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.

When I arrived in plenty of time at the CNCC AGM the Secretary saw me but did not approach me and I was not offered a voting card. After opening the meeting, the first thing the Chairman did was read out an email from St. Helens Caving Club. The email proposed that the EPC should be suspended from membership of the CNCC for postings made on ukCaving and for caving without permits. There was a proposal from the floor that the notice was too short for it to be dealt with immediately and that it should go to a Special General Meeting, this was seconded and voted through. I then made my way up to the ?top table? like Oliver Twist and asked the Secretary, Les Sikes, for a voting card which would enable me to vote.

I have said several times that I respect the CNCC and I take seriously the fact that they have a disciplinary procedure. I do not have the authority of my club to make any comment on how the club proposes to deal with the matter but I can say that full consultation is in process and the matter will be taken seriously. In the mean time anything that I say will definitely be my own personal view.

One of the reasons why the proposal to allow any club to vote at a committee meeting was unanimously thrown out by the AGM was that it was a micro-clubs charter. Micro-clubs, crypto-clubs, pseudo-clubs, - call them what you will - could potentially spring up seemingly out of thin air and be used for a number of manipulative purposes. That was a fear that has been suggested to me about the recent AGM and the fact that the officers would not release the list of members. I must stress at this point that I am not suggesting that the officers would do anything underhand nor that there might be anything nefarious about the St Helens Caving Club which as far as I know might be a perfectly bona-fide caving club. I am sure it will appear in the list of full member clubs if we are ever allowed to see it.

I have done a Google search for St. Helens Caving Club and although nobody I have asked has heard of them it appears that they are well known to Les Sykes. I can?t help wondering how many more micro-clubs Les has up his sleeve. There is a possibility that out of respect for their friend they spontaneously felt an honourable urge to defend the good name of the organisation that he is intimately connected with. If they feel strongly enough to send an email proposing the suspension of a founder member club you would think that they would have attended the AGM in person in order to vote on the matter.

From a report in the St Helens Star the founder of St Helens Caving Club was a caver who died in 2008. His ?pal, professional caving instructor Les Sykes ... led tributes to Stuart, a mechanical and electrical engineer... [whose]... technical expertise meant he also carried out pioneering anchor system safety work in caves.?
http://www.sthelensstar.co.uk/news/1951709.tributes_to_st_helens_caver_stuart_goodwill/

I hope that this is not seen as me ?swapping titbits from trawling? I simply did a Google search of St. Helens Caving Club to find out what I could about the club which has complained about me and this was all I could find. I think that is perfectly reasonable in the circumstances that I find myself in and perfectly reasonable to post on here something published in a newspaper that anybody could very easily find on the internet. I want to stress again that I have respect for the CNCC and my intention is not to defame, belittle or show any disrespect for any person or the CNCC. I especially want to show respect to the people who died and their families. I repeat that I take the CNCC?s disciplinary procedure very seriously indeed.

Democracy cannot possibly be served by members being forbidden to see a list of all of their peers. This approaches abuse of process.

Great report Badlad. 

OMG, these people need to modernise asap. DCA accepts membership applications from clubs or individuals anywhere in the country. I think other regional councils are the same. (Correct me if wrong though.)

BCA supports clubs and individuals so CNCC should do the same, and they are a member of BCA themselves:-

http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=about:structure#regional_caving_councils

We should all be working to the same set of guidelines. 

Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.

+1 mmilner

I could live in the Dales, be a member of SUSS - the club is excluded.

I could live in Sheffield, be a member of YSS -  the club is included.

I know of two people in the former category, and I'm the latter. What a nonsense.

Cheers badlad.

Good Report Badlad 

Moving on we came to the secretary?s controversial proposal for commercial caving on Leck and Casterton fells.

Click to expand...

The spotlight turned to another of the secretary?s agreements for caving on Leck and Casterton Fells.

Click to expand...

Should that read previous secretary?s
therefore not Matt Ewles the new secretary?

Where is a club "based"? My club accepts members from anywhere in the world. We hold our committee meetings in the South East. If all regional councils adopted this ridiculous rule, we would have to form our own regional council and join it, as we are not "based" anywhere near a traditional caving region. What total nonsense.

Suspending any club for a year because one of their members admitted to caving without a permit would be a little self defeating.

Firstly you could take your pick at random from almost any Dales club, or member club, the Craven, Bradford and Red Rose would be out for example as they've certainly undertaken the odd permit free trip into Ease Gill over the years.

Secondly you'd force the suspended club to either give up caving in permit covered caves for a year, or more likely do what everyone else who isn't represented by the CNCC does and ignore them, leaving a barely working system with even less credibility.

At the same time suspending a club because of something one of their members said on here is a ridiculous idea, even if he is that club's CNCC rep. I may not like what someone says on here, but people should be encouraged to express their views and the moderators on here are free to rule on any transgressions.

The CNCC constitution states:

A Special General Meeting shall be called if requested in writing by ten full member clubs, such request to include particulars of any proposed resolutions. The secretary shall issue written notice of such a meeting within four weeks of such a request. The meeting shall be held within eight weeks of the request.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be for the best in this instance if this complaint from an apparently non member/non BCA member club no one has heard of was noted and forgotten.

Bottlebank said:

Perhaps it would be for the best in this instance if this complaint from an apparently non member/non BCA member club no one has heard of was noted and forgotten.

Click to expand...

Perhaps they are a member club? Who knows? Has the new secretary been given the 'list' by the old one, or will the details become even more obscure?

" 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?. "

This would also mean that Manchester isn't in the north. Given that it's sometimes referred to as the 'capital of the north' and that it's governmental designation is in the 'North West', I doubt many share this view.

Sheffield, is also so clearly in the north its hard to bother to find reasons why. I'd say that the wiki page roughly represents most peoples views:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North%E2%80%93South_divide_%28England%29

I'm not saying that 'southern' clubs should or shouldn't be allowed in the CNCC, but it's nonsense like this that erodes faith in organisations like the CNCC and makes it look as if they are deliberately trying to exclude clubs (in this case SUSS).

Frankly, I don't think this North/South thing (& yes I'm just about old enough to know how & roughly why it originated, though too young to have been involved) has been viable as any sort of criterion since the M1 and the M6 came fully into operation.

Stockport and Derbyshire are closer than Sheffield, but I'm certain the DCC were also excluded from full membership.

Clearly its where you cave on a fairly frequent basis that matters. That could change quite quickly as the preferences of members vary from year to year.

Well the secretary has changed.

Maybe lets wait to see what else changes in the next few months.

Maybe any club that wants to join should apply now for the next meeting, regardless of where they are and see what happens.

Sue

Those seem to be good ideas, Mrs Bottlebank

I hope those clubs south of the M62 but still in the north are not put off by an attempt to exclude them, at best because of a terrible understanding of English geography.

Hopefully also the that clause in the constitution will either be scrapped or better defined it so that it can't be manipulated in future to serve various ends.

Perhaps all that should be required is allegiance to the Danelaw authorities. At least that is a halfway house from the stone age and a sensible compromise.

I would not like to give the impression of an apologist for the old guard but my notes of the AGM record that "A question was raised about a club based in Sheffield becoming a full member.  CNCC?s working definition of Northern Britain is being north of a notional line of running between the Mersey and the Humber. Point was made clear that it was up to either a Committee or General meeting of CNCC to make the decision, not an officer."  I would add as an opinion that it was clear to me that the sympathy of the meeting was with a liberal interpretation given that parts of (old) Yorkshire did lie south of this notional line. 

What I did find curious was that no other club than York CC sought election to full membership status?  Likewise why did no one stand for any of the other posts against the old guard? 

I also think it was made clear during the meeting that elections to full member status could be done at a Committee meeting as per the Constitution.

PS - speaking as one who has lived on the north coast of Britain, Glasgow always seemed a hell of a distance south to me.  :

Bob Mehew said:

PS - speaking as one who has lived on the north coast of Britain, Glasgow always seemed a hell of a distance south to me.  :

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the Grampian CNCC members?  Which would suggest that there is no northern boundary to membership?

Andy Sparrow said:

Bob Mehew said:

PS - speaking as one who has lived on the north coast of Britain, Glasgow always seemed a hell of a distance south to me.  :

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the Grampian CNCC members?  Which would suggest that there is no northern boundary to membership?

Click to expand...

The GSG are, indeed, members and were, I believe represented at the AGM.

Presumably the northern boundary would be the northern boundary of 'Britain' according to Wikipedia: "The United Kingdom lies between latitudes 49? to 61? N"

I wonder how many clubs will be forced to leave CNCC if the Scots vote 'yes' in September.

Would they necessarily be forced to leave, Scotland is still the British Isles even if not part of the UK? Or would it be of a consequence of any funding which the CNCC might receive either directly or indirectly from the government? What if Yorkshire gains independence!