Speaking as the original proposer (and without my BCA Secretary hat on) I really feel I need to comment on some aspects of the CSCC document that Cap'n Chris has posted a link to.
Firstly, the text may be taken to imply that these proposals are changing representation on BCA Council which is not the case. The proposals I have put forward serve ONLY to remove the group vote for AGM matters, thus making AGMs a one-individual-one-vote democracy. BCA Council, who essentially run the annual functions of the BCA between AGMs, will still have a voting position for each regional council, each constituent body, and four representatives of group members. This will not change, and this represents a considerable input into BCA democracy.
Secondly, there is nothing in these constitutional changes that create any ?move to an organisation of individual members? as implied in the CSCC document. There are no changes to our overall membership structure (CIMs, DIMs, Clubs) within the constitutional amendments. I will be absolutely transparant that I think this is something to consider in the future, but it is not related to these current proposals.
I do not fully understand the concerns of the CSCC about an ?organisation dominated by individuals?. Surely clubs are comprised of those very same individuals? This is not a concern that I share.
There is no intention in any of the proposals to undermine clubs; I am a club caver, having started my caving life with a university club and then having gone on to set up a new non-student club in a city where there wasn?t one... a club that I have worked hard to grow from it?s original four founder members to an active membership of 30 people today. I am also an active member of a well-established Dales club. Caving clubs are hardwired into my life.
The CSCC are correct that the proposed changes did pass at the AGM by only a narrow margin; although it is worth reminding everyone that the requirements for constitutional amendments to pass is 70%, so although it was a narrow margin, it was still a strong majority.
The CSCC are worried that these changes put a responsibility on the individual caver to engage with and understand BCA matters and issues, which they believe many cavers do not want to do. They may be right. It is worth remembering however that there is nothing new in asking individuals to vote on BCA matters; About 6500 individuals have a vote in this ballot.
Furthermore, the removal of a club?s vote does not stop that club keeping their members informed of the ballot, issuing advice, interpreting it for them (as the CSCC have done here) and even lobbying them to vote in a specific way. In doing this, the club?s influence on BCA democracy becomes directly proportional to their number of members they can lobby (unlike the current system where a club of 4 members has the same vote as a club of 200 members). Given that I believe some of the UK?s largest clubs are in Mendip, I would have thought the CSCC would have nothing to fear from these changes, as it would proportionally strengthen the voice of their clubs.
Overall, I think this letter from the CSCC is well argued (even if I disagree with those arguements), although perhaps a little bit over-dramatic in a few places. They are within their right to issue this and I do appreciate them presenting the alternative viewpoint for voters to consider (as several people have asked). I also greatly appreciate that the CSCC is promoting the ballot and encouraging people to vote whatever their view, as a high turnout would be good.
As for the scaremongering tripe that has been written on Darkness below... I think this 'news' website has done a fine job at showing its true colours.
Matt Ewles