CNCC AGM 1st March 9.30am Hellifield Institute
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
Bottlebank
New member
I'm planning on being there, even though I do detest meetings and think 9.30 on a Saturday morning is an appalling time to hold one! I reckon I may as well get told in person how much trouble I've caused!
Bottlebank
New member
10.30 would at least allow time to drive up and get breakfast in a civilised fashion!
One very important point to remember for club reps attending the AGM and wishing to vote is the following:
"CNCC Member club
I have been asked by the CNCC Chairman to ask all attending clubs to provide on club headed note paper and signed by a club official the name of the person who will be representing and voting on behalf of their club at the CNCC AGM.
At the meeting the named person will be issued with a voting card on production of the letter.
Les Sykes
CNCC Secretary"
A list of clubs who are eligible to vote has not been forthcoming despite numerous requests, by numerous people over the last two months. Some clubs may well be unsure as to whether they have a vote or not.
"CNCC Member club
I have been asked by the CNCC Chairman to ask all attending clubs to provide on club headed note paper and signed by a club official the name of the person who will be representing and voting on behalf of their club at the CNCC AGM.
At the meeting the named person will be issued with a voting card on production of the letter.
Les Sykes
CNCC Secretary"
A list of clubs who are eligible to vote has not been forthcoming despite numerous requests, by numerous people over the last two months. Some clubs may well be unsure as to whether they have a vote or not.
Bottlebank
New member
According to the draft AGM that would be:
Current elected working committee as re-elected at AGM 2013
Bradford Pothole Club
Burnley Caving Club
CNCC Technical Group
Craven Pothole Club
Dent House Speleo? Soc?
Earby Pothole Club
Elysium Underground Group
Grit stone Club
Lancashire Underground Group
Northumbrian Speleology Group
Red Rose Cave & Pothole Club
White Rose Pothole Club
Yorkshire Ramblers Club
Yorkshire Subterranean Soc
But then it's probably open to debate as the minutes of the 2013 AGM don't confirm that vote actually took place?
Current elected working committee as re-elected at AGM 2013
Bradford Pothole Club
Burnley Caving Club
CNCC Technical Group
Craven Pothole Club
Dent House Speleo? Soc?
Earby Pothole Club
Elysium Underground Group
Grit stone Club
Lancashire Underground Group
Northumbrian Speleology Group
Red Rose Cave & Pothole Club
White Rose Pothole Club
Yorkshire Ramblers Club
Yorkshire Subterranean Soc
But then it's probably open to debate as the minutes of the 2013 AGM don't confirm that vote actually took place?
Yes, several people have been asking, including Simon Wilson on this forum, how last years committee was elected when there is no record of it. In fact the last recorded committee is in 2007 when it was a different list to the one shown in your post. Since 2007 all the minutes record that the same committee was re-elected, but clearly something has changed.
However, this is an AGM and therefore it would appear that all full member clubs have a vote on the new committee and the officers.
The CNCC constitution is unclear on many things but it does state,
?General Meetings shall be open to all member clubs but voting shall be restricted to one representative from each full member club present.
Unfortunately there is no clarity on who the full member clubs are.
Also there is a constitutional amendment proposed for the AGM which will do away with an elected committee and replace it with any full member club reps who turn up at any of the regular meetings. I'm not sure if this is the best way forward either. In my experience of working with professional committees this is likely to make things worse not better.
However, this is an AGM and therefore it would appear that all full member clubs have a vote on the new committee and the officers.
The CNCC constitution is unclear on many things but it does state,
?General Meetings shall be open to all member clubs but voting shall be restricted to one representative from each full member club present.
Unfortunately there is no clarity on who the full member clubs are.
Also there is a constitutional amendment proposed for the AGM which will do away with an elected committee and replace it with any full member club reps who turn up at any of the regular meetings. I'm not sure if this is the best way forward either. In my experience of working with professional committees this is likely to make things worse not better.
speleotel
New member
I am emailing as the Chairperson of the Bradford Pothole Club to the UK Caving Forum as an immediate means of communication with all of the caving community to highlight a piece of information that is incorrect .
It is to make you all aware that the motion proposed in the Draft Agenda for the CNCC AGM, posted on their website is wrongly attributed as a proposal from the Bradford Pothole Club. This is not the case.
We have been informed that the agenda will be amended at the meeting on March 1st but the Chair and Secretary of the BPC feel that is too late. We do not wish other clubs to be forming their decision as to how they are going to vote with incorrect information of the source of the motion on the agenda.
We greatly appreciate the CNCC requesting that the caving clubs committee formally nominates the representative in order to gain a voting paper for this matter. Over the next few weeks the BPC committee and club will be considering how the Bradford Pothole Club will vote at the meeting.
Regards Martell.
Martell Baines
Chairperson Bradford Pothole Club
& Hon Librarian
It is to make you all aware that the motion proposed in the Draft Agenda for the CNCC AGM, posted on their website is wrongly attributed as a proposal from the Bradford Pothole Club. This is not the case.
We have been informed that the agenda will be amended at the meeting on March 1st but the Chair and Secretary of the BPC feel that is too late. We do not wish other clubs to be forming their decision as to how they are going to vote with incorrect information of the source of the motion on the agenda.
We greatly appreciate the CNCC requesting that the caving clubs committee formally nominates the representative in order to gain a voting paper for this matter. Over the next few weeks the BPC committee and club will be considering how the Bradford Pothole Club will vote at the meeting.
Regards Martell.
Martell Baines
Chairperson Bradford Pothole Club
& Hon Librarian
Cavematt
Well-known member
Hi everyone
As the draft agenda for the AGM is now available on the CNCC website, you may have seen that I have been nominated to stand as Secretary at the coming annual general meeting.
I am not an avid forum user here, however, it is clear that many people who feel very strongly about matters relating to northern caving are, and so I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I am standing as CNCC secretary so you can make a choice as to whether to vote for me.
My involvement with the CNCC started about 4 years ago when we were considering how best to approach an access agreement for Excalibur Pot. The landowner was keen that the cave should be locked, and that access should be in some way controlled to limit numbers and restrict access during the shooting season, as the cave is on a private shooting estate.
A permit system sounded perfect so I contacted the CNCC and was surprised by how helpful they were (Les gave up a tremendous amount of time, and without his work, Excalibur would have no access agreement whatsoever). As the new meets secretary for Excalibur, I started attending meetings. I was inspired by the realisation that the CNCC does a lot more than just issue permits, and that those involved give up a tremendous amount of their own time (when they would rather be going caving themselves) to negotiate new access agreements, liaise with landowners, arrange and fund conservation projects, teach others to install eco-hangers, and generally promote responsible, safe and sustainable caving. However, I also saw that there are certain matters that would benefit from improvement such as the antiquated permit application system (three months? notice on club letterhead paper seemed rather old fashioned), the clunky website (now improved), and most importantly the way by which the CNCC engages, consults and interacts with the wider caving community.
If you are reading this then I am sure you are aware of all the discontent on this forum, particularly following the recent CNCC meeting. This brought to a head a number of problems that I feel have been building for some time.
Firstly, I believe the CNCC constitution needs to be extensively rewritten, defining exactly who the CNCC represents, who the committee actually are and who can vote. It needs to be simplified and made very clear indeed. I don?t particularly relish this job as constitutions aren?t exactly the most exciting things, but I understand the importance of them and for the CNCC to be constitutionally abiding, as this is an area for which it has taken considerable criticism lately.
Rewriting of the constitution provides an excellent opportunity for change. I feel we need to dispatch the current full membership system and simply give all BCA registered clubs (either just northern clubs or all clubs nationally, to be debated) the right to attend meetings to vote on important issues. Secondly, and most importantly, the CNCC really needs to be more interactive, transparent and to engage more with the caving community via newsletters, the website (which could be made to have an interact back-end to which BCA registered cavers can log into) and open meetings, to ensure that cavers not only know what we do, but are also able to give their opinions and suggestions on important matters.
I personally would like to see greater representation for Direct Individual Members on the CNCC (possibly including a DIM representative on the committee). Matters such as permits for DIMs are clearly a complex issue? overall I sway towards favouring them, however, this has wide reaching implications that requires some discussion (not least the fact that it is the Council of Northern Caving Clubs), and this is something I would want to see the CNCC consult people (including people from all kinds of caving background) on over the next year.
An important point to note is that I strongly support the permit system where it is required to sustain access and landowner relations ? and it has done a first class job of making the caves of Yorkshire the most easily accessible in the UK for the majority of cavers (with this improving as more and more permits are available electronically and often at short notice). I am not a supporter of the concept of completely open access where it goes against landowner wishes, regardless of what the law says, as I firmly believe caver-landowner relationships work a lot better when people work together.
However, I would like to see considerable change to the permit system, making it electronic wherever possible and to make permits easier to get, and overall, to make it easier for people to go caving while also abiding by the landowners wishes. I would like to make getting a permit as simple as logging into the CNCC website on a smartphone while having breakfast at Bernies/Inglesport, checking availability and booking a permit for that same day. Obviously this is not going to be possible in all situations, but it?s a good aspiration to move forward with!
Transparency is critical. You will see that the draft agenda is now available on the website. My understanding is that the list of ALL full member clubs of the CNCC cannot be published publically as some of clubs have requested in the past that their status as a member club is not published (for reasons I do not understand? this may be a very historic thing that is no longer relevant but which must still be honoured? of course this is certainly something to look at addressing in the next year, for example, by abolishing the full member system). However, if you do not know if your club is a full member club, just drop the CNCC committee an Email and they will hopefully be able to tell you.
The system is confusing however, in a nutshell, all full member clubs of the CNCC have a right to send one representative to vote at the AGM (bring a letter, on club letterhead paper and signed by a club official to say that you will be representing that club). If you are not a full member club (or not sure if you are) and you wish to be, I suggest contacting the current committee to discuss applying to become a full member at this AGM (my understanding is that this can be done by an officer of the club submitting an application ahead of the AGM).
I know these systems are clunky, outdated, confusing and disorganised, but they are the systems that are currently in place which must be followed if the CNCC is to be as constitutional as possible. As a new secretary, a complete overhaul of these systems to make it easier for all clubs to be represented at meetings would be of top priority.
My views are not set in stone. Ultimately I would like to work to ensure the CNCC represents the needs and views of the majority of the caving community, while continuing to do (and more actively promote) the superb work that they are already doing. Everyone always focusses on the things that they think the CNCC does wrong, or that they disagree with. The CNCC is not perfect, and I think things do need to change, however let?s not forget the superb and highly commendable work that has been done by the current committee relating to access, conservation and bolting.
Regarding all the matters that have happened in the past (which I don?t want to go into but which have been discussed on this forum), I would like to use this AGM as a chance to put these matters behind us and move forward to make the CNCC a more constitutional and interactive body.
I will be explaining all of this stuff again to everyone present at the AGM before any voting takes place, so there is no doubt about why I am standing. Therefore, if people think my proposed changes are crap/unnecessary/wrong, then simply don?t vote for me, I won?t be offended and I will happily get back to enjoying caving, and allow someone else to take on the role.
If anyone has any questions then my Email address is on the CNCC website. I personally am not currently on the CNCC committee; however I will try to answer any questions.
Cheers
Matt Ewles
As the draft agenda for the AGM is now available on the CNCC website, you may have seen that I have been nominated to stand as Secretary at the coming annual general meeting.
I am not an avid forum user here, however, it is clear that many people who feel very strongly about matters relating to northern caving are, and so I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I am standing as CNCC secretary so you can make a choice as to whether to vote for me.
My involvement with the CNCC started about 4 years ago when we were considering how best to approach an access agreement for Excalibur Pot. The landowner was keen that the cave should be locked, and that access should be in some way controlled to limit numbers and restrict access during the shooting season, as the cave is on a private shooting estate.
A permit system sounded perfect so I contacted the CNCC and was surprised by how helpful they were (Les gave up a tremendous amount of time, and without his work, Excalibur would have no access agreement whatsoever). As the new meets secretary for Excalibur, I started attending meetings. I was inspired by the realisation that the CNCC does a lot more than just issue permits, and that those involved give up a tremendous amount of their own time (when they would rather be going caving themselves) to negotiate new access agreements, liaise with landowners, arrange and fund conservation projects, teach others to install eco-hangers, and generally promote responsible, safe and sustainable caving. However, I also saw that there are certain matters that would benefit from improvement such as the antiquated permit application system (three months? notice on club letterhead paper seemed rather old fashioned), the clunky website (now improved), and most importantly the way by which the CNCC engages, consults and interacts with the wider caving community.
If you are reading this then I am sure you are aware of all the discontent on this forum, particularly following the recent CNCC meeting. This brought to a head a number of problems that I feel have been building for some time.
Firstly, I believe the CNCC constitution needs to be extensively rewritten, defining exactly who the CNCC represents, who the committee actually are and who can vote. It needs to be simplified and made very clear indeed. I don?t particularly relish this job as constitutions aren?t exactly the most exciting things, but I understand the importance of them and for the CNCC to be constitutionally abiding, as this is an area for which it has taken considerable criticism lately.
Rewriting of the constitution provides an excellent opportunity for change. I feel we need to dispatch the current full membership system and simply give all BCA registered clubs (either just northern clubs or all clubs nationally, to be debated) the right to attend meetings to vote on important issues. Secondly, and most importantly, the CNCC really needs to be more interactive, transparent and to engage more with the caving community via newsletters, the website (which could be made to have an interact back-end to which BCA registered cavers can log into) and open meetings, to ensure that cavers not only know what we do, but are also able to give their opinions and suggestions on important matters.
I personally would like to see greater representation for Direct Individual Members on the CNCC (possibly including a DIM representative on the committee). Matters such as permits for DIMs are clearly a complex issue? overall I sway towards favouring them, however, this has wide reaching implications that requires some discussion (not least the fact that it is the Council of Northern Caving Clubs), and this is something I would want to see the CNCC consult people (including people from all kinds of caving background) on over the next year.
An important point to note is that I strongly support the permit system where it is required to sustain access and landowner relations ? and it has done a first class job of making the caves of Yorkshire the most easily accessible in the UK for the majority of cavers (with this improving as more and more permits are available electronically and often at short notice). I am not a supporter of the concept of completely open access where it goes against landowner wishes, regardless of what the law says, as I firmly believe caver-landowner relationships work a lot better when people work together.
However, I would like to see considerable change to the permit system, making it electronic wherever possible and to make permits easier to get, and overall, to make it easier for people to go caving while also abiding by the landowners wishes. I would like to make getting a permit as simple as logging into the CNCC website on a smartphone while having breakfast at Bernies/Inglesport, checking availability and booking a permit for that same day. Obviously this is not going to be possible in all situations, but it?s a good aspiration to move forward with!
Transparency is critical. You will see that the draft agenda is now available on the website. My understanding is that the list of ALL full member clubs of the CNCC cannot be published publically as some of clubs have requested in the past that their status as a member club is not published (for reasons I do not understand? this may be a very historic thing that is no longer relevant but which must still be honoured? of course this is certainly something to look at addressing in the next year, for example, by abolishing the full member system). However, if you do not know if your club is a full member club, just drop the CNCC committee an Email and they will hopefully be able to tell you.
The system is confusing however, in a nutshell, all full member clubs of the CNCC have a right to send one representative to vote at the AGM (bring a letter, on club letterhead paper and signed by a club official to say that you will be representing that club). If you are not a full member club (or not sure if you are) and you wish to be, I suggest contacting the current committee to discuss applying to become a full member at this AGM (my understanding is that this can be done by an officer of the club submitting an application ahead of the AGM).
I know these systems are clunky, outdated, confusing and disorganised, but they are the systems that are currently in place which must be followed if the CNCC is to be as constitutional as possible. As a new secretary, a complete overhaul of these systems to make it easier for all clubs to be represented at meetings would be of top priority.
My views are not set in stone. Ultimately I would like to work to ensure the CNCC represents the needs and views of the majority of the caving community, while continuing to do (and more actively promote) the superb work that they are already doing. Everyone always focusses on the things that they think the CNCC does wrong, or that they disagree with. The CNCC is not perfect, and I think things do need to change, however let?s not forget the superb and highly commendable work that has been done by the current committee relating to access, conservation and bolting.
Regarding all the matters that have happened in the past (which I don?t want to go into but which have been discussed on this forum), I would like to use this AGM as a chance to put these matters behind us and move forward to make the CNCC a more constitutional and interactive body.
I will be explaining all of this stuff again to everyone present at the AGM before any voting takes place, so there is no doubt about why I am standing. Therefore, if people think my proposed changes are crap/unnecessary/wrong, then simply don?t vote for me, I won?t be offended and I will happily get back to enjoying caving, and allow someone else to take on the role.
If anyone has any questions then my Email address is on the CNCC website. I personally am not currently on the CNCC committee; however I will try to answer any questions.
Cheers
Matt Ewles
Bottlebank
New member
That sounds just what we a lot of us have been looking for Matt, thanks!
Just to pop the cat amongst the pigeons do you have a view on the commercial caving proposals?
And to pop it even further into the pigeons Martell's post says:
Couldn't agree more, the CNCC constitution says:
This suggests this hasn't happened, so does this mean the commercial caving proposal is off the agenda, at least for this meeting?
Good to hear some interesting thoughts, Matt. Often thought an easier (more modern) solution to the permit situation was desperately needed as it would probably ease any pirating issues that often occur due to poor weather/last minute decisions etc.
As for something mentioned on another thread - not rocking the boat/landowners like to deal with the same faces etc; I'm sure they do, but (no offence intended to any CNCC commitee) some of them are not getting younger and who knows what will happen in life, priorities might suddenly change (work/family/health issues to name a few). Surely it's a good thing that fresh blood is willing to step up to the task, now, whilst knowledge and relations exist as they are.
They obviously have something to hide then? In all seriousness though; what would have been difficult about listing those clubs that are full members and happy for anyone to know, an edited register if you will?
As for something mentioned on another thread - not rocking the boat/landowners like to deal with the same faces etc; I'm sure they do, but (no offence intended to any CNCC commitee) some of them are not getting younger and who knows what will happen in life, priorities might suddenly change (work/family/health issues to name a few). Surely it's a good thing that fresh blood is willing to step up to the task, now, whilst knowledge and relations exist as they are.
Cavematt said:
Hi Matt,
Reading your comments above, it would appear that you do not want to see caving on open access land recognised as being acceptable under the CROW Act (if it is against the wishes of the landowner). Bearing in mind that you are in favour of the current permit system (despite the fact it is clearly failing) and that you have shown a distinct willingness to gate at least one cave in the past (at the 'request of the landowner' or whatever), I would like to ask you a simple question.
If you are elected as CNCC Secretary would you support the gating of other caves in the Dales if landowners desired or requested it (for example, if this was the only way a permit system could be enforced and hence made to work)?
Thanks.
Nig
Stu
Active member
Cavematt said:
- What implications?
- Council of Northern Cavers
Which permit system do you support? The secret digger one?
If you can implement this and it's open to DIM then I'd wind my neck in...
Good, because a system of secret permits and swaying landowner opinion towards having to pay for access isn't just clunky, outdated, confusing or disorganised, it's a traversty.
I'll concede this. Fair point.
Damn, knew I'd miss something:
Not quite the most accessible. There's plenty of caves up north I can visit without a problem, but there are some notable caves that require advance permission. Not ideal. I'm not saying I agree with paying for access like you do in (random example) a few notable Peak caves, but it is easier access than say Leck or Fountains Fell and carrying an adjustable spanner is far easier than faffing with emails in the hope there is a permit available. Probably easier than Wales though, which quite often requires keys or leaders or other silly stuff.
Pete K
Well-known member
I agree with Dunc, the most accessible place to cave is not Yorkshire. Come to the Peak Matt. I can get up on any day of the week, pick where I want to go, yes, it may cost me a couple of ?? but I can cave freely. Obviously there are exceptions (Titan, Peak..) but surely the ease of access is worth the cost of a pint?
Yes, free access and CRoW acceptance is what I dream of but I'd take current Peak access over current Dales access any day.
Now I sit back and await the wrath of exsumper etc... for even suggesting payment to cross private land.
Yes, free access and CRoW acceptance is what I dream of but I'd take current Peak access over current Dales access any day.
Now I sit back and await the wrath of exsumper etc... for even suggesting payment to cross private land.
