Observations on the CNCC AGM

[Simon Wilson]

- IF things were done constitutionally.

You've hit the nail on the head. The whole dispute between the EPC and the CNCC is entirely about the CNCC not abiding by the constitution. It started with the 'secret permit' saga which has snowballed and there seems to be no sign of the bottom of the hill yet.

The thing about the CNCC TG not being a club is not something that could be solved by looking to the constitution. Look at it this way: If the RRCPC decided to throw in the towel and hand Bull Pot Farm over to the CNCC to run. Then the RRCPC became an incorporated part of the CNCC called 'CNCC Red Rose Section' and ceased to exist outside the CNCC then you could say it is no longer a caving club but part of the CNCC. That is my argument about the CNCC TG; it can't be both an incorporated part of the CNCC and a caving club. It's not an argument I can win; its just my opinion. I don't think 'dodgy' is a strong or offensive word for it. I'm wracking my brain to come up with a milder but just as appropriate way of saying what I think. Maybe 'Glenn's claim to represent a caving club and thereby gain the right to a vote is on an unsound footing'?

 

[droid]

I can see what Simon is getting at.


There's a hell of a difference between a Club formed primarily to go caving, and one formed for the convienience of a vote on the CNCC Committee....

 

[Bob Mehew]

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?

Hi Tony - you are not going to like this so apologies.  A letter was read out making a 'complaint' and a 'proposal' at the AGM.  The AGM accepted a suggestion of mine to remit the letter to an SGM.  It was duly proposed and seconded by clubs other than GSG whose name I was speaking under and my notes indicate the vote was 11 for and 2 against.  Assuming my notes are accurate, then I would therefore respectively suggest more than 10 clubs have requested an SGM on the 'complaint' and it is in writing as part of the notes of the AGM which are held by CNCC.  I would also point you to the final bullet point of CNCC's constitution where you will see that an SGM is the proper place for the  'complaint' and 'proposal' of this nature to be dealt with.

Sorry, I was being extrememly political at that moment.  And in anticipation, no I do NOT wish to get into a debate on the merits of the 'complaint' on this forum.  I believe the SGM is the best place to resolve it and prior debate here is only likely to inflame the situation to no one's benefit.  Indeed it could even prejudice a fair hearing in my opinion.

 

[Bob Mehew]

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

A Monday?

28th June makes more sense, being a Saturday.

 

[Bob Mehew]

There's a hell of a difference between a Club formed primarily to go caving, and one formed for the convienience of a vote on the CNCC Committee....

For the record, back in around 2000 as Treasurer of a cash strapped NCA, I looked at the membership lists of each Region Caving Council to see how much more money I could extract for NCA.  I noticed the name of CNCC Technical Group which seemed odd.  Being nosy, I made inquiries at the time.  The explanation I received from Les Sykes at that time was that because of the access agreements, only clubs could get permits, so CNCC TG was set up as a club so people within CNCC could go and place anchors.  Some years later as chair of BCA's E&T Committee I asked CNCC for their records on anchor placement.  My understanding is that the majority of the 4000 plus anchors installed in the Dales were placed by members of CNCC TG. 

I also think you will find the Rigging Guide was written by CNCC TG and / or its members.  And a host of work on anchors from 1992 has been recorded by CNCC TG and / or its members.  (The current web pages omits much of the pre 2000 work.)

I leave it to others to judge if "one formed for the convienience of a vote on the CNCC Committee" is a reasonable description of CNCC TG.

 

[Cavematt]

Apologies everyone, 28th July was posted as the next committee meeting on the CNCC website by mistake. This should have been 28th June, and has now been corrected.

 

[Simon Wilson]

There's a hell of a difference between a Club formed primarily to go caving, and one formed for the convienience of a vote on the CNCC Committee....

For the record, back in around 2000 as Treasurer of a cash strapped NCA, I looked at the membership lists of each Region Caving Council to see how much more money I could extract for NCA.  I noticed the name of CNCC Technical Group which seemed odd.  Being nosy, I made inquiries at the time.  The explanation I received from Les Sykes at that time was that because of the access agreements, only clubs could get permits, so CNCC TG was set up as a club so people within CNCC could go and place anchors.  Some years later as chair of BCA's E&T Committee I asked CNCC for their records on anchor placement.  My understanding is that the majority of the 4000 plus anchors installed in the Dales were placed by members of CNCC TG. 

I also think you will find the Rigging Guide was written by CNCC TG and / or its members.  And a host of work on anchors from 1992 has been recorded by CNCC TG and / or its members.  (The current web pages omits much of the pre 2000 work.)

I leave it to others to judge if "one formed for the convienience of a vote on the CNCC Committee" is a reasonable description of CNCC TG.

My point is that they might have called it 'club' so they can issue permits to it but the CNCC TG is an incorporated part of the CNCC. So to claim that you can stand for election on the grounds that you represent the CNCC TG is bit like saying you can stand for election as the chairman on the grounds that you represent the chairman.

 

[Simon Wilson]

...and another thing: They didn't need to call it a club to apply for permits because they were already members of other clubs. A more likely reason why they decided to call the CNCC TG a club is so they could claim a vote as a committee member 'club'.

 

[Bob Mehew]

but the CNCC TG is an incorporated part of the CNCC.

How do you justify this claim?  I accept CNCC TG reported to this and previous AGMs but I don't see that as proof of being an  'incorporated part of the CNCC'.  For example, there is no mention of CNCC TG in the constitution. 

A more likely reason why they decided to call the CNCC TG a club is so they could claim a vote as a committee member 'club'.

I will remind you that the constitution states firstly that "The committee shall consist of fourteen members, each of whom will represent a different full member club" and then "There shall be a Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Conservation Officer and Training Officer who shall be members of different member clubs so far as this is possible".  Which I think forces Les Sykes and Glenn Jones to be members of at least one club and if possible of different clubs.  I will also point out that the Committee consists of 14 clubs; I think you allege Les Sykes and Glenn Jones are members of 3 of them between them.  Surely no majority vote (even allowing for multiple votes per person)? 

As I said "I leave it to others to judge if "one formed for the convienience of a vote on the CNCC Committee" is a reasonable description of CNCC TG".  I trust you are not trying to deny the work CNCC TG have done?

I would suggest that the constitution requires considerable rewriting to try and avoid what I think are irrational demands.  As Pitlamp said yesterday "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. "

 

[droid]

Only the members of the (alleged) 'micro-clubs' know for sure if they were formed for convienience.

And I'm not holding my breath for a candid answer to that one....

 

[Simon Wilson]

I would suggest that the constitution requires considerable rewriting to try and avoid what I think are irrational demands.  As Pitlamp said yesterday "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. "

OBVIOUSLY 

The constitution needs rewriting to stop one man and his dog calling themselves a caving club.

 

[Bob Mehew]

The constitution needs rewriting to stop one man and his dog calling themselves a caving club.

Can that be taken as an offer to help?  Not that I have any authority, but how about starting a new thread with a draft of a part of a new constitution covering membership of clubs and the subsidiary rules which achieves stopping one man and his dog (or any other animal for that mater) from being a member. 

PS - as a hopefully helpful gesture, a test for a properly constituted club could be submitting each year to CNCC, a copy of the minutes of the club's AGM.  It is not watertight but I suggest it as a starter for 10.

 

[Judi Durber]

Quote from: Simon Wilson on Today at 07:23:07 pm
The constitution needs rewriting to stop one man and his dog calling themselves a caving club.

I have created a separate topic for my next question to keep this one on topic. Please go to the link for a query on what is a club.

http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=16336.0

 

[Bottlebank]

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?

Hi Tony - you are not going to like this so apologies.  A letter was read out making a 'complaint' and a 'proposal' at the AGM.  The AGM accepted a suggestion of mine to remit the letter to an SGM.  It was duly proposed and seconded by clubs other than GSG whose name I was speaking under and my notes indicate the vote was 11 for and 2 against.  Assuming my notes are accurate, then I would therefore respectively suggest more than 10 clubs have requested an SGM on the 'complaint' and it is in writing as part of the notes of the AGM which are held by CNCC.  I would also point you to the final bullet point of CNCC's constitution where you will see that an SGM is the proper place for the  'complaint' and 'proposal' of this nature to be dealt with.

Sorry, I was being extrememly political at that moment.  And in anticipation, no I do NOT wish to get into a debate on the merits of the 'complaint' on this forum.  I believe the SGM is the best place to resolve it and prior debate here is only likely to inflame the situation to no one's benefit.  Indeed it could even prejudice a fair hearing in my opinion.

Hi Bob,

I don't disagree with your second point, i.e. that an SGM is the best place to decide this but it's not a question of what I like or dislike. Had the letter been disclosed in advance of the meeting and the item been on the Agenda than each rep could have sought the opinion of his or her club members in advance.

Constitutions usually contain a carefully worded clause laying down the conditions for forming a Special or Extraordinary General Meeting. This is to give all members chance to consider the position fully before taking a conscious decision to hold such a meeting. A proposal at a possibly heated meeting in the midst of debate doesn't give members the same opportunity for detailed or careful consideration, especially in an organisation such as the CNCC where people at a meeting are in fact representing other organisations, not themselves.

To say that ten clubs have requested an SGM in writing because eleven voted for it at a meeting is simply rewriting the rules. Club reps at the AGM had no opportunity to consult their respective clubs as to whether or not this was a sensible way forward, and it sounds as though there was no real discussion about alternatives.

In fact the vote was probably more likely eleven to two in favour of ending the discussion of an unexpected topic which arose out of the blue at the AGM - I'd be surprised if in the cold light of day you could get the same eleven clubs to sign such a letter.

The CNCC's constitution has laid out a procedure and I think it should be followed on this one.

If ten clubs want the meeting then let's see a signed letter from them, if not in my opinion it shouldn't happen.

Tony

 

[bograt]

Bob,


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?

Tony

Points to ponder;

A letter proposing censure of a member club was presented to the AGM. ; How many other member clubs signed this letter?

A suggestion that this matter should be deferred to a SGM was made and voted upon (I presume show of hands?), this was agreed by a majority. ; This appears that a proposal to hold a SGM was carried, was a SGM then actually requested via constitutional route? ( i.e. in writing by ten members?)

At this SGM, will the convenor be able present the written request from ten members, recieved within the constitutional time restraints, asking for the meeting and explaining the reason for the request?

If this SGM goes ahead, called based upon the proposal carried at the AGM (a show of hands, not a written request), then the matter for discussion should be that stated in the original proposal, i.e. the letter recieved, was this signed by 10 members? does it carry any validation?
Any motion of censure should be decided at a SGM properly called for that specific purpose, this meeting does not appear to fulfill that criterion, so another meeting would have to be called.

Any action of censure against any member group is a very serious undertaking and should be carried out strictly as laid down in the constitution, I have no axe to grind with any party involved in this debate and consider myself totally neutral, but analysing the actions by both sides as presented on this forum, I can see procedural errors making a mockery of regional management, and this is not good for British caving in the public eye.

 

[Jopo]

Any action of censure against any member group is a very serious undertaking and should be carried out strictly as laid down in the constitution, I have no axe to grind with any party involved in this debate and consider myself totally neutral, but analysing the actions by both sides as presented on this forum, I can see procedural errors making a mockery of regional management, and this is not good for British caving in the public eye.

Spot on.

Jopo

 

[Bottlebank]

And let's face it the CNCC has been on the receiving end of a lot of criticism recently, why give critics an entirely new procedural irregularity to beat yourselves up with?

 

[Bob Mehew]

I note the points made above.  Fortunately it is not me who makes these decisions but a meeting of CNCC. 

I await publication of the letter with its complaint which was more than just about 'pirating'.  (My notes are far from complete on the detailed content of the letter so I won't go further.)  I recall there was an alternative suggestion to reject the complaint but that would have placed all reps in the position of having to make an immediate decision on the significance of the complaint as well as the rep of the club being complained about being required to present a defense without warning.  As I said at the time, I personally felt that for the meeting to take any decision for or against the complaint at that time would be against natural justice, hence my proposal.  At least by deferring the debate, reps will have a chance to consult with their clubs on both the merits of the complaint, compliance with the constitution and on what attitude shall be adopted against 'simple' pirating.  And more importantly, for the defending club to have a reasonable period to produce a defense and provide support for their rep.

I will accept that with the benefit of hindsight, an alternative motion could have been put forward which 'tabled' the letter and requested the complaining club to go and obtain a further 9 club signatures to call an SGM which would at least have produced a more procedurally compliant outcome.  I did briefly ponder on challenging the Chair's decision on whether the letter was legitimate business but felt that was being a little too 'smart arsed' and just likely to provoke finger poking.

I am not sure whether to look forward or fear the SGM as it deals with not just the complaint but also questions on procedural correctness.  And I will also add if it gets past the procedural points, with taking evidence underlying the basis of the complaint and not just peoples' recollections.  (That is assuming the officers of CNCC don't go along with Bottlebank and Bograt's opinion and decide the voted on motion is procedurally invalid.)

 

[kay]

But as Matt says, he has only one vote on the Committee. 

Actually, Matt didn't say this, because of course he doesn't have a vote on the committee. 
Only the representatives of the elected committee member clubs have a vote (one vote per club). Matt is  a member of York Caving club, which is a full member of CNCC, but York is not on the Committee, so Matt doesn't have a vote on the Committee.

 

[kay]

Excellent idea, surely all it would require is voting the BCA in as a full member, after all, as an association it is already a club?

But it's not based in the north of Britain is it.

You can be an associate member club regardless of geography, and that gives the club access to permits.