Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution

[mikem]

The Finance Committee Procedures (BCA Funding of Regional Councils) already states:

2) Principles
(2.1) To ensure the funding is spent for the benefit of BCA members and is transparent.
...
7) Implementation
(7.1) Funding is to be spent for benefit of BCA members.
(a) The running costs of a particular Regional Council (photocopying, postage, room hire, stationary, phone bills, and travel expenses of officers to meetings) is deemed to be to the benefit of all BCA members since there are councils for all regions providing similar benefits.
(b) The test for C&A funding is that as a minimum access is available to all BCA members.

(Should be stationery, not stationary)

So, as it stands now, if BCA don't believe a member body is acting in the best interests of overall membership, they don't have to fund them. If the body don't ask for funding then there's nothing, short of suspension / expulsion, that BCA can do anyway. It also says:

9) Access Body Funding
(9.1) An Access Body can apply to the Finance Committee for funded status via their Regional Council. The Finance Committee will judge each application on its merits.
(9.2) Access Body funding is via their respective Regional Council.
(9.3) Funded Access Body (FAB) expenditure is included with their respective Regional Council expenditure and processed in the same way using the same procedures.
(a) An analysis of the expenditure reimbursed to each FAB should be shown as a note to the Regional Council accounts, broken down by cost heading (Running Costs / C&A, etc.).
(b) The FAB?s C&A expenditure can be presented as a project or be counted towards the Regional Council?s ?750 allowance.
(c) FAB?s travel expenses are not paid.

[My highlight]

 

[Badlad]

Yes, mikem.  I know what they say.  I spent two years working within the BCA democratic process to update the regional council funding rules so that all areas could benefit more from the central body cash.  It's quite amusing now, on reflection, that the biggest opposition to this change came from CSCC representatives - who are now the largest beneficiaries of the changes in terms of extra funding.  A good outcome me thinks.

However, funding rules is not the constitution and a motion passed at the BCA AGM does need to be acted upon.  As this BCA working group is doing.

 

[mikem]

You may know, but majority of members don't. & The officers of CSCC have mostly changed in that time.

I'm not saying it can't be rewritten, but the options are severely limited by the rest of the constitution & operating procedures.