CNCC AGM 1st March 9.30am Hellifield Institute

[Simon Wilson]

The following is from the September committee meeting minutes, page 13.

http://www.cncc.org.uk/documents/cncc_minutes_21st_september_2013.pdf

Quote:
>>>Kay said that, while trying to update the list of Full Member Clubs, she realised that according to the Constitution, the only Full Member Clubs allowed to vote at CNCC Committee meetings were the 14 specifically elected to the Committee, and that this did not include all the Full Member Clubs that were regular attendees and contributors to the Committee meetings. She therefore suggested that the Constitution should be changed so that Committee meetings would be open to all Full Member Clubs, with voting restricted to one vote per Club. This would bring the Constitution into line with current practice. Les commented that in his view, if a Club put the effort in to attend the meeting, it should be entitled to vote.

Kay proposed and Les seconded, a proposal should be put forward to the AGM: ?Committee meetings are open to all Full Member Clubs, but voting is restricted to one vote per Full Member Club?. Passed unanimously.<<<

So which club was Kay a representing?

 

[graham]

So which club was Kay a representing?

In the other thread you find this post:

This suggest that officers of the club do not have a vote in their own right, i.e. if they are a member of the working committee they vote in that capacity only. This may or may not be the way the CNCC have worked in practice but it seems a good time to highlight it.

Yes, that is the way it works as I understand it. People have a vote as a result of being the representative of their club, and not as a result of their role. If they're not a club rep then they don't have a vote. For example, I was Minutes Secretary, but I was not a club representative, and therefore I had no vote.

And I presume it's why the Chairman has no casting vote - it would be unfair for one club rep to have a casting vote simply because he/she happened to be chairman.

So the answer to your question appears to be "None."

However this still does not tell us who is proposing the far more contentious change in favour of commercial membership.

 

[kay]

The following is from the September committee meeting minutes, page 13.

http://www.cncc.org.uk/documents/cncc_minutes_21st_september_2013.pdf

Quote:
>>>Kay said that, while trying to update the list of Full Member Clubs, she realised that according to the Constitution, the only Full Member Clubs allowed to vote at CNCC Committee meetings were the 14 specifically elected to the Committee, and that this did not include all the Full Member Clubs that were regular attendees and contributors to the Committee meetings. She therefore suggested that the Constitution should be changed so that Committee meetings would be open to all Full Member Clubs, with voting restricted to one vote per Club. This would bring the Constitution into line with current practice. Les commented that in his view, if a Club put the effort in to attend the meeting, it should be entitled to vote.

Kay proposed and Les seconded, a proposal should be put forward to the AGM: ?Committee meetings are open to all Full Member Clubs, but voting is restricted to one vote per Full Member Club?. Passed unanimously.<<<

So which club was Kay a representing?

I wasn't representing any club - I was a non-voting co-opted member of the Committee. That's not a problem - it was for the Committee to decide whether or not a proposal should be put to the AGM, and they voted in favour. The fact that I proposed it didn't contribute to the vote result.

And it was because the Committee decided to put forward the proposal that it didn't need a specific proposer and seconder for the AGM. The same applied to the commercial membership proposal.

 

[Simon Wilson]

I wasn't representing any club - I was a non-voting co-opted member of the Committee. That's not a problem - it was for the Committee to decide whether or not a proposal should be put to the AGM, and they voted in favour. The fact that I proposed it didn't contribute to the vote result.

It is the Council of Northern Caving Clubs; the clubs being constituencies in a system of representative democracy. If you made a proposal without representing a club then it's yet another example of correct procedure not being carried out.

 

[Bottlebank]

It is the Council of Northern Caving Clubs; the clubs being constituencies in a system of representative democracy. If you made a proposal without representing a club then it's yet another example of correct procedure not being carried out.

Sorry Simon, but Kay is or was at the time a co-opted committee member, she was entitled to come up with a proposal, just not entitled to vote. There may be some examples where the correct procedure wasn't carried out, but this wasn't one.

 

[Judi Durber]

I have tried to follow all the threads regarding the CNCC but this has me puzzled. (probably being a tad thick  :-[ )

Graham made a point on the other thread:

Re: Observations on CNCC meeting
? Reply #50 on: February 04, 2014, 08:16:50 pm ?
Para:

The committee shall consist of fourteen members, each of whom will represent a different full member club

Para:

There shall be a Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Conservation Officer and Training Officer who shall be members of different member clubs so far as this is possible, and will be subject to instruction from the Committee.

Question 1:
Are the Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Conservation Officer and Training Officer counted as part of the committee (consist of fourteen members)?

Question 2:
If they are not part of the committee do the Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Conservation Officer and Training Officer have to be from different  member clubs than from the committee?

Para:

A quorum at a committee meeting shall consist of six committee members, at least one of whom shall be an Officer of the Council.

Question 3:
Who are the Officer of the Council?

Question 4:
How are the Officer of the Council made up?

 

[kay]

I have tried to follow all the threads regarding the CNCC but this has me puzzled. (probably being a tad thick  :-[ )

Not at all. It is confusing, and a lot of people are coming to it for the first time.

Graham made a point on the other thread:

Re: Observations on CNCC meeting
? Reply #50 on: February 04, 2014, 08:16:50 pm ?
Para:

The committee shall consist of fourteen members, each of whom will represent a different full member club

Para:

There shall be a Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Conservation Officer and Training Officer who shall be members of different member clubs so far as this is possible, and will be subject to instruction from the Committee.

Question 1:
Are the Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Conservation Officer and Training Officer counted as part of the committee (consist of fourteen members)?

Loosely speaking, they are thought of as "part of the Committee" but they don't have a vote in their own right. They only have a vote if they are a rep of a club that has been elected to the committee. As it happens, the current officers all are reps of clubs elected to the committee, so they do vote, but they vote representing their respective clubs. The count of 14 refers to the reps of the elected clubs - any non-voting officers are not included in this total.

Question 2:
If they are not part of the committee do the Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Conservation Officer and Training Officer have to be from different  member clubs than from the committee?

No. They can be from any club committee club or from a different club. If the Chairman, say, was from the same elected committee club as the Conservation Officer, only one of them would vote on behalf of the club (because each club on the committee has only one vote) and the other wouldn't vote.

Para:

A quorum at a committee meeting shall consist of six committee members, at least one of whom shall be an Officer of the Council.

Question 3:
Who are the Officer of the Council?

Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Conservation Officer and Training Officer

Question 4:
How are the Officer of the Council made up?

Do you mean how are they elected? At the AGM, from nominations received.

 

[Jenny P]

You might like to take a look at the DCA Constitution - on our website at www.theDCA.org.uk.  Section 3 refers to membership (DCA has had Club, Individual and Associate members since it was founded in 1960);  sections 5, 6 & 7 refer to voting, election of officers, quorate meetings, etc.

In the early 1990's DCA had a period when certain people caused a great deal of upset by rigging meetings, claiming votes they were not entitled to, multiple voting on controversial issues, etc. We also had some clubs complaining that certain people were voting and making proposals on behalf of the club without being authorised to do so.  Hence in 1994 we re-wrote the Constitution to avoid all these pitfalls and tried to tie things up pretty tightly.  It worked because everyone was fed up with the shenanigans anyway.

We can, if need be, go by the letter of the Constitution but we have found since 1994 that we actually haven't needed to - the point is that the option is there if required.

The DCA Constitution is rather wordy and complicated because we tried to cover all angles and we have had to tinker with it a few times since 1994.  We also changed it in 2005 to take account of the BCA club membership system so that any BCA member club interested in caving in the Peak District is eligible to become a member of DCA (and able to vote at meetings) but the club has to formally apply for membership.  (However, BCA member clubs do not pay a subscription to DCA on the basis that a good part of DCA's administration and access expenditure is funded by BCA.)  Note that DCA is lucky in that it does not have to deal with restrictive permit systems imposed by landowners so membership or otherwise of BCA/DCA is not an issue.

It's not a perfect Constitution but, on the whole, it seems to work reasonably well.

Jenny Potts,
DCA Hon. Sec.

 

[Judi Durber]

Kay,  thank you very much    I understand the difference & terminology now 

 

[Robert Scott]

It is the Council of Northern Caving Clubs; the clubs being constituencies in a system of representative democracy.

That dangerous and difficult phrase "representative democracy".

 

[Blakethwaite]

I'm surprised nobody has picked up on IanP's statement in the last few days.

Ian. With respect, your response is that of a professional politician; platitudes aplenty but entirely without meaningful substance. Perhaps you could clarify your position somewhat?

my personal views are that i don't like gates

It doesn't really matter whether you like gates or not. The question that NigR asked I think was were it the case that the landowner insisted that a gate was fitted, would you then fit a gate? The question can perhaps better be boiled down to would you rather lose access to a cave than gate it even if the gate ensured that the cave remained accessible?

am firmly in favour of supporting CROW access to caves.

If the CRoW option doesn't prove viable what are your thoughts? Do you intend to disregard the current permit system? Are you absolutely certain that forcing the issue via CRoW will not prejudice the position of cavers generally? How do you know this?

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.

If one thing has been made clear by this host of recent threads,  its that the caving community generally speaking does not give a shit. Once this fuss has died down a touch you will undoubtedly be on your own. Its seems clear that caving clubs, club CNCC reps and individual cavers have failed to make any effort to get involved with the CNCC. I can't find the the post now but I'm certain that there was a comment somewhere from Les Sykes saying that he had been offering to step back for over a decade if somebody else would take his place. If the CNCC then has to act off its own back then it can hardly come as any surprise and should you be appointed secretary then doubtless you will be left in the same position until such a time as the next bandwagon rolls into town then... Et tu, Brute...

 

[Jon]

It sounds like most of the CNCC committee feel unappreciated and have wanted to step down for years. Maybe if they did all step down on mass it would force the caving world to sort itself out?

 

[graham]

It sounds like most of the CNCC committee feel unappreciated and have wanted to step down for years. Maybe if they did all step down on mass it would force the caving world to sort itself out?

Most people doing these jobs feel unappreciated most of the time. Frequently the only way to get this across is to actually stand down. if nobody comes forward to replace you then maybe the job is not that urgent. If it is, someone will be found soon enough

 

[cap n chris]

... it would force the caving world to sort itself out...

What do you envisage by the term "the caving world"?

UK Cavers, as a group (which they aren't), are mostly enthusiastic individuals or small groupings operating beneath a club banner. There's no splendid halls of serried ranks of uniformed troops lined up as far as the eye can see, all working towards a common goal of speleological achievement. Isn't it more a Subterranean-rag-tag-version-of-Last-of-the-Summer-Wine-accompanied-by-a-weary-Jack-Russell-kind-of-thing*?

* Except for the Hidden Earth team which is akin to Red Bull Racing.

 

[graham]

* Except for the Hidden Earth team which is akin to Red Bull Racing.

I presume you haven't been following their progress in pre-season testing - or did you mean it as an insult? 

 

[cap n chris]

I meant it as a compliment: I don't have TV and don't follow motorsports. Clearly I know Red Bull exists because they sponsor pretty much every marketed-as-high-adrenalin-pursuit on the planet. Apart from caving. GPF might want to grovel towards them sometime.

 

[ian.p]

t doesn't really matter whether you like gates or not.

Yep which is why i said as much in the following paragraph. The role of the committee is to act in the best interest of northern caving not any one persons ideology so if a situation arose where a farmer was going to infill a cave entrance unless a gate was installed then yes a gate would most of the time be a better solution especially if it was openable by the equivalent of a Derbyshire key.

If the CRoW option doesn't prove viable what are your thoughts?

That we wont have lost anything by trying.

its that the caving community generally speaking does not give a shit

The active caving comunite cares about having access to caves the fact that not everyone has the time or perhaps feel that they don't have the skills to take on an active committee role does not mean they don't "give a shit". I have always been annoyed when anyone who raises a justified criticism of a representative body who isn't on a committee is shouted down for not contributing to the sport there are loads of ways people contribute to British caving (training novices, running digs, dive and scientific projects etc) serving on a committee is one of many.