Application for BCA Secretary
- Thread starter Cavematt
- Start date
Madness
New member
Having looked at the calendar, I've found that the wife is away over the BCA AGM weekend. This means that I'll be looking after our Spaniel. I want to attend the AGM and support Matt. Can anyone tell me if dogs will be allowed in the AGM/Village Hall? Otherwise I might have to mooch around outside and just go in for the voting.
MJenkinson
Member
So when voting for new position is it based on a club vote ( 1 per club rep) or is it individual votes for all BCA members? Not that au fait with all this business.
Worth noting that if Matt is the only applicant for the post of secretary (by the deadline of 13th April) he will automatically take up the role without a vote. I suspect he would be wise to ask for a vote of support at the AGM for his declared modernising agenda so that it is clear that this is what the voting membership have asked for. It will help enormously in the weeks and years to come.
Otherwise the BCA has two voting houses - the house of individuals and the house of groups/clubs. For most things to pass you need to get a straight 50% in each house. 50% of voting individuals and 50% of voting clubs/groups. This is of those who attend the AGM and have either their BCA membership card to vote as an individual or a letter of authority to vote for their club/group.
For a constitutional change, a motion must reach 70% in both houses of those eligible to vote at the AGM. If it passes that it must then go to a second vote of the entire membership, both houses, where it needs to achieve 70% again. This can be done by a combination of postal voting and email voting.
What could be simpler :-\
Otherwise the BCA has two voting houses - the house of individuals and the house of groups/clubs. For most things to pass you need to get a straight 50% in each house. 50% of voting individuals and 50% of voting clubs/groups. This is of those who attend the AGM and have either their BCA membership card to vote as an individual or a letter of authority to vote for their club/group.
For a constitutional change, a motion must reach 70% in both houses of those eligible to vote at the AGM. If it passes that it must then go to a second vote of the entire membership, both houses, where it needs to achieve 70% again. This can be done by a combination of postal voting and email voting.
What could be simpler :-\
I'm not new to caving, but new to all this BCA stuff.
Do I understand correctly... that to vote for Matt, I would need to be in the meeting, in person, at the time... and have a personal membership...
And if the club I am in wanted to vote for Matt, they would need to send a member, with a written letter , in person too?
Thanks,
Ali.
Do I understand correctly... that to vote for Matt, I would need to be in the meeting, in person, at the time... and have a personal membership...
And if the club I am in wanted to vote for Matt, they would need to send a member, with a written letter , in person too?
Thanks,
Ali.
Cavematt
Well-known member
Hi Madness; Proxy voting was proposed a few years ago but rejected.
However, if my fourth proposal (to amend voting to individuals only and introduce online voting) is accepted then of course it will mean that all individual members will be able to vote on AGM proposals via an online vote conducted after the meeting
It is likely that I will be the only Secretary candidate (unless someone plans to jump in last minute... that would be exciting) so Gary is correct that I would be appointed without a vote if no other candidate is available. Tim's idea for me to get a broad vote of support for a modernising agenda is a good one and one that I shall consider requesting.
My proposals (and any other proposals anyone else puts forward) will be voted upon at the meeting and will need to pass in both houses (Individuals and Groups).
Perhaps the most challenging will be the constitutional amendments to change the future AGM voting system, as this will require 70% support rather than the usual >50% support as it affects the constitution. This motion will require groups to support removal of their own vote in future, so will be particularly challenging and maybe a hard-sell. Most of the groups I have spoken with so far have understood why this is a good idea (and that it represents an increase in democracy rather than a decrease) but a few have raised concerns.
This proposal would also introduce online voting for the 2020 AGM.
For my proposal about changing voting to get through, a strong turnout of supportive groups (i.e. clubs) will be required, as getting this through the House of Groups will be the biggest challenge. Currently I am working to get these constitutional amendments finalised and watertight in time for the 13th April submission deadline. Once these are in, I will start campaigning to gain support for them, and to address any concerns groups (or individuals) may have with this proposed way forward. I know the CNCC will be supporting this proposal, and there was good support from all but two northern clubs at our recent AGM; I've yet to get any tests of the water in other regions.
However, if my fourth proposal (to amend voting to individuals only and introduce online voting) is accepted then of course it will mean that all individual members will be able to vote on AGM proposals via an online vote conducted after the meeting
It is likely that I will be the only Secretary candidate (unless someone plans to jump in last minute... that would be exciting) so Gary is correct that I would be appointed without a vote if no other candidate is available. Tim's idea for me to get a broad vote of support for a modernising agenda is a good one and one that I shall consider requesting.
My proposals (and any other proposals anyone else puts forward) will be voted upon at the meeting and will need to pass in both houses (Individuals and Groups).
Perhaps the most challenging will be the constitutional amendments to change the future AGM voting system, as this will require 70% support rather than the usual >50% support as it affects the constitution. This motion will require groups to support removal of their own vote in future, so will be particularly challenging and maybe a hard-sell. Most of the groups I have spoken with so far have understood why this is a good idea (and that it represents an increase in democracy rather than a decrease) but a few have raised concerns.
This proposal would also introduce online voting for the 2020 AGM.
For my proposal about changing voting to get through, a strong turnout of supportive groups (i.e. clubs) will be required, as getting this through the House of Groups will be the biggest challenge. Currently I am working to get these constitutional amendments finalised and watertight in time for the 13th April submission deadline. Once these are in, I will start campaigning to gain support for them, and to address any concerns groups (or individuals) may have with this proposed way forward. I know the CNCC will be supporting this proposal, and there was good support from all but two northern clubs at our recent AGM; I've yet to get any tests of the water in other regions.
I am fully in support of Matt's nomination as BCA Secretary. I reckon he will do an ace job and having a volunteer to step up to offer to do the job is a real plus.
My only worry is that we already have a working group, appointed at the 2018 AGM, i.e. only 9 months ago, and called the "Vision and Constitution Working Party", headed by Hellie Adams. This was tasked with looking at the best way forward for BCA, given that we are all aware that the present situation is not good and that we need to make some changes. It would seem sensible to give this group a chance to finish its work and report back to the AGM, rather than jump the gun and try to pre-empt its work. The changes Matt is suggesting should surely be part of the input to this existing working group; not least because changes suggested by others may conflict with the ideas he is putting forward.
Don't forget that we also have a Youth and Development Working Group, headed by Rostam Namaghi, which is looking at how BCA works and may well itself suggest changes.
There really is a will to change and improve the way BCA operates - it certainly needs it - but past experience of attempting to modernise both NCA and BCA shows that it's no good trying to blast things through in a rush. This isn't "kicking the can down the road" - you need to ensure that everyone understands what is proposed and, as far as is possible, is on board so that you don't meet resistance to the proposed changes.
We have come an immense distance in the 50 years since the very early days of NCA, when AGMs and Council Meetings were limited to regional council and constituent body reps. only and we were bedevilled by the constant threat of VETO. Even club membership was anathema to some hardliners then! Along with others, I fought long and hard, against determined opposition, to achieve club membership of NCA and was delighted when BCA came into existence and we finally achieved individual membership. BCA needs to continue to evolve and part of this is encouraging its individual members to take more interest in their own national body - how best to achieve this level of support is not clear but we have to work at it.
I'm sure having a secretary, like Matt, who is determined to ensure that change and progress do take place, will benefit us immensely and I'd welcome his election.
My only worry is that we already have a working group, appointed at the 2018 AGM, i.e. only 9 months ago, and called the "Vision and Constitution Working Party", headed by Hellie Adams. This was tasked with looking at the best way forward for BCA, given that we are all aware that the present situation is not good and that we need to make some changes. It would seem sensible to give this group a chance to finish its work and report back to the AGM, rather than jump the gun and try to pre-empt its work. The changes Matt is suggesting should surely be part of the input to this existing working group; not least because changes suggested by others may conflict with the ideas he is putting forward.
Don't forget that we also have a Youth and Development Working Group, headed by Rostam Namaghi, which is looking at how BCA works and may well itself suggest changes.
There really is a will to change and improve the way BCA operates - it certainly needs it - but past experience of attempting to modernise both NCA and BCA shows that it's no good trying to blast things through in a rush. This isn't "kicking the can down the road" - you need to ensure that everyone understands what is proposed and, as far as is possible, is on board so that you don't meet resistance to the proposed changes.
We have come an immense distance in the 50 years since the very early days of NCA, when AGMs and Council Meetings were limited to regional council and constituent body reps. only and we were bedevilled by the constant threat of VETO. Even club membership was anathema to some hardliners then! Along with others, I fought long and hard, against determined opposition, to achieve club membership of NCA and was delighted when BCA came into existence and we finally achieved individual membership. BCA needs to continue to evolve and part of this is encouraging its individual members to take more interest in their own national body - how best to achieve this level of support is not clear but we have to work at it.
I'm sure having a secretary, like Matt, who is determined to ensure that change and progress do take place, will benefit us immensely and I'd welcome his election.
Jenny - fear not, Matt's suggestions are also being discussed and in a number of cases backed by the vision group, which Rostam is also a member of too.
The vision group so far have been generally well aligned in what they would like to see change, and realise that such things will take time, and proper consideration to implement.
I feel that having Matt has secretary would be a big help in allowing BCA to make the changes it needs to progress, in the short term and with the longer term 'vision' as well
The vision group so far have been generally well aligned in what they would like to see change, and realise that such things will take time, and proper consideration to implement.
I feel that having Matt has secretary would be a big help in allowing BCA to make the changes it needs to progress, in the short term and with the longer term 'vision' as well
Cavematt
Well-known member
Jenny, thanks for your comments and your supportive words.
Certainly the Vision Group is likely to help bring about positive change in the BCA. I attended the first meeting of the group last month, and it was a very positive meeting indeed with lots of passionate and dedicated individuals, young and old, and of all levels of experience in the BCA.
However, I think there is some frustration that people are looking to the Vision Group to deliver every change that the BCA needs, and that until they have completed their process, we must stand still and hold fire on anything else.
My understanding is that the original aim of the Vision Group was to look into the long term future of the BCA and how it can adapt to fulfil its aims and meet the needs of cavers, not just now, but in future years. Matters such as ?should we redevelop the website? and ?should we get a new logo? are not what the Vision Group was set up to discuss or address, and I suspect in fact that my proposals about changing the voting system and introducing online voting are below the ?higher level vision? which the Vision Group should be considering. Online voting, of course, has already been agreed by BCA Council and Will has done a great job at driving enthusiasm for this and looking into ways that this can be achieved. Simply changing who can vote at an AGM is maybe not so visionary, but more procedural to drive engagement, improve democracy and also to make online voting easier to implement.
The kinds of changes the Vision Group are likely to be looking at may make my proposals look rather lightweight, and may include full reassessment of the BCA?s membership system and a full overhaul of the constitution, not just a few tweaks here and there, to ensure the BCA remains a modern and fit for purpose organisation for the future.
Therefore, I think the Vision Group is a great thing, but I?m not convinced about holding off on my proposals for 2019 as they are relatively small on the scale of what the Vision Group will be aiming to accomplish, and I think they align well as groundwork for what the Vision Group will say.
Furthermore, the Vision Group are not due to report until the 2020 AGM; and of course that may end up only being a report; it may be another year before constitutional amendments to enact that vision are able to be put forward (and then more time after that to enact these). The changes I am proposing don?t need to wait that long.
I do worry that if we don?t strike now with some modernising changes, and take advantage of the enthusiasm being demonstrated now, we risk losing the momentum.
I have not had any official statement of endorsement for my proposals from the Vision Group (they are of course a Working Group, so a non-voting entity), so I can?t say for sure whether they support what I am putting forward; they are certainly aware, and as JoW has mentioned above, gut feeling is that there is positivity for them. If the Vision Group felt that my proposals were treading on their toes and going contrary to the direction they were considering taking, I would certainly consider redacting or amending the offending proposal.
So in conclusion, I share Jenny?s enthusiasm to see what the Vision Group says; it will likely drive the longer term direction of the BCA, but I don?t agree that the Vision Group should be a reason to stall on the relatively simple changes I am putting forward, which could make a big difference now.
Certainly the Vision Group is likely to help bring about positive change in the BCA. I attended the first meeting of the group last month, and it was a very positive meeting indeed with lots of passionate and dedicated individuals, young and old, and of all levels of experience in the BCA.
However, I think there is some frustration that people are looking to the Vision Group to deliver every change that the BCA needs, and that until they have completed their process, we must stand still and hold fire on anything else.
My understanding is that the original aim of the Vision Group was to look into the long term future of the BCA and how it can adapt to fulfil its aims and meet the needs of cavers, not just now, but in future years. Matters such as ?should we redevelop the website? and ?should we get a new logo? are not what the Vision Group was set up to discuss or address, and I suspect in fact that my proposals about changing the voting system and introducing online voting are below the ?higher level vision? which the Vision Group should be considering. Online voting, of course, has already been agreed by BCA Council and Will has done a great job at driving enthusiasm for this and looking into ways that this can be achieved. Simply changing who can vote at an AGM is maybe not so visionary, but more procedural to drive engagement, improve democracy and also to make online voting easier to implement.
The kinds of changes the Vision Group are likely to be looking at may make my proposals look rather lightweight, and may include full reassessment of the BCA?s membership system and a full overhaul of the constitution, not just a few tweaks here and there, to ensure the BCA remains a modern and fit for purpose organisation for the future.
Therefore, I think the Vision Group is a great thing, but I?m not convinced about holding off on my proposals for 2019 as they are relatively small on the scale of what the Vision Group will be aiming to accomplish, and I think they align well as groundwork for what the Vision Group will say.
Furthermore, the Vision Group are not due to report until the 2020 AGM; and of course that may end up only being a report; it may be another year before constitutional amendments to enact that vision are able to be put forward (and then more time after that to enact these). The changes I am proposing don?t need to wait that long.
I do worry that if we don?t strike now with some modernising changes, and take advantage of the enthusiasm being demonstrated now, we risk losing the momentum.
I have not had any official statement of endorsement for my proposals from the Vision Group (they are of course a Working Group, so a non-voting entity), so I can?t say for sure whether they support what I am putting forward; they are certainly aware, and as JoW has mentioned above, gut feeling is that there is positivity for them. If the Vision Group felt that my proposals were treading on their toes and going contrary to the direction they were considering taking, I would certainly consider redacting or amending the offending proposal.
So in conclusion, I share Jenny?s enthusiasm to see what the Vision Group says; it will likely drive the longer term direction of the BCA, but I don?t agree that the Vision Group should be a reason to stall on the relatively simple changes I am putting forward, which could make a big difference now.
The motion passed on vision and reform at last years AGM was as follows;
?This AGM instructs council to establish a ?working group? to determine a new mission and vision for the organisation. To outline a strategy to achieve this vision and make recommendations for any changes to the organisations structure and constitution. The group should be made up of a majority of younger cavers from the constituent bodies, regions and membership under an established convener agreed by council. The group should aim to be established within six months (by the January council meeting) and should report on recommendations to the 2020 AGM.?
A vision for BCA could be as simple as "we want to be the organisation that every caver wants to join". A slightly longer mission would outline what we do and the vision and reform group would recommend any changes to the constitution which make achieving the vision and mission easier. If anyone wants to learn more about vision and mission for organisations such as ours the Sports & Recreation Alliance offered a webinar on the subject last year. It is a bit slow to get going but it does demonstrate the basic principles. See here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0CdgEk2Q3Y&feature=youtu.be
I fully echo Matt's thoughts above.
?This AGM instructs council to establish a ?working group? to determine a new mission and vision for the organisation. To outline a strategy to achieve this vision and make recommendations for any changes to the organisations structure and constitution. The group should be made up of a majority of younger cavers from the constituent bodies, regions and membership under an established convener agreed by council. The group should aim to be established within six months (by the January council meeting) and should report on recommendations to the 2020 AGM.?
A vision for BCA could be as simple as "we want to be the organisation that every caver wants to join". A slightly longer mission would outline what we do and the vision and reform group would recommend any changes to the constitution which make achieving the vision and mission easier. If anyone wants to learn more about vision and mission for organisations such as ours the Sports & Recreation Alliance offered a webinar on the subject last year. It is a bit slow to get going but it does demonstrate the basic principles. See here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0CdgEk2Q3Y&feature=youtu.be
I fully echo Matt's thoughts above.
On the matter of electronic voting last year's AGM also passed the following motion;
?The BCA to investigate a process of electronic voting on motions and nominations properly presented to the Annual General Meetings. This process to be founded upon that used for the 2017 ballot but with greater use of professional help. The process, and any constitutional changes required to implement it, to be presented to the 2019 AGM with a view to full implementation at the 2020 AGM.?
Will Burns took this on and tabled a report to last October's council meeting where it was deferred without discussion. Hopefully we will hear some more about it at the next council meeting in a few weeks time. In any case I expect there will be a further push to ensure this is acted upon at the BCA AGM in June.
?The BCA to investigate a process of electronic voting on motions and nominations properly presented to the Annual General Meetings. This process to be founded upon that used for the 2017 ballot but with greater use of professional help. The process, and any constitutional changes required to implement it, to be presented to the 2019 AGM with a view to full implementation at the 2020 AGM.?
Will Burns took this on and tabled a report to last October's council meeting where it was deferred without discussion. Hopefully we will hear some more about it at the next council meeting in a few weeks time. In any case I expect there will be a further push to ensure this is acted upon at the BCA AGM in June.
