The BCA ballot is out

[ahinde]

I don't agree with New Stuff that a divergent vote would be an existential threat to BCA. On line voting for the AGM is a big step forward, even if it remains a painful and laborious 2 house system. This is though,our chance to support BCA and the new officers and members of Council who are putting in a huge effort to make BCA the credit to caving that it has strived for years to become.

 

[Ian Ball]

Please could someone point me to an explanation of why the BCA was setup with a two house membership setup?
The agenda/minutes mention the significant negatives of the setup, but no positives.  I wonder why it was initiated?

Is voting anonymous?

 

[JJ]

I too wondered if club voting was anonymous. I think club members should be able to find out which way their club voted.

When my MP votes as my elected representative the vote is recorded and I can find out which way he voted. I may not agree with his decision but the vote is public knowledge.

 

[BCA Secretary]

Ian; I can't say that I fully understand why the system is the way it is (I believe it dates back to the formation of the BCA), but hopefully people such as Jenny, Bob and others will be watching this thread who will be able to explain

JJ; The vote is of course anonymous so we cannot disclose which way each group voted (I personally do not have access to this data either; I am blinded to this), but hopefully club members should just be able to ask their Club Secretary for this information.

 

[alastairgott]

I think it was actually the other way around, the house of clubs (groups) was there first and at the time it was a radical shift to allow individuals to be members directly. Bob posted the below on another thread approx 18months ago.

https://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=23439.msg295281#msg295281

For what it is worth as one of the prime movers setting up BCA, I am of the opinion that its remit was restrained by the preceding NCA constitution.  The reason BCA was eventually set up was the termination of the insurance policy then run by BCRA and the consequential loss of access to caves where insurance was required.  We used that crisis to force BCA into existence by obtaining a new insurance deal but instead of being focused on clubs, it had to be focused on individuals.  (The legal set up meant we had to provide insurance as a membership benefit as we could not simply sell it.)  So the consequential major change between the NCA and BCA constitutions was the introduction of individual membership. (Oh and the elimination of the power of veto on any business by regional caving councils.) 

Keeping most of the NCA constitution kept the domination of the process of 'members tell clubs tell regional councils tell national council'.  We were also forced to accept a two house set up where by individuals and clubs houses separately vote on topics at general meetings. 

I agree the time has come to review that though I doubt if the current lock of a club vote will permit much change.  (Unless their members tell them to do so.)  And I am deeply pessimistic about breathing life into a new structure with the energy to do things.  I accept we made Council far too large so discussion is never ending and decision making rare.

And from what I know about the insurance policy, which may be wrong, is that it folded because of ramifications with selling insurance, ie you had to be registered with the financial conduct authority to be able to sell insurance [edit- to non members]. eg. at the bottom of this page the BMC is registered... https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/insurance/Default.aspx


[edit- thereby they had to have an organisation where individuals were directly members of the british caving association, so that they could give members free P/L insurance when they pay their membership]

 

[alastairgott]

and the dates of 1/1/2004 for the NCA-BCA change https://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=legal_insurancel_insurance_faq

seem to tally with the financial services and markets act 2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Services_and_Markets_Act_2000

 

[BCA Secretary]

The last of the postal ballots went out yesterday I believe, so should hopefully be arriving tomorrow depending on the efficiency of the postal service.

Postal ballots have gone to everyone for who we do not have an email address (2000+ people), as well as all of those for who we received a bounce-back when we tried to send an email ballot (a few percent I believe). We are aware that the latter includes one person for all joint DIM members, where one person has received their ballot by email and the other is having to receive their ballot by post due to limitations of the email/membership system; apologies to all of our joint-DIM members that one of you is having to wait for a postal ballot... it is on the way!

The postal ballot will include a Ballot ID to allow use of the very efficient online system

If by next Monday (18th November) you have received neither a ballot email (please check your spam folder) OR a postal ballot, please email our Returning Officer (returning-officer@british-caving.org.uk) so we can investigate this as quickly as possible and ensure we get your ballot to you.

 

[NewStuff]

I don't agree with New Stuff that a divergent vote would be an existential threat to BCA. On line voting for the AGM is a big step forward, even if it remains a painful and laborious 2 house system. This is though,our chance to support BCA and the new officers and members of Council who are putting in a huge effort to make BCA the credit to caving that it has strived for years to become.

I have no issue in celebrating that certain people put a huge effort in, I talked to several at Hidden Earth, I'm very aware of how much of work goes into it. But why on earth would you want to support something where a few individuals are obviously subverting the will of the individual members?

In this scenario, it's highly likely that you have club reps voting in a political way in an effort to stick it to the people trying to change things for the better, and having success in doing that. They have no interest in making the BCA better for it's members, or more efficient. The system is broken in that they can both do that, and prevent you from changing the system. It's a fundamental flaw in the plan. If the people insistent on jamming rods into the cogs of the BCA will not stop, then they need to be removed. If they cannnot be removed, then maybe something needs to be set up so they can't do this sort of thing in the future. If that means a BCA 2.0, then so be it. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to it, but I think obvious political shenanigans at the expense of the mjority of members will be the final straw for a lot of people.

 

[ChrisJC]

I received my ballot paper, but it is addressed to Katryn Munro. My name is Chris Cowdery.

Should I disregard it?

Chris.

 

[BCA Secretary]

Hi Chris; we will investigate this for you.

I know lots of people have been in touch today to say their postal ballot arrived no problem, so hopefully an isolated matter. Anyone else with issues, please email returning-officer@british-caving.org.uk

 

[Ian Adams]

... The vote is of course anonymous so we cannot disclose which way each group voted ........ but hopefully club members should just be able to ask their Club Secretary for this information.

I would hope (and expect) that the members of a club instruct the secretary how to vote with the "club" vote and not vice-versa. Certainly it is the members of the club of which I am a member that are making that decision.

Good job with the ballot and thanks for your efforts 

Ian

 

[alastairgott]

Seems like they think you?ve bagged a Munro.

I received my ballot paper, but it is addressed to Katryn Munro. My name is Chris Cowdery.
Should I disregard it?
Chris.

 

[Pegasus]

Tim got to vote online, I had to wait for a postal vote (as we're joint members) which arrived yesterday.

Voted online today, simple and straight forward.

Voted in favour.  Hope you do too - 'one caver, one vote' 

 

[Jenny P]

Please could someone point me to an explanation of why the BCA was setup with a two house membership setup?
The agenda/minutes mention the significant negatives of the setup, but no positives.  I wonder why it was initiated?

In the very early days of NCA there was NO club vote at all, voting was limited to the "constituent bodies" (who were each allowed 4 reps.) and all regional councils had to have at least 2 reps. out of their 4 present, otherwise the meeting was inquorate.  A regular threat from some was that their reps. would walk out and leave the meeting inquorate.  Also, if any two  of the 4 regional council reps. voted against a proposal, this was an automatic veto.  (This led to one occasion when no-one dared vote against a particular proposal and risk vetoing it, so the motion was passed with 3 votes for, none against and 19 abstentions!)

Some of us fought long and hard for clubs to be allowed to vote and eventually managed it by posting round our own unofficial ballot paper to a sample of 3000 individual cavers from what we hoped was a representative sample of clubs around GB.  Despite heavy pressure from some regions, we got back 1000 responses (a 30% return!) and there was a massive individual vote of around 80% in favour of clubs being allowed to have a vote.  There wasn't the mechanism at the time to enable us to have individual members - that didn't happen until the insurance was sorted by BCA in 2004 - but it was the first crack in the armour of those who felt they had a divine right to tell their members how they should think.  It is all written up in an issue of DESCENT in 1992 - all about the "Gang of Thirteen" who organised the poll.

The Two-house setup was a hangover from the time when only clubs and constituent bodies were allowed to vote, prior to 2004.  It was felt that we couldn't disenfranchise the clubs and constituent bodies straight away so the Two-house system was devised.  IMHO it's now been demonstrated that we are able to conduct a ballot of all our individual members so we can move on and the Two-house system is no longer needed.

If you want democracy, you have to be prepared to fight for it and it sometimes takes a bit longer than you'd like.

 

[Ian Ball]

Thank you Jenny 

So Clubs getting a vote was more democratic than what was before and now individual members voting would be more democratic than what is before.

Another question.  What does the constitution say about quoracy (I can't see anything)? I would assume online voting after the meeting will make attendance on the day less appealing? And then will there be a level of turnout required for a vote (other than majority of voters or 70% for constitution changes)

 

[Jenny P]

Guess maybe we'd better see what the constitution looks like after this ballot is finished before we start worrying about what constitutes a quorum!

I don't think the BCA Constitution ever mentions it, though I could be wrong.  The original NCA one certainly did.

Personally, I'd hate to think that we ever got to the stage where no-one ever wanted to discuss anything face to face at an AGM and we just sent out ballots devised by the Executive on proposals put forward by Council.  I think Andy Eavis' idea of making the BCA AGM weekend a "Party Weekend" with plenty going on to attract people to the venue to go caving, attend field trips, watch films, enjoy a stomp, etc. plus a friendly and constructive AGM is the way to go. 

 

[nearlywhite]

Another question.  What does the constitution say about quoracy (I can't see anything)? I would assume online voting after the meeting will make attendance on the day less appealing? And then will there be a level of turnout required for a vote (other than majority of voters or 70% for constitution changes)

I was surprised to find 8.6:

'8.6. The quorum for any General Meeting shall be 10 members, of which at least 5 persons eligible to vote in each House shall be present. No one person may represent more than one group member'

I don't think we'll fail to meet quorum even with votes taking place remotely.

If the vote passes then it will be simplified to 10 members btw.

I don't think the idea of a party weekend is antagonistic to this. More members actually voting for people that represent them on BCA is likely to make these events more popular rather than less.

 

[royfellows]

Just for the record, I voted in favour.

 

[andrewmcleod]

I would appeal to all cavers to email all of your clubs and encourage them to vote in favour. It is likely to be the club vote that is more important here. I know the CSCC has given an recommendation against it (which I have argued against at length on other fora); I don't know if the other regional councils have given a recommendation. I was unable to convince one of my clubs to vote for the motion, but it was still worth the effort.

I would strongly recommend that you vote in favour!

 

[droid]

That's the trouble with democracy. Not everyone agrees with you....