The BCA ballot is out
- Thread starter Badlad
- Start date
Don't forget that it is intended that only proposals which have been discussed by BCA Council and put to an AGM for consideration will be the subject of an individual member ballot. So there should be due consideration of the issue before it ever gets as far as being put to a ballot.
It shouldn't be like the Brexit referendum, where the question appears to have been put in a badly worded manner without proper discussion at a parliamentary level before sending it out to the public. I'd hope BCA can do rather better than that.
BCA Council will still consist of representatives of the various constituent bodies, including regional councils, as well as club and individual member representatives. So all the specific interests should be able to have their say on how any proposal may affect them and be able to modify any proposal before it goes to a general ballot. At least, I hope that's how it would work - we'll have to see.
It shouldn't be like the Brexit referendum, where the question appears to have been put in a badly worded manner without proper discussion at a parliamentary level before sending it out to the public. I'd hope BCA can do rather better than that.
BCA Council will still consist of representatives of the various constituent bodies, including regional councils, as well as club and individual member representatives. So all the specific interests should be able to have their say on how any proposal may affect them and be able to modify any proposal before it goes to a general ballot. At least, I hope that's how it would work - we'll have to see.
MarkS
Moderator
darren said:
Partly echoing Jenny's comments made while I was writing, but the proposed changes include:
Therefore the "group of people who decide what the proposals are and how they are worded" who have the "real power" would be the BCA members who turn up to the AGM...who are the people who already decide what the proposals are and how they are worded. The difference under the new system would be that they are put to the membership rather than just voted on by those present.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
darren said:
It's not entirely representative all _all_ cavers, but I don't think you can say with certainty it is a minority - your perspective is no doubt different but to me it is closer to the 'mainstream' than a minority view (but we both have our own separate 'bits' of the caving world).
The Wessex is free to be a club outside of the BCA. They have obviously decided (like the majority of clubs in the country) that the benefits of being inside the BCA outweigh the cost. The BCA is not able to provide insurance to some and not to others for legal reasons - they cannot be seen to be selling insurance; it must be a benefit of membership. There can, therefore, be no discount for not providing insurance.
Actually clubs could become 'associate' members at a cheaper rate if they don't want to require all members to be BCA members, but the club would receive no insurance from the BCA, and neither would the members. The club would also not receive a vote (as it is not a 'full' member of the BCA, which would imply that they _must_ receive the membership benefit of insurance).
Incidentally the Wessex might be up to almost 5% of the individual vote, but they only get about 0.5% of the group votes... somehow that doesn't seem fair, does it?
Well currently it isn't the difference between 2 minutes or 20 minutes - it's the difference between 20 minutes and 8 hours plus of travel and sitting in a nightmare of an AGM. Plus a lot of voting at the AGM is either done in a panic without people even being really sure what they are voting on (since it has often been repeatedly re-amended), or because they are bored and just want to go home. With electronic voting, people can take the time to think about their votes. Other people can take the time to state their arguments clearer and think through all the consequences.
What utterly baffles me is the argument from certain quarters that expanding voting to 6000 members will lead to a small group of individuals taking over voting, when anyone who has been to a few AGMs knows this is exactly what happens at the moment!
Another fun fact: by my reckoning the student clubs have around twice the voting power (in the House of Groups) than all the Mendips clubs.
aricooperdavis
Moderator
I'm glad you questioned the insurance argument Andrew, I still don't understand what that sentence from the CSCCs statement is getting at.
I do recall that the Charterhouse Caving Company requires 16-18 year olds to have public indemnity insurance as a condition of access. Is that using insurance to push a hidden agenda and rule the roost? Are the CSCC anti-CCC?
I do recall that the Charterhouse Caving Company requires 16-18 year olds to have public indemnity insurance as a condition of access. Is that using insurance to push a hidden agenda and rule the roost? Are the CSCC anti-CCC?
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
droid said:
True (although I don't know if there is anything that says you actually have to be _present_ to propose an AGM motion). There is, however, a critical difference between proposing a motion and actually getting it passed...
Currently if I was out to cause trouble I would propose a fairly innocuous AGM motion. This motion would, of course, be proposed in the four weeks. I would need (for a quiet AGM) maybe 20 individuals representing 15 clubs? I would then, at the AGM, receive an amendment suggestion from a friend. This amendment would completely change my motion to a much more controversial one (say that it becomes official BCA policy to deny the existence of caves on Mendip). I would then push this through the AGM with my small number of individuals and club representatives. This would then become official BCA policy.
Now obviously I could still do this in the new proposed system, but getting it through the national ballot of individuals would be almost impossible (unless of course 50% of the membership actually agreed).
Cavematt
Well-known member
Hi Droid
The amendment is very carefully worded to state:
?All motions arising from a General Meeting must be first voted on by individual members present at the meeting and eligible to vote. All motions with support from at least 25% of the individuals who vote or 10 individuals (whichever is lowest) must be taken forward to an online vote. Proposals unable to gain this support will not progress.?
One option would have simply been that all proposals go to an online ballot; but this risks the annual ballot being overcomplicated or overburdened by multiple variants of the same proposal. Many people seem to feel that that the AGM should still retain some control of what goes out to the membership to act as a ?filter? to get rid of extremely poorly supported motions or to whittle down multiple variants of a proposal to those which are most sensible and popular.
Overall there was a general wish that a motion should still be discussed by an AGM first, and I agree!
On the other hand, it was equally desirable to ensure that a perfectly reasonable and well supported motion could not be blocked from going out to the membership by en-bloc turnout at the AGM by a large club who are opposed to it which would put the BCA into a total stalemate.
Hence, under the new constitution, motions would have to receive support from at least 10 people or 25% of the turnout (whichever is lowest) to enable progression to an online ballot. Bear in mind average AGM turnout is 40-50 people. This should be perfectly achievable for any reasonable proposal; surely anything with less support than this isn?t worth progressing?
In summary, the constitutional changes I have put forward will ensure motions still have to go to an AGM, where they can be discussed, minuted, maybe refined, and they still have to achieve a bare minimum level of support at that AGM, but they cannot be blocked from progressing to a member vote by the en-bloc attendance of a single disgruntled club (for example).
Is the 25%/10 people figure the right number to achieve this balance? It seems reasonable given the typical attendance at AGMs (about 40-50 people normally).
Of course, the job of the BCA would be to ensure the online system for voting after the AGM is quick, simple and intuitive and most importantly does not involve the agony of sending >2000 letters out by post which has cost British cavers probably in the region of ?2000 (postage, printing, and the time of our paid membership administrator). Instead, just log into an online system (i.e. a redesigned version of BCA-Online), be presented with a simple list of proposals and click to support/reject.
Hopefully the current active ballot system is a good example of exactly what kind of simplicity can be achieved with the right software infrastructure.
Cheers
Matt
The amendment is very carefully worded to state:
?All motions arising from a General Meeting must be first voted on by individual members present at the meeting and eligible to vote. All motions with support from at least 25% of the individuals who vote or 10 individuals (whichever is lowest) must be taken forward to an online vote. Proposals unable to gain this support will not progress.?
One option would have simply been that all proposals go to an online ballot; but this risks the annual ballot being overcomplicated or overburdened by multiple variants of the same proposal. Many people seem to feel that that the AGM should still retain some control of what goes out to the membership to act as a ?filter? to get rid of extremely poorly supported motions or to whittle down multiple variants of a proposal to those which are most sensible and popular.
Overall there was a general wish that a motion should still be discussed by an AGM first, and I agree!
On the other hand, it was equally desirable to ensure that a perfectly reasonable and well supported motion could not be blocked from going out to the membership by en-bloc turnout at the AGM by a large club who are opposed to it which would put the BCA into a total stalemate.
Hence, under the new constitution, motions would have to receive support from at least 10 people or 25% of the turnout (whichever is lowest) to enable progression to an online ballot. Bear in mind average AGM turnout is 40-50 people. This should be perfectly achievable for any reasonable proposal; surely anything with less support than this isn?t worth progressing?
In summary, the constitutional changes I have put forward will ensure motions still have to go to an AGM, where they can be discussed, minuted, maybe refined, and they still have to achieve a bare minimum level of support at that AGM, but they cannot be blocked from progressing to a member vote by the en-bloc attendance of a single disgruntled club (for example).
Is the 25%/10 people figure the right number to achieve this balance? It seems reasonable given the typical attendance at AGMs (about 40-50 people normally).
Of course, the job of the BCA would be to ensure the online system for voting after the AGM is quick, simple and intuitive and most importantly does not involve the agony of sending >2000 letters out by post which has cost British cavers probably in the region of ?2000 (postage, printing, and the time of our paid membership administrator). Instead, just log into an online system (i.e. a redesigned version of BCA-Online), be presented with a simple list of proposals and click to support/reject.
Hopefully the current active ballot system is a good example of exactly what kind of simplicity can be achieved with the right software infrastructure.
Cheers
Matt
darren said:
I don't think I would ever have said that the proposed system is perfect (and note that I didn't propose it, I just support the proposal). Nothing in life is perfect!
I'm simply thinking that it is an improvement on what we have at present - maybe it will need a few tweaks to make it work a little better but, for the moment, it's certainly worth a try.
alastairgott
Well-known member
9 Minutes and 1 second! :bow: You know what I meant :blink: :tease:
darren said:
I have now read the BCA documentation, the excellent posts on UKCaving, the CSCC view and the article on darkness below. I am still undecided which way I will vote but, as of this evening, am minded to support the changes, albeit reluctantly. However I do not need to vote for a few more weeks and I would like to be as informed as I can when I do. All (polite) help is welcome in this respect.
My current thinking is as follows:
Removal of Group Vote: I have a minor concern about this, but am convinced this is more than outweighed by the benefits of fairness and simplification this proposal brings, so support it.
For the record, my minor concern is that, despite what has been said on UKCaving about the clubs that choose to not take insurance joining BCA as non-voting Associate Members, unless things have changed radically since I was involved in BCA, this is not usually the case. Associate (non-voting) membership tended to be taken by Show Caves and commercial organisations who wished to be associated with BCA and its aims but are not set up as Clubs. On the other hand, there were always a number of clubs who chose to pay the basic club fee to become Members, but who did not require their members to join individually and, therefore, not get the benefits of insurance. These were often university clubs who, I assumed, had insurance through their Student Unions. Clubs who choose to join BCA in this way will now lose any voting rights despite paying BCA a fee and being a member. That seems wrong. On balance, though, I accept that the greater good comes from accepting the proposal. I do not see my view as likely to change on this, but am open to sensible argument.
Introduction of online voting: This is where I struggle more and I have two broad concerns. Firstly I have sat in enough meetings in my time to know that reasoned argument and the greater experience of others can change minds and that this is a good thing for the organisation. Whether an AGM attendee has a detailed understanding of BCA or not (and it is actually quite a complex organisation), by the end of the discussion on a matter, they will have heard the counter arguments and been made aware of any potential complications. Whichever way they vote, they are then voting knowledgably. To expect all 6,000 members presented with a quick yes-no question on their phone, to read all the supporting documentation relating to an issue before they vote, is simply unrealistic, particularly if this is spread all over the internet because BCA Executive (understandably) don?t want to open themselves to accusations of unfairness by trying to summarise it all in one document. All the more so if votes happen on multiple issues and every year. I suspect the vast majority of voting will be uninformed. To an extent this has been proven to me by 9 different members having so far contacted me to ask which way they should vote in this ballot; they have no interest in doing the research but are happy to spend a few seconds clicking ?yes? or ?no? if told to do so by someone else.
Secondly, and more worryingly for me, I can see the potential for huge problems further down the line. What happens if two contradictory proposals are set before the AGM? Some members like one, and some the other. Neither receives a big majority but they pass the 25% threshold and then go to an online vote. We could end up with two contradictory proposals being voted in. Imagine one seeks to scrap the role of, say, the Publications & Information (P&I) Committee and its work be taken on by a new Media Officer, and the other proposes that the P&I Committee get an extra ?5k to develop its social-media presence. Then what if both are approved by the membership?
How will we proceed if there are, for example, two candidates for a particular role and there is a tie? An AGM would come up with a solution somehow, but a ballot cannot. Council can hardly, then, override the decision of a full ballot of the members, and BCA could be left without a Chair, Treasurer, or other key role.
How does anybody go about voting for 2 candidates out of 3 to be Individual-Member Reps through online voting? Where has this been planned out?
What if someone is proposed for multiple roles because, for example, they really want to be Treasurer, but if they are not elected, they would like to take up their former role as Equipment & Techniques Officer? In a normal AGM, they could take the decision on the day to stand down as a candidate for the lesser role(s) if they were already elected. With online voting this cannot happen. What if that person ? who is really good and popular ? is then elected to multiple roles by the online ballot? If we manually pull them out of the running after the ballot, who is to say how the members who voted for them would have voted if they had not been an option?
All these questions need thinking about and could make the new system as proposed unworkable. I have spent the last few days reflecting on this and almost came down on the side of the status-quo because that - at least sort of ? works. However, after considerable thought, I am minded to vote in favour because I see most of the issues above as either unlikely, solvable through the Manual of Operations, or ideally avoided in the first place by very careful Chairmanship of the AGM.
Finally, unrelated to all this, my memory is that the AGM scrapped the P&I Committee and replaced it with a new member of the Executive instead. I am surprised this has not been addressed by updating 6.1 of the Constitution.
My current thinking is as follows:
Removal of Group Vote: I have a minor concern about this, but am convinced this is more than outweighed by the benefits of fairness and simplification this proposal brings, so support it.
For the record, my minor concern is that, despite what has been said on UKCaving about the clubs that choose to not take insurance joining BCA as non-voting Associate Members, unless things have changed radically since I was involved in BCA, this is not usually the case. Associate (non-voting) membership tended to be taken by Show Caves and commercial organisations who wished to be associated with BCA and its aims but are not set up as Clubs. On the other hand, there were always a number of clubs who chose to pay the basic club fee to become Members, but who did not require their members to join individually and, therefore, not get the benefits of insurance. These were often university clubs who, I assumed, had insurance through their Student Unions. Clubs who choose to join BCA in this way will now lose any voting rights despite paying BCA a fee and being a member. That seems wrong. On balance, though, I accept that the greater good comes from accepting the proposal. I do not see my view as likely to change on this, but am open to sensible argument.
Introduction of online voting: This is where I struggle more and I have two broad concerns. Firstly I have sat in enough meetings in my time to know that reasoned argument and the greater experience of others can change minds and that this is a good thing for the organisation. Whether an AGM attendee has a detailed understanding of BCA or not (and it is actually quite a complex organisation), by the end of the discussion on a matter, they will have heard the counter arguments and been made aware of any potential complications. Whichever way they vote, they are then voting knowledgably. To expect all 6,000 members presented with a quick yes-no question on their phone, to read all the supporting documentation relating to an issue before they vote, is simply unrealistic, particularly if this is spread all over the internet because BCA Executive (understandably) don?t want to open themselves to accusations of unfairness by trying to summarise it all in one document. All the more so if votes happen on multiple issues and every year. I suspect the vast majority of voting will be uninformed. To an extent this has been proven to me by 9 different members having so far contacted me to ask which way they should vote in this ballot; they have no interest in doing the research but are happy to spend a few seconds clicking ?yes? or ?no? if told to do so by someone else.
Secondly, and more worryingly for me, I can see the potential for huge problems further down the line. What happens if two contradictory proposals are set before the AGM? Some members like one, and some the other. Neither receives a big majority but they pass the 25% threshold and then go to an online vote. We could end up with two contradictory proposals being voted in. Imagine one seeks to scrap the role of, say, the Publications & Information (P&I) Committee and its work be taken on by a new Media Officer, and the other proposes that the P&I Committee get an extra ?5k to develop its social-media presence. Then what if both are approved by the membership?
How will we proceed if there are, for example, two candidates for a particular role and there is a tie? An AGM would come up with a solution somehow, but a ballot cannot. Council can hardly, then, override the decision of a full ballot of the members, and BCA could be left without a Chair, Treasurer, or other key role.
How does anybody go about voting for 2 candidates out of 3 to be Individual-Member Reps through online voting? Where has this been planned out?
What if someone is proposed for multiple roles because, for example, they really want to be Treasurer, but if they are not elected, they would like to take up their former role as Equipment & Techniques Officer? In a normal AGM, they could take the decision on the day to stand down as a candidate for the lesser role(s) if they were already elected. With online voting this cannot happen. What if that person ? who is really good and popular ? is then elected to multiple roles by the online ballot? If we manually pull them out of the running after the ballot, who is to say how the members who voted for them would have voted if they had not been an option?
All these questions need thinking about and could make the new system as proposed unworkable. I have spent the last few days reflecting on this and almost came down on the side of the status-quo because that - at least sort of ? works. However, after considerable thought, I am minded to vote in favour because I see most of the issues above as either unlikely, solvable through the Manual of Operations, or ideally avoided in the first place by very careful Chairmanship of the AGM.
Finally, unrelated to all this, my memory is that the AGM scrapped the P&I Committee and replaced it with a new member of the Executive instead. I am surprised this has not been addressed by updating 6.1 of the Constitution.
darren
Member
alastairgott said:
Yes I knew exactly what you meant and that was "My club is more democratic than your club"
Sorry I've taken a bit longer to replying to your post this time but that's the way my day works. Not a lot doing at lunch time so I'm bored and on the internet. This evening I was caveing. I didn't know there was an optimum time lag before replying to your posts, I'll bear this in mind in the future.
nearlywhite
Active member
damian said:
The membership voted against making P&I a member of the executive (a somewhat baffling proposal) but voted in favour of abolishing the committee.
I agree with your concerns about the reasoned argument and tribal voting but you've also been to enough AGMs to see them packed with people told to vote a certain way. I dare not name any examples...
I think this vote does highlight an issue though: how can more information and nuanced arguments be presented to the membership if it can't come from the executive for fear of bias.
I think the answer would lie in the appointment of a non executive members of BCA (i.e. anyone present at the AGM) to put together a case for and against the proposal and have a designated 'campaign' period before the vote.
JasonC
Well-known member
Surely such conflicts could be handled by common-sense procedural framing?
eg "if motion 1 (scrap the Committee) passes, then motion 2 (increase its funding) will automatically fail, irrespective of votes cast" - then anyone in favour of 2 would know they had to vote for 1 too?
moorebooks
Active member
I used to attend BCA meetings on behalf of NAMHO and I almost gave up the will to live. Most of the debates seemed to revolve around the constitution the odd word here a new sentence there a comma in the wrong place. It had sod all to do with caving and just pettiness between Regional Bodies who seemed to have different agendas.
This ballot should put paid to all of that but I wouldn't bet on it
Mike
This ballot should put paid to all of that but I wouldn't bet on it
Mike
