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

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

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

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

:=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

:=:=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......

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.

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

:=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

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

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