Unbelievable email recieved concerning BCA Ballott

Alkapton

Member
I just recieved this (as did a large number of others - larger than the membership of my club) from my club secretary.

So its not clear to me who it was originally sent to.

Given that the current BCA ballott is a ballott of members (DIM and CIM) I find this email deeply disturbing:-

{header edited}

From: Fleur Loveridge
Sent: 03 September 2017 20:25
To:

Subject: BCA Ballot

Dear All,

As I am sure you are aware the BCA is having a ballot on constitutional changes in relation to landowners and the campaign for CRoW to apply to caving.

From the last BCA newsletter reporting on the AGM (http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=news_events:jul17):

"the first significant motion at the AGM concerned the interpretation of the opening sentence in Section 4.6 of BCA?s constitution, namely ?That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access?. It had been claimed that this sentence barred BCA from any campaigning ?? for The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) to apply to going underground.? The argument accepted by the AGM was that the sentence did not bar BCA from doing so and the motion was passed by the meeting.

"The second significant motion was remitted from last year?s AGM and covered several alternative proposals to either replace or delete that sentence. The AGM took the view that removing it would not show disrespect to landowners and members selected the deletion approach for the substantive vote by a margin of 38 to 8. The meeting went on to pass the motion with 43 individual members voting for and 3 against and 17 group members for and 3 against."

As this requires a constitutional change then there must be a ballot of members of which we, the PDCMG, are one.

There are also other proposed consitutional changes about electing officers and how ballots are conducted.

I attach the full ballot paper which explain the proposed changes in detail.

We must vote before 23rd September.

I would be grateful therefore if all voting members could send me their preferences by 20th September and I will use majority democracy to recommend a return. Be sure to send separate preferences for all FOUR proposed changes since as you will see on the attached we must offer "FOR" or "AGAINST" for all four separately.

Many thanks and with best wishes,

Fleur.
 

Benfool

Member
Whats disturbing about it? The BCA ballot is for ratification of a motion already passed at AGM. Therefore it requires balloting both the house of individuals and the house of groups, just like any motion at the AGM. PDCMG is a member of the house of groups, therefore gets a vote. As the secretary of the PDCMG she is asking for direction on which way to vote from its members. This seems to me as being perfectly reasonable.

Can you please remove this post as its rather unfair and could be seen to be inflammatory.

B

 

Pitlamp

Well-known member
I don't understand the point you're making either; this just seems like a very reasonable effort to canvass members' opinions before attempting to vote in as representative a way as possible.

I also think the post should be removed - but for a different but very important reason which is nothing to do with the CRoW situation or the BCA vote. I'm reluctant to post this reason in public but, if a moderator is weighing the pros and cons of removing it and would like to know the reason, please send a PM and I'll tell you. Alkapton; to be fair to you, if you want to know I'll also tell you by PM if you ask.
 

NewStuff

New member
Given PDMCG's propensity for concreting stuff, I would like to have a bit more definition, and make sure that all emails returned with votes are available for scrutiny, and not "lost" somehow. Given the level they've shown they will stoop to already, then I don't think that's being paranoid, but prudent and prepared.
 

Mike Hopley

New member
Given PDMCG's propensity for concreting stuff, I would like to have a bit more definition, and make sure that all emails returned with votes are available for scrutiny, and not "lost" somehow. Given the level they've shown they will stoop to already, then I don't think that's being paranoid, but prudent and prepared.

I know nothing about PDCMG (can't even recall what the letters spell), and I have little interest in caving politics.

But I do know Fleur, and she is the most honest and principled person you could ever meet. It is inconceivable that she would manipulate the results of a ballot. She's more likely to fly to the moon by flapping her arms.
 

royfellows

Well-known member
Alkapton said:
Given that the current BCA ballott is a ballott of members (DIM and CIM) I find this email deeply disturbing:-

This looks to me like a possible misunderstanding.
The ballot is on a two house system, of individual BCA members, and BCA group members.
I cannot put it simpler than this, I have voted as an individual, Cambrian Mines Trust of which I am managing director has also had a vote as a group BCA member. The CMT vote was run past my board before I sent in the ballot paper.

I hope that no one finds me soliciting a vote from my board of directors before casting the group vote "disturbing" (It was actually unanimous)

 

NewStuff

New member
Mike Hopley said:
But I do know Fleur, and she is the most honest and principled person you could ever meet. It is inconceivable that she would manipulate the results of a ballot. She's more likely to fly to the moon by flapping her arms.

I don't know her. I do know that the PDCMG stoops to very low levels (Giant thread on this very forum, https://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=16757.0), and as a result my asking for scrutiny is not a reflection on her, as said, I do not know her, but the group she represents and it's past tendencies of being underhanded warrant scrutiny. It's a genuine concern.

 

Badlad

Administrator
Staff member
[gmod]Hi all. I am struggling to find reason to remove this thread. The words used in the thread title may be unwise, but this just shows up the content as being quite reasonable. The OP may have got the wrong end of the stick and this gives another good chance for others to explain the BCA ballot process. The copied email does not appear private if it is being circulated as the OP suggests. It may have been wise to remove the name and replace with the position. Anyway I have not received any reported posts on this as yet. Please contact me if I have failed to understand the problem.[/gmod]
 

NigR

New member
Mike Hopley said:
I know nothing about PDCMG (can't even recall what the letters spell), and I have little interest in caving politics.

PDCMG stands for Pwll Du Cave Management Group, a body set up to manage and control access to Ogof Draenen, the longest cave system in Wales (currently 70km+). This system of 'control' hinges upon strict adherence to a 'single entrance policy' and this has led to severe problems in recent years. As of now, PDCMG are determined to permanently close another entrance to the system (Drws Cefn), regardless of the fact that this other cave is situated on CRoW access land and has been open for eight years. This fact alone, along with their past actions, accounts for the PDCMG being viewed in a very poor light by many active Welsh cavers.

Having said that, I can see nothing wrong with the message Fleur has sent out and (in common with Roy and Badlad) would suggest that Alkapton has simply misunderstood its purpose (possibly as a result of his previous bad experiences with the PDCMG). Personally, I think it is good to see such a democratic approach - let's just hope the member clubs vote the right way!

 

Alkapton

Member
OK.    I think I might have misunderstood something.

I thought the ballott was green cards, red cards and of course blue cards.

I did not think that white cards (ie. clubs) get a vote, even though they can be concidered individuals.    (when each member is getting a vote I don't understand why a club - which is a random collection of members some of whom show up in many clubs - would get a vote......)

In the case of PDCMG it is even more strange to me that it can have a vote in its own right because I very much doubt it is anybodys primary club (I could be wrong).      Clubs belong to the PDCMG.      And there are the Committee, but apart from the Committee individuals do not belong to the PDCMG certain caving clubs send reps to meetings.

One vote though is a triffeliling thing.    If, as it seems, white cards get a vote then -

Please Mr. Moderator pull this thread.
 

Benfool

Member
PDCMG is an "access controling body" and therefore is a member of the house of groups. There are many more organisations than simply just the clubs in the house of groups, including the regional councils, checc, the cdg and the access controling bodies. Each get a vote in the current ballot and in order for the motion to pass it needs to approved in both houses with a threshold of 70%.
 

David Rose

Active member
It seems to me there is a serious problem highlighted here that has nothing to do with the contents of the email from Fleur, but rather with the constitution of the BCA. (Full disclosure: as of now I am the BCA newsletter editor.)

The PDCMG is composed of clubs, which already have a vote in the house of groups. It seems likely that the PDCMG's vote will be influenced by the way those clubs are already planning to vote.

This will have the effect of amplifying the impact of decisions that clubs have already made: or to put it another way, it means clubs that are represented in bodies such as the PDCMG are basically getting more than one vote in the house of groups.

This is potentially significant. There is a widespread view that it's quite likely the individual vote will reach the 70 per cent threshold, but not the groups vote. In which case, I think the BCA is headed for a crisis of legitimacy among many cavers, if the house of groups vote means changes supported by 70 per cent of BCA members don't pass.

It could destroy the BCA. I don't think I am exaggerating.

 

NewStuff

New member
David Rose said:
I think the BCA is headed for a crisis of legitimacy among many cavers, if the house of groups vote means changes supported by 70 per cent of BCA members don't pass.

It could destroy the BCA. I don't think I am exaggerating.

I don't think you are either, this is our clubs view. We would *love* to be proved wrong, but through various means, it seems that the minority still get to control direction in opposition to what the majority want. This is why we left the BCA, in it's current form, where that is possible, we do not want anything to do with such a group. We think we're merely one of the first to do so if the majority view does not prevail. Should the majority view prevail, and the loopholes that allow these situations get closed, our objections to the current issues within the BCA will be non-existent.
 

Alkapton

Member
Thank you for that clarification Benfool.    I had no idea the process was so complex....  Nievely thinking one member one vote has caused me to cause offense.

Fleur....  you have my sincere apologies fo any offence.

Perhaps this thread has some validity after all...  I'm learning something.
 

royfellows

Well-known member
David Rose said:
It seems to me there is a serious problem highlighted here that has nothing to do with the contents of the email from Fleur, but rather with the constitution of the BCA. (Full disclosure: as of now I am the BCA newsletter editor.)

The PDCMG is composed of clubs, which already have a vote in the house of groups. It seems likely that the PDCMG's vote will be influenced by the way those clubs are already planning to vote.

This will have the effect of amplifying the impact of decisions that clubs have already made: or to put it another way, it means clubs that are represented in bodies such as the PDCMG are basically getting more than one vote in the house of groups.

This is potentially significant. There is a widespread view that it's quite likely the individual vote will reach the 70 per cent threshold, but not the groups vote. In which case, I think the BCA is headed for a crisis of legitimacy among many cavers, if the house of groups vote means changes supported by 70 per cent of BCA members don't pass.

It could destroy the BCA. I don't think I am exaggerating.

I think people need to hold their horses on this. I am aware of how this appears at first glance, however this situation is reflected in Company law.

Shareholders have a say in the management of a company, and can be either (human) individuals or other companies.

Individuals can be a shareholder of say company A which is holding a shareholders meeting, and also a share holder or director (most senior managers) of company B which is also a shareholder of company A and represented at that meeting. Same situation for other corporate shareholders.

Obviously some individuals can have influence over the companies affairs far greater than could reasonably be expected for a single person. Only legal requirement is transparency which is reflected in some recent changes to disclosure requirements.

It appears to me that although possibly far from perfect BCAs constitution is simply reflecting UK law, and indeed the proposed amendments are simply a further move in that direction.
I am not interested in CROW
 

David Rose

Active member
Roy, I think you are proving my point. The BCA is not a public company like Glaxo or Lloyds Bank. It's an association of cavers, who expect it to represent their interests and their wishes in a democratic manner. No one makes a profit from BCA activities.

If a failure to achieve the 70 per cent threshold in the house of groups stops the wishes of a large majority of its members being followed, it will be seen as not fit for purpose. Invoking company law will not save it from being seen as a body that has failed to abide by a democratic mandate.

It's clear to me that there will be a majority among the members for the changes, and I think it's likely to be above 70 per cent.

I hope any clubs thinking of voting against to block these measures bear the probable consequences of "victory" in mind. We need a national body. The BCA may need reform - such as a change to its voting rules - but to lose it would be a very unfortunate and negative step.
 

royfellows

Well-known member
Unless of course the membership is evenly reflected within the groups, who democratically reflect the wishes of its members?
 
David Rose is well known as an investigative journalist. I do not aspire to be well known or a journalist, but I've just done a bit of investigation which supports his misgivings about PDCMG (and, perhaps, other access controlling bodies who belong to BCA) being allowed a vote. (Unfortunately, the BCA doesn't appear to list which ACB's are members, or say how many there are, but I note it directs clubs who control access to only join as clubs, so any suspicion that, for example, SWCC might qualify for two votes is unnecessary, it would seem)).

PDCMG's main reason for joining BCA as a ACB is presumably to allow its officers to benefit from BCA PL insurance: I gather that from its accounts, where one of its few expenses is Insurance: this is a less explicit way of saying BCA membership fee. However, the same accounts show that PDCMG then get that money refunded from the Cambrian Caving Council - so can PDCMG really be said to be independent members of BCA?

I'm not sure why the CCC refund the PDCMG in this way (disclosure, I'm on the CCC committee as cave registrar), but something doesn't sound quite right in all this. Fair play to Fleur, though - she was only trying to reach the PDCMG member club representatives, and it seems at least one of them then tried the same thing on his constituency, leading to OP's confusion...
 
Top