Why not try and use everything that's emerged to improve things?

It seems one advantage of a Special General Meeting is that every member club has a vote, with a focus on specific issues rather than the meeting being cluttered up by reports, etc. Decisions taken at an SGM therefore have perhaps more authority than those taken at a committee meeting or even an AGM.

Two ideas have emerged from all of this that would be well worth implementing, and which would justify the holding of a general meeting.

Firstly the introduction of over the counter permits at short notice wherever possible. We now know this can be done, it's the sort of thing most people have wanted for years and it's only been scrapped because of the way it was introduced and operated. An SGM in a few weeks time could mean that by the time of the next committee  meeting at the end of June people would be able obtain permits quickly and easily, provided either Bernies or Inglesport are willing to help or another outlet can be found to issue the permits.

Secondly Bob's idea of the BCA joining the CNCC as an associate member, thus allowing DIM's to obtain permits, and resolving the other main complaint that has existed for years. Even if the BCA can't be persuaded to apply in time once the idea is approved an application from them could be immediately accepted once it's received.

Adoption of these two ideas alone would allow the CNCC to move forward, with far greater support and backing from many, many cavers. It would let us move on from the situation we are in now, and look forwards rather than repeatedly raking over the embers of the past.

Since the original post it has also been pointed out that implementation of short notice permits would be much easier with an online calendar, so perhaps the SGM could also ask the CNCC webmaster to advise on the implementation of this and any costs involved.

If it helps any clubs/reps who think this would be worth pursuing please let me know, and if ten do I'll be happy to draft the letter.

This was initially posted on another thread, so just to quickly answer some of the points raised on the other thread. The changes would not require any constitutional changes, or renegotiation with landowners. The existing written/email system would remain in place. On a temporary basis DIM's could prove BCA membership by being asking to collect their permits from participating shops for example and producing their membership card.

The changes would obviously require the support of the relevant meets secretaries.

It would be good to hear views directly or on here from any member clubs, meets secretaries and especially Inglesport, Bernies and any other shops that may be willing to help.

And just to chip in my two'penneth from the other thread:

For some of us the present system works well for club oriented sport caving and the permits secretaries are doing a good job. With the current system requests for permits can be turned round very quickly by email. It is not always convenient to go to a shop during shop hours to get a short notice permit mid-week. So let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

I think the original poster said that the current system would also be maintained.

TheBitterEnd said:

And just to chip in my two'penneth from the other thread:

For some of us the present system works well for club oriented sport caving and the permits secretaries are doing a good job. With the current system requests for permits can be turned round very quickly by email. It is not always convenient to go to a shop during shop hours to get a short notice permit mid-week. So let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Click to expand...

You'd still be able to apply by email as you do now, picking up a permit at the local shop is simply an extra option.

I can't work out from your post whether you'd be in favour of the suggestions?

<pedant>

How can BCA become a member of CNCC. when CNCC is a constituent part (= member) of BCA?

Isn't this something like the problem that some people had with CNCC/TG being a constituent club, only on a much larger scale?

Just because one fix works 'for you' and the other one didn't does not make it a good idea.

</pedant.

If this issue is to be resolved then it should be resolved clearly and cleanly and not by a constitutionally dubious twist that will inevitably come back and bite at some point in the future.

Without the nitty-gritty detail I'm on the fence. If you can come up with a system that is no extra work for the permits secretaries, means I can get a short-notice permit by email, does not favour one business over another, etc. etc. then go for it. Like I said - let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Is this an attempt to go for a Guinness Record. "The largest number of concurrent threads about the same subject" ?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

due to senility cant remember if any of this has been said, you can only get a permit if your a club, the club does not necessarily have to be a member of the bca, which also could mean they have no insurance, but an bca individual member/member of the scout association both of which could not get a permit but do have insurance. surely the way forward to aquire a permit as in many places these days is proof of insurance, by all in the cave party, not just the leader or the person sorting out the permit
and I think bottlebank is correct in using SGM to move forward, and not keep going over old ground, about who has or has not caved with the correct permits, or if it was or was not a secret system handed out to those in the know. there is no point in keep going round in circles, whatever system is in place is outdated and needs sorting, maybe when it was put in place it was correct and worked, it clearly no longer fits the purpose of what it was for. Now seems the perfect time to review the system, update the system and move on

graham said:

<pedant>
How can BCA become a member of CNCC. when CNCC is a constituent part (= member) of BCA?
</pedant.

If this issue is to be resolved then it should be resolved clearly and cleanly and not by a constitutionally dubious twist that will inevitably come back and bite at some point in the future.

Click to expand...

Hmm, never thought of that. Yes Graham is right, CNCC is a member of BCA, they surely can't be members of each other?

It needs to resolved by another method.  :-\

badger said:

I think bottlebank is correct in using SGM to move forward, and not keep going over old ground, about who has or has not caved with the correct permits, or if it was or was not a secret system handed out to those in the know. there is no point in keep going round in circles, whatever system is in place is outdated and needs sorting, maybe when it was put in place it was correct and worked, it clearly no longer fits the purpose of what it was for. Now seems the perfect time to review the system, update the system and move on

Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with this too, good advice. 

Graham is right, CNCC is a member of BCA, they surely can't be members of each other?

Click to expand...

Why not? The idea may seem a bit unusual, but I can't see any reason why it couldn't happen.

I thought any DIM of BCA should just be automatically added to a BCA run club called 'DIM' with all the BCA club requirements sorted by the roles of the BCA, so secretary and Chairman etc, the membership fee would be zero, (or included in DIM fee) and then you could apply as a DIM for a CNCC permit as a club, without having to do anything extra.  To get around the headed note paper, you could just have a webpage in the DIM members website section (if there is one) where you just fill in some form fields and it populates a document which is emailed to the permit secretary to prove you are a DIM.
Perhaps an opt-out option on the DIM application form so anti-club cavers can stay that way.

With the limit of 3 per day, any increase in work for the permit secretary would be mostly saying the dates are unavailable, which you can check in advance by emailing the secretary anyway.  Perhaps in the long run an online calender showing issued permits would reduce this workload for the secretary, (if they could easily update the calender).

I suggested this a few months ago and the comment from Secretary Damian was that BCA as an organisation shouldn't be sticking their oar uninvited into regional council business.  The Committee of the CNCC voted for CNCC permits to remain for clubs only and so for BCA to develop a rushed work around to bypass that Committee decision wouldn't be welcomed as positive involvement.

I think things will change, if I remember in the minutes the vote was very close of the attending Committee members on the issue of changing the CNCC constitution to allow permits to be issued to DIMs, so with 3 new clubs elected to the committee at the AGM that vote again could swing the opposite way if taken again.

Perhaps this would be a good vote to have at any SGM, before Matt embarks on a constitution rewrite as it's pretty fundamental.

I wonder if any procedure developed on UkC will be seen with favour by the landowners.  I'm not sure the landowners are concerned over DIMS or clubs, as far as they see it's 3 permits a day and that won't change.  They may be concerned over DIMs who are profit making commercial trip suppliers getting possible access to permits though.

RE
How can BCA become a member of CNCC. when CNCC is a constituent part (= member) of BCA?  Isn't this something like the problem that some people had with CNCC/TG being a constituent club, only on a much larger scale?
------
I never had a problem with CNCC TG being a club, so I don't have a problem with BCA becoming an associate member of CNCC.  I think you will find much of the focus about CNCC TG was about its members.  What I do have a problem is for BCA to become a full member club.  That would be a step too far given BCA can't 'interfere' in a constituent body without being invited in.  The suggestion is a simple extension of what was envisaged when BCA was set up, access for individual BCA members (I make no distinction between DIM & CIM) to caves where the access conditions permit it.

A simple work around would be for BCA to set up BCA DIM club and invite all DIMs to tick the relevant box so as to become a member. 

I do accept many cavers believe individual membership of BCA was and remains a bad thing as it undermines the basis of clubs.  IMO this is already happening with the younger population caving across club boundaries.  Who knows in 50 years time after the great oil crash, cavers may need to band together in their locality in order to be able to afford the cost of petrol to go caving.  And start to form clubs again.

RE
I suggested this a few months ago and the comment from Secretary Damian was that BCA as an organisation shouldn't be sticking their oar uninvited into regional council business.  The Committee of the CNCC voted for CNCC permits to remain for clubs only and so for BCA to develop a rushed work around to bypass that Committee decision wouldn't be welcomed as positive involvement.
----
I guess that it therefore would be for CNCC Committee to agree on inviting BCA to become an associate member, say at it's June meeting.  BCA could then accept (or reject) the invite at say its October meeting and set up BCA DIM club. 

There are in the ball park of some 400 DIMs.  My thought was to have a members web page which required one to sign in with name and password (just like one does for BCRA publications, see http://bcra.org.uk/pub/online.html ).  That would get you a page which would have to be designed which asked which cave, presented the relevant form and requirements (yes or no answers for caver insurance, novices, commercial and so forth) and if successful generated an automatic email to the relevant Meets Secretary a a request for a permit.  That way the Meets Secretary is kept out having to check is this guy a member and also it would meet the demand of at least one access agreement for letter headed note paper. 

The big but BCA needs to think through is how does it deal with a complaint.  Lets assume the guy is guilty of what ever and BCA decide to eject them from membership.  If that person is also a member of a club which also holds BCA insurance, then BCA has also ejected them from that club.  Can BCA do that?  I think it can take on that power but only after having given all clubs due notice to allow them to discuss it and make comment.

So frankly I don't see this as a swift change, probably it will take until BCA AGM in June 2015 to set up.

Whilst I would like to see CIMs also included, I accept that may be a step too far.  But if we can get a system such as I have outlined working, then BCA could with some small changes extend it to cover clubs that wish to participate or indeed expand BCA DIM club into BCA DIM & CIM club.

RE
surely the way forward to acquire a permit as in many places these days is proof of insurance, by all in the cave party, not just the leader or the person sorting out the permit
------
There are differing requirements in access agreements  for different land owners, so it is not possible to suggest a general solution which covers all access agreements.  Frankly I think it will take many months of hard work to sort it all out, so whilst I support this discussion, what really is needed is a small group of people to go away and do the hard work.

RE
Perhaps in the long run an online calender showing issued permits would reduce this workload for the secretary, (if they could easily update the calender).
---------
I understand one can set up an open calender on Goggle.  It would mean a small amount of extra work for each Meets Secretary and possibly some might object; so one should be planning for the resignation of one or more Meets Secretaries.  If none object then this could be done almost over night.  Some details need to be sorted like does one have every access agreement sets of caves on one calender or have one calender per set of caves and who has access to make changes.

RE
I wonder if any procedure developed on UkC will be seen with favour by the landowners.
-----
I agree that some delicate negotiations are required to inform the land owners of developments though when and how really depend upon events.  There is already some delicate discussion required as a result of the AGM. 

RE
picking up a permit at the local shop is simply an extra option.
-----
I am not overly in favour of using a shop on two counts.  One is the shop who gets it is then highly favoured by CNCC which seems to open up the potential for all sorts of accusations.  (If nothing else 'would you like a cup of tea whilst I sort this out' will lead to increase customer throughput.)  I fear it will simply descend into the morass which the previous "scheme" fell into.  The second is it does not cover times when the shop is closed.  I am happy with the idea of a special system but I think it has to be run by a group of cavers for cavers.  Given electronic communications one could have a special email address which is serviced by a person on a rotating basis (so one person does not get overload for more than say one week at a time).  That person then sorts out last minute requests by email on say a maximum of say a 12 hour turn around (the guy needs to be allowed to sleep after all).  He / she works on the basis that the calender is correct and issues permits by email.  Again it might need negotiations with those land owners which demand one shows a piece of paper to get them to accept shifting to either a piece of paper or a written message on a smart phone.

I think it would have to be limited say permits issued for only the next 7 days.  Again detail which needs to be sorted out.

Hey Ian, that was my idea about having all DIMs in a club called DIM get your own lol. With all these threads its a wonder we know which way is up. Surprised we are not starting to look for new caves in the Sky, who controls those permits I wonder (not seriously)?

Last comment for tonight (I have had 5 hours of driving to think some things along some distance).  All of this is going to take time.  Has Matt got the power to initiate some work in anticipation of the CNCC June Committee meeting?  I suspect not, though I suspect he would be friendly to such work being done.  Would Meet Secretaries tolerate being asked personal questions like "Can you operate a Google account?".  Would the Access Officer support meetings between this mob and some land owners and help clarify things?  Relatively big questions for which if answers are no could scupper the work.

So is someone prepared to come out of the woodwork to lead an unauthorised small group?  My guess is it would require a number of meetings both within the group and with other people (like Meets Secretaries) with the aim of producing a product for publication by the end of say May so CNCC Committee clubs could consider it and advise their reps on what to propose and how to vote.

I guess that it therefore would be for CNCC Committee to agree on inviting BCA to become an associate member, say at it's June meeting.  BCA could then accept (or reject) the invite at say its October meeting and set up BCA DIM club.

Click to expand...

Whether it be at an SGM or committee meeting the CNCC agreeing to invite the BCA to become members would achieve several things. It would send a clear signal that DIM's are welcome and that the CNCC has reversed it's policy on DIM permits, it would put pressure on the BCA to address the issue and it would allow the Access officer and meets secretaries to start any negotiations needed if thought necessary, my own feeling is it isn't as the BCA joining as a club means DIMS's are caving as club members and so fall within existing procedures. It would kick start the changes that are needed.

It may well take the BCA a little time to address the details but surely the CNCC not the BCA has been the main obstacle in the past and this would be removed, if the idea was passed.

My preference would be for a SGM for several reasons, all member clubs get a vote, so the decision has the full authority of the members, it could be held at the earliest possible date - before any committee meeting and long before the next AGM and also the meeting could be much more focussed.

I'm not sure an open calendar on Google could be adapted to the various permit procedures and restrictions, it might work as a stop gap but I think in the long term a more tailored solution would be preferable.

I'm not clear why CIM's need to be included? Can't they already get permits through their clubs as all BCA clubs are automatically viewed as Associate members of CNCC and all club members have to be CIM's? Is it so they can apply as individuals rather than through the club?

I am not overly in favour of using a shop on two counts.  One is the shop who gets it is then highly favoured by CNCC which seems to open up the potential for all sorts of accusations.  (If nothing else 'would you like a cup of tea whilst I sort this out' will lead to increase customer throughput.)  I fear it will simply descend into the morass which the previous "scheme" fell into.  The second is it does not cover times when the shop is closed.  I am happy with the idea of a special system but I think it has to be run by a group of cavers for cavers.  Given electronic communications one could have a special email address which is serviced by a person on a rotating basis (so one person does not get overload for more than say one week at a time).  That person then sorts out last minute requests by email on say a maximum of say a 12 hour turn around (the guy needs to be allowed to sleep after all).  He / she works on the basis that the calender is correct and issues permits by email.  Again it might need negotiations with those land owners which demand one shows a piece of paper to get them to accept shifting to either a piece of paper or a written message on a smart phone.

I think it would have to be limited say permits issued for only the next 7 days.  Again detail which needs to be sorted out.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the long term solution be issuing permits automatically where they are available by smartphone or to a PC. This would ease the work on the meets secretaries. Anyone entitled to gain a permit could apply, once their right is confirmed they can have a login and then apply online in seconds. The present system and issuing via a shop for example are really only stopgaps while a more permanent system is developed? Perhaps that would be the time to give CIM's direct access to permits? The only real precaution that may need to be taken is to impose a monthly limit perhaps, to stop people hogging permits, which if reached would mean say that the meets secretary would have to issue additional permits.