CNCC AGM 1st March 9.30am Hellifield Institute

[Blakethwaite]

NigR, Excalibur Pot is on the North York Moors, not the Dales. A lot of northern England doesn't have the longstanding tradition, culture or understanding of underground exploration that exists in the Dales. Some places you'll be outright refused permission to dig, others at best you'll have to jump through hoops if you want to suddenly dig a hole in someone's field.

Apologies if teaching grandma to suck eggs etc.

There are gated caves in the Dales obviously but has there been suggestion from any quarter of gating more?

 

[NigR]

I know Excalibur Pot is on the North York Moors (I was born in Middlesbrough) but a gate is a gate no matter where it is. Chances are if you are willing to lock up caves in one place you'll be perfectly happy to do it elsewhere, don't you think?

As for suggestions of gating more caves in the Dales, there are indeed none so far as I am aware. However, if you really want to enforce any permit system the only way to have any hope of successfully doing so is to gate all the entrances and I would like to know what Matt (as CNCC Secretary) would do if the landowners decided to go down this route.

I am still awaiting a reply to my question.

 

[graham]

What? There's no difference at all between a gate on Pen Park Hole in the middle of a housing estate where small children live and a gate on Porth yr Ogof?  My word, how daft can NigR get?

A prime example of the ideologically blinkered.

 

[Ian Adams]

What? There's no difference at all between a gate on Pen Park Hole in the middle of a housing estate where small children live and a gate on Porth yr Ogof?  My word, how daft can NigR get?

A prime example of the ideologically blinkered.

I can find nothing whatsoever that connects what NigR has asked to what you have stated Graham. Please stop trying to de-rail legitimate questions.

I too would like to know (perhaps others who might be voting at the CNCC AGM would like to know too) if Matt intends to enforce the permit system and, if that means he feels (or landowners feel), that "gating" is required - will he be a proponent of gating ?

Ian

 

[graham]

Ian,  what do you think is meant by:

"A gate is a gate no matter where it is."

 

[Blakethwaite]

I would like to know what Matt (as CNCC Secretary) would do if the landowners decided to go down this route.

Perhaps for balance you ought to also ask Ian P what he would do in the same situation?

 

[Cavematt]

Thanks to everyone who has emailed me a question.

Re: Gating: I can provide a very quick answer? no, I am not a supporter of gating.

The whole CNCC ethos is to make caves as accessible as possible, so this naturally goes against gating unless there is absolutely no other option.

Regarding Excalibur Pot as an example, this does not lie on open access land. It is on a privately owned shooting estate with no public right of way to the cave. Observing the landowner?s wishes were critical to make access possible at all, in an area of the country with no real understanding of what cavers do. The key for the entrance takes about a minute to collect before the trip, therefore we have a system by which the landowner?s wishes have been respected and cavers are able to visit this cave via a last-minute permit and with minimal inconvenience.

Your exact question was: ?If you are elected as CNCC Secretary would you support the gating of other caves in the Dales if landowners desired or requested it (for example, if this was the only way a permit system could be enforced and hence made to work)?? The answer to this is that I would not support/endorse gating as a way to enforce a permit system. Gating of a cave should be a last resort to facilitate access where the only other option would be zero access.

Excalibur is an exceptional situation. Thankfully, around the Dales there is no precedent or landowner requirement to gate caves, and I would not want to change this. Where necessary, the permit system facilitates caver-landowner relations to sustain long term access without the need to gate entrances, and this is why I believe the CNCC should work to maintain this system.

As discussed in my post above however, the ease of access to permits (including making them electronic and available at short notice wherever possible and available to DIMs as well as to clubs) is something that I would like to see the next CNCC committee discuss. Furthermore, the CNCC should continue to work with the landowners to take caves out of the permit system altogether wherever this becomes possible (a recent example being Washfold Pot).

Any further questions please drop me an Email.

Cheers

Matt

 

[Ian Adams]

Good man Matt, thank you 

With regards to Ian P, I got the impression (of course I may be wrong) that he was not a proponent of gating either 

Ian

 

[NigR]

Thank you for replying to my question, Matt.

Any further questions please drop me an Email.

Yes, I may well have some further questions for you but I would prefer to ask them in public on this forum.

I would like to know what Matt (as CNCC Secretary) would do if the landowners decided to go down this route.

Perhaps for balance you ought to also ask Ian P what he would do in the same situation?

That is a good (and fair) idea. Also, for the sake of balance, it would be interesting to hear the views of Ian P concerning open access to caves on CROW land. Specifically, would he be in favour of this if the landowners were against it or would he prefer to stick to a permit system (as does Matt)?

 

[Jopo]

You have to smile.

Someone indicates that they are willing to stand and get questioned by those who would never stand, attend , negotiate, vote or do anything other than use this space to spout off.
My answer would be 'If you want to question my adgenda turn up and do it at a open meeting and vote'.

Those who hide behind the 'I hate meetings or committees' 'stupid time for a meeting' and all that pathetic apologetic shit (yet have all the answers) should realise that you count for very little - if anything. The forum might allow others a insight into your prejudices and - in many instances sheer laziness - but it really just so much hot air and of NO consequence unless you are willing to get off your arse and actually do something - like stand or turn up to vote.

Jopo

 

[Stu]

Correct me if I'm wrong. The way I understand it, or read it from the constitution of CNCC, is that only full member club representatives get to vote. If this is correct, how are they to decide which way they should cast the vote on behalf of their club, unless all the facts are presented prior to the meeting, so that representative can fairly represent their club?

So Jopo, if the above is how it works then I feel this is a suitable place to discuss it. I can't make the meeting (work), but I could from any answers given here, inform my rep on my opinion.

I think this is a brilliant example of people "being arsed" in a way that fits most people's version of real life i.e. really busy, which shouldn't exclude them from a say. That way CNCC can actually represent a better reflected opinion of its club members, rather than what it thinks its members want. I wouldn't have said yes to secret permits! Reminds me too much of MP's and expenses...

 

[Jon]

Correct me if I'm wrong. The way I understand it, or read it from the constitution of CNCC, is that only full member club representatives get to vote. If this is correct, how are they to decide which way they should cast the vote on behalf of their club, unless all the facts are presented prior to the meeting, so that representative can fairly represent their club?

So Jopo, if the above is how it works then I feel this is a suitable place to discuss it. I can't make the meeting (work), but I could from any answers given here, inform my rep on my opinion.

I think this is a brilliant example of people "being arsed" in a way that fits most people's version of real life i.e. really busy, which shouldn't exclude them from a say. That way CNCC can actually represent a better reflected opinion of its club members, rather than what it thinks its members want. I wouldn't have said yes to secret permits! Reminds me too much of MP's and expenses...

Well said.

 

[Peter Burgess]

What does it matter who asks the question, provided the answer is considered by those in a position to either vote or influence someone who is going to vote? Countless politicians get asked questions before an election by journalists and others on behalf of the electorate. Well said Stu. Unlike politicians, at least here we are more likely to get an honest and open answer.

 

[Jopo]

Correct me if I'm wrong. The way I understand it, or read it from the constitution of CNCC, is that only full member club representatives get to vote. If this is correct, how are they to decide which way they should cast the vote on behalf of their club, unless all the facts are presented prior to the meeting, so that representative can fairly represent their club?

So Jopo, if the above is how it works then I feel this is a suitable place to discuss it. I can't make the meeting (work), but I could from any answers given here, inform my rep on my opinion.

I think this is a brilliant example of people "being arsed" in a way that fits most people's version of real life i.e. really busy, which shouldn't exclude them from a say. That way CNCC can actually represent a better reflected opinion of its club members, rather than what it thinks its members want. I wouldn't have said yes to secret permits! Reminds me too much of MP's and expenses...

Well said.

I have no problem with anyone contributing what they like on this forum just saying that unless they turn up and vote - or ensure their representative does - it's only words.
If club members attended meetings then then clubs should be represented and informed. And forgive me if I am wrong but you can attend and put officers on the spot and hope to sway - even if you cannot vote.

I spent a while reading through the two threads and it struck me that the ranters who have the all answers are unlikely to attend.

You are right in at least one important respect Stu. By posting here bad practice or hidden agendas (real or suspect) may be communicated and the indications that we have some who are prepared to stand for change is  a definite plus.
However until we have video conferencing and/or secure electronic voting I am afraid 'feet on the ground' is the only way, even if only via our own clubs.

I think I have led a full life with kids, work - own manufacturing company (and yes a fair amount of caving) yet I was privileged to sit on (possibly more than my share) of local and national bodies and committees.
Being busy is not a modern affliction.
BTW I don't see the link with MP's expenses - more the Masons

 

[Bottlebank]

It's actually 10am, as on the draft Agenda and now corrected on the website.

The confusion probably arose because ordinary meetings are at 9.30, whereas AGMs begin at 10.0

Thanks Kay! You saved my breakfast

Someone indicates that they are willing to stand and get questioned by those who would never stand, attend , negotiate, vote or do anything other than use this space to spout off.
My answer would be 'If you want to question my adgenda turn up and do it at a open meeting and vote'.

Those who hide behind the 'I hate meetings or committees' 'stupid time for a meeting' and all that pathetic apologetic shit (yet have all the answers) should realise that you count for very little - if anything. The forum might allow others a insight into your prejudices and - in many instances sheer laziness - but it really just so much hot air and of NO consequence unless you are willing to get off your arse and actually do something - like stand or turn up to vote.

Jopo, Stu has answered that well. That's precisely the attitude we've put up with for years that has led to this - in fact it's the attitude that got me involved in the first place. Partly as a result of people asking questions on here we're now starting to get answers, know more about what has been going on and hopefully we're making progress. I can't vote at the meeting, but I can and have conveyed my opinion to our Club rep, and part of my opinion is that people with your attitude have no place representing us.

You might smile, but if my prejudice is that the CNCC should represent all cavers and run a system that works then I'm happy to be seen as prejudiced.

 

[ian.p]

In answer to the questions:
my personal views are that i don't like gates and am firmly in favour of supporting CROW access to caves. I don't believe removing the permit system would lead to a conga line stretching back from the entrance to Lancaster hole to ingleton because there aren't that many cavers!
More importantly I'm firmly of the view that my personall opinion really doesn't matter as i should be implementing whatever i have been mandated to do by the caving comunity rather than moulding what id like to do onto it which is what has caused this sorry state of affairs in the first place.

 

[NigR]

Thanks for replying to my questions, Ian.

Good luck in the forthcoming election.

 

[Badlad]

I am emailing as the Chairperson of the Bradford Pothole Club to the UK Caving Forum as an immediate means of communication with all of the caving community to highlight a piece of information that is incorrect .

It is to make you all aware that the motion proposed in the Draft Agenda for the CNCC AGM, posted on their website is wrongly attributed as a proposal from the Bradford Pothole Club. This is not the case.

We have been informed that the agenda will be amended at the meeting on March 1st but the Chair and Secretary of the BPC feel that is too late. We do not wish other clubs to be forming their  decision as to how they are going to vote with incorrect information of the source of the motion on the agenda.

We greatly appreciate the CNCC requesting that the caving clubs committee formally nominates the  representative  in order to gain a voting paper for this matter. Over the next few weeks the BPC committee and club will be considering how the Bradford Pothole Club will vote at the meeting.

Regards Martell.

Martell Baines
Chairperson Bradford Pothole Club
& Hon Librarian

I'd just like to highlight this again and add some further information.  This relates to a proposal by CNCC for 'commercial' or 'professional' cavers to have access to Leck and Casterton Fells.  It is somewhat controversial and ill conceived and does not have the support of those it is aimed at.  In fact the Association of Cave Instructors and the Northern Panel have been quite scathing in their criticism of how this proposal was negotiated.  Clubs also have their doubts.

In the AGM agenda, the CNCC secretary stated that this motion was proposed by the Bradford Pothole Club and seconded by the Gritstone Club.  The BPC have made their own statement quoted above, but the Gritstone Club were also asked if they had seconded the motion.  Apparently they had not and after some pressure the CNCC secretary redrafted the agenda accordingly. 

It is interesting to note from a review of the CNCC September minutes that it was the secretary himself, representing the Elysium Underground Group, who proposed the motion.

It is this sort of poor governance which arouses suspicion and mistrust.  Another example is the refusal to name the CNCC full member clubs either publically, or to other full members, or even to other members of the current standing committee.  This refusal, for rather spurious reasons, can only lead to the assumption that the incumbents wish to hinder the democratic process.

 

[Bottlebank]

We've had a few examples in the last couple of days of just how much the CNCC need a communications officer. This is another one.  The systems are largely in place - they have a website - with blog facilities, facebook page, twitter page, access to UK Caving and of course Descent. They just don't really use them properly.

There's been a post on the Facebook clarifying the start time of the AGM, and if you click on the agenda on the web site it says a revised agenda is now available. A decent press/communications officer would have been able to add a quick apology in case the mistake over the meeting time had caused any confusion, another quick one about the agenda change perhaps with an open explanation as to how the BPC and Gritstone Club are not proposing and seconding the Commercial caving proposal, an announcement that Les is not standing and thanking him for his hard work over many years, inviting people to stand, an announcement that Kay appears to not be continuing as minutes secretary (which is a shame), a request that club reps bring a letter etc, an announcement that the access terms for Leck are incorrect on the site with a quick apology and confirmation this will be corrected shortly, the list goes on (as I'm doing!).

All these announcements could have been pretty much simultaneously released (cut and paste isn't hard as Les has pointed out) through all five mediums.

Is there any chance one of the club reps could propose a motion and get this on the agenda for the AGM?

 

[graham]

... and if you click on the agenda on the web site it says a revised agenda is now available.

And if you look at the motions it doesn't give any indication of who has proposed and seconded them. If not the BPC and the Gritstone Club, then who?