BCA rule changes

[Aubrey]

I realise this should posted on the BCA web site but do not have access yet.
The BCA rules are relevent to all cavers so maybe should be discussed here.

One of the proposed rule changes is:

8.4 Notice of any matters to be raised at a General Meeting of the Association, including all proposals for constitutional change, must reach the Secretary by midnight on the day of the National Council meeting preceding the AGM.
(currently the rule specifies 9 weeks before the date of the AGM).


As far as I can see there is nothing in the constitution which defines when the National Council meetings must be held, other than rule 6.12 which says the National Council must meet at least twice per year.

Thus the proposed change is not telling the membership when proposals have to be submitted by.


Can someone answer the following:

What happens if a National Council meeting is cancelled or postponed?

What happens if a National Council meeting is held within the six weeks before an AGM?

 

[graham]

A good point, Aubrey and one that should be addressed. If an event is to be defined in relation to another event then that should be fixed in the constitution as well. Otherwise the arrangement is open to abuse. It is, of course, feasible for the National Council to meet the day before the AGM should they so choose.

 

[damian]

A good question, Aubrey, and one I've been asked by at least one other person.

The basic answer is that section 8.5 of the Constitution (which is not being amended) requires that members receive an Agenda at least 6 weeks in advance of the AGM. By definition the Agenda can only be printed and distributed once the deadline has passed for matters to be raised and proposals (8.4). This means that Council will need to ensure the date of the Council meeting prior to the AGM is sufficiently far back from the AGM to make this possible.

For avoidance of doubt, this very point will be explained in the Manual of Operations being drafted at present.

Should the Council Meeting be cancelled for any reason, then the deadline for matters to be raised and proposals will already have been fixed (as detailed on the time, date & place of the Meeting, which will have been published at least 18 weeks in advance of the meeting).

Does this help clarify the situation?

Damian Weare
BCA Secretary

 

[graham]

Does this help clarify the situation?

Damian, I'm afraid that no, it doesn't. You are in danger here of confusing what is practical with what is principle. I agree that timescales should be achievable in practice but that is not the same as saying that something that is not thought to be practical will not happen.

 

[damian]

I agree that timescales should be achievable in practice but that is not the same as saying that something that is not thought to be practical will not happen.

But if it did, it would be unconstitutional. The Constitution requires that members receive their Agendas 6 weeks before the meeting. It also requires that the date for submission of items for that agenda be the date of the Council Meeting before the AGM. Therefore, it has to follow that the Council Meeting will be scheduled accordingly. This is in exactly the same way as the AGM is scheduled to tie in with the Constitution.

 

[graham]

Damian

I see what you are getting at, but it isn't clear cut by any means. Surely, then, the point of the rule change becomes lost as the time-scale remains fixed by the agenda date. If that is not the case and things can be constitutionally added at a later date as defined by the proposed change then Aubrey's point stands.

 

[Bob Mehew]

If a Council meeting is cancelled or postponed then another meeting will have to take place before the 6 week deadline.  If no such meeting takes place, we end up with an AGM with no valid business papers issued as is required by the constitution.  So that AGM is no longer valid.  I suggest the risk is acceptable since all BCA will have to do is send out notice of the date of a new AGM date and then hold a Council meeting out with the 6 week dead line to produce a valid AGM.  (Small extra costs compared to the current situation where we are truly buggered if we don't hold an AGM in March - as happened in the year of Foot and Mouth.  Fortunately no one challenged the legality of that meeting; I trust deliberately Graham.)

I think Damian's response effectively deals with Aubrey's second point.

 

[Aubrey]

Bob wrote:
"If no such meeting takes place, we end up with an AGM with no valid business papers issued as is required by the constitution".

That would not appear to be the case, the Secretary must send out an agenda 6 weeks before the meeting but that agenda does not require approval by the National Council.

The purpose of the proposed amendment is apparently to allow more time for preparation and circulation of the papers. Why cannot this be a fixed time, perhaps longer than the current 9 weeks?

My point about the 6 weeks prior to an AGM is that the National Council CANNOT meet during that period for any reason whatsoever, however urgent or desirable. If it did then the proposed rule change would allow more business to be tabled for the AGM and the notice of that business would not have been circulated.

The proposed change to 8.4 can cause several rules to become contradictory and should be voted against.

 

[graham]

and the notice of that business would not have been circulated.

This is where I agree with Aubrey and disagree with Damian and Bob. There is nothing that says that business has to be on the agenda in order to be discussed.

Bob in the year of F&M it was clear to all people of goodwill (i.e. all of us) that no-one was trying to pull a fast one and so the meeting went ahead. However, you know as well as I that there have been times when some parts of UK caving has been, shall we say, a touch mistrustful of other parts. That is exactly why we have constitutional safeguards and why we need to ensure that they are clear.

Most of these amendments are fine and do what is required of them. This one doesn't, so let us ensure that it does.

 

[Les W]

To change the wording requires another AGM as the postal ballot only exists to refuse or ratify the AGM decision that has already been made.

 

[damian]

The purpose of the proposed amendment is apparently to allow more time for preparation and circulation of the papers. Why cannot this be a fixed time, perhaps longer than the current 9 weeks?

Because the purpose of the amendment is actually two-fold - see the final sentence on the ballot paper.

My point about the 6 weeks prior to an AGM is that the National Council CANNOT meet during that period for any reason whatsoever, however urgent or desirable. If it did then the proposed rule change would allow more business to be tabled for the AGM and the notice of that business would not have been circulated.

I agree. However Council only ever meets four times a year and any business that needs to be dealt with between meetings is dealt with as appropriate by BCA Executive. Therefore, this is not a situation that would arise.

The proposed change to 8.4 can cause several rules to become contradictory and should be voted against.

That is obviously entirely up to you.  Personally I am convinced the proposed amendment is desirable, but We are balloting 6000 people to get their views. I don't really have anything to add to change your mind beyond what I've said above.

To change the wording requires another AGM as the postal ballot only exists to refuse or ratify the AGM decision that has already been made.

Absolutely. Whether you (we) like it or not, you are being asked to vote "for", "against" or "abstain" on 8 proposals. These cannot now be amended.

 

[graham]

The fact that it cannot be amended again before the ballot is neither here nor there. It is important to do it right, rather than do it now.

 

[graham]

The trouble with this proposal as it stands is that it makes no distinction between matters such as constitutional amendments that should most certainly be circulated beforehand (so that those who don't like them can turn up and table amendments ) and matters that perhaps should be discussed at an AGM but which arise only shortly before the event.

As I recall, I was the one who proposed the wording that specifies that the postal ballot must be on the wording agreed at the AGM without further amendment.

 

[Cookie]

No Constitution is perfect, if you are of that frame of mind you can nitpick holes in any of them.

For that reason Section 13 of the Constitution exists to allows the AGM, or the National Council in the interim, to interpret the Constitution where questions arise, as they will from time to time.

On Aubrey's six week point I think Damien's answer deals with that except to say that I don't think that the amended Constitution would prevent holding an emergency council meeting within six weeks of the AGM. Such a meeting can not accept any further business for the AGM even if it wanted to, since the Agenda has already been written and distributed. So it is a logical absurdity to prevent the meeting simply because 8.4 says you must accept further AGM business when in fact the meeting can not.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Bob in the year of F&M it was clear to all people of goodwill (i.e. all of us) that no-one was trying to pull a fast one and so the meeting went ahead. However, you know as well as I that there have been times when some parts of UK caving has been, shall we say, a touch mistrustful of other parts. That is exactly why we have constitutional safeguards and why we need to ensure that they are clear.

I had hoped we had moved on from this type of concern. 

Bob

PS I found it amusing that in an early Descent I was reading the other day, I found a reference to a claim that NCA was toothless.  Should I not have been so amused?

 

[Aubrey]

"So it is a logical absurdity ".

Exactly - The constitution should not allow a logical absurdity to be possible.

8.4 needs to be time referenced to the AGM.

 

[Cookie]

Maybe, but only in a situation that is very unlikely to occur - if you wrote the Constitution to explicitly cover every eventuality, however unlikely, you'd end up with the Europen Constitution.

And even if that situation did arise there is only one sensible interpretation of the Constitution anyway.

Do you agree with the intent of the change? The rest is just pendantry.

 

[Hammy]

...cripes.....and I naively thought it was all about facilitating the shared interest in the wonder and enjoyment of the natural and man made underground environment.....oh dear....

 

[graham]

This is the reasoning for the proposal as given on the ballot paper:

Sub-Section 8.5 quite rightly requires that members receive an Agenda at least 6 weeks in advance of the AGM. This places quite a burden on the volunteer Secretary to produce, print and post out over 600 Agendas within 3 weeks. Moving the dates in Sections 8.3 and 8.4 reduces this burden. The change in 8.4 also allows the March Council meeting to add its own proposals and nominations for Officers.

The object of the exercise is reasonable, but this change does not achieve it, as, in removing the fixed date, it not only allows the time scale to widen but it also allows it to contract. There is, in any case, no requirement to ensure that matters to be raised must be included in the Agenda, anyway. unless we are doing away with that useful category "AOB".

I can think of a number of simple wording changes that would improve the situation, but as amendments are not possible at this stage, I won't try redrafting, but merely agree with Aubrey that it needs be done better next year.

Bob, in re-reading the whole paper, I note that we were not "well and truly buggered" over the AGM not being in March, were we. Personally, I see no real difference between the alternatives "practicable" and "reasonable" in Proposal 3. I'm indifferent to a change from March to June, as all dates have their problems and their advantages.

And, in passing, I note (proposal 4) that Emergencies are less urgent than once they were. Now they can be called at 2 weeks notice, in future it'll be two weeks plus the time taken to prepare and circulate an agenda (period not specified). If I was a mistrustful soul I could read that as a licence to procrastinate indefinitely ...