I realise I am late coming to this debate - I was away on a family holiday last week. But as the Chairman of SWCC and therefore the person who managed the discussion and the vote on this at the committee meeting, I have to respond to some of the charges levelled at me/us.
Ali Garman said:
- Nig phoned Tony Baker 2 days prior to the committee meeting, presenting his side of the case and asking that the SWCC committee discuss this and instruct their PDCMG rep accordingly.
- Nig emailed Tony a proposal that he said was being submitted for the PDCMG agenda. I don't have the wording, but it was a generic proposal asking the PDCMG to reconsider its position on second entrances.
- I believe Tony forwarded this to the committee and pointed them at the uk caving forum on the matter, which I personally would not consider to be a good source of facts.
- Tony mentioned in the long common room on the Friday night that this subject was being discussed the following evening. Tony received a robust response from the randomly collected audience, I don't recall a single person arguing for the opening of a second entrance.
- The SWCC committee discussed the matter, presumably at length, on the Saturday evening.
- I heard on the grapevine a few days later that their decision was to abstain.
- A week or so later, as PDCMG secretary, I received the official proposal from Garimpieros. However the wording was significantly different to the proposal discussed by the SWCC committee, stating that a specific entrance should be opened with immediate effect.
Not all of what Ali states is correct...
1. Nig phoned me at least two weeks before the committee meeting. This gave us ample time to consider the matter in advance of the meeting.
2. When Nig sent me the wording of the proposal he made it clear that this was being submitted with the specific intention of forcing a discussion and a vote on the reopening of the second entrance. I made this clear to the committee at the outset of our discussion and explained that it was on
that vote that we were briefing Bernie.
3. I did not forward the Garimpeiros proposal to the SWCC committee, but I warned them that we were going to discuss the issue. Please credit me and the committee with some intelligence; when I directed them at the forum I made it clear that much of the sense was being drowned out by axes being ground, but nonetheless the thread had been started by a respected caver raising a legitimate question. We had been asked by a club member to discuss a thorny issue and to brief our rep in advance of a vote; whatever you may think of that member, his was a perfectly reasonable request. And whatever you may think of the SWCC committee we are all experienced cavers capable of making informed decisions about second entrances.
4. I too cannot recall anyone in the long common room arguing in favour of a second entrance, but that is because many of those involved chose to dwell on their personal thoughts about one or two individuals rather than engaging in any sort of sensible debate about the rights and wrongs of a second entrance. And anyone who thinks that the SWCC committee is going to take its cues from alcohol-fuelled 'debate' on a Friday night is mistaken. Again give us some credit; all of the current committee are Penwyllt regulars who can claim to have a finger on the pulse of SWCC. Some of those lobbying for the opening of the second entrance are SWCC members; should we discount their views because they happened not to be in the long common room that night?
5. We did discuss the matter at length. It was a calm and sensible discussion about the most appropriate stance for SWCC to take. As a club we have 'previous' on this; we opened Top Entrance, after all. There are those within the club, even some of those involved in the work at the time, who think that was a mistake. There are others who think that an OFD 'through trip' is a classic and point to the many hundreds of cavers who use Top Entrance each year. Both viewpoints were expressed in the committee meeting. At the end of the discussion a proposal from the floor suggested we instruct Bernie to abstain. A vote was taken and the motion carried. That's how we do things; anyone have a problem with that?
6. Nothing to add.
7. As mentioned above, I had already made it clear to the committee as to how we were briefing Bernie. Nonetheless when I learned that the submitted proposal differed to the original I sent a circular e-mail around the committee, pointing this out but suggesting that our original vote remained valid. I received only one response, from a committee member agreeing with me. I took this to mean general acceptance.
I will be happy to answer any further queries about the SWCC committee's handling of this matter.