A big thank you to Bob for all the hard work he is obviously doing.

His recent new topic that was blocked was exactly what I wanted to hear about when I asked the question about what was going to be discussed at the 16th Aug meeting.

I understand how the democratic structure of the CNCC works and in common with a lot of people I am concerned that the democratic structure of the CNCC does a poor job of proportionally representing the views of cavers;  one club = one vote hence all the 'flags of convenience' micro-clubs. Clubs with over 200 members have the same voting power as micro-clubs with three members. I think that is wrong but at least the structure isn't complicated and I understand it.

As I have said before I have very little to do with the BCA but from the little do know I get the impression that it's democratic structure is quite haphazard and ad-hoc amalgam of disparate bolt-on parts. I would guess that the lack of democracy in the BCA has been discussed at length somewhere but I don't know about it. So if this is going to make you yawn stop reading now.

damian said:

Indeed. The BCA AGM asked the C&A Committee to deal with the issue and it will begin its work on this on 16th August. The Committee has on it one (voting) representative from each of the following Organisations:

Regional Councils - Cambrian, CNCC, CSCC, DCA and DCUC.

Constituent Bodies - ACI, ASCT, BCRA, BCRC, CDG, CHECC, NAMHO and WPCST.

Anyone with views on CRoW who is a member of any of the above, should speak to their representative. Individuals should send their thoughts to Andrew Hinde, the Conservation & Access Officer on conservation [at] british[hyphen]caving[dot]org[dot]uk.

Hopefully in this way the decisions that are reached will best reflect the views of BCA's membership.

Click to expand...

Correct this if it is wrong but I have heard that the CNCC represents more cavers than all the other regional bodies put together. Yet the CNCC has the same voting power as the CDG which is just a medium sized specialised caving club.

jasonbirder said:

.........
I've no faith in caving's administrative bodies actually going as far as pushing FOR the wishes of grubby rebellious non-conformist cavers...

But that's merely indicative of the massive disconnect between the sports representative bodies and the members they are supposed to represent...

Click to expand...

I imagine that many of those "grubby rebellious non-conformist cavers" are the sort who spend their time challenging themselves working their way through 'Not for the Faint-hearted' and are too busy caving to take any notice of the BCA. But if they are a member of one of the large northern clubs their voting power is diluted to a point very close to total disenfranchisement. Whereas, somebody down south might be involved in the ASCT, the WPCST and the DCUC and so have voting power multiplied by being in several of these disproportionally powerful voting bodies.

I think this whole CRoW fiasco over the last twenty years has shown us that there really is a "massive disconnect between the sports representative bodies and the members they are supposed to represent". But the problem is more than that, there just simply is no democratic structure that could ever represent the views of cavers in any way that would merit being described by the word democracy.

I'm aware that I'm exposing a few prejudices here so maybe it's time for another thread about something else that has been on my mind. Maybe on another day.

Simon seems to suggest that we are all small clubs here "down south".
Recently I was told The Wessex is currently the largest club in the country. I don't know if that is true but we have nearly 300 members.  How many clubs " upp north" are bigger?

My club has about 240 members.

Simon. You have my sympathy. Bob is indeed doing a great deal, as was Jenny b4 her hols and also Tim (Allen). I've only just (reluctantly) got involved with this.

This first meeting, I think, will just be getting a general feel for things, then deciding the best route to take on all matters.

I has an agenda! As we all do now. We are all being asked to produce reports b4 the meeting to describe (briefly) regional issues, then any CRoW issues/opinions. They should be going up on the BCA web site b4 the meeting.

These will no doubt vary from region to region and I hope that we will do our best to take everything into account.

I don't generally get involved in caving politics, so I hope (there's that word again) that we will come away from the meeting with constructive actions to take, for the benefit of all.

But I guess, since this is the first BCA C&A meeting since, I think 2009, (which is poor in itself), we shouldn't expect too much.

As an example, I don't totally agree with the notes put out recently by the DCA L&I officer, as I have been taking into account others views like Bobs and Stuarts of CCC. Will be trying to think of a compromise over the w/e for a DCA report to put to the meeting.

Regards, Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.

Good news.

I hope that we get a good outcome and that eventually the whole BCA CRoW debacle over the twenty or so years is a lesson in how the lack of democracy produces a bad result.

I've been told that the biggest club in the North is Red Rose but most of their members aren't cavers; they are members because it gives them access to the club hut. I think I know most of their active cavers and they number about the same as our club which has 35 members. Counting numbers is a pointless exercise except that it might indicate something about the function of the club. Especially if that 'club' is on a committee and as far as anyone knows it might only have one member.

Talking of which, I noticed that LUG was represented at that 1998 meeting. Did he have a vote?

Verging on getting personal again but it is inevitable if the issue of the micro-clubs is to be addressed and it does need addressing.

Simon - you have spoken several times about "micro-clubs" which you seem to feel have been created in order to allow a vote on CNCC. Is not the more obvious reason that access to several popular systems in the North is via club permits, and so groups of friends are encouraged to form themselves into a club in order to access these permits?

kay said:

Simon - you have spoken several times about "micro-clubs" which you seem to feel have been created in order to allow a vote on CNCC. Is not the more obvious reason that access to several popular systems in the North is via club permits, and so groups of friends are encouraged to form themselves into a club in order to access these permits?

Click to expand...

Definitely not. A far easier way to get access to permits would be to join an existing club than create your own micro-club. Also, if the purpose of the micro-clubs was to get permits why are they all on the CNCC committee? Nearly half of the committee member clubs are micro-clubs which appear to have only one or two members.

The only real solution to the problems of representation is to have a one member - one vote for BCA members regardless of whether they are CIM's or DIM's. I don't think there is any fairer way of deciding critical policy. Leaving the decision to club/regional body representatives is undemocratic as many will have their own agenda.

The BCA is meant to be moving to a simpler system for membership and asks for email addresses etc. This could form the mechanism for a simple voting system. It will not be perfact as some dinosaurs will not use computers, but it has to be a lot more democratic than what we have now...

[There will then be arguments as to whether 'armchair cavers', who don't pay the underground component of the BCA insurance, should be allowed to vote on policy affecting underground accesss...]

Dave

The Vintage Motorcycle Club have 17,000 members, regional groups and a national committee. They have national ballots of all members to elect national officials.

So Simon Wilson seems to think that micro-clubs are undemocratic and large clubs are undemocratic.

I assume he believes in "One Man One Vote" and that he is the "One Man" who should exercise that vote.

graham said:

So Simon Wilson seems to think that micro-clubs are undemocratic and large clubs are undemocratic..

Click to expand...

I think you are flattering him if you think he is the only one to hold those views...

Dave

So Simon Wilson seems to think that micro-clubs are undemocratic and large clubs are undemocratic.

I assume he believes in "One Man One Vote" and that he is the "One Man" who should exercise that vote.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you're being contrary

But its pretty obvious he means BOTH are unfairly represented...one because the ratio of members to committee votes is too low...the other because the ratio of members to committee votes is too high...

If that's tough to grasp...here's a simple analogy...in our parliamentarian system the electoral commission tries to ensure that by and large most constituencies are of a reasonably comparable size...

We don't have any constituencies with 100 voters returning 1 MP to parliament...nor do we have constituencies with 100,000 voters represented by a single MP...That would be UNDEMOCRATIC wouldn't it

graham said:

So Simon Wilson seems to think that micro-clubs are undemocratic and large clubs are undemocratic.

I assume he believes in "One Man One Vote" and that he is the "One Man" who should exercise that vote.

Click to expand...

You are being ridiculous. Go back and read what I said when I started the topic on CNCC democracy.

Simon Wilson said:

Definitely not. A far easier way to get access to permits would be to join an existing club than create your own micro-club. Also, if the purpose of the micro-clubs was to get permits why are they all on the CNCC committee? Nearly half of the committee member clubs are micro-clubs which appear to have only one or two members.

Click to expand...

The 14 clubs on the committee are below. You are saying that 5 or 6 of these have only one or two members?

    Bradford Pothole Club Ltd - www.bpc-cave.org.uk
    Burnley Caving Club - burnleycavingclub.apphb.com
    Craven Pothole Club - www.cravenpotholeclub.org
    Earby Pothole Club
    Gritstone Club - www.gritstoneclub.org.uk
    Lancashire Underground Group
    Northern Boggarts - www.northernboggarts.org.uk
    Northumbrian Speleology Group
    Over and Under Caving Club
    Red Rose Cave and Pothole Club - www.rrcpc.org.uk
    Uni of Leeds Speleological Association - www.ulsa.org.uk
    White Rose Pothole Club - www.white-rose.org.uk
    Yorkshire Ramblers Club - www.yrc.org.uk
    Yorkshire Subterranean Soc - www.yssuk.com

OK Kay, I will admit that "nearly half" is an exaggeration. There are five micro-clubs which are either represented as officers or committee members.

Because of the alarm raised by the very serious shenanigans that have been going on there has been an improvement in interest and the committee is now made up mainly of bona fide clubs. At the AGM three of the officers who all represent micro-clubs gave up their vote in order to allow more clubs to become committee members. But at least one of the new committee member clubs is a micro-club.

In addition to the five there is one highly dubious micro-club which has been involving itself in CNCC business writing letters but never showing a face.

Who the hell are the mysterious St Helens Caving Club and Flat Learning Curve Pothole Club neither of whom are BCA members?

Simon Wilson said:

OK Kay, I will admit that "nearly half" is an exaggeration. There are five micro-clubs which are either represented as officers or committee members.

Click to expand...

"Representation" by an officer is a red herring since only the 14 committee clubs have a vote. Officers are directed by the Committee, and they do not have a vote in their own right. They only have a vote if they are the chosen representative of on of the 14 Committee clubs.

It has worried me for a long time that caving is as 'political' as it is, the reasons seem historical to a large extent.

It also worries me that small (<20 active cavers) clubs have exactly the same rights and influence as large (>100 cavers) clubs.

Cavers outside clubs but still BCA members, probably don't want to get into the 'political' side of caving.

The situation today was undoubtedly the most democratic solution at the time regional and national bodies were formed but is now showing its age.

There seems to me to be no technical or financial reason why a more modern approach cannot be taken.    So I would suggest something along the lines of a secure 'members area' on the BCA website.  One that members can log into and vote on controversial issues affecting caving - obviously I'm thinking particularly about CRoW.    For the most part the regional councils do a good job but any issue as divisive as CRoW appears to be is always gong to generate accusations of 'vote rigging' particularly if there appear 3 or 4 new clubs with <10 members at the time of the controversy.

The BCA is meant to represent cavers, not the few who attend Regional or National meetings no matter how unpartisan those reps might be.  The average caver in a large club could well think their opinion goes by completely unnoticed.

I think for the vast majority of the work Regional councils do there is no need for change.  But for CRoW there is a clear need to show that the majority of cavers support the BCA position (whatever that might be).  Electronic voting is not a difficult thing to achieve.  What might cause problems is the time it would take an appropriate Committee to decide upon the correct implementation of such a system....

It is something that will inevitably happen sometime, I just think sooner would be better than later.

Alkapton said:

It also worries me that small (<20 active cavers) clubs have exactly the same rights and influence as large (>100 cavers) clubs.

Click to expand...

Some of the micro-clubs have only two known members and possibly only one. There are no checks carried out at all. A person can just turn up, claim to represent a club and be elected onto a committee as a club rep.

Alkapton said:

It also worries me that small (<20 active cavers) clubs have exactly the same rights and influence as large (>100 cavers) clubs.

Click to expand...

Or could you equally fairly say? "It also worries me that large (>100 cavers of whom 90 out of every 100 members is only a member cos they can get use of a hut for a bargain basement priced holiday once or twice a year but actually contribute very little beyond that) clubs have exactly the same rights and influence as small (<20 active in their own corner of the world club, digging and prospecting and maintaining good relations within the local community cavers) clubs." :-\