Democracy?????????????

[Simon Wilson]

It also worries me that small (<20 active cavers) clubs have exactly the same rights and influence as large (>100 cavers) clubs.

Or could you equally fairly say? "It also worries me that large (>100 cavers of whom 90 out of every 100 members is only a member cos they can get use of a hut for a bargain basement priced holiday once or twice a year but actually contribute very little beyond that) clubs have exactly the same rights and influence as small (<20 active in their own corner of the world club, digging and prospecting and maintaining good relations within the local community cavers) clubs." :-\

The point has already been made that the large clubs often have members who aren't cavers and that a smaller club might have an equal number of active cavers. I am not talking about smaller clubs; I am talking about micro-clubs, that is, so-called 'clubs' that are formed purely for political purposes.

 

[Pitlamp]

It also worries me that small (<20 active cavers) clubs have exactly the same rights and influence as large (>100 cavers) clubs.

Or could you equally fairly say? "It also worries me that large (>100 cavers of whom 90 out of every 100 members is only a member cos they can get use of a hut for a bargain basement priced holiday once or twice a year but actually contribute very little beyond that) clubs have exactly the same rights and influence as small (<20 active in their own corner of the world club, digging and prospecting and maintaining good relations within the local community cavers) clubs." :-\

The point has already been made that the large clubs often have members who aren't cavers and that a smaller club might have an equal number of active cavers. I am not talking about smaller clubs; I am talking about micro-clubs, that is, so-called 'clubs' that are formed purely for political purposes.

How do you define "aren't cavers"? Are you suggesting that opinions of people who were once active cavers but now cave rarely (for whatever reason) should be discounted? Many of these give a lot back to the caving community in all sorts of ways, passing on their knowledge and experience - and sometimes providing quite serious financial support in extreme circumstances.

Do forum members really think they remain loyal club members purely to make occasional use of a club's hostel? They're often very fond of their clubs and fellow club members. Even if they only cave very occasionally, or not at all, they're much valued friends.

Sorry to interfere in this discussion but I became alarmed that it may be going in a rather ugly direction and I just wanted to make sure that some sort of sensible balance was retained.

 

[droid]

Good point Pitlamp.

I do hope this thread isn't going to turn into a long and tedious list of various people's contributions to caving, conservation, exploration or democracy.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Of course I am not talking about older club members, we have plenty of those in our club and we really appreciate their opinions. Talk to members of the Red Rose about the situation in their club. They have many members who have no interest in caving whatsoever who have become member purely so the can stay at Bull Pot Farm. I think there are plenty of other clubs in a  similar situation. So counting members is a bit meaningless.

Please re-read my previous post again. I am talking about micro-clubs.

It doesn't much matter that some of the larger clubs have members who aren't cavers. We all know who the 'proper' clubs are. Hopefully any proper club will have an officer elected for the purpose of representing the club. Hopefully that officer will take account of the cavers in the club and represent their views. If he doesn't do a good job then he might not be re-elected. As we have heard not all clubs have an elected rep and not all reps consult their club members.

At the regional body the member clubs should elect a committee that reflects the views of the 'proper' clubs. Unfortunately that is a point at which things go wrong. The proper clubs need to be present at the AGM in sufficient numbers and need to be mindful not to elect the micro-clubs.

 

[Pitlamp]

So how do you actually define what counts as a "proper" club?

I do talk to Red Rose members frequently Simon; many of them are personal friends. The fact remains that the majority of caving clubs don't own a hostel and some of these non hostel owning clubs are also large. So I'm not sure that extrapolating from casual discussions with a few members of one club, to draw conclusions about the whole UK caving community, is very helpful.

 

[Simon Wilson]

So how do you actually define what counts as a "proper" club?

I do talk to Red Rose members frequently Simon; many of them are personal friends. The fact remains that the majority of caving clubs don't own a hostel and some of these non hostel owning clubs are also large. So I'm not sure that extrapolating from casual discussions with a few members of one club, to draw conclusions about the whole UK caving community, is very helpful.

John, my old mate, this thread is about democracy not about club hostels. I'm not going to argue with you about what is a 'proper' club or which one of us has more friends in Red Rose.

But I will point out that you are a member of a well-respectied northern club that is a proper club. Your club did not send a representative to this year's CNCC AGM despite numerous pleadings to do so. Your club has not attended a CNCC meeting for as long as the published minutes show (back to 2006) and appears to have no interest in the CNCC whatsoever.

 

[Peter Burgess]

How does a proper club get started, if not as a micro-club? And when does a proper club become a micro-club as its members drift away for whatever reason? Who arbitrates this? Do the councils need a new officer post to manage this delicate matter? Maybe a points system. 5 points for a hostel. 2 points for every 50 members. 1 point for every 10 years since being founded. 1 point for every ?1000 in the coffers. I can see it working!

 

[Simon Wilson]

Some people are on here because they like to argue.

I have better things to do right now.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Sometimes a serious point is best made by a light-hearted approach.  Jesters and monarchs and all that.

 

[Bob Mehew]

I think it is worth recalling a bit of history of caving politics.  NCA Council was based on Regional Caving Councils (RCCs) and each had the right of veto.  Thus NCA Council was dominated in what it could discuss, let alone agree upon by the right of veto.  The NCA AGM did provide clubs who were members of RCCs a vote. 

In setting up BCA it was recognised that in asking for funding from members (NCA was funded by RCCs), it would be necessary to give them the vote.  After long arguments, a system of two Houses of Votes was settled upon.  So BCA AGM voting is based on one House of Individual Members (and in this, Direct Individual Members DIMs and Club Individual Members CIMs are equal) and the House of Clubs (which include clubs, RCCs and consitutent bodies).  A motion requires both Houses to support it in order to be accepted.  (From my perspective, we did at least manage to get rid of the veto, but that was a hard fought battle in its own right.)  We also provided for both Club and Individual member representatives on BCA Council. 

What this debate reminds me is that we failed to push this logic of representation down onto Committees.  So the committees are only required by the constitution to have representatives from the RCCs and constituent bodies.  The Manual of Operations does allow both the Council and Committees to coopt people.  But there was a major argument over their voting powers.  The compromise was that persons coopted onto Council did not have a vote whilst those coopted onto Committees do. 

So there is a route for the voice of individuals to be heard, albeit not a very powerful one outside of an AGM.

 

[graham]

I think it is worth recalling a bit of history of caving politics.

OK, CSCC was formed specifically to counter perceived moves by CNCC to impose its policies on access across the nation as a whole.

History repeats itself.

 

[Simon Wilson]

I think it is worth recalling a bit of history of caving politics.

OK, CSCC was formed specifically to counter perceived moves by CNCC to impose its policies on access across the nation as a whole.

History repeats itself.

This is Graham as usual being deliberately provocative for no other reason than he enjoys it.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I have better things to do right now.

 

[Simon Wilson]

...  The NCA AGM did provide clubs who were members of RCCs a vote. 

 

So the LUG did have a vote at the June 1998 meetings... and ...

 

In setting up BCA it was recognised that in asking for funding from members ... ... and the House of Clubs (which include clubs, RCCs and consitutent bodies).

... micro-clubs can and are used as a political tactic at the national level as well as regional.

We really need to do something about micro-clubs which are very serious issue.

Are we all happy with the concept of a micro-club or are some of the provocative people going to pretend they don't know what I am talking about?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Simon - it will be difficult to find the perfect rule by which you can differentiate the genuinely small club from the sort you keep on about. It's probably a very grey area. Some new small clubs may well be genuine "break away" clubs by cavers who simply thought a new club was more appropriate than trying to muck along in one they were not comfortable with. How do you decide if a club was set up for purely political reasons, apart from some kind of gut feeling?

 

[Alex]

Why don't we just do what they are doing in Scotland and just have a referendum asking each individual caver. CRoW Yes/No.

Job done?

 

[Peter Burgess]

I tried that with our club. 4 replies out of some 130 odd members.

 

[droid]

We really need to do something about micro-clubs which are very serious issue.

YOU need to do something about micro-clubs, re CNCC.

I'm not convinced at all that they are a problem anywhere else.

 

[graham]

I think it is worth recalling a bit of history of caving politics.

OK, CSCC was formed specifically to counter perceived moves by CNCC to impose its policies on access across the nation as a whole.

History repeats itself.

This is Graham as usual being deliberately provocative for no other reason than he enjoys it.

This is Simon demonstrating that he has no knowledge of history.

 

[Simon Wilson]

I think it is worth recalling a bit of history of caving politics.

OK, CSCC was formed specifically to counter perceived moves by CNCC to impose its policies on access across the nation as a whole.

History repeats itself.

This is Graham as usual being deliberately provocative for no other reason than he enjoys it.

This is Simon demonstrating that he has no knowledge of history.

It's still 2-nil.