Council Elections ? Deadline Monday 26th July (Midnight)

[andrewmcleod]

Exactly this Jenny.

This is one of the key reasons expressed a the CSCC AGM against the proposed constitutional changes. There has been so much upheaval in the organisation, that we really need to just settle down for a period of stability so that any changes are properly thought out, not a knee-jerk reaction by a transient executive, that are then changed again after the next round of resignations.

I know the arguments for change and I generally support them, but I do genuinely think that this change will be more successful and have better buy-in if it was coming from a more stable position to start with.

I think this is only referring to the Section 10.1 proposals. I think that's a very reasonable argument. Unfortunately the BCA was given a very explicit and overwhelming mandate by the membership at the 2020 AGM to consider a 'new form of words' for Section 10.1 and bring it to this AGM, and we are all servants of the membership, so the BCA didn't really have any choice in this matter.

 

[NewStuff]

I think this is only referring to the Section 10.1 proposals. I think that's a very reasonable argument. Unfortunately the BCA was given a very explicit and overwhelming mandate by the membership at the 2020 AGM to consider a 'new form of words' for Section 10.1 and bring it to this AGM, and we are all servants of the membership, so the BCA didn't really have any choice in this matter.

Until what is essentially the governing body of the sport can pull it's members into line, it's not fit for purpose. I think most members and prospective members that are looking forward are aware this needs to happen, hence the numbers on the vote. There is absolutely no point having a governing body that can't govern a portion of it's membership because of the actions of a few. I'm aware it's a minority, but that just adds fuel to the fire. Previously hotly contended issues such as the website that were going to absolutely, positively,  precipitate the CSCC and all it members leaving in a huff  : have proved to be a storm in a teacup, and now we have a far more professional looking site, and no doubt a much more efficient and easier to work with back-end.

The alternative is to ignore the mandate, stick with what we currently have, and have the membership slowly realise that as an organisation, the BCA not going to move forward... at which point it'll be a slow descent into irrelevance.

 

[Badlad]

Sorry but I don't buy the period of stability argument.  When has the BCA ever been stable?  Kicking difficult issues down the road, or trying to, has been the go to approach for all the years I've known BCA.  It is usually because a minority, (often a disruptive and vocal group), don't want change or to lose any perceived control.  Huge amounts of volunteer resources are exhausted trying to get anywhere and when eventually something is sorted and changed it rarely has any of the impact those who fought against it thought it would have.  Examples are plain to see in changes to the website, regional funding, anchor policy, access policy, training scheme and removing sentences from the constitution. 

The volunteer resource is hugely valuable to caving but so much of it is wasted.  it would be nice to see BCA working well and together to put into place those issues the democratic process has given it a mandate to develop and to stop trying to find ways of obstructing or delaying those mandates and the process.

 

[Fishes]

Until what is essentially the governing body of the sport can pull it's members into line, it's not fit for purpose.

I would argue that the BCA is not and should not be a governing body. The BCA shouldn't be pulling it's members into line but rather changing its position to fall in line with the views of its members.

 

[cavemanmike]

Until what is essentially the governing body of the sport can pull it's members into line, it's not fit for purpose.

I would argue that the BCA is not and should not be a governing body. The BCA shouldn't be pulling it's members into line but rather changing its position to fall in line with the views of its members.

What about bca member clubs not allowing other bca member clubs access to sites, shouldn't bca intervene to make access more inclusive

 

[JoshW]

Until what is essentially the governing body of the sport can pull it's members into line, it's not fit for purpose.

I would argue that the BCA is not and should not be a governing body. The BCA shouldn't be pulling it's members into line but rather changing its position to fall in line with the views of its members.

In order to be members of the association all members need to abide by the rules of the association, which are agreed by the membership and amended at AGM's with voting by the membership. This would imply that if the members aren't in line with the BCA's position, then those members are in a minority and the BCA's position represents the majority.

The beauty of an AGM is that people can suggest changes and the association constantly evolves and updates with changing views. My proposal for the AGM is to update the equality and diversity policy, there are some who may disagree with some of the changes (or even the existence of the policy), and it is utterly their right to vote against the proposal, however I imagine and hope that the majority will vote for the changes, reaffirming that the association represents the majority. If your actions are not in line with BCA's, then the BCA should have some sort of way of 'bringing it's members into line' for not abiding by the rules of the association.

just my tuppence worth 

It's also possibly worth splitting this topic in two to keep the 'what is the BCA's remit' argument separate from the information specifically about the elections themselves.

 

[Fishes]

Its an interesting question although I'm not aware of one member club preventing access of another.

Access is often controlled on behalf of the landowner by individuals, by clubs or regional organisations. This generally seems to work well and in the few cases where it doesn't then I think it is a matter that would be best resolved locally rather than at a national level.

 

[JoshW]

What about bca member clubs not allowing other bca member clubs access to sites, shouldn't bca intervene to make access more inclusive

Its an interesting question although I'm not aware of one member club preventing access of another.

Access is often controlled on behalf of the landowner by individuals, by clubs or regional organisations. This generally seems to work well and in the few cases where it doesn't then I think it is a matter that would be best resolved locally rather than at a national level.

or access controlling bodies, that are themselves member clubs of the BCA

 

[cavemanmike]

Try living in North Wales 
I could name names but I think you know who I mean :spank:

 

[NewStuff]

changing its position to fall in line with the views of its members.

If you said the majority of it's members, sure. The issue lies when the small, vocal minority actively derail and hinder progress that has been clearly voted for and mandated by the majority of it's members. As it stands, the BCA is toothless and cannot do a damn thing about it. Until that changes, despite efforts from some very passionate and hardworking people, the BCA is not fit for purpose.

Its an interesting question although I'm not aware of one member club preventing access of another.

I also live in N.Wales. I don't have to worry about the things Mike does. I'll happily chuck out names, I've done it before, and my names mud as it is, they know I don't care what they think. Just for avoidance of doubt, I'm not a member of Mike's club, what I say is my own opinion and should not reflect upon them.

 

[cap n chris]

As it stands, the BCA is toothless and cannot do a damn thing about it.

It will always be toothless; the only sanction(s) it can bring are to expel members; they will then simply continue caving independently. There is no national governing body and never can be for that reason alone.

 

[Fishes]

I don't live in North Wales but have caved there a few times and visited quite a few of its mines. I've never had an issue with other cavers/mine explorers preventing access but I have spent time getting to know the right people and treating them with respect rather than demanding access. Maybe I have been lucky with this, but its worked for me.

For BCA to be representative it cannot only represent the views the majority. It must also represent those whose views differ. This involves compromise and a lot of effort to bring people together rather than attacking people who see things differently.

 

[NewStuff]

...but I have spent time getting to know the right people and treating them with respect rather than demanding access.

You think I and many others haven't tried that? You think Hostility is the go-to position? Take your implication and condescension and shove it. That's as polite as I get.
This is born out of frustration, there's only so much you can beat your head against a brick wall.

As for the "opinions who differ"... the negotiating route has been tried numerous times. You can't negotiate with people who have no intention of changing positions or compromising. That time has been and gone, and it';s not through lack of effort on many volunteers parts.

 

[aricooperdavis]

[mod]Whilst the conversation has drifted slightly from the Council Elections I do think that the discussion of the purpose and purview of the BCA is interesting and valuable, particularly ahead of the AGM. Let's keep personal stuff out of it please - it would be a shame to see a good discussion sidetracked!
[/mod]
Edit: I've no idea how to post a "moderator message", but this is what the above is intended to be!

 

[Ian Ball]

I agree with Badad,  if it is not right it should be changed rather than sticking with something wrong just because it is easier.

Is there any wriggling way a post with no one standing can be filled now?

 

[JoshW]

I agree with Badad,  if it is not right it should be changed rather than sticking with something wrong just because it is easier.

Is there any wriggling way a post with no one standing can be filled now?

I believe that you can still apply for posts, the equivalent to 'standing from the floor' (or whatever the phrase is) at old face to face AGMs. one of the constitutional boffins might correct me here though.

The alternative would be that council can co-opt people into roles if required after the AGM. For some roles I would see this as a sensible options, however in my opinion if the individual/group representative roles aren't filled, I can't see the value in co-opting people for the sake of it. Council is already too large, and for the most part I don't see huge amounts of value added by individual/group members (aware that I am one myself and am running again, but would hope that my council activity would speak for itself).

 

[paul]

Edit: I've no idea how to post a "moderator message", but this is what the above is intended to be!

When you post or edit a message, click on the 'Preview' button to open the editor with text in it and the various text editing buttons (Bold, Italics, etc) and emoticons etc.. You should have a button with a yellow triangle and exclamation mark if you are a Moderator.


Select your text and then click this button and it should add the appropriate 'markdown' tags for a Moderator comment around the selected text.

 

[JoshW]

I agree with Badad,  if it is not right it should be changed rather than sticking with something wrong just because it is easier.

Is there any wriggling way a post with no one standing can be filled now?

I believe that you can still apply for posts, the equivalent to 'standing from the floor' (or whatever the phrase is) at old face to face AGMs. one of the constitutional boffins might correct me here though.

The alternative would be that council can co-opt people into roles if required after the AGM. For some roles I would see this as a sensible options, however in my opinion if the individual/group representative roles aren't filled, I can't see the value in co-opting people for the sake of it. Council is already too large, and for the most part I don't see huge amounts of value added by individual/group members (aware that I am one myself and am running again, but would hope that my council activity would speak for itself).

knew I'd seen it somewhere.

In one of the later articles on the BCA website
https://british-caving.org.uk/agm-update/

you can still apply for the roles using the link within this article.

 

[nearlywhite]

Please note that the agenda has been released:
https://british-caving.org.uk/agm-agenda/

The draft minutes for the previous AGM have also been made available.

Note that there is a further proposal going to the AGM regarding BCA anchor policy which was not previously listed.

 

[Badlad]

The draft minutes of the last AGM don't download and show as an error for me.  The AGM agenda works fine.

I'd like to see a matching statement from Rostam in the agenda to compare with the one published for the incumbent chair.