Observations on the CNCC AGM
- Thread starter Badlad
- Start date
Back on thread:
The response to questions over the ?secret permit? system demonstrates the arrogance of certain officers of the CNCC. Even though the officers concerned are in clear breech of their own constitution there has been no disciplinary action, no admission of wrong doing and no apology to the members. From the constitution;
? All member clubs shall be issued with full details of agreements when completed or revised.
? The ?. [CNCC officers]?. will be subject to instruction from the Committee.
There is no doubt that the system existed for over five years and in all that time there is not a single mention of it in the minutes of the CNCC meetings. There is no record of the scheme ever being proposed or voted on by the committee (other than voting to end it in January this year). There is no record of the committee instructing the access officers in respect of the scheme and no record of the individual concerned being co-opted as a permit secretary in any way, shape or form.
The system operated without the knowledge of most of the 50 CNCC full member clubs and nearly all of the CNCC associate clubs. Even when those clubs asked for a short notice permit they were not offered one and no mention was made of the ?secret permit? system at all.
Meanwhile, the CNCC inner crowd, an individual, his mates and a few others in the know were given hundreds of permits a year to use as they wished. There should be no blame attached to the individual or the recipients of the permits ? they were only doing what they were allowed to do. However there are eye witnesses to the following;
Permits were issued to an ?in crowd? on demand, at short notice, during the week and also at weekends.
On occasion, permits were issued selectively by an individual, over the counter of a well known shop.
Permits were used for sporting trips as well as for digging.
Concerns about all the above was made known to the Access officer and the Treasurer who both freely admitted knowledge of the above.
I would like to think that the St Helens Caving Club (or another club) is still reading these posts and would be concerned enough to put in a genuine letter of complaint against the officers concerned. If there is anything bringing the CNCC into disrepute it is this sort of behaviour where officers think they can do as they please and get away with it.
The response to questions over the ?secret permit? system demonstrates the arrogance of certain officers of the CNCC. Even though the officers concerned are in clear breech of their own constitution there has been no disciplinary action, no admission of wrong doing and no apology to the members. From the constitution;
? All member clubs shall be issued with full details of agreements when completed or revised.
? The ?. [CNCC officers]?. will be subject to instruction from the Committee.
There is no doubt that the system existed for over five years and in all that time there is not a single mention of it in the minutes of the CNCC meetings. There is no record of the scheme ever being proposed or voted on by the committee (other than voting to end it in January this year). There is no record of the committee instructing the access officers in respect of the scheme and no record of the individual concerned being co-opted as a permit secretary in any way, shape or form.
The system operated without the knowledge of most of the 50 CNCC full member clubs and nearly all of the CNCC associate clubs. Even when those clubs asked for a short notice permit they were not offered one and no mention was made of the ?secret permit? system at all.
Meanwhile, the CNCC inner crowd, an individual, his mates and a few others in the know were given hundreds of permits a year to use as they wished. There should be no blame attached to the individual or the recipients of the permits ? they were only doing what they were allowed to do. However there are eye witnesses to the following;
Permits were issued to an ?in crowd? on demand, at short notice, during the week and also at weekends.
On occasion, permits were issued selectively by an individual, over the counter of a well known shop.
Permits were used for sporting trips as well as for digging.
Concerns about all the above was made known to the Access officer and the Treasurer who both freely admitted knowledge of the above.
I would like to think that the St Helens Caving Club (or another club) is still reading these posts and would be concerned enough to put in a genuine letter of complaint against the officers concerned. If there is anything bringing the CNCC into disrepute it is this sort of behaviour where officers think they can do as they please and get away with it.
Bottlebank
New member
Why not try and use everything that's emerged to improve things?
It seems one advantage of a Special General Meeting is that every member club has a vote, with a focus on specific issues rather than the meeting being cluttered up by reports, etc. Decisions taken at an SGM therefore have perhaps more authority than those taken at a committee meeting or even an AGM.
Two ideas have emerged from all of this that would be well worth implementing, and which would justify the holding of a general meeting.
Firstly the introduction of over the counter permits at short notice wherever possible. We now know this can be done, it's the sort of thing most people have wanted for years and it's only been scrapped because of the way it was introduced and operated. An SGM in a few weeks time could mean that by the time of the next committee meeting at the end of June people would be able obtain permits quickly and easily, provided either Bernies or Inglesport are willing to help or another outlet can be found to issue the permits.
Secondly Bob's idea of the BCA joining the CNCC as an associate member, thus allowing DIM's to obtain permits, and resolving the other main complaint that has existed for years. Even if the BCA can't be persuaded to apply in time once the idea is approved an application from them could be immediately accepted once it's received.
Adoption of these two ideas alone would allow the CNCC to move forward, with far greater support and backing from many, many cavers. It would let us move on from the situation we are in now, and look forwards rather than repeatedly raking over the embers of the past.
If it helps any clubs/reps who think this would be worth pursuing please let me know, and if ten do I'll be happy to draft the letter.
It seems one advantage of a Special General Meeting is that every member club has a vote, with a focus on specific issues rather than the meeting being cluttered up by reports, etc. Decisions taken at an SGM therefore have perhaps more authority than those taken at a committee meeting or even an AGM.
Two ideas have emerged from all of this that would be well worth implementing, and which would justify the holding of a general meeting.
Firstly the introduction of over the counter permits at short notice wherever possible. We now know this can be done, it's the sort of thing most people have wanted for years and it's only been scrapped because of the way it was introduced and operated. An SGM in a few weeks time could mean that by the time of the next committee meeting at the end of June people would be able obtain permits quickly and easily, provided either Bernies or Inglesport are willing to help or another outlet can be found to issue the permits.
Secondly Bob's idea of the BCA joining the CNCC as an associate member, thus allowing DIM's to obtain permits, and resolving the other main complaint that has existed for years. Even if the BCA can't be persuaded to apply in time once the idea is approved an application from them could be immediately accepted once it's received.
Adoption of these two ideas alone would allow the CNCC to move forward, with far greater support and backing from many, many cavers. It would let us move on from the situation we are in now, and look forwards rather than repeatedly raking over the embers of the past.
If it helps any clubs/reps who think this would be worth pursuing please let me know, and if ten do I'll be happy to draft the letter.
Pete Brookdale
New member
You could just use the old tried and tested method for permits by just scanning them changing the dates and printing out you very own permit for when you want.....
Simon Wilson
New member
Cavematt said:
First a bit of ember raking then I?ll say a little about the future.
I never said it was a ?deliberate conspiracy? but since Matt has chosen to use that phrase let?s examine whether it is appropriate. The CNCC thought there was a problem with cavers going without permits and that it was mainly local ?diggers?. So they decided to make it easier for local diggers to get permits. They were seriously in the wrong from the start on two counts; they should automatically make it as easy as possible for cavers to get permits and it should be on an equal basis for all cavers. Next, they were very selective about whom they let know about it and a fair proportion of those who knew about it were what has been accurately called the CNCC in-crowd. That in-crowd thought they were onto a good thing, they kept it quiet and they knew full well that other local diggers didn?t know about it. Does that sound like a ?deliberate conspiracy? to you? Please do as Matt suggests and make up your own mind.
The day after the January meeting I emailed the Meets Secretary and asked for permits for Lost Johns on every Tuesday until the end of March. He replied saying that he could have done that before the meeting but not now and that I would have to apply for them one at a time. That is clearly a load of nonsense because the conditions for issuing permits are laid out in the access agreement and not decided by the CNCC. Clearly the access agreement must allow for a permit to be issued with all the available dates for a month on one permit and for them to be issued three months in advance because that is what was happening under the ?digging permit? system. One cannot help wondering why the CNCC still have a set of rules on their website which is far more restrictive than is required by the access agreement.
A little about what the future might hold for access: The permit system was already being overlooked by a great many cavers for a number of reasons. What permitgate has done is massively undermine the credibility of the CNCC and the credibility of any claim they might have had to be the best channel for cavers wanting to have access to caves. Over the coming months cavers need to consider which way they want the CNCC to go and what they want to see happen about access now that the permit system as we knew it is in complete tatters.
Bottlebank
New member
That really was a little.
Let's move on. What are your suggestions for the future, for a way forward? Or do you prefer to keep going over the same ground again and again?
Between all of us we could get this sorted out and get the CNCC doing what it is meant to. If you prefer to keep on complaining about the past be my guest but it's pointless, getting us nowhere and you'd be far better putting your energy into helping create a working system.
I got involved in this, albeit accidentally, because I want to see change and improvement. Going back over old accusations, no matter how politely, isn't going to achieve either.
Cave Mapper
Member
Wow! At last it is becoming clear what has been going on here. The fog has lifted.
Thanks BadLad, Bottlebank, Simon, etc. and Mat, for getting this out in the open. Also a big thumbs up for the UK Caving Forum, anyone who still thinks that this forum is irrelevant or doesn't have any influence should wake up and smell the coffee. Secrets don't work in the age of the web.
For me, the CNCC has now lost any remaining credibility that it had, and is therefore not fit to continue representing northern cavers.
Bottlebank makes some excellent suggestions, and it would certainly be good to get all this turned round into some positive, forward-looking changes. Over-the-counter permits from Bernies or Inglesport is a neat idea. Perhaps the two outlets should be bidding the privilege.
But the political crisis also needs resolving, it's almost impossible to see how the necessary changes (e.g. as proposed by Bottlebank) can happen with the current four committee members in place. Perhaps the only way forward now is for those four to resign, and maybe if Mat leads the way he will retain his own credibility and be able to play a key role in any future replacement. It's a radical suggestion I know, but it could be the best and fastest way out of this hole. Radical changes are sometimes necessary.
If the committee stood down, an interim working group would have to be established very quickly. May be the BCA could step in as an emergency measure (BCA Northern Region Working Group?), this is a crisis of national importance, so it would be appropriate. Alternatively, a group of representatives from the major clubs could step forward. May be even BadLad and/or Bottlebank would volunteer, they've both made very positive contributions so far.
I hope this does get sorted out properly and quickly, anarchy would be a bad thing, and we are on the brink of that now.
Thanks BadLad, Bottlebank, Simon, etc. and Mat, for getting this out in the open. Also a big thumbs up for the UK Caving Forum, anyone who still thinks that this forum is irrelevant or doesn't have any influence should wake up and smell the coffee. Secrets don't work in the age of the web.
For me, the CNCC has now lost any remaining credibility that it had, and is therefore not fit to continue representing northern cavers.
Bottlebank makes some excellent suggestions, and it would certainly be good to get all this turned round into some positive, forward-looking changes. Over-the-counter permits from Bernies or Inglesport is a neat idea. Perhaps the two outlets should be bidding the privilege.
But the political crisis also needs resolving, it's almost impossible to see how the necessary changes (e.g. as proposed by Bottlebank) can happen with the current four committee members in place. Perhaps the only way forward now is for those four to resign, and maybe if Mat leads the way he will retain his own credibility and be able to play a key role in any future replacement. It's a radical suggestion I know, but it could be the best and fastest way out of this hole. Radical changes are sometimes necessary.
If the committee stood down, an interim working group would have to be established very quickly. May be the BCA could step in as an emergency measure (BCA Northern Region Working Group?), this is a crisis of national importance, so it would be appropriate. Alternatively, a group of representatives from the major clubs could step forward. May be even BadLad and/or Bottlebank would volunteer, they've both made very positive contributions so far.
I hope this does get sorted out properly and quickly, anarchy would be a bad thing, and we are on the brink of that now.
martinm
New member
Cave Mapper said:
Agree totally with the above, (I'm in the Peak though), some good suggestions above for the future. This forum is facilitating discussion about some serious issues. Most of the officers of DCA monitor this forum and contribute where appropriate.
Permits from Bernies or Inglesport for areas where they are necessary would streamline and speed up the process. Though obviously the numbers issued for each entrance / fell would have to be controlled in line with the landowners previous wishes. Someone would have to administer it too.
Maybe someone (Matt?) could contact an appropriate person in BCA for advice about the way forward.
Someone could contact the landowners / estate managers and test the water about access for BCA DIMs too.
I think as long as it is stressed that everyone should have BCA membership & insurance I don't see why it couldn't be sorted. Just need to approach the landowners / estates with respect and care and assure them that existing access arrangements won't change (except for DIMs) and everyone will have the 3rd party liability insurance provided by BCA.
Perhaps (like someone else has said above), stress the importance cavers (even individuals) have in repairs to stiles, making cave entrances safe, etc. Much like what I do (and other DCA officers do) in the Peak.
Change like this has happened before; like (can't rmbr exactly now, someone on here will know, but I'm thinking about BSA, NCA, etc. Just needs careful thought and working together for the good of all cavers. (Not just Northerners, lol.)
Maybe everyone contributing above on here should get together for their own meeting asap, not wait for the next CNCC one. Good luck with it all anyway.
Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.
TheBitterEnd
Well-known member
The current process for obtaining "sport" caving permits is already pretty slick and the permit secretaries are doing a very good job.
It's worth looking at the agreements - http://www.cncc.org.uk/about/access-agreements.php - we might not like some of these restrictions and it may be better if they could be renegotiated but we are where we are and we have to work with the agreement. So for Leck, only three clubs on the fell per day, doesn't matter if you go in the morning or 10.00PM it is 3 per day, not 3 at one time. This means that if I get a permit every week for an evening trip, then that is one less permit for someone who wants a day time trip.
I can see issues with using local shops and the like. All permit issuers would have to coordinate; how would Bernies know what was booked or already issued by Inglesport? Could Cowan Bridge Shop issue permits for Leck? It's fine for locals to nip into a shop and grab a permit but would you drive up from London on the off-chance that you might get an permit if the locals haven't already had them all?
I'm sure that in general on week days there are probably spare permits but from a club sport caving point-of-view the permits secretaries do a good job of turning short notice requests round quickly and getting a short notice permit if one is available is very straight forward. Perhaps the only slight niggle (and it is only a minor thing) is that there is no back-up position if a particular secretary is away for a few weeks.
So let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
It's worth looking at the agreements - http://www.cncc.org.uk/about/access-agreements.php - we might not like some of these restrictions and it may be better if they could be renegotiated but we are where we are and we have to work with the agreement. So for Leck, only three clubs on the fell per day, doesn't matter if you go in the morning or 10.00PM it is 3 per day, not 3 at one time. This means that if I get a permit every week for an evening trip, then that is one less permit for someone who wants a day time trip.
I can see issues with using local shops and the like. All permit issuers would have to coordinate; how would Bernies know what was booked or already issued by Inglesport? Could Cowan Bridge Shop issue permits for Leck? It's fine for locals to nip into a shop and grab a permit but would you drive up from London on the off-chance that you might get an permit if the locals haven't already had them all?
I'm sure that in general on week days there are probably spare permits but from a club sport caving point-of-view the permits secretaries do a good job of turning short notice requests round quickly and getting a short notice permit if one is available is very straight forward. Perhaps the only slight niggle (and it is only a minor thing) is that there is no back-up position if a particular secretary is away for a few weeks.
So let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Bottlebank
New member
Some good points from cavemapper, mmilner and TheBitterEnd, so just to clarify a couple of practical points.
1. The system of obtaining advance permits would be retained, however short notice permits - e.g. for the next few days or perhaps week would be available from (probably initially) a single shop - although it could be a different shop for each area. This means that people making last minute plans can quickly see what permits are available and would encourage them to stay within the system. Clubs wishing to book in advance could still do so.
2. There simplicity of Bob's idea re admitting BCA as an associate member is it means no constitutional changes are needed to give DIM's access, and there is no need to renegotiate with the landowners. The BCA is a caving club and so it's members are caving club members (even if they haven't seen themselves that way in the past). Yes, there will be less permits available to clubs but most of us seem to think that DIM's have as much right to cave on Leck and Casterton as any of the rest of us, so this is only fair.
3. I'm personally ambivalent to who is on the committee. Officers don't have votes, it's up to us, the members, to tell them what we expect them to do. It seems unfair to ask Matt to resign as he's only been in the job a few weeks and seems to be trying to do what most of us want him to do. As for the other officers if they can't work with the system the members impose on them they'll no doubt resign at some point, if they can fine by me.
Somebody said to me at the weekend "You get the democracy you deserve". We've let the CNCC officers decide the future of the CNCC in the past, it's time the CNCC members determined the future.
Perhaps I should post the suggestions as a separate thread? I'll have a brew and think about that one.
1. The system of obtaining advance permits would be retained, however short notice permits - e.g. for the next few days or perhaps week would be available from (probably initially) a single shop - although it could be a different shop for each area. This means that people making last minute plans can quickly see what permits are available and would encourage them to stay within the system. Clubs wishing to book in advance could still do so.
2. There simplicity of Bob's idea re admitting BCA as an associate member is it means no constitutional changes are needed to give DIM's access, and there is no need to renegotiate with the landowners. The BCA is a caving club and so it's members are caving club members (even if they haven't seen themselves that way in the past). Yes, there will be less permits available to clubs but most of us seem to think that DIM's have as much right to cave on Leck and Casterton as any of the rest of us, so this is only fair.
3. I'm personally ambivalent to who is on the committee. Officers don't have votes, it's up to us, the members, to tell them what we expect them to do. It seems unfair to ask Matt to resign as he's only been in the job a few weeks and seems to be trying to do what most of us want him to do. As for the other officers if they can't work with the system the members impose on them they'll no doubt resign at some point, if they can fine by me.
Somebody said to me at the weekend "You get the democracy you deserve". We've let the CNCC officers decide the future of the CNCC in the past, it's time the CNCC members determined the future.
Perhaps I should post the suggestions as a separate thread? I'll have a brew and think about that one.
TheBitterEnd
Well-known member
The thing about "short notice permits - e.g. for the next few days or perhaps week" being available from a shop is that some of us would have to drive past Casterton and Leck to get to Ingleton and say you fancied a mid-week evening trip, getting to the shop after work but before it closes might not be possible. As it stands it is all sorted by email.
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
Bottlebank said:
Remember there are also a fair number of meet secretaries who do much of the donkey work. Any changes need to ensure they and their work load remains manageable. I agree with a separate thread - this bulk of this one is looking backwards not forwards.
PS - BCA cannot become involved in regional matters unless invited. Do you think the current 14 committee clubs are going to vote for that? Getting improvements is going to be much about the art of working out what is acceptable to get that lot on side plus finding volunteers to do the work to replace those who depart. My expectation is evolution not revolution. So don't set one's expectations high.
Bottlebank
New member
OK, I've put up a separate thread at:
http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=16367.msg214200;topicseen#new
http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=16367.msg214200;topicseen#new
mountainpenguin
Member
If the BCA were a club member would they be eligible for one of the 3 clubs per day permits ?
and if so could they not just be given one permanently for all the BCA affiliated members ?
and if so could they not just be given one permanently for all the BCA affiliated members ?
Pringletours
New member
Simon Wilson
New member
I now accept my comment about anchors is in error.Bob Mehew said:
Similar threads
