More bad news for BCA modernisers

Pitlamp

Well-known member
A lot of good points made in the above few posts.

People put in all that time and effort because they care; we should always remember that. (This is true of any prominent figures on any side of a disagreement.) Those who care try to progress things in the way they think best. They don't do it because they just want to be awkward. At the end of the day, democracy will prevail.

As I've often said; thank you to all the volunteers who keep the BCA ship afloat.
 

Badlad

Administrator
Staff member
Imagine if you will.

When I was the BCA CRoW Liason Officer imagine that an AGM voted to replace me and that I was to hand over elements of the BCA campaign to the newly elected person.  I refused to obey and argued about it with the secretary.  Despite coaxing I still refused to comply with the mandate by the next BCA council meeting.  I argued my case with council but they voted and instructed me to comply with the AGM mandate.  I gave a few bits of the campaign info over to the new officer but still refused to hand over the rest arguing that I knew better.  I used my working group, which I controlled, to back me up and still refused to comply.  I carefully constructed a contrary argument and put that to the next council meeting and made my case again.  Council rejected it again and dismissed me from my working group, a position I had held for years and the instruction to comply with the original mandate upheld.  I'm determined to continue my personal war with BCA council to the extent that I am party to a load of disruptive proposals to the next AGM and my name has been cited by at least two officers in their resignation letters.  However, now that the arguments, which were rejected by council, have been linked on a public forum some people think my behaviour might have been reasonable after all.  Really?

There is no point in having a BCA, a representative council or a democracy if you really think David Cooke has a point.
 

Jenny P

Active member
I would respectfully suggest that, rather than jump to the conclusion that any proposals put by Dave Cooke to the next AGM must be "disruptive", as Badlad claims, people should perhaps read them for themselves. 

Though not agreeing with them all 100%, I would suggest that there is a deal of good sense in them which could go some way to improving the way BCA works in the future.  Rather than dismiss the proposals out of hand, think about what we would see as best practice in the way BCA works. 

The way BCA is working at present is not to anyone's taste and we need to improve it by co-operation, not the confrontation which has prevailed during this past couple of years.
 

royfellows

Well-known member
BCA is in a hole, this situation has to be resolved.

I am wondering if a majority of members would consider the list of proposals submitted by CSCC  and David Cooke to be vexatious. In other words intentionally designed to be disruptive and an abuse of process.
 

Jenny P

Active member
Please note that I was referring specifically to the proposals put by Dave Cooke, which was what Badlad was referring to.  I said nothing about the proposals put on behalf of CSCC.
 

mikem

Well-known member
The only way to determine whether they are disruptive is for everyone to actually read them...
 

darren

Member
TheBitterEnd said:
Honestly!

If you don't know who Jenny Potts is try googling "Jenny Potts Caving"

Google's good, but I'm not sure it could tell me how she fits into this particular issue 😁😁
 

nearlywhite

Active member
Jenny P said:
Though not agreeing with them all 100%, I would suggest that there is a deal of good sense in them which could go some way to improving the way BCA works in the future.  Rather than dismiss the proposals out of hand, think about what we would see as best practice in the way BCA works. 

I think they are pretty much all a return to how things were done before those other people joined. A lot of them seem innocuous but are designed to add 'checks and balances' that really equate to adding bureaucratic blocks to anything actually getting done. Anyone who doesn't know the intimate procedures of BCA (which tbh is half the council) could easily be persuaded they seem reasonable - which given they've caused 3 resignations perhaps you shouldn't be quite so forgiving.

I would recognize that the concerns motivating some of the proposals are genuine though - and I think we do need genuine discussion. Just not all of them at the AGM and not a wholesale repudiation of what most of council have worked towards for the last 2 years.

I hope my '3rd way' proposal in the coming days solves most of issues.

 

blackshiver

Member
Jenny P said:
I would respectfully suggest that, rather than jump to the conclusion that any proposals put by Dave Cooke to the next AGM must be "disruptive", as Badlad claims, people should perhaps read them for themselves. 

Though not agreeing with them all 100%, I would suggest that there is a deal of good sense in them which could go some way to improving the way BCA works in the future.  Rather than dismiss the proposals out of hand, think about what we would see as best practice in the way BCA works. 

The way BCA is working at present is not to anyone's taste and we need to improve it by co-operation, not the confrontation which has prevailed during this past couple of years.

Sorry but ?The Confrontation? you speak of has already led to the resignation of three people who would have made a massive positive difference to the BCA. Even before they took up post you knew the entrenchment and resistance to change in the BCA would be led by one person. Now you tell me ?there is a deal of good sense? in his AGM proposals. This speaks volumes.
 

Jenny P

Active member
You mistake me.  I have voted for almost all of the changes which have been put forward and spoken in favour of them at both club and regional council level.  I think they will be an improvement, once we are able to implement them properly and move forward.  (And why would you think one person, out of a voting constituency of nearly 6000, would be responsible for preventing BCA moving forward?)

However, with hindsight, some of the changes have created unforseen consequences and that's what we are trying to deal with now.  It is particularly unfortunate that a group of volunteers who all have bags of enthusiasm have been unable to work together but, as they are volunteers, they have a right to decide they don't want to volunteer any more.  Feelings have been hurt on all sides and time wasted in pointless arguments but it's hardly the end of the world.

Now, more than ever, we need to be working together when we are at the start of a legal battle over the actions of the Welsh Government and NRW.  We can't be doing with infighting amongst ourselves when we need to present a united front.
 

NewStuff

New member
Jenny P said:
We can't be doing with infighting amongst ourselves when we need to present a united front.

The issue lies, as has been said previously, in that this is normal, reasonable position of compromise. But when certain elements in the CSCC are not interested in the slightest in compromise, it's perfectly clear that giving an inch will result in more delay, obfuscation, and cloak and dagger bullshit. This should be clear to anyone looking at the situation.

If we want to present a united front, it's time to turf those that seek to fracture that front. If this is allowed to continue (As I fully expect it will be), then they achieve what they wanted, and a couple of years of progress and several enthusiastic and skilled volunteers are wasted.
 

darren

Member
So it goes on. Jenny P, the nearest thing to a neutral in all this, dares suggest that maybe, just possibly some of the changes may have gone a bit far and have had unforseen consequences and the attacks starts.

I'm sure she will soon be hounded off the forum.

There seems to be a cult of people calling themselves "Modernisers". We are right, stone the unbelievers, drive them out. No acceptance that anything we believe can be wrong or too extreme.

Then they ask why people from the other side don't come on this site to put there side




 

NewStuff

New member
darren said:
So it goes on. Jenny P, the nearest thing to a neutral in all this, dares suggest that maybe, just possibly some of the changes may have gone a bit far and have had unforseen consequences and the attacks starts.

I'm sure she will soon be hounded off the forum.

Then they ask why people from the other side don't come on this site to put there side
I don't believe anyone here has 'attacked' Jenny? Unless someone introduced a new standard I wasn't aware of, then it's a healthy discussion. The others don't post here because it suits the narrative they're peddling to go screaming that they were banned for their views, which is all sorts of horseshit that we've all been over ad-nauseum. No-one is getting hounded off the forum. No-one is getting banned for the views they hold.
 

darren

Member
Some are used to a rough and tumble sort of discussion.

I'm used to a more gentle, nuanced debate where all views are valued and  no-one thinks they have a monopoly on the correct answers. People frequently change their  views and positions as arguments evolve.

It is possible to use nuance and examples with people  understanding what you mean. I can say things like "she is like the sun to me" without people assuming her face is is a molten nuclear reaction .

I sometimes judge things wrong but there is nowhere else for people like me to go.

I could of course do what a lot of other people like me do and just stay away, you don't have to be banned, the tone of a place is usually enough.

 

PeteHall

Moderator
Jenny P said:
...with hindsight, some of the changes have created unforseen consequences and that's what we are trying to deal with now.

This seems a perfectly normal and reasonable situation,  whenever an organisation undergoes change, there will doubtless be a little settling down before it reaches the new normal.

The issue in this case is that rather than settling down, the sheer number of proposals from a very limited number of people, who have fought the democratically instigated change, give the impression of deliberate disruption,  even if there is some merit in some of the proposals.

Any merit is further devalued by the personal undertones to a number of the proposals, so I expect that many members will be very sceptical of the motives.

Had some of these proposals, or parts of them, come from someone else and been presented in a more constructive way, we almost certainly wouldn't be facing three resignations, or having this argument.
 
Top