So I'm still new to caving, every time I log on there's nearly always a new thread with something about the CNCC.

Essentially I understand they are a regional body, like the DCA are for us down here, to help negotiate access, conserve and try and keep people updated o what is going on.

But what have they done to cause all this controversy?

If you really want to know - a search some of Badlad's posts will shed some light on the issues.  As you might see from the threads like CROW and access, politics around cave access generate a lot of controversy.

Hi ah147

Welcome to caving!

As Cavermark has said, there are several posts by several people (including Badlad) that put across their thoughts on what the problems are with the CNCC. My personal feeling (as explained in my election speech which will be attached to the AGM minutes) is that the CNCC does tremendously good work, but has simply become slightly disengaged with the caving community, and has not kept up to date with the changing expectations of northern (and national) cavers.

I think all the posts have been (as intended) an important wake-up call to the CNCC and one which will not be ignored.

I think it is important to remember that the posts on here may be personal opinions and it is sometimes difficult to say whether they represent the views of just the individual or a large number of cavers. Therefore, it's good to read all the information here, speak with fellow cavers, contact me or any of the CNCC officers/committee if you have any questions and to make your own judgements as you become more involved in the sport.

The various posts on the CNCC on this forum might wrongly give the impression that northern cavers are always argueing or disagreeing with eachother, which is most certainly not the case (cavers overall are the friendliest bunch of people I have ever met). But as Cavermark says, many of the issues raised recently are quite emotive and so it is understandable they have generated a large number of posts lately.

Cheers

Matt

Cavematt said:

The various posts on the CNCC on this forum might wrongly give the impression that northern cavers are always argueing or disagreeing with eachother

Click to expand...

Actually had this discussion with two gents down in the SWCC hut two weeks ago. Them both saying it gives a bad impression of the sport as UKC is one of the first google hits for caving. Me saying it's the same as any other sport.

Politics is politics whether you put caving in front of it or not.

the biggest problem is when any committee is formed certain people will think other people get more favourable things from it.
the issue I see from the CNCC is they appear to respond badly to questions and seem to shroud themselves in secrecy, this is only my obsversations.
when this seems aimed at you some people react not necessarily in a good way, this then creates more friction with both sides getting further apart, the cycle repeats and the gap gets even further apart. which I think has happened
another problem I think is the same people doing the same committee jobs year on year, what happens they go along in a rut, the rut gets deeper and harder to get out of or even change direction.
all of which unfortunately then over shadows all of the good work which they do.
as I say this is only my obsversations

Spot on though Badger!

In fact when Matt looks at rewriting the constitution setting a maximum three year term for the main officers may be a good idea.

I've no idea whether Badger's comments are spot on or not, but if they are then its rather a shame that out of the legions of disaffected, only Ian P was prepared to step up to the mark and take some of the burden off the existing committee.

Will restricting the term help if nobody else is prepared to commit to the task?

Setting a maximum term encourages new blood to come forward.

Two people stood for office, although I had expected a third to do so but apparently he didn't. It's a shame the two that did stood for the same job though!

If the clamour for an Arab Spring didn't bring forward volunteers (& a raging success that proved to be) is an administrative clause likely to do any better?

badger said:

another problem I think is the same people doing the same committee jobs year on year, what happens they go along in a rut, the rut gets deeper and harder to get out of or even change direction.
all of which unfortunately then over shadows all of the good work which they do.
as I say this is only my obsversations.

Click to expand...

It is actually what Glenn said had happened elsewhere on here. People don't seem to step forward to take on the roles very often.

Blakethwaite said:

I've no idea whether Badger's comments are spot on or not, but if they are then its rather a shame that out of the legions of disaffected, only Ian P was prepared to step up to the mark and take some of the burden off the existing committee.

Will restricting the term help if nobody else is prepared to commit to the task?

Click to expand...

CNCC actually have a new secretary (Matt) so I'm  sure things will get sorted sooner rather than later.

DCA has recently got 2 new officers doing a great pro-active job already! Keep up the good work guys. 

At the AGM, when Ian P realised Matt was a much better man for the job of secretary than he, he did offer to take on another role if he was needed.  This offer seemed to be ignored.

Although on this forum Glen said he would stand down if anyone else offered to take on his post, in his treasurers report to the AGM he said he was standing.  When the now ex secretary was asked to confirm that Glen was indeed standing for treasurer he confirmed that he was.  Therefore Ian P never pushed his offer as I expect he didn't want to go up against Glen in another two way contest.

So the offer was there from two new young dynamic cavers to take up prominent posts on the committee, and one offer wasn't taken up in favour of the status quo.

There was also the offer made by JRL on this forum for Access officer but that is a co-opted post and for some reason not decided at the AGM.  I would have thought that Access officer was one of the key roles within the CNCC so why this isn't given more prominence is a mystery.  I do realise it was split from 'conservation and access officer' but not why conservation was left as the elected role and access only co-opted.

On the broader point of bringing new members and officers into the major roles, which is desperately needed in my opinion, the organisation must be more encouraging.  What I witnessed could hardly be described as encouraging to new faces, rather a bunkered down mentality of the old guard determined to protect their 'baby'.
 

Badlad said:

There was also the offer made by JRL on this forum for Access officer but that is a co-opted post and for some reason not decided at the AGM.  I would have thought that Access officer was one of the key roles within the CNCC so why this isn't given more prominence is a mystery.  I do realise it was split from 'conservation and access officer' but not why conservation was left as the elected role and access only co-opted.

Click to expand...

The title of the constitutional role is Conservation & Access but I understand the holder did not wish to do the Access part.  So the committee split that part off and co-opted someone to do it. Bear in mind that all the Meets Secretaries must be doing a fair amount of access type work with their specific land owners. 

As I recall it was said that the co-option is done at the first Committee meeting, as would be the Minutes Secretary.  I would add that the other officer role 'missing' from the constitution is Equipment.  So if CNCC so desire they could co-opt someone for that.  So there are several posts still potentially available.

lets hope cavematt can start moving the cncc forward, and not find himself a lone voice against the old guard. not saying things should just change for the sake of change, but change for the good of cavers in the 21st century. bottlebank has a strong argument I believe that and maybe that person is cavematt, but a voice on this forum, one where the question/answers can come from the cncc and not from gossip and hearsay