bca meeting 25/3 /2017
- Thread starter cavemanmike
- Start date
The Minutes are normally published (on the BCA website) as soon as possible after the meeting and the Minutes will also include all the written reports which were discussed.
It is also normal for a first draft of the Minutes to be checked by the BCA Executive before posting and the Minutes remain in "draft" form until they are approved by the following meeting, which may, or may not, ask for amendments. (Don't forget that BCA now has an independent Recorder for its meetings although the Secretary is ultimately responsible for getting them, out to members.)
It is also normal for a first draft of the Minutes to be checked by the BCA Executive before posting and the Minutes remain in "draft" form until they are approved by the following meeting, which may, or may not, ask for amendments. (Don't forget that BCA now has an independent Recorder for its meetings although the Secretary is ultimately responsible for getting them, out to members.)
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
As you say hats off to Tim for pushing this onwards. (I am away on holiday so did not participate in the meeting and have only just got back to internet connection.) However it should be noted that regrettably this current state of affairs is mainly due to BCA's Executive trying to do their best and not the three quoted above. (One of my growing concerns is whether we will retain the Exec by the time the AGM has passed. Any one volunteering to help out?)NewStuff said:
So far as I can see it, we have various motions which all aim in the same direction; to remove the shackles self imposed at the last AGM. Tim has proposed two constitutional amendments which deletes the offending sentence. (Two for technical reasons which I won't bore readers with.) I have another which amends the offending sentence. I also have a separate constitutional amendment which makes it plain that what ever is said in the constitution, it does not stop BCA from campaigning to change the law. Tim also has a clarifying motion which makes it clear the sentence does not limit our work. (I am unclear about the status of the 2016 motion.)
Tim and I agree that both our approaches will work but he favours the 'simple remove it' approach whilst I go for the 'change it to reflect the correct legal position and then make it clear it does not stop us from campaigning to change the law'. I won't go into why I have gone down this route in this posting but please be assured there are good reasons for doing so. (My views on Section 4.6 can be read at http://www.cncc.org.uk/doc/1121.)
I also have a procedural motion which means that it will be for the meeting to decide how to tackle the situation, not any one person who ever they might be.
Bob Mehew
BCA Legal & Insurance Officer
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
The trouble is the mandate was 'modified' by the last AGM. We are now working to remove that 'modification' so we can get on with the work. But please be aware we are not likely to achieve a swift resolution with governmental bodies; sadly I don't believe in miracles but I can hope.Ian Adams said:Bob,
There is a mandate provided by the members.
Just do it.
Ian
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
Sorry please re read the constitution, notable Section 13.1. Sufficient people agreed at the last AGM that the first sentence of Sec 4.6 was likely to be a block to implementing the mandate given by the ballot which needed to be sorted out and that "Meanwhile BCA will concentrate on conservation and landowner relations." I expect you still don't like it but it is what we were stuck with. I remain reasonably confident we can sort it out in June.Ian Adams said:Bob Mehew said:
It is not possible to amend, modify or negate a ballot at an AGM.
Just do it ....
Ian
droid
Active member
And you didn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to think there'd be problems.
It was pointed out ages ago by one of the devilish triumvirate, and promptly dismissed by Ian 'It'll be alright on the night' Adams.
Now like Ian, I'd like the BCA to get on with it, but they've tied themselves in an almighty knot at the mo, and that is before the necessary sustained campaign to get the Government to consider a minor piece of legislation with all the other shit that's going on.
It was pointed out ages ago by one of the devilish triumvirate, and promptly dismissed by Ian 'It'll be alright on the night' Adams.
Now like Ian, I'd like the BCA to get on with it, but they've tied themselves in an almighty knot at the mo, and that is before the necessary sustained campaign to get the Government to consider a minor piece of legislation with all the other shit that's going on.
It's fairly clear that the BCA is in desperate need of reform. IMO it needs to move towards a universal membership and a complete change in its constitutional structure. It needs a dynamic, expanded exec and a council which meets less frequently. Eight hour council meetings must end. There is too much of the tail wagging the dog with the traditional structure.
But this is a small organisation run by volunteers with limited time and ability to progress matters. Universal membership was mentioned at the first meeting I attended some three years ago as the desired route forward. There has been no mention of it since. With everything else taking up so much time I can't see any modernisation happening anytime soon. Anyone taking it on will know the mother of all battles that would lie ahead.
Without reform there is no point pretending there is any real democracy in BCA. The AGM is the power house but this is only attended by 30-40 people each year out of nearly 6000 members. Most of those are members of council who also attend the council meeting which follows. A few 'locals' will attend as it moves around the regions and this is likely to have a heavy influence on direction and policy each year. So, for example last year it was at the Hunters on Mendip, the stronghold of the anti CRoW movement. The chair was effectively battered into a corner and forced to accept motions that did not reflect the will of the wider membership. The only way out was to put things on hold and defer to the next AGM which is pretty much what happened.
A priority should be to get more people to vote at an AGM. Having them turn up in person is not realistic. Proxy voting is an answer and there is a motion on the table to allow it. However, the motion is poorly structured and doesn't have the support of the exec or many in council and will almost certainly fail. What is really needed is proxy voting BMC style but that is probably beyond the capabilities of BCA for many a year to come. All pretty depressing, eh?
But this is a small organisation run by volunteers with limited time and ability to progress matters. Universal membership was mentioned at the first meeting I attended some three years ago as the desired route forward. There has been no mention of it since. With everything else taking up so much time I can't see any modernisation happening anytime soon. Anyone taking it on will know the mother of all battles that would lie ahead.
Without reform there is no point pretending there is any real democracy in BCA. The AGM is the power house but this is only attended by 30-40 people each year out of nearly 6000 members. Most of those are members of council who also attend the council meeting which follows. A few 'locals' will attend as it moves around the regions and this is likely to have a heavy influence on direction and policy each year. So, for example last year it was at the Hunters on Mendip, the stronghold of the anti CRoW movement. The chair was effectively battered into a corner and forced to accept motions that did not reflect the will of the wider membership. The only way out was to put things on hold and defer to the next AGM which is pretty much what happened.
A priority should be to get more people to vote at an AGM. Having them turn up in person is not realistic. Proxy voting is an answer and there is a motion on the table to allow it. However, the motion is poorly structured and doesn't have the support of the exec or many in council and will almost certainly fail. What is really needed is proxy voting BMC style but that is probably beyond the capabilities of BCA for many a year to come. All pretty depressing, eh?
Madness
New member
As DEFRA say we're all allowed to enter caves on Access Land up to the limit of daylight, why don't we all do just that. When we get to the limit of daylight we just turn around a come out - unless we think we hear the desparate cry of a little lost lamb/dog/frog/whatever that has strayed beyond daylight and is utterly helpless. No one would would condem a caver for searching, possibly fruitlessly, for a poor helpless animal. 
MJenkinson
Member
Thanks to those still pushing for this.
Speleotron
Member
If Defra says we can go to (and slightly into) cave entrances on CRoW land then isn't that job done, no need for 3 years of meetings about a line in the constitution
Speleotron
Member
Edit (noddle) I thought that DEFRA telling us that entrances on CRoW land were OK (and the caves after the entrances wink knudge) was after the BCA talked to DEFRA after the referendum then they started the constitution debates (got myself confused)
Well.... to be exact, originally the BCA legal officer, Dave Judson put out a statement on BCA headed paper that The CRoW Act definitely did not apply to caving. He made it look like the BCA position. It was my correspondence with Defra/NE which brought out various statements from them which made it clear that you could access caves and even descend them to the limit of daylight etc. Working outside of BCA and with others like Bob and Jenny, we secured QC opinion which stated the CRoW Act did apply to caves which is at odds with the Defra view. BCA sat up and took notice and took the infamous poll of it's membership. We have since taken various roles within BCA by consensus to pursue the result of that poll on behalf of the majority membership position. It was never going to be easy...
nickwilliams
Well-known member
Hi Tim,
What do you mean by 'universal membership'?
Regards
Nick.
What do you mean by 'universal membership'?
Regards
Nick.
