Democratic, I'm guessing, rather than demographic. If the former then perhaps it's worth pointing out that the BCA and its structure cannot impose any controls over regional councils as there are no powers to do so whatsoever; thus it stands that although regional councils may be in receipt of funding (that is v different from being a BCA funded organisation, btw) e.g. for conservation projects etc., there is no associated presumption that such an arrangement enables or provides BCA to have a say so in how a regional council organises its affairs. Any such linkage is imaginary.Unless I am perhaps misreading the situation. Happy to be corrected.
"That the Youth and Development exceeded its remit by interfering in the affairs of a memberi.e The Charterhouse Caving Company in contravention of clause 11.1 of the BCAConstitution.The Acting Secretaries report (page 5 of the draft minutes) outlines clause 11.1 and the paragraph below noted that the BCA had been asked to intervene “on the basis that members are being discriminated against based on their age.” However, clause 11.1 clearly says that “The Association shall not interfere in the affairs of a member (in this case The Charterhouse Caving Company) unless specifically requested to do so by that member.” Not, you will note, by any member."'that member' rather than 'any member'.This is irrelevant as we were 'interfering' on behalf of a BCA member who wanted to know why he could bottom the Berger but couldn't look round CCC caves.Presumably this would set the precedent that if a club wishes to ban all members of an ethnic minority from joining, the BCA couldn't 'intervene' as the person being discriminated against is irrelevant if the other party is also a member of the BCA.I look forward to the Klu Klux Klan Kaving Klub's membership of BCA.
On the flip side however, the BCA is an association aimed at representing cavers best interests nationally. It is not a governing body and makes no claims to be.
Most other sporting orgs will be way ahead of BCA on this. Engage outside the BCA bubble is my advice.
BCA is the National Governing Body* for Caving in the UK. The BCA Leadership Awards Scheme/Cave Instructor Certificate Award confirm this.* Or maybe it's the QMC that is the NGB now. It would make better sense if it were.
"The Association shall not interfere in the affairs of a Member unless specifically requested to do so by that Member. The Association shall not mediate between Members unless requested by them in writing to do so."
I finally looked at this as I must admit the topic subject really put me off being just legal jargon, I suspect a lot of younger members also just don't care when it's phrased the way it is. But now I have finally looked, I still don't understand what is being asked of me really or what this really means.I can see it currently says: Quote"The Association shall not interfere in the affairs of a Member unless specifically requested to do so by that Member. The Association shall not mediate between Members unless requested by them in writing to do so."What does this actually mean, and why do I or should I care? If we removed this does that mean they can interfere with me (in what way exactly?). Can a more detailed explanation of what exactly this means and why it was added be presented by someone? Is it basically saying if you get into an argument with someone else who's a member it's nout to do with us?I have basically put on the form it's too vague and needs more detail as to why it's needed.P.s. If you want more engagement I would have titled the topic more descriptively such "policy on member interference" or something like that, rather than Section 10.1 which is meaningless to most people.
The point is they are opinions. You need to decide if a majority of voters can impose their will on a minority. Or not.
I spend my working day 'translating' technical information from some very clever people into wording that hopefully customers will engage with.
Are there any organisations (rather than individuals) that actually *need* BCA in order for it to function?
Is part of the 'problem' that some organisations don't think that BCA has any authority?Are there any organisations (rather than individuals) that actually *need* BCA in order for it to function?Or is BCA there simply to support itself....I realise this is a bit simplistic but I'm having difficulty with what seems to be an awful lot of complication for such a tiny organisation...
But for the BCA itself I'd have thought corporate insurance more appropriate.
I fail to see how most members, particularly the regional councils, would cover their own costs without central funding (without a significant drop in what they are currently achieving anyways) .... I don't know how it was funded before, or did they charge locals and spend less maybe?
What is the closing date for the online consultation?
...but may remain open for longer.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1114 access attempts in the last 7 days.