Observations on the CNCC AGM

[bograt]

I thought it was based in Derbyshire? Close enough for me

Alas, only some of it :

 

[Pitlamp]

In case it helps (Simon) Lancashire Underground Group is a club name I've come across from time to time over quite a number of years. I don't live in Lancashire (so I'd not necessarily expect to have met its members) but, as far as I know, it's legitimate.

Thank you John, I've also come across LUG from time to time over quite a number of years. They have been represented variously by Les Sykes and Glenn Jones so we can assume they have at least three members. 'Legitimate' is a word, so is 'dodgy'.

Sorry Simon - I genuinely don't follow what you're driving at here.

 

[droid]

I suspect that the previously used phrase 'flag of convienience' is relevent here.....

 

[Simon Wilson]

In case it helps (Simon) Lancashire Underground Group is a club name I've come across from time to time over quite a number of years. I don't live in Lancashire (so I'd not necessarily expect to have met its members) but, as far as I know, it's legitimate.

Thank you John, I've also come across LUG from time to time over quite a number of years. They have been represented variously by Les Sykes and Glenn Jones so we can assume they have at least three members. 'Legitimate' is a word, so is 'dodgy'.

Sorry Simon - I genuinely don't follow what you're driving at here.

OK John, I?ll spell it out.

Different forms of proportional representation have been discussed over the years but the principal of one vote per clubs remains. Tiny clubs have the same voting power as the clubs with over 200 members and many people think that is not right.

The CNCC Chairman represents the Dent House Speleological Society (DHSS) which is a well known and respected caving club. At its height it had about six members and it has shrunk to three members (I have been told). Lancashire Underground Group used to be represented by the Secretary, the Treasurer and a Meets Secretary so three officers only had one vote between them. Then two of the three switched to Elysium and the CNCC TG at which point Elysium and CNCC TG looked like ?flags of convenience? to give voting power to the Secretary and the Treasurer. I have been critical of that and have referred to these clubs as ?micro-clubs?, ?crypto-clubs? and/or ?pseudo-clubs?. By the way, I make no apology for that and think I have been making an important point in a perfectly reasonable way.

At the recent AGM the DHSS, Elysium and the CNCC TG relinquished their voting power which enabled three new clubs to join the committee. The Chairman, the Training Officer/Access Officer and the Treasurer are now elected officers with no vote. There are still two clubs on the committee which appear as though they might fit into the above categories. That is why I have recently mentioned LUG, which I still think looks dodgy, and one other obscure club which I now know to be called the Northumbrian Speleology Group (not the old NSG). Can anybody tell us anything about those two clubs?

The present make-up of the Officers and Committee can be seen on the website.
http://www.cncc.org.uk/about/committee.php

 

[Pitlamp]

Thanks Simon, I think I now begin to understand the point you're making - you're referring to an imbalance in the relative ability of individuals iny differently sized clubs to influence policy; that right?

It probably is an important point but, assuming everything has been done constitutionally - by using terminology such as "dodgy" and "pseudo clubs" I don't agree you've been making your point in a "perfectly reasonable way".

It was the way you expressed yourself which deterred me from reading some of your contributions properly, which is why I didn't understand the point you were trying to make initially. If (as I suspect, due to human nature) other readers have done similarly, this might form a good example of the value of addressing your fellow cavers in a genuinely reasonable manner. You'll win more friends by being genuinely positive, showing a "can do" attitude, than by denigrating people.

 

[Beardy]

quote from Simon Wilson

"Tiny clubs have the same voting power as the clubs with over 200 members and many people think that is not right."

For the record - I am a member of a well respected c. 200 member club.
When i asked our representative who was attending the recent CNCC agm how they were going to canvas club members opinion,
the response was  (and i paraphrase  for politeness)

"I couldn't care less about our members opinion"

Given that response - i wouldn't give too much weight to the larger club vote being truly Representative of more cavers.

So now I'm all for a council of northern cavers (rather than clubs)

regards
Beardy

 

[Bob Mehew]

Different forms of proportional representation have been discussed over the years but the principal of one vote per clubs remains. Tiny clubs have the same voting power as the clubs with over 200 members and many people think that is not right.
[snip]
The present make-up of the Officers and Committee can be seen on the website.

But if CNCC went to an extreme of clubs voting on the basis of their size, then 3 or 4 CNCC clubs would hold a majority between them.  Is that democratic?  Personally, I think micro clubs are here to stay whilst individuals can't get direct access to permits.  Indeed, I note a moderate number of younger people no longer exclusively cave with members of their club,  but with those they meet up with in the cafes and bars or even on that thing called "Facebook".  I have no easy answer to a truly democratic structure but sense that OCOV (One Club One Vote) is as good as you are likely to get (or should I say least worst?). 

I acknowledge Beardy's point about Club rep's answering to no one is regrettably often true in my experience.  I am not sure how to get around it.  (Other than to perhaps snitch on the rep to their Club.)  It is however worth noting that we invest an awful lot of executive power  in CNCC's Secretary (and just hope it does not go to his head).

I will however observe that CNCC's constitution only grants full membership to " properly constituted clubs, which are owned and controlled by their own members".  I would suggest that on the basis of a constitution one would expect to see a membership list, appointed officials(s) and records of meetings as required under the constitution.  (BCA does have criteria for club membership but I can't find them on a quick look through my records.)  Perhaps CNCC Committee could be asked to see if all the clubs on its committee are " properly constituted clubs, which are owned and controlled by their own members".  (Though being very cynical, one could make up such records in an hour or so.  So is it worth the effort?)

Thanks for the link to the CNCC web page listing Committee structure.  I see I had an error in my posting.  Though from what the Chair said at the AGM, I was under the impression that the co-opted officers were to be reconsidered at the first Committee meeting.

 

[Beardy]

Bob

Interesting post -

The conclusion I draw from this is that, in a micro club - you have more of a say of what happens than in a big club.

Individuals can be in more than one micro club and have more than one say. 

Therefore running a body to represent the interests of northern cavers seems in its current format to be inherently unfair.

Surely a new constitution of one caver one vote and a council of northern cavers  (rather than clubs) is the way forward ?

Beardy

 

[graham]

The individual member thing is interesting in a number of ways.

BCA now has individual membership. How many individuals turn up at the AGM other than as reps of 'something else'?

If one assumes that we collectively do not wish for a complete free-for-all (I'm leaving NigR and other anarchists out, I realise that) then delegated representation probably works better than individual representation, as the latter can be hijacked by the dedicated few quite easily (see the entryism of trots into the Labour Party of the 70s for a fine example.

There then remains the matter of how representative one's rep is, but surely the matter outlined by Beardy is for his club to deal with rather than CNCC?

 

[Bob Mehew]

Surely a new constitution of one caver one vote and a council of northern cavers  (rather than clubs) is the way forward ?

I accept that inherently one caver one vote is more democratic.  (Though how many will use it?)  But will turkeys (sorry clubs) vote for such a change?  I fear a CNC will take years to set up and stop all change in the mean time.  (There is a serious problem in that some land owners have stated that they will not entertain 'permits to individuals'.)  I am just suggesting we push CNCC forward a moderate step which could be achieved within a year (including negotiations) and would benefit individual cavers.  Lets get some change rather than wait for utopia.

 

[braveduck]

The next CNCC meeting has just been announced 28th of July. This is far too long !
If more change is needed , there should be a general meeting much sooner than this.
Also there may be people who should be at that meeting on holiday.
Puzzled and not impressed.

 

[martinm]

Just ask for a SGM (Special General Meeting) then. (To be held on a much earlier date and you'd need to have confirmed concrete things that needed to be discussed / voted on.) I don't know enough about CNCC to know if/how that would happen, but DCA hold  them  whenever deemed necessary. Good luck with all this. 

 

[Simon Wilson]

Thanks Simon, I think I now begin to understand the point you're making - you're referring to an imbalance in the relative ability of individuals iny differently sized clubs to influence policy; that right?

It probably is an important point but, assuming everything has been done constitutionally - by using terminology such as "dodgy" and "pseudo clubs" I don't agree you've been making your point in a "perfectly reasonable way".

It was the way you expressed yourself which deterred me from reading some of your contributions properly, which is why I didn't understand the point you were trying to make initially. If (as I suspect, due to human nature) other readers have done similarly, this might form a good example of the value of addressing your fellow cavers in a genuinely reasonable manner. You'll win more friends by being genuinely positive, showing a "can do" attitude, than by denigrating people.

You are so, so right John and I wish I could turn back the clock and start this all over again. In my defence I have to say that I only started posting on ukCaving after emails between me and CNCC officers in which they refused to answer my questions about how the committee had changed without any elections and the mysterious appearance on the committee of two micro-clubs. If you remember I posted some of those emails on here and got in trouble for it. In one of those emails I said that the claim of the CNCC TG to be a caving club looked dodgy and I still say it looks dodgy. That has been resolved by them relinquishing their right to vote.

 

[Simon Wilson]

quote from Simon Wilson

"Tiny clubs have the same voting power as the clubs with over 200 members and many people think that is not right."

For the record - I am a member of a well respected c. 200 member club.
When i asked our representative who was attending the recent CNCC agm how they were going to canvas club members opinion,
the response was  (and i paraphrase  for politeness)

"I couldn't care less about our members opinion"

Given that response - i wouldn't give too much weight to the larger club vote being truly Representative of more cavers.

So now I'm all for a council of northern cavers (rather than clubs)

regards
Beardy

Please read my posting which started the thread called "CNCC democracy". In that posting I explained the importance of clubs having an accountable, elected CNCC representative with an informed constituency. I also touched on the issue of RRCPC and proportionality which is an issue that has been debated at very great length.

I will repeat myself and say that the EPC has an elected officer called the CNCC Representative who has to report to the AGM. Any EPC member can confirm that I do consult the club and do take seriously the responsibility of truly representing the wishes of the club.

I would never had said this if you had not brought up the subject but I have been aware for many years that the RRCPC representatives do not truly represent their club. In light of recent events I have a particular grievance with the RRCPC representatives over this.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Bob

Interesting post -

The conclusion I draw from this is that, in a micro club - you have more of a say of what happens than in a big club.

Individuals can be in more than one micro club and have more than one say. 


Beardy

This is exactly what I have been saying but the details have got hard too see amongst all the postings. Les Sykes is a member of at least three of the micro-clubs; he is in LUG, Elysium and CNCC TG. That is why I used the word 'incestuous' about the CNCC TG in one of my postings. For all we know he might be in Northumbrian SG and St. Helens CC.

 

[Simon Wilson]

The next CNCC meeting has just been announced 28th of July. This is far too long !
If more change is needed , there should be a general meeting much sooner than this.
Also there may be people who should be at that meeting on holiday.
Puzzled and not impressed.

Are you seriously saying that you don't know that a general meeting is imminent?

 

[Bob Mehew]

To be fair Simon, no date was announced at the AGM for either the SGM or the Committee meeting.  (Learning point Matt - take a diary and work out possible dates before hand rather than rely on someone else to have a diary!  ) 

I am confident consultations are taking place on dates to ensure all Committee members can be present before dates will be issued.  Previous years indicate the next Committee meeting is likely to be held in June rather than July. 

The SGM has to be held within 8 weeks of the request and issue notice within 4 weeks of same date.  I guess the request date was last Saturday1st March so that implies the SGM will occur before the end of April.  But presumably it will deal with the specific matter referred to it by the AGM and not allow any other business.  God knows what will happen about the "commercial caving" topic.  I guess CNCC's officers are pondering on that as we write.

 

[Bottlebank]

Bob,

The rule on calling a Special General Meeting is very clear - it needs ten clubs to request it in writing which seems a sensible enough rule.

As presumably no such request has been received why would the date be set at 1st March?

If we're looking forward to a period of openness and a more forward looking CNCC surely ignoring the rules at this stage would be counter productive?

Since the Special Meeting would being called I assume to try and suspend the Earby (which would include me) perhaps we should be asking how many other clubs have members who have caved without permits? Are they all to be suspended?

If we really are entering a new era perhaps it would be a better idea to have an item on the agenda for the next meeting to declare an amnesty for all past transgressions, after all we'd be missing a substantial part of the Easegill system itself if everyone had waited three months for permits before exploring and surveying the place over the last few decades?

Tony

 

[Pitlamp]

Thanks Simon, I think I now begin to understand the point you're making - you're referring to an imbalance in the relative ability of individuals iny differently sized clubs to influence policy; that right?

It probably is an important point but, assuming everything has been done constitutionally - by using terminology such as "dodgy" and "pseudo clubs" I don't agree you've been making your point in a "perfectly reasonable way".

It was the way you expressed yourself which deterred me from reading some of your contributions properly, which is why I didn't understand the point you were trying to make initially. If (as I suspect, due to human nature) other readers have done similarly, this might form a good example of the value of addressing your fellow cavers in a genuinely reasonable manner. You'll win more friends by being genuinely positive, showing a "can do" attitude, than by denigrating people.

You are so, so right John and I wish I could turn back the clock and start this all over again. In my defence I have to say that I only started posting on ukCaving after emails between me and CNCC officers in which they refused to answer my questions about how the committee had changed without any elections and the mysterious appearance on the committee of two micro-clubs. If you remember I posted some of those emails on here and got in trouble for it. In one of those emails I said that the claim of the CNCC TG to be a caving club looked dodgy and I still say it looks dodgy. That has been resolved by them relinquishing their right to vote.

Thanks for yours Simon; apologies for not responding right away but I've had to work today. I still disagree with you about the "dodgy" description - IF things were done constitutionally. But if the constitution itself is out of step with what's best for cavers then the answer is to win support and work towards altering the constitution, not criticise a club which has simply followed the rules.

Politics is the art of the possible; human nature is often an underestimated factor in such problems. I still think the best way is to provide logical argument, in as friendly a way as possible. Then when it comes down to it, a greater proportion of people will probably go along with the motions. We all love our caving and we all have loads in common. We might not all agree with each other but we can generally come to a fair compromise, eventually, with the right approach.

Even if I can't agree with you about past events necessarily being "dodgy", I'll not fall out with you over it. We might just have to agree to disagree on that one. But already, because your above post is entirely civil, I find myself subconsciously willing to take more interest in your point of view. That's just human nature, I guess . . .

 

[Stu]

The next CNCC meeting has just been announced 28th of July.

A Monday?