Should I write further observations on the CNCC AGM I ask myself? I have been requested to do so by several people. I do not really wish to become a reporter on these events but I understand the value of information and how it can effect change. I have finally been swayed by the fact that the minutes of the last meeting I reported on took some five weeks to appear and then there were some serious inaccuracies on very important points. So here goes?
The AGM was well attended with a smattering of younger cavers amongst the seats which was good to see. There were 19 different member clubs present and more than double the number of observers. All member club representatives had a voting card which was a good improvement on what I had observed before. There was quite a bunch of unused voting cards on the secretary?s table which suggested quite a number of member clubs hadn?t turned up or were no longer in existence.
Unfortunately the first act of the chairman was a very negative one. He read out a letter of complaint from the St Helens Caving Club against the Earby Pothole Club. The essence of the complaint was that the EPC representative had made disparaging remarks on the UKcaving forum about the CNCC and admitted to caving without a permit - allegedly. The St Helens club asked for the EPC to be suspended from the CNCC for a year and that a recommendation should be sent to BCA that they do the same. The meeting proposed that a Special General Meeting be called at a later date to consider what disciplinary action might be taken as per the constitution.
My opinion is that it was a big mistake to air this complaint in front of an open meeting. For a start a web search for the St Helens Caving Club draws a complete blank, they were not present themselves at the AGM, nor are they members of BCA. From where I stood this looked purposely staged to discredit and quieten the EPC rep who had been very vocal in his criticism of the CNCC in the run up to the AGM. Further more using a complaint in this way is likely to trigger tit for tat complaints against other members which can just escalate out of control. Very few clubs attending can say their members do not cave without permits as I for one have personally caved with many of them, not to mention the minuted actions of certain officers which could also be classed as bringing the council into disrepute.
The meeting moved on to the various officers reports which were generally accepted into the minutes. Some ?fundamental issues? were raised about the accounts and a list of financial questions handed to the treasurer and verifier so that answers could be given at a future committee meeting.
The meet secretaries reported, and it was clear that they had gone to some trouble to speed up the application process for permits to Leck and Casterton Fells. The web site still needed to be updated as it gave conflicting advice, but generally permits are available quicker than they were before. There was some discussion about the process of application. A few clubs had found it very frustrating in the past and it was still a requirement to apply on club headed paper.
York Caving Club was the only club applying to be full members and they were accepted. A question was asked about the criteria for membership. Conflicting advice had been given to clubs by the secretary in recent weeks which may have put some clubs off joining. The constitution states that full members clubs must be ?primarily based in the North of Britain?, but the secretary had variously responded to clubs saying they must be based ?north of the M62? and ?north of an imaginary line from Liverpool to Hull?. He had also informed SUSS that ?Sheffield is not in the North of Britain?. A discussion ensued which suggested that it shouldn?t really matter where a club is based (Chelsea SS and South Wales was put forward as an example). The BCA rep made it clear that it did not matter to them as it was up to the regions to set their own criteria and clubs were free to affiliate themselves with as many of the regions as they wished. It was also noted that CHECC would be happy to represent the university clubs at meetings if this would be allowed. There is still much to be resolved here if CNCC want to encourage new members and after criticism I apologised to the meeting for trying to encourage clubs to get more involved.
The election of officers and committee was slightly confusing. No one who hadn?t already put themselves forward stood for the officer posts so with the exception of the secretary the post of chairman, treasurer, conservation and training officer remain the same. Matt Ewles made an excellent pro-modernisation speech that was so good that Ian Peachey threw in the towel and offered him his support. Matt was duly voted in as secretary and I wish him the very best and hope his ideas get the support they deserve from the members.
There were three changes to the published committee, three clubs in three clubs out. Those that stood down were the micro clubs of the chairman, training officer and treasurer. The newly joined club of the new secretary was not one of the clubs put forward for election, therefore, with the exception of the conservation officer none of the other officers actually represent any of the clubs on the committee. This suggests that the committee is actually much larger than usual and with most of the officers not having a vote.
Moving on we came to the secretary?s controversial proposal for commercial caving on Leck and Casterton fells. Let?s remind ourselves that this proposal had been put to the September meeting and the vote passed unanimously. Even back then it was stated that it did not enjoy the support of those it was aimed at, but CNCC had still pressed on and been to BCA to seek their support for the proposal and it had been accepted. In front of the AGM a statement was read out from the Association of Cave Instructors which went as far as to say that the proposal was created in an underhand fashion behind their backs whilst they were still negotiating. It was a damning statement for the secretary and enough to convince the last supporters of this ill-conceived proposal that it was fit only for the bin and it was voted out unanimously.
The spotlight turned to another of the secretary?s agreements for caving on Leck and Casterton Fells. He had arranged access for certain CIC instructors to run training and assessments courses for new instructors. It did seem strange that it was deemed necessary to use these caves for that purpose, when once qualified, instructors were unable to instruct groups there. The secretary had exempted this type of instructed caving from his failed commercial agreement so no charges were to be made. Even though the instructors got paid for running these courses these were not deemed to be commercial. I also noted that the main CIC instructor involved in running these courses was the same BCA training officer who had recommended that commercial cavers paid a ?substantial fee? to the landowner.
The second constitutional ammendment to allow any member club to turn up and vote at committee meetings was also voted out. To me the complete U turn on both these proposals demonstrated just how poor the decision making had been in the first place and thankfully good sense had prevailed.
Another request was made to put the names of all the CNCC member clubs on the web site just as all the other regions do. The old secretary re-affirmed that he could not, because at some time in the past, he could not remember when, a club, he could not remember who (maybe the St Helens Caving Club?), had asked that their name be kept secret, therefore none of the names could be published. It was suggested that they at least make a start with the 20 members at the AGM and write to all the other members for permission. It is an utter nonsense that hopefully the new secretary will bring some sanity to.
Overall the meeting was conducted better than the others I have attended. No poking, no shouting (and only one tirade from the Earby representative) and otherwise good natured. The two poorly conceived proposals, one of which may have had a damaging effect on British caving, was turned around and sensibly voted out. The new secretary seems to be a moderniser and hopefully his ideas will gain widespread support. I look forward to attending the next meeting to see if things more forward.
The AGM was well attended with a smattering of younger cavers amongst the seats which was good to see. There were 19 different member clubs present and more than double the number of observers. All member club representatives had a voting card which was a good improvement on what I had observed before. There was quite a bunch of unused voting cards on the secretary?s table which suggested quite a number of member clubs hadn?t turned up or were no longer in existence.
Unfortunately the first act of the chairman was a very negative one. He read out a letter of complaint from the St Helens Caving Club against the Earby Pothole Club. The essence of the complaint was that the EPC representative had made disparaging remarks on the UKcaving forum about the CNCC and admitted to caving without a permit - allegedly. The St Helens club asked for the EPC to be suspended from the CNCC for a year and that a recommendation should be sent to BCA that they do the same. The meeting proposed that a Special General Meeting be called at a later date to consider what disciplinary action might be taken as per the constitution.
My opinion is that it was a big mistake to air this complaint in front of an open meeting. For a start a web search for the St Helens Caving Club draws a complete blank, they were not present themselves at the AGM, nor are they members of BCA. From where I stood this looked purposely staged to discredit and quieten the EPC rep who had been very vocal in his criticism of the CNCC in the run up to the AGM. Further more using a complaint in this way is likely to trigger tit for tat complaints against other members which can just escalate out of control. Very few clubs attending can say their members do not cave without permits as I for one have personally caved with many of them, not to mention the minuted actions of certain officers which could also be classed as bringing the council into disrepute.
The meeting moved on to the various officers reports which were generally accepted into the minutes. Some ?fundamental issues? were raised about the accounts and a list of financial questions handed to the treasurer and verifier so that answers could be given at a future committee meeting.
The meet secretaries reported, and it was clear that they had gone to some trouble to speed up the application process for permits to Leck and Casterton Fells. The web site still needed to be updated as it gave conflicting advice, but generally permits are available quicker than they were before. There was some discussion about the process of application. A few clubs had found it very frustrating in the past and it was still a requirement to apply on club headed paper.
York Caving Club was the only club applying to be full members and they were accepted. A question was asked about the criteria for membership. Conflicting advice had been given to clubs by the secretary in recent weeks which may have put some clubs off joining. The constitution states that full members clubs must be ?primarily based in the North of Britain?, but the secretary had variously responded to clubs saying they must be based ?north of the M62? and ?north of an imaginary line from Liverpool to Hull?. He had also informed SUSS that ?Sheffield is not in the North of Britain?. A discussion ensued which suggested that it shouldn?t really matter where a club is based (Chelsea SS and South Wales was put forward as an example). The BCA rep made it clear that it did not matter to them as it was up to the regions to set their own criteria and clubs were free to affiliate themselves with as many of the regions as they wished. It was also noted that CHECC would be happy to represent the university clubs at meetings if this would be allowed. There is still much to be resolved here if CNCC want to encourage new members and after criticism I apologised to the meeting for trying to encourage clubs to get more involved.
The election of officers and committee was slightly confusing. No one who hadn?t already put themselves forward stood for the officer posts so with the exception of the secretary the post of chairman, treasurer, conservation and training officer remain the same. Matt Ewles made an excellent pro-modernisation speech that was so good that Ian Peachey threw in the towel and offered him his support. Matt was duly voted in as secretary and I wish him the very best and hope his ideas get the support they deserve from the members.
There were three changes to the published committee, three clubs in three clubs out. Those that stood down were the micro clubs of the chairman, training officer and treasurer. The newly joined club of the new secretary was not one of the clubs put forward for election, therefore, with the exception of the conservation officer none of the other officers actually represent any of the clubs on the committee. This suggests that the committee is actually much larger than usual and with most of the officers not having a vote.
Moving on we came to the secretary?s controversial proposal for commercial caving on Leck and Casterton fells. Let?s remind ourselves that this proposal had been put to the September meeting and the vote passed unanimously. Even back then it was stated that it did not enjoy the support of those it was aimed at, but CNCC had still pressed on and been to BCA to seek their support for the proposal and it had been accepted. In front of the AGM a statement was read out from the Association of Cave Instructors which went as far as to say that the proposal was created in an underhand fashion behind their backs whilst they were still negotiating. It was a damning statement for the secretary and enough to convince the last supporters of this ill-conceived proposal that it was fit only for the bin and it was voted out unanimously.
The spotlight turned to another of the secretary?s agreements for caving on Leck and Casterton Fells. He had arranged access for certain CIC instructors to run training and assessments courses for new instructors. It did seem strange that it was deemed necessary to use these caves for that purpose, when once qualified, instructors were unable to instruct groups there. The secretary had exempted this type of instructed caving from his failed commercial agreement so no charges were to be made. Even though the instructors got paid for running these courses these were not deemed to be commercial. I also noted that the main CIC instructor involved in running these courses was the same BCA training officer who had recommended that commercial cavers paid a ?substantial fee? to the landowner.
The second constitutional ammendment to allow any member club to turn up and vote at committee meetings was also voted out. To me the complete U turn on both these proposals demonstrated just how poor the decision making had been in the first place and thankfully good sense had prevailed.
Another request was made to put the names of all the CNCC member clubs on the web site just as all the other regions do. The old secretary re-affirmed that he could not, because at some time in the past, he could not remember when, a club, he could not remember who (maybe the St Helens Caving Club?), had asked that their name be kept secret, therefore none of the names could be published. It was suggested that they at least make a start with the 20 members at the AGM and write to all the other members for permission. It is an utter nonsense that hopefully the new secretary will bring some sanity to.
Overall the meeting was conducted better than the others I have attended. No poking, no shouting (and only one tirade from the Earby representative) and otherwise good natured. The two poorly conceived proposals, one of which may have had a damaging effect on British caving, was turned around and sensibly voted out. The new secretary seems to be a moderniser and hopefully his ideas will gain widespread support. I look forward to attending the next meeting to see if things more forward.