BCA stuff we voted on

[droid]

It's the substitution of a word with a synonym.

So not a change of direction unless you have a particularly vivid imagination.

 

[cap n chris]

Dotting I's and crossing T's does not change the letter(s). Changing a word from one same version to another is NOT a constitutional change.

 

[JoshW]

Dotting I's and crossing T's does not change the letter(s). Changing a word from one same version to another is NOT a constitutional change.

And who makes the decision as to what is dotting i?s and crossing t?s?

I?d love to go and change the word interfere in 10.1 for something else that I could consider a synonym without the approval of the membership. The easy way is to make any constitutional change a change that needs approval by the whole membership.

 

[droid]

The word 'interfere' is an action by BCA.

Whether it's 'chair' or 'chairman' is merely a description of a Committee post.

So your analogy is invalid 

 

[JoshW]

The word 'interfere' is an action by BCA.

Whether it's 'chair' or 'chairman' is merely a description of a Committee post.

So your analogy is invalid 

So somewhere between those is a line to be draw you think? Who draws that line?

 

[droid]

If you  can't see the difference constitutionally between a post description and an action then there's no hope....

 

[NewStuff]

If you  can't see the difference constitutionally between a post description and an action then there's no hope....

It doesn't really matter if it is or isn't a constitutional change. If someone goes in and "just changes the title", there will be uproar from the posh seats at the front. You know a faction will latch on to it, and get all shouty about upending the constitution, all these woke types making caving an impossible thing, and various other things a small collective of fevered little minds can dream up..

For those trying to make barriers to entry smaller, they're fecked if they do and fecked if they don't. This way they're covering bases, so while they're undoubtedly in for the usual tut tutting and finger wagging, they've performed the appropriate arse covering by doing it this way.

 

[BradW]

My observations:

My impression is the discussion about the change to "chair" is dominated by people who take far more exception to the change not happening, and those who would prefer it to stay "chairman" probably really don't care too much - the few that like chairman are really not too bothered - and just expressing a preference. So, is all the bluster from the pro-change faction proportionate? - probably not. But the change IS necessary, even if it's really not a major concern.

It reminds me of the Culture Wars currently underway across the Atlantic where silly issues are magnified right out of proportion and nobody promoting the culture war is the slightest bit interested in debating things that matter.

And meanwhile, all this silly arguing is providing a convenient smokescreen for far more substantive changes, which really should be the focus of constructive debate, and which have been sidelined.

 

[NewStuff]

waffle...

Given this is a sock account, I'm not going to bother refuting your point and spin, other than to let you know that yes, we know it's a sock account, and you have zero credibility.

 

[Ian Ball]

Hi Brad, fair enough, Ive not changed my mind so let us stop discussing the Chair v chair prickly issue and move to the more important issues.  Where do you want to start?  10.1?

I will probably be voting to remove it.

 

[2xw]

I agree with Ian, come on Brad/Tony/Peter/Graham, tell us what you think of 10.1  :

 

[mikem]

It really doesn't matter what happens to 10.1, it will make no difference to the powers that the BCA actually have.

 

[mikem]

If the notional club doesn't want to listen to BCA then they can already cut funding, or if felt necessary suspend / expel them. Changing the wording will make no difference to that. If the club is happy to discuss, then all is peachy.

 

[Ian Ball]

I need a pointer MikeM, under which parts of the current constitution? 

 

[mikem]

It's all in previous discussion:
https://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=27983.75

 

[Ian Ball]

I've read the thread and won't be changing my vote for removal of 10.1.

 

[mikem]

My point is that it doesn't really matter if it's there or not, legally the situation is the same - there's nothing short of those steps that the BCA can do to force an independent body to do anything they don't want to do. The only thing that statement prevents is false hope.

 

[Ian Ball]

Is that a vote to remove for you Mikem?

 

[mikem]

I dont really give a damn, as long as it doesn't "interfere" with my enjoyment!

 

[Badlad]

I'm not sure the point of changing 10.1 is being fully understood - and it was me who proposed that the wording be changed. 

A change may well not give the BCA anymore powers to force an independent body to do anything.  The point was that they should be able to look into issues which might affect the wider membership.  The Charterhouse issue demonstrates the problem nicely.  Charterhose banned under 18 year olds and they did not make it clear as to why or engage in discussion on it.  When BCA's Youth & Development received a complaint about it they looked into the matter themselves.  Charterhouse then made a formal complaint to BCA about interference and this then rumbled on, costing BCA several thousand in legal advice, for several years and no one actually got to the bottom of it all.  Potentially this could have affected youth caving in areas far distant from Charterhouse.

So just allowing BCA to make their own enquiries on issues that might affect the wider caving world is what this is all about rather than section 10.1 of the constitution being used to prevent that.