# CTC Membership Survey



## Philip Benstead (18 Nov 2015)

Comments on CTC Governance Comments

These comments are the work of another CTC Councillor I endorse them in total.

Recently some of you may have received a survey on CTC governance. Much of it must be baffling in the terms in which it is written and without sufficient background information. Its circulation was not approved by CTC Council. Apart from anything else those of you that have ever worked on public consultation will realise it is badly constructed and includes many leading questions. The implications of various answers are not explained.

Until recently those of us on Council that have a different vision of CTC were prevented from discussing these proposals with you by an instruction that it was confidential until a meeting due to be held on Saturday 23 January 2016. Now we feel we have let you down and trust broken down by this unauthorised survey being released immediately after most AGMs have taken place. Even though the survey is fatally flawed some will try to use it and the closing date gives little opportunity for discussion about alternatives.

As I said frankly some of the questions are leading but to start the ball rolling here are some comments on some of the points. Even if you have not received the survey you might want to think about this. If you did it is, of course, up to you how you respond but at least this might give you a slightly different view.

The introduction "CTC Council recognised some time ago that the current structure is not ideal and has asked us to review it. We are therefore reviewing our governance structures and processes to identify ways to improve them. The review has led us to consult widely and consider the way other charities are governed” gives the impression of a done deal. My view is that the current proposals to reduce democracy in the CTC are way behind the curve of current thinking on engagement of people in membership organisations and seek to impose a controlling centralised model that is not appropriate to CTC. Of course there are some problems but the current review does not address them. The problems include the relationship between paid officials largely based in Guildford; the elected voluntary CTC councillors; member groups and members as a whole.

It’s following the given agenda but going through the questions:

On electing trustees/councillors
Please select the answer that most closely reflects your opinion.
* 1. Currently members can vote for Councillors (charity trustees) within their local regions. We are considering changing this to enable members to vote for all of the elected CTC Councillors. As a member of CTC, would you like the opportunity to vote for: 
( ) One or two Councillors (charity trustees) in your local region 
( ) All of the elected Councillors of CTC 
( ) No preference

This does not state clearly say that the second option means losing local representation. In the real world it is unusual to elect all the representatives across the whole UK e.g. Stevenage is divided is divided into thirteen areas called wards, trade unions and many voluntary, religious and sports organisations have regional representation. There is a real risk that the second option, particularly along with the proposal to reduce the number of CTC Councillors, will mean that future representatives will largely come from the area round Guildford and perhaps London. In the world outside CTC the talk is about Devo-max to countries within the UK and degrees of devolution from London to varieties of regions. In this context it is inconceivable that there will not be representation from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland directly elected by members within those countries. Even the bicycle has a different status in different parts of the UK.

I have indicated option one. I want to keep and develop local representation.

Please select the most appropriate option to correspond with your response to the following statement.
* 2. I believe that all CTC Councillors should share equal responsibility for CTC's activities across the UK. 
( ) Strongly disagree 
( ) Disagree 
( ) Uncertain 
( ) Agree 
( ) Strongly agree

This question is pretty pointless unless it’s an attempt to lead by the nose. CTC Councillors are directors of a company limited by guarantee (i.e. not for profit) and trustees of a charity registered in England and Scotland. Of course we are all responsible by definition but perhaps sometimes not everything is shared with all Councillors and there is currently a huge blurring of the responsibilities of paid staff and elected representatives. There is now no way to discuss member group issues within the committees. There may be a case for devolving / delegating some decisions to local elected Councillors or groups of Councillors.

As it’s a statement of the obvious I made use of the other comments section with question 8. You could indicate uncertain and do the same. Please note that the way the questionnaire is constructed it will work better for you if you put all your extra question 8 comments in one Word document then copy and paste into the box when you are ready.

Please select the most appropriate option to correspond with your response to the following statement.
* 3. The elected Councillors should be able to appoint an additional 1 or 2 trustees to join Council (the board of trustees) to fill gaps in the skills, knowledge or experience of the elected Council. 
( ) Strongly disagree 
( ) Disagree 
( ) Uncertain 
( ) Agree 
( ) Strongly disagree

Martyn: As the preamble already says that we can do this, and there is no option to comment I wonder where this is going? Jim: This would be sliding back to a bad practice which got in the way of progress in the past. At the moment we can co-opt people as non-voting members (non-voting as they have not been elected). When I was first elected there were five unelected but voting members of Council. They were called Vice-Presidents and were at bit like the Aldermen of pre-1970s local government, appointed by the “great and the good” of a previous generation and tended to vote as a block (why does Burma spring to mind). They were a block on all sorts of things, even the introduction of direct debit payments for membership. It was a struggle but we had to get rid of them. My view is that all voting members of Council should be elected.

The premise confuses the role of elected Councillors (agreeing policy and strategy) with officers (implementing). We already can co-opt non-voting members of Council; we can ask people to come on a one-off basis to discuss specific topics and from time to time we can commission consultants (but the project specification must be fit for purpose) but to be blunt if the organisation is missing skills that are needed on a regular long term basis then the job descriptions, person specifications and staff structure that we have now are not fit for purpose.

I have indicated strongly disagree for the reasons given.

Please select the most appropriate option to correspond with your response to the following statement.
* 4. The contribution of experienced CTC volunteers should be recognised with a formal role that enables members with particular skills or experience to support the work of CTC and help energise volunteers locally and/or nationally. 
( ) Strongly disagree 
( ) Disagree 
( ) Uncertain 
( ) Agree 
( ) Strongly agree

Well yes and our volunteers should be valued but this gives no idea what that role might be. Are these the ambassadors, a bit like Seb Coe and Nike or as described at a recent committee meeting “district commissioners” (very top down). Once again this does not say that this is at the expense of voluntary councillors that come from the members.

This gives you no idea what is proposed so again I suggest indicate uncertain and use question 8.

5. It is a principle of good governance that Trustee Boards should not be so large as to be unwieldy. Council currently comprises up to 26 members. The governance working group has concluded that the board should be substantially smaller to ensure efficient and effective decision making.

Do you... 
( ) Strongly disagree 
( ) Disagree 
( ) Uncertain 
( ) Agree 
( ) Strongly agree

This is misleading. CTC Council does not consist of 26 elected Councillors. There is a maximum of 20 elected Councillors. In fact at the moment there are 17 as national office has resisted calls to organise by-elections to fill vacancies. We must ensure that “efficient and effective decision making” does not mean alternative views are not heard. We need the grit in the oyster catalysts. If Council is made smaller it will be even harder to achieve diversity, different experiences, representation from different areas and to scrutinise the Executive.

I have indicated strongly disagree for the reasons given.

6. It is proposed that the Council should have a maximum of 12 members.

Do you... 
( ) Strongly disagree 
( ) Disagree 
( ) Uncertain 
( ) Agree 
( ) Strongly agree

Much of the response to question five applies. CTC does not need a compliant Council. We need sufficient critical mass to generate alternative views and be a critical friend to what sometimes can be a very strong minded, controlling Executive.

This statement does not make it clear that the proposers of this change also propose to take up some of those twelve places with appointees so the number of elected Councillors (or whatever they might be called in the future) accountable to the membership will be even less.

It will be very hard to maintain any meaningful regional or smaller country representation with 12 or less elected CTC Councillors.

I have indicated strongly disagree for the reasons given.

7. Which one of these statements best describes your opinion of the present system of governance and whether it enables us to deliver our mission? 
( ) It is very effective and could not be improved 
( ) It is effective but could be improved a little 
( ) I don't have a strong opinion either way 
( ) It is ineffective and could be improved quite a bit 
( ) It is very ineffective and needs a great deal of improvement

This is ridiculous. What is the point of the question? Of course we have not achieved perfection? So yes there could be improvements but the review goes nowhere near addresses most of them. For example is CTC too centralised, too top down, are members, even Councillors, and member groups being asked to carry out instructions from national office rather than being valued, engaged with and able to influence? For example there is now no committee with the responsibility to discuss member group issues. Most of you may not yet have noticed much difference but those involved in administering member groups and organising events will have spotted how hard it is to get any kind of sympathetic response, sometimes any response at all from Guildford.

I have indicated it is effective but could be improved a little and put a lot into the box with question 8.

8. If you have any ideas for improving the governance of CTC which you would like the governance working group to consider, please add them here.
We seem to be suffering from a dominant chief executive and a fairly weak chair.

Don’t know how we can say this in appropriate way but whatever his strengths and weaknesses it seems to me that when we had Kevin Mayne and the various Chairs and Vice-Chairs of that period our membership continuously increased. Since Gordon Seabright and now Paul Tuohy our membership has steadily decreased and our local activity increasingly rubbished.

The survey does not mention term of office. If it is true that very few, possibly none, of our current staff were CTC members before they starting working for CTC we definitely need a few people dedicated (or stupid enough) to serve on Council long enough to give some continuity and corporate member.

It is very unfortunate that many in Guildford “don’t get it” in terms of working with volunteers all over the UK in a diverse, democratic membership organisation. The culture should not be that we are just here to be told what to do.

General

The assumed model being promoted by the chief executive and current chair is very dated and not appropriate for CTC. It undermines one of CTC’s “unique selling points” amongst other cycling organisations our democracy. We may not all be engaged with that all the time and there could be improvements but it’s there for when it’s needed and much of the positive changes have come bottom up from a local level and through elected CTC Councillors and not top down from a national office in Godalming and Guildford. My preference is for a “community development” empowering rather than control and command approach.

The proposed governance model is seriously “behind the curve” and reflects thinking and attitudes in the 1980s and 1990s. It has become more and more labyrinthine as people have made valid comments about its shortcomings.

An element of the model that has not yet been shared is the proposal to vet candidates. Another illustration of a need by some to control us and how arrogant. Recent experience warns me that these checks won’t just be about “quality” but whether possible candidates will toe the line. Of course we will need to continue the company and charity law checks on criminality, etc., but with the possible exception to reduce abuse of requiring at least twelve months CTC membership before seeking election to Council I do not agree that we should be erecting additional barriers to participation. We need to be encouraging more people to stand – we can do that by organising meetings when working people can attend, by valuing input from volunteers, by making Council relevant to members by saying what we do but perhaps above all convincing people that they can make a difference if they get elected.

It is very sad that an intolerant attitude from the centre is leading to the formation of factions within Council for the first time in many years. It is an inevitable consequence of the current leadership style.

Over the last couple of months I have started to seriously consider the merits of introducing a directly elected chair and would welcome thoughts on that. Elsewhere that seems to galvanised engagement, even new memberships. That may help manage our Executive and the mandate help in discussions with Government and other agencies. That would widen our democracy a little and is complete contrast with the proposal to replace a chair elected by Council with an appointment.

There is a need to make further improvements in the involvement of younger people and women on Council but that can be done in the context of a democratic CTC.


----------



## classic33 (18 Nov 2015)

You telling people how to vote/rigging the ballot?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (19 Nov 2015)

Lets say people do join your crusade. They get a lot of very samey answers, and maybe even see posts like yours in the public domain telling people what to say, what do you think that they will do?

A) say 'wow' we didn't realise we'd got it so wrong, we must respond accordingly.

B) claim validity to ignore all dissenting opinion on the basis one or two people are actively trying to nobble the survey, irrespective if all of those dissenting voices are nobblers or are independently concerned but find themselves scuppered by your actions.


----------



## snorri (19 Nov 2015)

The CTC as we knew it is dead, beyond resuscitation.
Those who liked the CTC of old must start a new organisation on the model of the CTC of old.


----------



## pauldavid (19 Nov 2015)

Is it still a rule that all members must wear sandals with contrasting coloured socks?


----------



## srw (19 Nov 2015)

If the question is "should the Board of an organisation have 20 members, or 26 attendees?" then the answer is a very firm no. It's far too many for effective decision-making, in _any_ organisation, let alone a medium-sized membership charity.

I've pointed out in another thread that at the moment the CTC is going through a transition from an ineffective representative democracy to something else. As it happens I think the executive-led model is a pretty good one, as long as the executive keeps in touch with the membership more effectively than the pseudo-democracy has. If you provide a series of illiterate and ranty answers which lots of people copy you'll only hasten the process.


----------



## swansonj (19 Nov 2015)

srw said:


> If the question is "should the Board of an organisation have 20 members, or 26 attendees?" then the answer is a very firm no. It's far too many for effective decision-making, in _any_ organisation, let alone a medium-sized membership charity.
> 
> I've pointed out in another thread that at the moment the CTC is going through a transition from an ineffective representative democracy to something else. *As it happens I think the executive-led model is a pretty good one,* as long as the executive keeps in touch with the membership more effectively than the pseudo-democracy has. If you provide a series of illiterate and ranty answers which lots of people copy you'll only hasten the process.


Well, that fits. I don't mean this disrespectfully, but in other threads, when subjects such as "the establishment" come up, you sometimes seem to be less comfortable than some of us fellow-lefties in recognising the extent to which the UK is run by a self-preserving, undemocratic, executive elite. The CTC has been converted from an organisation psychologically aligned to its members to an organisation captured by members of an/the establishment; I will continue to regard that as a backward step on fundamental social/political principles, regardless of the outcome for cycling.


----------



## Markymark (19 Nov 2015)

Reading drivel like this is why I'll never join.


----------



## alicat (19 Nov 2015)

The current Council set up didn't stop the disgraceful redundancy of the Technical Officer a year or so ago.

Is the Council fit for purpose in its current form? Is the current Council effective? 

If Philip Benstead could make available the minutes of a recent Council meeting then I think we should have most of the answers we need to complete the survey.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Nov 2015)

swansonj said:


> Well, that fits. I don't mean this disrespectfully, but in other threads, when subjects such as "the establishment" come up, you sometimes seem to be less comfortable than some of us fellow-lefties in recognising the extent to which the UK is run by a self-preserving, undemocratic, executive elite. The CTC has been converted from an organisation psychologically aligned to its members to an organisation captured by members of an/the establishment; I will continue to regard that as a backward step on fundamental social/political principles, regardless of the outcome for cycling.


I think that is a good summary of the current situation re the CTC.

What I can't understand is how it would be possible for the current amount of control exercised by the members, which I regard as being practically ZERO, to be further reduced by any further changes.

And for an org as small as CTC to have 26 trustees/councillors/whateverers is just daft.


----------



## swansonj (19 Nov 2015)

alicat said:


> The current Council set up didn't stop the disgraceful redundancy of the Technical Officer a year or so ago.
> 
> *Is the Council fit for purpose in its current form? Is the current Council effective? *
> 
> If Philip Benstead could make available the minutes of a recent Council meeting then I think we should have most of the answers we need to complete the survey.


No. The process of executive capture of CTC was completed a while back and is irreversible.


----------



## snorri (19 Nov 2015)

alicat said:


> If Philip Benstead could make available the minutes of a recent Council meeting then I think we should have most of the answers we need to complete the survey.


The Council Minutes are available for all to see, but I doubt you will find most of the answers.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/ctc-national-council/meetings


----------



## srw (19 Nov 2015)

swansonj said:


> Well, that fits. I don't mean this disrespectfully, but in other threads, when subjects such as "the establishment" come up, you sometimes seem to be less comfortable than some of us fellow-lefties in recognising the extent to which the UK is run by a self-preserving, undemocratic, executive elite. The CTC has been converted from an organisation psychologically aligned to its members to an organisation captured by members of an/the establishment; I will continue to regard that as a backward step on fundamental social/political principles, regardless of the outcome for cycling.


Ouch.

Harsh, but only slightly unfair. I think it deserves another thread of its own, which I'll come back to.

For what it's worth, in the context of CTC I don't think the phrase "executive capture" is fair. "Executive attempting to herd cats who don't want to be herded and who don't realise that herding is necessary" is closer to the truth from where I sit.


----------



## srw (19 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I think that is a good summary of the current situation re the CTC.
> 
> What I can't understand is how it would be possible for the current amount of control exercised by the members, which I regard as being practically ZERO, to be further reduced by any further changes.
> 
> And for an org as small as CTC to have 26 trustees/councillors/whateverers is just daft.


As I have suggested, an executive which makes an attempt to reach out to members is far better than a pseudo-democratic set of councillors who listen only to themselves and their chums.


----------



## ianrauk (19 Nov 2015)

I'm going back to LCC.


----------



## swansonj (19 Nov 2015)

srw said:


> As I have suggested, an executive which makes an attempt to reach out to members is far better than a pseudo-democratic set of councillors who listen only to themselves and their chums.


Yes, it would be, wouldn't it....


----------



## Racing roadkill (19 Nov 2015)

This is why I can't be arsed with CTC. Politics, shove it, life's too short.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Nov 2015)

srw said:


> Ouch.
> 
> Harsh, but only slightly unfair. I think it deserves another thread of its own, which I'll come back to.
> 
> For what it's worth, in the context of CTC I don't think the phrase "executive capture" is fair. "Executive attempting to herd cats who don't want to be herded and who don't realise that herding is necessary" is closer to the truth from where I sit.


When cat herders in modern charities realise the cats ain't for herding the cat herders usually shift to an internal, employee-stakeholder, focus rather than an external, beneficiary-stakeholder, focus. The cat herders talk about themselves, about their objectives, hopes, and desires, about the structures they need, and stop talking on behalf of the beneficiaries.

CTC aren't the first charity to make this error, of not recognising that cats are not dogs, and won't be the last.


----------



## Drago (19 Nov 2015)

Racing roadkill said:


> This is why I can't be arsed with CTC. Politics, shove it, life's too short.


Same here. Give them my money, read the magazine's, and gratefully take the insurance. They can leave me out of the petty playground politics.


----------



## subaqua (19 Nov 2015)

ianrauk said:


> I'm going back to LCC.


please don't vote for segregation !


----------



## ianrauk (19 Nov 2015)

subaqua said:


> please don't vote for segregation !




You make a good point and reminded me of one of the reasons why I left LCC in the first place.


----------



## Philip Benstead (19 Nov 2015)

UPDATE THIS IS A PERSONAL VIEW OF PHILIP BENSTEAD AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE VIEW OF ANY GROUP.


CTC MEMBERSHIP SURVEY


YOU MAY HAVE RECEIVED A SURVEY.


Some of us on CTC Council believe these proposals are pernicious.


The questions are frame in such a way to give the impression that the CTC members support the suggestion that a smaller council is better. What they fail to tell you that there is opposition to this view in council but the idea is being push by CEO and the chair. If you go along with this the membership will have even less control than you do now,


IMHO the next stage if they get a smaller council that is elected on a low voter turnout will be the removal of the vote from members. Then the CTC will like yha or sustain a NGO going after government grant and will no longer be independent or democratic.


Please use any of the text below if you think it reflects your view, but even better use your own words to get your view across.

Please read my suggested answer below that you will need to cut and paste into question 8.





*If you have any ideas for improving the governance of CTC which you would like the governance working group to consider, please add them here. Note: This survey is anonymous so we will not be able to respond directly to your ideas, although your input will be considered within this review.*

Q1 Go for local councillor. This question does not state clearly say that the second option means losing local representation. In the real world it is unusual to elect all the representatives across the whole UK e.g. local authority areas is divided is divided into thirteen areas called wards, trade unions and many voluntary, religious and sports organisations have regional representation. There is a real risk that the second option, particularly along with the proposal to reduce the number of CTC Councillors, will mean that future representatives will largely come from the area round Guildford and perhaps London. In the world outside CTC the talk is about Devo-max to countries within the UK and degrees of devolution from London to varieties of regions. In this context it is inconceivable that there will not be representation from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland directly elected by members within those countries. Even the bicycle has a different status in different parts of the UK.



Q2 this question is pretty pointless unless it’s an attempt to lead by the nose. CTC Councillors are directors of a company limited by guarantee (i.e. not for profit) and trustees of a charity registered in England and Scotland. Of course we are all responsible by definition but perhaps sometimes not everything is shared with all Councillors and there is currently a huge blurring of the responsibilities of paid staff and elected representatives. There is now no way to discuss member group issues within the committees. There may be a case for devolving / delegating some decisions to local elected Councillors or groups of Councillors.

Q3 the premise confuses the role of elected Councillors (agreeing policy and strategy) with officers (implementing). We already can co-opt non-voting members of Council; we can ask people to come on a one-off basis to discuss specific topics and from time to time we can commission consultants (but the project specification must be fit for purpose) but to be blunt if the organisation is missing skills that are needed on a regular long term basis then the job descriptions, person specifications and staff structure that we have now are not fit for purpose.


_I have indicated strongly disagree for the reasons given._



Q4 this is a way to get experience people removed from the council and to get them interfering with local groups at too low a level. IMHO this will create friction between local member groups and the CTC. Well yes and our volunteers should be valued but this gives no idea what that role might be. Are these the ambassadors, a bit like Seb Coe and Nike or as described at a recent committee meeting “district commissioners” (very top down). Once again this does not say that this is at the expense of voluntary councillors that come from the members.


_This gives you no idea what is proposed so again I suggest indicate uncertain and use question 8._



Q5 I do not know where you got the number 26 from. The CEO is trying to populate the council with yes man/woman that does to not reflect the membership but the population of the UK. Using his logic there should be a non-cyclist who hates cyclists.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/ctc-national-council/council-regions
CTC council has 20 elected seats with 4 unfilled so the maximum number of trustee at council is 16


CTC does not need a compliant Council. We need sufficient critical mass to generate alternative views and be a critical friend to what sometimes can be a very strong minded, controlling Executive.


This statement does not make it clear that the proposers of this change also propose to take up some of those twelve places with appointees so the number of elected Councillors (or whatever they might be called in the future) accountable to the membership will be even less.

It will be very hard to maintain any meaningful regional or smaller country representation with 12 or less elected CTC Councillors.

I have indicated strongly disagree for the reasons given.


Q6 The ideals and founding purpose of the original Cyclists’ Touring Club have been lost in what appears to me to have been a staff takeover of the ‘club’ during the past 8 to 10 years. The proposed great reduction in the number of the ruling committee’s members, and the suggestion that the Committee be entitled to co-opt unelected persons to the committee, are just further stages in this takeover.

Q7 this is a trick question all organisation could be improve, you are just seeking evidence to justify your desire to move the CTC from a membership lead organisation to executive lead one.

CTC too centralised, too top down, are members, even Councillors, and member groups being asked to carry out instructions from national office rather than being valued, engaged with and able to influence? For example there is now no committee with the responsibility to discuss member group issues. Most of you may not yet have noticed much difference but those involved in administering member groups and organising events will have spotted how hard it is to get any kind of sympathetic response, sometimes any response at all from Guildford.


Please use this text if you wish and cut paste into box 8


----------



## classic33 (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> UPDATE THIS IS A PERSONAL VIEW OF PHILIP BENSTEAD AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE VIEW OF ANY GROUP.
> 
> 
> CTC MEMBERSHIP SURVEY
> ...


I'm sorry, but if I was the one looking at forms as they came in and noticed that there were a number using exactly the same wording, I'd be letting those in charge know. 

Granted you've said it's your personal view, but given that your name appears on the CTC list of councillors, I'd be wary of anything that asked me to use the wording of anyone in such a posistion.


----------



## Philip Benstead (20 Nov 2015)

*Comments on CTC Governance Comments *


*These comments are the work of another CTC Councillor I endorse them in total.*



Recently some of you may have received a survey on CTC governance. Much of it must be baffling in the terms in which it is written and without sufficient background information. Its circulation was not approved by CTC Council. Apart from anything else those of you that have ever worked on public consultation will realise it is badly constructed and includes many leading questions. The implications of various answers are not explained.


Until recently those of us on Council that have a different vision of CTC were prevented from discussing these proposals with you by an instruction that it was confidential until a meeting due to be held on Saturday 23 January 2016. Now we feel we have let you down and trust broken down by this unauthorised survey being released immediately after most AGMs have taken place. Even though the survey is fatally flawed some will try to use it and the closing date gives little opportunity for discussion about alternatives.


As I said frankly some of the questions are leading but to start the ball rolling here are some comments on some of the points. Even if you have not received the survey you might want to think about this. If you did it is, of course, up to you how you respond but at least this might give you a slightly different view.


The introduction "CTC Council recognised some time ago that the current structure is not ideal and has asked us to review it. We are therefore reviewing our governance structures and processes to identify ways to improve them. The review has led us to consult widely and consider the way other charities are governed” gives the impression of a done deal. My view is that the current proposals to reduce democracy in the CTC are way behind the curve of current thinking on engagement of people in membership organisations and seek to impose a controlling centralised model that is not appropriate to CTC. Of course there are some problems but the current review does not address them. The problems include the relationship between paid officials largely based in Guildford; the elected voluntary CTC councillors; member groups and members as a whole.


It’s following the given agenda but going through the questions:


On electing trustees/councillors

*Please select the answer that most closely reflects your opinion.*

** 1. Currently members can vote for Councillors (charity trustees) within their local regions. We are considering changing this to enable members to vote for all of the elected CTC Councillors. As a member of CTC, would you like the opportunity to vote for: *

( ) One or two Councillors (charity trustees) in your local region

( ) All of the elected Councillors of CTC

( ) No preference


This does not state clearly say that the second option means losing local representation. In the real world it is unusual to elect all the representatives across the whole UK e.g. Stevenage is divided is divided into thirteen areas called wards, trade unions and many voluntary, religious and sports organisations have regional representation. There is a real risk that the second option, particularly along with the proposal to reduce the number of CTC Councillors, will mean that future representatives will largely come from the area round Guildford and perhaps London. In the world outside CTC the talk is about Devo-max to countries within the UK and degrees of devolution from London to varieties of regions. In this context it is inconceivable that there will not be representation from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland directly elected by members within those countries. Even the bicycle has a different status in different parts of the UK.


_I have indicated option one. I want to keep and develop local representation._


*Please select the most appropriate option to correspond with your response to the following statement.*

** 2. I believe that all CTC Councillors should share equal responsibility for CTC's activities across the UK. *

( ) Strongly disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Uncertain

( ) Agree

( ) Strongly agree


This question is pretty pointless unless it’s an attempt to lead by the nose. CTC Councillors are directors of a company limited by guarantee (i.e. not for profit) and trustees of a charity registered in England and Scotland. Of course we are all responsible by definition but perhaps sometimes not everything is shared with all Councillors and there is currently a huge blurring of the responsibilities of paid staff and elected representatives. There is now no way to discuss member group issues within the committees. There may be a case for devolving / delegating some decisions to local elected Councillors or groups of Councillors.


_As it’s a statement of the obvious I made use of the other comments section with question 8. You could indicate uncertain and do the same. Please note that the way the questionnaire is constructed it will work better for you if you put all your extra question 8 comments in one Word document then copy and paste into the box when you are ready._


*Please select the most appropriate option to correspond with your response to the following statement.*

** 3. The elected Councillors should be able to appoint an additional 1 or 2 trustees to join Council (the board of trustees) to fill gaps in the skills, knowledge or experience of the elected Council. *

( ) Strongly disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Uncertain

( ) Agree

( ) Strongly disagree


Martyn: As the preamble already says that we can do this, and there is no option to comment I wonder where this is going? Jim: This would be sliding back to a bad practice which got in the way of progress in the past. At the moment we can co-opt people as non-voting members (non-voting as they have not been elected). When I was first elected there were five unelected but voting members of Council. They were called Vice-Presidents and were at bit like the Aldermen of pre-1970s local government, appointed by the “great and the good” of a previous generation and tended to vote as a block (why does Burma spring to mind). They were a block on all sorts of things, even the introduction of direct debit payments for membership. It was a struggle but we had to get rid of them. My view is that all voting members of Council should be elected.


The premise confuses the role of elected Councillors (agreeing policy and strategy) with officers (implementing). We already can co-opt non-voting members of Council; we can ask people to come on a one-off basis to discuss specific topics and from time to time we can commission consultants (but the project specification must be fit for purpose) but to be blunt if the organisation is missing skills that are needed on a regular long term basis then the job descriptions, person specifications and staff structure that we have now are not fit for purpose.


_I have indicated strongly disagree for the reasons given._


*Please select the most appropriate option to correspond with your response to the following statement.*

** 4. The contribution of experienced CTC volunteers should be recognised with a formal role that enables members with particular skills or experience to support the work of CTC and help energise volunteers locally and/or nationally. *

( ) Strongly disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Uncertain

( ) Agree

( ) Strongly agree


Well yes and our volunteers should be valued but this gives no idea what that role might be. Are these the ambassadors, a bit like Seb Coe and Nike or as described at a recent committee meeting “district commissioners” (very top down). Once again this does not say that this is at the expense of voluntary councillors that come from the members.


_This gives you no idea what is proposed so again I suggest indicate uncertain and use question 8._


5. It is a principle of good governance that Trustee Boards should not be so large as to be unwieldy. Council currently comprises up to 26 members. The governance working group has concluded that the board should be substantially smaller to ensure efficient and effective decision making. 

Do you...

( ) Strongly disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Uncertain

( ) Agree

( ) Strongly agree


This is misleading. CTC Council does not consist of 26 elected Councillors. There is a maximum of 20 elected Councillors. In fact at the moment there are 17 as national office has resisted calls to organise by-elections to fill vacancies. We must ensure that “efficient and effective decision making” does not mean alternative views are not heard. We need the grit in the oyster catalysts. If Council is made smaller it will be even harder to achieve diversity, different experiences, representation from different areas and to scrutinise the Executive.


_I have indicated strongly disagree for the reasons given._


6. It is proposed that the Council should have a maximum of 12 members.

Do you...

( ) Strongly disagree

( ) Disagree

( ) Uncertain

( ) Agree

( ) Strongly agree


Much of the response to question five applies. CTC does not need a compliant Council. We need sufficient critical mass to generate alternative views and be a critical friend to what sometimes can be a very strong minded, controlling Executive.


This statement does not make it clear that the proposers of this change also propose to take up some of those twelve places with appointees so the number of elected Councillors (or whatever they might be called in the future) accountable to the membership will be even less.


It will be very hard to maintain any meaningful regional or smaller country representation with 12 or less elected CTC Councillors.


_I have indicated strongly disagree for the reasons given._


7. Which one of these statements best describes your opinion of the present system of governance and whether it enables us to deliver our mission?

( ) It is very effective and could not be improved

( ) It is effective but could be improved a little

( ) I don't have a strong opinion either way

( ) It is ineffective and could be improved quite a bit

( ) It is very ineffective and needs a great deal of improvement


This is ridiculous. What is the point of the question? Of course we have not achieved perfection? So yes there could be improvements but the review goes nowhere near addresses most of them. For example is CTC too centralised, too top down, are members, even Councillors, and member groups being asked to carry out instructions from national office rather than being valued, engaged with and able to influence? For example there is now no committee with the responsibility to discuss member group issues. Most of you may not yet have noticed much difference but those involved in administering member groups and organising events will have spotted how hard it is to get any kind of sympathetic response, sometimes any response at all from Guildford.


_I have indicated it is effective but could be improved a little and put a lot into the box with question 8._


8. If you have any ideas for improving the governance of CTC which you would like the governance working group to consider, please add them here.

We seem to be suffering from a dominant chief executive and a fairly weak chair.


Don’t know how we can say this in appropriate way but whatever his strengths and weaknesses it seems to me that when we had Kevin Mayne and the various Chairs and Vice-Chairs of that period our membership continuously increased. Since Gordon Seabright and now Paul Tuohy our membership has steadily decreased and our local activity increasingly rubbished.


The survey does not mention term of office. If it is true that very few, possibly none, of our current staff were CTC members before they starting working for CTC we definitely need a few people dedicated (or stupid enough) to serve on Council long enough to give some continuity and corporate member.


It is very unfortunate that many in Guildford “don’t get it” in terms of working with volunteers all over the UK in a diverse, democratic membership organisation. The culture should not be that we are just here to be told what to do.


General


The assumed model being promoted by the chief executive and current chair is very dated and not appropriate for CTC. It undermines one of CTC’s “unique selling points” amongst other cycling organisations our democracy. We may not all be engaged with that all the time and there could be improvements but it’s there for when it’s needed and much of the positive changes have come bottom up from a local level and through elected CTC Councillors and not top down from a national office in Godalming and Guildford. My preference is for a “community development” empowering rather than control and command approach.


The proposed governance model is seriously “behind the curve” and reflects thinking and attitudes in the 1980s and 1990s. It has become more and more labyrinthine as people have made valid comments about its shortcomings.


An element of the model that has not yet been shared is the proposal to vet candidates. Another illustration of a need by some to control us and how arrogant. Recent experience warns me that these checks won’t just be about “quality” but whether possible candidates will toe the line. Of course we will need to continue the company and charity law checks on criminality, etc., but with the possible exception to reduce abuse of requiring at least twelve months CTC membership before seeking election to Council I do not agree that we should be erecting additional barriers to participation. We need to be encouraging more people to stand – we can do that by organising meetings when working people can attend, by valuing input from volunteers, by making Council relevant to members by saying what we do but perhaps above all convincing people that they can make a difference if they get elected.


It is very sad that an intolerant attitude from the centre is leading to the formation of factions within Council for the first time in many years. It is an inevitable consequence of the current leadership style.


Over the last couple of months I have started to seriously consider the merits of introducing a directly elected chair and would welcome thoughts on that. Elsewhere that seems to galvanised engagement, even new memberships. That may help manage our Executive and the mandate help in discussions with Government and other agencies. That would widen our democracy a little and is complete contrast with the proposal to replace a chair elected by Council with an appointment.


There is a need to make further improvements in the involvement of younger people and women on Council but that can be done in the context of a democratic CTC.


----------



## srw (20 Nov 2015)

As a counterpoint, here's my survey results, with a bit of background. I have no role at all in CTC, so this is again a purely personal view.
1. Don't mind. In the 21st century local representation can sometimes be useful, sometimes not.
2. Strongly agree. That's a core principle of corporate governance - collective responsibility for all decisions.
3. Strongly agree. Council must be able to appoint additional voting members where it has inadequate experience.
4. Strongly agree. Despite my view on (1) local volunteers don't need to be Councillors.
5. Strongly agree. Whiffling about whether Council is 26 or 22 or 17 is irrelevant - it's far, far, far too big for effective decision-making. The grit in the oyster has a much stronger voice in a smaller group.
6. Strongly agree. Actually I think 12 is probably too many for effective discussion and decision-making.
7. Very ineffective.

Free-form comments:
It's a shambles at the moment. CTC needs a small, strategically focussed Board with the interests of members at its heart and with the integrity and gravitas to stand up to the executive where that is required.

[and that freeform comment is more likely to be read than the paragraphs suggested above]

I don't know the full background to the debate, but I sense a few individuals seeing their cherished roles at risk. From this thread I was fully expecting to see a question about whether the Council should be fully-elected - no, it's simply whether there should be fewer elected reps, who have the ability to appoint to supplement their powers.

Having said that, the admin of the survey is weak. I received mine yesterday, with a deadline of next Monday. I don't know whether that's a function of having people on the working group who are digging their heels in at the very idea of surveying the membership - because they suspect that they won't like the answer? Frankly, the only people who will care are geeks like me who are quite interested in corporate governance, and men (and they are all men) like Mr Benstead who like their power.


----------



## Philip Benstead (20 Nov 2015)

srw said:


> As a counterpoint, here's my survey results, with a bit of background. I have no role at all in CTC, so this is again a purely personal view.
> 1. Don't mind. In the 21st century local representation can sometimes be useful, sometimes not.
> 2. Strongly agree. That's a core principle of corporate governance - collective responsibility for all decisions.
> 3. Strongly agree. Council must be able to appoint additional voting members where it has inadequate experience.
> ...


I have no power.


I am a thorn in the side of the council for years even before I was on council.


I have been involve in cycling for years.


----------



## srw (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> I have no power.


http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/ctc-national-council/who-on-council/philip-benstead
suggests otherwise (Note to @swansonj - the Establishment speaks!



> I am a thorn in the side of the council for years even before I was on council.


No wonder they love you. As a member of council, a company director and a charity trustee you are obliged to act in the interests of the organisation, not yourself, and to abide by collectively made decisions.


> I have been involve in cycling for years.


So what? So have I. And the point of democracy is that people can disagree.


----------



## Philip Benstead (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> I have no power.
> 
> 
> I am a thorn in the side of the council for years even before I was on council.
> ...





srw said:


> http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/ctc-national-council/who-on-council/philip-benstead
> suggests otherwise (Note to @swansonj - the Establishment speaks!
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Philip Benstead (20 Nov 2015)

srw said:


> http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/ctc-national-council/who-on-council/philip-benstead
> suggests otherwise (Note to @swansonj - the Establishment speaks!
> 
> 
> ...


Who are you 
what is you name 
What have you done for cycling and the ctc


----------



## Bollo (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> Who are you
> what is you name.


Ronnie Pickering!


----------



## shouldbeinbed (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> Who are you
> what is you name
> What have you done for cycling and the ctc


What has it got to do with you? Many of us have years (decades) of cycling experience and battle scars from whatever level of cycling advocacy and campaigning.

You.come across generally as petulant and appear increasingly shrill and intolerant of people not taking your particular view as unquestioned gospel.
I left CTC a while ago but still have a dispassionate eye on what goes on, given the status it holds as one of the goto commentators for cycling nationally, but if you and this sort of' I'm more cycling than you - justify yourself to the n'th degree before you're allowed to express your opinion to me' attitude is the alternate view then as cyclists (who have never joined or left CTC but still get commented on by them as if our union) we're hosed either way.


----------



## Philip Benstead (20 Nov 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> What has it got to do with you? Many of us have years (decades) of cycling experience and battle scars from whatever level of cycling advocacy and campaigning.
> 
> You.come across generally as petulant and appear increasingly shrill and intolerant of people not taking your particular view as unquestioned gospel.
> I left CTC a while ago but still have a dispassionate eye on what goes on, given the status it holds as one of the goto commentators for cycling nationally, but if you and this sort of' I'm more cycling than you - justify yourself to the n'th degree before you're allowed to express your opinion to me' attitude is the alternate view then as cyclists (who have never joined or left CTC but still get commented on by them as if our union) we're hosed either way.



Please note I am not the only person with these views,in fact existing senior CTC Councillor and ex councillor are in agreement.
The trouble CTC Councillors are prevent from communicating with the membership by CTC HQ

THESE Comments on CTC Governance Comments

These comments are the work of another CTC Councillor I endorse them in total.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> Please note I am not the only person with these views,in fact existing senior CTC Councillor and ex councillor are in agreement.
> The trouble CTC Councillors are prevent from communicating with the membership by CTC HQ
> 
> THESE Comments on CTC Governance Comments
> ...



yet placed here by you as your own personal opinion no mention of cribbing anothers work until now (can't be doing with emulating your shouty capitals) and as for responding to my post: well sidestepped, politics clearly suits you, It is not the comments or the views you express, it is the attitude you are displaying in ramming them home & challenging fellow posters to justify their right to an opinion in what comes across as a hostile and dogmatic manner.


----------



## classic33 (20 Nov 2015)

@Philip Benstead,
STUFFING THE BALLOT BOX IS THE ONLY THING THAT SPRINGS TO MIND READING THIS.

Get the result I want regardless of how that result is achieved. 

Questions. 
How would you feel if another member of the council was doing this? 
Are others doing this?


----------



## Racing roadkill (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> Who are you
> what is you name
> What have you done for cycling and the ctc


The establishment.


----------



## srw (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> Who are you
> what is you name
> What have you done for cycling and the ctc


Wrong questions.

"What do you want the CTC to do for you, for those who cycle and aren't members and for non-cyclists?"

That's the right question.


----------



## Fab Foodie (20 Nov 2015)

Bollo said:


> Ronnie Pickering!



Well played!
This is like a new game .... like a Mornington Crescent for on-line cycling debates ......


----------



## robgul (20 Nov 2015)

I have to say I find it a little odd that Mr Benstead is making post here, and on other fora, at about 0440 hrs* ... to me sleep is pretty useful to recharge the batteries and be able to think clearly and rationally on matters with being obsessive ...

As far as CTC is concerned .. let the feet do the walking, mine will be exiting when my renewal comes up. Enough of the apparent undemocratic governance and autocratic management. The ONLY reason that I have renewed for about the last 5 years was to ride with a great group of friends ... we've now changed the situation with a new club, kicked the old Member Group into touch and moved on ... with a big increase in member numbers ... oh, and my TP insurance, at the same level as CTC, comes free with my household policy.

Rob
* before someone comments I realise that people work at night but I think, from limited knowledge of the man, that it's unlikely in his case


----------



## classic33 (20 Nov 2015)

@robgul, some of us are just awake at that time of day. 
Speaking for myself only here.


----------



## Smokin Joe (20 Nov 2015)

I'd have to ask, what has the CTC ever done for me?


----------



## snorri (20 Nov 2015)

Smokin Joe said:


> I'd have to ask, what has the CTC ever done for me?


Only you can answer that, but don't feel you have to, even if you do you don't need to tell us the answer, in fact you don't even need to tell us you've asked yourself.


----------



## Rafferty (20 Nov 2015)

snorri said:


> The CTC as we knew it is dead, beyond resuscitation.
> Those who liked the CTC of old must start a new organisation on the model of the CTC of old.


I was a long time member of the 'old' CTC and predicted this mess a long time ago. I will never re-join this farcical organisation. I would however, join a club based on the old model.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (20 Nov 2015)

Smokin Joe said:


> I'd have to ask, what has the CTC ever done for me?


Or @Philip Benstead for this forum?

You'd think some sort of involvwment and proving of his bikey credentials to assume to preach in the way he does. A handful of posts over many years, not a single word of advice or encouragement or recommendation of lights, crankset or whatever on day to day cycling questions or thought, but just a few stolen bike posts and exhortations that those in CTC should copy and paste hisn world view as their own.

Philip: I'm a rare attender on the CTC forum and have pretty well given up on Bikeradar, do other places get your sporadic politicking too?


----------



## Drago (20 Nov 2015)

Phlip Bedstead doesn't seem to be gaining much popular support. He may fare better on the CTC forum, which makes our own SC&P forum seem like a WI coffee morning in comparison.


----------



## Philip Benstead (20 Nov 2015)

r


shouldbeinbed said:


> Or @Philip Benstead for this forum?
> 
> You'd think some sort of involvwment and proving of his bikey credentials to assume to preach in the way he does. A handful of posts over many years, not a single word of advice or encouragement or recommendation of lights, crankset or whatever on day to day cycling questions or thought, but just a few stolen bike posts and exhortations that those in CTC should copy and paste hisn world view as their own.
> 
> Philip: I'm a rare attender on the CTC forum and have pretty well given up on Bikeradar, do other places get your sporadic politicking too?


*
Here is some of the things i have done etc

Philip Benstead - Cycling Curriculum Vitae*


CYCLING HISTORY: First Rode a cycle 1958 and Life Member CTC Join 1971.


TOURING EXPERIENCE

Cycled in all counties of England Scotland and Wales, Also Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Isle of Man, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Northern Island, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, USA, and Yugoslavia



*NATIONAL*


2013 to current Director CTC Cycling Holidays & Tours Ltd

1996 – 2006 Trustee Cycle Touring Countryside Trust


CTC (Cyclists’ Touring Club)

Councillor (Non-Executive Director)

2013 - current South East

2006 - 2007 Greater London

2003 - 2005 Greater London

1996 - 1998 Eastern

1992 - 1994 West Kent & East Sussex

*EVENTS ORGANISED*


2007 Chair, CTC Response to the la Tour de France 2007

1994 Chair, CTC National 400 KM

1988 Chair, Final British Cycling Touring Competition

1988 – 98 CTC Tour Leader = 15 tours


*CAMPAIGNING*

*Cyclists Rights Network/Right To Ride*


1998 – current City of Westminster/RB Kensington & Chelsea

· CTC Rep Community & Police Consultative Cttee

1987- 98 Bromley LB.

· CTC Rep Beckenham & Penge Road Safety Consultative Committee



*CTC COUNCIL COMMITTEES*


2013 to current CTC Cycling Holidays & Tours Ltd

2013 to current Strategy and Policy

2004 - 06 Management

2003 – Operations

1996 - 98 Publicity, Promotion & Public Relations

1993 Think Tank

1993 - 94 Chair, Leisure & Cycle Touring

1992 Road Safety & Transport Planning

*COMPETITIVE EVENTS RODE*


Road Races = 4 events

Time Trial: Hill Climbs, 10, 25, 50, 100 = 60 events

12 and 24 hours = 10 events

Track Racing = 5 events


*SEMI COMPETITIVE EVENTS RODE*


Audax, Reliability Trails = 100 events

Paris Breast Paris = 3 events

Brevet Randonnee de Alp



*REGIONAL *

*CTC LONDON*

2008 - current Secretary

2003 - Event Organiser

2000 - Marketing Officer

2000 - 01 Minutes Secretary

2000- current committee member


*LOCAL - CTC WEST KENT*

1992 - 95 Newcomers Group Founder/Secretary

1986 -91 Social Cttee Chair 87-91

1977-79 & 1986 - 96 Outdoors Events Cttee, Chair 96

1977 - 79 & 84 – 95 Event Organiser – 10 events

1977/78 Clubroom Cttee

1976/77 Hardriders Secretary

1975/77 DA Cttee

1975 -95 Rides Leader


*CTC CENTRAL LONDON *

2006 - current Rides Leader

*RIDDEN WITH THESE CLUBS *


DA’s: Bristol, Cornwall, Devon, E Kent, E Surrey, E Warwickshire, Essex, Glasgow, Herefordshire & Worcester, Hertfordshire, Lothian, Norfolk, N London, North Yorkshire, Northampton & Milton Keynes, Oxford, Reading, S Bucks, S London, SW London, S York’s & Derbyshire, Teesside, Wessex, W Kent, W London, W Surrey


Audax Club Parisian, Cardiff Ajax, Chippenham & District Wheelers, Colchester Rovers , Exeter Wheelers, Harp RC, St Budeaux CC, Verulam CC, Willesden CC, Worthing Excelsior CC


*CYCLING INTERESTS*


Cycle Touring, Off Road Cycling, Challenging Rides, Cycle Training


ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS (not all current)


24 Hour Fellowship, 40 Plus Cycling Club, Audax United Kingdom, Catford Cycling Club, Institute of

Road Safety Officers, London Cycling Campaign, FOE, OCD Cyclo Climbing, Rough Stuff Fellowship Tandem Club & Youth Hostel Association



*Employment Curriculum Vitae*


*Philip Benstead B.Env.Sc. (Hons.)*

*PROFILE.*


· Self-starting, multi skilled graduate with wide ranging experience of event management, training, information and communication technology, marketing and team working skills.

· Maintained budgetary control, delegate and supervise where appropriate.

· Delivered cycle training to National Standards/Bikeability to levels 1-3, to children and adults including some with special educational needs.

· Delivered cycle maintenance at all levels to children, adults and youth offenders.

· Experience of making presentations and active participation at meetings.

· Co-coordinated 130 projects and campaigns in the UK, Europe and the USA including an event with 300 participants.


*SKILLS AND ABILITIES.*


· DfT/CTC National Standards/Bikeability Cycling Instructor Trainer and National Standard Cycle Instructor Trainer.

· Experienced maintaining appropriate level of behaviour with children and interacting with those with special educational needs.

· Qualified and Experienced Cycle Mechanic to Level 3.

· Qualified and Experienced user of: Information Communication Technology.

· Experienced user of digital cameras.

· Experience at giving interview to camera and radio and able to explain abstract concepts to a general audience.

· Assimilate new skills and information quickly.


*EMPLOYMENT & COMMUNITY EXPERIENCE.*


*Cycle Instructor/Pedestrian Instructor*

*(Self Employed)*

2006 to current

*T/A Cycling 4 ALL.*
· Delivering National Standard/Bikeability cyclist training, Dr Bike, maintenance and TfL/LCC Cycling Friday rides to corporate bodies, local authorities, Royal Parks Agency (RPA) and CIC/ disability charity.

· Delivered training that is structured, planned, and progressive in a safe manner often in new environments at levels, 1-3, to adult and children including some with special educational needs as individuals and in groups.

· Taught cycle maintenance to children, adults and youth offenders.

· Often acting as lead instructor: responsidable for and managing course paperwork including training records, risk assessments, route-planning and behavioural agreements.

· Co-ordinated and delivered Bike Week events and cycle maintenance for Royal Parks Agency.

· Delivered on road pedestrian skills to children with special educational needs.

· Attend professional development and other training sessions from time to time.


*Cyclist Instructor.*

1998 to 2006

*Road Safety Unit - Westminster City Council.*
· Co-ordinated Cyclist Training programme that trained 487 children and 106 Adults (including Metropolitan Police Service) in cyclist safety in groups/individuals on/off road plus 300 participants for “Dr Bike”. “Appeared in “Westminster Reporter” as face of Cyclist Training.

· Developed and implemented of educational safety presentations to all sections of the community including assisted in the coordinating of Junior Citizen at London Zoo.

· Drafted reports, course plans, job descriptions, press releases/articles,

· Organised road safety and cycling awareness events including Bike Week events in Hyde Park.

· Instigated the use of postcards as marketing medium for cyclist training.

· Performed ICT and administrative procedures, designing database and analysing data.

· Developed and co-ordinated regional information and a network databases.

· Co-ordinate the School Crossing Patrols. Drafted BSP bids.


1996 to 1998

*Career development - (computer training) and extended travelling.*



*Referencer*

1988 to 1996

*District Valuer - (Inland Revenue).*
· Inspected and surveyed properties to determined appropriate tax.


*1975 to current*

*Cyclists' Touring Club (Life Member)*


*Held various positions from local to national level (not concurrently) including:*

· Non-Executive Director/Trustee –Right to Advisory Group - (current)

· Appear on Voice of Russia radio interview

· Suggested the use of postcard as promotional tool

· Instigated the development of a staff communication strategy.

· Instigated the development of staff recruitment procedure.

· Drafted the first “cycle carriage on trains” policy.

· Appeared as Dr Bike during TdF on ITV Local.com also BBC News 24 Hour.

· Tour Leader:- Led 21 cycling holidays with nearly 300 participants to the USA & Europe


· CTC London Secretary - (CTC’s. London’s Regional voice).

· CTC central London Rides Leader.

· CTC Right to Ride Representative: - London Cycle Network Plus Steering Group, Borough Officers Cycling Group, City of Westminster, British Waterways, R. B. Kensington & Chelsea, Bromley LBC.

· CTC West Kent Event Organiser: - Organised 80 events both local and national.



*1980 to 1984*

*Further & Higher Education (see below)*


*QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING & CONTINUAL PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.*


*COMMUNICATION AND INTERPERSONAL SKILLS:*

2008 – on going

· CTC Media Course

· Sport Coach UK- NCF Coaching Disabled Performers.

· Sport Coach UK- NCF How to Coach Disable People in Sport.

· CTUK Special Educational Needs (SEN)

· NIMHE- Mental Health First Aid.

· Camden LBC Safeguarding Children Level A.

· Lambeth LBC – Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults.

· Disability Croydon - Disability Awareness.


· Certificate in Marketing* - *Chartered Institute of Marketing.


*TRANSPORT & PERSONAL SAFETY:*


2001 – on going

· TABS Conference 2015

· CTC Rides Leaders Managers course,

· VRQ -Cycle Maintenance and Repair Level 2/ 3 (Dec 2012 to Jan 2013),

· DfT National Standard Instructor Trainer - Advance Cycle Training / Technicolour Tyre Co Ltd,

· Parks Tool School – Bicycle Repair & Maintenance Clinic Certificate,

· DfT/CTC Accredited Instructor - National Cycling Training Standards,

· Metropolitan Police Service - Level Two Cyclist Training,

· DfT - Walking the Way Ahead,

· TfL - “InCar” Safety,

· TMS - Introduction to Road Safety Audit, Vulnerable Road Users, Education, Training & Publicity,

· IRSO - Evaluating the Effectiveness of your Road Safety Interventions, Car Seat Regulations, Managing, Occupational Road Risk, Conspicuity, Makaton and Making Learning More Likely,


*INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY:*



2003/2001

*70-210 Microsoft Windows 2000 MCP & NVQ3 - Using Information Technology.*

Direct Computer Training.



2002

*F & A Education Teaching Certificate - City & Guilds 7303 Stage 1 for IT Specialists.*

City Literary Institute for Arts & Sciences.


*GENERAL EDUCATION:*


2 March 2014

*Emergency First Aid At Work.*




1984

*BSc. (Hons) - Environmental Science* *2 (II) *- Plymouth Polytechnic.


*REFERENCES.*


*Available on request.*


----------



## Flying Dodo (20 Nov 2015)

I've been a CTC member off and on for about 15 years. I even went to the CTC AGM in Loughborough in 2010, and saw what a shambles that was. The CTC does have a role to play in UK cycling advocacy. Quite how it will manage to do that I don't know. 

I'm sure @Philip Benstead, like many others, does care about the future of the CTC and the way it's governed. However, having seen his writings here and elsewhere, which generally are a massive string of badly constructed, shouty paragraphs, often in capitals, just makes it incomprehensible as to what the message is. The long CV posted above merely confirms that image.


----------



## srw (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> r
> 
> *
> Here is some of the things i have done etc
> ...


Bully for you. But none of that answers the question that @shouldbeinbed has posed, or that I posed earlier in the thread. And, I'm afraid, that sort of showing-off rather summarises why the CTC desperately needs a new direction for the future rather than a return to an old, supposedly prelapsarian past.


----------



## Philip Benstead (20 Nov 2015)

Flying Dodo said:


> I've been a CTC member off and on for about 15 years. I even went to the CTC AGM in Loughborough in 2010, and saw what a shambles that was. The CTC does have a role to play in UK cycling advocacy. Quite how it will manage to do that I don't know.
> 
> I'm sure @Philip Benstead, like many others, does care about the future of the CTC and the way it's governed. However, having seen his writings here and elsewhere, which generally are a massive string of badly constructed, shouty paragraphs, often in capitals, just makes it incomprehensible as to what the message is. The long CV posted above merely confirms that image.





srw said:


> Bully for you. But none of that answers the question that @shouldbeinbed has posed, or that I posed earlier in the thread. And, I'm afraid, that sort of showing-off rather summarises why the CTC desperately needs a new direction for the future rather than a return to an old, supposedly prelapsarian past.



OK 
A few general idea that need work.


Yes mother an apple pie/

I THINK THE CTC SHOULD BE:


An Independent, Democratic membership lead organisation that campaigns for the promotion of non-competitive cycling e.g. Recreational /touring and utility /transport.

At national level a develop plan will train members from the local level to take over the role of trustee.

Policy is developed via it trustee committee structure with the import of expert advice.

At local level developing it groups/members to provide cycle rides and events over a wide range.

Providing services and goods to it member and the cycling community.


INSTEAD OF BEING OR BECOMING:


Executive lead organisation that that seek grants and consultant fee to provide cycling to the general population.

Policy is developed by the staff with no import from the board of trustees who just rubber stamp policy.

Events are targeted via grants based application that will stop when the money runs out.


----------



## Bollo (20 Nov 2015)

The CTC is now a third-sector service provider that doesn't really know what services it provides and whether anyone even wants them. The talent has gone. It's descended into petty cliques squabbling over nothing that matters. The cycling world has moved on in so many ways and the CTC has taken the wrong turn at every step.

To those that don't know about the CTC it's an irrelevance, to those that do know it's a farce and to those that truly care it's a tragedy. I give it maybe another 5 years.


----------



## Philip Benstead (20 Nov 2015)

Bollo said:


> The CTC is now a third-sector service provider that doesn't really know what services it provides and whether anyone even wants them. The talent has gone. It's descended into petty cliques squabbling over nothing that matters. The cycling world has moved on in so many ways and the CTC has taken the wrong turn at every step.
> 
> To those that don't know about the CTC it's an irrelevance, to those that do know it's a farce and to those that truly care it's a tragedy. I give it maybe another 5 years.




Question to all

What is the solution

Have you offer to help eg stand for election , we do have unfill seats


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Nov 2015)

Flying Dodo said:


> The CTC does have a role to play in UK cycling advocacy.


yep. As a faded, tired, bit-part ingénue whose day is passed...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> OK
> A few general idea that need work.
> 
> 
> ...


Found a new club. Start again. Stop wasting your energies trying to save the lost soul of the CTC.

But it isn't really about cycling anymore, it's about egos....


----------



## swansonj (20 Nov 2015)

One fact that Chris Juden thought was very revealing and I agree: with his departure, I think he said there was no remaining member of CTC staff who had been a member of CTC before starting work there.


----------



## Philip Benstead (20 Nov 2015)

Flying Dodo said:


> I've been a CTC member off and on for about 15 years. I even went to the CTC AGM in Loughborough in 2010, and saw what a shambles that was. The CTC does have a role to play in UK cycling advocacy. Quite how it will manage to do that I don't know.
> 
> I'm sure @Philip Benstead, like many others, does care about the future of the CTC and the way it's governed. However, having seen his writings here and elsewhere, which generally are a massive string of badly constructed, shouty paragraphs, often in capitals, just makes it incomprehensible as to what the message is. The long CV posted above merely confirms that image.


 So you are unable to commit to the CTC and get involve, just sitting on the side-lines practising sesquipedalian and complaining instead of getting involved to make the CTC better for its members.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> So you are unable to commit to the CTC and get involve, just sitting on the side-lines practising sesquipedalian and complaining instead of getting involved to make the CTC better for its members.


About 8% of the population aged five+ cycles three or more times a week (equating to around 5.1 million people in Great Britain).
-vs-
membership of CTC c70,000

Is the CTC a functionally irrelevant organisation to the vast majority of the UK cycling population?


----------



## Philip Benstead (20 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Found a new club. Start again. Stop wasting your energies trying to save the lost soul of the CTC.
> 
> But it isn't really about cycling anymore, it's about egos....


To do that you money ,lots


----------



## Philip Benstead (20 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Found a new club. Start again. Stop wasting your energies trying to save the lost soul of the CTC.
> 
> But it isn't really about cycling anymore, it's about egos....


So you do not have a ego then if not why you on this forum sharing your views to make you feel important


----------



## swansonj (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> So you do not have a ego then if not why you on this forum sharing your views to make you feel important


Philip: I agree with many of your views about CTC. But I have to say, I'm really not too sure you are helping that cause very much here.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> To do that you money ,lots


Cyclists have lots of money.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> So you do not have a ego then if not why you on this forum sharing your views to make you feel important


Am I in here, and on other social media, asking folk to follow my lead in "the cause"? No.

Like @swansonj I think most of the points you make here and elsewhere about the CTC are bang on the money, if sometimes very poorly articulated.

I've let my attachment to the CTC go, and have moved on. You seem hell bent on championing some sort of counter-reformation of the CTC. It isn't going to happen. We are not going to be allowed to turn back the clock. You've already lost the fight but won't throw in the towel. 

And many of your outpourings actually do your forlorn cause more harm than good.


----------



## Flying Dodo (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> So you are unable to commit to the CTC and get involve, just sitting on the side-lines practising sesquipedalian and complaining instead of getting involved to make the CTC better for its members.



Well I've no idea what sesquipedalian means as I've never heard that word before. And that, sadly is one of your problems - why use a short simple word when you can use complicated language and/or 20 words instead, seems to be the way you write, which is not how the vast majority of your target audience functions.

In fact in my post I was fairly succinctly summing up what is the issue with your postings. Instead of putting up badly worded, incomprehensible acres of print, why not simply state the facts?

How about an alternative opening post along the lines of:-

_Anyone who is a CTC member should have received a survey asking you to comment about how the governance of the CTC can be improved. As an existing CTC councillor, I have many concerns about the whole process, not least the fact they only have the survey open for 3 days. They are proposing to reduce the numbers of council members as well as reducing the influence of local representation.

If you do complete the survey, my personal recommendation would be for you to frame your answers so that local representation isn't lost and feel free to put those sorts of comments for the final answer.

Thanks._


----------



## Philip Benstead (20 Nov 2015)

Comments on CTC Governance Comments

These comments are the work of another CTC Councillor I endorse them in total.

Recently some of you may have received a survey on CTC governance. Much of it must be baffling in the terms in which it is written and without sufficient background information. Its circulation was not approved by CTC Council. Apart from anything else those of you that have ever worked on public consultation will realise it is badly constructed and includes many leading questions. The implications of various answers are not explained.

Until recently those of us on Council that have a different vision of CTC were prevented from discussing these proposals with you by an instruction that it was confidential until a meeting due to be held on Saturday 23 January 2016. Now we feel we have let you down and trust broken down by this unauthorised survey being released immediately after most AGMs have taken place. Even though the survey is fatally flawed some will try to use it and the closing date gives little opportunity for discussion about alternatives.

As I said frankly some of the questions are leading but to start the ball rolling here are some comments on some of the points. Even if you have not received the survey you might want to think about this. If you did it is, of course, up to you how you respond but at least this might give you a slightly different view.

The introduction "CTC Council recognised some time ago that the current structure is not ideal and has asked us to review it. We are therefore reviewing our governance structures and processes to identify ways to improve them. The review has led us to consult widely and consider the way other charities are governed” gives the impression of a done deal. My view is that the current proposals to reduce democracy in the CTC are way behind the curve of current thinking on engagement of people in membership organisations and seek to impose a controlling centralised model that is not appropriate to CTC. Of course there are some problems but the current review does not address them. The problems include the relationship between paid officials largely based in Guildford; the elected voluntary CTC councillors; member groups and members as a whole.

It’s following the given agenda but going through the questions:

On electing trustees/councillors
Please select the answer that most closely reflects your opinion.
* 1. Currently members can vote for Councillors (charity trustees) within their local regions. We are considering changing this to enable members to vote for all of the elected CTC Councillors. As a member of CTC, would you like the opportunity to vote for: 
( ) One or two Councillors (charity trustees) in your local region 
( ) All of the elected Councillors of CTC 
( ) No preference

This does not state clearly say that the second option means losing local representation. In the real world it is unusual to elect all the representatives across the whole UK e.g. Stevenage is divided is divided into thirteen areas called wards, trade unions and many voluntary, religious and sports organisations have regional representation. There is a real risk that the second option, particularly along with the proposal to reduce the number of CTC Councillors, will mean that future representatives will largely come from the area round Guildford and perhaps London. In the world outside CTC the talk is about Devo-max to countries within the UK and degrees of devolution from London to varieties of regions. In this context it is inconceivable that there will not be representation from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland directly elected by members within those countries. Even the bicycle has a different status in different parts of the UK.

I have indicated option one. I want to keep and develop local representation.

Please select the most appropriate option to correspond with your response to the following statement.
* 2. I believe that all CTC Councillors should share equal responsibility for CTC's activities across the UK. 
( ) Strongly disagree 
( ) Disagree 
( ) Uncertain 
( ) Agree 
( ) Strongly agree

This question is pretty pointless unless it’s an attempt to lead by the nose. CTC Councillors are directors of a company limited by guarantee (i.e. not for profit) and trustees of a charity registered in England and Scotland. Of course we are all responsible by definition but perhaps sometimes not everything is shared with all Councillors and there is currently a huge blurring of the responsibilities of paid staff and elected representatives. There is now no way to discuss member group issues within the committees. There may be a case for devolving / delegating some decisions to local elected Councillors or groups of Councillors.

As it’s a statement of the obvious I made use of the other comments section with question 8. You could indicate uncertain and do the same. Please note that the way the questionnaire is constructed it will work better for you if you put all your extra question 8 comments in one Word document then copy and paste into the box when you are ready.

Please select the most appropriate option to correspond with your response to the following statement.
* 3. The elected Councillors should be able to appoint an additional 1 or 2 trustees to join Council (the board of trustees) to fill gaps in the skills, knowledge or experience of the elected Council. 
( ) Strongly disagree 
( ) Disagree 
( ) Uncertain 
( ) Agree 
( ) Strongly disagree

Martyn: As the preamble already says that we can do this, and there is no option to comment I wonder where this is going? Jim: This would be sliding back to a bad practice which got in the way of progress in the past. At the moment we can co-opt people as non-voting members (non-voting as they have not been elected). When I was first elected there were five unelected but voting members of Council. They were called Vice-Presidents and were at bit like the Aldermen of pre-1970s local government, appointed by the “great and the good” of a previous generation and tended to vote as a block (why does Burma spring to mind). They were a block on all sorts of things, even the introduction of direct debit payments for membership. It was a struggle but we had to get rid of them. My view is that all voting members of Council should be elected.

The premise confuses the role of elected Councillors (agreeing policy and strategy) with officers (implementing). We already can co-opt non-voting members of Council; we can ask people to come on a one-off basis to discuss specific topics and from time to time we can commission consultants (but the project specification must be fit for purpose) but to be blunt if the organisation is missing skills that are needed on a regular long term basis then the job descriptions, person specifications and staff structure that we have now are not fit for purpose.

I have indicated strongly disagree for the reasons given.

Please select the most appropriate option to correspond with your response to the following statement.
* 4. The contribution of experienced CTC volunteers should be recognised with a formal role that enables members with particular skills or experience to support the work of CTC and help energise volunteers locally and/or nationally. 
( ) Strongly disagree 
( ) Disagree 
( ) Uncertain 
( ) Agree 
( ) Strongly agree

Well yes and our volunteers should be valued but this gives no idea what that role might be. Are these the ambassadors, a bit like Seb Coe and Nike or as described at a recent committee meeting “district commissioners” (very top down). Once again this does not say that this is at the expense of voluntary councillors that come from the members.

This gives you no idea what is proposed so again I suggest indicate uncertain and use question 8.

5. It is a principle of good governance that Trustee Boards should not be so large as to be unwieldy. Council currently comprises up to 26 members. The governance working group has concluded that the board should be substantially smaller to ensure efficient and effective decision making.

Do you... 
( ) Strongly disagree 
( ) Disagree 
( ) Uncertain 
( ) Agree 
( ) Strongly agree

This is misleading. CTC Council does not consist of 26 elected Councillors. There is a maximum of 20 elected Councillors. In fact at the moment there are 17 as national office has resisted calls to organise by-elections to fill vacancies. We must ensure that “efficient and effective decision making” does not mean alternative views are not heard. We need the grit in the oyster catalysts. If Council is made smaller it will be even harder to achieve diversity, different experiences, representation from different areas and to scrutinise the Executive.

I have indicated strongly disagree for the reasons given.

6. It is proposed that the Council should have a maximum of 12 members.

Do you... 
( ) Strongly disagree 
( ) Disagree 
( ) Uncertain 
( ) Agree 
( ) Strongly agree

Much of the response to question five applies. CTC does not need a compliant Council. We need sufficient critical mass to generate alternative views and be a critical friend to what sometimes can be a very strong minded, controlling Executive.

This statement does not make it clear that the proposers of this change also propose to take up some of those twelve places with appointees so the number of elected Councillors (or whatever they might be called in the future) accountable to the membership will be even less.

It will be very hard to maintain any meaningful regional or smaller country representation with 12 or less elected CTC Councillors.

I have indicated strongly disagree for the reasons given.

7. Which one of these statements best describes your opinion of the present system of governance and whether it enables us to deliver our mission? 
( ) It is very effective and could not be improved 
( ) It is effective but could be improved a little 
( ) I don't have a strong opinion either way 
( ) It is ineffective and could be improved quite a bit 
( ) It is very ineffective and needs a great deal of improvement

This is ridiculous. What is the point of the question? Of course we have not achieved perfection? So yes there could be improvements but the review goes nowhere near addresses most of them. For example is CTC too centralised, too top down, are members, even Councillors, and member groups being asked to carry out instructions from national office rather than being valued, engaged with and able to influence? For example there is now no committee with the responsibility to discuss member group issues. Most of you may not yet have noticed much difference but those involved in administering member groups and organising events will have spotted how hard it is to get any kind of sympathetic response, sometimes any response at all from Guildford.

I have indicated it is effective but could be improved a little and put a lot into the box with question 8.

8. If you have any ideas for improving the governance of CTC which you would like the governance working group to consider, please add them here.
We seem to be suffering from a dominant chief executive and a fairly weak chair.

Don’t know how we can say this in appropriate way but whatever his strengths and weaknesses it seems to me that when we had Kevin Mayne and the various Chairs and Vice-Chairs of that period our membership continuously increased. Since Gordon Seabright and now Paul Tuohy our membership has steadily decreased and our local activity increasingly rubbished.

The survey does not mention term of office. If it is true that very few, possibly none, of our current staff were CTC members before they starting working for CTC we definitely need a few people dedicated (or stupid enough) to serve on Council long enough to give some continuity and corporate member.

It is very unfortunate that many in Guildford “don’t get it” in terms of working with volunteers all over the UK in a diverse, democratic membership organisation. The culture should not be that we are just here to be told what to do.

General

The assumed model being promoted by the chief executive and current chair is very dated and not appropriate for CTC. It undermines one of CTC’s “unique selling points” amongst other cycling organisations our democracy. We may not all be engaged with that all the time and there could be improvements but it’s there for when it’s needed and much of the positive changes have come bottom up from a local level and through elected CTC Councillors and not top down from a national office in Godalming and Guildford. My preference is for a “community development” empowering rather than control and command approach.

The proposed governance model is seriously “behind the curve” and reflects thinking and attitudes in the 1980s and 1990s. It has become more and more labyrinthine as people have made valid comments about its shortcomings.

An element of the model that has not yet been shared is the proposal to vet candidates. Another illustration of a need by some to control us and how arrogant. Recent experience warns me that these checks won’t just be about “quality” but whether possible candidates will toe the line. Of course we will need to continue the company and charity law checks on criminality, etc., but with the possible exception to reduce abuse of requiring at least twelve months CTC membership before seeking election to Council I do not agree that we should be erecting additional barriers to participation. We need to be encouraging more people to stand – we can do that by organising meetings when working people can attend, by valuing input from volunteers, by making Council relevant to members by saying what we do but perhaps above all convincing people that they can make a difference if they get elected.

It is very sad that an intolerant attitude from the centre is leading to the formation of factions within Council for the first time in many years. It is an inevitable consequence of the current leadership style.

Over the last couple of months I have started to seriously consider the merits of introducing a directly elected chair and would welcome thoughts on that. Elsewhere that seems to galvanised engagement, even new memberships. That may help manage our Executive and the mandate help in discussions with Government and other agencies. That would widen our democracy a little and is complete contrast with the proposal to replace a chair elected by Council with an appointment.

There is a need to make further improvements in the involvement of younger people and women on Council but that can be done in the context of a democratic CTC.


----------



## Bollo (20 Nov 2015)

You're not getting it, are you?


----------



## EltonFrog (20 Nov 2015)

As far as a new committee is concerned, there should only be three people on it, and apologies for absence from two of them when it convenes.


----------



## cisamcgu (20 Nov 2015)

This is starting to get really funny


----------



## Philip Benstead (20 Nov 2015)

cisamcgu said:


> This is starting to get really funny


yes i know you p**** taker but if you help instead hiner things would be better


----------



## srw (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> yes i know you p**** taker but if you help instead hiner things would be better


Back away from the Bells bottle.....


----------



## snorri (20 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> So you are unable to commit to the CTC and get involve, just sitting on the side-lines practising sesquipedalian and complaining instead of getting involved to make the CTC better for its members.


Philip, I don't doubt your sincerity, but it's no use trying to get others to commit to swimming against the tide in this new CTC. It is disappointing for me to see what is happening, and I can understand how much more disappointing it is for those like you who have been members for much longer than I, but there comes a time when we all have to face reality.


----------



## Fab Foodie (20 Nov 2015)

Where's the head in hands smiley ....

This sounds like the bickering of people over re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic .....


----------



## Flying Dodo (21 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> So you are unable to commit to the CTC and get involve, just sitting on the side-lines practising sesquipedalian and complaining instead of getting involved to make the CTC better for its members.



I would have posted some more last night, but I had to go and recce a route for a ride - which will be run eventually for the CTC in fact. Having now googled the meaning of sesquipedalian, it's rather ironic of you to use it! 

Anyway it's clear that sadly you just don't seem to have the ability to put across your thoughts in a clear and concise manner, in order to engage positively with people. The message you are trying to get across just gets lost unfortunately, as no-one is going to read through such a long essay.

I would not want to vote for someone who isn't able to simply explain the crux of their argument.


----------



## Philip Benstead (21 Nov 2015)

THE Chair of the CTC is taking control of the CTC from its members and giving it to CEO who will change from a grassroots organisation to a NGO going for grants etc.

In a nutshell


Have you got it now?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> THE Chair of the CTC is taking control of the CTC from its members and giving it to CEO who will change from a grassroots organisation to a NGO going for grants etc.
> 
> In a nutshell
> 
> ...


In a nutshell? Wrong tense.

_The Chair of the CTC has taken control of the CTC from its members and has given it to the CEO/Executive, who has already changed it from a grassroots organisation to an NGO going for grants._


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2015)

and that process started well before the charity vote. Well before. And the majority of those involved in governance were happy for it to happen. Or asleep on the job.

and the majority of the members were happy for it to happen. or apathetic.

and as an organisation it is pifflingly, trivially, small with an over-inflated sense of its impact and importance.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2015)

and that's democracy for you.

if you don't like the 'rules' of the club you find yourself in, after they have been changed democratically, leave.

start a new club with 'rules' you do like.


----------



## swansonj (21 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> In a nutshell? Wrong tense.
> 
> _The Chair of the CTC has taken control of the CTC from its members and has given it to the CEO/Executive, who has already changed it from a grassroots organisation to an NGO going for grants._


That is truly uncanny - that is word for word what I'd composed after reading Philip's latest.


----------



## classic33 (21 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> yes i know you p**** taker but if you help instead hiner things would be better


You should see the views on this on non UK based sites!


----------



## Dec66 (21 Nov 2015)

You know, I just get on my bike and ride it.


----------



## Bollo (21 Nov 2015)

Dec66 said:


> You know, I just get on my bike and ride it.


I'm not sure the committee will allow that.


----------



## Dec66 (21 Nov 2015)

Bollo said:


> I'm not sure the committee will allow that.


They probably want to declare war on the Velominati for having the temerity to publish a set of rules, unsanctioned by the committee.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2015)

Dec66 said:


> You know, I just get on my bike and ride it.


I just get on my bike and ride it.
I just get on my bike and ride it whilst being insured for third party risks.
I just get on my bike and ride it whilst being insured for third party risks in the company of others.
I just get on my bike and ride it whilst being insured for third party risks in the company of others on holiday.
I just get on my bike and ride it whilst being insured for third party risks in the company of others on holiday touring.

Are all some of the reasons why a club can be a good idea.

There are loads more.


----------



## Dec66 (21 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I just get on my bike and ride it.
> I just get on my bike and ride it whilst being insured for third party risks.
> I just get on my bike and ride it whilst being insured for third party risks in the company of others.
> I just get on my bike and ride it whilst being insured for third party risks in the company of others on holiday.
> ...



I just get on my bike and ride it... carefully.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2015)

Dec66 said:


> I just get on my bike and ride it... carefully.


as do I but...

if a child runs out and I run them over...
or I fall off and bring down another rider who sustains life changing injuries...
&c...


----------



## Dec66 (21 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> as do I but...
> 
> if a child runs out and I run them over...
> or I fall off and bring down another rider who sustains life changing injuries...
> &c...


If it scares you that much, get the insurance. But you don't have to be in a club. There are many many insurance companies who are happy to deal with you as an individual.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2015)

Dec66 said:


> If it scares you that much, get the insurance. But you don't have to be in a club. There are many many insurance companies who are happy to deal with you as an individual.


Scares' is a strange word to use.

Yep, plenty of insurance companies will deal with me as an individual, and charge me handsomely as an individual too. Whereas a club policy brings all manner of collective discounts and benefits.


----------



## Dec66 (21 Nov 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Scares' is a strange word to use.
> 
> Yep, plenty of insurance companies will deal with me as an individual, and charge me handsomely as an individual too. Whereas a club policy brings all manner of collective discounts and benefits.


I don't think £12 a year for a million quid's worth of liability coverage, to pull the first quote of the stack I just saw, is excessive?

I'd actually quite like to be in a club but can't be, for reasons I've gone into before and won't go into again, but I'm not going to made to feel like I need to be in one to be a "proper" cyclist.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (21 Nov 2015)

Dec66 said:


> I'd actually quite like to be in a club but can't be, for reasons I've gone into before and won't go into again, but I'm not going to made to feel like I need to be in one to be a "proper" cyclist.


No one, least of all me, thinks you need to be. Except perhaps your good self.


----------



## Flying Dodo (21 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> THE Chair of the CTC is taking control of the CTC from its members and giving it to CEO who will change from a grassroots organisation to a NGO going for grants etc.
> 
> In a nutshell
> 
> ...



Well, that's too short, but I thought my nice little summary in post #61 neatly encapsulated the gist of what needed to be said in your original post if you wanted to try and persuade people to respond to the CTC survey. 

Sadly, your amended version in post #62 clearly shows the media training you have listed in your CV was a waste of money. I don't mean that as an insult, but to put a revised wording which, when put into Word spreads 243 lines of badly worded text over 6 pages and consists of 2,506 words, means your important message gets lost.

However, as @GrumpyGregry accurately points out, it's been over for years. It was clear to me by 2010 that the traditional CTC no longer exists, as it's not a member led organisation, as it's not the Cyclists' Touring Club any more. It's a business.


----------



## srw (21 Nov 2015)

Flying Dodo said:


> However, as @GrumpyGregry accurately points out, it's been over for years. It was clear to me by 2010 that the traditional CTC no longer exists, as it's not a member led organisation, as it's not the Cyclists' Touring Club any more. It's a business.


My suspicion is that in the long run that will be a good thing for the membership, and, importantly for the vast majority of cyclists who aren't members. @Philip Benstead won't know, because he's rarely involved here, but at least two of our Cyclechat regulars have been councillors in the past - and the stories they've posted have been hair-raising, as has their despair at being able to make any changes. Which means that the for a number of years the councillors as a body have not been doing their duty (legal and moral) in holding the executive to account. As a CTC member who has no attachment of any kind to the old model of member-led local groups, I'd welcome anything that made it more likely that that will happen in the future.


----------



## classic33 (21 Nov 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Or @Philip Benstead for this forum?
> 
> You'd think some sort of involvwment and proving of his bikey credentials to assume to preach in the way he does. A handful of posts over many years, not a single word of advice or encouragement or recommendation of lights, crankset or whatever on day to day cycling questions or thought, but just a few stolen bike posts and exhortations that those in CTC should copy and paste hisn world view as their own.
> 
> Philip: I'm a rare attender on the CTC forum and have pretty well given up on Bikeradar, do other places get your sporadic politicking too?


He's not been on bikeradar for the last three and a half years. His tw*tter feed was on overload earlier this week on this, fb page, no comments allowed and a security check to pass to access it.
Says more than what he has sofar


----------



## swansonj (21 Nov 2015)

I did not join CTC primarily for the insurance, and not at all for a local group. I joined to support an organisation that would represent the interests of "practical" cycling: cycling as a functional mode of transport not cycling for sport; cycling for enjoyment not cycling for competition (with a small c); cycling for ordinary people not cycling for fit people. Those are the things the CTC has deliberately sidelined in pursuing its leaders' ambitions and those are the things that the space is now open for someone else to occupy.


----------



## srw (21 Nov 2015)

swansonj said:


> I did not join CTC primarily for the insurance, and not at all for a local group. I joined to support an organisation that would represent the interests of "practical" cycling: cycling as a functional mode of transport not cycling for sport; cycling for enjoyment not cycling for competition (with a small c); cycling for ordinary people not cycling for fit people. Those are the things the CTC has deliberately sidelined in pursuing its leaders' ambitions and those are the things that the space is now open for someone else to occupy.


Really?!

I see exactly the opposite - the pressure on Eurostar, the foray into mountain biking, the campaigning for more money for cycling - it's all about utility cycling - cycling for the ordinary person. Even what I think you see as leaders' ambitions are all about cycling as transport - provision of cycle training, campaigning for bike facilities (divisive topic though it is, the reason they do it is because they believe that it makes cycling more attractive to non-cyclists). The latest thing on the website is a video explaining how to teach an adult to cycle - both trainer and novice are wearing jeans, and both are bare-headed.


----------



## swansonj (21 Nov 2015)

srw said:


> Really?!
> 
> I see exactly the opposite - the pressure on Eurostar, the foray into mountain biking, the campaigning for more money for cycling - it's all about utility cycling - cycling for the ordinary person. Even what I think you see as leaders' ambitions are all about cycling as transport - provision of cycle training, campaigning for bike facilities (divisive topic though it is, the reason they do it is because they believe that it makes cycling more attractive to non-cyclists). The latest thing on the website is a video explaining how to teach an adult to cycle - both trainer and novice are wearing jeans, and both are bare-headed.


It is possible I exaggerated to make a point. [deadpan smiley]

Nonetheless, I stick to my guns over the direction of travel of CTC, because:
A You have cherry picked examples - e.g. What about sponsoring a professional racing team - and I'm not convinced the mountain bike example makes the point you want it to
B even in the process of promoting the things you cite, CTC too often feels it has to borrow sports-derived elements
C even if the choices CTC makes are sometimes right, it's hard to doubt that the availability of money to spend is a driving factor in those choices.

Having said all that, you are making me address my own prejudices. And I am still a CTCmember.


----------



## Rafferty (21 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> Comments on CTC Governance Comments
> 
> These comments are the work of another CTC Councillor I endorse them in total.
> 
> ...


Just let it die. It's cruel to prolong the agony. If it were a horse, it would have been put out of it's misery a long time ago.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Nov 2015)

Rafferty said:


> Just let it die. It's cruel to prolong the agony. If it were a horse, it would have been put out of it's misery a long time ago.


to use another veterinary analogy; the CTC as @Philip Benstead sees it, a members' club, is a chicken running around the farmyard after someone has wrung its neck. It's dead, but the body hasn't yet processed that information.


----------



## Philip Benstead (24 Nov 2015)

Governance survey, I just heard there has been over 5,000 replies to this.


----------



## classic33 (24 Nov 2015)

Philip Benstead said:


> Governance survey, I just heard there has been over 5,000 replies to this.


Out of how many members?

Willing to say why you wanted the ballot box stuffing yet?


----------



## Flying Dodo (24 Nov 2015)

classic33 said:


> Out of how many members?



The CTC website says 67,000. That may not be accurate of course!


----------

