Consultation on Section 10.1 of the BCA Constitution

[mikem]

Pretty much - the irony of it is that everything the BCA ain't allowed to do, the individual officer can, under their own steam.

On several of the examples the organisation couldn't guarantee they'd still get the funding as it would be more than the minimum requirement for clearance through C&A. They could still do whatever it was if they sourced the funds elsewhere though.

 

[cap n chris]

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. 

So it actually is about providing more power to BCA. Seems pretty unequivocal.

 

[andrewmcleod]

What 'power'?

I think most people would agree that the Section 10.1 probably doesn't compel the BCA to give money to a regional council. For all members other than the regional councils, the only power the BCA has is to remove membership. For the regional councils, BCA Council (not really 'the BCA' as described earlier) or the AGM could, if it wished, withdraw any or all funding as well as membership, which is plenty of power already.

The reality is that although Section 10.1 is so vague it _could_ be applied to anything, any such attempt would be likely to fail. My examples were deliberately rather over the top, but in all cases someone could _try_ and argue Section 10.1 applied but in most cases I suspect would fail.

Anyone care to come up with any specific example where Section 10.1 might actually be good (in the interests of balance)? Rather than this very vague notion of 'power'.

Who is the arbiter? Ultimately, an AGM is arbiter of the constitution in the case of a dispute, so the membership could (eventually) decide on the extent of Section 10.1.



No-one benefits from the vagueness of the current Section 10.1.

 

[droid]

So it actually is about providing more power to BCA. Seems pretty unequivocal.

'Power' to investigate and/or withdraw funding as far as I can see.

In other words  BCA only has power because people think it has, same as the regional councils.

All BCA could really do that's more than that is chuck a member out. Which probably wouldn't be the end of the world...

 

[JoshW]

No-one benefits from the vagueness of the current Section 10.1.

I'd argue that those who would use it as a defence for less than desirable actions benefit from the current vagueness. They could theoretically use it as a delaying/confusion tactic in the hopes that they won't get held to account.

As members of the association, we all agree to abide by the policies of the association. Even with autonomy there is the requirement to follow the policies of the association, in order to continue to take the benefits of membership, and this wording currently enables member bodies to avoid being held accountable from following the policies of the organisation through it's vague 'interfering' wording.

 

[mikem]

But then you're suggesting it is a governing body - which it was specifically set up not to be....

 

[JoshW]

But then you're suggesting it is a governing body - which it was specifically set up not to be....

Except policies are put in place by the membership at AGMs.

BCA is an association of members, and part of the association is following the policies. Not following the policies means you should be able to be held accountable by the membership..

There is no singular governing body telling members what to do, but the membership itself.

 

[Jenny P]

AndrewMC said:
"Anyone care to come up with any specific example where Section 10.1 might actually be good (in the interests of balance)? Rather than this very vague notion of 'power'."

And Capn Chris said:
"'Power' to investigate and/or withdraw funding as far as I can see."

I tend to think that the use of the term "interfere" in the original 10.1 is unfortunate.

I suspect what we really intended to say is is something along the lines of:  "... that if the actions of a member (or member body) disadvantages a number of other members, the BCA be empowered to investigate ...".

I can't think of exact wording and this would have to be clarified in the Manual of Operations (MoO) but the whole ethos of BCA should be co-operating to the benefit of all.  Presumably it would require that a complaint by a member or members to Council would be the start of the process.  The MoO would have to detail who would investigate and how the results of their investigation should be dealt with. 

Sorry, this is a bit woolly, but I am trying to think of the intention behind this rather than exact wording and am not sure if I'm on the right lines.

 

[Bob Mehew]

My memory is that the original intent was to commit BCA to not interfere in members actions or member to member conflict.  But it was accepted that there could be cases where the name of BCA was being dragged down into the 'mud', so BCA needed to retain the right to boot someone out of membership.  What Sec 10.2 or 10.3 does not seem to permit is BCA taking action short of booting the offending member out.  So I would suggest the changes which are required are to 10.2 & 10.3 rather than 10.1.  BCA needs to have the power to say to one of its member's you have done something unacceptable and this is the penalty which is short of expelling you.  What also is needed is a protocol / set of procedures which are water tight with respect to subsequent legal action which is the difficult bit.  I did offer something some years ago but it was lost because of other problems.  Whether I can find it in the 20,000 odd files I have on BCA stuff is another matter.

The recent problem in 2019 / 20 was one where the desire by some, was to implement some form of action against a person.  But it was accepted that the actions did not merit expulsion from BCA.  But if that person had been expelled from BCA, then because the person was a member of a BCA club that would mean the person would also be booted out of the club as the club required all members to be members of BCA in order to gain the protection of insurance for the club.  We did not foresee such events might happen.  Sorry 

 

[Jenny P]

IMHO the section 10 doesn't hang together as it is because it's trying to deal with different eventualities.  10.2 and 10.3 belong together but I think they should be in a different section altogether from 10.1 and 10.4.

"Interfering" with a member organisation's internal affairs because what they have done has disadvanted some other members of BCA is an altogether different problem to dealing with an individual or organisation which is deemed to have done something directly against the interests of BCA as a whole.

The bits about removing certificates, etc. would seem to refer to the business of QMC and the Instructor/Leader schemes rather than to the general business of BCA.

I don't pretend to know the answer to this but it does need considerable thought and ought not to be a matter of a "quick fix" just to "get something done" by October this year.

 

[PeteHall]

it does need considerable thought and ought not to be a matter of a "quick fix" just to "get something done" by October this year.

A very good point. Better to get it right once, even if it takes a bit longer.

 

[Badlad]

The motion passed at the AGM with 90% of the membership vote is copied below.  It gives a specific timeline and makes no mention of the disciplinary procedure detailed in 10.2 and 10.3.


Section 10 of the BCA constitution deals with ?limitations? and is outdated for a modernising national organisation.  Section 10.1 states, ?The Association shall not interfere in the affairs of a Member unless specifically requested to do so by that Member. The Association shall not mediate between Members unless requested by them in writing to do so.?  This wording requires reform.

Section 10.1 limits the effectiveness of the BCA as a national body in properly representing cavers.  It can be used (and has been) to prevent the BCA investigating complaints, undertaking research into national policy issues and intervening in matters which are detrimental to the image of caving nationally.  Even if BCA is funding a group or a scheme it cannot intervene unless invited to do so.  This cannot be right.  However, there is a value in member organisations having a degree of autonomy.  Therefore a form of words are needed to maintain some member autonomy whilst allowing the BCA to properly act as a national body. 

This motion instructs council to consider a new form of words for section 10.1 of the BCA constitution taking into account the above and to agree those words at council by majority vote in time to present them as a constitutional change to the 2021 BCA AGM.

 

[Wayland Smith]

it does need considerable thought and ought not to be a matter of a "quick fix" just to "get something done" by October this year.

A very good point. Better to get it right once, even if it takes a bit longer.

Of course, the other view is to make sure that this does not hang in limbo for years while people prevaricate over every tiny detail and word.

 

[Badlad]

Here's an offering from me of some new words fro 10.1.

"Notwithstanding section 1, at the direction of council, BCA (committees or appointed groups) may investigate complaints and matters that affect the wider caving community.  Investigations may seek advice from any relevant parties and report back to council with recommendations.  Council will then decide whether any further actions are necessary, including but not limited to the disciplinary procedures where appropriate." 

You could also add in something about working in a spirit of fairness, transparency, non bias etc.  Anyway a start if you need one.

 

[mikem]

The problem is that whole Constitution needs rewriting, not just one section, which will take longer than the next AGM

 

[Badlad]

The problem is that whole Constitution needs rewriting, not just one section, which will take longer than the next AGM

I couldn't agree more, however that is not the subject of this thread.

 

[mikem]

Indeed, but what you seem to want to add may well contradict stuff that is written elsewhere.

 

[Wayland Smith]

Indeed, but what you seem to want to add may well contradict stuff that is written elsewhere.

Best sit back and schedule meetings for the next ten years then.
Too dangerous to actually take any actions in case we have to change things later.
If there are enough meetings with people running in circles waving their hands in the air we can look busy.

It may not be perfect, but better to do something and move forward than sit about forever seeking a mythical perfection!

 

[mikem]

It's more that the wording may not be actionable, because of the independence of members stated at the start of the document.

 

[Badlad]

Hence, "notwithstanding section 1".  Maybe there is a better phrase which will allow some investigation and actions on matters that affect the majority.

It is so much easier to keep kicking these cans down the road than actually getting on and addressing issues.