CNCC democracy
- Thread starter Simon Wilson
- Start date
Simon Wilson said:
I attended this meeting and when the secretary read out the list of member club names I never heard any request for anonymity being made. It is a shame no one recorded the list then. If these requests for anonymity did happen it does seem rather at odds with the normal procedure for these meetings. All attendees sign a register to say who they are and which club they represent. This is then published with the minutes on the open CNCC web site.
The CNCC secretary has been asked for the list of full member clubs for some time now. Certainly going back before the last committee meeting. This request has come from a number of clubs (not just those who post on this forum), and I don't think any have been satisfied by the secretary's answer.
Only full member clubs may vote at the AGM so it is important for democracy to know who these clubs are. Even the secretary's list is quite outdated as it originates from the NCA/BCA shake up of 2004. Many clubs I have spoken to do not even know themselves whether they are full members or not. They need to contact the CNCC secretary to find out.
Born out of frustration, there is a movement which supports change and modernisation within the CNCC, of which I am a part. We would very much like to lobby full member clubs and encourage them to engage with CNCC to sort out the problems which clearly exist. I will leave you to conclude what the advantage is of keeping this list secret - even from other committee members!
The so called 'Tim Allen letter' (referred to above), which details some of the problems, will appear on UKC later.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
This comment is really for our "global moderator" - thank you for removing the content of those emails; I feel there's a very important principle at stake here and I think you've done exactly the right thing.
For Simon - please don't take this personally; whether or not I agree with what you've been posting lately, the issue of keeping personal messages personal is extremely important. This principle is far more important than any individual topic on here.
For Simon - please don't take this personally; whether or not I agree with what you've been posting lately, the issue of keeping personal messages personal is extremely important. This principle is far more important than any individual topic on here.
Simon Wilson
New member
I maintain that emails between a committee member and the officers about CNCC business are not private.
The CNCC officers have published emails between themselves and Andy Eavis on their website.
http://www.cncc.org.uk/documents/cncc_minutes_21st_september_2013.pdf (Page 18)
Would it be OK for me to paraphrase the emails and try to explain exactly what they meant and the inferences made. It would be extremely difficult to convey the meaning of the email without actually saying what the email said. The content of that email in context is important in understanding how the the CNCC officers are trying very hard to invent excuses for not giving me the list of members.
The CNCC officers have published emails between themselves and Andy Eavis on their website.
http://www.cncc.org.uk/documents/cncc_minutes_21st_september_2013.pdf (Page 18)
Would it be OK for me to paraphrase the emails and try to explain exactly what they meant and the inferences made. It would be extremely difficult to convey the meaning of the email without actually saying what the email said. The content of that email in context is important in understanding how the the CNCC officers are trying very hard to invent excuses for not giving me the list of members.
Pitlamp
Well-known member
I think the only reasonable answer is you ought to ask for the permission of the people who wrote them. If you sent a message to me I'd not dream of copy & pasting it onto a public forum without asking you if it was OK. I realise you're only trying to argue your particular opinion but the principle at stake is an important one for the future of the forum.
paul
Moderator
[gmod]It looks like it is worth having a reminder of the Forum's Acceptable Use Policy:
Please do not contravene the Policy, especially "Personal insults/attacks/threats - we're all adults, keep it civil."
[/gmod]
Code:
What is a bannable offence?
I think we all know what is and what isn't acceptable on this forum but for the benefits of new or recent users.
Trolling and malicious hijacking of topics.
Personal insults/attacks/threats - we're all adults, keep it civil.
Hatred: Sexism/Racism/etc - most of us know what is and isn't acceptable and what is and isn't real hatred.
Arguing with moderator's decisions on the public forum. Feel free to contact the mod team if you disagree with a decision but do it privately. If you're banned then use the email contact form.
Spamming the forum in any way, i.e. no we don't want to buy your penis enlargment pills thanks.
Direct links to illegal content - e.g. don't post an e2dk or torrent link to illegal software on the public forums.
Other illegal content - e.g. don't post kiddie pr0n, etc.
Abuse of the PM system. Either spamming other users or sending insults /threats/etc. Although we have never yet needed to read anybody's PMs, it is possible to do so and accusations of such abuse will be investigated.
Posting personal information that is not your own without direct consent from the party involved. e.g. don't give out somebody's address or phone number."Please do not contravene the Policy, especially "Personal insults/attacks/threats - we're all adults, keep it civil."
[/gmod]
Peter Burgess
New member
Rules have little value unless they are both followed and enforced.
Simon Wilson
New member
Simon Wilson said:
I have been trying to get to see the Leck Fell access agreement for about eighteen months but have been given flat refusals. When I first asked to see it I was told that I couldn't see it because it was the private property of the landowner.
One of the reasons why I want to see it in full is because I want to find out exactly how much it denies our rights under the CRoW Act or if it is the CNCC who are attempting to deny us those rights. For example a CNCC permits says that you must stick to a certain mapped path to approach each cave but is that in the access agreement or have the CNCC imposed that extra restriction?
At the last CNCC committee meeting amendments to the constitution were discussed and when we got to the part where it says that all full member clubs should be issued with the full details of the access agreements I asked why the access agreements were being kept secret. Glenn Jones said that the full details were on the website. I said that there was only a summary and that the full details clearly meant every word, every comma and full stop. Glenn said, "A summary is the full details." The cronies all closed ranks and backed him up and I was argued down.
Quote from the minutes:
John Holloway said that ULSA strongly support publishing of access agreements, which initiated a lengthy discussion on the subject.
In response to a question from Tim Allen, Pat Halliwell said that as the agreements are between the CNCC officers at the time and the landowner, it cannot be assumed that the landowners would be happy with wider circulation of the documents. Simon Wilson said he wished to see the agreements, and referred to the wording in the constitution; ?All member clubs shall be issued with full details of agreements when completed or revised?. There was mixed opinion in the room as to whether this required the full unabbreviated document to be circulated.
Lower
A lengthy discussion was held regarding the meaning of ?full details? similar to that earlier in the meeting. Simon Wilson emphasised that he firmly believed the current constitution required us to circulate to all full members the full access agreement documents. Others disagreed. Andrew Hinde said that there was no dispute about whether we wanted to be able to circulate the agreement documents; however, there were some potential concerns to address first.
I will get to see the access agreement eventually but the old guard persist in doing everything they can the thwart my efforts to see it.
What do you think? Why were the words "full details" put into the constitution? Does it mean every word or will a summary do? Is it important to be allowed to see all the words of an agreement that we are expected to abide by?
Simon Wilson, EPC elected CNCC Representative.
Simon Wilson
New member
Hughie said:
You are wrong and this thread is about CNCC democracy not CRoW.
The old guard are still in charge. I am very glad to see that SUSS have applied to become a full member club. Please can all other northern university clubs join. You have only got a few weeks to get your application in to be able to vote at the AGM.
Simon.
martinm
New member
I wish you the best of luck Simon. DCA have all it's access agreements in full detail on it's website. See:-
http://thedca.org.uk/access-information/legal-access-agreements
We have no reason to hide such things...
Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer / Webmeister.
http://thedca.org.uk/access-information/legal-access-agreements
We have no reason to hide such things...
Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer / Webmeister.
Peter Burgess
New member
Do CNCC run a mushroom farm?
Simon Wilson
New member
kay said:
Quite right Kay. The DCA also only show summaries.
The CNCC constitution requires the full details to be sent to all full member clubs. We do not need the permission of the estate manager to circulate the full details. On the contrary I think the Estate Manager would be surprised to find out that the CNCC is refusing to let the people with whom the agreement is made see the agreement.
Another excuse that has been given for not allowing us to see the agreement is that there are private details in the agreement. What possible private details could there be in the agreement? It is an agreement between the Kay-Shuttleworth Estate and the CNCC signed on behalf of the CNCC by the Access Officer and by Charles Lang the Estate Manager.
Les Sykes, 49 Mansfield, Skelmersdale, Lancashire, WN8 6SU
http://cncc.org.uk/contact/index.php
Charles Lang, The Estate Office, Cowan Bridge, Cumbria, via Carnforth, Lancashire, LA6 2HS
Email: charles.lang@smithsgore.co.uk
Direct mobile number: 07540 204121
https://www.smithsgore.co.uk/Users/BranchMember.aspx?OfficeId=11
The landowner is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kay-Shuttleworth,_5th_Baron_Shuttleworth
who resides at Leck Hall.
http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/atoz/a_to_z/service.asp?u_id=827&tab=1
All easily available public information.
Bottlebank
New member
mmilner said:
I'd imagine in some areas agreement may have been verbal and there may not be any?
Bottlebank
New member
Simon Wilson said:
Surely the old CNCC Access Officer has turned over all relevant paperwork to the new Access Officer by now?
Why not get the new Access Officer to focus on negotiating new access agreements which allow access to all cavers and get an online permit system up and running which means they are administered more efficiently?
Going over old ground on this isn't going to solve anything really, is it?
martinm
New member
You may be right Tony. 
Pete, I've just emailed Pete Mellors the DCA L&I officer asking about this. He was the person who did the majority of the access negotiations and got the access agreements in place, so he will know.
I'll report back when I hear back. It 'might' assist Simon. I also agree it might be worth approaching the landowners direct in due course and getting a feel for their current stance on sorting new access agreements for Leck & Casterton in the light of changes in recent years...
Pete, I've just emailed Pete Mellors the DCA L&I officer asking about this. He was the person who did the majority of the access negotiations and got the access agreements in place, so he will know.
I'll report back when I hear back. It 'might' assist Simon. I also agree it might be worth approaching the landowners direct in due course and getting a feel for their current stance on sorting new access agreements for Leck & Casterton in the light of changes in recent years...
