Author Topic: bca meeting 25/3 /2017  (Read 30344 times)

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« on: March 26, 2017, 06:21:46 pm »
Anyone got any news on the meeting please

Offline Les W

  • Hard cavin'
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5229
  • Wessex Cave Club, UCET
    • Wessex Cave Club
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2017, 06:46:26 pm »
Still recovering, you'll have to wait...  :tease:
I'm a very busy person

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1330
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2017, 09:35:19 pm »
It went on for over eight hours.  I doubt anyone enjoyed the day and it wasn't BCA's finest hour. It didn't help that the sun was shining outside.  The main issues of contention surrounded the training scheme outsourcing, web service problems, and, of course, the constitutional changes needed to allow a CRoW campaign to continue.

I couldn't possibly summarise the whole meeting but if you say which part you are interested in I'll give you my perspective on it if I have time.

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2017, 10:40:54 pm »
When I put the thread up it was to find out how the constitutional change for the crow campaign went,not long got off the phone with a friend who attended the meeting so I know how the rest of it went but I would appreciate your input on how You felt the crow situation went.
Cheers 🍻

Offline badger

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
  • WSCC. WCC
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2017, 10:57:41 pm »
two steps forward one step back, or is that one step forward and two back, not sure needed a bottle of red to drown out the day

Offline ZombieCake

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 458
  • Dun cavin'
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2017, 11:18:54 pm »
Is this how it went? esp 2min 47 sec? 

Offline Brains

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2017, 09:27:25 am »
I would be interested to hear what the outcome was regarding the constitution and access issue - just the bottom line rather than a blow by blow account

Offline Alex

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3540
  • BRCC, UWFRA.
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2017, 12:37:02 pm »
8 hours! On a sunny weekend like the one we just had. Talk about perseverance. This is why I will never EVER join a committee. Life is just too short! Surely there must be a better way to do things, maybe start whipping people if they talk longer than 5 minutes?
Anything I say is represents my own opinion and not that of a any club/organisation that I am a member of (unless its good of course)

Offline crickleymal

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 804
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2017, 05:02:51 pm »
Hmmmm. That seems like a very good idea.
Malc
Rusted and ropy, dog-eared old copy.
Vintage and classic or just plain Jurassic:
all words to describe me.

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1330
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2017, 05:26:37 pm »
8 hours! On a sunny weekend like the one we just had. Talk about perseverance. This is why I will never EVER join a committee. Life is just too short! Surely there must be a better way to do things, maybe start whipping people if they talk longer than 5 minutes?

Sadly it is even worse than you suggest as many of us drive for over five hours as well.  The BCA needs serious reform in many respects including the fundamental structure behind meetings.  For my part I would rather have been caving with friends on Leck Fell but I wanted to stand up for the mandate given to the BCA by its members to run a campaign for the freedoms of access that the CRoW Act allows.

I'll reply to Cavemanmike shortly. 

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1330
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2017, 05:53:11 pm »
Background;

Following a poll of its members in 2014, the BCA began a campaign for the CRoW Act to apply to caving as per the mandate the poll had given them (62% in favour).

The campaign ran unimpeded for around a year and was fully supported by BCA council.  Throughout that time, pressures were brought on BCA suggesting the campaign was unconstitutional because of a sentence in the constitution which states, “That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access”.  This was discussed at length in council and rejected as the law of the land takes precedence over the constitution and therefore there was no impediment in pursuing a campaign to change DEFRA’s interpretation of the law as by their own admission there view is not definitive.

However, pressure came to a head at the BCA AGM held on Mendip last June and resulted in the following motion being passed;

“Proposal: To remit the issue of section 4.6 of the Constitution to Council for consideration to return with a properly worded proposal presented at the next General Meeting. Meanwhile BCA will concentrate on conservation and landowner relations. “

At the BCA council meeting in October last year the matter was not even on the agenda and not discussed.  Later, assurances were received that the matter was in hand and the executive’s proposals would be delivered to the January council meeting.  At that meeting the wrong set of proposals (an early version) was sent out by mistake and so no discussion could take place.  A week later the correct proposals appeared by email circulation. 

The BCA legal officer and others re-acted that the executive had not understood the problem.  A detailed analysis was then produced by him which demonstrated that the new proposed amendment to the constitution could still be used to disrupt a CRoW campaign or future positions BCA may take on behalf of its members.  In fact the analysis suggested that it was worse than the existing.
Due to the late action, time was now very short for properly tabled proposals and the necessary time needed for caving groups (the regions, clubs, etc) to discuss them.  I therefore offered a simple solution which stated; “This motion proposes that the first sentence of section 4.6 of the constitution be removed”.  Shortly after Bob Mehew also correctly tabled two further motions.

The meeting on Saturday

The key item on the agenda that you ask about was item 7, described as “constitutional amendments (proposals) – (to be circulated)”.  A four page document, put together by the exec was handed round at the meeting.   This included the amendments related to 4,6 and the CRoW campaign and a series of six further amendments to go through at the same time such as proposals on proxy voting, postal ballets etc.  (Estimates for the cost of this postal ballet varies between £3000 and £10000 BTW)

As indicated by the photograph, motion (c), properly proposed by me, had been re-interpreted by the author unlike any of the other proposals in the four page document.  I certainly didn’t feel therefore that my proposal was being given fair representation.



The question was then asked which of these proposals was being put forward by council as per the motion from the AGM.  The exec seemed unprepared for this and suggested that they favoured motion (b).  There was an attempt to vote this through as the council favoured motion, but this didn’t get to a vote as it was pointed out that there were other motions to consider.  In the end, an informal show of hands for each of the three motions showed that more supported motion (c) than each of the others.   Therefore it was decided that council couldn’t agree and all three motions would go forward to the AGM.

Anyone still awake?   So the next question was how were three different motions for the same thing going to be handled at the AGM especially as one would contradict another.  The chair suggested that he would take a vote at the AGM on which motion would go forward to formal vote but it was not made clear what would happen.

At one point I overheard a private conversation which suggested that if motion (c) received support at the AGM, the first sentence could be removed and then another motion taken which could then replace it.  I did not feel that this was within the spirit of the process.  I know that a number of groups, such as the Derbyshire Caving Association and the Council of Northern Caving Clubs have discussed all the motions presented to them and have either unanimously or overwhelmingly supported the motion to remove that sentence and not replace it with another.

Therefore, when I returned home at 9.30 and still within the midnight deadline for motions to be proposed I tabled the following extra motion to the BCA secretary which was acknowledged and accepted.

“This motion proposes that the first sentence of Section 4.6 of the BCA constitution be removed. (For clarity this means that the sentence should be removed and not replaced by a similar sentence such as (a) or (b) of Proposal 1 as presented to the BCA council meeting on 25th March 2017.  In fact, if this motion is supported then no further amendments should be made to section 4.6 of the BCA constitution at this General Meeting)”

I realise after all this I haven’t answered the question posed above.  Look, it doesn’t reflect well on the organisation but volunteers put a lot of time into BCA and you’ve got to respect them for that.  My only complaint is that there is not enough positivity or progress and there are too many people battling to keep things how they were 30-40 years ago.

« Last Edit: July 24, 2017, 11:24:55 pm by Badlad »

Offline Ian Adams

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • UCET
    • UCET Caving Club (North Wales)
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2017, 06:02:48 pm »
Thank you for the detailed report Tim.

Is this a case of the minority frustrating the will of the majority?

(I know it's an old chestnut, just trying to be succinct)

Ian
A door, once opened, may be stepped through in either direction.

Offline nickwilliams

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1391
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #12 on: March 27, 2017, 06:45:03 pm »

Is this a case of the minority frustrating the will of the majority?


No, it's not. The bottom line is that there will be a range of motions to vote on at the AGM, including the one proposed by Tim, and so a decision will be made. What that decision is will depend on what happens on the day, and possibly on the subsequent ballot of BCA members, but nothing now can stop those motions being tabled for discussion.
"Economics is simply the branch of sociology that deals with people trading items and the fact that they use more numbers does not make it anymore of a science."

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #13 on: March 27, 2017, 06:52:07 pm »
Sorry to say this but it sounds like it's been kicked into the long grass (again)
How frustrating for Tim who has worked so hard on trying to give the Membership what it voted for.
Thanks tim :thumbsup:

Offline nickwilliams

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1391
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #14 on: March 27, 2017, 07:06:54 pm »
How is ensuring that the required consitutional changes will be discussed at the AGM 'kicking it into the long grass'?
"Economics is simply the branch of sociology that deals with people trading items and the fact that they use more numbers does not make it anymore of a science."

Offline Speleotron

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • YUCPC, ULSA
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2017, 07:07:28 pm »
So what's happened on the CRoW thing since 2014? Has it all been about this bit of the consitution or did we start procedings to get caving covered under CRoW? Not having a go just wondering.
In search of taverns measureless to man

Offline Mike Hopley

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 385
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #16 on: March 27, 2017, 07:39:39 pm »
Tim, you (and others) have the patience of a saint.

I have huge respect for people who get involved in this way and try to make things better. I couldn't do it myself. A five hour drive for an eight hour committee meeting? I don't know how you do it, but thank you.

Offline Aubrey

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
  • Wessex, SWETCCC
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #17 on: March 27, 2017, 08:12:04 pm »
What else was discussed?
Surely the Crow stuff did not take the whole 8 hours.
make more cave - we have the technology!

Offline nickwilliams

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1391
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #18 on: March 27, 2017, 08:16:13 pm »
"Economics is simply the branch of sociology that deals with people trading items and the fact that they use more numbers does not make it anymore of a science."

Offline Simon Wilson

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1561
    • IC Resin Anchor
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #19 on: March 27, 2017, 08:33:47 pm »
Full agenda here: http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php

Is it also possible to see the officers' reports?

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #20 on: March 27, 2017, 09:15:36 pm »
How is ensuring that the required consitutional changes will be discussed at the AGM 'kicking it into the long grass'?

If you read tims review properly you will see his amendment had been edited  unlike anyone else's.
Hardly fair if you ask me

Offline Speleotron

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
  • YUCPC, ULSA
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #21 on: March 27, 2017, 09:35:22 pm »
How is ensuring that the required consitutional changes will be discussed at the AGM 'kicking it into the long grass'?

If you read tims review properly you will see his amendment had been edited  unlike anyone else's.
Hardly fair if you ask me

And it's taken 3 years  :-[
In search of taverns measureless to man

Offline Ian Adams

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1153
  • UCET
    • UCET Caving Club (North Wales)
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #22 on: March 27, 2017, 11:46:01 pm »
It is quite patent that the 62% of BCA members who voted “in favour” when asked to do so in the ballot have been shafted.

The sole purpose of that ballot was to establish member’s views and to act upon them.

The members voted. There was a result.

Some people didn’t like the outcome and did what they could to frustrate the process at the expense of the majority and especially at the expense of a small number of people who worked hard and tirelessly to fulfil the desires of the majority.

I am quite certain we have all experienced situations where we didn’t get what we wanted. I am equally certain that when we lost democratically to others, we didn’t fire proverbial mortar bombs or behave like idiotic children (recent political events excepted).

Regardless of the intentions of the BCA committee, the matter is now a total shambles and the issue has become obfuscated with technicalities and (to be blunt) crap.

I know some very respectable members of the BCA who voted against the motion acquiesced and agreed to get behind the majority (which is honourable). However, a small number who had persistently sought to de-rail the process are not only now making themselves into a re-incarnation of the devil, they are bringing disrepute upon their fellow colleagues of the BCA. They are also disrespecting the view of the majority.

It is not just shameful, it is an utter disgrace.

The BCA committee should get off the fence, stop hiding behind technicalities, stop pandering to the bitching minority minority (yes, the minority of the minority) and they should stop lurking in the shadows. Grow a backbone and do what the members mandated you to do.

Stop f*cking about.

As for Tim and those other few that have worked hard to progress caving (as per the mandated vote) I would take heart in knowing the majority are with you. Keep pushing forward and ignore the BCA committee and the technicalities. You have a mandate provided by the majority – use it. If the committee seek to discharge your position then they risk the wrath of the majority. In fact, they would risk the relevance and existence of the BCA itself.

Unless, of course, I have mis-understood the definition of democracy?

Ian
« Last Edit: March 28, 2017, 12:08:49 am by Ian Adams »
A door, once opened, may be stepped through in either direction.

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #23 on: March 28, 2017, 08:07:20 am »
 :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

Offline Brains

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #24 on: March 28, 2017, 09:18:18 am »
Well said, extract the digit...