Apparently there's a vote...
- Thread starter Pegasus
- Start date
PeteHall
Moderator
I think I had the email yesterday.
The podcast and recording of the AGM were very helpful in deciding which way to vote in certain cases as I was unable to join the meeting live.
It really does seem like a positive step to get things like this online where more people can participate. Well done and thanks to all those who have made this possible
The podcast and recording of the AGM were very helpful in deciding which way to vote in certain cases as I was unable to join the meeting live.
It really does seem like a positive step to get things like this online where more people can participate. Well done and thanks to all those who have made this possible
Please everyone vote for all ten proposals. They are all about modernising the constitution and only an interim step to what is likely to be proposed in the future. If members don't want to accept these proposals then how will they accept the more radical changes to the constitution planned for the future.
If you are not already aware these proposals were drafted after thoughtful consideration by the previous secretary, Matt Ewles. Unfortunately Matt resigned and his proposals went with him. I put them forward, with his permission, to carry on the modernising agenda he was elected for.
BCA id heading in the right direction. Please give them a boost.
If you are not already aware these proposals were drafted after thoughtful consideration by the previous secretary, Matt Ewles. Unfortunately Matt resigned and his proposals went with him. I put them forward, with his permission, to carry on the modernising agenda he was elected for.
BCA id heading in the right direction. Please give them a boost.
PeteHall
Moderator
I'm afraid I abstained on a couple Badlad. While I fully support modernising the BCA, some of the more technical points are beyond my understanding of the workings of the organisation, so better to leave these decisions with those who understand.
I was also unsure of the intra-relationship between proposals 9 and 10 so voted to support one and abstained on the other... :doubt:
I was also unsure of the intra-relationship between proposals 9 and 10 so voted to support one and abstained on the other... :doubt:
Cavematt
Well-known member
All individual members (CIMs and DIMs) should have received their ballot by email (I think) but if you haven't then you need to email:
returning-officer@british-caving.org.uk
I think the closing date is end of month so better get a wiggle on, as I suspect the Returning Officer is going to be busy!
I believe the decision has been made not to post any ballots out by snail mail except by specific request. Therefore, if you are one of the 2000 ish members (about 1/3rd of the BCA's entire voting membership) who hasn't given the BCA your email address then you won't be receiving a ballot whatsoever. Don't assume your club has passed on your email address. If you received a postal ballot last November, you are likely to be one of these people. I remember last year when I suggested doing away with postal votes completely, I was almost hung, drawn and quartered. What a difference a year makes
Hats off to the new BCA IT team for pulling this together. The voting was once again nice and simple and clear.
As the original author of Badlad's proposals (and the BCA Secretary at the time they were written) I am happy to answer any questions about them (just post here or PM me). Many things have changed in the BCA since they were written, but I believe all of the proposals are still relevant and worthwhile.
Remember, changes to the constitution need 70% of votes to be in favour, so there is a high bar to pass.
returning-officer@british-caving.org.uk
I think the closing date is end of month so better get a wiggle on, as I suspect the Returning Officer is going to be busy!
I believe the decision has been made not to post any ballots out by snail mail except by specific request. Therefore, if you are one of the 2000 ish members (about 1/3rd of the BCA's entire voting membership) who hasn't given the BCA your email address then you won't be receiving a ballot whatsoever. Don't assume your club has passed on your email address. If you received a postal ballot last November, you are likely to be one of these people. I remember last year when I suggested doing away with postal votes completely, I was almost hung, drawn and quartered. What a difference a year makes
Hats off to the new BCA IT team for pulling this together. The voting was once again nice and simple and clear.
As the original author of Badlad's proposals (and the BCA Secretary at the time they were written) I am happy to answer any questions about them (just post here or PM me). Many things have changed in the BCA since they were written, but I believe all of the proposals are still relevant and worthwhile.
Remember, changes to the constitution need 70% of votes to be in favour, so there is a high bar to pass.
ZombieCake
Well-known member
I received an email with a unique code and so voted and all seemed to go OK.
nearlywhite
Active member
Stuart Anderson said:
The rest were pulled by the various authors (myself included) prior to the vote in an effort to make the agm smoother as we've never had an eAGM.
Judi Durber
Member
The whole AGM & podcast + relevant clips are all available on the BCA page here if you scroll down.
https://british-caving.org.uk/voting-following-the-agm/
https://british-caving.org.uk/voting-following-the-agm/
You should also note that other proposals re. the BCA Constitution and Manual of Operations (aka MoO) had been put forward for the BCA AGM for the date it was to have been held in June 2020. BCA Council accepted on 15th. Sept. 2020 a proposal to set up a Constitution and Operations Working Group, headed by the current BCA Chair, to look at the Constitution and MoO during the coming year. (The Terms of Reference of this Working Group are the Appendix to the Minutes of the 15th. Sept. Council Meeting, which should now be on the BCA website.) The Working Group intends to bring to BCA Council during the year its recommendations for changes to ensure that the necessary updates and clarifications are fully discussed, amended if this is thought appropriate, and agreed by Council before being put to the AGM in 2021 as a complete and coherent package.
With this in mind, the other proposals relating to the Constitution had been withdrawn prior to the AGM and were therefore not discussed at all, though they were on the Agenda paper circulated prior to the meeting. Badlad decided that he would still put forward the proposals originally drafted by Matt and, although these were discussed at some length during the meeting, no amendments could be accepted.
With this in mind, the other proposals relating to the Constitution had been withdrawn prior to the AGM and were therefore not discussed at all, though they were on the Agenda paper circulated prior to the meeting. Badlad decided that he would still put forward the proposals originally drafted by Matt and, although these were discussed at some length during the meeting, no amendments could be accepted.
Cavematt
Well-known member
I can understand Badlad putting the constitutional amendments forward regardless of the working group that has been set up to look at the constitution.
Three years ago (I think) the BCA set up a Vision and Reform working group, intended to provide a future vision and direction for BCA. All eyes were on this working group to drive change in the BCA to meet the expectations of members now and in the future. In fact, I think this Working Group came under pressure to be the ?saviour? of the BCA. Even during my short time in the BCA, whenever someone suggested something modernising, there was always some pushback to delay this until the Vision Group had reported their recommendations. In the end, there were times when the Vision Group was being used as a reason to delay modernisation, which was never the intention and I know caused great frustration.
Unfortunately, lack of participation has prevented this working group delivering, despite some heroic efforts from a very enthusiastic convenor. It is an issue that has thwarted the BCA since the very start and which will always thwart organisations based entirely on volunteers.
That?s not to say all working groups are like that (the Radon working group have made excellent progress lately, and the IT Working Group have done a top job on bringing this ballot to fruition, to name a few of the BCA?s successful working groups). Furthermore, with MadPhil at the helm of this new working group, and his professionalism and enthusiasm, I suspect this will end up being an example of BCA working group operating at its finest.
Nonetheless, I can understand skepticism from anyone who has been involved in the BCA for a while when they are assured a working group is going to look at something.
If the changes put forward in this ballot are accepted and the new constitution working group delivers and rewrites the constitution in a year or two, then there has been nothing lost by some interim changes now. If the current changes are accepted and the working group don?t deliver for whatever reason, then at least there has been some reform of the constitution while we have been waiting.
Therefore, I don?t think the fact that a working group is looking at the constitution should be considered a reason not to vote on the current ?here and now? proposals.
Three years ago (I think) the BCA set up a Vision and Reform working group, intended to provide a future vision and direction for BCA. All eyes were on this working group to drive change in the BCA to meet the expectations of members now and in the future. In fact, I think this Working Group came under pressure to be the ?saviour? of the BCA. Even during my short time in the BCA, whenever someone suggested something modernising, there was always some pushback to delay this until the Vision Group had reported their recommendations. In the end, there were times when the Vision Group was being used as a reason to delay modernisation, which was never the intention and I know caused great frustration.
Unfortunately, lack of participation has prevented this working group delivering, despite some heroic efforts from a very enthusiastic convenor. It is an issue that has thwarted the BCA since the very start and which will always thwart organisations based entirely on volunteers.
That?s not to say all working groups are like that (the Radon working group have made excellent progress lately, and the IT Working Group have done a top job on bringing this ballot to fruition, to name a few of the BCA?s successful working groups). Furthermore, with MadPhil at the helm of this new working group, and his professionalism and enthusiasm, I suspect this will end up being an example of BCA working group operating at its finest.
Nonetheless, I can understand skepticism from anyone who has been involved in the BCA for a while when they are assured a working group is going to look at something.
If the changes put forward in this ballot are accepted and the new constitution working group delivers and rewrites the constitution in a year or two, then there has been nothing lost by some interim changes now. If the current changes are accepted and the working group don?t deliver for whatever reason, then at least there has been some reform of the constitution while we have been waiting.
Therefore, I don?t think the fact that a working group is looking at the constitution should be considered a reason not to vote on the current ?here and now? proposals.
I agree Matt, it's a fair point.
The "Vision" working group has turned out to be really disappointing in its lack of progress but I can see that trying to reconcile the various different "visions"of how BCA should work would be like herding cats!
I rather hope that the working group now set up won't be dealing in "visions" but rather in the practicalities of a simplified working constitution and MoO which will allow BCA to get things done in an orderly fashion, which is what we really need at present. Once we've got that sorted, we will probably have a clearer idea of what sort of "vision" BCA might want to head towards.
The "Vision" working group has turned out to be really disappointing in its lack of progress but I can see that trying to reconcile the various different "visions"of how BCA should work would be like herding cats!
I rather hope that the working group now set up won't be dealing in "visions" but rather in the practicalities of a simplified working constitution and MoO which will allow BCA to get things done in an orderly fashion, which is what we really need at present. Once we've got that sorted, we will probably have a clearer idea of what sort of "vision" BCA might want to head towards.
I echo Matt's thoughts here. The 'Vision' group is properly the 'vision and constitutional reform group', put together following the 2018 AGM. Hellie as convener did her best but was thwarted by a lack of support. The group never even got around to working on constitutional change.
So we are led to believe that the new group is going to propose radical reform of the BCA constitution and manual or operations, find a consensus approach across the bodies and fully discuss and engage with council who will approve it and put it forward to the AGM next summer. That seems an awfully optimistic time frame.
I refer you to the recent podcast on the current proposals. Mostly Rostam, Andrew, Josh and Phil found some sort of fault with them all. Even though these were the product of very careful consideration by the previous secretary. Whatever the new group proposes there is bound to be the same sort of fault finding amongst those who look for it. As a previous long standing chairman told a recent council meeting, "every time I suggested reforming the constitution i got twenty different answers on how it should be changed".
There is reasonable intermediate modernisation on the table so why not support it. Kicking the can down the road to some future nirvana just maintains the status quo - and we all know that is not very desirable.
So we are led to believe that the new group is going to propose radical reform of the BCA constitution and manual or operations, find a consensus approach across the bodies and fully discuss and engage with council who will approve it and put it forward to the AGM next summer. That seems an awfully optimistic time frame.
I refer you to the recent podcast on the current proposals. Mostly Rostam, Andrew, Josh and Phil found some sort of fault with them all. Even though these were the product of very careful consideration by the previous secretary. Whatever the new group proposes there is bound to be the same sort of fault finding amongst those who look for it. As a previous long standing chairman told a recent council meeting, "every time I suggested reforming the constitution i got twenty different answers on how it should be changed".
There is reasonable intermediate modernisation on the table so why not support it. Kicking the can down the road to some future nirvana just maintains the status quo - and we all know that is not very desirable.
The difference is that the current Constitution and Operations Working Group has set a definite timetable and also set out the way it intends to reach its goal by the 2021 AGM. This is made clear by its Terms of Reference and it is expected to report to Council quarterly - so there shouldn't be any delays or kicking the can down the road. It also has Phil Rowsell as Chair determined to drive it forward.
The "Vision and Constitutional reform group" previously set up doesn't seem to have had a definite timetable and it didn't report regularly to Council as it should have done, so it clearly wasn't working and Council should have spotted this and done something about it sooner rather than let it drift on.
You need to accept that you will never be able to create a Constitution which everyone is totally happy with - there will always be someone with nits to pick. What you should be able to do is to find acceptable version, which will include some compromises, but which nobody is in fundamental disagreement with and which will allow you work in a positive manner. A Constitution isn't "rules", it should be a guideline for how you want the organisation to work for the general good.
The "Vision and Constitutional reform group" previously set up doesn't seem to have had a definite timetable and it didn't report regularly to Council as it should have done, so it clearly wasn't working and Council should have spotted this and done something about it sooner rather than let it drift on.
You need to accept that you will never be able to create a Constitution which everyone is totally happy with - there will always be someone with nits to pick. What you should be able to do is to find acceptable version, which will include some compromises, but which nobody is in fundamental disagreement with and which will allow you work in a positive manner. A Constitution isn't "rules", it should be a guideline for how you want the organisation to work for the general good.
I wish Phil and team well and hope he completes the work before returning to China. Aren't there just eight months or two quarters before the 2021 AGM? Seems a very short timetable. I presume there is time built in for consultation with the regions and constituent bodies, a first draft, second draft, lengthy dispute over one section or the other, taking something out of the constitution putting something else in, third draft, forth draft, etc?
I should also defend the 'vision' group and Hellie in particular. There are few people more enthusiastic than Hellie who put a lot of effort into that group without success. She also had a remit and timetable and she did report to council on progress before the whole thing drifted somewhat. She recruited a good team, a dozen or more at first I remember. She did workshops at Hidden Earth, surveys at CHECC and across the membership. I appreciate that the groups are different but it seems entirely reasonable to me to expect similar difficulties in pushing through total reform of the BCA constitution and Operations Manuel. There are problems across all BCA working groups in recruiting volunteers with enough volunteer time and relevant skill to do all this work.
If members don't vote through these interim proposals then at least the new group will be able to learn from that. If they are successful then it signals a clear desire to reform. The worst that can happen is that they will eventually be superseded by a total rewrite once the new group delivers.
I should also defend the 'vision' group and Hellie in particular. There are few people more enthusiastic than Hellie who put a lot of effort into that group without success. She also had a remit and timetable and she did report to council on progress before the whole thing drifted somewhat. She recruited a good team, a dozen or more at first I remember. She did workshops at Hidden Earth, surveys at CHECC and across the membership. I appreciate that the groups are different but it seems entirely reasonable to me to expect similar difficulties in pushing through total reform of the BCA constitution and Operations Manuel. There are problems across all BCA working groups in recruiting volunteers with enough volunteer time and relevant skill to do all this work.
If members don't vote through these interim proposals then at least the new group will be able to learn from that. If they are successful then it signals a clear desire to reform. The worst that can happen is that they will eventually be superseded by a total rewrite once the new group delivers.
Similar threads
