Wot no BCA discussions

[Les Williams]

Two years in and nobody wants/needs to discuss any aspects of BCA.
Does this mean we have got it right, perhaps everybody is completely content with the national body, or perhaps you have all gone caving.

[Graham M]

Two years in and nobody wants/needs to discuss any aspects of BCA.
Does this mean we have got it right, perhaps everybody is completely content with the national body, or perhaps you have all gone caving.

Or perhaps we just all died of boredom ....

[RodG]

Two years in and nobody wants/needs to discuss any aspects of BCA.
Does this mean we have got it right, perhaps everybody is completely content with the national body, .

Two years in, and from my perspective, as a Direct Individual Member, the organisation of the BCA is a shambles. For about 10 years, I was a member of the BCRA, principally for the insurance, but with a nice bonus in the two periodical magazines. Then I read that I would no longer be able to gain third party insurance as a BCRA member, but that I'd have to become a member of the BCA. Since there appeared to be no reduction in subscription for membership of both organisations, I reluctantly gave up my membership of the BCRA. I had to wait until the end of April for my membership/insurance card to arrive, but this I could live with, since I understood that The BCA did'nt have any insurance to offer until that time anyway, although they seemed happy to take the money for the uninsured gap. In 2005 I had to wait until the end of September before receiving my membership/insurance card, and that only by enlisting the help of Paula Grgich-Warke. Since the only association that I'm a member of is The Welsh Mines Society, and their policy is that members should show their proof of insurance at meets, by the time I had the card to show, the years meets had all but finished. To be honest, some of the delay was my fault, since with no renewal reminder to tell me how much to pay, and no intelligible information on the web site as to how much the new years subs were, I was at a bit of a loss as to how much to send off. This year, I was rewarded by a reminder from Lynne, at the end of December, and got my sub off in the first week of January. AND I'M STILL BLOODY WAITING, well into May. Yes, I did email lynne on the matter and received a very tart reply, and I've lately added a comment in this forum (insurance?), which commendably drew a quick response that it was expected that all DIM cards would be posted by the end of the week. Well, that was something over a week ago. At the inception of the BCA, we were assured that a newsletter would be published at bi-monthly intervals, but, as it stands, we're still awaiting the first one for 2006. "Speleology", which is perhaps not down to BCA. has yet to put in an appearance after it's re-birth last December. Speleology, I would like, the newsletter seemed to contain little or no news, and was most confusing in its structure, so perhaps no real loss.
On the plus side, the new web site is splendid, arguably one of the best that I've seen, and congratulations for that. On the other hand, there still seems a reluctance to keep it up to date. I note that we're still being exhorted to attend the AGM on the 25th march, where, If we have our membership cards, we may vote on the issues raised. Nothing there for me then. Still some way to go to beat last year, when I note that the announcement of the AGM was still up on the site in November.
Just in case the assumption is made that I'm one of the whinging crowd that never does anything, during the past 50 years, I've held committee posts in a number of sporting activities ( motorcycling, dinghy racing and caving) and put in more than my fair share of effort. I've some ideas how the BCA could be improved, which I discussed in correspondence with Paula, last year, while she was trying to sort out my delayed membership card, but I think I'll delay posting those until the flames from this posting have died down a bit.

RodG

[Canda@CSCC]

Speleology exists and copies are sent in the post so you're probably not on a mailing list for that. The photography is fine (especially No.6, the most recent copy - April) and the articles are scientific* - probably too much for most "normal" people for whom reading and writing is a black art.

It is interesting to hear of your shoddy treatment as a Direct Individual Member since our club (Cheddar) decided to experience (via a member) what DIM treatment was like before recommending it to other members as a possibility for alleviating the complexities attendant with arranging CIMs. Given your report the DIM option will probably be consigned to the WPB until glowing reports exist.

BTW does anyone know what the salary is for the person who takes over from Lynne? It is described as "competitive"; is this a euphemism for low.

* As you would expect (I like them as they make me think lots).

[RodG]

Two years in, and from my perspective, as a Direct Individual Member, the organisation of the BCA is a shambles.

I thought I'd leave it for a bit, following my last post on the shortcomings of the BCA organisation, to let the flames die down, before inserting the ladle and stirring a bit more. I'm a tad surprised at the dearth of postings, either from the establishment, or the rank and file. Perhaps apathy does reign supreme.
As you may guess, having been shafted three years on the trot, in obtaining a membership card, my main concern is with the membership system, and its particular problems.
I can see no rational reason why the BCA have chosen such a complicated system for membership, with its attendant third party insurance cover. Two possible reasons, both flawed, do come to mind, tho', both associated with membership thro' established caving clubs. The first, that the BCA blithely followed the old BCRA system, ignoring the fact that the old system was gloriously vague. If you were a member of a club, the assumption was that you were covered, whilst the present system requires individual names (and individual payments). The other was that the BCA, by foisting the duty of maintaining and communicating membership details, the collection of subscriptions, and the distribution of cards, and information, onto the various club secretaries, have saved themselves a lot of effort. Instead of a centralised system, where efficiencies can be made, we have this glorious hodge-podge system. Stir in the fact that a number of individuals are members of several clubs and are registered only through one, and you have a recipe for confusion in spades. I have been told that the membership cards for club registered cavers were all handed out to the various club secretaries in the first few weeks of January, long before the club secretaries could possibly be aware of who was and who was not going to renew their membership. How anyone can possibly audit, or keep track of the revenue from the sale of insurance cover is quite beyond me.
I am proposing that the BCA scrap the present system and instead go for total individual membership. All cavers, members of established caving clubs would be required to be current members of the BCA, in order to be insured for third party risks. A list of members on the BCA web site would enable club secretaries to ensure that this was so. Admittedly, this will involve a lot of work, but less than the total amount when distributed around all the clubs. There are organisations only too pleased to carry out this work, albeit at a price. In the good old days, when "Caves and Caving" thumped onto my mat about 4 times a year, I'm sure that it did'nt involve some bent old caver scribbling addresses by the light of an old carbide lamp, in his garden shed. There are a number of spin-off benefits from all individual membership. At present only one person is likely to see any information passed down from the BCA, and that is the club secretary. Other members of the committee may browse through in the quieter parts of meetings. The average member will hear nothing. One of the complaints I hear from the BCA establishment, is that the average caver is not interested. A fair point, but when all are individual members, all will receive the quarterly (?) newsletters. With perhaps an opt-in (or opt-out), for "Speleology", many more will come to read the thing, and there will be a chance that more people will become involved in the running of the sport. With a wider circulation of "Speleology", cost should come down, and the input of articles rise. I frankly cannot see anything but benefits from the adoption of this system, and nothing but confusion from the retention of the present system. And, of course, I shall get my membership card in a reasonable time, or be just one of a host of cavers clamouring for their cards.

Rodg

[Graham M]

Rod

You are right in that the complications of the present system arise in part through the insurance issue, but you are wrong about the cure.

I write as treasurer (and de facto membership secretary) of a university club and thus someone who has to deal with all the differing ramifications of the current system. I am well aware of how complex it can be.

Your answer - direct individual membership only - would completely cut my membership out of the system and may possibly make it impossible for us to continue as a club.

We sign up 50 or so students each October (first complication we are ruled by the academic year not by the BCA's financial/calendar year) the majority of whom are novices. Now, these people (ours & other uni's) are the major input of new participants into caving. Insisting that they pay a significant additional sum (£50?) on top of their much smaller subscription to us in order to "test the water" and see wherther this sport is for them is quite obviously going to be a major disincentive.

OK, so only sign them up to BCA when they've committed to caving. Hmm, doesn't work. Either I need them to be covered by the insurance from the word "go" or they simply don't get cover.

The latter condition is not an option, many of the access agreements with which we are involved require that the club and its membership carry PI insurance Note that this is actually a more onerous requirement than that borne by an individual caver as few of them actually administer access agreements.

The former condition requires us all to be in BCA as, believe me, there is no alternative form of cover available to us. It is an interesting hypothetical question as to whether the Student's Union would allow us to continue our activities without insurance; those who have followed the problems at Sheffield, for example, would not be confident of the answer.

OK, you say, the £50 figure that I quoted is unrealistically high. Is it? The current BCA DIM subscription is £30. Would it be held at that level without the current income from CIMs? Even if it was, £30 is a massive disincentive already.

It is necessary for the future health of caving that clubs like mine continue to recruit new members into the sport. So, let's have a concessionary rate for students! Hmm, firstly you've now broken the simplicity of your system and secondly, I can imagine the political fallout when the rank-and-file members of other clubs who didn't want to join anyway, but realise that they need to in order to get the insurance find out that they are subsidising bloody students. Why cannot their poor members (young? unemployed?) get similar subsidies. They don't want Speleology, they don't want anything from BCA except the insurance. Politically it simply won't work.

The reason why the current scheme is so fecking complicated is that it has to fit in with two things: the fact that, like it or not, UK caving is organised mainly around the caving club and the PI insurance premium is now so high that our members do not wish to pay multiple premiums via the multiple clubs that they belong to, as they did in the "good old days". If the premium eventually falls to levels similar to the old ones then we could, possibly, return to the old system which relied simply on clubs maintaining their own membership records and paying bulk premiums, but by then we may have a decent database and admin system in place and be able to apply "relaxed common sense" to its application.

In making this last comment I do not imply any criticism of any of the individuals involved in the current administration. I know how complex it is and I only deal with a very small part of it. They have my complete sympathy.

[Canda@CSCC]

Perhaps it's churlish of me but I feel the need to point out that membership of my no-frills, but adequate, local gym is £25 per month.

[Graham M]

Perhaps it's churlish of me but I feel the need to point out that membership of my no-frills, but adequate, local gym is £25 per month.

What level of insurance do they supply?

You are not comparing like with like Chris. Firstly that gym is supplying a significantly greater number of facilities than the average caving club and secondly it is a commercial (i.e. profit making) body.

[RodG]

You are right in that the complications of the present system arise in part through the insurance issue, but you are wrong about the cure.

I write as treasurer (and de facto membership secretary) of a university club and thus someone who has to deal with all the differing ramifications of the current system. I am well aware of how complex it can be.

Your answer - direct individual membership only - would completely cut my membership out of the system and may possibly make it impossible for us to continue as a club..

Graham,
Am I missing the point here. It is my understanding that in order to be covered by insurance against third party risks, one MUST be a member of the BCA, whether through a club, or as an individual member, AND be in possession of a valid membership card, showing that you have paid the insurance fee, and are on the books of the BCA. As far as I am aware, there is no "blanket" insurance as there was under the BCRA scheme. The system tou have described for your neophyte members seems to date from that earlier period. let them swan about for a bit, until the fainthearted have given up and incorporate the survivors. I cannot in any way see how these people can in any way be considered to be insured.
I see no problem for you, you simply hand them all out a membership form for the BCA, and when they come back, clutching their bits of plastic, welcome them into the fold. The expense should not be as high as you say. Unless the situation has changed, the initial membership fee, for less than the full year was propotionately (sort of) reduced. I was a bit miffed in my first year in the BCA, since the date on my card should have (but did'nt) entitle me to a reduced tariff for the first year. The higher charge for the individual member is due (largely) to the inclusion of "Speleology", which I have suggested, could be an opt-out or opt-in, and to the regular (?) issues of the newsletter.


RodG

[Canda@CSCC]

Graham, you're point above is correct and I doff my hat in your general direction.

However, with the latest post perhaps it is worth reiterating a point mentioned at the last regional council meeting reminding everyone that BCA does not sell insurance and there is no insurance fee.

Insurance cover is merely one of many benefits of membership of the BCA.

[RodG]

However, with the latest post perhaps it is worth reiterating a point mentioned at the last regional council meeting reminding everyone that BCA does not sell insurance and there is no insurance fee.
Insurance cover is merely one of many benefits of membership of the BCA.

I would like to point out that membership of the BCA does not confer insurance cover as one of its benefits. BCA membership is essentially a two tier system, differentiated only by whether insurance cover is granted or not. The difference in the cost is entirely down to providing such insurance. No matter what is said in regional meetings, the BCA is selling insurance. Either the BCA is buying insurance at a wholesale rate , re-packaging it up into individual lots and selling it on, rather like the old fashioned grocer buying sugar by the hundredweight, divvying it up into two pound blue paper bags for sale, or acting as agent for an insurance company in selling insurance. I note that the cost of providing insurance this year was said to be slightly less than last year, but it was decided to leave the premium at the same level as last year, so one can infer from that that this year, at least, the BCA is making a profit on the deal.
Premium is so much nicer a word than fee, so I shall use that.

RodG

[Canda@CSCC]

Sorry, Rod, but you're wrong. BCA does not sell insurance.

[Graham M]

Graham,
Am I missing the point here. It is my understanding that in order to be covered by insurance against third party risks, one MUST be a member of the BCA, whether through a club, or as an individual member, AND be in possession of a valid membership card, showing that you have paid the insurance fee, and are on the books of the BCA. As far as I am aware, there is no "blanket" insurance as there was under the BCRA scheme. The system tou have described for your neophyte members seems to date from that earlier period. let them swan about for a bit, until the fainthearted have given up and incorporate the survivors. I cannot in any way see how these people can in any way be considered to be insured.

They are insured because I have notified all their names and addresses to BCA and paid the relevant membership fee for them. They are members.

I see no problem for you, you simply hand them all out a membership form for the BCA, and when they come back, clutching their bits of plastic, welcome them into the fold.

And what do I do with those who wish to continue caving, have to have insurance cover (because the Union insists) pay me the relevant subscription to the club but don't pay to join BCA? The Union will insist (rightly) that I welcome these people but this will compromise the club's insurance position.

BCA does not sell insurance, it is a benefit of membership. However as it is, essentially, the only PI cover available to cavers it must be supplied in a way that is acceptable to all cavers in all clubs. That is why the situation is complex.

[RodG]

Sorry, Rod, but you're wrong. BCA does not sell insurance.

Mere unsubstantiated opinion, not worth the bytes it's written on.

RodG

[RodG]

They are insured because I have notified all their names and addresses to BCA and paid the relevant membership fee for them. They are members.

Good for you. I too have paid the relevant fees, back in January, but until I have the BCA's official notification, in the form of a membership card, I do not consider myself a member of the BCA, nor that I am covered by the BCA insurance. A view that I am quite sure wiould be confirmed by any legal opinion.

And what do I do with those who wish to continue caving, have to have insurance cover (because the Union insists) pay me the relevant subscription to the club but don't pay to join BCA? The Union will insist (rightly) that I welcome these people but this will compromise the club's insurance position.

Quite frankly, you comment above makes no sense whatsoever. BCA's insurance cover is only available to its members, so if your people do not pay to become BCA members, ipso facto, they are not insured. They are quite free, however, to go out and obtain insurance from any other broker. Brokers will (at a price) obtain insurance for anyone for anything within reason. Insurance, after all, is only another form of gambling.