Vote Rostam!!!
- Thread starter Badlad
- Start date
nearlywhite
Active member
This isn't true but I can see why it was said. There was a consultation circulated that asked respondents to rank their preference of three options; delete it, amend it and leave it unchanged. It was marked as single transferrable vote and on the first pass 16 of 38 respondents ranked leave it be as their first choice - the largest minority. This lost in the second round to 22 who wanted an amendment (once delete it was removed and votes transferred).
It wasn't the point of the consultation though - that was to try and gauge a range of views (which it did successfully) rather than to poll popularity. If you read the consultation document (which can be found here https://british-caving.org.uk/about-bca/working-groups/constitution-operations-group/ ) you will see that it is a qualitative analysis of the comments and doesn't really make reference to the preference question. This is because of a heavy selection bias - this was engaged with overwhelmingly by members of CSCC member clubs. That isn't a bad thing, this is people who feel affected by something making their voice heard - but it isn't a poll of BCA members. What it did do was inform the wording of the amendments that went to the AGM so that a choice could be presented and polled.
PS I do appreciate all the support I've recieved over the last few days, it should make for an interesting outcome. I'm definitely not a natural campaigner (I find it really embarrassing) and am a bit long winded so if I don't win I have the excuses already to hand
Cavematt
Well-known member
This is worrying. I certainly don?t remember seeing any such poll, and I am a BCA member.
Either I missed this poll, or this is a misunderstanding from the CSCC representative. Alternatively, this could be a strategy to encourage southern cavers to vote in a certain way by presenting selected facts in particular ways.
Hopefully the progressive CSCC folks on here will be able to clarify things
The wording seems to be intended to ?scare? people into thinking that if they vote in support of this proposal, the BCA is going to start interfering with members.
The whole point of the voting period was to allow time for clubs (and regional councils, if they wish) to lobby their members to vote in a particular way, thus maintaining their democratic involvement despite not having a direct vote. Therefore, if CSCC wanted to lobby their members to vote for ?no change? to section 10.1, there is nothing wrong with this, as long as this has been properly considered, democratically decided, and preferably backed up by facts.
The wording above seems intended to engineer a ?no change? outcome but stops short of saying this is a CSCC recommendation.
I hope this isn?t another example of CSCC being used to push a personal agenda?
I'm happy to say that I have voted to delete that section of the constitution altogether. It simply isn't needed and has too much potential to be used by rogue individuals to block genuine democratically agreed BCA work.
Either I missed this poll, or this is a misunderstanding from the CSCC representative. Alternatively, this could be a strategy to encourage southern cavers to vote in a certain way by presenting selected facts in particular ways.
Hopefully the progressive CSCC folks on here will be able to clarify things
The wording seems to be intended to ?scare? people into thinking that if they vote in support of this proposal, the BCA is going to start interfering with members.
The whole point of the voting period was to allow time for clubs (and regional councils, if they wish) to lobby their members to vote in a particular way, thus maintaining their democratic involvement despite not having a direct vote. Therefore, if CSCC wanted to lobby their members to vote for ?no change? to section 10.1, there is nothing wrong with this, as long as this has been properly considered, democratically decided, and preferably backed up by facts.
The wording above seems intended to engineer a ?no change? outcome but stops short of saying this is a CSCC recommendation.
I hope this isn?t another example of CSCC being used to push a personal agenda?
I'm happy to say that I have voted to delete that section of the constitution altogether. It simply isn't needed and has too much potential to be used by rogue individuals to block genuine democratically agreed BCA work.
Interesting that last years AGM voted on the following proposal,
"Consideration of a new form of words for section 10.1 of the BCA constitution to be
presented at BCA 2021 AGM". Alongside this an explanation as to why this was thought necessary.
The results were members voted 436 FOR and only 45 AGAINST
Having an option to maintain the status quo seems to fly in the face of that. What most members will not know is that the author of the CSCC report (above) was at the heart of the long running discrimination issue which led up to that proposal. It would be a shame if CSCC lobbying overturned the 2020 AGM ballot.
"Consideration of a new form of words for section 10.1 of the BCA constitution to be
presented at BCA 2021 AGM". Alongside this an explanation as to why this was thought necessary.
The results were members voted 436 FOR and only 45 AGAINST
Having an option to maintain the status quo seems to fly in the face of that. What most members will not know is that the author of the CSCC report (above) was at the heart of the long running discrimination issue which led up to that proposal. It would be a shame if CSCC lobbying overturned the 2020 AGM ballot.
Ed W
Member
Right, I am pi$$ed off. I am sick to death of the constant whining and carping and undermining of the CSCC that has been occurring. Perhaps as CSCC Chair I should be more tactful, but all I see is an un-ending spite being unloaded onto a group of people who work their socks off to try and benefit all underground explorers in the south. I for one am very proud of the work that CSCC Officers do, mostly without recognition or thanks. Yes I would be the first to agree that the CSCC needs change, indeed that is why I stood as chair last year, but I am utterly dismayed by the vitriol directed at individuals just because they hold a differing view. It is notable that the attacks continue despite real progress being made in some areas.
I am not a political animal by nature, indeed I spent most of my caving career actively trying to avoid any involvement in committees and representative bodies. After a year or so of getting caught up in it I see I was wiser in my youth! Frankly the behaviours shown by many in the UK caving politics scene are those most usually seen on the playground of junior schools. The incessant back room manoeuvring, personal attacks and shear two faced sniping are something to behold. For some democracy is only acceptable if it reflects their own agenda and they see anyone with a different viewpoint as the enemy to be eliminated.
In short we have a downright toxic system with some really nasty behaviour that sucks the life and soul out of all involved. For me it has wrecked caving as a hobby that I have loved for over 35 years. I have gone from being underground once or twice every week to essentially having no interest in the sport whatsoever it has been that poisonous. It has also destroyed many other good people, including personal friends over the last few years. No one person or group is solely responsible for this, but EVERYONE involved (including some who have posted on this thread) need to look at their actions and ask if they are part of the problem - as pointed out by a recent BCA Chair who was hounded out by this sort of behaviour.
My honest opinionis that BCA is on the cusp of collapse and unless the average British Caving politician can grow up and stop acting like a bunch of spoilt 5 year olds then it will be the worse for the sport.
It goes without saying that these are my own personal views and are not posted in my capacity as CSCC Chair.
I am not a political animal by nature, indeed I spent most of my caving career actively trying to avoid any involvement in committees and representative bodies. After a year or so of getting caught up in it I see I was wiser in my youth! Frankly the behaviours shown by many in the UK caving politics scene are those most usually seen on the playground of junior schools. The incessant back room manoeuvring, personal attacks and shear two faced sniping are something to behold. For some democracy is only acceptable if it reflects their own agenda and they see anyone with a different viewpoint as the enemy to be eliminated.
In short we have a downright toxic system with some really nasty behaviour that sucks the life and soul out of all involved. For me it has wrecked caving as a hobby that I have loved for over 35 years. I have gone from being underground once or twice every week to essentially having no interest in the sport whatsoever it has been that poisonous. It has also destroyed many other good people, including personal friends over the last few years. No one person or group is solely responsible for this, but EVERYONE involved (including some who have posted on this thread) need to look at their actions and ask if they are part of the problem - as pointed out by a recent BCA Chair who was hounded out by this sort of behaviour.
My honest opinionis that BCA is on the cusp of collapse and unless the average British Caving politician can grow up and stop acting like a bunch of spoilt 5 year olds then it will be the worse for the sport.
It goes without saying that these are my own personal views and are not posted in my capacity as CSCC Chair.
aricooperdavis
Moderator
2xw said:
Out of interest, what are you referring to here Will?
JoshW
Well-known member
Ed W said:
Hi Ed, totally get your frustration here.. however, the email posted above is clearly the CSCC council representative, misrepresenting what has happened, under the guise of a CSCC roundup of the AGM proposals.
I'm not saying Linda has done this deliberately, I'm sure once she is made aware of this, she'll retract and issue a new summary for this proposal.
If however this is a deliberate misrepresentation, I know who I'd be pissed at if I was in your shoes.
Seems to me Ed W that you haven't enjoyed reading some very valid points, mostly brought to light in a measured and respectful way I thought. The majority of issues raised in this thread are by either current or past members of BCA council, which does give them a certain level of credibility.
If you want to look for the toxicity in British caving then the needle points firmly to the south. I don't know which BCA chair was hounded out of the position but I do know a recent BCA Secretary, IT Group convenor, Webmaster, P&I Officer and C&A Officer who were certainly hounded out of office and, by their own resignation statements, it was long serving members of CSCC who shoulder the blame.
Certainly in my experience where efforts have been made to modernise the BCA, by following the democratic processes I should add, the main opposition to any change came from the same few members of CSCC who always argued for the status quo to remain. The most laughable (in hindsight) was the two year opposition to the modernisation of regional funding for C&A projects. When this eventually succeeded, having fought its way through heavy CSCC opposition, it has turned out that the biggest beneficiaries of the modernising changes have been... yes the CSCC cave access and conservation projects. How did that opposition benefit southern cavers?
The simple fact is that many have come and gone as volunteers for BCA, trying all their best to change cave politics for the better. The minority who oppose change, disrupt and cause headaches for them have remained much the same, sitting on CSCC council for year after year, decade and decade, imposing their view on nearly everyone else.
That's what needs changing Ed, but good luck changing it. You'll be the next one to be seen off I expect
If you want to look for the toxicity in British caving then the needle points firmly to the south. I don't know which BCA chair was hounded out of the position but I do know a recent BCA Secretary, IT Group convenor, Webmaster, P&I Officer and C&A Officer who were certainly hounded out of office and, by their own resignation statements, it was long serving members of CSCC who shoulder the blame.
Certainly in my experience where efforts have been made to modernise the BCA, by following the democratic processes I should add, the main opposition to any change came from the same few members of CSCC who always argued for the status quo to remain. The most laughable (in hindsight) was the two year opposition to the modernisation of regional funding for C&A projects. When this eventually succeeded, having fought its way through heavy CSCC opposition, it has turned out that the biggest beneficiaries of the modernising changes have been... yes the CSCC cave access and conservation projects. How did that opposition benefit southern cavers?
The simple fact is that many have come and gone as volunteers for BCA, trying all their best to change cave politics for the better. The minority who oppose change, disrupt and cause headaches for them have remained much the same, sitting on CSCC council for year after year, decade and decade, imposing their view on nearly everyone else.
That's what needs changing Ed, but good luck changing it. You'll be the next one to be seen off I expect
Ed W
Member
Badlad, I have read many valid points on this forum over the years and in this thread. I have been an avid supporter of UK Caving and supported a number of issues raised on these forums. I can't help feeling that it is all too easy to "blame the south", stoking the flames of division in what is a small group of people who like going underground. I woud concede that in the past that the relationship between the BCA and CSCC was toxic, but that giant straides have been made in recent times. I would suggest that contained in this thread is yet more of this demonisation, and that despite the efforts of a few to try and make debate within the BCA more constructive, that yet again elements are fixated on the politics of division. Frankly I don't see much difference between cavers whatever their accent or language, it takes someone to create these artificial differences and set the mob baying for blood.
The only thing I can see "misrepresented" about the summary provided by CSCC of the AGM votes was the use of the word "poll" instead of "consultation", hardly enough reason to start demanding retractons and claiming that the evil south was attempting to hold British caving to ransom.
I am totally done with the whole bunch of schoolkids playing their nasty little games, this includes many present and past members of council who are only interested in advancing their own agendas whatever the cost to British caving.
For what it is worth I have been by and lare very pleasantly surprised by the behaviour of both officers and members of CSCC with regard to resetting the relationship with BCA. The toxicity I have seen has not originated from this quarter, but rather from current and past members of council who are dead set on re-fighting past battles and settling old scores.
I repeat, we ALL have to work towards building bridges rather than creating them if BCA is to survive.
The only thing I can see "misrepresented" about the summary provided by CSCC of the AGM votes was the use of the word "poll" instead of "consultation", hardly enough reason to start demanding retractons and claiming that the evil south was attempting to hold British caving to ransom.
I am totally done with the whole bunch of schoolkids playing their nasty little games, this includes many present and past members of council who are only interested in advancing their own agendas whatever the cost to British caving.
For what it is worth I have been by and lare very pleasantly surprised by the behaviour of both officers and members of CSCC with regard to resetting the relationship with BCA. The toxicity I have seen has not originated from this quarter, but rather from current and past members of council who are dead set on re-fighting past battles and settling old scores.
I repeat, we ALL have to work towards building bridges rather than creating them if BCA is to survive.
I do wish people would stop picking at scabs!
We're propably all equally to blame in one way or another and there are certainly people from the south who have worked long and hard for BCA but who have felt as they they have been "hounded out" by some of the northern cavers. I'm not naming names, but not everyone who left feeling hounded made a song and dance about it afterwards - some just quietly left and deserved better thanks than they got. It is quite possible that some of those whose sniping was responsible for these departures didn't realise that it was their actions that precipitated it - though some of what happened was quite deliberate and focussed.
There is no point in forever going over past mistakes and unpleasantness - just let's get on with working for BCA in the interests of all cavers. We need good volunteers and we need to treat them as if they are valued, wherever in the caving country they come from.
We're propably all equally to blame in one way or another and there are certainly people from the south who have worked long and hard for BCA but who have felt as they they have been "hounded out" by some of the northern cavers. I'm not naming names, but not everyone who left feeling hounded made a song and dance about it afterwards - some just quietly left and deserved better thanks than they got. It is quite possible that some of those whose sniping was responsible for these departures didn't realise that it was their actions that precipitated it - though some of what happened was quite deliberate and focussed.
There is no point in forever going over past mistakes and unpleasantness - just let's get on with working for BCA in the interests of all cavers. We need good volunteers and we need to treat them as if they are valued, wherever in the caving country they come from.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
Stop it everybody, it's embarrassing.
Shapatti
New member
Badlad said:
I can personally think of at least one ex-chairman who firmly points towards one particular individual in the North, though they were not at all alone in this, who's actions and behaviour was a large factor in their resignation.
Though that was never made clear in their resignation due to wanting to distance themselves as quickly as possible for mental health reasons.
I am not and will not be going to name any names though, that is up to the people involved, if they wish to speak up any more on that matter then that is down to them.
2xw said:
I agree with PeteHall's recollection of this, I haven't seen any promotion of one candidate or another from either the Club's I am a member of or through any channels from CSCC.
The only statement I have seen is the same one that Pete quoted previously from Linda Wilson.
I am actually really curious to see what 2XW has seen that I haven't, hopefully means I'm not missing out on emails...
I thought the issues raised here are all relevant to the current AGM vote which is taking place. Debate on any medium should be encouraged, not suppressed - and you shouldn't be embarrassed Andrew.
So a question leading back to the OP. Which of the two candidates for Chairmen will be best placed to overcome the 'raw nerve' issues that are clearly still in play?
So a question leading back to the OP. Which of the two candidates for Chairmen will be best placed to overcome the 'raw nerve' issues that are clearly still in play?
droid
Active member
Any discussion is good but so often on here it just degenerates into 'he said she said' and defensivemess
Let's face it the contributions and views of posts on here represent a miniscule proportion of BCA membership. I'd wager that the vast proportion of members don't give a monkeys because they're only members to get the insurance.
I'll bugger off and take my medication now.
Let's face it the contributions and views of posts on here represent a miniscule proportion of BCA membership. I'd wager that the vast proportion of members don't give a monkeys because they're only members to get the insurance.
I'll bugger off and take my medication now.
I agree Droid. The vast majority of BCA members don't look on here, or other caving media for that matter, but then again nor do they vote. If you are a really exercised caver, one who is likely to vote at a BCA AGM, then i expect you will monitor caving media too. The BCA podcasts and other AGM info is great but that needs to be publicised so people know it exists. I expect the two main sources towards this info was facebook and on here.
Regarding members expressing opinions or places where members of BCA can discuss and be informed about these issues where else do they go?
Regarding members expressing opinions or places where members of BCA can discuss and be informed about these issues where else do they go?
nearlywhite
Active member
I'd like to point out that all of this is under a heading entitled 'Vote Rostam!!!' and it isn't especially helpful - in either helping my chances or in helping implement an agenda should I succeed.
My vision for the BCA is an organisation that co-ordinates and supports the various organisations within British Caving. We have an opportunity to grow and develop, effect positive change etc.
I think what this does emphasise is that stability won't be achieved by harking back to the good old days or not changing anything. We're in a tricky place, covid has made many of us keyboard warriors and genuine discussion and inclusion is harder to generate. I definitely don't have all the answers but I think competent planning of proposals, sticking to the rule book and being as transparent and as up front as possible will take at least some of the heat out of the argument.
My vision for the BCA is an organisation that co-ordinates and supports the various organisations within British Caving. We have an opportunity to grow and develop, effect positive change etc.
I think what this does emphasise is that stability won't be achieved by harking back to the good old days or not changing anything. We're in a tricky place, covid has made many of us keyboard warriors and genuine discussion and inclusion is harder to generate. I definitely don't have all the answers but I think competent planning of proposals, sticking to the rule book and being as transparent and as up front as possible will take at least some of the heat out of the argument.
