Democracy?????????????

[droid]

Thanks for that, Kay. My attention span for anything that involves Meetings is lamentably short.

Simon can have a free put-down for that.....

 

[Bob Mehew]

2) Associate members - these clubs can send a voting rep to the AGM and can get permits to systems that require them

The CNCC constitution states

All members shall be sent notice of General Meetings at least four weeks in advance, and it shall include notice of any motion affecting the constitution.

General Meetings shall be open to all member clubs but voting shall be restricted to one representative from each full member club present.

 

[kay]

Ouch!

Sorry, careless of me, you're quite right and I was quite wrong. I don't know what I was thinking about, I obviously didn't read what I had written, because I know this very well! Thanks for picking it up.

Associate members can get permits. But they can't vote.

Full members can vote at the AGM, where the Committee is elected (and at other General Meetings)

Only clubs elected on to the Committee can vote at Committee meetings

Sorry everyone.

 

[exsumper]

Kay: You may not see conspiricies or plots! I do wonder if you see anything? 
I and a lot of other people didn't see it as a kerfuffle!

We had serious justified objections to officers of the CNCC's involvement in the implementation of paying commercial rates for cave access on Leck and Casterton Fell! : I think the figure mentioned was ?20 per head if I remember correctly.

A move that if implemented, would have had catastrophic consequences for British Caving!

We also asked for an explanation as to why these CNCC officers had acted in this way, completely contrary to the interests of cavers in general. Our suspicions aroused, we also asked if any of the officers concerned had a vested interest? ie were they involved in commercial caving? We were assured by officers of the CNCC that those concerned did not.

This assertion was subsequently proved to be completely false and a great big whopping lie!

Not a Kerfuffle in my book!

I don't think trying to whitewash serious matters such as these solves anything.
We are still awaiting the real truth!

 

[exsumper]

Oh dear
After close examination, I have finally come to the full realisation that the voting arrangements for the BCA and regional councils would make the most tinpot and tyrannical third world dictator blush!

Their constitutions cannot be called democratic by any stretch of the imagination!

 

[Simon Wilson]

Address what you see as the reason for the micro clubs existence. Then their raison d'etre evaporates.

A very sound comment.

Simon sees their existence as being to obtain votes. So one addresses that by all clubs taking an interest and ensuring that anyone setting up a club merely to get a vote isn't accepted as a full member of CNCC.

I (and I'm not alone in this) see their existence as being a result of the permit system allowing permits only to clubs. That is addressed by allowing responsible individuals to obtain permits, but to seek to make that change will require more canvassing of views of cavers.

There are a few small clubs that have been formed in order to obtain permits. That is obvious and it is nothing to be concerned about. As I have pointed out multiple times, I am not concerned about small clubs per se. I am concerned about people claiming to represent a club as a contrived tactic to get a committee vote.

It is clear that the people involved in this scam do it not to obtain permits but to get a committee vote. Two things make it clear: firstly they get onto the committee and, secondly, the people who use this scam are, or were, also members of established clubs.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Clubs don't need to be on the committee in order to get permits. They don't even need to be a member of the CNCC at all. BCA membership gives them the right to apply for permits and is an easier route with more benefits.

 

[Bottlebank]

Address what you see as the reason for the micro clubs existence. Then their raison d'etre evaporates.

A very sound comment.

Simon sees their existence as being to obtain votes. So one addresses that by all clubs taking an interest and ensuring that anyone setting up a club merely to get a vote isn't accepted as a full member of CNCC.

I (and I'm not alone in this) see their existence as being a result of the permit system allowing permits only to clubs. That is addressed by allowing responsible individuals to obtain permits, but to seek to make that change will require more canvassing of views of cavers.

There are a few small clubs that have been formed in order to obtain permits. That is obvious and it is nothing to be concerned about. As I have pointed out multiple times, I am not concerned about small clubs per se. I am concerned about people claiming to represent a club as a contrived tactic to get a committee vote.

It is clear that the people involved in this scam do it not to obtain permits but to get a committee vote. Two things make it clear: firstly they get onto the committee and, secondly, the people who use this scam are, or were, also members of established clubs.

Perhaps it worked the other way round. There were for a long time so few people interested in running the CNCC that if two happened to be in the same club maybe they felt forced to form a additional small club so they could both be committee members?

It's easy to chuck allegations around, I don't like the way CNCC represents us but I like Kay prefer to think their intentions were good. Let's be honest, we don't know what happened.

In any event the problem seems to have been resolved so why raise it again unless you're concerned it will happen in the future? The way to stop it is to ensure that the larger clubs stay involved with the CNCC.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Every now and again I come across people whose natural inclination is to be suspicious of everything everyone else does or says. I generally find such people very hard to work with or around!

 

[Simon Wilson]

Address what you see as the reason for the micro clubs existence. Then their raison d'etre evaporates.

A very sound comment.

Simon sees their existence as being to obtain votes. So one addresses that by all clubs taking an interest and ensuring that anyone setting up a club merely to get a vote isn't accepted as a full member of CNCC.

I (and I'm not alone in this) see their existence as being a result of the permit system allowing permits only to clubs. That is addressed by allowing responsible individuals to obtain permits, but to seek to make that change will require more canvassing of views of cavers.

There are a few small clubs that have been formed in order to obtain permits. That is obvious and it is nothing to be concerned about. As I have pointed out multiple times, I am not concerned about small clubs per se. I am concerned about people claiming to represent a club as a contrived tactic to get a committee vote.

It is clear that the people involved in this scam do it not to obtain permits but to get a committee vote. Two things make it clear: firstly they get onto the committee and, secondly, the people who use this scam are, or were, also members of established clubs.

Perhaps it worked the other way round. There were for a long time so few people interested in running the CNCC that if two happened to be in the same club maybe they felt forced to form a additional small club so they could both be committee members?

Correct, that is what has happened. That is how the inner circle were able to do what they did and get away with it for a few years.

... I don't like the way CNCC represents us but I like Kay prefer to think their intentions were good. Let's be honest, we don't know what happened.

Correction; you don't know what happened.

In any event the problem seems to have been resolved so why raise it again unless you're concerned it will happen in the future? The way to stop it is to ensure that the larger clubs stay involved with the CNCC.

It has not been resolved. I am raising it because it is happening now; there are contrived micro-clubs on the committee now.

I think it is correct to say that the way to stop the shenanigans and gerrymandering is for the 'proper' clubs to stay involved. That is why we saw an increased turnout at the AGM. And that happened because a small number of people were prepared to speak up and raise the issues.

 

[Bottlebank]

It has not been resolved. I am raising it because it is happening now; there are contrived micro-clubs on the committee now.

I think it is correct to say that the way to stop the shenanigans and gerrymandering is for the 'proper' clubs to stay involved. That is why we saw an increased turnout at the AGM. And that happened because a small number of people were prepared to speak up and raise the issues.

The people involved have or are stepping down, or have given up their votes and deserve our thanks for the work they put in over many years, regardless of whether or not we agree with the way they did it.

The list Kay published earlier in this thread demonstrates that the problem of too many small clubs on the committee has been largely resolved.

You're right to say there are shenanigans going on, and there are problems affecting the way the CNCC is run now. A CNCC rep misreporting the facts to his club in what appears on the surface to be a considered statement, but on closer scrutiny for example insists that there is nothing members can do to influence the CRoW debate when in fact BCA have called for people to submit opinions. A sceptic would of course suggest it suits that particular rep to reinforce his personal opinion by encouraging only those members in favour of CRoW in caving to comment, whilst publicly discouraging anyone else from doing so.

If you feel you have to criticise someone it's best to check you haven't been guilty of much the same thing yourself.

If you want play games privately then it's fair to expect a private response. If you want play publicly then expect a public one. Democracy works both ways.

Or to use words you can understand, stop slagging people off, it's not nice and it's not necessary.

 

[Simon Wilson]

It has not been resolved. I am raising it because it is happening now; there are contrived micro-clubs on the committee now.

I think it is correct to say that the way to stop the shenanigans and gerrymandering is for the 'proper' clubs to stay involved. That is why we saw an increased turnout at the AGM. And that happened because a small number of people were prepared to speak up and raise the issues.

The people involved have or are stepping down, or have given up their votes and deserve our thanks for the work they put in over many years, regardless of whether or not we agree with the way they did it.

The list Kay published earlier in this thread demonstrates that the problem of too many small clubs on the committee has been largely resolved.

You're right to say there are shenanigans going on, and there are problems affecting the way the CNCC is run now. A CNCC rep misreporting the facts to his club in what appears on the surface to be a considered statement, but on closer scrutiny for example insists that there is nothing members can do to influence the CRoW debate when in fact BCA have called for people to submit opinions. A sceptic would of course suggest it suits that particular rep to reinforce his personal opinion by encouraging only those members in favour of CRoW in caving to comment, whilst publicly discouraging anyone else from doing so.

If you feel you have to criticise someone it's best to check you haven't been guilty of much the same thing yourself.

If you want play games privately then it's fair to expect a private response. If you want play publicly then expect a public one. Democracy works both ways.

Or to use words you can understand, stop slagging people off, it's not nice and it's not necessary.

Tony, you have declined to take part in any of the discussions that have taken place within our club regarding CNCC matters. You have had the opportunity to influence how I represent our club and you have done nothing.

I think you can submit your opinion to the BCA as a CIM.

Simon Wilson, EPC elected CNCC Representative.

 

[Bottlebank]

It has not been resolved. I am raising it because it is happening now; there are contrived micro-clubs on the committee now.

I think it is correct to say that the way to stop the shenanigans and gerrymandering is for the 'proper' clubs to stay involved. That is why we saw an increased turnout at the AGM. And that happened because a small number of people were prepared to speak up and raise the issues.

The people involved have or are stepping down, or have given up their votes and deserve our thanks for the work they put in over many years, regardless of whether or not we agree with the way they did it.

The list Kay published earlier in this thread demonstrates that the problem of too many small clubs on the committee has been largely resolved.

You're right to say there are shenanigans going on, and there are problems affecting the way the CNCC is run now. A CNCC rep misreporting the facts to his club in what appears on the surface to be a considered statement, but on closer scrutiny for example insists that there is nothing members can do to influence the CRoW debate when in fact BCA have called for people to submit opinions. A sceptic would of course suggest it suits that particular rep to reinforce his personal opinion by encouraging only those members in favour of CRoW in caving to comment, whilst publicly discouraging anyone else from doing so.

If you feel you have to criticise someone it's best to check you haven't been guilty of much the same thing yourself.

If you want play games privately then it's fair to expect a private response. If you want play publicly then expect a public one. Democracy works both ways.

Or to use words you can understand, stop slagging people off, it's not nice and it's not necessary.

Tony, you have declined to take part in any of the discussions that have taken place within our club regarding CNCC matters. You have had the opportunity to influence how I represent our club and you have done nothing.

I think you can submit your opinion to the BCA as a CIM.

Simon Wilson, EPC elected CNCC Representative.

Really? I suggest you read the club newsgroup you're so fond of. There has been no full discussion in the club on this, as was recently pointed out on there.

I've made my opinion on CRoW perfectly clear to you as well, as you well know, despite realising that there was very little point in expecting you to represent anything other than your own point of view.

Not sure what any of that has to do with my previous point?

 

[Simon Wilson]

It has not been resolved. I am raising it because it is happening now; there are contrived micro-clubs on the committee now.

I think it is correct to say that the way to stop the shenanigans and gerrymandering is for the 'proper' clubs to stay involved. That is why we saw an increased turnout at the AGM. And that happened because a small number of people were prepared to speak up and raise the issues.

The people involved have or are stepping down, or have given up their votes and deserve our thanks for the work they put in over many years, regardless of whether or not we agree with the way they did it.

The list Kay published earlier in this thread demonstrates that the problem of too many small clubs on the committee has been largely resolved.

You're right to say there are shenanigans going on, and there are problems affecting the way the CNCC is run now. A CNCC rep misreporting the facts to his club in what appears on the surface to be a considered statement, but on closer scrutiny for example insists that there is nothing members can do to influence the CRoW debate when in fact BCA have called for people to submit opinions. A sceptic would of course suggest it suits that particular rep to reinforce his personal opinion by encouraging only those members in favour of CRoW in caving to comment, whilst publicly discouraging anyone else from doing so.

If you feel you have to criticise someone it's best to check you haven't been guilty of much the same thing yourself.

If you want play games privately then it's fair to expect a private response. If you want play publicly then expect a public one. Democracy works both ways.

Or to use words you can understand, stop slagging people off, it's not nice and it's not necessary.

Tony, you have declined to take part in any of the discussions that have taken place within our club regarding CNCC matters. You have had the opportunity to influence how I represent our club and you have done nothing.

I think you can submit your opinion to the BCA as a CIM.

Simon Wilson, EPC elected CNCC Representative.

Really? I suggest you read the club newsgroup you're so fond of. There has been no full discussion in the club on this, as was recently pointed out on there.

I've made my opinion on CRoW perfectly clear to you as well, as you well know, despite realising that there was very little point in expecting you to represent anything other than your own point of view.

Not sure what any of that has to do with my previous point?

Tony, you are a keyboard warrior. You have made your opinion on CRoW perfectly clear to me and others but only on this forum. When we meet face-to-face you pretend to be friends and never mention CRoW. I will completely disregard what you say on here when all you do on here is slag me off whilst refusing to take part in our club forum.

PLEASE do as the moderators have asked and keep your crap off this forum.

 

[Bottlebank]

Simon, I wasn't slagging you off, I was asking you to stop slagging other people off.

You were elected CNCC rep at the last meeting (which you were not at, I was) and there was no discussion of this.

We discussed briefly CRoW not long afterwards and agreed to differ, I can be rude to you when we meet if you prefer.

My (on topic) point was that democracy only works if elected representatives report honestly back to their clubs.