Application for BCA Secretary

[BradW]

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.

Well said, Mike. It's clear that there is some animosity around out there, but forcing what one faction thinks is the best on other factions won't remove the acrimony. Compromise is the ONLY way to resolve divisive issues, especially in a small community.

 

[Cavematt]

Mike; I wouldn?t describe the above as ?political claptrap?? I?d say it is well mannered discussion on various thoughts for how the BCA should interact democratically with its 6000+ members. Everyone is going to have a different view on the best way to achieve this. I have presented one idea/plan, which of course will not please everyone, and I'm enjoying reading all the other ideas being put forward.

I don?t think there is anything above to present cavers as a laughing stock.

Moreover, this forum topic has been read >6500 times! Surely a good thing for raising awareness of and interest in our national body.

Of course, the price of beer is also a very important issue? I will be conducting some field studies on that this weekend around the Yorkshire Dales

 

[Bob Mehew]

Why do cavers need BCA?  Primarily to provide a unified front to others (like the government) when changes are being mooted which could impact on all cavers.  One simple positive example was the Work at Height regs which if representation had not been made, would have left cavers outside of the exemption from using double ropes.  I will concede that there has been a failure over CRoW, both back in the late 1990s and then in the past few years when no compromise was reached between the pro and anti groups.  (Just like BREXIT; which incidentally is why nothing is being progressed in respect of CRoW on the political front.)

In addition BCA should have been doing things which should sit above regional level.  Whilst the Minimal Impact Caving Guidelines was one piece of good work, other areas such as digging (go look at the DCA & CNCC advice and come back with similarities, differences and omissions), safeguarding of vulnerable persons (good luck Chris), advice on pieces of law and fixed aids have failed to come to fruition for one reason or another. 

Coming back to a voting system.  I accept TheBitterEnd's description could be the basis of a system; but what I would like is some good reassurances that a club could not get hold of all of its members votes and vote without each individual member's say so.     

 

[Jenny P]

  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...)

Sorry, I'd forgotten that one.

There is one point which may be relevant to the proxy discussion:
If BCA succeeds in getting electronic voting for all its individual members, whether they be CIMs or DIMs, does this not avoid the need for proxy voting?

If we aim to achieve this individual member electronic voting a.s.a.p. we can stop worrying about proxy voting, which has its pros and cons but could be quite difficult to implement.  As I recall, during the discussion Andy Eavis commented that it had caused problems at the UIS, which was why some of us were doubtful about it.

Another point:
If BCA has electronic voting for all its individual members, would this mean that there would be no need for club votes?

 

[andys]

There is one point which may be relevant to the proxy discussion:
If BCA succeeds in getting electronic voting for all its individual members, whether they be CIMs or DIMs, does this not avoid the need for proxy voting?

The reason I originally proposed proxy voting was to address two issues - first, that someone who couln't vote themselves (ie abroad, sick, etc etc) could pass their vote to someone who they knew who shared their views and would be able to vote; second, that someone who thinks "I don't know enough about this or have time to find out" could pass their vote to someone who they felt was more knowledgeable. The idea is to make it possible for everyone to have a say. Note that I didn't suggest that your proxy had to be your club rep - it could be anybody. But if you know your club has a rep who shares your views - or if you simply want your vote to mirror your club's majority view irrespective of what you personally may think - then they might make a good proxy.

As I recall, during the discussion Andy Eavis commented that it had caused problems at the UIS, which was why some of us were doubtful about it.

It depends on how it is implemented and the use of electronic voting allows the necessary controls to be built into the system anyway. Proxy voting on paper can be fraught with issues since such controls are hard to implement using manual processes.

If BCA has electronic voting for all its individual members, would this mean that there would be no need for club votes?

I still take the view that for maximum inclusion it should be people who have votes, not organisations which have no free will of their own. Since all of any club's/group's members each has their own vote, and an straightforward method for casting it, then - yes - there is no need for club votes. And no need for a two house system.

 

[kat]

Certainly no aminosity intended here.  As Matt says, purely trying to have a well mannered and meaningful discussion.  I could simply save it for a rant over a bottle of red wine instead. 

Anyway still curious to understand what is seen as unfair and undemocratic about the current system.  Clubs are able to vote about anything that may fundamentally affect the operation of a club, particularly given the current BCA structure in that most members are so via virtue of being in a club rather than directly.  This should represent the view of the majority of the members (or invariably the committee which has been democratically elected to represent the club, but not the view of all the members).  This system potentially gives the smaller clubs who may be affected by any suggested changes a bigger voice than they otherwise would have. 

All individuals also have the right to their own vote in the 2nd House, so completely democratic.   

The 2 house system effectively provides a mechanism of balance and check of the wishes of all members and member organisations.
If there is only one possible instance in the last few years where the 2 Houses have disagreed then this would indicate a system that is actually working, not a broken system.

Would agree that proxy voting could present problems and the need for it would be alleviated by on-line voting (other than maybe for who don't have access on-line?). 

Anyway my main point really with all this is the combining of the on-line voting and club / group vote issues into a single issue.  A move to on-line voting is primarily a technical procedural issue aimed at enabling a wider take up of existing voting rights (albeit there being implications in how AGMs operate etc for this to work, i.e. there cannot be any potentially substantive amendments to any motions tabled at the AGM after on-line voting has occurred etc etc). Appreciate there are arguements put forward about people making the effort to go to meetings may be more engaged etc.   

However, a removal of the Club / Group vote and 2 House system is a fundamental change to the existing voting structure.  Unless there is evidence that it is technically much more difficult to accommodate the existing voting structure within an on-line system I don?t see why the 2 issues should not be considered separately.  Otherwise the desire to move to an on-line voting system may result in changes to the voting structure with no real thought as to why or the pros and cons. 

 

[Jenny P]

The 2 house system effectively provides a mechanism of balance and check of the wishes of all members and member organisations.
If there is only one possible instance in the last few years where the 2 Houses have disagreed then this would indicate a system that is actually working, not a broken system.

Would agree that proxy voting could present problems and the need for it would be alleviated by on-line voting (other than maybe for who don't have access on-line?). 

Anyway my main point really with all this is the combining of the on-line voting and club / group vote issues into a single issue.  A move to on-line voting is primarily a technical procedural issue aimed at enabling a wider take up of existing voting rights (albeit there being implications in how AGMs operate etc for this to work, i.e. there cannot be any potentially substantive amendments to any motions tabled at the AGM after on-line voting has occurred etc etc). Appreciate there are arguements put forward about people making the effort to go to meetings may be more engaged etc.   

However, a removal of the Club / Group vote and 2 House system is a fundamental change to the existing voting structure.  Unless there is evidence that it is technically much more difficult to accommodate the existing voting structure within an on-line system I don?t see why the 2 issues should not be considered separately.  Otherwise the desire to move to an on-line voting system may result in changes to the voting structure with no real thought as to why or the pros and cons.

A fair point.

Does this then also imply that Regional Councils (and other more specialist constituent bodies), should also continue to have a vote in the "House" of clubs/groups?

I'm wondering whether both clubs (as bodies with specific interests), and other constituent bodies, such as regional councils (also with specific interests), ought to continue to have a vote in a separate "house" from individuals?

As you say:  "If there is only one possible instance in the last few years where the 2 Houses have disagreed then this would indicate a system that is actually working, not a broken system."

 

[alastairgott]

I will interject, if I may, that I was at the meeting where the 2 houses disagreed based on the strength of some of the arguments being put forward. I believe it was the Derbyshire meeting where Crow was voted in.

This meeting had quite a high turnout (highest? don't know). but to argue that the system is working based on the some previous data is not correct. But for, the high turnout of the club and individual votes in this particular year I'm sure there would be more disagreement in the houses.

Andys, thanks for originally proposing the idea of Proxy voting (I was in favour, oops sorry shouldn't give my vote away!), but I think we need to push for Electronic voting.

By skipping the idea of Proxy voting we are not precluding anyone from attending the meeting. If they cannot work a computer and cannot get to either 1) a caving area and arrange to meet a few other cavers so they can vote or 2) the meeting venue.

Then i'm afraid in my very narrow mind these people have no impact on caving democracy for the following reason...

ie. if when we set up electronic voting (when not if...) they can no longer turn up to meetings then vis-?-vis they would not have had access to voting.

 

[Jenny P]

Worth noting that BCA relies on the clubs to send in lists of their CIM members and supply their email addresses, with the permission of their members.  Some clubs do not supply lists of their members' emails, though they do have them for their own use.

So the provision of electronic voting for individual members relies on the clubs to provide the information to enable this to happen.  I appreciate that some clubs may be unsure of their situation re. data protection but I believe it is correct that, if the club tells its members that it intends to provide this information to BCA so that the members are able to take part in voting, then this is OK provided the member approves.  I assume also that, if an individual member asks the club NOT to provide the information to BCA for this purpose, then the club will not do so.  In which case the individual has willingly disenfranchised himself and there is no obligation on BCA to attempt to send him a postal vote.

I'd also assume that, if an individual does not have a useable email address for any reason and notified his club/BCA of this, then BCA could supply him with a postal vote.

I think Bob Mehew has posted elsewhere in this thread on the difficulties of providing the postal votes for all BCA individual members re. the CRoW proposal - it was done but it cost a lot and took an immense amount of effort.  If we are able to set up reliable electronic voting it would make life much simpler all round and allow us to be far more democratic.

If electronic voting were to be available for all, then the question of someone requiring a proxy vote would be much diminished - though it could be made available for special cases.  Would this not be a different scenario from masses of people voting by proxy because there was no other choice than to attend the meeting?

Note that I don't purport to have all the answers but I'm speculating on possible scenarios to see what other people think and to find out whether there are other quirks or glitches which might catch us out.

I can't remember who it was who said something on the lines of democracy being the worst form of government, until you looked at all the other scenarios ... 

 

[Bob Mehew]

I think the CRoW ballot of 2014 cost around ?6,000 because we used a certain provider to do all the work (send out ballot paper by post with post paid for return envelope and then count the returns).  The 2017 constitutional ballot cost around ?2000 because we used email to send out the ballot paper information to some 4000 plus members and post to the rest plus we got someone to count the returns (members paid to post their vote back if they did not use an email response). 

If we go to an electronic ballot then the cost reduces to around ?3000 (postage has gone up since 2017) to post out information to those who email addresses we don't have.  We could insist on every one providing an email address.  Previously (as I can't speak for the current officers) we did not trust clubs to onward transmit a ballot paper for fear the club might use it themselves.  (There was an experience of this back in the mid 90s when a poll was conducted.)  We could send clubs sealed envelopes to pass on to members who have not provided email addresses so letting the club bear the cost of onward transmitting the form.  (Though I suspect this might not be a popular idea amongst club treasurers.)  That would reduce costs to probably well under ?1000.

If every one has to use an electronic form to vote, then that removes a burden of manually counting.  If we allow people to alternatively return their vote by post, then that requires we declare a couple of people as tellers to do the count of the postal returns and add them to the votes recorded electronically.  That would take the best part of a day for some hundreds of returns. (My estimate it would take 1 minute to open the envelope, cross check the name & unique number and record the vote(s) with one person doing the task and the other checking for accuracy.)

I have to ask if ?3000 / ?1000 a year is a reasonable spend to improve voting performance? 

I also think we would have to remove the ability to put amendments during the AGM which would constrain flexibility.  And I suggest we would need a process where by a record of the AGM debate was available to all prior to the ballot opening.  It would add a couple of months to the process, so from proposing a motion for debate in April, my guess is that the result would be known by October - 6 months.  Not very responsive.

But we could also use the electronic system to poll members who have email addresses and vote electronically to get a view on a topic of concern to Council.  That would at least provide for a better feed back than almost non existent system we currently have.  And perhaps do away with the need to have many, if any, motions at AGMs and ballots.  If we get a strong enough response from a poll, then perhaps Council can resolve differences and obtain agreement for notionally contentious issues.  Polling could be done well within 3 months once the motion is defined and the pros and cons written down.  Would that be a better initial step?

 

[Badlad]

If there is a cost implication in seeking a higher level of engagement with the membership then so be it.  BCA has run a surplus of up to ?20,000 per year for most of the last decade.  This amounts to an overall surplus around ?240,000 sitting in low interest accounts. 

The ?3,000 Bob suggests a ballot might run to is very small spending compared to the 100+K BCA take in each year from membership subscriptions.  The annual insurance costs is around 35-40K BTW, so BCA does have around 65K to spend each year on other matters.

I understand electronic voting of the membership could be done at minimal cost.  I suspect it is a condition of membership that a name and address of each member is supplied.  Why that can't include supplying an email address in this day and age is beyond me.  This really is something that requires much greater attention than it receives and I expect is much less difficult to put in place than it is made out to be.

 

[NewStuff]

I expect is much less difficult to put in place than it is made out to be.

It is. Just make it a condition that members supply an email address.  these are free, anyone can help someone without the know-how (however rare that may be these days), and access to email is sitting in most people's pockets right now.

Making it a condition of membership, and having them confirm this via email, is trivial in terms of cost, and satisfies the GDPA requirement for informed consent. No doubt the BCA "webmaster" can tell you how trivial this is. If they say otherwise, I would start asking some pointed questions.

 

[2xw]

It's very trivial, especially with a stricter membership database.

It wouldn't take months before a ballot either. A video or audio file of the AGM could be released immediately or even livestreamed for those concerned.

All pretty trivial.

 

[Vulcan]

I also think we would have to remove the ability to put amendments during the AGM which would constrain flexibility.

As far as i am aware the BCA in the only organisation I know of that sets the exact motion/significantly changes proposed motions at the AGM itself. All the others set a motion, publish it in advance with supporting documentation/evidence/justification (thus allowing for online/proxy voting). Those who wish to be at the AGM in person discuss the motion/evidence/justification before voting on it.

All of other organisation manage fine with predetermined motions so why can't the BCA? Arguably if an motion needs amending at the AGM more time should have been spent drafting and discussing it with appropriate people in the first place before submitting it. 

 

[andrewmcleod]

All of other organisation manage fine with predetermined motions so why can't the BCA? Arguably if an motion needs amending at the AGM more time should have been spent drafting and discussing it with appropriate people in the first place before submitting it.

The BCA is at an awkward size intermediate between a club (where you can get away with organising the important stuff in a small committee then arguing about it at the AGM) and a large organized body like the BMC (where you have more people interested to debate stuff and tie everything up at the AGM).

There are clearly huge sweeping changes that could be made to improve the BCA and those _are_ the sort of thing the vision group are looking at, but these simple changes are there to massively improve outreach and democracy with the organisation we have, not the one we wished we had.

Which I guess makes Matt Batman?

 

[kay]

It is. Just make it a condition that members supply an email address.  these are free, anyone can help someone without the know-how (however rare that may be these days), and access to email is sitting in most people's pockets right now.

Not entirely true. It's true that about 90% of the population has a smartphone. However, the people who don't have email on a computer at home are the same people who either don't have a smart phone or don't use it for anything other than calls, texts and photos.

Still, as Jenny says, it's not an insurmountable problem.

 

[langcliffe]

Not entirely true. It's true that about 90% of the population has a smartphone. However, the people who don't have email on a computer at home are the same people who either don't have a smart phone or don't use it for anything other than calls, texts and photos.

Again, not entirely true. I have had an email address since the early 1990s (Compuserve in those days!), but I have never had a smartphone, nor have I felt the slightest need for one.

I do need to ensure that my websites are compatible with them, but I can do that using the emulators offered by the browser development modes.

 

[Badlad]

Email addresses are simple to use and widely available for all - even cavers.  It is harder and harder to function in society without one or without access to the web in some way.  The traditional hard up caver will naturally move towards the internet for much cheaper deals on utility bills etc.  I guess there must be a few genuine cases where through location or learning issues cavers may not be able to access the world by email.  However, most of the reasons I have heard through BCA council for why only two thirds of the membership are prepared to give BCA their email address is just that they choose not to - and this is mostly due to the club/CIM membership structure as I understand it. 

Having to supply an email address to an organisation that you want to be a part of should not be too hard to bare and making it a condition of membership is really not that draconian.  Or at least, making it something you have to opt out from in the knowledge that you will not get a vote or receive relevant information through a newsletter etc, is quite acceptable in this day.  Turning the issue upside down as it is, it places a disproportionate and unnecessary drain on the financial and human resources of BCA that is very hard to justify.

 

[Jenny P]

It is the responsibility of the Club to supply details of its CIM members, so it's the Club who will have to ensure that their members are prepared to have their email passed on to BCA.  This has always been the stumbling block since some clubs, for whatever reasons, refuse to do this.

There is also a good deal to be said for Vulcan's point:
As far as i am aware the BCA in the only organisation I know of that sets the exact motion/significantly changes proposed motions at the AGM itself. All the others set a motion, publish it in advance with supporting documentation/evidence/justification (thus allowing for online/proxy voting). Those who wish to be at the AGM in person discuss the motion/evidence/justification before voting on it.

All of other organisation manage fine with predetermined motions so why can't the BCA? Arguably if an motion needs amending at the AGM more time should have been spent drafting and discussing it with appropriate people in the first place before submitting it. 

There is also Langcliffe's point about so many people now using smartphones to access the internet, as opposed to PCs, laptops, or even tablets.  Trying to deal with lengthy constitutional amendments and voting on a smartphone adds another layer of complications.

So if we want individual members to vote on proposals, we need to have them much better organised and agreed in advance of the AGM so that the actual process of voting is simplified.

I don't pretend to know the answer but it does need a considerable amount of thinking about it to get this right.

 

[2xw]

I've been thinking about it for two years, my report to this council will be the same as my prior reports and could be summarised:

Electronic voting would be fine for the BCA and could be either done in house or by an outside organisation for a cost of around ?800-?1000

There are lots of way a voting process could be better e.g no amendments at the AGM etc but this is immaterial to the means of voting and could be instituted afterwards.