Author Topic: Ballot Results  (Read 4157 times)

Offline aricooperdavis

  • Global Moderator
  • forum star
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
  • Cornwall to Cumbria
    • Cooper-Davis.net
Ballot Results
« on: November 01, 2021, 12:00:39 pm »


The results are in from the online ballot following the 2021 AGM. Here are the headlines:

Elections
PositionWinning Candidate(s)
ChairRussell Myers
SecretaryAllan Richardson
Training OfficerSteve Gray
Individual Member Reps.Nigel Atkins & Josh White

Proposals
ProposalSummaryResult
1Remove requirement for regional anchor installer trainors/assessors to be subject to approval from the Equipment & Techniques CommitteePasses
2A/B/CChanges to Section 10.1 of the Constitution:
A) Be entirely removed
B) Have the first line removed
C) Be entirely re-written
All fail
3Replacement of Standing Committees with Working Groups, merging of responsibilities of Training and Equipment & Techniques, and removal of Publications & Information OfficerPasses
4Adjustments to the Constitution to facilitate Online AGMs and the following Online ballotsPasses
5Replacement of gendered role titles with gender-neutral alternatives throughout the ConstitutionPasses
6Updates to the Equality & Diversity PolicyPasses

The full breakdown of the votes is available here.

Thank you to all those who stood for election, proposed or seconded an amendment, and voted in this online ballot. You are helping to shape the future of British Caving.

Please direct any enquiries to the returning officer by email to: returning_officer@british-caving.org.uk.



Errata: when this post was initially published Motion 2C was listed as having passed. In fact, having achieved <70% of the vote, it has not been passed.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2021, 12:52:47 pm by aricooperdavis »

Offline JoshW

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 824
  • YSS, WSCC, BCA Youth & Development, BCA Group Rep
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2021, 12:12:58 pm »
Congratulations to all those who have been elected, and a big thank you to those who supported in particular motions 5 and 6, bringing the association into the modern day.
All views are my own and not that of the BCA or any clubs for which I'm a member of.

Offline kay

  • Not a
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2021, 12:39:09 pm »
Where can we see the number of votes cast, please? The BCA page says "The full breakdown of the votes is available here." but there's no link.

Offline Shapatti

  • newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2021, 12:45:04 pm »
Where can we see the number of votes cast, please? The BCA page says "The full breakdown of the votes is available here." but there's no link.

Third line from the bottom on Ari's post has a link in it   :)

Offline aricooperdavis

  • Global Moderator
  • forum star
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
  • Cornwall to Cumbria
    • Cooper-Davis.net
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2021, 12:46:13 pm »
Where can we see the number of votes cast, please? The BCA page says "The full breakdown of the votes is available here." but there's no link.

The "here" is itself a link, as is the case with this post. My apologies if this in unclear, I can adjust the formatting when I'm back at my desk.

Alternatively I have attached the linked document to this post (for logged in UKCaving users).
« Last Edit: November 01, 2021, 12:55:13 pm by aricooperdavis »

Offline Ian Ball

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2021, 01:00:32 pm »
Fascinating stuff.

Removal of 10.1 fails to achieve the grade but the merger of committees who asked not to be merged does pass.  Interesting.

Congrats Russell, commiserations Rostam. 



Offline Frog2

  • player
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #6 on: November 01, 2021, 01:02:54 pm »
The link worked for me - gave me access to the PDF (think people might have been expecting another window or something to open).

Offline 2xw

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • YUCPC, SUSS
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #7 on: November 01, 2021, 01:19:51 pm »
Fascinating stuff.

Removal of 10.1 fails to achieve the grade but the merger of committees who asked not to be merged does pass.  Interesting.

Congrats Russell, commiserations Rostam.

When you look at the 10.1 votes I think it's safe to say from the abstentions a sizeable proportion don't care about it

As for the committee's - the BCA needs far less people in it, both for efficiency reasons and a basic lack of volunteers. The whole council would work better reduced to 10 people maximum.

Offline ChrisJC

  • Funky
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1678
    • http://www.cowdery.org.uk
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2021, 01:20:43 pm »
Well done to all those who put themselves forward for election, and also to those to make the process happen.

Knowing sod all about caving politics myself, I hope the result(s) are a step forwards.

Chris.
--
http://www.cowdery.org.uk
Mines, caves,
Land Rovers

Offline nearlywhite

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 419
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #9 on: November 01, 2021, 02:35:04 pm »
Thought I had it in the bag  :-[ No in all seriousness thanks to all those who voted for me, 46% of the vote isn't too shabby.

While I'm sad to have lost, a little embarrassed and disappointed, I'm surprised at how much I had overestimated my support. That probably reflects how divided caving is at the moment, kind of appropriate to be stuck in an echo chamber I guess. I've got a fair amount to reflect on and some time away from council can only be good for my sanity. Good luck to the new (old?) team and I hope they find the stability promised.

Here's to being the first proper loser in BCA history  :beer2:

Offline mikem

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4988
  • Mendip Caving Group
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #10 on: November 01, 2021, 03:05:37 pm »
I wouldn't worry about it Rostam, you were both standing on similar platforms.

Offline kay

  • Not a
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2021, 04:11:23 pm »
Quote

The "here" is itself a link, as is the case with this post. My apologies if this in unclear, I can adjust the formatting when I'm back at my desk.

That's what I assumed. But it didn't work for me when I clicked on it. Maybe a browser issue.

Offline Ian Ball

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2021, 04:12:38 pm »
At least now you get to go and :dig:



Online PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2029
  • ChCC, GSS, SWCC, WCC, WCDG
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2021, 07:06:53 pm »
When you look at the 10.1 votes I think it's safe to say from the abstentions a sizeable proportion don't care about it

Or they were totally confused by it, or didn't feel qualified to comment, not knowing the full implications of any option. I know people who genuinely care, but didn't know what the best option was,  so would likely have abstained and let those with a better understanding make the decision.

Offline aricooperdavis

  • Global Moderator
  • forum star
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
  • Cornwall to Cumbria
    • Cooper-Davis.net
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #14 on: November 01, 2021, 09:21:41 pm »
I think we'd have a very different result for that motion if we'd have used runoff/ranked choice voting, as I imagine many of the "delete" vote would rather see a rewrite than no change at all.

Offline darren

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #15 on: November 01, 2021, 10:13:24 pm »
I think we'd have a very different result for that motion if we'd have used runoff/ranked choice voting, as I imagine many of the "delete" vote would rather see a rewrite than no change at all.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to suggest  the motion failed because the membership didn't understand the motion/the motion was badly worded or the membership just plian got it wrong.

I disagree with nearlywhite on a lot of things, but he has won my respect for the way he has taken the ballot result. Not many would be as gracious  as he has been

He is an example to everyone on all sides of the debate


No, I'm playing all the right notes

Online PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2029
  • ChCC, GSS, SWCC, WCC, WCDG
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2021, 10:48:54 pm »
I think we'd have a very different result for that motion if we'd have used runoff/ranked choice voting, as I imagine many of the "delete" vote would rather see a rewrite than no change at all.

I don't think this is remotely true, looking at the numbers.

619 people voted.

The total of each of the three choices was 619 (between yes, no, abstain) so everybody selected one option in each of the three votes.

The total votes cast in favour of any of the three motions is 681, so clearly people voted to support more than one option, on the basis that the most popular would pass.

I suspect that the vast majority of those who voted to remove it entirely also voted for the rewrite.

Likewise, I'm certain a good proportion of people voted against all three and another good proportion abstained on all three.

I'm not sure how the data was collected and if it is possible to see how any given (anonymous) voter responded to the various polls, relative to each other. For example were people who voted for 2A more likely to also vote for motion 2B and 2C.

Offline aricooperdavis

  • Global Moderator
  • forum star
  • *****
  • Posts: 664
  • Cornwall to Cumbria
    • Cooper-Davis.net
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2021, 07:32:54 am »
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to suggest  the motion failed because the membership didn't understand the motion/the motion was badly worded or the membership just plian got it wrong.

I don't think that at all! :( I'm not at all invested in this motion, so I'm not trying to justify why it didn't pass. Rather I'm thinking about this as the person responsible for running the vote and operating the voting website. We've worked hard to make the site as easy to use and accessible as we possibly can, and I genuinely think a ranked choice would have been easier for voters, and the results more informative, than what we used. You shouldn't have to think in detail about how the votes will be counted when you cast your vote, it should be easy to convey your preferences, and I think a ranked choice would have been easier.

I suspect that the vast majority of those who voted to remove it entirely also voted for the rewrite.

Interesting, I hadn't assumed that, but you're right if that's the case a change to ranked choice wouldn't make the slightest difference.

We could extract that info from the voting data, but I feel a bit uncomfortable about doing so as it's more analysis than your average voter might expect. I'll make some enquiries and see what I can do.

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #18 on: November 02, 2021, 08:31:57 am »
What happens now with 10.1 Ari, anybody?  The 2020 AGM voted overwhelmingly to find a new form of words to change it.  The vote for that was something like 450 for, 60 against.  I presume that is still a live result as there was no vote which overruled it or found a new form of words.

It doesn't seem like there wasn't much clear thinking in offering three different options.  Some have already said this may have split the vote.  In any case they all failed, but what if they had all passed?  That would have caused an equal problem.

Going back a year the proposal was that council would find a new form of words and support that for change.  If council had done that and asked the membership to back it then I suspect it would have been a success.

Offline Cavematt

  • stalker
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
    • York Caving Club
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2021, 08:48:32 am »
Well done to the BCA team for putting the ballot together; It is a lot of work for a voluntary organisation.

Providing a choice of three options for the Section 10.1 question was not ideal.

We know that each voting individual had the option to give their vote to one, two, or all three of the options. However, the problem is that when you present multiple choice, many people will feel the need or desire to pick just the one they most prefer, rather than vote for multiple that they would accept.

For me, the interesting statistic would be what proportion of people gave their vote to at least one of the three options, versus the number who voted against all three. This will give a readout of what proportion of people voted for some kind of change to this section of the constitution, versus the number who clearly rejected all change.

If the number who voted for at least one of the three options is >70%, then I think it will re-emphasise the desire for change expressed at the 2020 AGM, just that a consensus on what the change should be has not yet been reached and more work lies ahead for the new BCA team.

Ps; I'm not questioning the result; more questioning what can be learned from this ballot and what action should be taken forward. Badlad is spot on that this result conflicts with the 2020 AGM result, so maybe the correct solution has not yet been found; or maybe the multiple-choice way the question was asked was doomed to failure from the start.

York Caving Club

Offline andrewmc

  • BCA ind. rep.
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1109
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS, SWCC...
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2021, 09:27:25 am »
The following comments are purely my personal opinion :)

It's much easier to agree that something is bad and should be changed than to agree on _what_ should be changed. Hence it is not surprising that last year's motion had a clear majority, whereas all three options this year had lesser support.

There was a consultation on Section 10.1 prior to a number of meetings where it was discussed at the Constitution and Operations Working Group. The consultation was largely to find out what the hell Section 10.1 actually meant (or at least what people thought it meant, which is much the same thing really). Only one regional council, the CSCC, responded at this time. No responses gave any suggestions of new wording. What the consultation really showed was that there was significant disagreement about what it meant, whether it was good and what should be done with it. No single form of words was going to please everybody.

This wasn't an exercise in pushing some desired outcome; it was a genuine attempt to present the membership with a set of options which reflected the range of opinions they held.

In my _personal_ option, by far the best option was to dump it entirely. I am a strong believer that any restrictive clauses in a constitution should be very specific and clear, which this is not. I would also like to see a more compact constitution. Therefore, not presenting an option to remove it entirely (2A) would have been a missed opportunity.

However, only presenting an option to remove it entirely would not have been suggesting a 'new form of words', and would be ignoring the responses of all the people who felt it was important. So we also included a cut-down option where only part of it was included (this was, I believe, the only explicit suggestion actually made by anyone to me although I could have forgotten some). Hence option 2B.

Finally, some sort of compromise option was needed or we would just be ignoring a significant fraction of the responses. Unfortunately, the problem is that Section 10.1 is terribly vague but has all this additional baggage. Consequently, it is not possible to state exactly what it means, and therefore it is very hard to even rewrite it without potentially changing it completely, let alone try and reach some compromise. Thus 2C was spawned out; a horrific mishmash of compromise that takes far too many words to try and say some of what Section 10.1 was saying, but with extra arbitrary conditions. I think it was pretty awful, but it was the best I could do - in fact I was going to withdraw it at the meeting I first presented it, but we decided to keep it anyway. Despite writing and proposing it, I actually voted against it on principle (and then pointed out when the results were initially released that it had in fact _not_ passed, although I would of course have done this anyway). It's therefore ironic that it did the best out of the three options - apparently people like a wishy-washy compromise with too many words in it...

What I would point out though is that a majority of voters wanted to remove Section 10.1 entirely. They failed to pass the constitutional threshold of 70%, but the majority of members are in favour. Thus, it probably shouldn't be seen as some sacred principle of the BCA delivered by the members... it is a horrifically ambiguous clause, and AGMs and the membership could interpret it in all sorts of ways (as is their right).

Where to go from here? Well, I am confident we have fulfilled the requirement from the 2020 AGM and can now waste no more time on it. I don't think Section 10.1 really does anything significant, although I respectfully acknowledge others would disagree. It remains in the constitution, but I think the majority vote to remove it is a vote of no confidence in the principle it (attempts) to state. And any member who can actually think of anything better to replace it can submit something to the 2022 AGM (please do)...

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2345
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2021, 11:39:56 am »
Andrew - what now for constitutional reform.  When Mad Phil was around he assured me (and others) that your group was going to rewrite the whole constitution within a year.  I always thought that was optimistic but is that still the aim?  The argument was that continually proposing tweaks and changes each year is a waste of resources when everyone seems to agree that wholesale changes are required.  As you say something much shorter and concise is really needed.  It is probably four years or more since constitutional change groups were first established by BCA but to date the only changes proposed have been the piecemeal ones each year.  What's the plan?

Offline JoshW

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 824
  • YSS, WSCC, BCA Youth & Development, BCA Group Rep
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2021, 02:11:16 pm »
Andrew - what now for constitutional reform.  When Mad Phil was around he assured me (and others) that your group was going to rewrite the whole constitution within a year.  I always thought that was optimistic but is that still the aim?  The argument was that continually proposing tweaks and changes each year is a waste of resources when everyone seems to agree that wholesale changes are required.  As you say something much shorter and concise is really needed.  It is probably four years or more since constitutional change groups were first established by BCA but to date the only changes proposed have been the piecemeal ones each year.  What's the plan?

Assume that the direction this group and the BCA takes as a whole will be dictated by Russell, the new chair and member of the COG
All views are my own and not that of the BCA or any clubs for which I'm a member of.

Online PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2029
  • ChCC, GSS, SWCC, WCC, WCDG
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2021, 04:05:07 pm »
but what if they had all passed?  That would have caused an equal problem.
Had they all passed, the vote with the highest support was to be carried was it not?

I genuinely think a ranked choice would have been easier for voters, and the results more informative, than what we used.
Had there been a ranked choice, obviously the option to keep it unchanged would have been needed. Perhaps it should have been included anyway, effectively a motion to overturn the previous year's vote to change 10.1?  :shrug:

In terms of where to go from here, my personal view would be that the 2020 vote was complied with, and all options in the 2021 vote failed, so there is no obligation to do anything else with it. That might seem like a bit of an anti-climax and perhaps someone wants to bring it up again, but even if they don't, I think it is still not a bad result. 10.1 stays in the constitution, but BCA are now aware that it is not widely supported, therefore this can be taken into consideration when considering how to interpret it, if a contentious issue ever comes up again. After all, it is clearly open to interpretation and the membership have given some guidance on how they think it should be interpreted. That in itself is perhaps a worthwhile result.

Offline Jenny P

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 931
Re: Ballot Results
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2021, 05:42:59 pm »
10.1 is so unclear that I suspect people will have voted on what they thought it meant - but how they interpreted it may not have been the interpretation others used in their vote.

It's a mess and IMHO the rest of section 10 is not much better as it's muddled and seems to addressing two different issues at the same time.

I think the group did their best in attempting to wade through the morass on 10.1 although, thinking about it with hindsight (always a wonderful thing) it might have been better to ask people to rank the choices: scrap altogether, leave it alone as is, go for a complete re-write.

However, I think PeteHall has summed it up when he suggests that
BCA are now aware that it is not widely supported, therefore this can be taken into consideration when considering how to interpret it, if a contentious issue ever comes up again.

 

Main Menu

Forum Home Help Search
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal