Related to the other thread these two motions were also put forward to the BCA AGM.  All three motions were accepted before the deadline a few weeks ago.

Motion (2) for BCA AGM 3rd June 2018

Improving participation, engagement and fairness are key factors in motion (1) and the objective of this motion (2).  Travelling for six hours in a car for a BCA council meeting does not encourage engagement with the organisation, especially as meetings can take all day and, let?s face it, be pretty dull.  In the past choosing a fixed central location for a national meeting made the best of a bad job.  This is fine for those who live relatively close but deters those who live further away.  Travel from the Peak, Mendip, London, S Wales involves up to two hours travel each way.  It is over three hours each way from Plymouth for the Devon & Cornwall representatives. 

The country?s largest caving region is underrepresented at BCA and yet it has a thriving regional council.  It is over three hours each way to travel from Ingleton or York.  Five to eight hours from the Scottish areas which CNCC also represent.  Who would want to engage with BCA from Scotland?

The cumbersome structure of BCA has over forty representatives with a role on council.  These should come from across the national area and it is important that everything is done to facilitate attendance of all representatives at meetings.

Technology is obviously the answer here offering a wide variety of possible solutions.  Many cavers, probably in their working lives, will have come across these systems in action.  Attendance from home or local hubs via an audio or video link would solve the problem and lead to improved participation and better representation in BCA council meetings.  When technology allows council members to attend meetings remotely then the physical location of that meeting is less important and it can move from a central location.  Once established the council meetings could rotate around the regions and be better synchronised with regional meetings.  This could create improvements in the relationship between the national body and regional councils.  Therefore I propose the following motion:

?BCA to appoint or employ a technical advisor with a specific mandate to introduce an audio/visual technological solution which allows council members remote access to meetings.  This access should allow members to participate at a similar level to those attending in person.  A working system should be in place within one year.?

Motion (3) for BCA AGM 3rd June 2018

The BCA AGM is an important part of the governance of the organisation.  In line with motion (1&2) improving engagement and participation of the membership is key to a healthy organisation. 

In the past the BCA AGM was held in the same central location as council meetings.  Unfortunately the only people who attended were the council members.  Six years ago it was decided to move the AGM around the regions which hosted a ?party weekend? in the hope that it would encourage a wider attendance.  On some occasions this has worked but numbers are still very limited.  Usually you get the same 20-25 council members who normally attend meetings and then perhaps another 20-25 cavers mostly from the local region.  These small numbers mean that out of a membership approaching 6000 an unhealthy influence can be had on policy from just a few, perhaps regionally biased, cavers. This is not good for the organisation?s democracy especially when the AGM has only been to the north once in six years!

The tedium of a meeting and the distance of travel are not conducive to encouraging engagement.  However the proposed technological solutions for council meetings are not suitable to encourage several hundred members to engage with the AGM. The key business of the AGM is electing officers and voting on motions and it is voting which needs to be made more accessible for all the members.

Last year a motion on proxy voting failed. That motion had little support from council and the exec and no attempt was made to improve the motion to better suit the organisation.  It was, at least, an attempt to address this issue and should be applauded.  A better solution is electronic voting similar to that already used in the 2017 ballot. If motions and nominations were received by the council meeting prior to the AGM then there is a minimum of six weeks to run an electronic vote and count.  This would make AGMs far more efficient and as this becomes a formal annual process preparations can be made well in advance.  Therefore I propose the following motion:

?The BCA to investigate a process of electronic voting on motions and nominations properly presented to the Annual General Meetings.  This process to be founded upon that used for the 2017 ballot but with greater use of professional help.  The process, and any constitutional changes required to implement it, to be presented to the 2019 AGM with a view to full implementation at the 2020 AGM.?


The BCA can afford to invest in itself.  It has large financial reserves (approx. ?230K).  There are few matters worthy of spending some money on than the democracy and future of the organisation.  These motions are a step towards making BCA fit for the future.  Ignoring these issues again is likely to lead to the further deterioration of BCA in the eyes of cavers.
All proposed by Tim Allen.

This could be the last chance to save BCA as a useful organisation for British Cavers.

I am surprised at the size of the reserves.  I certainly think if it is earmarked for anything else then it could be put towards improving the democratic process and of course improve the enviromnent slightly by reducing a few car journeys.

I agree with trying to use technology to improve things, however being on committees that use video conference calls, it needs to be under ten, even at that number it is quite hard to keep up with who saying what and stopping people talking together.

wherever the council meeting is held it is going to be more unfair for some, Birmingham is half way between me and the dales. and the journey is 3 hours if the M25 is moving, not often then.

For what it is worth as one of the prime movers setting up BCA, I am of the opinion that its remit was restrained by the preceding NCA constitution.  The reason BCA was eventually set up was the termination of the insurance policy then run by BCRA and the consequential loss of access to caves where insurance was required.  We used that crisis to force BCA into existence by obtaining a new insurance deal but instead of being focused on clubs, it had to be focused on individuals.  (The legal set up meant we had to provide insurance as a membership benefit as we could not simply sell it.)  So the consequential major change between the NCA and BCA constitutions was the introduction of individual membership. (Oh and the elimination of the power of veto on any business by regional caving councils.) 

Keeping most of the NCA constitution kept the domination of the process of 'members tell clubs tell regional councils tell national council'.  We were also forced to accept a two house set up where by individuals and clubs houses separately vote on topics at general meetings. 

I agree the time has come to review that though I doubt if the current lock of a club vote will permit much change.  (Unless their members tell them to do so.)  And I am deeply pessimistic about breathing life into a new structure with the energy to do things.  I accept we made Council far too large so discussion is never ending and decision making rare.