CNCC democracy

[Simon Wilson]

... 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...

Discussions about any change to the access arrangements would be done between the Access Officer and the Estate Manager. All I can do is make a request to the Access Officer. That is precisely why I want to see the full wording of the access agreement. I might want to suggest changes but I can't know until I know exactly what it says.

Les knows why I want to see it and that is why he and his chums don't want me to.

And just to clear up any possible misunderstanding, I did not ask for the full access agreement to be made public, although I know of no reason why it shouldn't be; at the recent committee meeting I asked to be able to read the "full details" of it as I am entitled to do under the constitution.

 

[Cavematt]

Simon (and others)

As is very clear from the minutes of the last CNCC meeting, there was nobody present at the meeting who was opposed to the circulation of the full access agreement documents as per your wishes. However, it was acknowledged that there are some matters that need to be addressed first which will be discussed at a future meeting.

What you seem to be asking for is a sudden snap decision to circulate the access agreements, based on your interpretation of the constitution, and in contradiction to the way the CNCC has operated for many years. Many people (yourself included) heaped scrutiny and criticism on the CNCC Officers earlier this year for taking actions they deemed not to have undergone proper consultation and consideration. Clearly the current officers are keen not to take any actions that are likely to incur similar accusations again.

Currently the democratic process is working. You, as a representative of a CNCC Committee club, have raised this as a concern at a meeting and stated your clubs wishes, that the agreement documents are made available to full member clubs.

We then identified that there was nobody in the room who opposed this (even the ?Old Guard? as you keep referring to us did not oppose this). However, some people did raise matters that may need to be considered, discussed and possibly addressed first. To have simply made a snap decision to circulate the documents, without considering if there were any consequences, would have been irresponsible.

As a result of this (and as you can see from the actions listed at the end of the minutes of the last meeting) the Officers have been tasked with looking into this and bringing to a future committee meeting any potential issues or concerns that might be raised by circulating the documents. As a committee we can discuss these concerns, hopefully address them, and have an informed vote as to whether to go ahead with your proposal.

Therefore, Simon, while I sympathise with your desire for immediate action, I strongly disagree with your statement that we are attempting to thwart your efforts. What is happening is rather to the contrary, except we are pursuing it in way which dedicates the level of consideration that something such as this deserves, so that an informed decision can be made.

To those outside of the CNCC it may seem like a simple matter, and you may be wondering what exactly requires so much discussion? There are several answers to this. Firstly, this would represent a major change. Secondly, some people have raised reasonable, but manageable concerns. Thirdly, the decision to proceed must be made by the Committee (not the officers), and it is our job as officers to provide them with all the information they need to make an informed decision.

Hughie, I feel that implying that the CNCC is obstructive is not accurate. There has been a considerable movement towards making the CNCC more open and clear over the last year, and all the officers and committee involved have supported this. I have found nobody who has been obstructive to any of the progress that has been made. It is something that will certainly continue.

Matt Ewles, CNCC Secretary

 

[Hughie]

Thank you, Matt.

I only ever move in the Mendip caving circle, where access is fairly simple and straightforward. Even access to the most "controlled" caves is not difficult, with a tiny bit of effort.

 

[martinm]

Ok, I've just found out there are signed copies of DCAs access agreements, (with the signatures), but they are not on the web site or in our access handbook. Will investigate further later this week...

I do know who they are held by now though, so will inquire about issues involved with publishing them and report back further after the w/e. 

 

[Simon Wilson]

Matt,    Thank you for braving the lion's cage.

I think you are speaking quite sincerely. However, we see things from a different perspective and with all due respect I think you may have been beguiled into the mindset of the Old Guard.

... What you seem to be asking for is a sudden snap decision to circulate the access agreements, based on your interpretation of the constitution, and in contradiction to the way the CNCC has operated for many years. ...

The constitution has been ignored for many years. What I am asking for (yet again) is for the constitution to be followed.

... However, some people did raise matters that may need to be considered, discussed and possibly addressed first. To have simply made a snap decision to circulate the documents, without considering if there were any consequences, would have been irresponsible. ...

The meeting was told that the full details could not be circulated because the access agreement contained personal details. But the Estate Manager would expect the CNCC to abide by its constitution so he would draw up the agreement in the expectation that it will be circulated. I do not believe that there will be any personal details in the agreement that are not already in the public domain (see my earlier posting).

To those outside of the CNCC it may seem like a simple matter, and you may be wondering what exactly requires so much discussion? There are several answers to this. Firstly, this would represent a major change. Secondly, some people have raised reasonable, but manageable concerns. Thirdly, the decision to proceed must be made by the Committee (not the officers), and it is our job as officers to provide them with all the information they need to make an informed decision.

Waffle, waffle, waffle committee blah blah blah..... Matt, it would be far simpler just to work to the constitution instead of needlessly creating arguments and work. I pointed out in the meeting that you seem to be making your job a lot more complicated than it needs to be.

The new Access Officer was not at the last committee meeting and the Old Guard were in charge. If Johnny had been there I have little doubt the meeting would have gone another way. I have recently spoken to Johnny who was extremely obliging and said I could view the access agreement in full with pleasure. I intend to do that soon.

The access agreement is actually a 'licence' issued on the 1st of January every year and runs for 12 months. I expect it very seldom changes and so it would be a very simple matter to attach it to the agenda of a committee meeting, for the committee to agree to its signing and for the Access Officer to sign it in front of the meeting and pop it in an envelope for posting back to the estate office. That would take a couple of minutes and everybody would be happy.

But that's far too simple for the Old Guard we have to have protracted acrimonious exchanges creating reams of unnecessary minutes because they refuse to stick to a very straightforward constitution. And why do they refuse to stick to the constitution? Because it would be...

... in contradiction to the way the CNCC has operated for many years.

Thank you again.

 

[Badlad]

I think several of us are trying hard to persuade the CNCC to move forward.  In areas such as transparency, representation, etc perhaps not much progress is being made, as Simon's point illustrates.

The access agreement is between the Estate and the CNCC.  The CNCC is made up of a committee.  Simon is an elected member of that committee.  The committee is expected to review and approve access agreements.  Simon asked over a year ago to see the Leck Fell access agreement and was refused by what he describes as 'the old guard'.  He has asked again and is still being refused.  This year long process is apparently a request for a 'snap decision', and just like the request for the members list, getting any information is like the slow extraction of teeth. 

A quick search for other cave access agreements shows that the Pwll Du Cave Management Group show the full access agreement for Ogof Draenen on their web site - http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/begin.htm  So their is no such word as 'can't'.


I still hope to see in my time a CNCC who genuinely represents all northern cavers and can do so with fairness, transparency and good will.  Instead I see the 'old guard' closing ranks where ever possible and who see new and progressive views as a challenge to the old ways which must be protected at all costs to the detriment of the wider caving community.

 

[Alex]

However, some people did raise matters that may need to be considered, discussed and possibly addressed first. To have simply made a snap decision to circulate the documents, without considering if there were any consequences, would have been irresponsible.

As a result of this (and as you can see from the actions listed at the end of the minutes of the last meeting) the Officers have been tasked with looking into this and bringing to a future committee meeting any potential issues or concerns that might be raised by circulating the documents. As a committee we can discuss these concerns, hopefully address them, and have an informed vote as to whether to go ahead with your proposal.

I can't believe you are essentially having a meeting about having a meeting. Should it not be if there are no issues then just do it, only bring it to the next commitiee if there is? It is this sort of stuff why I avoid committees in general so much wasted time discussing whether we should discuss something, nothing ever gets done or it takes far longer then it should. I think the following image (Actually about climate change, illustrates my point)

 

[ah147]

Picture stolen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alex]

It was just to illustrate a point and bring a bit of humor... Perhaps we should have a meeting whether I should take it down or not

 

[bograt]

It was just to illustrate a point and bring a bit of humor... Perhaps we should have a meeting whether I should take it down or not

, no, we must have a meeting to decide a date and location on which the meeting to decide that proposal should take place p.s. do you have a seconder?

 

[Les W]

Will this be discussed at the pre meeting  meeting or the post meeting meeting? 

 

[bograt]

Surely this must be at the pre-meeting, but it must be quorate as per the constitution?

 

[Les W]

Surely this must be at the pre-meeting, but it must be quorate as per the constitution?

But the quorum to be decided at the Post meeting meeting...

 

[bograt]

As notified on the agenda to all those elligable to vote 6 months in advance, also regarding postal votes --.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Les and Bograt,

We all like a joke but this is a thread about a serious matter and filling threads with crap does not do the forum or the cause any good.

 

[droid]

Quite so Simon.

However, I imagine the proceedings here will get to the procrastinators somehow, and the mockery of this absurd situation may prompt movement.

 

[bograt]

Quite so Simon.

However, I imagine the proceedings here will get to the procrastinators somehow, and the mockery of this absurd situation may prompt movement.

That was my main reason for doing it, I certainly Hope So 

 

[Alex]

And mine.