Unbelievable email recieved concerning BCA Ballott

[MJenkinson]

Hang on, so the PDCMG is a group of clubs, and the clubs already get a vote? So do the CNCC get a vote as well? That's a group of clubs?

Would this not all just be a lot bloody easier to have a vote based on individual cavers only?

 

[Benfool]

Yes, the CNCC gets a vote.

B

 

[Badlad]

The CNCC are a regional body and an access controlling body, in fact they are the biggest access controlling body in the country.  They do not get two votes (I've asked).  If they were separate entities they would get two votes.  So an ACB like the PDCMG get a vote but the CNCC do not because they already get a vote as a regional council. 

It sounds complicated because it is.  Reform to a system of one member one vote is the only real answer.  However, for that to happen 70% of the clubs and groups would have to vote for that to happen.  That is the main reason BCA is stuck in a rut and is branded with an irrelevance to most cavers.

No point in trying to second guess the outcome of the ballot either.  Cheers

 

[NigR]

Would this not all just be a lot bloody easier to have a vote based on individual cavers only?

Most certainly yes, but (as David has already skilfully pointed out) that is simply not possible under the terms of the BCA constitution in its current form.

Which, admittedly, does raise the question of how that constitution was ever allowed to come into being originally. Surely not purely as a means of resisting any form of change, regardless of the wishes of the overall membership, at all costs?!

As Badlad says, the only way to change this would be to alter the relevant parts of the constitution, presumably starting at next year's AGM and going through this same process ad infinitum.

Good, isn't it?

 

[Bob Mehew]

Sorry a bit of history.

When we were setting up BCA out of NCA, we started from NCA's constitution.  The key points it had in respect of this topic were that only clubs and Regional Caving Councils had a vote.  Individuals had no say what so ever and could not be members of NCA.  (Councils also had a power of veto but we did at least get agreement to do away with it.) 

For most clubs we could only provide insurance cover to the club (due to a legal point about incorporation) by offering insurance to all its members.  We had to involve individuals as members because we could not provide insurance cover to individuals other than as a membership benefit.  (The old system by which BCRA provided insurance had around the time of transfer been overtaken by new regulations which require a body selling insurance to jump through many hoops.)  So having individuals as members, we had to give them a vote. 

After hours of argument we settled on the two House system for voting.  So there is a House of Individuals and a House of Groups.  Groups are defined as clubs (whether or not they have organised the insurance of their members as Club Individual Members), Regional Caving Councils, Access Controlling Bodies, National Bodies and Cave Rescue Teams.  (I will note there is a third type of membership Associate for shops / cave gear manufactures and so on - but they have no voting rights.)

Bluntly, it was the best deal we could achieve at the time.

 

[Ian Ball]

Not to complain at all as I've had a vote, and my club has asked for my opinion and so I feel like I've voted more than once, if only by a fraction.

I think it would be made simple with a graphic but I couldn't see one on the BCA website.

 

[royfellows]

If any human person, legal person, or association is a member of BCA then surely on moral grounds apart from any other, they should have a voting right. I cannot see it any other way. Some things are far from perfect but what we are all stuck with in the absence of anything better.
A bit like democracy itself.

 

[David Rose]

Thanks Bob for that informative and honest post.

I suppose Badlad is right about second guessing the vote: there is no point. But its outcome may cause this "block vote" issue to become very pressing. 

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Thank you for that clarification Benfool.    I had no idea the process was so complex....  Nievely thinking one member one vote has caused me to cause offense.

Fleur....  you have my sincere apologies fo any offence.

Perhaps this thread has some validity after all...  I'm learning something.

Well said 

If any human person, legal person, or association is a member of BCA then surely on moral grounds apart from any other, they should have a voting right. I cannot see it any other way. Some things are far from perfect but what we are all stuck with in the absence of anything better.
A bit like democracy itself.

I can see two significant issues here though. Firstly the "house" of groups has a relatively small number of voters compared to the house of individuals (around 200 I believe compared to 6000-ish individuals). So a vote in the house of groups has much more weight that an individual vote.

Secondly just about everyone voting on behalf of a group will also have voted as an individual, so some effectively get two votes, and potentially 3 if they are an individual, represent a club and represent an access controlling body. Now in an ideal world those representing groups will represent the majority view of their members but let's not be naive, as a club rep it is fairly easy to sway the view one way or another (or just wait until August when everyone is away to ask the question )

 

[alastairgott]

It makes sense to me for all of those classified as groups to have a vote. Clearly there's no way that can effect the current vote.

I guess there are a number of choices.
1) keep 2 house system the same.
2) abolish the 2 house vote (irrespective of the usefulness of the group vote) and go for individual voting only.
3) change the percentage required for a win/loss in the group house.
4) chop up the groups into specific "sub groups" and change the percentage for a "sub group" to reject a proposal.
(Ie three "sub groups" requiring 50% or more to reject a vote, 2 out of 3 "sub groups" must reject a proposal for the proposal to be rejected in the group house)
"Sub groups" could be a) clubs, b) regional councils and access controlling bodies and c) national bodies and cave rescue councils.
Clearly option 4 would not be a workable vote at an AGM. As there would be considerable bias on the part of those that turn upto the AGM. And the vote would be even more complicated to work in the show of cards.

But number 4 would certainly be a more equitable vote (if not more complex!)

 

[MJenkinson]

I am not too good with words but.....so in theory, this vote might not be a true reflection anyway (certainly in the groups section). If 51% of a club vote X, and then 51% of clubs vote X in order to inform the single vote of someone like the CNCC or PDCGM, then actually - there are an awful lot of people who voted Y, who aren't reflected in that vote. Which matter more in the house of groups as % wise each vote carries more oompf..... (less groups)

Is there a real issue that the group vote might be bollocks?

Example:

100 clubs all under "Group Member" with 100 members.  Lets make the vote as close as possible...so 51/49 in favour of X.

100 clubs x 51 people is 5100
100 clubs x 49 people is 4900

If that is then used to inform a "groups" decision to vote X, and that applies to the rest of the big groups (PDCMG, CNCC), then how is a % vote of the groups an accurate reflection of votes?  I mean it's accurate in that X% of "groups" votes for something but its not a reflection of actual votes is it?

You may well end up with 70% of the groups having voted X, but that's based on a 51% vote internally.  In which case why set a 70% target for groups, as this could be achieved with only a 51/49 split within the sub clubs within the group.

Or is it. It's early, and I have only had one coffee.

 

[alastairgott]

Jenks, I think I might have confused you. The actual vote requires a 70% majority as in 8.11. of the Constitution "A proposed Constitutional amendment shall be taken as succeeding if a 70% majority of votes cast for the motion is obtained in each House, otherwise the motion shall fail." http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=about:documents:bca_constitution

My numbers above were an attempt to show that there could be other ways to make the vote more equitable, (as well as a different way to solve a problem).

I'm not sure how to phrase it, but I think it would be unfair to abolish the group vote. The people who volunteer for these organisations have the best in mind for the caves and cavers who they "serve".

Imagine a situation where a student group were thrown out of their university or another group driven out of town by their local council.

If, say, the caving world had new guidance saying clubs should ensure that new members are trained up to national standards by Cave instructors. Then the Uni/local council may not allow the club to survive if it's acting outside of guidelines.

In my mind it's imperative that clubs do get a vote to ensure that situations that effect them are voted on in a meaningful manner.

Flip the matter on it's head, what would happen if the government decided to open up all coal mines and make them open cast mines. In this instance PDCMG would have a legitimate reason for a vote to petition against this, given their vicinity to the coal measures.
It is important they get the vote, irrespective of whether individual members get a vote in other clubs or using their own individual ballot.

There is a cloud of people suggesting underhand activities, I don't think any of this is the case.

Someone before suggested that the vote has been "timed" to correspond with Holidays. I'll just say, most people can access the internet a lot of the time, even up a mountain!
Also, caving expeditions happen all year, I think I've heard some in October, Nov, Dec. and quite a few Easter and Summer. If you actually think about it, now is exactly the right time. Clubs are reconvening after summer, individuals are sending their littleones back to school and some people are probably about to go on a holiday in September, but have already had chance to get their vote in.

 

[MJenkinson]

I am always confused.

I agree with everything you have written, it is just something doesn't sit right with this groups thing. I get the 70% thing for individual cavers - that's fine, a good hefty % required to change something.  It would be easy and fair to calculate.

Now assuming that there is no "Master Caver" in each club who just makes decisions, and that it is democratically decided within each group / club how to vote, then my issue is that 70% of groups, could be achieved with significantly less than 70% of votes of the individuals who make up those groups.  You know what I mean?  You could get 7/10 groups to vote X, but in those clubs overall it might be a 51/49 split amongst the individuals who make up the group.

E.G. My club would vote in a certain way about something on the CNCC agenda, as its a 55/45 split when individuals in the club are asked.  If each club on the CNCC committee did this and 70% of the committee were needed, then you end up with the motion carried but...less than 70% of the individuals in the committee clubs would have agreed with the decision.  Its fine if its a widely held decision (say a 90/10 split in a club), but the closer the decision is within each club, the less valid the 70% requirement is surely?

 

[alastairgott]

I do see what you mean. it's difficult to know exactly how the decision making process pans out across clubs. In some clubs, yes, there are a group of "master cavers" in the "committee" that make up their own mind on what is good for the club.

other clubs are different and require the club members to vote at a meeting. that meeting needs to be quorate. in some instances this will be as little as 4-10 people to make a meeting quorate.

So, yes, I see perfectly where you're coming from, a median of 7 people (or more) from a club deciding the will of that club.

Irrespective of how many members are voting or the makeup of the percentages required for a decision to pass at club level. It is sometimes the "strong leadership" which will sway a voter. if a leader feels very strongly about a matter then it may be much 'easier' for them to sway the vote in their club to 70%.

Clubs in my mind are representative of the wider caving view, and so should naturally come to the same conclusion as the individual membership.

Some clubs like the DDDWHCC are cautious clubs. Considerate that they can do as they please if they're not part of the wider caving community, Content with going as far down mines as they feel comfortable.

 

[NewStuff]

We have never been shy about saying what we feel needs to be said, despite certain banned members actively trying to make me lose my job. We will not be silenced by underhanded schemes like that. we don't much care what most people think of us. We have a moral compass, and we follow that.Those that actually know us know we will do no harm to any underground place, be it man-made or natural.

 

[JasonC]

I think what Mr Jenkinson is getting at is that the group vote might not reflect the feeling of the constituent members.

Take this (highly artificial) example - there are 1000 cavers in 20 clubs.  10 of these clubs have 70 members each, who vote 100% in favour of a proposal.  The other 10 clubs have 30 members each, in each one 10 vote in favour and 20 vote against.

So overall, the individual vote is 80% for (10 x 70 + 10 x 10), 20% against (10 x 20)
But the club vote is 50% for (the first 10) and 50% (the second 10) against.

So if it was a constitutional change, it would be defeated, even though 80% of the membership was in favour.

An artificial situation, as I said, but a similar thing could happen with a tighter vote...

 

[andys]

Mods: This thread has moved on quite a bit since the OP. Could it be spilt out into a new thread called something like "BCA voting procedures: fit for purpose or changes needed?". Ta. 

 

[MJenkinson]

I think what Mr Jenkinson is getting at is that the group vote might not reflect the feeling of the constituent members.

Take this (highly artificial) example - there are 1000 cavers in 20 clubs.  10 of these clubs have 70 members each, who vote 100% in favour of a proposal.  The other 10 clubs have 30 members each, in each one 10 vote in favour and 20 vote against.

So overall, the individual vote is 80% for (10 x 70 + 10 x 10), 20% against (10 x 20)
But the club vote is 50% for (the first 10) and 50% (the second 10) against.

So if it was a constitutional change, it would be defeated, even though 80% of the membership was in favour.

An artificial situation, as I said, but a similar thing could happen with a tighter vote...

This. Exactly. Thank god one of us can elucidate! Thanks

 

[royfellows]

I posted this in part on aditnow and pasted it over as its relevant to whats being discussed here presently.

A BCA group member is not necessarily a membership organisation. CMT falls into this category.

We have a board of 5 directors, I am a BCA member through membership of SCMC, cant speak for my associates.

This may further complicate matters.

 

[andys]

Quick question then for those "in the know". Do "groups" pay a membership fee to BCA in their own right - i.e. other than in respect of any club members (CIMs) who join through said club?