Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution

[Bob Mehew]

When we took that part of the text of the NCA constitution and revised it to use in what is now Section 10 of the BCA constitution, we were minded that sub section 10.2 gave BCA an explicit power to reprimand a member if it felt it was necessary, despite what sub section 10.1 said.  However what we did not consider was the detailed wording of 10.2, namely: Not withstanding Sub Section 10.1, any member deemed to be acting against the interests of the Association may be suspended and subsequently expelled from the Association.... only permitted BCA to effectively go the 'whole hog' and expel a member if found guilty.  If sub section 10.2 allowed for lesser penalties, then I suggest that would go a long way to resolving the problem.

I suggest the same observation also applies to sub section 10.3.

There was a lesser problem in that BCA never really got to grips with its processes for dealing with such situations and had several occasions when mutterings of formal legal action arose.  That is why the Manual of Operations is possibly more important since it is the place to cover such detailed matters to ensure fair play and a clear process.

 

[droid]

Is part of the 'problem' that some organisations don't think that BCA has any authority?

Are there any organisations (rather than individuals) that actually *need* BCA in order for it to function?

Or is BCA there simply to support itself....

I realise this is a bit simplistic but I'm having difficulty with what seems to be an awful lot of complication for such a tiny organisation...

 

[Bob Mehew]

Are there any organisations (rather than individuals) that actually *need* BCA in order for it to function?

The vast majority (if not all) of the organisations require BCA membership in order to gain access BCA's insurance.  It was the failure of BCRA's insurance offering back in 2003 which gave the final push to the acceptance of creating BCA.  (DCA did carry on through 2004 with it's own insurance cover but came fully into BCA in 2005.)  It may be possible for an organisation to obtain its own cover but at a price.  (As it was put to me back in 2003, insurance brokers aren't interested in the task of finding an insurer for a specialist insurance if the premium was under ?10,000.)

I will concede that all organisations don't need insurance to operate, but the individuals who do the work of the organisation would be mad to not have it to protect themselves if things go wrong.  I don't know of one caving related organisation which has ?1,000,000  let alone ?10,000,000 in resources to cover a potential claim.

 

[droid]

I can understand *individuals* needing BCA-mediated insurance, indeed I've long held it's the main reason people join. But for the BCA itself I'd have thought corporate insurance more appropriate.

So it doesn't really answer the question...

Reading my last post - delete the 'for it' in the second paragraph. Might make more sense then.... :

 

[mikem]

They also cover huts, club committees, access groups & landowners with caves (to some extent).

 

[2xw]

Is part of the 'problem' that some organisations don't think that BCA has any authority?

Are there any organisations (rather than individuals) that actually *need* BCA in order for it to function?

Or is BCA there simply to support itself....

I realise this is a bit simplistic but I'm having difficulty with what seems to be an awful lot of complication for such a tiny organisation...

Yes to first question and second.

I fail to see how most members, particularly the regional councils, would cover their own costs without central funding (without a significant drop in what they are currently achieving anyways) The CSCC has claimed about ?15k just this year for cave entrances, and the CNCC has got sources of its own funding but not all of it. I don't know how it was funded before, or did they charge locals and spend less maybe?

 

[Bob Mehew]

But for the BCA itself I'd have thought corporate insurance more appropriate.

Re an alternative of corporate insurance - we were not offered it as very few of the organisations who are members of the BCA are corporate bodies; only 3 spring to my mind but no doubt there are a few others.  The law on liability for an unincorporated body like clubs, RCCs and access groups /  access controlling bodies is simple, the liability falls on all of the individual members of that body. 

I fail to see how most members, particularly the regional councils, would cover their own costs without central funding (without a significant drop in what they are currently achieving anyways) .... I don't know how it was funded before, or did they charge locals and spend less maybe?

With respect to funding RCCs, before BCA they obtained their funding from their members who with the exception of DCA were clubs.  Part of the 'deal' setting up BCA was that clubs who were members of BCA could obtain access to all caves controlled by all the RCCs as a condition of BCA funding the RCCs directly. 

Slightly off topic but in setting up BCA, we drew up a budget which would covers a range of activities including things like a paper publication.  Regrettably that specific activity and several other activities never really came about.  We also had a goal of raising sufficient funds to cover one year's operating costs for BCA, plus the excess we had accepted under the insurance agreement.  As a consequence BCA rapidly increased its reserves.  BCA never trimmed back the membership fees so I think 2020 is the first year it actually managed to make a loss.  So BCA can afford to cover much larger costs that an RCC might ever have been able to do.

 

[PeteHall]

What is the closing date for the online consultation?

 

[Bob Mehew]

What is the closing date for the online consultation?

From https://british-caving.org.uk/section-10-1-consultation/ "The consultation will be open for at least two weeks (at least until 21st May) but may remain open for longer. "

I can't recall when it opened but the date on the OP is May 6th.  HTH

 

[PeteHall]

...but may remain open for longer.

I suppose it was really this that I was asking about. With a week to run, has a decision been made yet to keep it open longer or not?

 

[JoshW]

We had a meeting last night (of which minutes will be forthcoming and uploaded to our new snazzy section of the website, I'm sure), and I'm fairly sure it was decided that it would be left open for a little while longer

We have however committed to bringing a progress update to council for the meeting at the end of this month, so the sample of responses we have currently will be used to plot a course, which pending further responses could be adjusted.

Those of you who feel passionately (and those who don't), please do take the time to have a quick read through the doc's and respond to the survey. An overwhelming majority voted to take a look at 10.1, so it would be good to get an understanding of why.

 

[andrewmcleod]

The consultation will remain open until at least May 30th.

 

[PeteHall]

An interesting point that was raised at the CSCC AGM on Friday was the question of timing.

The BCA is on its third chairman in a year and there have been quite a number of other changes in the executive and council recently, some more acrimonious than others.

The proposal to alter or remove section 10.1 will effectively hand more control to the BCA, yet while the BCA remains in a state of flux, it is not clear what that rebalancing of power will be used for. This was not framed as a criticism of the current executive or council, by the way; in fact there was plenty of support expressed for all those involved.

I imagine that this proposal may be better supported in the south (and elsewhere?) once the BCA has settled down a bit and people have a better idea what to expect.

In the meantime, the CSCC officers have been charged with producing a constructive response to the consultation, based on the general views expressed at the AGM.

 

[mikem]

Alternatively, just changing or removing 10.1 may have no effect, as the independence of constituent bodies is in other parts of the document as well.

 

[Badlad]

I don't think this is necessarily about giving the BCA more power.  It is primarily about reducing the ability of smaller, perhaps less democratic, groups from being able to beat the BCA with a big stick every time they should dare to ask some questions or investigate why a group might be behaving in such a way to the detriment of the wider caving community.  That was what was behind my proposal anyway.  Even with some reform it doesn't mean BCA will actually be able to make a group change their ways, but it will give them a voice and the opportunity to investigate issues and report on them without the group silencing them with complaints based on the current 10.1.

 

[andrewmcleod]

I imagine that this proposal may be better supported in the south (and elsewhere?) once the BCA has settled down a bit and people have a better idea what to expect.

In the meantime, the CSCC officers have been charged with producing a constructive response to the consultation, based on the general views expressed at the AGM.

To be perfectly honest, I'd rather take a longer time to examine all the issues relating the Section 10 (and beyond). That's partly pure laziness, of course, and it's very easy to let things slip every further, and the more ambitious a project the less likely it is to come to fruition...

Unfortunately (for me), the BCA membership overwhelmingly voted to require the BCA to bring forward a new form of words to the next BCA AGM, and due to the delays in getting going with the COG group, we have probably sufficient but certainly not excessive time to carry out the explicit will of the membership who all BCA officers and convenors serve.

 

[andrewmcleod]

Begin non-official personal view on the BCA, regional councils and Section 10.1:

I shall refer to Section 2.1 of the BCA Constitution:

"The Association is a national federation comprising: individuals; caving, mining and other related Clubs; Regional Caving Councils; and National Bodies with specialist interests, all of whom have autonomy in their own field; together with any other bodies who express an interest in caving, mining or other subterranean phenomena. All shall be referred to as Members, as applicable."

It is unambiguous that the regional councils, national bodies, clubs etc. are all autonomous bodies. They are BCA members, but are not part of it (despite being invited to the intimate parts of BCA decision-making, and indeed effectively controlling some of the most important parts of the BCA via the standing committees).

People talk about 'power' shifting to/from the BCA. The reality is that there is very few powers to transfer. The regional councils are completely out of the BCA's control - they are independent bodies and can do whatever they want. The only two constraints on their operations are fixed but significant.

Firstly, BCA membership imposes certain conditions such as operating in a democratic way - none of these conditions are particularly restricting here. The important first 'power' of the BCA is that they can remove membership from any member body - just like a club ejecting a member. Realistically, this is extraordinarily hard to imagine the BCA ever doing to a regional council. Contrary to popular opinion, the last thing any BCA volunteers want to do is take on _more_ work by taking it away from regional councils. The dream is always that everyone gets on wonderfully and everything just works with minimum effort from the top.

Secondly, the BCA pays for the majority of regional council spending, including their administration costs. They are completely independent, but (to a larger or lesser degree) financially reliant on the BCA. The current funding agreement is very generous to regional councils - intentionally. Administration costs are fully funded, including the costs of (for example) volunteer travel to meetings. The presumption is that any reasonable expenditure within the defined areas (which cover access, conservation, equipment and techniques, training etc.) will be funded by the BCA. One extra restriction is that C&A spending on projects above ?750 must be approved by the C&A committee. This is a committee where the voting members are the five regional councils, the nine national bodies and the BCA C&A officer - so the BCA has virtually no control over this spending.

However - this funding document is (as far as I am aware) NOT a 'BCA Policy' (at least it is not listed as such on the website) and as such is subject to votes by BCA Council. If BCA Council wished to do so, it could unilaterally remove all funding from the regional councils. So the 'power' is, to some degree, already largely in the BCA Council's court.

So what does the BCA Council do with this significant power? It continues funding the regional councils for virtually all expenditure subject only to the lightest-touch financial control. Hardly the signs of a maniacal overlord wanting to restrict the regional councils...

Something important to remember is that referring to BCA Council as 'the BCA' is simply inaccurate. BCA Council is a deliberative body composed not only the elected members of BCA but also representatives of the five regional councils, nine national bodies, four elected representatives for individual members, and four elected representatives for group members.

From the BCA itself you have the Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, the standing committee chairs (C&A, E&T and training) and (for reasons) the P&I Officer which is 7 votes.
Add the 5 regional councils and the 9 national bodies.
Then the 4 individual member representatives and the 4 group member representatives, for a total of 29 votes (I think).

So the 'core' BCA team gets only 7 votes out of 29 - for this reason I think BCA Council is far more than 'the BCA'.

 

[PeteHall]

I don't think this is necessarily about giving the BCA more power.  It is primarily about reducing the ability of smaller, perhaps less democratic, groups from being able to beat the BCA with a big stick every time they should dare to ask some questions or investigate why a group might be behaving in such a way to the detriment of the wider caving community.  That was what was behind my proposal anyway.  Even with some reform it doesn't mean BCA will actually be able to make a group change their ways, but it will give them a voice and the opportunity to investigate issues and report on them without the group silencing them with complaints based on the current 10.1.

I suppose it will all come down to the revised wording.

As it stands, 10.1 is very simple and clear; BCA shan't interfere at all, unless asked. It stands to reason therefore that any rewording will increase the amount of interfering that the BCA can do, so BCA will have gained the 'power' to interfere.

We can all think of examples where a little interference would have been a good thing, equally, I'm sure most regard the autonomy of BCA members as a good thing; BCA after all being a representative body, not a governing body. I don't envy those who have to come up with a suitable form of words to resolve the former issue without jeopardising the latter.

Good luck 

 

[andrewmcleod]

As for Section 10.1, I've read it far more times than I would like recently, and I'm still not sure what it means in practical terms. Interference is such a vague term that it could be applied to just about anything, and so I shall provide a range of possible examples from reasonable to ridiculous. In all cases, I don't know whether the 'use' of Section 10.1 would stand up or not - you wouldn't know until you tried, but it _would_ cause a headache for the BCA while they tried to work it out...

1.) The Council of Eastern Caving Clubs, which due to historical anomalies is comprised primarily of younger cavers, decides to bar over-50s from caves in its region as it believes that over-50s are clearly incapable and incompetent and will cause rescues and conservation damage. Over-50 members from across the UK object, proposing a motion at the BCA AGM that the BCA should tell the CECC to rescind their policy. Section 10.1, as a constitutional clause, is invoked to override the member's complaints and prevent the BCA from 'interfering'.

2.) The BCA win the ongoing legal case, and CROW is determined to apply to caving. The Shropshire Caving Association refuses to accept the verdict, and orders a new set of heavily reinforced gates. The BCA indicates that they will not fund the gates; however, Section 10.1 is invoked to prevent 'interference' and the BCA pays the SCA for the new gates on these caves.

3.) The Council of Western Caving Clubs decides to ban all anchor placement in its region for conservation reasons. A group of cave diggers in the region, exploring a vertical pothole, have been placing anchors and the cave police have been harassing them and barring them from gaining cave keys in their region. They appeal to the BCA, but Section 10.1 is invoked to prevent the BCA investigating.

4.) The BCA Exec decide that they will, henceforth, be the only authority on cave science, and begin a campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt about the qualifications of members of the British Science in Caves Group. They invoke Section 10.1 to prevent 'interference'.

5.) A club, the North Essex Caving Club, controls access to a large cave. The relevant regional council, the Silurian Caving Council, have been sneaking anchor installers into the cave and filling the cave with resin anchors against the wishes of the club - anchors paid for and supplied by the BCA. The North Essex Caving Club appeals to the BCA to help them, and to stop supplying the Silurian Caving Council with resin anchors, but they invoke Section 10.1 preventing the BCA from becoming involved and ensuring the supply of anchors.

6.) The BCA Exec, as a money-making side venture, start running 'cave diving' courses using standard scuba kit and a few bits of pipe in a swimming pool. All references to the Cave Underwater-Swimming Group are removed from the BCA website. The CUSG use Section 10.1 to stop the BCA running dodgy cave diving courses.

7.) The Council of Eastern Caving Clubs, in response to a perceived slight from the Council of Western Caving Clubs, creates a blacklist of cavers from known CECC clubs and refuses to grant them permits. The clubs object to the BCA, but Section 10.1 is invoked to prevent the investigation.

8.) A BCA individual member votes to ban all members of the BCA from gating caves, and to restrict funding (but not expel the members) from all gating projects. The regional councils invoke Section 10.1 to try and override the member's vote and continue receiving BCA funds for their gating projects.

9.) The Dorset and Swanage Underground Council retreats entirely underground, electing their chair Glorious Leader for Life, holding all meetings underground in secret, and enacting a compulsory 'conservation fee' of ?5 per visit for all the caves and mines they control access to. Soon after, the Glorious Leader for Life is seen being paraded around in a gold-lined palanquin, while their minions publish documents explaining how important all these fees are for 'conservation'. Section 10.1 is used to prevent 'interference'.

I'd love to see what people _actually_ think Section 10.1 will be used for, because honestly it's so vague I think you could try and it use for anything but would be hard-pushed to make it stick to anything.

Is investigating a situation 'interference'?
Is talking to people 'interference'?
Is allowing a group to join the BCA 'interference' if their interests have some overlap with another groups (e.g. does granting a new access controlling body membership interfere with the autonomy of the relevant regional council?)?
Is funding or not funding projects 'interference'? Are the BCA obliged to provide the regions with funding?

 

[andrewmcleod]

As it stands, 10.1 is very simple and clear; BCA shan't interfere at all, unless asked.

What does 'interfere' cover? Talking? Investigating? Having an opinion? Funding decisions?
What are the limits of 'affairs' - does it cover the internal operation of a body, or the area that they have interests in e.g. all of cave science for the BCRA? Would the BCA be interfering if they took any interest in cave science?

If members have overlapping affairs, and a member invites the member to 'interfere', must the BCA decline from assisting the member in any situation where their problem is overlapped by another's affair? That is extremely broad, since the regional councils have interests in basically all caving in their regions and the national bodies cover pretty much all the rest...

For the second part of Section 10.1, do both members have to invite to BCA to mediate, or just one?