BCA secretary gives notice of standing down

[Mark Wright]

One step forward, two steps back.

Maybe the BCA would be better off folding and splitting its our money between the regional councils and other constituent bodies.

Assuming the Hunters survives the current lockdowns, the CSCC can blow the cobwebs from their pewter mugs and get back to the dark ages they love so much.

Mark

 

[Ed]

its got to the point where the CSCC is thrown out or the BCA is dead.

May be an agenda item for the AGM / EGM-- put to the full membership (inc postal / on line vote): Should CSCC be excluded from the BCA

 

[MJenkinson]

Maybe the BCA would be better off folding and splitting its our money between the regional councils and other constituent bodies.

Is this a realistic option; can we forgo a national body and "devolve" the powers to regional councils? How would this sit with insurance for example?

Other than a massive census for all members (not regional bodies) asking in detail what EXACTLY we want from a national body and thus putting it quite clearly to the BCA what WE want, I see no way to progress if the opinions of regional councils are so disparate.  We can't keep "ping ponging" changes can we.

 

[MarkS]

Given Matt has spelled out his position and rationale so clearly, politely, and openly, it seems only reasonable that the CSCC do the same. I would have thought it is strongly in the interests of the CSCC to do so.

Let's remember that on the plus side, thanks largely to Matt's efforts, all motions that achieve sufficient support at the next AGM will put to an online vote of all individual members, so the outcomes of any AGM motions are now decided by a more democratic process than they once were, and it is now much harder for any minority to push through changes that the wider membership are not supportive of.

 

[Mike Hopley]

Matt, Gary, and Jane have been doing important and positive things. Even if you ignore the politics -- for fear of making an insufficiently informed judgement, perhaps -- just look at the fantastic CNCC website and booking system, the TryCaving website, and the modern newsletter design. It's excellent work, and I say that as someone who builds websites.

Getting that for free is incredible. Collectively, we should be thanking and encouraging them, not making their lives so miserable that they quit. How wasteful and petulant.

Matt, I'd just like to say that I admire the way you've handled yourself throughout. It's been exemplary. Most of all, I admire you for prioritising your mental health and saying so publicly. It's the correct decision, and it's the decision of a strong person. I'm really sorry you've had to deal with all this shit.

 

[Mark Wright]

Is this a realistic option; can we forgo a national body and "devolve" the powers to regional councils? How would this sit with insurance for example?

Personally I couldn't care less about the rod in the back that is the BCA Insurance scheme.

Would people suddenly stop caving if there was no BCA Insurance scheme?

I think not.

Mark

 

[BradW]

Think of the CSCC as a minority opposition party. If the parliamentary opposition put forward legislation and amendments in the proper manner, you  don't see the Prime Minister resigning, the proposals just get voted down. I think a sense of proportion is needed here. Calm down and get a grip.

 

[Ed]

Is this a realistic option; can we forgo a national body and "devolve" the powers to regional councils? How would this sit with insurance for example?

Personally I couldn't care less about the rod in the back that is the BCA Insurance scheme.

Would people suddenly stop caving if there was no BCA Insurance scheme?

I think not.

Mark

suspect a fair few people might consider not renewing their BCA membership following yet more moves to thwart the members wishes

 

[darren]

Let's not get too carried away here..

Most members have been forced to join by their clubs. Something to do with insurance I believe.  Most members don't really want to be members and  don't care about all this.

I can't remember how many voted in the last online ballot 20% rings a bell, but I'm sure someone will correct me.

A small vocal minority do care, and we will hear a lot from them.

 

[MJenkinson]

Agreed with both points, but just pointing out that several permits in the North require BCA membership. Would this stop people, or me caving, well that depends on a few things.

 

[Pegasus]

I think a sense of proportion is needed here. Calm down and get a grip.

The same might be said of those who have caused Matt to leave.

 

[Mark Wright]

The way things currently stand, I definitely won't be renewing my membership next year and will be encouraging my club to do likewise as I don't really want to have to resign from my club.

As for the problems a lack of BCA insurance may have on permits, these will just have to be renegotiated. There are plenty of willing and able volunteers who I'm sure will get this potential issue effectively sorted if required.

Mark

 

[BradW]

I think a sense of proportion is needed here. Calm down and get a grip.

The same might be said of those who have caused Matt to leave.

We can only read one side of the disagreement here, so we can only make a judgment based on partial evidence, and for me it all seems a bit of a hysterical reaction to some disagreeable noise which should be dealt with in the normal democratic way and not plastered over the internet.

 

[alastairgott]

I?m sure there?s a solution to this which is constitutional. I will post something around 6 tonight.

 

[tony from suffolk]

Think of the CSCC as a minority opposition party. If the parliamentary opposition put forward legislation and amendments in the proper manner, you  don't see the Prime Minister resigning, the proposals just get voted down. I think a sense of proportion is needed here. Calm down and get a grip.

...not forgetting that MPs get paid for their aggravation.

 

[Mark Wright]

We can only read one side of the disagreement here, so we can only make a judgment based on partial evidence.

We can read the other side of the disagreement here if you post it.

Mark

 

[Pitlamp]

Think of the CSCC as a minority opposition party. If the parliamentary opposition put forward legislation and amendments in the proper manner, you  don't see the Prime Minister resigning, the proposals just get voted down.

I think this is a fair comment, as a general point - but the rotten news at the start of this topic has left me dismayed.

There are some very experienced cavers associated with the CSCC and they must genuinely believe what they're wanting to do is for the best. I don't understand those reasons and I'm really saddened to  learn that several good people, who have devoted so much time and energy to a cause they deeply believe in, should feel the way they do.

But the CSCC is only one of many constituent bodies. What we really need here is for more BCA members to play their part in the democratic process, so that we have the BCA that most closely matches the wishes of the majority. Perhaps we've all been guilty of not taking enough interest?

At the end of the day we're all cavers and we all have so much in common. We should be civil to each other, despite the tensions and frustrations that go with suddenly not being able to pursue the pastime we love so much. We're much stronger together.

Matt, Jane, Gary - what can I say? How about a massive thank you to each of you for the commitment and drive you've shown.

 

[DavidGibson]

The question of "insurance" has always been a bit of a millstone around the neck of BCA. It might be worth recalling how it came about. Before BCA was created, "insurance" was provided by BCRA, via a small levy on club membership (if I remember correctly). This was sufficient income to provide insurance to landowners - to whom BCRA issued "landowner certificates", which meant that they were agreeable to let cavers onto their land.

That practice had to end when the insurance cost rocketed - I think the increase was well in excess of ten times. BCRA did not have enough members to fund it, and it became necessary to find a method of widening the membership. At the same time there was an emerging desire to have a national body that was representative of all cavers. What emerged from the discussions between BCRA and NCA was the need for a new body - BCA - and a means of collecting a fee from all the members of the member clubs. That was the only way to raise sufficient money to pay the insurance premium, and it was the need for insurance that brought about the existence of BCA.

Th salient point is that the insurance premium was not, primarily, to provide individual insurance, it was to provide landowner insurance. It has been "sold" to members ever since on the basis of "you need insurance" but the reality is that it is, to a notable extent, the landowners who need to see the so-called "landowner certificate" in order to be happy about allowing (any) cavers on their land.

That's the background. E&OE: it was a long time ago.

 

[darren]

Just like American Civil War.

Majority want to go one way, minority another.

Both parties could be making sensible choices due to local circumstances.

Doesn't help when the majority want to steamroller the minority regardless of local sensibilities.

So here we are civial war.

 

[Oceanrower]

As far as insurance goes, why is it actually needed anyway? I'm not a member of the BMC but AFAIAA the ONLY place that asks for insurance is the South side if Cheddar Gorge. A strongly caving area. (And, noticeably, within the remit of the CSCC!).

Nowhere else seems to need it.