Ballot Results

[Badlad]

Ari - going back to the chart you posted on reply40.  It's very good to see this level of transparency.  Maybe it shows that if one proposal was put forward it would have won, maybe it doesn't, but it does show a lot of cavers supported the proposal to change.  That alone, as others have said, needs to be taken into account.

The other chart of when members voted seems to only total around a hundred votes.  What does this relate to?  Can we extrapolate this to show the full 600 votes?

 

[MarkS]

The other chart of when members voted seems to only total around a hundred votes.  What does this relate to?  Can we extrapolate this to show the full 600 votes?

I assumed it was probably a percentage.

 

[mikem]

Actually it shows majority didn't support the change, as they abstained.

My guess is also that it actually shows percentage of votes, but isn't made clear on graph.

 

[Badlad]

Ah, OK percentage that makes sense.

82% voted for some change to this section of the constitution, whilst only 16% voted against any change.

People abstain for many reasons so it is not possible to second guess.  They may not care, may not like the offering, abstaining shows no preference either way or to any.  The vote in 2020 showed a huge majority for changing it - how and what to seems to be the issue.

 

[NewStuff]

Actually it shows majority didn't support the change, as they abstained.

It doesn't matter how much you spin it, you';re still wrong.

 

[Pitlamp]

Thought I had it in the bag  :-[ No in all seriousness thanks to all those who voted for me, 46% of the vote isn't too shabby.

While I'm sad to have lost, a little embarrassed and disappointed, I'm surprised at how much I had overestimated my support. That probably reflects how divided caving is at the moment, kind of appropriate to be stuck in an echo chamber I guess. I've got a fair amount to reflect on and some time away from council can only be good for my sanity. Good luck to the new (old?) team and I hope they find the stability promised.

Here's to being the first proper loser in BCA history 

Two things I disagree with above:

1. Why "embarrassed"? You were prepared to put the time in to achieve what you thought was best for us cavers. I didn't vote for you but did consider it. That was only because your vision was (slightly) at variance with my own and Russell's vision appealed to me more. I'd still have given you my support if you had have won; there was much I did agree with. I'm very grateful that people like you are willing to stand in the first place. Don't feel embarrassed; you should come out of this with your head held high and your self respect very much intact.

2. British caving is most definitely not "divided" though. I go caving with a large number of other fellow cavers from multiple clubs. We just get on with the caving, seldom with any significant disagreement. A tiny proportion of British cavers may strongly disagree with each other about the administratiion of caving; caving itself is doing just fine.

But . . . you have my utmost respect and gratitude for what you tried to achieve, even if I've found a couple of things to disagree with you on (hopefully in an entirely friendly way!). 

 

[mikem]

Actually it shows majority didn't support the change, as they abstained.

It doesn't matter how much you spin it, you';re still wrong.

I'm not spinning anything - not enough people cared or agreed with the proposal for it to pass.

 

[Jenny P]

IMHO the whole of section 10, not just 10.1, isn't entirely sensible and could do with re-writing completely so that it is more logical.  At present this section mixes various issues and isn't clear.  The requirement to re-write 10.1 was an instruction from the previous year and the group attempting to do this were unable to come up with an option which was acceptable to the majority of BCA members - which is why 3 alternatives were offered: in an attempt to find out what cavers' views were.

If section 10 were to be re-written I would suggest that it needs considerable consultation with all parties involved to come up with something which is likely to be acceptable to the majority of BCA members.  Only once this has been achieved is it worth attempting to make a formal proposal to amend the BCA Constitution.

 

[nearlywhite]

Thanks John

British caving is most definitely not "divided" though. I go caving with a large number of other fellow cavers from multiple clubs.

I think people are misunderstanding the division comment; I think people assume I'm talking about a north south divide, I was actually commenting on what might be lazily called an age divide. The comments I had during the run up were 'Russell who?' and 'I can't see the other guy winning'. I think that's because the increasingly organised 'younger' scene assumes that it is the only scene and perhaps I got caught up in that. I've also heard 'no one young goes caving anymore' and I thought I had a good grasp of both scenes. That's the cause for the embarrassment, finding out I was in my own echo chamber and it's an opportunity for growth and reflection - just one in front of the whole community  :-[

Caving might be doing just fine now but it's treading water in a lot of places and in 20 years time I'm not confident that all of the huts, the library, even this forum will still be around. That's because we're not very good at integrating the next generation into our institutions - I can't count the number of times I was told that I wouldn't be an effective BCA Officer because I wasn't retired. Always ask a busy person to get something done and all that.

We've seen in the recent rescue just how strong the community is, and the BCA is just an opportunity to strengthen it. I believe the community at large will fix the problems with or without the national organisation but I don't think continuing to fight an election you've won in the CSCC newsletter is a great start.

 

[PeteHall]

I don't think continuing to fight an election you've won in the CSCC newsletter is a great start.

To be clear on this point, Linda, as CSCC BCA rep, asked whether Russell would like to provide a statement for the CSCC newsletter; Russell did not approach the CSCC and ask for a statement to be published. Given the relatively short timescale required for his response, it seems Russell re-stated what he'd posted on here, however the original context is obviously missing in the newsletter. Perhaps as editor, I could have helped with the context, but I didn't feel it was my place to go qualifying a statement made by someone else.

 

[Ian Ball]

Isn't that the role of an editor?

 

[badger]

I think Jenny has summed up section 10 of the constitution very well. I suppose it is up to council now on how we proceed as we still have the instruction from the 2020 AGM.
As for Russell/Rostam as chair I was happy to either to have been chair, both having slightly different qualities, however the vision was very similar.
Integration, this is a very difficult area to tackle and sort, I am very involved with YP caving, and nothing makes me happy to see some of them go onto to bigger things, as a minority sport and with so much pressure on YP these days it is not hard to see what comes second.
No coming from a caving region there was a period of time when caving did not figure in my life, job & family took centre stage. And this will take centre stage for most, its just the reality of life for many.
How do we change this, How can we help,? and move forward.

 

[Russell Myers]

Thanks John

British caving is most definitely not "divided" though. I go caving with a large number of other fellow cavers from multiple clubs.

I think people are misunderstanding the division comment; I think people assume I'm talking about a north south divide, I was actually commenting on what might be lazily called an age divide. The comments I had during the run up were 'Russell who?' and 'I can't see the other guy winning'. I think that's because the increasingly organised 'younger' scene assumes that it is the only scene and perhaps I got caught up in that. I've also heard 'no one young goes caving anymore' and I thought I had a good grasp of both scenes. That's the cause for the embarrassment, finding out I was in my own echo chamber and it's an opportunity for growth and reflection - just one in front of the whole community  :-[

Caving might be doing just fine now but it's treading water in a lot of places and in 20 years time I'm not confident that all of the huts, the library, even this forum will still be around. That's because we're not very good at integrating the next generation into our institutions - I can't count the number of times I was told that I wouldn't be an effective BCA Officer because I wasn't retired. Always ask a busy person to get something done and all that.

We've seen in the recent rescue just how strong the community is, and the BCA is just an opportunity to strengthen it. I believe the community at large will fix the problems with or without the national organisation but I don't think continuing to fight an election you've won in the CSCC newsletter is a great start.

My original post https://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=28757.msg352468#msg352468 was an attempt to quickly respond to this "division" nonsense. It seemed pertinent at the time to copy it for the request to go out with the CSCC Newsletter as it was current and reflected that moment in time to get the message across to a wider audience. I did actually amend it slightly to put some context to my statement i.e. it resulted from a post elsewhere (UKC). Indeed, it forms the core of my report to BCA Council scheduled for 7th December; same message; we are not divided however you wish to dress that up. The "election fight" was over and done with on Monday 1st November, water under the bridge, dead and buried, history; it never occurred to me it was still going on.
"Rostam who?" was a frequent question I had to answer too; it looks like we both need to improve our image!

 

[nearlywhite]

Wow

 

[2xw]

"Rostam who?" was a frequent question I had to answer too; it looks like we both need to improve our image!

I don't know if you're doing this on purpose but this sort of playground insult is beginning to look quite catty when accompanied by the "sore winner" speech back in the thread.

I dunno why Pitlamp necro'd this thread after it was dead for a month but maybe you lot could pack it in with the sly comments and bitching?

Doesn't make you look good and doesn't do you any good - trust me.

 

[Pitlamp]

I dunno why Pitlamp necro'd this thread after it was dead for a month but maybe you lot could pack it in with the sly comments and bitching?

Because I only just read what nearlywhite had posted and I felt it would benefit from being given a different perspective. From the "likes" it seems quite a few folk were in agreement.

Isn't that what forums are for?

 

[Shapatti]

"Rostam who?" was a frequent question I had to answer too; it looks like we both need to improve our image!

I don't know if you're doing this on purpose but this sort of playground insult is beginning to look quite catty when accompanied by the "sore winner" speech back in the thread.

I dunno why Pitlamp necro'd this thread after it was dead for a month but maybe you lot could pack it in with the sly comments and bitching?

Doesn't make you look good and doesn't do you any good - trust me.

I don't think that Russell's comment was really intended to come across that way, at least it didn't to me.

I can personally say that both statements along the lines of '... who?' were both asked of me multiple times, when people who were not aware of the ongoing politics and changes at the AGM asked about the ballot.
Both questions were asked of me from differing demographics, which is attributed to the circles that the two candidates move in.

Also calling one particular person out for that sort of comment, when the other person also made the same comment only a few posts before doesn't really ring fair to me...
Especially since 1 person saying it doesn't sound any less of an insult than the first comment, to me it just highlights the point that outside of the echo chamber of BCA politics, both candidates for the role were not that well known (if at all) outside of their particular groups as it were.

 

[mikem]

I know it feels like a long time in politics, but it's only two & a half weeks ago...

 

[Ian Ball]

5/312 of the term

 

[Alex]

Quote from: nearlywhite on November 03, 2021, 01:26:44 pm
with 53% of the vote
I don't think I've heard it mentioned here, but if 619 ballots were returned, does that mean that only about 1/10th of BCA's membership actually engaged with the ballot for what ever reasons.
(Assuming BCA is still sitting around the 6k mark on members... I don't know if there is somewhere this info is publicly available?)
Taking those rough figures does that actually give the incoming Chair about 1/20th support of the membership of BCA?

I really struggle to see why in this day and age, why the vote engagement of BCA is actually that low, especially when the average turnout for General Elections is 67.3%.
(I know there is more incentive to vote for national government than the BCA but still...)

Probably, a lot like me did not get any ballot papers, was it by post or by e-mail I guess they could have been in my e-mail junk? But how many people actually got their papers I wonder, was request read receipt turned on? I tend to not look at the political bitching much anymore on this forum, so I also have no idea what the ballot was about anyway.