Author Topic: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution  (Read 5224 times)

Offline JoshW

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 808
  • YSS, WSCC, BCA Youth & Development, BCA Group Rep
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #50 on: May 14, 2021, 10:51:58 pm »
We had a meeting last night (of which minutes will be forthcoming and uploaded to our new snazzy section of the website, I'm sure), and I'm fairly sure it was decided that it would be left open for a little while longer

We have however committed to bringing a progress update to council for the meeting at the end of this month, so the sample of responses we have currently will be used to plot a course, which pending further responses could be adjusted.

Those of you who feel passionately (and those who don't), please do take the time to have a quick read through the doc's and respond to the survey. An overwhelming majority voted to take a look at 10.1, so it would be good to get an understanding of why.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2021, 11:01:55 pm by JoshW »
All views are my own and not that of the BCA or any clubs for which I'm a member of.

Offline andrewmc

  • BCA ind. rep.
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS, SWCC...
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #51 on: May 16, 2021, 09:55:58 pm »
The consultation will remain open until at least May 30th.

Offline PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1964
  • ChCC, GSS, SWCC, WCC, WCDG
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #52 on: May 17, 2021, 01:59:37 pm »
An interesting point that was raised at the CSCC AGM on Friday was the question of timing.

The BCA is on its third chairman in a year and there have been quite a number of other changes in the executive and council recently, some more acrimonious than others.

The proposal to alter or remove section 10.1 will effectively hand more control to the BCA, yet while the BCA remains in a state of flux, it is not clear what that rebalancing of power will be used for. This was not framed as a criticism of the current executive or council, by the way; in fact there was plenty of support expressed for all those involved.

I imagine that this proposal may be better supported in the south (and elsewhere?) once the BCA has settled down a bit and people have a better idea what to expect.

In the meantime, the CSCC officers have been charged with producing a constructive response to the consultation, based on the general views expressed at the AGM.

Offline mikem

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4914
  • Mendip Caving Group
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #53 on: May 17, 2021, 02:05:05 pm »
Alternatively, just changing or removing 10.1 may have no effect, as the independence of constituent bodies is in other parts of the document as well.

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2299
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #54 on: May 17, 2021, 02:19:07 pm »
I don't think this is necessarily about giving the BCA more power.  It is primarily about reducing the ability of smaller, perhaps less democratic, groups from being able to beat the BCA with a big stick every time they should dare to ask some questions or investigate why a group might be behaving in such a way to the detriment of the wider caving community.   That was what was behind my proposal anyway.  Even with some reform it doesn't mean BCA will actually be able to make a group change their ways, but it will give them a voice and the opportunity to investigate issues and report on them without the group silencing them with complaints based on the current 10.1.

Offline andrewmc

  • BCA ind. rep.
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS, SWCC...
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #55 on: May 17, 2021, 03:54:21 pm »
I imagine that this proposal may be better supported in the south (and elsewhere?) once the BCA has settled down a bit and people have a better idea what to expect.

In the meantime, the CSCC officers have been charged with producing a constructive response to the consultation, based on the general views expressed at the AGM.

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather take a longer time to examine all the issues relating the Section 10 (and beyond). That's partly pure laziness, of course, and it's very easy to let things slip every further, and the more ambitious a project the less likely it is to come to fruition...

Unfortunately (for me), the BCA membership overwhelmingly voted to require the BCA to bring forward a new form of words to the next BCA AGM, and due to the delays in getting going with the COG group, we have probably sufficient but certainly not excessive time to carry out the explicit will of the membership who all BCA officers and convenors serve.

Offline andrewmc

  • BCA ind. rep.
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS, SWCC...
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #56 on: May 17, 2021, 04:31:33 pm »
Begin non-official personal view on the BCA, regional councils and Section 10.1:

I shall refer to Section 2.1 of the BCA Constitution:

"The Association is a national federation comprising: individuals; caving, mining and other related Clubs; Regional Caving Councils; and National Bodies with specialist interests, all of whom have autonomy in their own field; together with any other bodies who express an interest in caving, mining or other subterranean phenomena. All shall be referred to as Members, as applicable."

It is unambiguous that the regional councils, national bodies, clubs etc. are all autonomous bodies. They are BCA members, but are not part of it (despite being invited to the intimate parts of BCA decision-making, and indeed effectively controlling some of the most important parts of the BCA via the standing committees).

People talk about 'power' shifting to/from the BCA. The reality is that there is very few powers to transfer. The regional councils are completely out of the BCA's control - they are independent bodies and can do whatever they want. The only two constraints on their operations are fixed but significant.

Firstly, BCA membership imposes certain conditions such as operating in a democratic way - none of these conditions are particularly restricting here. The important first 'power' of the BCA is that they can remove membership from any member body - just like a club ejecting a member. Realistically, this is extraordinarily hard to imagine the BCA ever doing to a regional council. Contrary to popular opinion, the last thing any BCA volunteers want to do is take on _more_ work by taking it away from regional councils. The dream is always that everyone gets on wonderfully and everything just works with minimum effort from the top.

Secondly, the BCA pays for the majority of regional council spending, including their administration costs. They are completely independent, but (to a larger or lesser degree) financially reliant on the BCA. The current funding agreement is very generous to regional councils - intentionally. Administration costs are fully funded, including the costs of (for example) volunteer travel to meetings. The presumption is that any reasonable expenditure within the defined areas (which cover access, conservation, equipment and techniques, training etc.) will be funded by the BCA. One extra restriction is that C&A spending on projects above £750 must be approved by the C&A committee. This is a committee where the voting members are the five regional councils, the nine national bodies and the BCA C&A officer - so the BCA has virtually no control over this spending.

However - this funding document is (as far as I am aware) NOT a 'BCA Policy' (at least it is not listed as such on the website) and as such is subject to votes by BCA Council. If BCA Council wished to do so, it could unilaterally remove all funding from the regional councils. So the 'power' is, to some degree, already largely in the BCA Council's court.

So what does the BCA Council do with this significant power? It continues funding the regional councils for virtually all expenditure subject only to the lightest-touch financial control. Hardly the signs of a maniacal overlord wanting to restrict the regional councils...

Something important to remember is that referring to BCA Council as 'the BCA' is simply inaccurate. BCA Council is a deliberative body composed not only the elected members of BCA but also representatives of the five regional councils, nine national bodies, four elected representatives for individual members, and four elected representatives for group members.

From the BCA itself you have the Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, the standing committee chairs (C&A, E&T and training) and (for reasons) the P&I Officer which is 7 votes.
Add the 5 regional councils and the 9 national bodies.
Then the 4 individual member representatives and the 4 group member representatives, for a total of 29 votes (I think).

So the 'core' BCA team gets only 7 votes out of 29 - for this reason I think BCA Council is far more than 'the BCA'.

Offline PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1964
  • ChCC, GSS, SWCC, WCC, WCDG
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #57 on: May 17, 2021, 04:43:07 pm »
I don't think this is necessarily about giving the BCA more power.  It is primarily about reducing the ability of smaller, perhaps less democratic, groups from being able to beat the BCA with a big stick every time they should dare to ask some questions or investigate why a group might be behaving in such a way to the detriment of the wider caving community.   That was what was behind my proposal anyway.  Even with some reform it doesn't mean BCA will actually be able to make a group change their ways, but it will give them a voice and the opportunity to investigate issues and report on them without the group silencing them with complaints based on the current 10.1.

I suppose it will all come down to the revised wording.

As it stands, 10.1 is very simple and clear; BCA shan't interfere at all, unless asked. It stands to reason therefore that any rewording will increase the amount of interfering that the BCA can do, so BCA will have gained the 'power' to interfere.

We can all think of examples where a little interference would have been a good thing, equally, I'm sure most regard the autonomy of BCA members as a good thing; BCA after all being a representative body, not a governing body. I don't envy those who have to come up with a suitable form of words to resolve the former issue without jeopardising the latter.

Good luck  :thumbsup:

Offline andrewmc

  • BCA ind. rep.
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS, SWCC...
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #58 on: May 17, 2021, 05:02:59 pm »
As for Section 10.1, I've read it far more times than I would like recently, and I'm still not sure what it means in practical terms. Interference is such a vague term that it could be applied to just about anything, and so I shall provide a range of possible examples from reasonable to ridiculous. In all cases, I don't know whether the 'use' of Section 10.1 would stand up or not - you wouldn't know until you tried, but it _would_ cause a headache for the BCA while they tried to work it out...

1.) The Council of Eastern Caving Clubs, which due to historical anomalies is comprised primarily of younger cavers, decides to bar over-50s from caves in its region as it believes that over-50s are clearly incapable and incompetent and will cause rescues and conservation damage. Over-50 members from across the UK object, proposing a motion at the BCA AGM that the BCA should tell the CECC to rescind their policy. Section 10.1, as a constitutional clause, is invoked to override the member's complaints and prevent the BCA from 'interfering'.

2.) The BCA win the ongoing legal case, and CROW is determined to apply to caving. The Shropshire Caving Association refuses to accept the verdict, and orders a new set of heavily reinforced gates. The BCA indicates that they will not fund the gates; however, Section 10.1 is invoked to prevent 'interference' and the BCA pays the SCA for the new gates on these caves.

3.) The Council of Western Caving Clubs decides to ban all anchor placement in its region for conservation reasons. A group of cave diggers in the region, exploring a vertical pothole, have been placing anchors and the cave police have been harassing them and barring them from gaining cave keys in their region. They appeal to the BCA, but Section 10.1 is invoked to prevent the BCA investigating.

4.) The BCA Exec decide that they will, henceforth, be the only authority on cave science, and begin a campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt about the qualifications of members of the British Science in Caves Group. They invoke Section 10.1 to prevent 'interference'.

5.) A club, the North Essex Caving Club, controls access to a large cave. The relevant regional council, the Silurian Caving Council, have been sneaking anchor installers into the cave and filling the cave with resin anchors against the wishes of the club - anchors paid for and supplied by the BCA. The North Essex Caving Club appeals to the BCA to help them, and to stop supplying the Silurian Caving Council with resin anchors, but they invoke Section 10.1 preventing the BCA from becoming involved and ensuring the supply of anchors.

6.) The BCA Exec, as a money-making side venture, start running 'cave diving' courses using standard scuba kit and a few bits of pipe in a swimming pool. All references to the Cave Underwater-Swimming Group are removed from the BCA website. The CUSG use Section 10.1 to stop the BCA running dodgy cave diving courses.

7.) The Council of Eastern Caving Clubs, in response to a perceived slight from the Council of Western Caving Clubs, creates a blacklist of cavers from known CECC clubs and refuses to grant them permits. The clubs object to the BCA, but Section 10.1 is invoked to prevent the investigation.

8.) A BCA individual member votes to ban all members of the BCA from gating caves, and to restrict funding (but not expel the members) from all gating projects. The regional councils invoke Section 10.1 to try and override the member's vote and continue receiving BCA funds for their gating projects.

9.) The Dorset and Swanage Underground Council retreats entirely underground, electing their chair Glorious Leader for Life, holding all meetings underground in secret, and enacting a compulsory 'conservation fee' of £5 per visit for all the caves and mines they control access to. Soon after, the Glorious Leader for Life is seen being paraded around in a gold-lined palanquin, while their minions publish documents explaining how important all these fees are for 'conservation'. Section 10.1 is used to prevent 'interference'.

I'd love to see what people _actually_ think Section 10.1 will be used for, because honestly it's so vague I think you could try and it use for anything but would be hard-pushed to make it stick to anything.

Is investigating a situation 'interference'?
Is talking to people 'interference'?
Is allowing a group to join the BCA 'interference' if their interests have some overlap with another groups (e.g. does granting a new access controlling body membership interfere with the autonomy of the relevant regional council?)?
Is funding or not funding projects 'interference'? Are the BCA obliged to provide the regions with funding?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2021, 05:12:35 pm by andrewmc »

Offline andrewmc

  • BCA ind. rep.
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS, SWCC...
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #59 on: May 17, 2021, 05:09:14 pm »
As it stands, 10.1 is very simple and clear; BCA shan't interfere at all, unless asked.

What does 'interfere' cover? Talking? Investigating? Having an opinion? Funding decisions?
What are the limits of 'affairs' - does it cover the internal operation of a body, or the area that they have interests in e.g. all of cave science for the BCRA? Would the BCA be interfering if they took any interest in cave science?

If members have overlapping affairs, and a member invites the member to 'interfere', must the BCA decline from assisting the member in any situation where their problem is overlapped by another's affair? That is extremely broad, since the regional councils have interests in basically all caving in their regions and the national bodies cover pretty much all the rest...

For the second part of Section 10.1, do both members have to invite to BCA to mediate, or just one?

Offline mikem

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4914
  • Mendip Caving Group
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #60 on: May 17, 2021, 05:27:25 pm »
Pretty much - the irony of it is that everything the BCA ain't allowed to do, the individual officer can, under their own steam.

On several of the examples the organisation couldn't guarantee they'd still get the funding as it would be more than the minimum requirement for clearance through C&A. They could still do whatever it was if they sourced the funds elsewhere though.

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 12453
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #61 on: May 17, 2021, 06:06:43 pm »
I don't think this is necessarily about giving the BCA more power.  It is primarily about reducing the ability of smaller, perhaps less democratic, groups from being able to beat the BCA with a big stick every time they should dare to ask some questions or investigate why a group might be behaving in such a way to the detriment of the wider caving community. 

So it actually is about providing more power to BCA. Seems pretty unequivocal.

Offline andrewmc

  • BCA ind. rep.
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1090
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS, SWCC...
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #62 on: May 17, 2021, 09:09:12 pm »
What 'power'?

I think most people would agree that the Section 10.1 probably doesn't compel the BCA to give money to a regional council. For all members other than the regional councils, the only power the BCA has is to remove membership. For the regional councils, BCA Council (not really 'the BCA' as described earlier) or the AGM could, if it wished, withdraw any or all funding as well as membership, which is plenty of power already.

The reality is that although Section 10.1 is so vague it _could_ be applied to anything, any such attempt would be likely to fail. My examples were deliberately rather over the top, but in all cases someone could _try_ and argue Section 10.1 applied but in most cases I suspect would fail.

Anyone care to come up with any specific example where Section 10.1 might actually be good (in the interests of balance)? Rather than this very vague notion of 'power'.

Who is the arbiter? Ultimately, an AGM is arbiter of the constitution in the case of a dispute, so the membership could (eventually) decide on the extent of Section 10.1.



No-one benefits from the vagueness of the current Section 10.1.

Offline droid

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2472
  • WMRG
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #63 on: May 17, 2021, 09:26:46 pm »

So it actually is about providing more power to BCA. Seems pretty unequivocal.

'Power' to investigate and/or withdraw funding as far as I can see.

In other words  BCA only has power because people think it has, same as the regional councils.

All BCA could really do that's more than that is chuck a member out. Which probably wouldn't be the end of the world...
No longer 'Exceptionally antagonistic' 'Deliberately inflammatory'

Offline JoshW

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 808
  • YSS, WSCC, BCA Youth & Development, BCA Group Rep
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #64 on: May 17, 2021, 09:54:29 pm »
No-one benefits from the vagueness of the current Section 10.1.

I'd argue that those who would use it as a defence for less than desirable actions benefit from the current vagueness. They could theoretically use it as a delaying/confusion tactic in the hopes that they won't get held to account.

As members of the association, we all agree to abide by the policies of the association. Even with autonomy there is the requirement to follow the policies of the association, in order to continue to take the benefits of membership, and this wording currently enables member bodies to avoid being held accountable from following the policies of the organisation through it's vague 'interfering' wording.
All views are my own and not that of the BCA or any clubs for which I'm a member of.

Offline mikem

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4914
  • Mendip Caving Group
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #65 on: May 17, 2021, 09:59:47 pm »
But then you're suggesting it is a governing body - which it was specifically set up not to be....

Offline JoshW

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 808
  • YSS, WSCC, BCA Youth & Development, BCA Group Rep
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #66 on: May 17, 2021, 10:05:38 pm »
But then you're suggesting it is a governing body - which it was specifically set up not to be....

Except policies are put in place by the membership at AGMs.

BCA is an association of members, and part of the association is following the policies. Not following the policies means you should be able to be held accountable by the membership..

There is no singular governing body telling members what to do, but the membership itself.
All views are my own and not that of the BCA or any clubs for which I'm a member of.

Offline Jenny P

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 907
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #67 on: May 19, 2021, 07:15:01 pm »
AndrewMC said:
"Anyone care to come up with any specific example where Section 10.1 might actually be good (in the interests of balance)? Rather than this very vague notion of 'power'."

And Capn Chris said:
"'Power' to investigate and/or withdraw funding as far as I can see."

I tend to think that the use of the term "interfere" in the original 10.1 is unfortunate.

I suspect what we really intended to say is is something along the lines of:  "... that if the actions of a member (or member body) disadvantages a number of other members, the BCA be empowered to investigate ...".

I can't think of exact wording and this would have to be clarified in the Manual of Operations (MoO) but the whole ethos of BCA should be co-operating to the benefit of all.  Presumably it would require that a complaint by a member or members to Council would be the start of the process.  The MoO would have to detail who would investigate and how the results of their investigation should be dealt with. 

Sorry, this is a bit woolly, but I am trying to think of the intention behind this rather than exact wording and am not sure if I'm on the right lines.

Offline Bob Mehew

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
  • breaking knots was fun
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #68 on: May 19, 2021, 10:05:33 pm »

My memory is that the original intent was to commit BCA to not interfere in members actions or member to member conflict.  But it was accepted that there could be cases where the name of BCA was being dragged down into the 'mud', so BCA needed to retain the right to boot someone out of membership.  What Sec 10.2 or 10.3 does not seem to permit is BCA taking action short of booting the offending member out.  So I would suggest the changes which are required are to 10.2 & 10.3 rather than 10.1.  BCA needs to have the power to say to one of its member's you have done something unacceptable and this is the penalty which is short of expelling you.  What also is needed is a protocol / set of procedures which are water tight with respect to subsequent legal action which is the difficult bit.  I did offer something some years ago but it was lost because of other problems.  Whether I can find it in the 20,000 odd files I have on BCA stuff is another matter.

The recent problem in 2019 / 20 was one where the desire by some, was to implement some form of action against a person.  But it was accepted that the actions did not merit expulsion from BCA.  But if that person had been expelled from BCA, then because the person was a member of a BCA club that would mean the person would also be booted out of the club as the club required all members to be members of BCA in order to gain the protection of insurance for the club.  We did not foresee such events might happen.  Sorry  :'(

Offline Jenny P

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 907
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #69 on: May 19, 2021, 10:33:47 pm »
IMHO the section 10 doesn't hang together as it is because it's trying to deal with different eventualities.  10.2 and 10.3 belong together but I think they should be in a different section altogether from 10.1 and 10.4.

"Interfering" with a member organisation's internal affairs because what they have done has disadvanted some other members of BCA is an altogether different problem to dealing with an individual or organisation which is deemed to have done something directly against the interests of BCA as a whole.

The bits about removing certificates, etc. would seem to refer to the business of QMC and the Instructor/Leader schemes rather than to the general business of BCA.

I don't pretend to know the answer to this but it does need considerable thought and ought not to be a matter of a "quick fix" just to "get something done" by October this year.


Offline PeteHall

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1964
  • ChCC, GSS, SWCC, WCC, WCDG
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #70 on: May 20, 2021, 12:20:13 am »
it does need considerable thought and ought not to be a matter of a "quick fix" just to "get something done" by October this year.

A very good point. Better to get it right once, even if it takes a bit longer.

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2299
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #71 on: May 20, 2021, 08:43:26 am »
The motion passed at the AGM with 90% of the membership vote is copied below.  It gives a specific timeline and makes no mention of the disciplinary procedure detailed in 10.2 and 10.3.


Section 10 of the BCA constitution deals with ‘limitations’ and is outdated for a modernising national organisation.  Section 10.1 states, “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.”  This wording requires reform.

Section 10.1 limits the effectiveness of the BCA as a national body in properly representing cavers.  It can be used (and has been) to prevent the BCA investigating complaints, undertaking research into national policy issues and intervening in matters which are detrimental to the image of caving nationally.  Even if BCA is funding a group or a scheme it cannot intervene unless invited to do so.  This cannot be right.  However, there is a value in member organisations having a degree of autonomy.  Therefore a form of words are needed to maintain some member autonomy whilst allowing the BCA to properly act as a national body. 

This motion instructs council to consider a new form of words for section 10.1 of the BCA constitution taking into account the above and to agree those words at council by majority vote in time to present them as a constitutional change to the 2021 BCA AGM.

Offline Wayland Smith

  • stalker
  • ***
  • Posts: 289
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #72 on: May 20, 2021, 09:40:41 am »
it does need considerable thought and ought not to be a matter of a "quick fix" just to "get something done" by October this year.

A very good point. Better to get it right once, even if it takes a bit longer.

Of course, the other view is to make sure that this does not hang in limbo for years while people prevaricate over every tiny detail and word.

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2299
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #73 on: May 23, 2021, 09:07:05 pm »
Here's an offering from me of some new words fro 10.1.

"Notwithstanding section 1, at the direction of council, BCA (committees or appointed groups) may investigate complaints and matters that affect the wider caving community.  Investigations may seek advice from any relevant parties and report back to council with recommendations.  Council will then decide whether any further actions are necessary, including but not limited to the disciplinary procedures where appropriate." 

You could also add in something about working in a spirit of fairness, transparency, non bias etc.  Anyway a start if you need one.

Offline mikem

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4914
  • Mendip Caving Group
Re: Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution
« Reply #74 on: May 23, 2021, 09:27:04 pm »
The problem is that whole Constitution needs rewriting, not just one section, which will take longer than the next AGM

 

Main Menu

Forum Home Help Search
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal