else, as long as they're not a BCA officer) making a fuss about it on here (or elsewhere), or contacting the relevant landowners. Many of those on the "other side" don't post on here, but they are often kept informed.

 

[aricooperdavis]

We should set up an organization that can act on behalf of its members in order to remove the burden on any individual member to have to fight these sorts of restrictions. Oh hang on... 

 

[2xw]

I think some folks are confused about 10.1. deleting it is not about giving the BCA the ability to do anything, it's about taking away (one of) the ability for motivated minority groups to harass it's volunteers, or snarl everyone up in constitutional arguments. A similar example is the rule that votes had to be done with a show of hands (that prevented online voting) or the rule that standing for a BCA position had to be done on paper with ink (rather than email) 

 

[Jenny P]

I think the thing is that most of these issues usually resolve themselves given time and good sense.

Re. the "paper and ink" problem, it only came about because the Constitution and Manual of Operations hadn't been updated to take account of modern usage of emails and the fact that most clubs don't have "Club Headed Notepaper" anymore.  (Without this update, there could have been objections from someone that the process hadn't been followed properly - so the Secretary would be damned if he did and damned if he didn't.)  Those particuar problems seem to have been sorted now and shouldn't happen again - that was the reason for all the proposed amendments to Section 8 - to ensure that in the future BCA can be more flexible in its interpretation.

BCA needs to continue to evolve but the various protagonists all too often don't understand the reasons behind an objection to a proposal for change - instead they start complaining loudly about "blocking all progress".  If they'd only discuss the issue reasonably and try to understand why there might be a difficulty, then very often a relatively minor re-wording of the proposal would remove the objection.  That's why it could be helpful for BCA to become involved if there is a difficulty, in order that all sides are heard and reasoned dicussions are held (as Badlad has indicated earlier in this thread.); but the present wording of 10.1 seems "confrontational" because it refers to "interfering". 

Only problem at present is that it's not really possible to take minor amendments to the wording of a proposal "from the floor" at a Zoom AGM - whereas a reasoned agreement for a compromise in wording would probably secure acceptance all round.  I think there may be a way around this problem of accepting amendments to constitutional proposals - so I'll maybe float my idea around and see what people think.

 

[mikem]

People seem to be assuming that they have a right of access, that currently doesn't exist...

 

[aricooperdavis]

I'm not saying there's a right of access, I'm saying the BCA should work to improve/maintain access to caves for cavers big and small.

 

[mikem]

You'll be saying cavers aren't their own worst enemies next :-\

 

[Jenny P]

I'm not saying there's a right of access, I'm saying the BCA should work to improve/maintain access to caves for cavers big and small.

I would suggest that it already does this in part by supporting the regional councils and others in funding expenses to do with access and conservation.  Local conditions determine how this has to be done by the region or body concerned but it does make a big difference if they know in advance that the costs of maintaining access for all cavers will be covered by BCA.

BCA is also funding the court case re. the Welsh Government and NRW and access to caves in Wales.  This is something which Cambrian Council on its own could never have contemplated funding but it has important implications for access to caves in the rest of Britain as well and only BCA had the level of funds in a "war chest" to be able to help here.

 

[menacer]

I'm not sure the point of changing 10.1 is being fully understood - and it was me who proposed that the wording be changed. 

A change may well not give the BCA anymore powers to force an independent body to do anything.  The point was that they should be able to look into issues which might affect the wider membership.  The Charterhouse issue demonstrates the problem nicely.  Charterhose banned under 18 year olds and they did not make it clear as to why or engage in discussion on it.  When BCA's Youth & Development received a complaint about it they looked into the matter themselves.  Charterhouse then made a formal complaint to BCA about interference and this then rumbled on, costing BCA several thousand in legal advice, for several years and no one actually got to the bottom of it all.  Potentially this could have affected youth caving in areas far distant from Charterhouse.

So just allowing BCA to make their own enquiries on issues that might affect the wider caving world is what this is all about rather than section 10.1 of the constitution being used to prevent that.

Is there any merit to BCA having an equivalent of the UK monopolies commission ( now competition commission)
If a region feels that an access control body is not acting fairly openly or in the best interest of the wider community, then another access control body could be considered , in order to facilitate the changing needs of an area. .
Making equal and open representation to the govn bodies these access bodies often purport to hide behind

It doesn't need to be an oblique amendment change in other proposals, it could just be a straight working group that does what it says on the tin?

I will apologise now, last day of caving hol and the caramel vodka needs drinking.
I