Application for BCA Secretary

[andys]

My take on the group vote thing is simple - and should be even more simple to implement in an environment where electronic voting is enabled. Its premise is that of "one person, one vote" - which I suspect we all think is "a good thing" - but with the ability to appoint a proxy.

If "Fred" appoints "Louise" as his proxy, then "Fred" does not get a vote but "Louise" get two. If "George" also makes "Louise" his proxy then, likewise, "George" loses his vote but "Louise" goes up to three votes. It doesn't matter if "Fred" or "George" (or "Louise" come to that) are CIMs or DIMs, the same rules apply.

Replace "Louise" in the above with "My club rep" and you'll see that club reps will get the group vote for all who cannot, or don't wish to, vote in person. Likewise, a DIM (who possibly doesn't have a club rep) can appoint a stand in in those circumstance where it is needed.

For electronic voting, it follows that each member has to have a "secure account" from which to place their vote: add to this the ability to - at any time - set or remove a proxy, and bingo - you have a mix of individual and group voting without breaking the principle. No need for "two houses", no need for anyone to be left out or feel disenfranchised, no opportunity for anyone/any group to be accused of blocking tactics. It just means that some electronics will be needed at any meeting which may need to vote on something - though in an ideal world and full inclusivity, all voting like this should have been done in advance of the meeting anyway.

Simples.

 

[2xw]

Andy's suggestion above would get rid of one of the prime reasons for getting rid of the house system, which is that 5 cavers in a club have the same voice as 300.

Still, if members can appoint a proxy via their online login, they might as well just vote there instead.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Sorry andys but I don't think it is that simple.  I am a DIM plus a member of two clubs who hold insurance.  There are a fair number of CIMs who like me, hold duplicate club membership.  (And I know that a moderate number were members of more than just 2 clubs, 6 springs to mind as the highest.)  I wish to retain my individual vote.  Whilst clubs have a vote, I am content to let my clubs decide on their individual vote.  (Which often is opposed to my view - but that is notionally the majority decision of the club.)  So how does one divide up a vote between 2, 3 or more clubs?

kat is right, there are roughly 500 DIMs and 6000 CIMs (from memory).  And much to my disappointment, BCA has failed since 2004 to make a sufficient mark to get many cavers to feel they are a member of BCA as well as their clubs. 

 

[kat]

Andys - these things are often never as simple as they first appear.

Worth bearing in mind too that not only do the Clubs administer their member's membership of the BCA (and according to  the BCA website take responsibility for communicating all of BCA's correspondence to their CIM members on our behalf they also pay Club membership rates.  Should the Club as an entity not then have a right to a vote on an aspects that may affect this?

Plus if a Club doesn't take out the liability insurance option (hadn't even realised this was an option until I looked at the website now) does that mean those Club members are not members of the BCA and hence neither them or the Club would have a vote if you removed the Group vote option?

Issues regarding Club size are possibly valid points - however to an extent this is off-set by the fact the individual CIMs of those clubs each have a vote.  Hence this serves to provide a balance - which is one of the key benefits of such a 2 House system.

There has been mention about 'blocking tactics '.  I've no idea if this is based on fear or actuality.  But if all the Clubs and other bodies were to try to 'block' a particular motion surely this implies that those bodies, as important entities within the caving world, have concerns about something that affects them? 

Interesting point on the actual functionality of on-line voting and an AGM.  When would the vote occur?  How would you enable any discussion / debate / amendment on a topic?  Okay for a single yes / no type decision on a single point but for all decisions to be made at an AGM?  If no discussion can occur at an AGM, then on what forum is any debate held that is open and transparent and appropriately chaired? Just curious as to how this would actually work in practice.
 

 

[Bob Mehew]

Worth bearing in mind too that not only do the Clubs administer their member's membership of the BCA (and according to  the BCA website take responsibility for communicating all of BCA's correspondence to their CIM members on our behalf they also pay Club membership rates.  Should the Club as an entity not then have a right to a vote on an aspects that may affect this?

When we set up BCA we were at pains to reduce costs, so created the CIM / DIM concept, where a DIM paid more because they would get material direct from BCA (such as a magazine we produced for a couple of issues before it fell apart).  A CIM paid less in part because the major costs of communication were already borne by clubs so BCA could piggy back on that.  (The sole exception was ballot papers - bluntly we were afraid that some clubs would fill them in on behalf of the individuals and return them.)  The club paid a separate fee as they were a separate 'person' because it was accepted that the club as a whole could have views different from a minority of its membership.

Plus if a Club doesn't take out the liability insurance option (hadn't even realised this was an option until I looked at the website now) does that mean those Club members are not members of the BCA and hence neither them or the Club would have a vote if you removed the Group vote option?

I don't think it was the intention of to put it another way 'to do away with club membership' (as opposed to a club vote), rather the vote the club had would be counted along side the vote of an individual.  As I said, it took some argument that clubs and individuals should have a vote and the agreement was that the voice of clubs would not be 'drowned out' by all the individuals.  Hence separate houses. 

 

[Madness]

Andys' idea seems simple and sensible. Club members can each decide whether to vote themselves or whether to allow their club to vote for them. Essentially, even if you're in a club you're still an individual when voting unless you give your proxy vote to the club or someone else. If a club wants it's members to vote a certain way then they would need to put a strong case to their membership to convince them which way to vote. I can't see any democratically run club arguing that this is unfair. Why should anyone be against what is essentially a fairer voting system.

Obviously voting like this would be for AGM matters etc and not for day to day running type matters.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Andys' idea seems simple and sensible. Club members can each decide whether to vote themselves or whether to allow their club to vote for them.

But you miss the point that I am a member of 2 clubs.  Are you suggesting I could give both my clubs the right to vote on my behalf?  If so that means I get two votes.  (Or in some cases 6 votes.)  That does not seem sensible or democratic.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

But you miss the point that I am a member of 2 clubs.  Are you suggesting I could give both my clubs the right to vote on my behalf?  If so that means I get two votes.  (Or in some cases 6 votes.)  That does not seem sensible or democratic.

But I bet you only pay your ?17 once so you get one membership and one vote which you can only proxy to one club.

That said, I am finding hard to see why clubs get a vote at all. A club is just a collection of members; a club per-se  isn?t an entity that is separate from its members. If the committee running a club can persuade its members to proxy their vote then the club vote has some legitimacy.

 

[Bob Mehew]

But I bet you only pay your ?17 once so you get one membership and one vote which you can only proxy to one club.

Yes I only pay one fee for which I get one individual membership.  But your description of the proposed system then requires the voting software to be able to check that I can dedicate my vote to a specific club, as well as check that I have not voted before.  I am not into computer software but I suggests this makes the software far from simple plus require a data base of members names and their clubs to be linked to it.

 

[Jenny P]

It's quite possible for anyone to belong to more than one club which, according to the majority of their members, hold diametrically opposed views on various topics.  Bob's point about multiple memberships is valid but, since the clubs vote in one "house" and the individuals vote in a separate "house", the idea was that this would even it out.

Note that there is no differential voting for clubs in BCA based on the size of a club.  (DCA once had in its constitution: individual has 1 vote; club of up to 10 members has 2 votes; club of 11-30 members has 3 votes; club of over 30 members had 4 votes.  We came unstuck on this when 3 individuals turned up at a meeting, each claiming to be the authorised voter for 3 large clubs, thus swinging 9 votes between them and outvoting everyone else!  After this DCA changed its constitution to the 2-house system, similar to BCA's.) 

I suspect it is more likely that the larger clubs will be the ones with more duplicated memberships so the 2-house system was designed as an attempt to get over this problem.

What we really need to concentrate on is getting more individuals sufficiently interested in BCA to want to support it as a national body and to vote at AGMs.  At present, many BCA Club Individual Members don't give a stuff about BCA and are members only because they need insurance and therefore don't really bother about what their so-called "club rep." does in the way of representing them or speaking for them.  Many clubs never discuss BCA matters at all because their members regard it as a turn-off - so it's that you have to overcome.

In a perfect world we would all consider carefully before casting a vote and would not be swayed by the advertising and gimmickry which prevail in social media.  But hey, it's not a perfect world, so we do the best we can and try to devise voting systems which won't allow people to subvert them.  One might be cynical and say, "Good luck with that!"

 

[Jenny P]

It's quite possible for anyone to belong to more than one club which, according to the majority of their members, hold diametrically opposed views on various topics.  Bob's point about multiple memberships is valid but, since the clubs vote in one "house" and the individuals vote in a separate "house", the idea was that this would even it out.

The point of the 2-house system being that BOTH houses have to have a majority for a proposal to be accepted.  Neither can "out-vote" the other but, theoretically, there could be a stalemate if the two "houses" did not both vote the same way.  I may be wrong but I can't recall any vote in the years since the system was introduced where the two "houses" did not vote in agreement with each other.

 

[andrewmcleod]

  I may be wrong but I can't recall any vote in the years since the system was introduced where the two "houses" did not vote in agreement with each other.

I think proxy voting was passed by individuals and rejected by the clubs (which use proxy voting...)

 

[Madness]

What we really need to concentrate on is getting more individuals sufficiently interested in BCA to want to support it as a national body and to vote at AGMs.  At present, many BCA Club Individual Members don't give a stuff about BCA and are members only because they need insurance and therefore don't really bother about what their so-called "club rep." does in the way of representing them or speaking for them.  Many clubs never discuss BCA matters at all because their members regard it as a turn-off - so it's that you have to overcome.

I thought Matt's proposals we're aimed at doing that - making the BCA more about individuals.

Let's be honest here, the only thing the BCA has to offer most cavers is access to liability insurance. Without that it would probably cease to exist and we'd just have regional associations. The caving world would not fall apart if there was no BCA, and the BCA Council would do well to remember that. People need to stop burying their heads in the sand and realise that the BCA is in crisis and they need to make big changes and quickly.

 

[2xw]

Let's be honest here, the only thing the BCA has to offer most cavers is access to liability insurance.

This demonstrates the one of the primary problems the BCA has is advertising. Because nobody seems to know what it does. There's two caving clubs this year that wouldn't exist without the BCA

Without that it would probably cease to exist and we'd just have regional associations.

The BCA is essentially all the regional associations plus other interested organisations working together. Most of the council members are involved in the regional associations. They're not independent of one another.

The caving world would not fall apart if there was no BCA, and the BCA Council would do well to remember that.

A similar organisation could replace it. We could call it the Association of British Caving. Centralisation and coordination of the resources (that includes volunteer time) of interested organisations is quite efficient.

 

[droid]

Regional associations are just people, and people don't need a 'governing body' to communicate. And given the arcane nature of the BCA, the term 'efficient' doesn't seem appropriate.

Clubs can govern themselves, regional associations can govern themselves. They don't need the bureaucratic melange of the BCA to do that. It's just jobs for the boys in its present form.

Matt's proposed restructuring will help though.

This post was sponsored by JD 'n' Coke and cheese sandwiches.

 

[NewStuff]

It's just jobs for the boys in its present form.

Therein lies the problem. This needs to change.The BCA went from being something that you wanted to be a part of, to something we currently refuse to be associated with. If us bunch of reprobates and ne'e'r-do-well's doesn't want to touch your* organisation with a bargepole, you're* doing it really, really wrong.

*You/You're In the BCA as a whole, sense of the word

 

[badger]

So firstly let me stick up for the old boys and or ladies, I think if anyone was bothered to ask them why they are still there you might find they are the only ones who volunteer and most would gladly step down if a younger person stepped forward. This is slowly happening, there is more young people every year on BCA council.

Andrew I think is also right the proxy voting was, individual members voted for and the clubs voted against.

It is a failing of the BCA that most cavers see it just as a means to insurance, when it does do a whole lot more, and thats a problem for council to solve.

Change, yes BCA does, but change things for the right reasons not just for one section or club cause they dont like something, a change has to make something better for the whole membership , we need to get the young people involved so they can mould the BCA into the future, their future not mine, apparently one of the old fart brigade, but how long has it taken CNCC to change 5 years? this is the reality, its going to take time.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Yes I only pay one fee for which I get one individual membership.  But your description of the proposed system then requires the voting software to be able to check that I can dedicate my vote to a specific club, as well as check that I have not voted before.  I am not into computer software but I suggests this makes the software far from simple plus require a data base of members names and their clubs to be linked to it.

Any voting system, be it paper, electronic or whatever needs some way of checking that a vote is only cast once. When you go to the polling station for local and national elections you need a polling card and your name is checked off on a list. It would be a simple matter to issue each BCA member a polling number* and this is checked when a vote is cast. Clubs could submit a list of polling numbers for which they have proxy when voting.


*a polling number separate from the BCA membership number would help to keep the tinfoil-hat brigade happy that no one is tracking what they are voting for. Also a randomised non-sequential number that changes for each member each year would help to prevent people trying to steal someone else?s vote by guessing the next few likely numbers.

 

[moorebooks]

When you go to the polling station for local and national elections you need a polling card and your name is checked off on a list..

You have it wrong there you do not have to present a polling card at a polling station if you want to vote in Elections. You have to state your name and address, that is marked off on the register of voters. Your word is good enough. Can't see cavers being arsed to vote more than once if they can be bothered at all!

All the political clap trap going on above is getting us no where and makes a laughing stock. No wonder Parliament can't sort out Brexit. When all we want to do is go caving or mine exploring. I suggest you all calm down, lead by example and find simple compromise on the scheme of things it won't affect the price of Beer.

Mike

 

[langcliffe]

You have it wrong there you do not have to present a polling card at a polling station if you want to vote in Elections. You have to state your name and address, that is marked off on the register of voters. Your word is good enough.

Trials were conducted in the May 2018 elections in certain areas (Swindon, Woking, Watford, Gosport and Bromley) whereby electors had to present their polling cards or specified identification documents (depending on the area). See https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/244950/May-2018-voter-identification-pilots-evaluation-report.pdf

These trials are being extended in the 2019 local elections. See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/next-round-of-voter-id-pilots-announced-for-2019