Access in private or democratic groups.
- Thread starter Jopo
- Start date
badger
Active member
obviously at the moment we are all benefitting from the set up of CAL, and as Pete has said whilst it is as it is at present then great.
question then is how can the present situation be guaranteed moving in to the future when the 3 directors are not in charge. How is CAL set up, say when the 1st director moves on in his immortal caving journey,
is there anything which is written to how the company must operate
is there anything on how a new director is appointed
so whilst I applauded the situation at present, and happy to make use of this, the question at the start of the thread needs to be thought about, and may already have been and the necessary steps in place to continue as is at present
question then is how can the present situation be guaranteed moving in to the future when the 3 directors are not in charge. How is CAL set up, say when the 1st director moves on in his immortal caving journey,
is there anything which is written to how the company must operate
is there anything on how a new director is appointed
so whilst I applauded the situation at present, and happy to make use of this, the question at the start of the thread needs to be thought about, and may already have been and the necessary steps in place to continue as is at present
Dave Tyson
Member
The existing three directors of CAL can appoint others to manage and represent CAL in the same way that Roy has expanded number of the directors of the Cambrian Mines Trust.
I don't regard it as a job for life - I deal with the day to day allocation of permits and log the trips as well as deal with the North Wales sites. I will be happy to step down and pass on the baton to someone else in the future!
Dave
I don't regard it as a job for life - I deal with the day to day allocation of permits and log the trips as well as deal with the North Wales sites. I will be happy to step down and pass on the baton to someone else in the future!
Dave
Wayland Smith
Active member
I see people complaining about an organisation that has provided legal access where non was available before.
I do NOT see any suggestions how this could be improved,
only mutterings that at sometime in the future, something might change.
Therefore the set up is wrong and possibly a conspiracy.
I also can not see anyone offering to help!
I do NOT see any suggestions how this could be improved,
only mutterings that at sometime in the future, something might change.
Therefore the set up is wrong and possibly a conspiracy.
I also can not see anyone offering to help!
PeteHall
Moderator
Wayland Smith said:
Not complaining and thought that was clear from my post
PeteHall said:(by the way, good work)
Just pointing out that the OP's question might not be as ludicrous as some seem to suggest, when one looks to the future.
I am sure that all those involved with CAL have considered this point, prior to reaching their decision on management structure, however for someone not party to these discussions to have concerns seems pretty legitimate.
Nobody has suggested any kind of conspiracy and surely an open discussion on what the set up is, and why, should be encouraged to reasure anybody who might have concerns.
Ian Adams
Active member
I think the OPs question is reasonable and I think the concerns raised are reasonable. In the interests of transparency I will give a detailed account of how all this came about.
It won?t be popular and it will ruffle some feathers but in comparison to the CRoW debates, it is extremely mild.
A number of years ago, the late Elsie Little of the Cambrian Caving Council (CCC) was in liaison with the then Forestry Commission (FC) to secure unfettered access to mines and caves on FC land. From conversations and meetings I personally had with her during this period I understand that she was struggling in part because she was not well supported within the CCC and was being actively blocked by a commercial operation in North Wales. (The commercial operation wanted to control some of the mines alone). The commercial venture was headed up by an individual who wanted to set up an Access control group to manage some mines in North Wales and then extend that control across Wales (competing with Elsie Little and the CCC).
I attended a meeting of this rival group who had plans to restrict access to a ?permit by permit? basis and to charge an annual subscription fee. They also wanted to gate everything and only allow entry to pre-approved applications. (for instance, I suggested that if I had a friend come up from South England, would I be able to take him into such a mine if I had a permit and my friend did not ? the answer was ?no?.).
There had already been a tremendous amount of posturing over access control in North Wales which had gone so far as involving the police and allegations of criminal damage and, frankly, a good number of us were sick of it.
The existence of this new Access control group was seen by some (including me) as a path to further doom and trouble especially in light of Elsie Littles (CCC) attempts to secure unrestricted and unfettered access for all. I raised this issue at the meeting and was effectively shouted down by the sitting committee and told to make my own arrangements if I were not happy about how they were handling it.
I continued to liaise with Elsie Little and Elsie proposed a solution that included commercial groups within the access agreement she was proposing with the FC (which I think was very sensible). She did not see the commercial groups as the ?enemy? but rather another element to account for. The FC provisionally agreed but they wanted a list of people on those trips to be recorded and, of course, the commercial operations required their own insurance (BCA insurance does not cover commercial trips). This was met with objections from at least one commercial operation who believed that providing a list of names of people entering on the commercial trip was unreasonable (and/or breached the data protection act). This was seen as ?smoke and mirrors? and was going to be addressed on Elsie?s return from holiday abroad. Sadly she died on her return and no further progress was made.
Following on, I was in communication with the CCC and it appeared she was not being replaced until at least the next AGM and all her work was shelved (and subsequently lost). I won?t speculate as to why or how that happened.
Suffice it to say, I was ?peeved?, especially since so much work had been done and we had got so far already.
In advance of the next CCC AGM, a number of fairly ?peeved? people put our heads together with the purpose of addressing the stagnation of permissible access (not just North Wales). We each had our own grievances with the manner in which various issues were being handled by the CCC (well, ?not? handled) and as our constant and numerous requests for action had fallen on deaf ears we decided to take definitive action.
In 2014 a number of like-minded people attended the CCC AGM with a view to bringing about change. Change that would facilitate better access for everyone in Wales. Better access that would not be subject to subscriptions. Better access that would not be subject to restrictions and better access that would not be subject to an empire of gates and locks.
The move was successful and we began work.
Stuart (Access officer) picked up Elsie?s torch. I should immediately point out that this was a project that I (Treasurer) felt very strongly about as well as Dave (Secretary). Stuart was happy to do this but it was not his raison d?etre. Stuart was met with many difficulties during the process of rehabilitating Elsie?s work which included the fact that FC had transmuted into Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and all the work and paperwork Elsie had done had ?mysteriously vanished?. Essentially Stuart started again. He undertook a tremendous amount of work (and still does) that he did not bargain for.
During the process, the three of us were in unison and through Stuart?s hard work, he re-built the agreement with NRW. There were some hoops we had to jump through including undertaking some risk-assessments on certain mines as well as running a probationary period (one year which has now been completed). Additionally, NRW do still want an idea of the amount of traffic going through (but have stopped short of specific detail). After the probationary period was completed we were able to look at expanding the number of mines/caves (which is happening).
One important factor that goes to the heart of the OPs question is that NRW wanted to have an agreement with a ?body? (as opposed to cavers in general). Of course that would be the CCC. However, it was felt that the officers of the CCC were at risk of liability especially since we had no intention of gating access points. We (Stuart, myself and Dave) therefore discussed the issue of a ?trust? and that is precisely how it manifested. Of course, the Trust is a LTD company but it could not be any other way.
Initially, Stuart and Dave were directors of the trust and we later asked Roy Fellows to join the board of the CCC and also the Trust specifically because of his experience and expertise in the field. Roy?s input has since been, as expected, very valuable and we are very grateful to him and have no doubt he will continue to be an asset to the Trust.
Specifically, the trust exists to preserve and protect easy access to NRW owned ?holes? without the need to pay a subscription, without the need to erect gates, without the need for padlocks (unless specifically required by NRW), by using Derbyshire keys (nuts) wherever possible when a gate is necessary and without the need for restrictions. No lectures are dictated to visiting parties, no leaders or guides are required and cavers are trusted to use their common sense (all of which is working just fine). Basically, there is no micro-management.
In essence, it is a benign dictatorship which (in my opinion) beats a democracy every day of the week unless it corrupts. Of course, it is possible that it might corrupt (I think that was the point being originally made) but that would not stop another party/group approaching NRW (as we did) for a new agreement.
So long as this is working for the benefit of ALL cavers (I think every entrance is ?open? except one which has a combination lock on), let?s not rock the boat? The small hoops we still jump through are required by NRW and I am fairly certain we have all agreed that we must respect landowners (lawful) wishes.
Work is continuing to extend the access to further NRW mines/caves and although this may be seen as ?empire building?, I would suggest that it is precisely the opposite ? we are trying to prevent anyone FROM empire building by securing unfettered access for everyone.
I hope I have been completely transparent and I hope that this is seen as a very positive move for the benefit of all cavers.
Ian Adams
(CCC Treasurer)
It won?t be popular and it will ruffle some feathers but in comparison to the CRoW debates, it is extremely mild.
A number of years ago, the late Elsie Little of the Cambrian Caving Council (CCC) was in liaison with the then Forestry Commission (FC) to secure unfettered access to mines and caves on FC land. From conversations and meetings I personally had with her during this period I understand that she was struggling in part because she was not well supported within the CCC and was being actively blocked by a commercial operation in North Wales. (The commercial operation wanted to control some of the mines alone). The commercial venture was headed up by an individual who wanted to set up an Access control group to manage some mines in North Wales and then extend that control across Wales (competing with Elsie Little and the CCC).
I attended a meeting of this rival group who had plans to restrict access to a ?permit by permit? basis and to charge an annual subscription fee. They also wanted to gate everything and only allow entry to pre-approved applications. (for instance, I suggested that if I had a friend come up from South England, would I be able to take him into such a mine if I had a permit and my friend did not ? the answer was ?no?.).
There had already been a tremendous amount of posturing over access control in North Wales which had gone so far as involving the police and allegations of criminal damage and, frankly, a good number of us were sick of it.
The existence of this new Access control group was seen by some (including me) as a path to further doom and trouble especially in light of Elsie Littles (CCC) attempts to secure unrestricted and unfettered access for all. I raised this issue at the meeting and was effectively shouted down by the sitting committee and told to make my own arrangements if I were not happy about how they were handling it.
I continued to liaise with Elsie Little and Elsie proposed a solution that included commercial groups within the access agreement she was proposing with the FC (which I think was very sensible). She did not see the commercial groups as the ?enemy? but rather another element to account for. The FC provisionally agreed but they wanted a list of people on those trips to be recorded and, of course, the commercial operations required their own insurance (BCA insurance does not cover commercial trips). This was met with objections from at least one commercial operation who believed that providing a list of names of people entering on the commercial trip was unreasonable (and/or breached the data protection act). This was seen as ?smoke and mirrors? and was going to be addressed on Elsie?s return from holiday abroad. Sadly she died on her return and no further progress was made.
Following on, I was in communication with the CCC and it appeared she was not being replaced until at least the next AGM and all her work was shelved (and subsequently lost). I won?t speculate as to why or how that happened.
Suffice it to say, I was ?peeved?, especially since so much work had been done and we had got so far already.
In advance of the next CCC AGM, a number of fairly ?peeved? people put our heads together with the purpose of addressing the stagnation of permissible access (not just North Wales). We each had our own grievances with the manner in which various issues were being handled by the CCC (well, ?not? handled) and as our constant and numerous requests for action had fallen on deaf ears we decided to take definitive action.
In 2014 a number of like-minded people attended the CCC AGM with a view to bringing about change. Change that would facilitate better access for everyone in Wales. Better access that would not be subject to subscriptions. Better access that would not be subject to restrictions and better access that would not be subject to an empire of gates and locks.
The move was successful and we began work.
Stuart (Access officer) picked up Elsie?s torch. I should immediately point out that this was a project that I (Treasurer) felt very strongly about as well as Dave (Secretary). Stuart was happy to do this but it was not his raison d?etre. Stuart was met with many difficulties during the process of rehabilitating Elsie?s work which included the fact that FC had transmuted into Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and all the work and paperwork Elsie had done had ?mysteriously vanished?. Essentially Stuart started again. He undertook a tremendous amount of work (and still does) that he did not bargain for.
During the process, the three of us were in unison and through Stuart?s hard work, he re-built the agreement with NRW. There were some hoops we had to jump through including undertaking some risk-assessments on certain mines as well as running a probationary period (one year which has now been completed). Additionally, NRW do still want an idea of the amount of traffic going through (but have stopped short of specific detail). After the probationary period was completed we were able to look at expanding the number of mines/caves (which is happening).
One important factor that goes to the heart of the OPs question is that NRW wanted to have an agreement with a ?body? (as opposed to cavers in general). Of course that would be the CCC. However, it was felt that the officers of the CCC were at risk of liability especially since we had no intention of gating access points. We (Stuart, myself and Dave) therefore discussed the issue of a ?trust? and that is precisely how it manifested. Of course, the Trust is a LTD company but it could not be any other way.
Initially, Stuart and Dave were directors of the trust and we later asked Roy Fellows to join the board of the CCC and also the Trust specifically because of his experience and expertise in the field. Roy?s input has since been, as expected, very valuable and we are very grateful to him and have no doubt he will continue to be an asset to the Trust.
Specifically, the trust exists to preserve and protect easy access to NRW owned ?holes? without the need to pay a subscription, without the need to erect gates, without the need for padlocks (unless specifically required by NRW), by using Derbyshire keys (nuts) wherever possible when a gate is necessary and without the need for restrictions. No lectures are dictated to visiting parties, no leaders or guides are required and cavers are trusted to use their common sense (all of which is working just fine). Basically, there is no micro-management.
In essence, it is a benign dictatorship which (in my opinion) beats a democracy every day of the week unless it corrupts. Of course, it is possible that it might corrupt (I think that was the point being originally made) but that would not stop another party/group approaching NRW (as we did) for a new agreement.
So long as this is working for the benefit of ALL cavers (I think every entrance is ?open? except one which has a combination lock on), let?s not rock the boat? The small hoops we still jump through are required by NRW and I am fairly certain we have all agreed that we must respect landowners (lawful) wishes.
Work is continuing to extend the access to further NRW mines/caves and although this may be seen as ?empire building?, I would suggest that it is precisely the opposite ? we are trying to prevent anyone FROM empire building by securing unfettered access for everyone.
I hope I have been completely transparent and I hope that this is seen as a very positive move for the benefit of all cavers.
Ian Adams
(CCC Treasurer)
Wayland Smith
Active member
Very well written Ian.
A clear and concise reports on the Trust's foundation.
I think that while the vast majority of people are using and enjoying the access provided.
The "Haters" are still going to hate!
A clear and concise reports on the Trust's foundation.
I think that while the vast majority of people are using and enjoying the access provided.
The "Haters" are still going to hate!
cap n chris
Well-known member
What about when it ceases to work just fine and cavers aren't using common sense? Will it be a model of excellence?
As the OP I find Ian's open and frank posting very refreshing and informative. It also says a lot about the dark corners of the older CCC. As long as the 'Trust' (a term that is new to me which I read as Cave Access Ltd. but infers a totally different image) operates within the limits laid by Ian then all should be fine.
What a contrast to one of the earlier responses which led me to think 'What a arrogant p****.
I met Elsie the first day she arrived at Penwyllt, as neighbor first in Sutton Coldfield and then Abercrave - so pretty well. Over the years we had many conversations about access, access groups and the various shenanigans that can occur within our outwardly calm and responsible sport. She could also be very choice in her description of some she had to deal with.
It is a great shame to hear that so much of Elsie's work went walk about and had to be repeated. I know of at least one then officer in the CCC who took away "boxes of papers" from Elsie's house after she died so they should still exist but it seems, from Ian's posting, not to be the case.
Elsie herself could, and did sometimes, play her cards very close and athough not always agreeing I never doubted that she had the interests of the majority of cavers and mine enthusiasts at heart. I sincerely hope those who follow are as effective
Perhaps a reminder that if things do change and cavers sleep through it then they ultimately have no-one else to blame.
I still believe a democratic organisation would be preferable as I'm sure all dictatorships start out as benign.
Ian in his frank transparency has actually highlighted some other thoughts.
Jopo
What a contrast to one of the earlier responses which led me to think 'What a arrogant p****.
I met Elsie the first day she arrived at Penwyllt, as neighbor first in Sutton Coldfield and then Abercrave - so pretty well. Over the years we had many conversations about access, access groups and the various shenanigans that can occur within our outwardly calm and responsible sport. She could also be very choice in her description of some she had to deal with.
It is a great shame to hear that so much of Elsie's work went walk about and had to be repeated. I know of at least one then officer in the CCC who took away "boxes of papers" from Elsie's house after she died so they should still exist but it seems, from Ian's posting, not to be the case.
Elsie herself could, and did sometimes, play her cards very close and athough not always agreeing I never doubted that she had the interests of the majority of cavers and mine enthusiasts at heart. I sincerely hope those who follow are as effective
Perhaps a reminder that if things do change and cavers sleep through it then they ultimately have no-one else to blame.
I still believe a democratic organisation would be preferable as I'm sure all dictatorships start out as benign.
PeteHall said:Brilliant report Ian. If that doesn't answer the OP's question, I'm not sure what will!
Thanks again for all the work that has gone into it
Ian in his frank transparency has actually highlighted some other thoughts.
Jopo
RobinGriffiths
Well-known member
I can't see how the circle can be squared. Taking risk away from the landowner, providing free access, and in a democratic way. First two solved. Democracy wise unless you bring in external shareholders for voting purposes I can't see how to do it. And in that case what would be the shareholder criteria?
As has been said, a benign dictatorship is probably the best result. And given the historical access problems with Forest bods, especially Gwydyr this is actually a great result.
As has been said, a benign dictatorship is probably the best result. And given the historical access problems with Forest bods, especially Gwydyr this is actually a great result.
