The BCA ballot is out

[nearlywhite]

Surely such conflicts could be handled by common-sense procedural framing?

They could be... And with Matt making many changes to the manual of operations too they are likely to be. The issue will come when there's the next changing of the guard.

 

[droid]

Someone above commented on the complexity of the Constitution.

Is it necessary to have this complication? Strikes me that if you have an Executive that's more concerned with the good of the pastime rather than the good of their egos, you could simplify the Constitution significantly.

I don't know the people on board at the moment, but the majority *do* seem to be trying to move on.

Good luck to them.

And if anyone finds a source of cheap caving insurance that doesn't involve membership of BCA just watch the membership shrink....

 

[Badlad]

Even though I'm a representative on BCA council I'll be the first to admit BCA is not held in the greatest esteem.  It is a huge challenge to turn it into the organisation we'd all like it to be.  It is not overly staffed by volunteers either and even fewer who are prepared to put in the thankless hours to run the organisation let alone to improve it.

Matt Ewles, the new BCA secretary, is one person who is prepared to put in the hard yards and work towards improving BCA across the board.  We are very lucky to have him.  Look at his track record in the CNCC.  In the last five years by improving attitudes, bringing people along with him, changing the constitution, offering hope and a better environment, and working within a team who are all pulling in the same direction there has been nothing short of a miraculous turn around.  CNCC is well regarded now IMO and if you want BCA to follow then you have to have faith in Matt.

Matt put forward these proposals and deserves our support for at least trying.  Please don't focus on minutae and complex scenarios of negative outcomes.  He is absolutely the best hope of turning BCA into an organisation we can all be proud of.  If he thinks these proposals are going to help towards that goal then what have we really got to lose by giving him our backing.

Support the ballot.

 

[andrewmcleod]

Someone above commented on the complexity of the Constitution.

Is it necessary to have this complication? Strikes me that if you have an Executive that's more concerned with the good of the pastime rather than the good of their egos, you could simplify the Constitution significantly.

I think you will find that many of the 'progressive' side of caving would agree with you that the constitution is too complicated and would be happy to throw away half of the constitution.

 

[Pete K]

Myself and at least 2 of the clubs I am a member of will be voting in support. I better chase the other club to see what is happening there.

 

[andrewmcleod]

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.

I believe it has changed, as the insurers raised concerns about the BCA potentially being seen to be 'selling' insurance (which the BCA explicitly does not do). You cannot no longer be a member club without all your members also being members; a few clubs that were set up like this are being offered associate membership on renewal.

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?

As you say, the Chair will have to require motions to be formulated in a fashion which is logically coherent (as motions, amendments, and motions which are subject to the passing of amendments). Hopefully the AGM will also desire order over chaos (if the reverse is true, they can achieve this regardless of the method of voting).

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?

If you were at last year's AGM (I don't know if you were or not) this is something the BCA needs to work out regardless of whether it approves the ballot or not

In other words, I would agree with you that it needs careful chairing to accept amendments and proposals in a fashion that can be dealt with subsequent to the event (and indeed the main task of the AGM will now be framing those questions, rather than arguing in favour of one proposal or the other, which might actually increase quality....).

 

[Pegasus]

Even though I'm a representative on BCA council I'll be the first to admit BCA is not held in the greatest esteem.  It is a huge challenge to turn it into the organisation we'd all like it to be.  It is not overly staffed by volunteers either and even fewer who are prepared to put in the thankless hours to run the organisation let alone to improve it.

Matt Ewles, the new BCA secretary, is one person who is prepared to put in the hard yards and work towards improving BCA across the board.  We are very lucky to have him.  Look at his track record in the CNCC.  In the last five years by improving attitudes, bringing people along with him, changing the constitution, offering hope and a better environment, and working within a team who are all pulling in the same direction there has been nothing short of a miraculous turn around.  CNCC is well regarded now IMO and if you want BCA to follow then you have to have faith in Matt.

Matt put forward these proposals and deserves our support for at least trying.  Please don't focus on minutae and complex scenarios of negative outcomes.  He is absolutely the best hope of turning BCA into an organisation we can all be proud of.  If he thinks these proposals are going to help towards that goal then what have we really got to lose by giving him our backing.

Support the ballot.

I could not agree with more with this. 

 

[Jenny P]

I would tend to think that careful wording of the Manual of Operations (in effect the "standing Orders" by which the organisation actually works) will overcome a great many of the perceived problems.  Carefully worked out Standing Orders can guide the Chairman and members to a sensible way forward in unforeseen situations.

This is already being taken in hand and some of the difficulties which arose at the 2019 AGM should not happen in future because they have been recognised and a system put in place to avoid this happening again.  Matt has already set out some ideas for improving and updating the Manual of Operations.  A number of our problems relate to the failure to recognise in our system that so much of the formerly necessary "paperwork" involved in nominating officers and members of council and in authenticating "club representatives" at AGMs have been superseded by the use of the internet.  (e.g. how many clubs nowadays have "headed notepaper"?)

I do not see the need for a ballot of all the individual membership on every single decision to be made at an AGM.  In particular, Damian's thoughtful contribution highlights possible problems in election of officers and members of Council, which could be overcome easily if this part of the AGM was normally subject to an immediate vote from the floor - only if there were unforeseen problems arising from this might it be necessary to have a ballot of the membership.

It's worth remembering that the Constitution of an organisation is intended to give general guidance, it isn't a straight-jacket.  As was demonstrated at this year's AGM, imaginative Chairing of the meeting can find a way through seemingly intransigent difficulties.

With goodwill, even a pretty dodgy constitution can be made to work.  If the goodwill is not there, then intransigent blocking by a few can make things impossible.

 

[damian]

With goodwill, even a pretty dodgy constitution can be made to work.  If the goodwill is not there, then intransigent blocking by a few can make things impossible.

... absolutely. Imagine someone decides to propose something controversial at an AGM like, for example, throwing out an Access Body for allegedly breeching the Constitution's Guiding Principles by restricting access (obviously an entirely hypothetical example!) Suddenly every tiny detail of procedure is argued about and everything grinds to a halt, a pile of good volunteers resign because they are sick of spending their volunteer lives being shouted at by angry members and things go horribly wrong, horribly quickly.

I do not see the need for a ballot of all the individual membership on every single decision to be made at an AGM.  In particular, Damian's thoughtful contribution highlights possible problems in election of officers and members of Council, which could be overcome easily if this part of the AGM was normally subject to an immediate vote from the floor - only if there were unforeseen problems arising from this might it be necessary to have a ballot of the membership.

To me this seems very sensible. Quite what you decide should and shouldn't, though, is tricky.

The membership voted against making P&I a member of the executive (a somewhat baffling proposal) but voted in favour of abolishing the committee.

Somehow I failed to spot this in the Minutes. A good decision! Thanks nearlywhite.

I think 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.

Agreed - another very good idea.

 

[LarryFatcat]

I echo the point on ease of voting but would issue a warning that my email provider had decided the alert was junk email.  So if you have not got an email by now, check your junk mail box.

Thanks for that, I found the BCA Ballot in my Junk folder and voted after reading the amendments at https://bca-vote.online/2019_agm_agenda.pdf (starting on p28)

 

[Madness]

I do not see the need for a ballot of all the individual membership on every single decision to be made at an AGM.  In particular, Damian's thoughtful contribution highlights possible problems in election of officers and members of Council, which could be overcome easily if this part of the AGM was normally subject to an immediate vote from the floor - only if there were unforeseen problems arising from this might it be necessary to have a ballot of the membership.

Surely that would leave us where we started, having to travel miles to attend an AGM to make sure the best officers/council members are elected and the ones with their own agendas are not elected.
This years AGM was well attended by people wanting change, if they had not been there then the BCA might have ended up with a officer who I'm sure would have done his utmost to scupper any plans for change/modernisation.

 

[AR]

Myself and at least 2 of the clubs I am a member of will be voting in support. I better chase the other club to see what is happening there.

You'll be pleased to hear that the membership present at today's AGM unanimously voted in favour of the club vote being cast in support.

 

[Jenny P]

DCA, following the advice of its members after discussions in June, has already voted in support of the proposals.

 

[Pete K]

Myself and at least 2 of the clubs I am a member of will be voting in support. I better chase the other club to see what is happening there.

You'll be pleased to hear that the membership present at today's AGM unanimously voted in favour of the club vote being cast in support.

Ace! DCA will in future attempt to keep meetings on dates that are not already taken by other important things. Today I could have chosen from DCA, PDMHS or YSS!

 

[Badlad]

I am intrigued why there is such a difference in the way clubs vote.  They are all clubs after all.  As we read on here some clubs are unanimously in support and others very much against.  What are the real issues that make a difference?  Does it depend on who the clubs listen to for example? Worries about loosing power?  What?

 

[nearlywhite]

I don't think the changes are universally good Tim e.g. enshrining that unopposed candidates are appointed by default in the Constitution is, in my opinion, a bad change. Should be in the manual of operations.

So for pedants and constitutional perfectionists there'll be something to disagree with, but then there always is. You also have the attitude of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' - this is tied to a suspicion of a centralised BCA or any authority. Sadly if we want to actually do anything about the looming demographic crisis we have to organise.

I should point out we NEED the other changes, and things can always be changed again anyway. I think the momentum that Matt has injected is very necessary - more of the membership could engage in votes, be aware of what needs doing and hopefully volunteer as a result. I've meant to put together a more in depth analysis of the changes and explain the arguments for them but sadly I haven't had the time.

Please vote for the changes!

 

[NewStuff]

I don't think the changes are universally good Tim e.g. enshrining that unopposed candidates are appointed by default in the Constitution is, in my opinion, a bad change.

This. A very valid point. What sense is there in appointing an unopposed person to a position when they give most people the impression that they do not have the interests of the membership in mind. However...

I should point out we NEED the other changes, and things can always be changed again anyway.

This can be changed. As can other things, further down the road. Tackle the big hurdles first, get them out of  the way, move onto smaller ones.

Please vote for the changes!

Irrespective of which way you vote, please vote.

 

[HardenClimber3]

At the CPC's AGM there was overhelming support for the reform, with a clear direction for the committee.

I hope everyone votes, and that if passed everyone works constructively with the clear actions actions that are mandated.

 

[Badlad]

Really pleased to read this.  If you don't mind me saying the CPC are often seen as one of the more conservative clubs in the Dales. 

In relation to the CSCC recommendations to its member clubs, (posted a few pages back), I'd like to inform everyone that the CNCC made no such recommendations to it's own clubs preferring them, presumably, to make their own minds up.  For interest the CNCC AGM voted on the same proposal so that their rep to BCA (me) knew which way to vote.  It was overwhelmingly in support with 11 for, 2 against, 4 abstentions.  It maybe that one of those against has since changed their minds.

 

[Ian P]

Really pleased to read this.  If you don't mind me saying the CPC are often seen as one of the more conservative clubs in the Dales

This ?may? have been true in the past. However the current CPC is in my opinion a very different club now.

We are an incredible active club with a broad range of members both old and new.
Hopefully any previous negative thoughts about the CPC will soon be replaced.
We are very much a progressive, friendly more modern thinking club.
We even have Wi Fi and a substantial stock of 9mm rope (regularly used)