Thank you Cap'n. I fully understand the cscc view that clubs have formed the backbone of British caving and the rise of the individual caver is a fairly modern occurrence. Clubs are able to represent a cross section of cavers and form a powerful part of the dissemination line from Bca to caver, be that safety updates, access, insurance and the such like. The experience within the club rep position is hard to build up, cavers who have been involved for years willing to volunteer knowledge and skills for the better of caving is brilliant.
With that in mind I voted in favour.
I see two questions
online voting? = yes please
I will not go to an agm. I would vote online.
Remove the two houses? = yes please
It is too complicated and I think wrong at the unlikely extreme ends.
Imagine ?very single member turned up to the AGM. You would have a vote of the entire membership worth the same as a vote of organisations often meant to represent it's members and the reps of which voted in the individual house already.
Then imagine 5 club reps turned up to the agm. They are 5 individual members and so hold a quorate vote in both houses. So we could have national policy decided by 5 people
Those cavers who trust their reps to represent won't vote and the reps will, so they are still trusting their reps to vote.
Anyone who wants to vote, but doesn't want to give an email address to BCA can still travel to the agm to have their say.
As BCA Sec suggests in the proposal, club/group caving is not being accused of accidental false representation, but the method now exists where the BCA doesn't need a club to ask its members for opinion, it can ask them directly, surely that is more efficient and accurate.
Many thanks to all who helped me arrrive at my decision,
especially UkC