Vote Rostam!!!

[droid]

Seems to me that the problems Matt's alluded to above could be sorted (up to a point) by separating Insurance from membership.

It would reduce the membership of BCA but likely to those that wish to progress caving rather than their own ego.

 

[darren]

Or 2 different classes of membership.

Basic gives you insurance but no other rights and is very cheap.
Normal remains the same as now.

 

[David Rose]

Badlad, people will never agree on everything. Personally, I supported the change of term to chair from chairman. I actually made a little speech at the AGM saying how we really have to take the diversity issue much more seriously: there was only one woman on the zoom call, for example, and we all know how few BAME cavers there are. Maybe some people might have found that "woke", though I saw no sign of this at the meeting.

I'm confident that the vote to change the title will pass. But the critical thing is not to disparage each other, but to respectfully disagree. I hope when I spoke against those who didn't support that change I did so. 

I also agree that the behaviour that led to Pegasus's resignation would not be tolerated by either candidate for chair. 

 

[Pitlamp]

Or 2 different classes of membership.

Basic gives you insurance but no other rights and is very cheap.
Normal remains the same as now.

United we stand; divided, we fall.

 

[Oceanrower]

Or 2 different classes of membership.

Basic gives you insurance but no other rights and is very cheap.
Normal remains the same as now.

Which begs the question, other than insurance and a vote at the AGM (which, whatever class of membership you?d have, I assume would still apply) what other rights would the ?normal? membership give you?

Even the BCA website only mentions access to special caving travel insurance which, I would assume, only a tiny, tiny minority of cavers use.

 

[Pegasus]

I also agree that the behaviour that led to Pegasus's resignation would not be tolerated by either candidate for chair.

Good.

 

[Shapatti]

Or 2 different classes of membership.

Basic gives you insurance but no other rights and is very cheap.
Normal remains the same as now.

I believe there is an issue with offering different classes of membership with the insurance being one of the main differences between them.
It is my understanding that this then places the BCA in an unwanted position of effectively 'selling' insurance which forces it to adhere to rules and regulations as such, not sure if this includes extra liability for BCA in this case?

I'm sure someone more in the know than me can clarify this, though I believe this was the main driving force behind the changes to classes of membership in the last few years?

 

[Cavematt]

Correct; the BCA cannot sell insurance, otherwise it becomes an insurance company with all the regulations that go with that. The BCA can only give insurance as a membership benefit. The fact that a whopping chunk of the membership fee is used to fund that insurance is irrelevant, as long as the insurance is extended to all members as a benefit rather than sold as a standalone product.

 

[Shapatti]

Or 2 different classes of membership.

Basic gives you insurance but no other rights and is very cheap.
Normal remains the same as now.

I've just re-read that and saw that it actually says that both classes get insurance, just that the 1st is Only Insurance and the 2nd is the same as current membership
My apologies for misreading that...

I see we are going off topic again... 

 

[badger]

how off topic it has all got, since Tims original post was his backing for rostam as the new chair. I think people should listen to davids interviews with both candidates then make up their own minds, both have good cases. depends on who you think will best for the BCA moving forward. some will vote for rostam, some will vote for russell.
as they say hoe the best person wins, I will support whoever that may be.

 

[Ian Ball]

Part of the issue here is the novelty at which there is an election for the BCA!

 

[droid]

'It's off topic' 

Somewhere above there's the analogy comparing the forum with a pub. Start saying 'this conversation is off topic' in a pub debate and sex and travel will be mentioned...

Anything that makes people consider the direction of BCA and how it might be improved is ''on topic' as I see it....

 

[menacer]

I

It is quite amazing that just changing the word chairman to chair does not receive universal support.  I expect amongst the younger caver this would seem a supremely obvious thing to do but perhaps amongst the elders it is just 'woke', whatever that means.

I don't know about woke, and I don't know about universal support, or that you find it amazing, it just seemed an irrelevance in my humble opinion.

Is someone really going to be put of from standing for a position based on the ending of a title?
Given the strength of character needed to take on these positions, ( rightly or wrongly) are you really the person for the job of this is so important to you.

With all the issues in the BCA - I found this amendment trivial, almost like a Christmas cracker joke and totally indifferent to the outcome.
I would want to reject it simply in the ground of wasting time.

If a transgender one legged mixed race caver showed up on the caving scene with something good or positive to say, they would get my vote.

Maybe I'm just too old to understand.  :tease:  :ras:

Ps
Maybe to be truly inclusive we should invite non cavers to stand for bca positions too? Any thoughts?

New amendment? Y'know, diversity an all 

 

[ZombieCake]

The only concern I have is that if lots of medical types get elected will there be a sudden increase of people in white coats appearing and carting off people to Arkham Asylum in Warmbac straight jackets following meetings and caving trips?
Not too worried about myself, it's everyone else that's odd. 

 

[mikem]

Unfortunately as far as government are concerned BCA are an irrelevancy - BMC & British Canoeing have 70 to 80,000 members (& they aren't compelled to be)...

 

[JoshW]

Maybe to be truly inclusive we should invite non cavers to stand for bca positions too? Any thoughts?

I personally have no issue with non-cavers standing for BCA positions (although I know historically some people have had - and I partially suspect this is what this comment is aimed at, but I'll bite).

As an officer of the BCA (Youth & Development), I see my job as one to gather and manage a team of volunteers, taking the bureaucracy off their hands so that they are able to get on with the meaningful work. There's absolutely no reason why a non-caver couldn't do this job, if they had the relevant experience elsewhere?

Is someone really going to be put of from standing for a position based on the ending of a title?

I actually think this minor, insignificant change has done a whole load more and highlights at least a partially toxic culture, something that needs to be challenged by all. I've had extensive conversations on here over time, where I highlight the points over and over, and I'm hopeful that this culture is changing over time, but one vocal bad apple can spoil the bunch. For instance stating "I don't believe in political correctness" on a live-streamed AGM, available for all to watch, doesn't do wonders for showing caving as an inclusive place.

 

[JoshW]

And to bring it round full circle. The following bit, is something I picked up from my predecessor, the subject of this thread, and is something that makes me think that he might have the right idea about how to lead the BCA forwards.

As an officer of the BCA (Youth & Development), I see my job as one to gather and manage a team of volunteers, taking the bureaucracy off their hands so that they are able to get on with the meaningful work.

 

[cap n chris]

...doesn't do wonders for showing caving as an inclusive place.

By definition caving is elitist, surely? It requires attributes that many people lack, even assuming they had any interest in it in the first place, and lived nearby the correct geology etc.. Where the actual did the notion of it being "an inclusive place" come from? Long may it contunue to be the case that caving and caves are exclusive places, with sufficient hurdles and challenges involved that only those with a dedicated mindset can raise their game to overcome.

 

[2xw]

...doesn't do wonders for showing caving as an inclusive place.

By definition caving is elitist, surely? It requires attributes that many people lack, even assuming they had any interest in it in the first place, and lived nearby the correct geology etc.. Where the actual did the notion of it being "an inclusive place" come from? Long may it contunue to be the case that caving and caves are exclusive places, with sufficient hurdles and challenges involved that only those with a dedicated mindset can raise their game to overcome.

Are you being disingenuous or are you just thick?

There are many qualities that make a great caver and not having those qualities will exclude you naturally. This are qualities that can be developed (or surely your job would be useless wouldn't it?). None of these qualities are intrinsic or unmalleable.

There are human qualities irrelevant to caving. There is no cave that requires you to be white, or a man, or the correct age.

 

[NewStuff]

Long may it contunue to be the case that caving and caves are exclusive places, with sufficient hurdles and challenges involved that only those with a dedicated mindset can raise their game to overcome.

That's a slippery slope. How long before it devolves into, as it used to be in some places, "you can only come if you're in our club/my mate/a mason/know this handshake".

Aside from physical issues, most of which a club or caving organisation can do little about, then anyone who has an interest should be helped and encouraged as practical.