What will Council do if the "Under 12" motion is passed at the AGM

[tristan green]

I have followed the recent threads with interest and am personally undecided on which way I would cast my vote at the moment. Can someone answer one simple question - If the motion is passed by the membership present at the AGM, what will Council do before the request is accepted or rejected?

I feel that if I knew more about this then it would help me to decide which way to cast my vote.

Keith has previously posted some of his views on what he believes the process would be (although they are now somewhat buried in the lengthy discussion in several threads).

I am especially interested if there would be any direct consultation with the membership in general and branch DO's and Chair's in particular. If this were to happen then maybe the suggested routes of either a "Junior BSAC" or direct monitoring of branch training and diving involving our young members may be realised. I think that this would allay many of the fears of those oposed to the motion as it has been presented to date.

Perhaps someone from Council could clarify this for me.

Regards,
Tristan Green

[allan j bretherton]

I have followed the recent threads with interest and am personally undecided on which way I would cast my vote at the moment. Can someone answer one simple question - If the motion is passed by the membership present at the AGM, what will Council do before the request is accepted or rejected?

I feel that if I knew more about this then it would help me to decide which way to cast my vote.

Keith has previously posted some of his views on what he believes the process would be (although they are now somewhat buried in the lengthy discussion in several threads).

Well said Tristan, I really would hope that council have adopted a position on this - its been talked about for long enough! The only problem is that with the exception of Keith, there is very little if any contribution from council to these forums.
Come on council, shock me and make a policy statement

Cheers..........Allan

I am especially interested if there would be any direct consultation with the membership in general and branch DO's and Chair's in particular. If this were to happen then maybe the suggested routes of either a "Junior BSAC" or direct monitoring of branch training and diving involving our young members may be realised. I think that this would allay many of the fears of those oposed to the motion as it has been presented to date.

Perhaps someone from Council could clarify this for me.

Regards,
Tristan Green

[Philip Smith]

Come on council, shock me and make a policy statement

Does the fact that Council (albeit with different membership) more than once previously proposed reducing the age limit give us a clue?

Philip Smith

[allan j bretherton]

:=Come on council, shock me and make a policy statement

Does the fact that Council (albeit with different membership) more than once previously proposed reducing the age limit give us a clue?

Philip Smith

If you want to work on clues then fine, I?d rather have a straight answer

Allan

[Tony F]

:=:=Come on council, shock me and make a policy statement
:=
:=Does the fact that Council (albeit with different membership) more than once previously proposed reducing the age limit give us a clue?
:=
:=Philip Smith

If you want to work on clues then fine, I?d rather have a straight answer

Allan

Yes that isn't fair at all, well said Allan. And if would be good to get some council feedback.

However even without it I think I know the answer, there can only be one responsible course. For example I'm very very very strongly in favour of a yes vote but that doesn't mean for one minute I would be keen to see a free for all.

For me passing the motion means the concerns will be addressed, voting no means we'll be having this debate forever while someone else trains and signs up all the new young divers and potentially their families.

Something about Nero and Rome burning......

[BSAC Chairman]

As Chairman I felt it right that I should make a short statement regarding the current threads about the motion proposed by Tameside.

1) The motion is properly constituted and requests Council to take an action. This is what the future Council will do ? consider that request. If the motion achieves a simple majority, they have no other choice. As outgoing Chair I cannot bind the new people but I know the processes and disciplines we have in place will make sure this is done properly and thoughtfully

2) Therefore, the input and views expressed here are very useful and it is important that they are communicated in such a way that Council can include them easily in the debate. The reason I am making this statement is so that we keep the views coming on the issues and not get too diverted about what Council will do or won?t do. The reality is that it will be a new Council so the current people can only express a view ? as I am doing now

3) In addition they will also have available for this Council debate the knowledge we already have about this matter and other input we are receiving outside of the forum

Finally, as you all know Keith is very active on the Forum. This is because
a) He is very good at dealing with the debates
b) On Council, we are, like all of you, volunteers and so we split responsibilities up so we do not duplicate our efforts.
Keith tries to represent the general Council feeling to you, he always makes it clear when he is expressing a personal view.

[Philip Smith]

If you want to work on clues then fine, I?d rather have a straight answer

Sure, Allan, who wouldn't, but we're unlikely to get an explicity policy statement prior to the vote, beyond Keith and Phil H's messages. While the past may not always be a reliable guide to the future, it usually is, and the history of this issue suggests to me that if the motion is carried, Council will reduce the age limit within a few months. Then there are the questions about how it would be implemented, which may have been what you were referring to.

Philip Smith

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

:=If you want to work on clues then fine, I?d rather have a straight answer

Sure, Allan, who wouldn't, but we're unlikely to get an explicity policy statement prior to the vote, beyond Keith and Phil H's messages. While the past may not always be a reliable guide to the future, it usually is, and the history of this issue suggests to me that if the motion is carried, Council will reduce the age limit within a few months. Then there are the questions about how it would be implemented, which may have been what you were referring to.

Hi Philip/Allan

The current Council cannot make an explicit policy statement, simply because we do not have a policy at present on 12yo?s within branches, we have never needed one! Detailed research done by Council in the past is now several years out-of-date (before my time on Council), too much has changed to simply accept old thinking, we didn?t even have a WoV policy back then. Please also note that it will be a new Council under a new Chair that has to deal with this, not the current one.

Add that little lot together and you will understand why we cannot give you a policy statement. Also there are three decisions here - after the members decision whether we should look at it or not then there is the decision of principle (should we even investigate it?) followed by the decision of implementation (can we do it?). When (and only when) all that has been done will it be possible to have a policy, not until.

I don?t even know whether I?ll be part of the next Council or not, but that is the due process that I would expect to be followed. As I keep trying to point out this is NOT a foregone conclusion, neither is it simple, neither is it something that can be done quickly. I suspect that anybody expecting a quick ?yeah, go ahead now? decision from the Council meeting the day after the AGM is going to be very disappointed. If I am part of the next Council then I would personally oppose any quick knee jerk reactions myself!

So give us a break here folks. Don?t ask us to pre-judge the next Council, don?t ask us to predict the future, don?t ask us for a policy on something that we haven?t even investigated recently. All that is being asked in the Tameside motion is that Council get on and do that job, until that job has been done then sorry ? ?no can do? on a policy statement.

Regards

Keith L

[tristan green]

Phil,

Thank you for your post. This has answered my question. I now understand that Council will follow an investigative process which will include any and all comments made on this Forum. I now can't see any reason why I wouldn't vote for this motion to allow the question to be considered - so I hope the motion is passed at the AGM and that the incoming Council members are up to the task of conducting the debate and informing us at the appropriate moment of their decisions. I'm sure this subject will continue to occupy this Forum for some considerable time to come.

Regards,
Tristan

[allan j bretherton]

As Chairman I felt it right that I should make a short statement regarding the current threads about the motion proposed by Tameside.

1) The motion is properly constituted and requests Council to take an action. This is what the future Council will do ? consider that request. If the motion achieves a simple majority, they have no other choice. As outgoing Chair I cannot bind the new people but I know the processes and disciplines we have in place will make sure this is done properly and thoughtfully

2) Therefore, the input and views expressed here are very useful and it is important that they are communicated in such a way that Council can include them easily in the debate. The reason I am making this statement is so that we keep the views coming on the issues and not get too diverted about what Council will do or won?t do. The reality is that it will be a new Council so the current people can only express a view ? as I am doing now

3) In addition they will also have available for this Council debate the knowledge we already have about this matter and other input we are receiving outside of the forum

Finally, as you all know Keith is very active on the Forum. This is because
a) He is very good at dealing with the debates
b) On Council, we are, like all of you, volunteers and so we split responsibilities up so we do not duplicate our efforts.
Keith tries to represent the general Council feeling to you, he always makes it clear when he is expressing a personal view.

An interesting post that will benefit from clarification of just one or two areas as follows:

?As outgoing chair I cannot bind the new people?

Actually, an affirmative vote by the membership is a clear mandate and does bind the new council. The question open to council is do they implement immediately or do they set up a working group to investigate all the issues raised publicly by these forums. Council working groups have and do work very well.

?The reality is that it will be a new council so the current people can only express a view?

Unfortunately, the membership has yet to be informed of the nominees for council for the forthcoming election. However, all members of the current council can stand for re-election (article 25 B 2, 9 years limitation) the exception being officers that can only hold a particular post for 6-years (article 25 B 1) So, the only people that need to stand down are the chairman and treasurer though they can be elected into a different position if they so wish and of course, get the votes.

My question is, apart from the 3 nominees for chairman will there be a need for an election and how many members of the current council will be volunteering their services for a further 3-years? The implication is that there will not be much change in council.

From a personal view (it can?t be any other!) I will gladly vote for the motion if I?m assured that a working group will be set up to address all the concerns pertaining to this issue.

I believe that council can give this undertaking as explained above

Allan

[Tony F]

Keith - you have the patience of a saint.

We don't all believe council will act (or ever have acted) in a cavalier manner with regard to major issues like this. Which is why I can vote yes safe in the knowledge that if this motion passes it is just the beginning of a lengthy process to safely move the club forward.

[Tony F]

From a personal view (it can?t be any other!) I will gladly vote for the motion if I?m assured that a working group will be set up to address all the concerns pertaining to this issue.

I believe that council can give this undertaking as explained above


Allan - how can the existing council give you an undertaking on behalf of a new council they don't yet know based on a motion outcome they can't predict?

As a yes man I confess this may not help my case but that undertaking is impossible IMVHO. However, you already have all the possible indicators that the existing council does and a new one will understand the wishes of us all and will act accordingly.

Even as a yes man I do not advocate a 'free for all' quick reduction without a good deal of thought, debate and then some clarity. We are all crystal clear and agreed on this much.

[Philip Smith]

Hi Keith,

The current Council cannot make an explicit policy statement ...

Just to be clear, I was not asking for an explicit policy statement. I was pointing out, perhaps obscurely, that that would be unrealistic for the reasons you and Phil H had given.

Also there are three decisions here - after the members decision whether we should look at it or not then there is the decision of principle (should we even investigate it?) followed by the decision of implementation (can we do it?). When (and only when) all that has been done will it be possible to have a policy, not until.

I agree with this. There may be several considerations behind the question of principle, such as: would it be in BSAC's interests to lower/not lower the age limit, can we be sure diving does not have long-term harmful effects on children, what limitations might there be on children's mental, physical and emotional capacity to learn and participate in diving safely, how would the organisation be affected by a child fatality, are conventional means of treating DCI safe for children. No doubt there are many others and, of course, some of these bear on implementation too. My main concern is the uncertainty about the long-term health issue and I hope Council would not proceed without a public supporting statement from the UKSDMC. On the other hand, BSAC Ltd has already accepted the principle of 12-year olds diving in schools, so it is hard to see Council not accepting the principle for branches. The main implementation issues would seem to relate to safety and welfare in training/diving and effectiveness of training, and whether youngsters can be accommodated within the current branch system, the current system with amendments/guidelines/regulations/registration/inspections, or a separate system. As discussed earlier, many of these issues apply not just to under-14s but to under-18s, so if the age limit is reduced, there may need to be an overhaul of our approach to minors to avoid inconsistencies.

With regard to the vote, members may vote "no" because they oppose the idea in principle, because they are unsure and wish to take a precautionary approach, or because they accept the principle, but are unsure that Council would implement it in a way they would agree with. Members may vote "yes" because they are unsure about the principle (or don't mind one way or the other), but trust Council's judgement, because they accept the principle and think it would work in the current system, or because they accept the principle and would trust Council/NDC to put a suitable system in place. No doubt there will be other motivations.

Philip Smith

[Nigel Hewitt]

We don't all believe council will act (or ever have acted) in a cavalier manner with regard to major issues like this. Which is why I can vote yes safe in the knowledge that if this motion passes it is just the beginning of a lengthy process to safely move the club forward.

LOL. Nobody has ever accused BSAC of being dangerous revolutionaries so don't hold your breath (as we tell trainees).

[allan j bretherton]

:=From a personal view (it can?t be any other!) I will gladly vote for the motion if I?m assured that a working group will be set up to address all the concerns pertaining to this issue.
:=
:=I believe that council can give this undertaking as explained above
:=

Allan - how can the existing council give you an undertaking on behalf of a new council they don't yet know based on a motion outcome they can't predict?

As a yes man I confess this may not help my case but that undertaking is impossible IMVHO. However, you already have all the possible indicators that the existing council does and a new one will understand the wishes of us all and will act accordingly.

Even as a yes man I do not advocate a 'free for all' quick reduction without a good deal of thought, debate and then some clarity. We are all crystal clear and agreed on this much.
Tony ? you?ve missed the point. Council is an ever changing and evolving beast, an election does not bring in a complete new council nor should it throw the baby out with the bathwater. I suspect that many groups within council and NDC will remain unchanged. Although getting off the subject, a simple list of those standing for council will confirm this.
Council can give the current opinion and could quite easily say that this council would appoint an appropriate working group to investigate the pros and cons of this motion if this motion was passed by a majority vote of the membership.
As you should know from my earlier postings, I?m in favour of reducing the age limit as long as we have all the necessary protections (risk assessment) in place first. I?d further add that this review should encompass all minors and not those between 12 and 14.
We have a wonderful opportunity here to bring in not just younger members but also complete families. These potential junior members could be the NDO?s of the future providing that we get them before others do. From a marketing point of view (yes, I guilty of being in marketing) it?s much easier to retain a customer than get a new one

[Tony F]

Tony ? you?ve missed the point. Council is an ever changing and evolving beast, an election does not bring in a complete new council nor should it throw the baby out with the bathwater.


I don't think I did, as you say council is an ever cahnging beast but no member of the existing council is able to make a statement based on the asumption he/she will be re-elected. For sure some part of council will change, that new dynamic even when a majority of members return would also make the statement you're asking for impossible IMHO.

Frankly I think we agree on most things but it looks like we'll have to disagree on this one.

But, I certainly hope you'll agree you've been given enough confidence to vote yes in the fullness of time. Like you I see this as an oppertunity :)

[Tony F]

LOL. Nobody has ever accused BSAC of being dangerous revolutionaries so don't hold your breath (as we tell trainees).

Well......... quite :)

[allan j bretherton]

:=Tony ? you?ve missed the point. Council is an ever changing and evolving beast, an election does not bring in a complete new council nor should it throw the baby out with the bathwater.
:=

I don't think I did, as you say council is an ever cahnging beast but no member of the existing council is able to make a statement based on the asumption he/she will be re-elected. For sure some part of council will change, that new dynamic even when a majority of members return would also make the statement you're asking for impossible IMHO.

Frankly I think we agree on most things but it looks like we'll have to disagree on this one.

But, I certainly hope you'll agree you've been given enough confidence to vote yes in the fullness of time. Like you I see this as an oppertunity :)

Tony, lets agree to disagree on this hypothetical point, I think we are agreeing on everything else

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Although getting off the subject, a simple list of those standing for council will confirm this.

Council haven't even seen that list yet Allan :-) It's actually being printed up today, it's all going out with the March Dive and should be with you around about the 11th so I am informed.

HTH

Keith L

[Adrian Kelland]

:= Although getting off the subject, a simple list of those standing for council will confirm this.

Council haven't even seen that list yet Allan :-) It's actually being printed up today, it's all going out with the March Dive and should be with you around about the 11th so I am informed.

HTH

Keith L

Any reason why the list should not be put on the web site straight away Keith?

Adrian

[allan j bretherton]

:= Although getting off the subject, a simple list of those standing for council will confirm this.

Council haven't even seen that list yet Allan :-) It's actually being printed up today, it's all going out with the March Dive and should be with you around about the 11th so I am informed.

HTH

Keith L


Hi Keith,

I know, but why all the cloak and dagger secrecy surrounding this? Nominations closed 23 days ago, if the list is being printed today then why can?t this list be published on the web today?

[andycarroll]

Hi Keith,

I know, but why all the cloak and dagger secrecy surrounding this? Nominations closed 23 days ago, if the list is being printed today then why can?t this list be published on the web today?

That would be snow on the servers Allan :o)

Does it really matter? You'll get to know when you get to know. From the councils responses so far you have little chance if any of bullying them into making promises and commitments which they do not want to make :o)

I vote yes BTW.

Andy

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Any reason why the list should not be put on the web site straight away Keith?

Technically ? no, procedurally ? you?re asking the wrong guy! I?m getting out of my depth here, I was only trying to help by letting you all know what I know. The nomination and election process is the remit of the Honorary Secretary (Mike Todd), I must ask you to refer all procedural questions to him. Sorry folks, I can?t help you anymore with this, the only thing that I know about such matters is just how far my arm was up behind my back when I signed the papers ;-)

Keith L

[allan j bretherton]

:=Any reason why the list should not be put on the web site straight away Keith?

Technically ? no, procedurally ? you?re asking the wrong guy! I?m getting out of my depth here, I was only trying to help by letting you all know what I know. The nomination and election process is the remit of the Honorary Secretary (Mike Todd), I must ask you to refer all procedural questions to him. Sorry folks, I can?t help you anymore with this, the only thing that I know about such matters is just how far my arm was up behind my back when I signed the papers ;-)

Keith L

But Keith, the chairman said
"Keith tries to represent the general Council feeling to you"

so what is the councils or HS feeling about posting these names to the wem?

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

But Keith, the chairman said
"Keith tries to represent the general Council feeling to you"
so what is the councils or HS feeling about posting these names to the wem?

More than happy to oblige Allan, I can give you exactly what I believe the Council view would be - ?such matters are the remit of the Honorary Secretary, we would ask him to advise us on this?. I can?t speak for the HS himself of course, you?ll have to ask him yourself.

HTH

Keith L

[allan j bretherton]

:=But Keith, the chairman said
:="Keith tries to represent the general Council feeling to you"
:=so what is the councils or HS feeling about posting these names to the wem?

More than happy to oblige Allan, I can give you exactly what I believe the Council view would be - ?such matters are the remit of the Honorary Secretary, we would ask him to advise us on this?. I can?t speak for the HS himself of course, you?ll have to ask him yourself.

HTH

Keith L

Thanks Keith, I'm therefore asking the HS, by means of this posting, to respond.