Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals

[alastairgott]

Matt's just getting practice on 10.6 early, the pro's were put forward in the reasons, he merely provided the balanced view.

 

[Cavematt]

Fishes, as stated in paragraph 5 of my post, these are entirely my own opinions and not those of the BCA, BCA Council or anything to do with the BCA. Just because I happen to work (voluntarily) on behalf of the BCA doesn't mean I don't have personal opinions and expressing them in such a public forum is a last resort after everything that has happened over the last year (I think BCA members have been kept in the dark about the actions of a select few for quite long enough).

I would be VERY worried about any BCA policy that sought to restrict what BCA Volunteers are allowed to say speaking in their personal capacity.

I am sorry the footer on my avatar confused you. I have removed the 'BCA Secretary' bit to avoid you any further confusion. Note that 'York Caving Club' still remains but that is because that is the club I am associated with and not because I am speaking on their behalf.

 

[andrewmcleod]

Being an elected BCA officer is a political position, not a normal job. It is important that they can express their opinions, and that people can hear them. If they don't like them, they can vote them out - and if they do, they can vote them back in.

 

[andrewmcleod]

Incidentally the fact that the CSCC have (presumably) forgotten that Devon and Cornwall (possibly the finest of all caving regions) even exist, by suggesting that 8 representatives is enough for 2 group representatives each, is reason enough to have them all thrown into the sea (from a fine Devon or Cornish beach, of course)  :chair:

 

[BradW]

Some of these posts do seem like an example of why BCA needs a social media policy with some oversight. Nobody should be expressing personal views and engaging debate while using their position within the BCA. You must clearly separate your views and those of the BCA.

This would not be tolerated in business and although the BCA may be run by volunteers it should be acting in a business like way.

This kind of public spat is sadly painting some of you and the BCA in a very bad light to cavers and none cavers alike. I know feelings are running high but whichever side of this debate you are on please show some restraint.

This last bit is important. Even if many cavers might agree with current plans for the future, the way this whole thing is being managed is so unprofessional. No wonder there are no good volunteers if they baulk at having to work alongside blatant partisanship and people who cannot resist personalizing their vitriol.

 

[Badlad]

I'm the CNCC representative on BCA council.  I need to report back to the north what is going on in BCA.  Our committee, our clubs and their individual members have a right to know what is being done with their money and in their name.  Social media and this caving forum in particular is a great way of communication with cavers.  Already at BCA council, attempts have been made to prevent officers commenting on some of the shenanigans that have been on going with BCA IT.  CNCC strive to be open and transparent and expect me to be the same.  So I am not an officer, I am a representative.  How can BCA prevent me from carrying out what my organisation expects of me?

And what of sanctions from breaching any social media policy that might be adopted? We had a guy at BCA recently that refused to accept the mandate specifically given to him by an AGM.  The BCA council then re-enforced that mandate and instructed him to follow it.  He still refused.  Council eventually removed him from one of his positions but he still held another.  He then conspired to cause further problems within the organisation which has, in part, led to several key volunteers resigning.  Now it appears that he is looking at returning to those same positions as before and getting his way.  Ah yes, what of sanctions indeed.  Are there any?

 

[kay]

Matt has used his position as BCA at the bottom of each post in this topic. This implies he is posting in this role.

He's using his CaveMatt account to post, and making it very clear these are his personal views. I'm in no confusion at all about whether these are his individual views or BCA views.

 

[Benfool]

Government cabinet ministers make their personal opinions perfectly clear on proposals put to government, so why shouldn't Matt and others make their opinions clear about proposals put to a BCA AGM.

I'd be very concerned if the people at the heart of BCA policy making, who have the most information and context about whats going on, couldn't make their opinions clear. Without context, some of the proposals put forward may seem sensible, however the context added by people like Will, Matt, Jane and Tim completely changes this.

B

 

[Ed]

I'd be interested to know if the CSCC truly represents the views of the majority of southern cavers rather than what appears to be a small clique based in Mendip (well The Hunters)

 

[PeteHall]

I'd be interested to know if the CSCC truly represents the views of the majority of southern cavers rather than what appears to be a small clique based in Mendip (well The Hunters)

I think not.

Because they're members of CSCC?

I think you will find that most members of CSCC clubs support the BCA CRoW campaign and also support bringing the BCA into the 21st century for that matter. This is reflected in recent ballots of the BCA membership, though unfortunately not reflected at CSCC committee level.
For many of us, the choice is between spending the rare moments of free time caving, or going to committee meetings. Quite frankly, there is no point going to committee meetings about caving if that means that you don't ever get to go caving. The result is that the committees are often left to the retired generation who have more free time, but whose views may not reflect the majority.

 

[MarkS]

Thanks Matt, for so clearly outlining your stance on these proposals.

I genuinely hope that someone supporting these proposals will come forward to give their perspective, given the concerns raised in this topic. The CSCC represent more than 40 different caving clubs, so there should be plenty of people in this bracket who can do so.

 

[darren]

Cavers belonging to clubs that belong to CSCC who don't care about politics and want CSCC to represent them are hardly likely, by definition to be taking part in this debate. That is what the CSCC is for.

I did get someone from the CSCC area to briefly look at a thread and his only comment was "that's an hour I'm never going to get back". Even worse, he was watching Coronation Street at the same time.

I know I keep saying this but we on this forum are a bubble. Most cavers may care a bit if you ask them a specific question. That doesn't mean they care a lot, you now, care enough to vote in an on-line ballot that is effortless.

 

[mikem]

The majority don't even look at this forum...

I believe the main concerns are due to likelihood of landowners refusing permission to open new entrances, if they then have no control over access.

 

[Pegasus]

The majority don't even look at this forum...

Well someone is looking at it.  There have been 442 people online so far today.

 

[Brains]

I see a lot of negative input from CSCC but no positives, swamped by reasonable counters from many others
I see a lot of evasion over naming names
Who are these saboteurs?
So far I have seen only Cookie, Faye and Alan B named in this or similar threads.

 

[Badlad]

The 'bubble' argument is a good one.  There is the BCA 'bubble', the AGM 'bubble', the CSCC 'bubble', the northern 'bubble', the Facebook 'bubble', the Descent 'bubble', we're all living in bubbles.

More people look at this forum than probably all other caving mediums.  Where else do cavers inform themselves - the BCA web site?  If you are representing cavers you'd probably want to inform yourself the best you can of all caving opinions - where are you going to get them from now that the Hunters is closed? 

 

[MJenkinson]

......this nursing home game of thrones needs to come to an end.

Bit late but ha!

 

[mikem]

The majority don't even look at this forum...

Well someone is looking at it.  There have been 442 people online so far today.

Out of 6000+ members... Yes, this forum gets to more people than most other options, but it's still a minority.

I was referring to CSCC.

 

[PeteHall]

The majority don't even look at this forum...

Well someone is looking at it.  There have been 442 people online so far today.

Out of 6000+ members... Yes, this forum gets to more people than most other options, but it's still a minority.

I was referring to CSCC.

I believe that the 422 is the most online at one time, so far today. The total for the day will be very much higher as you can be sure that everyone who has been on hasn't been at the same time.

It's also the case that many prominent voices in the CSCC do use this forum, some of whom have been online within the last hour. They may however be put off contributing to the discussion as the majority opinion here does not reflect their own and they are likely to come under fire from their critics.

 

[NewStuff]

I was referring to CSCC.

If you want to play minorities...

Why do a small minority of the CSCC think they can do an end-run around the vast majority BCA's membership that actually voted? Let's be honest here, that's what it is, a desperate attempt at keeping the status quo, which the majority clearly said they wanted to change.