Problems looming for BCA?

[David Rose]

If this clause contradicts the referendum vote, could it not be said that the referendum result implicitly overturned it? I mean, what was the point of holding the referendum at considerable expense if the constitution meant it couldn't be acted on? And my hunch is that a referendum now might produce a bigger majority in favour of CROW access - at least to judge by the general tenor of posts on this forum.

 

[PeteHall]

It seems bizarre to me that the constitution should contain any sentence that could, in some circumstance, prevent the BCA acting for the benefit of caves or caving.

Another agreement.  The sentence "That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access" has no place in the BCA constitution.  Just cut it.
Whatever the outcome of the CRoW saga, the rights of landowners and tenants are determined by law (or interpretation thereof) and are entirely unaffected by whatever is in the BCA constitution.

Couldn't agree more, but let's not forget

The issue Badlad is referring to has always only been a matter of interpretation.

And from the BCA constitution:

13.1. A General Meeting of the Association shall be the final interpreter of this constitution.

I did raise this point at the 2016 AGM (it is even in the minutes). Why are we even contemplating a very costly ballot to change something that can simply be clarified by a vote at an AGM for free?

 

[SJB]

On the subject of the BCA AGM

The Annual General Meeting of the British Caving Association will be held at The Rotary Centre, Robinslands Lane, Hope Valley, Castleton S33 8UB on Sunday 11th June 2017 starting at 10.30am

All welcome to come along and express your view(s) on the 'Problem' :-\ :thumbsdown: :yucky: or whatever..

all the best

Simon
BCA Secretary

 

[droid]

And my hunch is that a referendum now might produce a bigger majority in favour of CROW access - at least to judge by the general tenor of posts on this forum.

As I recall, the vote was a ratio of 2 for, 1 against.

Do you consider that the posts on this forum reflected that?

 

[royfellows]

Good morning people
As I was asked directly about 'the comma' I think it a good idea to elaborate on my answer.

This is a direct quote from a legal website:

"Commas are regarded as dangerous in legal documents - they introduce ambiguity in the meaning."

This is a view held by many in the legal profession, however there is nothing wrong with the use of commas provided that thought is given to any possible ambiguity which may arise from their usage. I cannot really be more helpful than this.

 

[Mark Wright]

Removing the first sentence of Section 4.6 would certainly be the best way of demonstrating to its members that the BCA does in fact represent them, and, in particular, the will of the democratic majority who voted in favour of the BCA?s CRoW Liaison Officer continuing the excellent work already carried out to help ensure that it is the access rights of CAVERS that are prioritised.

The proposed amendment has clearly been worded to further derail the campaign and the potential issues Badlad mentions should make everyone who cast their vote in support of caving being included under CRoW very concerned. 

If the BCA campaign for better access under CRoW is allowed to be derailed further there will be a lot of members questioning their continued support of their national body with the potential of individuals and clubs alike not renewing their membership in 2018.

This is something the BCA absolutely cannot afford to allow happen.

Mark

 

[droid]

If the BCA campaign for better access under CRoW is allowed to be derailed further there will be a lot of members questioning their continued support of their national body with the potential of individuals and clubs alike not renewing their membership in 2018.

I doubt it.

I suspect (but clearly can't prove) that many people join BCA for the Insurance. That should override any thoughts of leaving over *this*.

 

[royfellows]

The proposed amendment has clearly been worded to further derail the campaign......

How do you work this one out?

Its basically mirroring a change to the constitution of Cambrian Caving Council of which I am legal and insurance officer and if memory serves me correct was originally instigated by me.

There is a situation in law whereby land ownership and mineral ownership can be in separate hands, and where this is the case and access to an abandoned mine is desired then the authority to grant or withhold permission will lie with the mineral owner. Likewise if a natural cave has had material extracted from it and sold, then it will be mineral property.

The change was instigated simply to reflect the true legal position and would actually work in favor of someone requiring access as even where a natural cave is concerned a mineral owner has full rights over land and beneath it. So a separate mineral owner could give permission even against wishes of the landowner, and vise verse. Access could only be denied by the two acting in concert.

If there is any desire by parties to use this to derail the CROW campaign, then it will be entirely due to their own possibly fanciful interpretation.

Having said all of this it may well be best option to remove it completely as suggested.

 

[NewStuff]

If the BCA campaign for better access under CRoW is allowed to be derailed further there will be a lot of members questioning their continued support of their national body with the potential of individuals and clubs alike not renewing their membership in 2018.

I doubt it.

I suspect (but clearly can't prove) that many people join BCA for the Insurance. That should override any thoughts of leaving over *this*.

We (the club I am in) don't really care about the insurance. We do care that the BCA has a spine, and does what the membership voted for. We will leave if it's going to get silly. Brocklebank, Burgess, Mullan etc can go jump off a bridge at that point, and we'll cease playing nicely. The BCA can't exactly sanction us if we're not members, can they?

 

[Jenny P]

if the bca doesn't respect the wishes of it's (majority ) members i envisage i substantial drop in there membership.

That old chestnut.

Majority. 

Majority of the vote, or majority of its membership? You decide.

Read BCA's own official figures, here, and ponder deeper:

http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=about:crow_poll_result_2014.pdf

Interestingly, if you look at the figures in the link quoted above, it appears that the grand total of 14.2% of the entire membership of BCA voted against allowing BCA to campaign to improve access to caves.

A majority of 3:2 seems to me to be a substantial majority of those voting in favour of the original proposal.  If someone doesn't vote, you can only assume that they didn't care sufficiently to vote either way.

 

[cavemanmike]

.  If someone doesn't vote, you can only assume that they didn't care sufficiently to vote either way.

it wouldn't surprise me if most of the people complaining of the original vote/outcome didn't vote in the first place. bad luck

 

[mikem]

I suspect (but clearly can't prove) that many people join BCA for the Insurance. That should override any thoughts of leaving over *this*.

I reckon they need it to visit (or particularly to dig) certain caves, rather than the insurance per se.

Mike

 

[Pitlamp]

.  If someone doesn't vote, you can only assume that they didn't care sufficiently to vote either way.

it wouldn't surprise me if most of the people complaining of the original vote/outcome didn't vote in the first place. bad luck

I really don't think either of these interpretations are at all helpful. In my case I read and listened to all the arguments carefully, including conflicting ones from people I respect. I found it extremely hard to make up my mind how to vote and I came close to not voting at all because I found it so difficult to decide. In the end I did vote but I wasn't happy with my vote because I still hadn't really decided.

I think there was rather more to the very poor "turn out" than mere apathy.

 

[mikem]

You have to assume that most of the non-voters would have cancelled each other out if they had voted - allowing the result to stand. It's actually a very good turn out compared to many elections.

Mike

 

[cap n chris]

Interestingly, if you look at the figures in the link quoted above, it appears that the grand total of 14.2% of the entire membership of BCA voted against allowing BCA to campaign to improve access to caves.

What percentage of the entire membership of the BCA voted in favour?

 

[Dave Tyson]

Interestingly, if you look at the figures in the link quoted above, it appears that the grand total of 14.2% of the entire membership of BCA voted against allowing BCA to campaign to improve access to caves.

What percentage of the entire membership of the BCA voted in favour?

That's completely immaterial. Some people didn't vote - so what! The people who did, decided that the BCA should support a campaign for CRoW to apply to caving. Some members of the BCA don't like that - tough, they can choose to leave...

Dave

 

[cap n chris]

I have no problem with the vote, the reasons for it or the result. BUT I take great exception to the outcome of the vote being repeatedly heralded as representing the wish of the MAJORITY OF THE BCA MEMBERSHIP, when it most emphatically does not. 

23% of the BCA membership voted in favour of the CRoW malarkey. Therefore 67% of the membership did not vote in favour. Therefore it anyone with eyes and a functioning synapse can see instantly that the majority of the BCA membership did not vote in favour of CRoW.

It would be useful if the BCA Secretary or Chairman could put out an official confirmation of this point so that further misunderstanding on the topic can be put to rest. Otherwise BCA could end up being publicly made a laughing stock by any outside observer/reporter who makes reference to the official ballot statistics.

We, (>50% of) the members, have Obliged the "appropriate bodies" to improve access to some sites which are on CROW land, whether that be all sites or not is a matter of opinion.

>50%

Wrong.

 

[cap n chris]

if the bca doesn't respect the wishes of it's (majority ) members i envisage i substantial drop in there membership.

Really. So there's three contributors who are (wrongly) re-presenting a wrong interpretation of the real ballot as though it is a fact. There is such a huge difference between the two and it is extremely important for historic/archival reasons that the majority vote does not get confused with the majority membership.

 

[Mark Wright]

If the BCA campaign for better access under CRoW is allowed to be derailed further there will be a lot of members questioning their continued support of their national body with the potential of individuals and clubs alike not renewing their membership in 2018.

I doubt it.

I suspect (but clearly can't prove) that many people join BCA for the Insurance. That should override any thoughts of leaving over *this*.

I suspect (but clearly can't prove) that many people couldn't care less about the insurance aspect. The only insurance I have any interest in is expedition rescue and repatriation which the BCA doesn't currently offer.

I also suspect (but clearly can't prove) that most BCA members join because it is a requirement of their club membership and not by personal choice.

Anyway, don't get me going on bloody insurance, It'll get me moderated.

Mark

 

[NewStuff]

We've decided we're out.

That the Anti crowd have got as far as they have in derailing the process, is astonishing. While I have huge respect for some of the individuals efforts withing the BCA, the organisation as a whole needs to grow a spine.