Ed W
Member
Below is an open letter to Southern cavers describing how proposals for the BCA AGM were submitted apparently under the name of the CSCC without authority of the member clubs, and the actions taken by the Chairman since. It was hoped that this message would have been circulated on the CSCC Mailing list, and it was submitted to CSCC Officers yesterday but has yet to appear there. Given that there is a General Meeting next Wednesday (29th July) it was felt that the information in this letter needed to be be made available in sufficient time that CSCC Clubs could form their opinions prior to this meeting. The authors of this letter, of which I am one, believe that the Chairman's actions have not met the standards we would expect of someone in this position, and therefore call for him to resign. More important though is to encourage more member clubs to be represented at the meeting on Wednesday and make their opinions known.
Dear Southern Cavers,
Introduction
On 3rd April this year a series of proposals were submitted for the BCA AGM by the CSCC Chairman. These proposals led directly to the resignation of three BCA Officers. The process by which these proposals were submitted has raised questions about the conduct of the CSCC Chairman which culminated in a vote of no confidence, which he survived, at the CSCC General Meeting on 15th July. Subsequent to this meeting further evidence has been seen which suggests that statements made during the meeting potentially misled the meeting attendees which may have influenced the no confidence vote. It should be noted that this letter is not concerned with the content of the proposals but the process by which they were submitted.
Background prior to 15th July
Potential proposals for the BCA AGM were discussed at the CSCC General Meeting on 15th February, and subsequent to this meeting the Chairman drafted and submitted a set of proposals. These were received by the BCA Secretary on 3rd April, CSCC member clubs were not given sight of these proposals prior to submission. These proposals were attributed to the CSCC in the interim BCA AGM Agenda. The legitimacy of these proposals being made in the name of the CSCC was challenged online (UK Caving) and in correspondence with the CSCC Secretary in late April.
On June 14th the CSCC Chairman requested that the BCA Secretary amend the Interim AGM Agenda to state that the set of proposals he had submitted be altered to attribute them to himself personally and not the CSCC. No attempt was made by the CSCC or its chairman to inform the wider caving community of this change until it was mentioned in passing in an email on the CSCC mailing list on 10th July.
CSCC General Meeting 15th July
At the CSCC General Meeting on 15th July the Chairman was questioned as to why the proposals had been attributed to the CSCC without backing from member clubs. The Chairman stated that the wording of the proposals made it clear that they had been made in a personal capacity, and that the attribution of these proposals to the CSCC had been a mistake by the BCA Secretary. The text of the proposals as submitted and the covering email to BCA Secretary were not made available to the meeting. The meeting had to take the Chairman?s word for this, supported by a statement from a BEC member who had seen them as evidence.
The Chairman was then challenged as to why it had taken him 10 weeks to ask for this amendment. He replied that the request was made as soon as he was aware of the mis-attribution. When questioned as to why no attempt had been made to inform the CSCC Membership of this issue before 10th July, it was stated that as the mistake had been made by BCA that it was not CSCC?s place to correct the situation. Feeling at the meeting was such that a motion of no confidence was raised against the chairman which resulted in 4 clubs voting for the motion, 3 abstaining and 7 voting against.
New Evidence received Post Meeting
Clearly the question of whether BCA Secretary made an error in the attribution centers upon the wording of the proposals and covering email as submitted by the CSCC Chairman. These were not available for the meeting on 15th July but subsequent to the meeting both of these documents have been seen by the authors of this letter. The first line of the proposal document states;
And a sentence from the covering email states;
Given that the Chairman made use of his title in the submission it appears that the BCA Secretary made a reasonable assumption that these proposals were made under the auspices of CSCC. There is no clear statement to support the assertion that these were made in a personal capacity as stated during the CSCC General Meeting on 15th July.
Conclusion
It is believed that the above evidence shows that the actions of the Chairman in this matter have fallen well short of the standards expected from someone holding this position. As such we call upon him to resign or to provide evidence to support his actions and for member clubs to ensure that these matters are raised at the General Meeting on 29th July.
Ed Waters, Barry Wilkinson, Tom Chapman, Malc Foyle, Chris Binding, Pete Hall & Carmen Smith.
24th July 2020
Dear Southern Cavers,
Introduction
On 3rd April this year a series of proposals were submitted for the BCA AGM by the CSCC Chairman. These proposals led directly to the resignation of three BCA Officers. The process by which these proposals were submitted has raised questions about the conduct of the CSCC Chairman which culminated in a vote of no confidence, which he survived, at the CSCC General Meeting on 15th July. Subsequent to this meeting further evidence has been seen which suggests that statements made during the meeting potentially misled the meeting attendees which may have influenced the no confidence vote. It should be noted that this letter is not concerned with the content of the proposals but the process by which they were submitted.
Background prior to 15th July
Potential proposals for the BCA AGM were discussed at the CSCC General Meeting on 15th February, and subsequent to this meeting the Chairman drafted and submitted a set of proposals. These were received by the BCA Secretary on 3rd April, CSCC member clubs were not given sight of these proposals prior to submission. These proposals were attributed to the CSCC in the interim BCA AGM Agenda. The legitimacy of these proposals being made in the name of the CSCC was challenged online (UK Caving) and in correspondence with the CSCC Secretary in late April.
On June 14th the CSCC Chairman requested that the BCA Secretary amend the Interim AGM Agenda to state that the set of proposals he had submitted be altered to attribute them to himself personally and not the CSCC. No attempt was made by the CSCC or its chairman to inform the wider caving community of this change until it was mentioned in passing in an email on the CSCC mailing list on 10th July.
CSCC General Meeting 15th July
At the CSCC General Meeting on 15th July the Chairman was questioned as to why the proposals had been attributed to the CSCC without backing from member clubs. The Chairman stated that the wording of the proposals made it clear that they had been made in a personal capacity, and that the attribution of these proposals to the CSCC had been a mistake by the BCA Secretary. The text of the proposals as submitted and the covering email to BCA Secretary were not made available to the meeting. The meeting had to take the Chairman?s word for this, supported by a statement from a BEC member who had seen them as evidence.
The Chairman was then challenged as to why it had taken him 10 weeks to ask for this amendment. He replied that the request was made as soon as he was aware of the mis-attribution. When questioned as to why no attempt had been made to inform the CSCC Membership of this issue before 10th July, it was stated that as the mistake had been made by BCA that it was not CSCC?s place to correct the situation. Feeling at the meeting was such that a motion of no confidence was raised against the chairman which resulted in 4 clubs voting for the motion, 3 abstaining and 7 voting against.
New Evidence received Post Meeting
Clearly the question of whether BCA Secretary made an error in the attribution centers upon the wording of the proposals and covering email as submitted by the CSCC Chairman. These were not available for the meeting on 15th July but subsequent to the meeting both of these documents have been seen by the authors of this letter. The first line of the proposal document states;
?Items Proposed by Alan Butcher (CSCC Chairman) for the 2020 BCA AGM.?
And a sentence from the covering email states;
?attached are proposals for the BCA AGM from myself as CSCC Chairman.?
Given that the Chairman made use of his title in the submission it appears that the BCA Secretary made a reasonable assumption that these proposals were made under the auspices of CSCC. There is no clear statement to support the assertion that these were made in a personal capacity as stated during the CSCC General Meeting on 15th July.
Conclusion
It is believed that the above evidence shows that the actions of the Chairman in this matter have fallen well short of the standards expected from someone holding this position. As such we call upon him to resign or to provide evidence to support his actions and for member clubs to ensure that these matters are raised at the General Meeting on 29th July.
Ed Waters, Barry Wilkinson, Tom Chapman, Malc Foyle, Chris Binding, Pete Hall & Carmen Smith.
24th July 2020
