Proposed new policy for BCMC on hut construction
The following policy on hut construction has been proposed and will be considered soon by the club executive. The policy was developed from a consideration of the old 1974 club policy, updated by incorporating the results of the membership survey conducted in 2014, and some elements of the FMCBC policy on huts in parks. Your comments on the proposed policy would be appreciated before 3 November.
The proposed policy is -
1. The BCMC should build huts -
a) Only when they are consistent with any management plan for a specific area. They should not be built in wilderness or wildlife conservation zones.
b) In a location which has been chosen by the use of topographic maps and air photos, followed by examination of the area on foot, both in summer and winter, together with a proper hazard evaluation.
c) In a location that is not too close to (within 50m of) a lake or stream. Outhouses should be even further away from water bodies.
d) In areas which can withstand large numbers of people. Sensitive ecosystems (e.g. those containing endangered species or wet soils) should be avoided.
e) With at least a 3 hour walk in during summer. This walk should not be so far that the hut cannot be reached within a day in winter, but it should be far enough to
discourage heavy use in summer.
f) With a reasonable (not too rugged) trail access.
g) For foot-based activities (hiking, climbing, ski-touring, snowshoeing).
h) For a reasonable level of comfort. They should not be either basic 3-walled roofed shelters or high-end cabins, but should be similar in comfort to existing backcountry huts, such as the BCMC North Creek or the VOC Brew cabins.
i) With the inclusion of an unlocked and basic covered emergency area to provide shelter for parties in difficulty requiring unexpected shelter.
j) With no garbage disposal facilities, but containing conservation hints, such as "You carried it up - you carry it down" posters.
k) With a viable maintenance plan in place. (i.e. funds for maintenance will need to come from hut fees, which should be greater for non-club members than for
club members).
2. Huts should not be built –
a) In areas prone to avalanches
b) Too close to Vancouver (not the North Shore mountains)
c) Primarily for summer use
d) Primarily to attract people to the mountains.
e) In areas likely to be visited by snowmobiles.
I agree with most of these points.
2.d is a really good one !
Let's hope nobody goes to the mountains, eh.....
Regarding 1(b). "In a location which has been chosen by the use of topographic maps and air photos"
I'm not sure air photos are as good as Google Earth. The panning features in GE are superior to what can be visualized in air photos. Only the quality of the images is not as good. Also, in GE you can overlay numerous tracks called KML files. You can keep adding KML files to a single session. So, for example, you can overlay wildlife management boundaries, park boundaries, roads and trails. It is an entirely new way of looking at earth-based information that air photos and topographic maps cannot replicate.
Regarding 1(h). I think the examples given are too restrictive. The Haberl hut in the Tantalus Range is a reasonable backcountry hut and could be a template for future huts in terms of quality and comfort level.
Not mentioned is heating. I think all huts should be provisioned with some kind of heating, whether it be wood, propane or other technology.
My suggestion for our Hut Policy: The biggest member group *47%* wants to have a say in decision making at key steps for a cabin. – In our member survey under the headline *Hut Policy Details* members were asked :
How much consultation from the Membership at large should the Club Executive seek in its decision-making for a cabin?
10% wanted little to no involvement – 43% wanted minimal involvement – the biggest group with 47% wanted “Key steps involvement: Members at large are consulted at key steps of the process for approval (for example: site selection, cabin and facilities design, construction plans, funds approval)
- If we want to become *more inclusive* and take our member’s statements in the survey serious, we should do what most members want and add to the hut policy:
3. Member Involvement: Members at large are consulted at key steps of the process for approval (for example: site selection, cabin and facilities design, construction plans, funds approval)”
- Werner Grzimek-
The majority (53%), however, wanted little to no involvement.
Sorry Michael, but your figure is incorrect: ‘Little to no Involvement’ is only wanted by a small minority of ~10%! ● And 90% OF MEMBERS DO WANT TO BE CONSULTED on various items in the two other groups of the survey. -Werner-
Werner,
My terminology was a bit loose. 10% wanted almost no involvement and 43% wanted minimal involvement, so 53% wanted minimal to no involvement, vs 47% who wanted key steps involvement. Minimal involvement (members are consulted for final approval of plans and any significant use of club funds) has generally been how the club has been operating during the last 50 years and the majority of members wanted this or less than this.
Michael
Michael, it appears to me that you want to keep important club decisions away from members and within the small group of Board of Directors – you already were hesitant (did not want) to publish this new hut policy here on the forum for a transparent-democratic member discussion ----- The BCMC should not go ‘50 years back to the future’ via political regrouping and re-shuffling of survey numbers. ----- Corporations/Societies such as the BCMC have to become more transparent and much more member oriented if we don’t want to loose even more memberships than we did since Sep.2014 (-174). Don’t you see the writing on the wall? Cliquey, none transparent club business drives particularly newer members away.
90% of Members want -at different degrees - to be consulted on hut projects…and what they want should be worth mentioning as a paragraph in the hut policy – no matter what we did or did not do in the past 50 years -----These are the three survey groups we are dealing with –plus- our own ‘Project Approval Policy’:
a) 10% of members want little to no involvement –- They want to approve funding at a General Meeting
b) 43% of members want minimal (*not none*) involvement – They DO want additional consultation prior to the vote at the GM on two items: 1.Final plans 2.Use of Club Funds
c) 47% of members want key steps involvement. They want to be consulted prior to the GM for approval on at least four items: 1.Construction Plans 2.Funds Approval 3.Site Selection 4.Cabin and Facilities Design.
d) In addition the BCMC Policy Manual – ‘Project Approval Policy’ pt. 22.1.3 – P.18 states:“The Club Membership must be consulted and supportive of the project. The level of consultation and support required should be proportional to the size of funding being sought and awarded”.● This means: As hut building represents the highest level of funding, membership consultation should also be at the highest level!
What to do – my suggestion: e) As is common practice in multiple choice votes and the general rule in Canadian governance: The highest number (the first-past-the-post with 47% in a 3 choices question) gets selected…whether you and other senior executives like that or not. --- Anything else appears as meddling around politically.
- To exclude the wishes of the biggest member group with 47% looks to me like an undemocratic manipulation.
f) In addition- our own ‘Project Approval Policy’ tells us to deliver proportionally the highest level of consultation for the highest level of funding (for a hut)
- Therefore I suggest adding the following text to our new ‘Hut Policy’: 3. Member Involvement: Members at large are consulted at key steps of the process for approval (for example: site selection, cabin and facilities design, construction plans, funds approval)
Alternatively: If the Executive wants to politically regroup the numbers in a compromise
g) Satisfy the two largest member groups *b - with 43%* who want to be consulted on 2 (over lapping) issues –plus- group *c - with 47%* who want to be consulted/approve 4+ issues who together represent a total of 90%!! of respondents – with the following text, uniting group b and c , where members get consulted for approval not on 2 and not on 4+, - but in the middle – on 3 specific items:
3. Member Involvement: Members at large are consulted -prior to a vote at a general meeting- for approval of 3 main items: Building Plans, Financial Plan, and Site Selection.
● I would not understand why the new hut policy shall not incorporate any provisions for membership consultations when:
● 90% of survey respondents want to be consulted on 2 to 4+ specific items.
● Only a small minority of 10% of Members are satisfied with ‘little to no involvement’
● Why would we build a majority with 2 groups of only 53% (a+b) if we can build 2 groups of 90% (b+c) who have clearly overlapping desire for being consulted.
● the ‘BCMC Policy Manual’ – Project Approval Policy- asks (proportionally) for the highest level of membership consultation while project managing the highest level of investment.
In my opinion, Michael's early draft of a revised Hut Construction Policy is much better than the old one. And I think much of the feedback discussion has been reasonable... even if I don't agree with everything suggested. That said, I do wish to present a different view for a couple of things Werner mentioned. First off, I was at the same Executive Team meeting as Werner and, as I remember it, there was **no hesitation** from Michael regarding sharing his draft proposal with other club members. What happened was Ben suggested it be posted on the site forum, there was a very short discussion, and *everyone* agreed. Michael then mentioned he was unsure if he'd be able to post it to the forum since he had been experiencing a connection problem to the club website from his home computer... which he'd told me (the club Webmaster) about some day's earlier. Fortunately he soon figured out the problem and posted his draft version... the first post above.
My other "different view" is regarding Werner's comment that attempts to link the significant reduction in membership numbers within the last 14 months with "none transparent club business". As the club's Webmaster, I noticed membership numbers began dropping long before "Sep.2014". I'd estimate it was much earlier in 2014 and resulted mainly from Werner's decision to drastically cut back on the HUGE amount of effort he'd been putting into promoting the club to as many local outdoor enthusiasts as possible. Now with regards to the issue of transparency *and* the Watersprite Planning, I'd agree that there was initially a problem but the 2015 Cabin Committee became aware early on that several club members wanted more information made available and thereafter the committee members made a series of efforts to share their plans with, and seek feedback from, the club's general membership. I especially like the public, i.e. "transparent", website that was created and put online several weeks ago at http://waterspritecabin.ca/ ... thanks to the efforts of a few club members... especially Alena (BCMC Treasurer).
I will also say that I have mixed feelings regarding Werner's suggestion to include a clause in the proposal that essentially forces the Cabin Committee (for large $$$ projects) to break their planning work into distinct stages. My thoughts are that as long as the Executive Committee has provided reasonable cabin-building guidelines... followed by the Cabin Committee sharing their "good draft" plans, providing regular updates, and they're open to feedback from the general membership... then one formal General Meeting (either Special or Annual) to approve cabin construction funding will be enough. But Werner has a valid point when he states that essentially half the club voted YES to "Members at large are consulted at key steps of the process for approval (for example: site selection, cabin and facilities design, construction plans, funds approval)"... so I suggest we have a two-stage process... the first to approve a potential site(s) for a more rigorous assessment... and the second for approving funding for the construction plans that were created based on feedback from both the Executive and the general membership.
Paul... volunteer BCMC Webmaster
I was up at Watersprite Lake on Oct.4th: I counted at one point 30 persons at the small land tongue near the hut (west side ) including 2 different groups each with their own radio music - it was quite party :-)))))))))) -The picture below shows 12 persons in one shot in the same small area - all different hiking groups. - It will be busy up there during the day! Thank god I am retired and can go there during the week :-)
