Cavematt
Well-known member
I'm not saying I disagree that 14 days is enough in most situations. I have no real objections to 14 days in concept.
My observation is that the BCA's constitution says 'approximately 30 days' and a decision seems to have been made to ignore this for no good reason (unless you accept 14 days is approximately 30 days, which I think is a hard sell).
Just saying 'we're looking to change that' does not instantly mean you don't still have to do it!
I have watched one caving organisation nearly fail completely after taking a too relaxed attitude to its constitution several years ago, and separately, I have seen (as Badlad suggests) far more tenuous constitutional deviations than this used in BCA to attempt to overturn the outcomes of an AGM.
It therefore just seems strange to take this course of action for the sake of two more weeks to tick the necessary boxes.
The BCA is moving in very much the right direction at the moment, with new IT systems to help facilitate membership and communication on the horizon, enthusiastic people getting involved, and a potentially game-changing access court case ongoing. Many of the earlier obstacles to these things happening have now been removed. I really hope those driving these changes have a much easier ride than I did. Although the situation we were in a few years ago seems to have calmed down now thanks to departure of several people (myself included), it will only take a few people to potentially derail progress, and their work is made much simpler when BCA does not follow its own rulebook without good reason.
Does 14 days versus 30 days really matter? Probably not. It is more the principle of the situation that is important here.
Just consider this a word of caution rather than a moan... I will be voting on day one
My observation is that the BCA's constitution says 'approximately 30 days' and a decision seems to have been made to ignore this for no good reason (unless you accept 14 days is approximately 30 days, which I think is a hard sell).
Just saying 'we're looking to change that' does not instantly mean you don't still have to do it!
I have watched one caving organisation nearly fail completely after taking a too relaxed attitude to its constitution several years ago, and separately, I have seen (as Badlad suggests) far more tenuous constitutional deviations than this used in BCA to attempt to overturn the outcomes of an AGM.
It therefore just seems strange to take this course of action for the sake of two more weeks to tick the necessary boxes.
The BCA is moving in very much the right direction at the moment, with new IT systems to help facilitate membership and communication on the horizon, enthusiastic people getting involved, and a potentially game-changing access court case ongoing. Many of the earlier obstacles to these things happening have now been removed. I really hope those driving these changes have a much easier ride than I did. Although the situation we were in a few years ago seems to have calmed down now thanks to departure of several people (myself included), it will only take a few people to potentially derail progress, and their work is made much simpler when BCA does not follow its own rulebook without good reason.
Does 14 days versus 30 days really matter? Probably not. It is more the principle of the situation that is important here.
Just consider this a word of caution rather than a moan... I will be voting on day one
