Does it really matter what it says in the 'Manual of operations'? It very much sounds like it's an incomplete/work in progress document that very few of the membership are aware of and I doubt that it has been formally accepted at a previous AGM - perhaps someone can clarify this?
Quote from: Madness on May 06, 2019, 07:42:51 amDoes it really matter what it says in the 'Manual of operations'? It very much sounds like it's an incomplete/work in progress document that very few of the membership are aware of and I doubt that it has been formally accepted at a previous AGM - perhaps someone can clarify this?It has. I drafted it (quite a few years ago now), it was debated and improved by Council over the course of the following year and approved by the subsequent AGM.
A standard way of operating is ALWAYS needed, as it means everyone is treated in a similar and open way, when dealing with the BCA.
Rant Addendum:To elaborate, the second house/club vote is designed to prevent a club or other group bussing out its full membership to the AGM unannounced. This would give unfair advantage to the club as they could propose and win every vote, giving significant control over the BCA.
I don't see how replacing one voting system with flaws that can be fixed (i.e. the BCA's poor definition of a club) with another that has structural problems is in any way an improvement. The obvious problem with online voting is that every single BCA member has to trust the one person running the webserver is competent, unbiased and has integrity. Online voting is a black box that someone pulls numbers out of, unlike voting by ballot or by raise of hands there is no easy way to check the results (without going through millions of lines of machine code). Even simple mistakes such could bias the vote.Although the obvious choice for developing and carrying out the vote system has expertise and integrity beyond reproach, his successor may not. This is exactly the reason why the British mountaineering council uses a third party to carryout its voting, even this does not fully address the problems.As it is painfully obvious that trust is limited with regards to the BCA at the moment, i don't see how using a voting system that cannot be verified by members is in anyway an improvement.
flaws that can be fixed (i.e. the BCA's poor definition of a club)
As it is painfully obvious that trust is limited with regards to the BCA at the moment, i don't see how using a voting system that cannot be verified by members is in anyway an improvement.
Main problem is the small numbers voting if it's live voting at an AGMThat means people of certain opinions can find it easier to influence the outcome of votes. Just get a minibus up and job done....
Quote from: Canary on May 07, 2019, 07:18:04 amflaws that can be fixed (i.e. the BCA's poor definition of a club)Altering the definition of a club would not 'fix' the current system. It may make it a bit less bad.
Getting rid of the club voting system does not mean that it becomes one man one vote. It just becomes how many votes can one man buy.