Application for BCA Secretary

[NewStuff]

I'm sure you've though it through, but you are changing the whole democratic process to make voting more accessible.

Yup, the whole thread is based on that point of discussion.

The traditional proposing of a motionl, followed by a debate will be totally meaningless. 

Good.

Most people will vote online so not bother listening to debate

Conjecture, and why would they need to? Plenty of places for people, that want to get involved, to discuss proposals, issues etc.

The debate is supposed to bring the knowledge of the crowd into action which frequently produces a much improved motion.

Says who? I find it usually brings boredom, bitterness, or awkward silence, subject dependant.

What you are proposing will change the AGM into a series of referendums on predetermined questions, what could possibly go wrong.

Yet more conjecture.

Instead of people getting in a room and debating  motions face to face we could do electronically, perhaps on a forum with a thread for each motion. That way you could just read the last post and completely misunderstood the purpose of the motion.

And spend an entire, utterly dull day, probably in a different part of the country, listening to people pick munuitae apart? No ta, I have a limit on how much boredom I can stomach.

 

[kat]

However, I tend to think that we really need to have individual member voting by electronic means up and running properly before we discard the old 2-house system. 

Fully agree with Jenny.  It may be that the way forward in the future is to remove the 2-house system but this should be subject to proper consideration of the reasons for change and of the potential implications.  No system is perfect and there are reasons why 2 house systems developed originally. 

I'm not entirely convinced that the individual votes necessarily fully replace the group votes and don't believe group votes are giving individuals multiple votes.  An organisation may have a certain remit or objective. By removing voting rights from an organisation it could no longer be considered a Full Member of the BCA and that removes any real voice - however small that voice may be.  Individuals may be members of those organisations or have views on those objectives but that is different to a consensus view that is come to by a committee /group.     

If there is a perceived concern with the two-house system bringing an arbitrary extra vote for each organisation regardless of its size, and is a cited reason for removing the system,  maybe a solution is to weight the vote against the size of the organisation (as per BCA membership rates).

There could also even be an argument that the votes of DIMs should carry more weight than those of CIMs. 

As for AGMs, my understanding is the BMC on-line voting occurs before the AGM.  It ceases at the start of the AGM - results are unknown as this stage.  In person and proxy voting are allowed at the AGM.  Reading the minutes of last years meeting there was acknowledgement that no substantial amendments to any motions could be agreed at the AGM because of the preceding voting.  Hence it does require a certain approach to AGM - all debate needs to occur beforehand and motions need to be carefully worded etc so that changes are not needed.

All other organisations I'm a member of seem to follow a similar pre-AGM on-line voting system.  I can't see realistically how the voting could occur after the AGM.  This approach would probably be beset with even more problems. 

Also agree with Jenny that the preferred option should be to have electronic voting where this is possible but to arrange for a postal vote to those who do not have an email address. 

Happy Easter

 

[Badlad]

One of the anomalies with the group system is the nature of the group and the number of cavers they represent.  For example.

The CNCC has one group vote, however it represents over 30 northern clubs and more than 1000 cavers.

A typical large northern club has one vote, is a member of CNCC, and may have 300 members

A typical small northern club has one vote and may have as few as 4 members.

Therefore two small clubs representing 8 people can negate the votes of two organisations/clubs representing more than 1000 cavers.

Another example which I'll relate with fictional organisations/clubs on a fictional poll but has happened.

In the Council of Anglia Caving Clubs area which has 20 caving clubs eligible to vote they do not like the new national policy on using bright lights.  The regional council and 20 clubs vote against the policy.  However, in all clubs individuals are split on the subject at around 60-40 on average.  So the area still has a lot of individuals who support the national policy on bright lights but there is not a single club or group vote to show for it.  Only in the individual house is the true view on bright lights reflected (pun intended).

One member one vote is the only true democratic way to run an organisation.

 

[kay]

This is an important point

In the Council of Anglia Caving Clubs area which has 20 caving clubs eligible to vote they do not like the new national policy on using bright lights.  The regional council and 20 clubs vote against the policy.  However, in all clubs individuals are split on the subject at around 60-40 on average.  So the area still has a lot of individuals who support the national policy on bright lights but there is not a single club or group vote to show for it.  Only in the individual house is the true view on bright lights reflected (pun intended).

I'd also add that in a larger club the decision will be made by the Committee and may or may not be representative of the members' views. In a small club, the decision is more likely to be the result of consulting all members.. So weighting the club vote according to the number of members isn't necessarily more democratic.

 

[cavemanmike]

One man one vote makes it more representative and democratic it's really that simple.then a committee won't be able to override the members it's supposed to represent

 

[mikem]

...So the area still has a lot of individuals who support the national policy on bright lights but there is not a single club or group vote to show for it.  Only in the individual house is the true view on bright lights reflected (pun intended).

However, at another AGM, a majority of individual anti bright lighters turn up & the result is much the same...

 

[alastairgott]

reply on newsletters
https://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=24949.msg308697#msg308697

 

[Cavematt]

The BCA AGM Agenda has now been published;

http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=general_meetings:2019_agm

I would like to say thank you to the Acting Secretary, Robin, for his work putting this agenda together, which I know has taken him many hours over the past two weeks. It is a complex document made no easier by my proposals, which are the four listed earlier in this thread. There is also a proposal from Jane Allen too which has my full support. I am extremely surprised to see no proposals from other members.

Robin has added two notes in Italix to the supplementary information for two of my proposals, which I would like to explain here:

(1) Regarding the 'New to Caving' leaflets

It is argueable whether the leaflet was 'discussed and approved' at the last Council meeting. The P&I report for that meeting included mention of their wish to push ahead with this leaflet post-AGM, however, this wasn't specifically discussed, and saying this was 'approved' is only based on lack of objections to the report (which may be because it was about four hours into the meeting and everyone was flagging by that point).

Usually a lack of objections can be taken to mean everyone is happy with the content of a report or the direction detailed within... otherwise we'd spend our lives voting on every little matter! Therefore getting this leaflet published seems likely to happen without my AGM proposal. I take Robin's point and realise that this proposal probably isn't needed any more, but I have chosen to leave the proposal in place simply to ensure a clear and undeniable mandate.

(2) Regarding the webmaster appointment proposal

Robin is absolutely correct; the BCA Manual of Operations does say that the webmaster is appointed by the P&I Committee at the first Council meeting after the AGM. Note that the Manual of Operations is a very different document to the constitution.

BCA Constitution: http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=about:documents:bca_constitution
BCA Manual of Operations: http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki2/doku.php

Here we have someone (Gary) putting themselves forward to undertake a massive overhaul of the BCA Website and periphery systems. It would be a substantial change to the stutus quo and as such I feel it needs a very strong mandate, one that only the wider membership can give.

I accept that this would be in contradiction to the Manual of Operations, and I think it is important that everyone else is aware of this too for transparancy. Robin is right to flag this up as Acting Secretary. We have had a very friendly discussion about this and we agree to disagree on whether this proposal can be heard in its current form. The AGM will have to decide.

Finally...
Whatever your opinion... please get involved in the AGM! Sunday 9th June, Horton-in-Ribblesdale

Clubs you can send a voting representative (letter of authorisation needed) and individuals come along (bring BCA card to vote). Get involved, regardless of how you plan to vote on the proposals, and regardless of what direction you feel the BCA should be taking. The process of revitalising caver interest and positivity for our National Body starts now!

 

[Madness]

I honestly only managed to read as far as 22.6 of the agenda before I got bored and gave up!

That doesn't bode well for the actual AGM itself.

On the day of the AGM can I turn up, give my membership card to Matt (Letting him vote on my behalf), while I go for a nice walk with my spaniel?

 

[Oceanrower]

I honestly only managed to read as far as 22.6 of the agenda before I got bored and gave up!

You did better than me. Can I come with you? I like spaniels...

 

[Cavematt]

Sorry Madness... I'm afraid not (Proxy voting was rejected a few years ago).

Of course if my fourth proposal (to scrap the two house system and introduce online voting) is accepted at the meeting and then in the subsequent member ballot, then for 2020, you will be able to vote online on all AGM proposals rather than have to attend in person.

That's not to say we don't want people coming to the physical meetings; there's lots to be gained by face to face discussions. I am certainly aware that meetings need to be made more concise though.

Many of the agenda items are simply adoption of policies, or terms of reference for the various Standing Committees. As these have all been carefully developed/considered by the respective designee(s) on Council then the AGM should hopefully just be a matter of waving these through and they should not take too long.

Come on folks... it's just one day and it will probably be raining anyway

 

[Jeanrr]

How many people can fit in the hall ?            I think there will be a big turn out, especially if it rains.

Are under 18's allowed to vote ?

 

[Cavematt]

Hi Jeanrr

The village hall will seat approximately 50 people and will accommodate at least the same number again standing (perhaps bring you own folding chair). We are checking on the absolute capacity in terms of fire regs. I would be extremely surprised if more than 100 people attend; that would be a record. Experience tells me that only a small fraction of non-regulars who say they will attend will actually do so on the day (particularly if it's nice weather and Penyghent looks stunning). We will however be bringing PA equipment in the event that it is a packed room and audibility becomes compromised.

There is no age limit in the constitution or Manual of Operations about voting, so I personally see no reason why under-18 CIM and DIM members cannot vote. I am not sure if there is some kind of unwritten rules on this, but as far as I'm concerned there are no issues. Individual members (CIMs and DIMs) can vote in the House of Individuals (you must bring you membership card), and groups (i.e. clubs) can vote in the House of Groups (you must bring a letter from your group Officers to authorise you to deliver a vote for that group).

Cheers
Matt

 

[Bob Mehew]

The only other conditions based on past practice that I am aware of are one can only vote once.  So you can't bring letters from several clubs authorising you to vote for all of them; just one.  Ditto membership cards; just one.

 

[kay]

The only other conditions based on past practice that I am aware of are one can only vote once.  So you can't bring letters from several clubs authorising you to vote for all of them; just one.  Ditto membership cards; just one.

Is that one vote per house or one vote total? ie can you place a vote as a club rep and still retain your individual vote?

 

[Badlad]

You can vote as an individual and as your elected club or group rep.

 

[Robert Scott]

........................

Robin is absolutely correct; the BCA Manual of Operations does say that the webmaster is appointed by the P&I Committee at the first Council meeting after the AGM. Note that the Manual of Operations is a very different document to the constitution.

BCA Constitution: http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=about:documents:bca_constitution
BCA Manual of Operations: http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki2/doku.php

...........................
[/quote]

Hello Matt,
I clicked on the link to the BCA Manual of Operations and got to a "BCRA" page which showed

Welcome
Welcome to the BCA Manual of Operations. (For the BCRA Manual of Ops, click here).

This is a working document detailing BCA's standard operating procedures. Please feel free to browse.

Minor amendments, to keep the document up to date, should be made regularly.

More substantive changes that affect how BCA runs, must gain approval of BCA Council, and subsequently the AGM, before being made. If you are in any doubt as to the type of change you wish to make, please contact the Secretary BEFORE making the change.

However there seemed to be no link to the Manual of Operations, so I've still no idea what the BCA Manual of Operations looks like and how the BCA thinks it should operate.

HELP!

 

[andrewmcleod]

That is the only version of the BCA Manual of Operations I know of; you have to use the links in the left-hand navigation pane (it's all a bit 90s).

Of course, the AGM is only bound by the Constitution. If the AGM voted that the webmaster should be a certain person, it might not be clear whether or not it would be a binding vote but it would certainly reflect the will of the AGM and it would be most unusual for Council to ignore the will of the AGM and, by proxy, the membership...

 

[Bob Mehew]

my thought was to propose an amendment to replace the word "appoints" in the motion:

"That the AGM appoints Gary Douthwaite as the BCA webmaster, with immediate effect, and with a mandate to redevelop the website including, but not limited to BCA online and communications systems, and that Gary is provided with the necessary accesses and mandates as outlined in Appendix 7 to fulfil this role.?

with "instructs BCA Council to appoint".
 

 

[Madness]

Does it really matter what it says in the 'Manual of operations'?
It very much sounds like it's an incomplete/work in progress document that very few of the membership are aware of and I doubt that it has been formally accepted at a previous AGM - perhaps someone can clarify this?

It should not be allowed to be used to scupper any proposals put forward to an AGM. In my mind a vote at the AGM would be able to over rule anything that isn't written into the constitution.