Access controlling bodies and the BCA [Split from Re: Does your club rep...]
- Thread starter Jack
- Start date
CNCC
Well-known member
As one of the five BCA Regional Councils we can confirm that we have never in any way felt that our autonomy has been hindered or compromised by the BCA; nor have the BCA ever tried to do so (at least not in recent memory); and nor do we see any threats of this becoming the case in the future.
A few quotes from the BCA website which explains who they are and the relationship with regional councils;
"The British Caving Association is the national body for underground exploration in the United Kingdom. It represents individuals and groups with a genuine interest in caves, karst and associated phenomena, whether from a strictly sporting viewpoint, a scientific viewpoint, or a combination of both.
Through its democratic structure and Regional Councils it will: ..... (list omitted)
The Regional Caving Councils deal with various functions on behalf of BCA, such as Conservation & Access works, Access Permits etc. The various officers of the Councils are also members of the relevant BCA Special Committees."
In my experience regional councils can, and do, act with a reasonable amount of autonomy. I'm fairly sure that at the inception of BCA all the regional councils will have voted to accept the new national structure and their role within it. That must mean accepting the democratic process, the constitution and BCA policies which come from it. I presume there is always the option of leaving and declaring independence if there is something so onerous a RC cannot live with it.
Regional councils are funded by BCA (in the main). Admin, including venue hire, stationary, postage, phone bills travel expenses etc. C&A, all sorts of access costs, gates, stabilising entrances, peppercorn rents, promoting conservation etc. Some publications, website, insurance. Training grants and equipment such as resin anchors.
So what about the bit in the constitution at 11.1. The Association shall not interfere in the affairs of a Member unless specifically requested to do so by that Member.
What if a council was in breach of this guiding principle of the constitution.
4.7. That the Association will make its services available to all sections of the sporting community. There will be no discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, creed, colour, occupation, religion or political opinion.
Or just ignored BCA policies of the type accepted at the last AGM. Do the BCA just do nothing or do they have to take some form of action?
"The British Caving Association is the national body for underground exploration in the United Kingdom. It represents individuals and groups with a genuine interest in caves, karst and associated phenomena, whether from a strictly sporting viewpoint, a scientific viewpoint, or a combination of both.
Through its democratic structure and Regional Councils it will: ..... (list omitted)
The Regional Caving Councils deal with various functions on behalf of BCA, such as Conservation & Access works, Access Permits etc. The various officers of the Councils are also members of the relevant BCA Special Committees."
In my experience regional councils can, and do, act with a reasonable amount of autonomy. I'm fairly sure that at the inception of BCA all the regional councils will have voted to accept the new national structure and their role within it. That must mean accepting the democratic process, the constitution and BCA policies which come from it. I presume there is always the option of leaving and declaring independence if there is something so onerous a RC cannot live with it.
Regional councils are funded by BCA (in the main). Admin, including venue hire, stationary, postage, phone bills travel expenses etc. C&A, all sorts of access costs, gates, stabilising entrances, peppercorn rents, promoting conservation etc. Some publications, website, insurance. Training grants and equipment such as resin anchors.
So what about the bit in the constitution at 11.1. The Association shall not interfere in the affairs of a Member unless specifically requested to do so by that Member.
What if a council was in breach of this guiding principle of the constitution.
4.7. That the Association will make its services available to all sections of the sporting community. There will be no discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, creed, colour, occupation, religion or political opinion.
Or just ignored BCA policies of the type accepted at the last AGM. Do the BCA just do nothing or do they have to take some form of action?
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
Any member can seek to invoke Section 11.2 of the constitution on members thought to be acting against the interests of BCA. The Section allows for suspension or ejection and specifically countermands Section 11.1 on BCA not interfering with the affairs of a member. I believe the Exec have to then undertake the relevant disciplinary process covered in MoO.
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
Having ejected a group, BCA can then participate or aid other bodies in activities which might otherwise have been contrary to Section 11.1, such as seeking to negotiate with the land owner. I accept it is likely to be a long winded journey and no doubt open to unfortunate events on both sides, perhaps reminiscent of a G&S opera or worse, the Ring Cycle.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Indeedy-doody; sadly, though, the shiny new BCA which has been emerging over the last 2-3 years does appear to have hallmarks of institutionalised antagonism towards landowners and ACBs and also appears to have a predictable groundswell of support from the "Jam Today" cohorts who seem to think it's a great idea to rattle their sabres for easy access. In the short term this populist policy wins votes and hearts and minds but medium and longer term it risks raising the ire of landowners who may close off car parking, goodwill, support, ?peppercorn access, and friendly relations across the board (affecting more than just self-claimed cavers).
There is a growing body of evidence that this has already commenced in earnest. Landowners and their appointed agents are REALLY IMPORTANT and it is EVEN MORE IMPORTANT to respect them and their views and wishes. There doesn't appear to be much in the national caving press along these lines, far from it. Judging by many commentators who post here you'd could be forgiven for concluding that landowners (and their appointees) are the enemy. If so, good luck with how things pan out.
From my perspective the role of national and regional bodies is to represent cavers. It is not to act as some sort of agent on behalf of landowners. At CNCC we are engaged with many landowners both large and small. We act on behalf of cavers but treat all landowners with a respect and courtesy anyone would expect of us. We generally foster business like relationships in a professional manner which has achieved some very positive results in recent years and improved relationships with landowners over what they were before. The BCA position on access in recent years has been very helpful in many of our negotiations and long may that continue. As the person tasked by my regional council to speak to cave landowners I do not personally see the any of the situations described in the above posts. Maybe you are just approaching it all wrong 
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
BradW said:
It would be the ultimate example of regulatory capture if an access body - a body set up to gain access for cavers - subsequently acted as a landowners agent and prevented access...
cap n chris
Well-known member
andrewmc said:
Not really; when CSCC negotiated access to Box Quarry (Mine) around 2006-2007 with guidance from NE it was on the grounds that if people didn't "play nicely" (paraphrasing, obviously) then access could be rescinded/lost; it was part of the acknowledgement.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
Cap'n Chris said:
I should have been clearer, but was replying to the situation where an body with a 'owns or leases or has some other long term hold' on a site, where the implication from BradW was that if that body subsequently became ejected from the BCA it would choose to close off access purely out of spite.
I'm assuming here that in the 'owns' or 'leases' case we are talking about where the site was purchased specifically to allow access to cavers e.g. OFD bottom entrance, rather than a landowner who incidentally owned a cave entrance.
I don't think anyone expects a 'normal' landowner to give access to a cave where no legal right exists. It relies entirely on the goodwill of landowners, as carefully cultivated by all the regional access bodies. But it would be nothing less than shameful if an access controlling body (ACB), having lost the confidence of cavers and been ejected from the BCA, then restricted access beyond that required by the landowner instead of recognising that their purpose for existence had ended and dissolving themselves. It would also be embarrassing if a caver who owned a cave entrance somewhere restricted access unreasonably - not 'wrong' in any sense, just disappointing (I would hope for better from a caver).
For example, if the a Cave Management Committee decided to not allow women into their cave, and were ejected from the BCA, I would hope they would face reality and dissolve. If they chose to fight to continue their access agreement with the landowner instead of allowing their regional access body (for example) to take it over, and further restricted access to the cave, this would be extremely shameful. Nothing to be done about it of course, but it would be the saddest indictment of the worst controlling aspects of some cavers. We should all be working to gain responsible access - differences of opinion are to be encouraged, but not squabbling and empire-building.
In your Box case it does not surprise me at all that the CSCC were told that if there were issues, then access would be withdrawn. That does not require the CSCC to turn into the 'cave police' and start chasing people away - it just means that if cavers don't respect the access that the landowner has offered, then that access will be lost. Personally I would prefer that access bodies _never_ entered into legal agreements about access except where actually required - I don't think it ever happens in climbing, for example. Instead they should just work with the landowner to help improve access for cavers without becoming legally involved themselves - e.g. the recent 'Memorandum of Understanding' the CNCC agreed for Penyghent (i.e. basically a set of rules for cavers to follow set by the landowner, rather than a legal agreement between the CNCC and the landowner, and subsequently between cavers and the CNCC).
We have gone entertainingly off-topic now
cap n chris
Well-known member
NewStuff said:
LOL. That would make a change.
darren
Member
Thing is, down Mendip way you never know when you're talking to cave owners or upsetting them. We all use the same pubs .I'm guessing it's the same in Yorkshire and Peak district you all drink with the cave owners, same as we do.
There may be a few contentious caves but a most are fine.
Using exceptional examples to make rules for all usually ends in bad rules.
There may be a few contentious caves but a most are fine.
Using exceptional examples to make rules for all usually ends in bad rules.
nickwilliams
Well-known member
CNCC said:
With all due respect, that statement serves only to illustrate how short the CNCC's institutional memory has become. (And that's not necessarily a bad thing, I hasten to add.)
The furore of a few years ago over adopting a nationally uniform policy on/procedure for the placing of resin anchors was a perfect example of one or two RC's seeking to over-ride the will of others under the banner of a 'national' policy,
As is usually the case, the actual problem was the unwillingness of a small number of individuals to compromise.
Andrewmc, I will keep this short. Don't put words in my mouth please. Your lengthy waffle seems to revolve around a false assumtion of what I was (not) saying. My simple and short message was that if a body was ejected from the BCA then the BCA no longer had any say whatsoever in how that body functions. You would get a better result for all cavers by using civilised intelligent intercourse.
Similar threads
