BCA AGM voting is now open

[BCA Membership]

Voting is now open for the proposals from the 2025 BCA AGM (there are no elections this year).

All 2025 BCA members are eligible to vote. For current members, if BCA holds a valid email address for you, then you should have received an email yesterday containing this information and also confirming your username. Please check spam if this hasn't arrived!

Details of the proposals being voted on are given at the end of this message.
Voting will close at: Midnight on Saturday the 19th September

To vote click the link below: (or copy and paste to your browser)
https://vote.british-caving.org.uk/

You will need your ballot ID to vote.
This can be found in your account on the BCA membership system.
https://britishcaving.justgo.com

If you haven’t logged in before you will need to set a password. (As a current member you already have an account, so don't 'sign up'!)
Your username is: usually set to which ever email address is associated with your BCA membership. If that doesn't work please email me and I can confirm your username.
Enter this in to the ‘log in’ box and click ‘forgot password’. You will be emailed a link to this email address that allows you to set a password and then log in.

Once you have logged in first click ‘member details’, then ‘more’ and finally ‘ballot id’ to view your ballot ID. See below:

If you have any trouble logging in, or cannot find your ballot ID, or have difficulty with voting please contact me on membership@british-caving.org.uk and I will be happy to help.
Please note I only work for the BCA part-time so may not reply the same day.

Whilst you are logged in to the BCA membership system why not check your details in your profile are all up to date and correct!

2025 AGM Elections and Proposals.

There are no elections and two proposals to vote on.

These are:

Proposal 1: To amend Article 7.9 of the Constitution

Current Wording:
“Any person may speak at a General Meeting, subject to the Chair’s agreement. All motions must be first voted on by individual members present at the meeting and eligible to vote. All motions with support from at least 25% of those individuals who vote, or 10 individuals (whichever is lower) must be taken forward to an online ballot of all individual members eligible to vote.”

Proposed Amended Wording as decided at the AGM:

"Any person may speak at a General Meeting, subject to the Chair’s

agreement. All motions not proposing a change to the Constitution must
be first voted on by individual members present at the meeting and
eligible to vote. Any motion supported by at least 90% of the votes cast
is passed at the AGM without further action. Any motion supported by
between 25% and 90% of those eligible to vote at the AGM must be taken
forward to an online ballot of all individual members eligible to vote.

Any motion proposing a change to the constitution shall be subject to an
online ballot if passed by more than 50% of individual members present
at the meeting and eligible to vote."

Proposer: Rostam Namghi, Seconder: Aidan Kuhlmann

Comment given in the Agenda:

"This constitutional change is aimed at reducing the number of amendments that go out to a full member ballot. The intended purpose is to allow the passage of policies that affect the organisation but are not contentious or need regular updating - like the privacy policy or health and safety policy for example.
It would also allow some consequential voting at AGMs but with a safeguard to allow a national vote. This is to prevent regional interests stacking a meeting and avoid the back-and-forth policy change seen pre-Covid.
The changes that allowed us to hold AGMs during Covid brought easier ways to ballot members but we should ballot members for consequential things."
- Rostam Namaghi



Proposal 2: That the following policies be delegated to the National Council for regular update: Health and Safety, Equality and Diversity, Safeguarding, Bullying and Harassment, and Privacy Policy.

Proposer: Rostam Namghi, Seconder: Aidan Kuhlmann

Comment given in the Agenda:

"This would allow for updates of the current policies that have not been politically contentious to be done by council rather than go to AGM. This means they could be updated through the year but cannot extend to new policies - this would be helpful to tweak policies to comply with insurer/banking/employment requirements."

- Rostam Namaghi



Katie

BCA Membership Administrator, sending on behalf of the BCA council.

 

[snebbit]

Voted, nice easy process as before

I should mention the email landed in my Spam again though. It's not common for stuff to be flagged for that inbox, it's a 'clean' address and the filter is set to low sensitivity.

I forwarded it to a spam testing tool and there were no issues with the content, so it might suggest something server-side? I can imagine the pain of diagnosing it, sorry

 

[Pitlamp]

Mine went into spam too; fortunately I check the spam tray frequently.

 

[PeteHall]

Likewise went to spam, which as snebbit observed is quite rare for genuine emails.

I specifically looked for it after seeing this thread, otherwise I would doubtless have missed it.

 

[BCA Treasurer]

The emails going to spam is disappointing. We (BCA) were hoping that having switched to hosting our membership services on JustGo, the problems we had with spam false positives from our own email server would disappear, since communication with membership is JustGo's purpose as a business. However, JustGo send bulk membership emails using sendgrid.net, and there seems to be a lack of alignment between the 'from' domain (...@british-caving.org.uk) and the sendgrid server, so while the emails are passing SPF and DKIM, they are failing on dmarc. Sendgrid also insert tracking into the links, which sometimes brings up a warning that the link doesn't point where it says it does. We're learning from the snags as they come up, and I hope we'll have it fixed for the next email shot.

 

[Pitlamp]

Thanks Chris.

Please don't think my contribution above was in any way a complaint; it was only to provide information at your end.
I continue to be very grateful for all the work that goes on behind the scenes at BCA on cavers' behalf.

 

[ChrisB]

Thanks John - no, it didn't even occur to me to think it was a complaint, just useful feedback

 

[paul]

Mine went into spam too; fortunately I check the spam tray frequently.

Same with me.

 

[badger]

mine too went to spam, however I believe someone told me that this something common if you have a gmail address. or maybe I dreamed that. however, once found the process was very easy.

 

[Cavematt]

I am a tad concerned about these proposed changes to the AGM voting.

As the former BCA Secretary who implemented the current wording (which I agree could have been better) it was intended to ensure a poorly attended AGM, or a specifically biased AGM, could not pass motions with major impacts on the BCA and British Cavers.

Given the recent poor AGM attendance, the need for this seems to remain as strong as ever.

I do however understand that there is a desire to avoid routine or housekeeping items ('no-brainer items') having to go to a full member ballot. Surely though this can be achieved by a restructure to move such things out to Council meetings, ensuring the AGM is limited to specific proposals about the future direction of the organisation and constitutional changes. This would also shorten the AGM and make it more attractive to people to attend, in person or online.

I'm happy to hear a counter-argurment from the current BCA team though, and hopefully that can set my mind at ease.

 

[alanw]

It arrived in my inbox OK.

Logs and headers follow. SPF and DKIM look OK.

$ dig +short +noshort -t txt _dmarc.sendgrid.net
_dmarc.sendgrid.net.    767    IN    TXT    "v=DMARC1; p=reject; sp=reject; rua=mailto:dmarc_agg@vali.email; rf=afrf; pct=100"

I'm just a bit suspicious about the "DMARC_QUAR=1.198" value, though I've no idea what it means. I also note that there are two different domains mentioned: justgo.com and sendgrid.net

The documentation for "DMARC_QUAR" is sparse:

Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::DMARC

Jul  6 18:32:12 rfvt postfix/smtpd[24734]: connect from o2.ptr123.justgo.com[167.89.18.65]
Jul  6 18:32:12 rfvt postfix/smtpd[24734]: Anonymous TLS connection established from o2.ptr123.justgo.com[167.89.18.65]: TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256
Jul  6 18:32:12 rfvt postfix/trivial-rewrite[24737]: warning: do not list domain wylie.me.uk in BOTH mydestination and virtual_alias_domains
Jul  6 18:32:14 rfvt policyd-spf[24739]: spfcheck: pyspf result: "['None', '', 'helo']"
Jul  6 18:32:14 rfvt policyd-spf[24739]: None; identity=helo; client-ip=167.89.18.65; helo=o2.ptr123.justgo.com; envelope-from=bounces+1099264-2e97-alan=wylie.me.uk@sendgrid.net; receiver=wylie.me.uk
Jul  6 18:32:14 rfvt policyd-spf[24739]: spfcheck: pyspf result: "['Pass', 'sender SPF authorized', 'mailfrom']"
Jul  6 18:32:14 rfvt policyd-spf[24739]: Pass; identity=mailfrom; client-ip=167.89.18.65; helo=o2.ptr123.justgo.com; envelope-from=bounces+1099264-2e97-alan=wylie.me.uk@sendgrid.net; receiver=wylie.me.uk
Jul  6 18:32:14 rfvt policyd-spf[24739]: : prepend Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=167.89.18.65; helo=o2.ptr123.justgo.com; envelope-from=bounces+1099264-2e97-alan=wylie.me.uk@sendgrid.net; receiver=wylie.me.uk
Jul  6 18:32:14 rfvt postfix/smtpd[24734]: 32E5D87BD6: client=o2.ptr123.justgo.com[167.89.18.65]
Jul  6 18:32:14 rfvt postfix/cleanup[24740]: 32E5D87BD6: info: header From: BCA Membership and Qualification Management System??<membership@british-caving.org.uk> from o2.ptr123.justgo.com[167.89.18.65]; from=<bounces+1099264-2e97-alan=wylie.me.uk@sendgrid.net> to=<alan@wylie.me.uk> proto=ESMTP helo=<o2.ptr123.justgo.com>
Jul  6 18:32:14 rfvt postfix/cleanup[24740]: 32E5D87BD6: message-id=<lP1Rxvd1SxyAuXfgJb3dQw@geopod-ismtpd-1>
Jul  6 18:32:14 rfvt postfix/cleanup[24740]: 32E5D87BD6: info: header Subject: BCA AGM voting is now open from o2.ptr123.justgo.com[167.89.18.65]; from=<bounces+1099264-2e97-alan=wylie.me.uk@sendgrid.net> to=<alan@wylie.me.uk> proto=ESMTP helo=<o2.ptr123.justgo.com>
Jul  6 18:32:14 rfvt opendkim[4563]: 32E5D87BD6: signature=ZhPnrmfU domain=sendgrid.net selector=smtpapi result="no signature error"
Jul  6 18:32:14 rfvt opendkim[4563]: 32E5D87BD6: DKIM verification successful
Jul  6 18:32:14 rfvt postfix/qmgr[4737]: 32E5D87BD6: from=<bounces+1099264-2e97-alan=wylie.me.uk@sendgrid.net>, size=14831, nrcpt=1 (queue active)
Jul  6 18:32:14 rfvt postfix/smtpd[24734]: disconnect from o2.ptr123.justgo.com[167.89.18.65] ehlo=2 starttls=1 mail=1 rcpt=1 data=1 quit=1 commands=7

Authentication-Results: rfvt.org.uk;
 dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sendgrid.net header.i=@sendgrid.net header.b=ZhPnrmfU;
 dkim-atps=neutral
X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at wylie.me.uk
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.2
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.2 tagged_above=-9999 required=6.2
 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ", HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001,
 HK_LOTTO=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=0.1,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
X-Spam-Relay-Country: US
Authentication-Results: wylie.me.uk (amavis); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
 header.d=sendgrid.net
Received: from rfvt.org.uk ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (wylie.me.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP
 id 2im6TE2bDDa0 for <alan@wylie.me.uk>; Sun,  6 Jul 2025 18:32:14 +0100 (BST)
Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=167.89.18.65; helo=o2.ptr123.justgo.com; envelope-from=bounces+1099264-2e97-alan=wylie.me.uk@sendgrid.net; receiver=wylie.me.uk
Received: from o2.ptr123.justgo.com (o2.ptr123.justgo.com [167.89.18.65])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
  key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by rfvt.org.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32E5D87BD6
 for <alan@wylie.me.uk>; Sun, 06 Jul 2025 18:32:12 +0100 (BST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sendgrid.net;
 h=content-type:from:mime-version:subject:reply-to:list-unsubscribe:to:
 cc:content-type:from:subject:to;
 s=smtpapi; bh=sq0xxDMotViQAUTekzleuULE/6omwodlvsDc6uel9rs=;
 b=ZhPnrmfURSmyV1l/gjwVCLQBj/wQBtch5UqxwJ+K5ljdLpCzICzkI9oVVfgrmylFrhT7
 DcFTA84vT1elpOVkBH1fC2LIHIwcvUP4EM+1qwV+AO9U9pJvEQYYiHC7pvM6h8xW0IQcmS
 wx+OB6mnCWg8wRf2CZb9QDD4F7IcQh5tg=

 

[aricooperdavis]

Back in my day we sent ballot emails using AWS SES as we could send in bulk and be in complete control of relevant DNS entries for alignment, signing etc. It did need warming up though.

I did struggle getting JustGo support to take much of an interest in their email deliverability when I was supporting the qualifications team, but part of that was having to maintain support for a legacy gmail inbox which sent using an alias, so we had a rather complex setup.

Email deliverability isn't that difficult, it's just a matter of getting through to someone at JustGo (and possibly their sending provider) who can make the necessary changes.

 

[badger]

I am a tad concerned about these proposed changes to the AGM voting.

As the former BCA Secretary who implemented the current wording (which I agree could have been better) it was intended to ensure a poorly attended AGM, or a specifically biased AGM, could not pass motions with major impacts on the BCA and British Cavers.

Given the recent poor AGM attendance, the need for this seems to remain as strong as ever.

I do however understand that there is a desire to avoid routine or housekeeping items ('no-brainer items') having to go to a full member ballot. Surely though this can be achieved by a restructure to move such things out to Council meetings, ensuring the AGM is limited to specific proposals about the future direction of the organisation and constitutional changes. This would also shorten the AGM and make it more attractive to people to attend, in person or online.

I'm happy to hear a counter-argurment from the current BCA team though, and hopefully that can set my mind at ease.

Matt, discussed at length at the AGM, and the original proposal amended to the words which are now there to vote on. as a member everyone can vote as they think is right.

 

[Jenny P]

Matt, discussed at length at the AGM, and the original proposal amended to the words which are now there to vote on. as a member everyone can vote as they think is right.

It is a pity that the Minutes are not yet available so that people could see the discssion about the wording of the original proposal and the amended version, which would enable people to make more sense of it. It was a friendly and helpful discussion but was limited, in that it could only propose amendments to the original motion, not re-think the whole idea and come up with a more reasoned set of proposals to reflect what was intended.

My impression is that people were sympathetic to the sense of the motion but struggled to word the necessary amendments to protect the principle that any proposed Constitutional changes or changes to the future direction of BCA must go to a full vote of the BCA membership.

Whichever way the online vote falls this time, I am sure this area will be re-visited to arrive at better wording to reflect the way BCA is to work in the future.

As Badger says, "as a member everyone can vote as they think is right".

 

[ChrisB]

It is a pity that the Minutes are not yet available so that people could see the discssion about the wording of the original proposal and the amended version, which would enable people to make more sense of it.

It would be better if the minutes were available but you can listen to the discussion on the (unfortunately not very good) video on the BCA website official docs page (link here for convenience https://british-caving.org.uk/documents/2025-agm-recording-part-2/).

 

[nearlywhite]

I am a tad concerned about these proposed changes to the AGM voting.

As the former BCA Secretary who implemented the current wording (which I agree could have been better) it was intended to ensure a poorly attended AGM, or a specifically biased AGM, could not pass motions with major impacts on the BCA and British Cavers.

Given the recent poor AGM attendance, the need for this seems to remain as strong as ever.

I do however understand that there is a desire to avoid routine or housekeeping items ('no-brainer items') having to go to a full member ballot. Surely though this can be achieved by a restructure to move such things out to Council meetings, ensuring the AGM is limited to specific proposals about the future direction of the organisation and constitutional changes. This would also shorten the AGM and make it more attractive to people to attend, in person or online.

I'm happy to hear a counter-argurment from the current BCA team though, and hopefully that can set my mind at ease.

Hi Matt,

The reason for the amendment is, in part, to make the AGM at least vaguely consequential. I know that's a tension regarding radical change but the high threshold is there to make sure that anything contentious goes to ballot. I don't want to go back to the 'ping pong policy' days but I think if you can just watch/vote later there's no reason to turn up.

I don't buy the shortening the meeting argument - they were far longer and far better attended in the past. The current one I believe was the same length as the well attended CNCC AGM.

I think the change you oversaw inadvertently made the AGM redundant as everything went to online vote anyway and apart from contested elections (which we didn't have any candidates for this year) AGM turnouts have generally been fairly poor. We don't have a space for effective discussion and examination of what's going on and we do need to fix that. It's been an increasing problem over the last 5 years. I think making AGMs a bit more consequential gives a bit more of a reason to attend and therefore a bit more critical examination.

There are other ways to fix this, and there were other reasons for a poor turnout; an email advertising the AGM wasn't sent out to the membership, advertising in Descent and on social media didn't land effectively and this was the first hybrid meeting (and in person meeting) for the BCA since COVID. Being on a Saturday wasn't helpful as people wanted to attend the other events that we timed it to be alongside (so people could make a weekend of it). There's a lot of lessons there and I'm not one to shy away from criticism.

I am relieved to have at least had one hybrid meeting and am very committed to running a much better, bigger event next year. Volunteers to help run such an event would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Cavematt]

That’s a great and much appreciated response.

The current (existing) wording was devised exactly to stop the ping-pong policy days. I will hold my hands up and say that in 2019 we took full advantage of a well-attended northern AGM to push through some fairly major changes, and I don’t regret that at all. The following year, a handful of cavers proclaiming to represent The South tried to use a Mendip based AGM to try to reverse some of those changes and drive a different agenda and direction for the organisation. Hopefully that is a thing of the past now.

Ensuring all major motions that affect the constitution, the core direction of the organisation, and decisions of national impact, are able to be voted on by all members was the primary aim of the existing wording. Moreover, those members can consider their vote in their own time, armed with minutes from a hopefully healthy discussion at the AGM, plus a vibrant followup discussion on UKCaving once the ballot has been made live (although the recent shortening of the ballot period to 14 days has made that harder).

Yes, some uncontentious housekeeping motions may end up slipping into the online ballot, but I saw that as a small price to pay for ensuring the ‘biggies’ are always given to all members to vote upon and consider – after all, what better way to engage with your membership? Anyway, this issue should be reduced by moving housekeeping matters out of AGMs as much as possible, hence I will enthusiastically support the second proposal on the ballot.

One concern is that the new proposed wording, coupled with the low attendance (only 15-20 people) means that a group with a specific agenda to push could crack the whip and get enough turnout to pass a motion which is not nationally supported and bypass the online ballot.

Perhaps my biggest concern though is with such low AGM attendance, it means that without an online ballot, only a very small number of members are making big decisions for the future of our national organisation.

On the flip side, I agree that the 90% threshold is a particularly high bar to push something nationally unpopular through without an online ballot, and it would take a serious effort. Hence, I can overlook my concerns about that. The BCA is a peaceful and harmonious place at the moment (thanks to not having people like me involved) with noting too contentious.

Furthermore, I’m pleased with the concession made at the AGM itself, courtesy of input from Jenny and Bob, to see constitutional changes always needing to go to a ballot.

I also see your point that the online ballot could be seen as making the actual AGM irrelevant, but I strongly disagree. I feel that the AGM should be about much more than delivering a vote and should be a discussion venue to present viewpoints on each proposal and ensure a subsequent vote of all members is better informed of multiple perspectives.

I don’t think dwindling AGM attendance can be blamed on them having less consequence, but more on the recent lack of communication and engagement with members who are probably struggling to feel inspired to want to attend. I can see that is starting to change now thanks to some great efforts from Katie and improved meeting documentation by Aiden, and regular engagement of the BCA team here on UKCaving. Still, it needs significant research and digging through minutes and online content to find out what BCA does for British Caving and what national initiatives it is currently pursuing. In combination with an active social media/UKC presence, a regular newsletter would help here.

On consideration therefore, I'm happy to support this proposal, because I want to support Rostam, Aidan, Chris and their team who are clearly trying hard to move BCA into a better place and who have asked for this change to make things easier for them do so. The 90% bar is high enough to avoid abuse in the current climate, and I can sympathise (but not totally agree) with the justifications.

Thanks for the response, all of your efforts, and good luck.

 

[PeteHall]

I don’t think dwindling AGM attendance can be blamed on them having less consequence, but more on the recent lack of communication and engagement with members who are probably struggling to feel inspired to want to attend.

This issue is much wider than the BCA. Across the country (the western world even?), people ate becoming much less engaged. They expect everything for free, and resign themselves to having no input or control, gradually becoming more lethargic as a passive observer.

I think the Internet and in particular, smart phones, have a lot to answers for in this regard.

If you want to get anything out of life, you need to put something in. It's high time people remembered that, as the current volunteers won't last forever and if other people can't be bothered to engage the clubs and organisations we rely on won't last either.

 

[Stuart France]

I've just bulk deleted hundreds of spam messages in my spam box. I do this from time to time. Obviously I don't sift through the stuff looking for pearls - that is the purpose of a spam box.

Like the others posting above, I have not received any BCA AGM/voting info through my regular mailbox. Their online voting process is technically incompetent which makes it democratically invalid.

 

[andrewmcleod]

I've just bulk deleted hundreds of spam messages in my spam box. I do this from time to time. Obviously I don't sift through the stuff looking for pearls - that is the purpose of a spam box.

Well, actually that is exactly the purpose of a spam box - something you can sift through to find an email erroneously marked as spam. Otherwise, you wouldn't need a spam box at all. Many spam emails (or real emails with bad SPF/DKIM etc.) won't even end up in your spam box of course as they will get rejected outright.

Email is a right PITA to get right (we have had similar problems with club emails which come from a combination of sources).