Application for BCA Secretary

[badger]

cost by train £85.00
for me about the same for fuel

[ali_mac]

[...]all depends if you feel the need to get involved or your happy with the way things are.

cost by train £85.00
for me about the same for fuel

Don't want to spend the best part of £100 to vote?
Don't want to spend 10 hours driving?
Obviously I don't give a shit.   



Quite clearly I would like to get involved, and quite clearly I am not happy with the way that things are.
It's just that I don't have a spare £85 (optimistic for my 25+year old car) and the idea of spending over 5 hours driving each way doesn't exactly fill me with excitement.

If only there was a way I could participate remotely.... perhaps some kind of device to allow secure communication with those geographically far away...


I really don't understand why an organisation people pay to belong to, would be reluctant to make engagement easier.

[GarDouth]

At least it's in a caving area so you can also have a day underground. Maybe this will make the drive a bit more worth it

[NewStuff]

At least it's in a caving area so you can also have a day underground. Maybe this will make the drive a bit more worth it

Or maybe, as a lot of people want, the BCA can move into the current era and remove the archaic need for people to spend £££'s and a couple of day's to be physically present.

To some people out there, £100 is a lot of money. Using a couple of days holiday (not everyone works 9-5 weekdays) may be out of the question. It doesn't mean they don't care, or want to get involved, it means they're priced out of being involved.

[alastairgott]

From the ICO website, it suggests you can send out information to members (even without express consent), "such as changes to terms and conditons" so an email with the information that people need for the AGM can be sent out to all members you have an email address for.
 Within that email (probably at the top) you could have an opt in box for the newsletter. you might get a good uptake.

This will not constitute direct marketing. but as we do want to advertise things like hidden earth in the newsletter, then the newsletters themselves probably do constitute "direct marketing".

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-pecr/?template=pdf&patch=10#directmarketing

I work round the corner (3mins walk) from the head office of the ICO. So if you want me to pop by for advise and post it here i'm more than able to. https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/who-we-are/

[Cookie]

Hi Alastair,

Yes that approach is similar to the one I mentioned above and is my preferred way forward.

Thank you for your offer. The ICO thoughts on whether our Newsletter constitutes direct marketing would be useful. The term direct marketing is poorly defined. Show them some example back issues.

[Madness]

Using Alistair's example. Surely telling members of an event such as Hidden Earth is not direct marketing, it's merely informing the membership of an upcoming event. Even suggesting places to buy caving gear would just be passing on useful advice

Do we really need yet another sub-committee to hum and haw over this? Can the committee not take responsibility for making the decision rather the palming it off to somebody else?

If the BCA were a business it would have ceased trading long ago because no-one seems capable of making any decisions.

Ali-Mac - If no-one from your club can attend then I'd be happy to vote on your behalf, with an official letter of authority obviously.

[alastairgott]

I'll pop in and ask them how much notice they need me to give to "be seen". 

[Badlad]

I had some dealings with the Information Commissioner last year.  I found them to be very reasonable in the way they applied the regs.  The regs are there to protect individuals and prevent misuse of their data.  I am sure they would not consider a caving organisation sending out a newsletter about caving to its members an illegal act.

BCA can just go ahead and send out its newsletter as council has directed (twice). We heard from many council members on Saturday how everyone from parish councils to the BMC send out newsletter type information as standard to its members always with the ability to unsubscribe.

If someone feels so strongly about receiving it then they can put in a complaint to the IC.  The IC would contact BCA to hear their views, consider the matter carefully and then they would issue a decision and advice on the correct way forward. 

BCA council has made itself clear (twice).  If the officer charged with implementing council decisions is unwilling or unable to carry them out then they should reconsider their position at BCA.

[Jenny P]

That last remark seems rather unnecessary sniping!

The problem seems to be that, whilst Council has indeed voted to send the Newsletter to all individual members for whom we have email addresses, there appear to be a number of people (both council members and others), who seem to be uncertain whether this is legally OK under the most recent data protection acts.  I happen to think it probably is OK; however, I am not a legal expert and Council cannot "instruct" one of its officers to do something illegal.

In this context Alastair's offer to check with ICO directly by taking examples of the Newsletter to show them and seeking their advice is extremely helpful.  Once we have clear advice, one way or the other, then it may be possible to go ahead with what Council wants to be able to do.

If it turns out that this is acceptable legally then, provided we ensure that there is the option to "unsubscribe" for those who really do not want to receive the Newsletter, then we may be able to go ahead.  As Cookie said yesterday:
The other option is to exercise BCA's rights under the soft opt-in. That allows, as part of the joining/renewal process, BCA to send an email to ask the question. That's is my preferred option but requires an upgrade to BCA Online to make the process manageable.

He also said:
At my initiation, Council did agree at this meeting to form a sub-committee to be responsible for the ongoing data protection issues. I suggest that that sub-committee look at this again.

It may also be worth noting that my own club sent out its latest subscription reminders with the following note included:
NB, Email addresses:
BCA would like to use your Email address to contact you for specific purposes such as Constitutional changes or Ballots. It guarantees not to supply addresses to other persons/companies or to use them for advertising.
If you object to BCA using your Email at all please inform ----- by email before the end of 2018.

So you see, some clubs are trying to be helpful.

[Jopo]

For clarification. Is there any difference between, for example, caving clubs, Cambrian Caving Council, BMC, CNCC newsletters being sent to members and a BCA newsletter being sent to members?

If the BCA emailed every member it has email addresses for asking if they DID NOT WANT a BCA newsletter sent direct then the ball could get rolling, I would guess a very, very small % would decline.

Jopo

[ali_mac]

I do feel that most here are missing the point of GDPR.

I struggle to think of a reason why there isn't a Legitimate Interest for sending a newsletter to paid up club members...
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/legitimate-interests/

I'm certain that it has already been done, but may I suggest that someone more involved with the BCA takes the time to look at this:
https://www.sportandrecreation.org.uk/pages/gdpr-clubs

It is the resource pushed by the BMC, to aid smaller clubs - https://www.thebmc.co.uk/gdpr-mountaineering-clubs

This guidance has been written for the committee of a mountaineering, walking or climbing club to use while reviewing the way that their club processes data within their club to ensure compliance with GDPR.  It is based on information available at the time of writing.  There are several topics where the Information Commissioners Office still has to provide full guidance, therefore additional information may be made available to clubs in the future.

Madness,
Thank you for your offer.
I will try and put this to the club I'm in, and PM you once I have a result.

Ali-Mac - If no-one from your club can attend then I'd be happy to vote on your behalf, with an official letter of authority obviously.

[Madness]

If sending out the newsletter did turn out to be 'a bit naughty' (and I'm of the firm belief that it isn't) and someone did take exception (someone will, just to be an arse). Then I suspect the BCA would be sent to the naughty step and told not to do it again.

Come on BCA Council, get real and grow a pair!

[andrewmc]

Come on BCA Council, get real and grow a pair!

I think that it exactly what happened (sensibly or otherwise)?

[kat]

Been away from this for a week or so so bit a catch up. 

I do find it concerning to see a suggestion that having, and providing, an e-mail address to the BCA should be a requirement of membership.  Membership should be open to all irrespective of whether or not they wish to use or provide an e-mail address.  Plus for as long as someone has to be a BCA member if they wish to be a member of a BCA Club this again seems a very undemocratic requirement.  What does the Club do if someone doesn't have an email address - throw them out?     

My Club still has a small number of such members.  We continue to aim to respect them and engage them with the Club as best we can - and yes they get Club newsletters by post.

There has to be a better way for the BCA to deal with the issue and enable communication with those members. Even if its simply advising them (via the Club route if appropriate) that without an email address they won't receive direct communications.

That debate however is different to the voting aspect. Here you can offer online voting or attendance in person - or if deemed necessary voting in proxy as well (which may be seen as less of an issue if on-line voting is introduced at the same time).  This should cover those without email.     

Several posts ago Jenny asked about whether non-Club Group Members should retain a vote. (I have no idea how to post a quote).
 
I would suggest yes.  Otherwise where in the BCA is the voice of cave rescue, cave research etc. Certainly any thought of removal of such a vote should be considered in the wider context of the objects and roles of the BCA and not removed merely because the 2 House system is thought of as a little bit complicated or difficult to manage with on-line voting.

[NewStuff]

My Club still has a small number of such members. 

So, for the sake of these few, the rest of the BCA has to physically turn up. If it's at the other end of the country, you can't get time off work, can't spend on a ticket or fuel to get where ever, hell, even a late train,will mean you can't vote. It doesn't take a massively left progressive to see that looking after the few at the expense of the majority is the undemocratic thing to do, no matter how nice they are, or what they contribute.

We continue to aim to respect them and engage them with the Club as best we can

Then help them get an email address, show them how to use it, or do the clicking for for them. It'll help with many other things in this day and age besides BCA stuff.

[Peregrina]

My Club still has a small number of such members. 

So, for the sake of these few, the rest of the BCA has to physically turn up. If it's at the other end of the country, you can't get time off work, can't spend on a ticket or fuel to get where ever, hell, even a late train,will mean you can't vote. It doesn't take a massively left progressive to see that looking after the few at the expense of the majority is the undemocratic thing to do, no matter how nice they are, or what they contribute.

kat is clearly saying they don't want to see an email address being required for BCA membership, not that they are against online voting.

That debate however is different to the voting aspect. Here you can offer online voting or attendance in person [...] This should cover those without email.

[Ed]

Bit of a sticky wicket for the BCA asking third parties to send its newsletter to its  members . As BCA members rather than club members that is

Does the BCA have an appropriate data sharing memorandum with said third parties and do said third parties have approval from their members to use their data on behalf of another organisation? Or is there a valid reason that for would stand up in a court of law.

It's hard enough sorting legitimate data sharing between Local government and police for regulatory enforcement......

[Ed]

Double posted

[ali_mac]

It's hard enough sorting legitimate data sharing between Local government and police for regulatory enforcement......

Which presumably includes actual, you know, personal data... Stuff like names, date of birth, identifying features, allegations of criminality, and so bears no relationship or relevance to a caving club newsletter...
Some top mental gymnastics going on here.
If half of you you applied the same caution to caving, none of you would leave your houses without a safety horse...

[Ed]

Ali_mac

My point was that BCA should be sending information to their members  directly not using third parties.

Caving clubs get the 'personal data' of folk as their members and BCA as members of separate organization......yes it muddied as one sometimes requires membership of the other.

My final paragraph was just to highlight what a mine field it is even between organisations that are supposed to be sharing it.....Does make work more difficult.

I can see a design fault in your safety horse....no wheel arches.....unguarded wheels are dangerous 

[mch]

There has to be a better way for the BCA to deal with the issue and enable communication with those members. Even if its simply advising them (via the Club route if appropriate) that without an email address they won't receive direct communications.

To take Kat's point to its logical next step, why should the BCA not bring in online voting and those members who do not have or will not provide an email address simply don't get to vote? This may (or may not) be an incentive to individuals to resolve the issue.

[BradW]

Its not their problem to solve. You are asking / forcing people to solve a BCA problem as they are not able to find a solution themselves.

[Jenny P]

My preferred option would be to have electronic voting where this is possible, i.e. where a member has an email address, but to arrange for a postal vote to those who do not have an email address. 

As Kat has said, there are members of clubs who, for a perfectly valid reason, do not have an email address and their club accommodates this by arranging postal communication between the club and such members.  I would like to see BCA take the same route.

I absolutely agree with Ed: that as far as possible BCA should be sending information to their members directly not using third parties.  With the caveat that it may not always be possible; thinking that postal votes are one thing and might be considered a legitimate expense, whereas posting a printed Newsletter 3 or 4 times a year might be considered too much.

I also agree with Kat on the subject of non-club group votes.  I don't see why including such votes necessarily means you cannot have electronic voting - such groups could be given an electronic vote if need be.  As Kat says:
Otherwise where in the BCA is the voice of cave rescue, cave research etc. Certainly any thought of removal of such a vote should be considered in the wider context of the objects and roles of the BCA and not removed merely because the 2 House system is thought of as a little bit complicated or difficult to manage with on-line voting.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that none of this is absolutely black and white, there are shades and compromises which need to be arrived at through considered discussion.

[Madness]

Its not their problem to solve. You are asking / forcing people to solve a BCA problem as they are not able to find a solution themselves.

So the BCA will be laying on a fleet of coaches to take us all to Horton in Ribblesdale so that we can vote at the AGM then?