BCA's Ballot on changes to their constitution

"For clarification, this post is from David Gibson, the secretary of BCRA. It is not a posting by BCA"

All members of the British Caving Association should have received an email (or a letter if your email address failed) describing the ballot that is currently taking place on constitutional amendments that would change the way voting is performed at future General Meetings of the British Caving Association. This includes a change from the present two-house voting system (groups and individuals) to a single-house system. As BCRA is a Group member of BCA, BCRA Council has had to discuss how we would cast our group vote in this ballot.

Council noted with regret that the ballot email was not clear about what was being voted on and that BCA's online documentation also lacked clarity. In particular we felt that it was poor practice to expect voters to read a 37-page document before casting their vote.

In our discussion it was noted that the proposer of the BCA motion may have missed a key point when he asked "/whether a group vote is really indicative of the feeling of the members/" as historically the Group vote has been present to cover "corporate" issues affecting Groups. Hence, it is not simply an aggregation of the votes of the group's members, which would indeed be rather un-democratic. BCA's activities are currently predicated on the existence of Groups which are given similar weight to individual members. The role of the groups, of the regional councils, of BCRA and other specialist bodies is important to British caving; and their voice needs to be heard at a "corporate" level within BCA.

During our discussion, an alternative argument was made by one member of BCRA Council who felt that Groups may have failed to live up to their responsibilities and hence we should support the BCA proposal.

However, the majority view of BCRA Council was that no good reason had been presented for a change to the "status quo" and that the situation would benefit from further thought and discussion. Council therefore decided that we would cast our group vote in a way that kept the issue open for further discussion, voting 7 to 1 to REJECT the proposed motion, with one abstention.

As BCRA is a charity, the trustees have personal legal responsibility for the running of our organisation and, whilst we do, of course, listen to our membership, the way we cast our Group vote is the sole responsibility of the trustees (i.e. BCRA Council) and not of our members. Similarly, Council will not be making a recommendation to our members on how they should vote in their own "house of individuals". However, Council would recommend that individuals try to inform themselves of the arguments. With this in mind we note that there is a commentary on the ballot at https://darknessbelow.co.uk/bca-ballotcast-or-ballotgate/ and there is discussion at https://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=25709.0
 

2xw

Active member
One reasonable reason for the change is that currently 5 people can set up a group and then they have an equal "corporate say" to the British Cave Research Association.

Not only this but the current system makes it difficult for people to join the BCRA. CIMs can't join the BCRA without a amount of beaurocratic faff precisely because the membership structure (and the BCA databases etc that underpin it) are old, outdated and barely functioning.

Thanks for the post it's useful to hear another opinion. Would be good if other non-regional groups weighed in (scouts, pengelly etc)
 

BCA Chair

Member
I would like to clarify that the opinions above expressed by David Gibson are those of the BCRA (British Cave Research Association) and not the BCA.

A few people have been in touch already with me to query this post assuming it was in some way related to the BCA (and thus finding it confusing thinking that the BCA was announcing its own stance on the proposal half way through a ballot). For clarity, the BCRA is a separate organisation to the BCA, with its own Council and its own membership (although there are some historic ties that mean the membership systems for the two organisations are partially integrated, but these links are irrelevant in this situation).

The BCRA is a constituent body of the BCA (in the same way as the regional councils, the BCRC, CDG, CHECC, NAMHO etc) and thus has a group vote in the ballot alongside all member clubs. I appreciate the BCRA Council discussing the ballot in such detail and sharing their thoughts openly on this forum.

Matt Ewles
Secretary, British Caving Association
 

David Rose

Active member
I find it impossible to understand this argument, as it is presented. Please clarify it. How is it not undemocratic if a group votes on an issue without consulting its members? How is that mitigated if a vote is about a "corporate" issue?

And what do you mean by claiming that BCA activities are predicated on the existence of groups? Surely, this is simply a tautology?
 

badger

Active member
The Scouts have asked its members of the national SASU for their opinion, we will vote for the majority. we have not tried to influence any of them one way or the other.
 

BCA Chair

Member
It is also worth mentioning that these proposals in no way impact the makeup of BCA Council, where representatives of all BCA constituent bodies (including BCRA) have a vote and also at which four individuals are empowered to vote to represent group members. Therefore, of the 29 voting positions available on BCA Council, 17 of these votes would be from people representing group members.

Perhaps it is worth noting that of all the BCA Council meetings in 2018 and 2019 (eight meetings in total), the BCRA as a constituent body has attended (and thus utilised their vote) at only one of these eight meetings. We would be delighted to see you more often.

 

Badlad

Administrator
Staff member
BCRA may need to consider some reforms of their own and soon.  I've always thought of BCRA quite fondly for the good work that they do, but I do think they may be perceived as a little aloof.  They did send a rep to the last BCA meeting, for the first time in my memory, and that was to ask BCA for money.  Apparently their membership numbers do not support the organisation financially and they must rely on reserves or outside support.  As clear a case for needing reform as I ever saw. 
 
2xw said:
the current system makes it difficult for people to join the BCRA. CIMs can't join the BCRA without a amount of beaurocratic faff
I do have to point out that, for the majority of people, joining BCRA is not difficult - it amounts to clicking a couple of boxes on the DIM form. However, you are absolutely right that it's a bit of a faff for CIMs. At present, they have to upgrade to a DIM, which involves going to the DIM form and clicking a box :)  If BCA were to implement a change that allowed CIMs to join BCRA via their club, that would be good.
 
Badlad said:
Apparently [BCRA] membership numbers do not support the organisation financially and they must rely on reserves or outside support. As clear a case for needing reform as I ever saw.
Actually, membership numbers do support our day-to-day activities (essentially, publishing our journal and books). (And, obviously, the cost of printing a book take a while to be recouped, so the accounts can be a bit lumpy). But BCRA also issues grants, which we are able to do because of a number of bequests that we have received. The salient point is that the level of these grants outweighs anything that could ever come from membership fees. The situation is not unlike that of the Ghar Parau Foundation and, in fact, one view expressed consistently over the years is that BCRA should move towards a GPF-like operation - i.e. have no members at all. So, membership numbers is only a part of the picture.
 
BCA Secretary said:
I would like to clarify that the opinions above expressed by David Gibson are those of the BCRA (British Cave Research Association) and not the BCA.
If I could find an EDIT button, Id go back and make a clarification; but I cannot see one.
 

Badlad

Administrator
Staff member
DavidGibson said:
Badlad said:
Apparently [BCRA] membership numbers do not support the organisation financially and they must rely on reserves or outside support. As clear a case for needing reform as I ever saw.
Actually, membership numbers do support our day-to-day activities (essentially, publishing our journal and books). (And, obviously, the cost of printing a book take a while to be recouped, so the accounts can be a bit lumpy). But BCRA also issues grants, which we are able to do because of a number of bequests that we have received. The salient point is that the level of these grants outweighs anything that could ever come from membership fees. The situation is not unlike that of the Ghar Parau Foundation and, in fact, one view expressed consistently over the years is that BCRA should move towards a GPF-like operation - i.e. have no members at all. So, membership numbers is only a part of the picture.

Hi Dave.  I was referring to the rather confused financial position of BCRA put forward at the last BCA council meeting when BCRA requested funding from BCA of something like ?44,000 over four years - I may be confused over these figures too.  The BCRA submission to BCA, written by John Gunn, BCRA chairman, stated;

"Since 2011 the Association has run at a loss, averaging out at around ?5400 per year. In 2018 the income was over ?10,000 less than expenditure and the imbalance would have been even more were it not for some trustees forgoing expenses to which they are entitled. The year on year imbalance has only been possible because Council have made a decision to run down the reserves in order to maintain our core activities."

It was noted that the BCRA reserves were ?150,000.  The request was shelved by BCA pending a better understanding of the financial position and projects requiring support.  Several BCA council members suggested that if BCA was to get more involved with BCRA then some re-organisation might be needed.

PS you can only edit your post for a short time or up to when a response is posted.  Obviously changing posts once people have responded can lead to all sorts of problems.  If you would like me to insert a specific note at the beginning to clarify please PM me and I can insert it as a moderator.  Thanks for posting your position anyway - much appreciated.
 
A quick clarification
Badlad said:
Hi Dave.  I was referring to the rather confused financial position of BCRA put forward at the last BCA council meeting when BCRA requested funding from BCA of something like ?44,000 over four years - I may be confused over these figures too.
I cant remember offhand what the figure was, but that sounds about right. However, when I read the minutes I realised that BCA Council might have misunderstood what we were asking for. We were not asking for money for our own coffers - we were asking for BCA to "match-fund" some projects. That is, we were saying "BCRA is putting ?X into this external project; perhaps BCA could consider doing likewise?" ... sort of thing.  If this comes back to BCA Council in the future, we'll try to clarify that. :)
The BCRA submission to BCA, written by John Gunn, BCRA chairman, stated; "Since 2011 the Association has run at a loss, averaging out at around ?5400 per year. In 2018 the income was over ?10,000 less than expenditure...
It depends somewhat on how you define "loss".  The ?5400 figure includes fees paid to our editors (working at well below the minimum wage). I wasnt counting that, in my comment, because it arises only because Council made an active decision to use our bequests for that purpose. If "times were hard" it would not appear as an expenditure because our editors would simply have to work on a 100% voluntary basis. (In other words, it is really a "grant" but to include it as such might be seen as a dodgy accounting practice).

The ?10,000 includes expenditure on volume 2 of the Yorkshire Dales book which will gradually be recouped over time. In fact, when you take volume 1 and volume 2 together, they are now showing a surplus. For publications, we do have a policy to aim for a surplus, which is why we have moved towards print-on-demand on a digital press - I doubt we would ever again print a Cave Studies booklet as a traditional "wet ink" book. And we have always said that C&KS would be available on paper "only to those who were prepared to pay for it", with the implication being that we would raise prices to cover costs - which we will be doing in 2020. So... yes, John was right, but I was applying a couple of "helpful modifiers" to the figures :).
It was noted that the BCRA reserves were ?150,000.  The request was shelved by BCA pending a better understanding of the financial position and projects requiring support.  Several BCA council members suggested that if BCA was to get more involved with BCRA then some re-organisation might be needed.
The reserves are the result of bequests, and are used only for issuing grants and awards, and (as noted above) for honorariums to our editors. Viz: we receive bequests and we give out grant money (as does GPF). We would certainly welcome a greater involvement with BCA. The time is probably right for some re-organisation, too.
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
blackshiver said:
The BCRA turning up to one BCA meeting out of eight in two years says it all for me.

I should probably point out in their that BCRA Council members have probably attended the majority of BCA Council meetings but have tended to have also been representing other bodies as well (the BCA Chair sits on the BCRA Council ex officio, for example, although I believe the current incumbent sat on the BCRA Council before this anyway).
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
DavidGibson said:
I do have to point out that, for the majority of people, joining BCRA is not difficult - it amounts to clicking a couple of boxes on the DIM form.

The vast majority of BCA members are CIMs, not DIMs.

However, you are absolutely right that it's a bit of a faff for CIMs. At present, they have to upgrade to a DIM, which involves going to the DIM form and clicking a box :)  If BCA were to implement a change that allowed CIMs to join BCRA via their club, that would be good.

I believe they did, and only about 3/4 years ago. There was a CIM Plus option, which allowed club secretaries to sign people up to the DIM rate (i.e. they paid more for no actual benefit, I think) and then to join the BCRA. It led to significant extra admin and a glorious total of 6 CIM Plus members (I was one of them). It required extra faff from club secretaries. It was consequently abandoned.
 

kay

Well-known member
DavidGibson said:
I do have to point out that, for the majority of people, joining BCRA is not difficult - it amounts to clicking a couple of boxes on the DIM form. However, you are absolutely right that it's a bit of a faff for CIMs. At present, they have to upgrade to a DIM, which involves going to the DIM form and clicking a box :)

It also involves actually becoming a DIM when otherwise you might not wish to.

Which is a bit at odds with
  For clarity, the BCRA is a separate organisation to the BCA, with its own Council and its own membership

And, while I'm in a mood to be picky, it's not quite true to say
and its own membership
- it's not possible to be a member of BCRA without being a member of BCA, so the membership of BCRA is simply a subset of the membership of BCA.
 
On the CIM-plus category...
andrewmc said:
It led to significant extra admin and a glorious total of 6 CIM Plus members (I was one of them). It required extra faff from club secretaries. It was consequently abandoned.
Yes, there is a bit of a history of creating membership categories that almost nobody makes any use of.  :(  So, what's the answer? Presumably, (although that is perhaps an unwise thing to say) you just want a simple online form that asks you for your BCA membership number, accepts you as a BCRA member and charges you some money, which you pay online. Or are you insistent that, as a CIM member, your club secretary should collect your money?
 

2xw

Active member
No that sounds like the ideal solution as then you can get rid of the cim membership at the same time ;)
 

Madness

New member
Why does the BCRA need to be a separate entity from the BCA?

Could they not just join forces and work as one for the good of caves and cavers?
 
Top