Glenn
Member
Hi all, what follows is my attempt to respond to some of the criticisms aimed at CNCC over the recent weeks. You can argue that this should have been submitted sooner, but not all CNCC officers look at this forum, and those that do tend to be very busy at this time of year. It has taken me a significant amount of my recent evenings to check back through various digital and paper records (and confirmation of those facts from various officers) to ensure that this response is as accurate as I can make it. I am doing this because I personally feel that many of the comments made on this topic are grossly unjust and personal, but probably they are based on misunderstanding, and equally through poor communication by CNCC. I want to state that these comments are my own, and not those of CNCC, but based on my attendance at most CNCC meetings since the late ?80?s.
Election of CNCC officers: One of the concerns that has been expressed is the economy of wording of the minutes of these elections, stating each year since 2008 that the committee was re-elected. With hindsight, it is clear that the proceedings should have been documented more precisely, with the person taking each position clearly stated each year in the minutes, and the names of each elected club and their representative should have been spelt out. But the reality is that for much of the time there wasn't a dedicated Minutes Secretary, so the person taking the Minutes was at the same time trying to perform their own role (whether club rep or officer).
The reason for the re-election of the same committee for several years is that over those years, at the AGMs from 2009-2013, nobody put themselves forward for any of the posts or positions other than the existing officers and committee, therefore, the officers and committee were each elected back into their previous positions. This was done by a vote
on each occasion by all those present at the AGM. The exact details should have been recorded, but when a committee has been in place for so long (longer than they ideally intended or wanted in some cases), and nobody else ever comes to the meetings and stands for any of the positions, elections can sometimes become a little routine, and it is easy to become complacent about documenting the precise details (I don?t believe that CNCC is unique in this). This has obviously been picked up on to create the wrong impression but I can assure you that the election was carried out properly in each year.
Change between 2007 and 2009 to date: Prior to 2008, officers were elected only from the 14 elected member clubs, and they were listed separately in the 2007 and 2006 minutes, with only the clubs from which officers hadn't been drawn being listed separately in the Minutes. So in 2007 in addition to the 8 clubs listed as elected committee clubs there were 4 officers (plus a Training Officer post which was vacant) - their clubs weren't listed, but were elected committee clubs because the rules at the time said the officers could only come from elected member clubs. However, as stated previously above, there was difficulty in attracting people to stand for officer posts and, also, the Committee felt that there might be good candidates who were barred from standing because they didn't belong to an elected committee club. Therefore, the 2007 AGM decided that CNCC should produce a proposal for change of Constitution that allowed for non-voting officers to be elected.
This proposal was voted for and accepted at the 2008 AGM. There was also quite a "churn" of elected committee clubs in that year (due in part to some clubs folding). Unfortunately, the minutes of the 2008 AGM were recorded electronically and subsequently lost due to a hard drive failure (along with much of the secretary's personal and business data). I know that this will be jumped on by the conspiracy theorists, but this genuinely was an accident, and there is simply nothing that can be done about this to rectify the situation. But I can state without doubt that the election of the new member clubs was performed constitutionally.
Secret digging permits: My understanding of these permits is that providing ?diggers? applied via their club under the terms of section 2 of the Leck Fell FAQ (see CNCC website) then any unallocated permits would be made available to them. They were never ?secret? the information has always been on the CNCC website. In all honesty, I don?t know if any of these permits were abused once they were issued.
Disparaging comments on micro clubs: I am very disappointed that cavers on this forum are happy to insult fellow cavers, because that?s what it amounts to. I took on the role as CNCC Treasurer in early ?94 and inherited paper records going back many, many years, and those clubs were active then. While they may currently be ?micro? their membership numbers increase and decrease according to factors such as births deaths and marriages. Incidentally, one of those micro clubs is responsible for significant original exploration in the Dales.
Requests to publishing a list of all member clubs: Many years ago, pre 2004, several of the member clubs on the list specifically requested that their identity as a member club was not disclosed, and this was agreed. In fact, it was so long ago (predating the online minutes) that we cannot remember which these were. In an ideal world we would have the time to individually contact each member club and discuss this with them, but we haven't.
Whether or not it is a data protection breach (and I personally doubt that it is), it is not conducive to good relations to unilaterally rescind an undertaking that has been given, Suggestions that clubs should be told that if they don't want to be identified publicly, they can revert to associate status, looks like a good idea, but the officers can't simply say, in effect "we're going to change the rules, and if you don't agree, you have to give up your vote". Such a change could only be made with the agreement to the CNCC Committee,
Therefore we have not published the full list, but instead suggest that if you wish to know whether your club is a full member club, drop one of the CNCC committee an Email to ask. This seems to be the best compromise. There is no attempt (and has never been any attempt) to hinder the democratic process, it is just that we find ourselves in a situation where we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I hope that whoever steps into the new committee at this AGM will be able to address this more thoroughly.
The CNCC has been far from perfect for the last several years, it can certainly be accused of complacency and poor communications, but I think it is unfair to accuse CNCC of more than that. However, as Kay (and others) have said it has been run by people whose only agenda has been to improve northern caving and make the caves as accessible as possible for now and the future.There have been many successes along the way (see the article in the current edition of Speleology ? they are all CNCC volunteers) and many things that could have been done better. But nobody gets paid for doing it, and several of those involved have continued to undertake their role (giving up multiple weekends a year) for much longer than they may have wanted/expected because nobody else has put themselves forward to carry on the role. Therefore, I wholeheartedly hope that the recent interest in the CNCC committee, and any changes planned by those standing the forthcoming AGM, will inspire more people to take an interest and to help change the CNCC for the better.
Election of CNCC officers: One of the concerns that has been expressed is the economy of wording of the minutes of these elections, stating each year since 2008 that the committee was re-elected. With hindsight, it is clear that the proceedings should have been documented more precisely, with the person taking each position clearly stated each year in the minutes, and the names of each elected club and their representative should have been spelt out. But the reality is that for much of the time there wasn't a dedicated Minutes Secretary, so the person taking the Minutes was at the same time trying to perform their own role (whether club rep or officer).
The reason for the re-election of the same committee for several years is that over those years, at the AGMs from 2009-2013, nobody put themselves forward for any of the posts or positions other than the existing officers and committee, therefore, the officers and committee were each elected back into their previous positions. This was done by a vote
on each occasion by all those present at the AGM. The exact details should have been recorded, but when a committee has been in place for so long (longer than they ideally intended or wanted in some cases), and nobody else ever comes to the meetings and stands for any of the positions, elections can sometimes become a little routine, and it is easy to become complacent about documenting the precise details (I don?t believe that CNCC is unique in this). This has obviously been picked up on to create the wrong impression but I can assure you that the election was carried out properly in each year.
Change between 2007 and 2009 to date: Prior to 2008, officers were elected only from the 14 elected member clubs, and they were listed separately in the 2007 and 2006 minutes, with only the clubs from which officers hadn't been drawn being listed separately in the Minutes. So in 2007 in addition to the 8 clubs listed as elected committee clubs there were 4 officers (plus a Training Officer post which was vacant) - their clubs weren't listed, but were elected committee clubs because the rules at the time said the officers could only come from elected member clubs. However, as stated previously above, there was difficulty in attracting people to stand for officer posts and, also, the Committee felt that there might be good candidates who were barred from standing because they didn't belong to an elected committee club. Therefore, the 2007 AGM decided that CNCC should produce a proposal for change of Constitution that allowed for non-voting officers to be elected.
This proposal was voted for and accepted at the 2008 AGM. There was also quite a "churn" of elected committee clubs in that year (due in part to some clubs folding). Unfortunately, the minutes of the 2008 AGM were recorded electronically and subsequently lost due to a hard drive failure (along with much of the secretary's personal and business data). I know that this will be jumped on by the conspiracy theorists, but this genuinely was an accident, and there is simply nothing that can be done about this to rectify the situation. But I can state without doubt that the election of the new member clubs was performed constitutionally.
Secret digging permits: My understanding of these permits is that providing ?diggers? applied via their club under the terms of section 2 of the Leck Fell FAQ (see CNCC website) then any unallocated permits would be made available to them. They were never ?secret? the information has always been on the CNCC website. In all honesty, I don?t know if any of these permits were abused once they were issued.
Disparaging comments on micro clubs: I am very disappointed that cavers on this forum are happy to insult fellow cavers, because that?s what it amounts to. I took on the role as CNCC Treasurer in early ?94 and inherited paper records going back many, many years, and those clubs were active then. While they may currently be ?micro? their membership numbers increase and decrease according to factors such as births deaths and marriages. Incidentally, one of those micro clubs is responsible for significant original exploration in the Dales.
Requests to publishing a list of all member clubs: Many years ago, pre 2004, several of the member clubs on the list specifically requested that their identity as a member club was not disclosed, and this was agreed. In fact, it was so long ago (predating the online minutes) that we cannot remember which these were. In an ideal world we would have the time to individually contact each member club and discuss this with them, but we haven't.
Whether or not it is a data protection breach (and I personally doubt that it is), it is not conducive to good relations to unilaterally rescind an undertaking that has been given, Suggestions that clubs should be told that if they don't want to be identified publicly, they can revert to associate status, looks like a good idea, but the officers can't simply say, in effect "we're going to change the rules, and if you don't agree, you have to give up your vote". Such a change could only be made with the agreement to the CNCC Committee,
Therefore we have not published the full list, but instead suggest that if you wish to know whether your club is a full member club, drop one of the CNCC committee an Email to ask. This seems to be the best compromise. There is no attempt (and has never been any attempt) to hinder the democratic process, it is just that we find ourselves in a situation where we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I hope that whoever steps into the new committee at this AGM will be able to address this more thoroughly.
The CNCC has been far from perfect for the last several years, it can certainly be accused of complacency and poor communications, but I think it is unfair to accuse CNCC of more than that. However, as Kay (and others) have said it has been run by people whose only agenda has been to improve northern caving and make the caves as accessible as possible for now and the future.There have been many successes along the way (see the article in the current edition of Speleology ? they are all CNCC volunteers) and many things that could have been done better. But nobody gets paid for doing it, and several of those involved have continued to undertake their role (giving up multiple weekends a year) for much longer than they may have wanted/expected because nobody else has put themselves forward to carry on the role. Therefore, I wholeheartedly hope that the recent interest in the CNCC committee, and any changes planned by those standing the forthcoming AGM, will inspire more people to take an interest and to help change the CNCC for the better.
