# CTC Membership Service



## dellzeqq (16 Aug 2009)

Some of you with nothing better to do than go to CTC AGMs will remember that in April 2008 the AGM passed a resolution that said that the membership service wasn’t up to the job. This followed two years of pushing on my part, the pushing motivated by the large number of complaints that I’d received from all over the country – twenty in one week alone. Membership cards were being sent out with the wrong dates, renewals were being lost, telephone enquiries weren’t being answered. I’m afraid a fair few Council members were in denial.

I’d been to see the outsourced membership service in action, and I wasn’t impressed. There were clearly software problems, some of which were back at the National Office, and the harassed workers at Arvato couldn’t make up the slack

The Council, to their credit, took the 2008 resoluton on the chin, and the Chair promised that an independent report would be commissioned and presented to the 2009 AGM.

So far, so peachy keen. But, the 2009 Annual Report from Council to the membership said that an independent report had been commissioned, completed, and acted upon. This was, as I said at the time, misleading. Actually misleading is putting it nicely. An interim report had been completed by Mick Simmons, and no real action had been taken. The final report which should, and could have been complete was only commissioned from Mick around the time of the 2009 AGM. 

The 2009 AGM, and its aftermath, also threw an interesting light on how the membership figures were calculated. Some of us had suspected for some time that there was a bit of padding. I asked if people who had not paid their subs were kept on the roll. I was told that if that was the case the number would not be more than 300 or 400 nationwide. A month or so after, 470 ‘members’ disappeared off the roll in Manchester.

Mick Simmons’ final report has now been completed. It should have been issued to the membership, via District Associations (or whatever we call them this week) and via Newsnet. It hasn’t. Indeed, if we see it at all, we’ll not see it before October, after the staff has had a chance to respond, after it has gone to the Management Committee, and after it has gone to Council. So, we’ll get it six months after it was promised at the very least. If membership is haemorrhaging, the people who will know are the DA secretaries who field complaints. 

All this doesn’t say a lot about the CTC Council’s attitude to transparency. _Which would be not such a big deal, except that at the next AGM we’re going to be asked to vote on a transfer to charity status._ Let me explain.

Some of you will be surprised to read that the Club doesn’t own the National Office. It was given to something called the CTC Trust – four CTC councillors signed it over after something like a quarter of an hour’s consideration. The Trust rents part of the office back to the Club. Anyway, all the money that comes in from the DfT, or from the Big Lottery, goes not to the Club, but to the Trust. This is fine and dandy, because the Trust is there for that kind of thing. The downside is that the Trust enters in to business commitments which, if they go wrong, could wipe it out. At present the Club, although stripped of its principle asset, is a separate body. The Big Idea is to roll the Club in to the Trust. Apparently this will have tax advantages. 

The transparency issue is key. The Trust runs enterprises, and it’s to be hoped that they make money. Some do, but the word from behind closed doors is that some don’t – some lose lots of money. But, dear peeps, you and I are never going to know, because all of this is ‘commercially confidential’. In the same way as the report on the membership is, for the time being, confidential. By the way - at the time of the last AGM the Club had loaned the Trust about £370,000. And legacies which, one would have thought, would go to the Club, had gone to the Trust.

So, having lost the Club’s principal asset, the members are going to be asked to roll the Club membership funds in to a Trust that runs enterprises that may or may not make a profit (and we’re never going to know) while, it would appear, that the most basic service of the Club is in such a state that we’re not allowed, for the time being, to know about that either. 

If you happen to see any of your CTC Councillors it might be an idea to ask them if they’ve seen the final report from Mick Simmons, and, if they have, why we can’t. And ask them how, precisely, the members’ funds are not going to be put at risk if the Club gets folded in to the Trust.


----------



## Danny (16 Aug 2009)

Thanks for the very clear account. 

However I am a little confused about how the transfer to charity status links to the Trust? Is the Trust a charitable Trust, and the idea is that the Club basically moves all its activities under the Charitable umbrella?

And, if this is the proposal, why doesn't the Trust create a separate limited company to manage any trading activities, so if they go wrong this does not jeopardise the non-profit making side of the organisation.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Aug 2009)

Yes - that is the idea.

The option of creating stand-alone Community Interest Companies is one that a fellow Cycle Chatter might feel he wants to tell us about.....but the bigger question is why fold the Club in to the Trust in the first place? A well managed Club, doing a bit of campaigning on behalf of cycling, independent of any leverage from the Government (which is, via the Big Lottery, the DfT and local councils, the Trust's only sizeable customer) could be a wondrous thing.

I'm told by a retired accountant who knows a great deal about CTC's finances that the tax benefit will be £2000 p.a............


----------



## Danny (16 Aug 2009)

Point taken.

However there is actually considerable scope for charities to undertake non-party political campaigning work so I am not sure how big an issue this would really be, unless the CTC suddenly wants to become much more radical than it is ever been historically.

How will be Directors/Trustees of the Trust be elected in future?


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Aug 2009)

Danny said:


> Point taken.
> 
> However there is actually considerable scope for charities to undertake non-party political campaigning work so I am not sure how big an issue this would really be, unless the CTC suddenly wants to become much more radical than it is ever been historically.
> 
> How will be Directors/Trustees of the Trust be elected in future?


I think you underestimate the radicalism of the CTC. Look what happened to Ladyman. 

We await a proposal on the appointment of Trustees (presently Councillors are elected, albeit that the turnout is pretty low).

For me, though, the big issue is transparency. The members must appreciate, and control the risks that are run with the Club. That's not going to happen. I'm sure there's a role for an organisation such as the CTC Trust. I just don't want it to play ducks and drakes with the fortunes of the Club. And it would be nice to have the building back.


----------



## jonesy (16 Aug 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> I think you underestimate the radicalism of the CTC. Look what happened to Ladyman.
> 
> We await a proposal on the appointment of Trustees (presently Councillors are elected, albeit that the turnout is pretty low).
> 
> For me, though, the big issue is transparency. The members must appreciate, and control the risks that are run with the Club. That's not going to happen. I'm sure there's a role for an organisation such as the CTC Trust. I just don't want it to play ducks and drakes with the fortunes of the Club. And it would be nice to have the building back.



I have to say it does worry me when campaigning organisations, whose role necessarily involves challenging government policy, also becomes dependent on that same government for large parts of their funding. The hats of lobbiest and consultant don't wear comfortably together; and if there has to be a choice between the two then I want the CTC to be the cyclists' advocate (a role it performs very well and I'm more than happy to pay my subs to keep Roger G et al in the field). I'd always understood that the purpose of separating the charity from the club was to ensure an appropriate degree of separation between the two roles?


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Aug 2009)

jonesy said:


> I have to say it does worry me when campaigning organisations, whose role necessarily involves challenging government policy, also becomes dependent on that same government for large parts of their funding. The hats of lobbiest and consultant don't wear comfortably together; and if there has to be a choice between the two then I want the CTC to be the cyclists' advocate (a role it performs very well and I'm more than happy to pay my subs to keep Roger G et al in the field).


absolutely



jonesy said:


> I'd always understood that the purpose of separating the charity from the club was to ensure an appropriate degree of separation between the two roles?


not really - it just sort of happened. The real impetus was the sale of the old HQ to fund the National Office - transferring the building to the charity saved on stamp duty.


----------



## Danny (17 Aug 2009)

The CTC has always acted much more as a "club" than a "campaign", and its campaigning activities could at best be described as ultra-respectable. 

We might well wish that it was a lot more radical, but for the foreseeable future I still think that all its likely campaigning activities could still take place under a charitable umbrella. 

Rather than get hung up about legal structures, I think the focus should be on how the organisation maintains a campaigning role, when it is also in receipt of large sums of Government money.

I'd also point out that being a charity could have some long term advantages as their would be some independent scrutiny of the organisations governance and finances from the Charity Commissioners.


----------



## Bollo (18 Aug 2009)

I've been having a nice long stew about this thread. Now I'm nice and tender.

I'd consider myself one of the new breed of CTC members. I'm a utility cyclist who dresses up as a roadie at weekends. The closest I'll get to touring is an 80 mile blast to a boutique hotel, where I wave my ethically-sourced credit card in the direction of the receptionist before retiring to the jacuzzi.

So why am I a member? The main reason is that the CTC appears to be, at the national level at least, the most effective campaigning organisation for cyclists in the UK. I look to the CTC to work in the rarefied world of transport politics on my behalf because I don't have the expertise, time or patience to do it myself.

The services offered by the CTC are fine, but there's little there that I couldn't find elsewhere. Cycle is usually a good read, although I weary of pro-am curmudgeon Chris Juden's sniddery. I'd be better described as a CTC stakeholder than a club member. I definitely don't look to the CTC for any sense of community or social intercourse. For me, and I suspect many other newer members, the "club" element is largely irrelevant.

I think goes some way to explaining the low turn-outs for votes. The high politics of the CTC make an interesting diversion but, in the short term, mean bugger all to members like me. If the CTC ceases to be relevent to my cycling needs, I'll just cancel. It won't make me happy, but I'll not lose sleep.

Things could get interesting if the CTC eventually follows its motorised equivalents - the AA and RAC. By degrees, both of these organisations mutated from clubs to companies* without many of their 'members' even realising they were now just consumers. I doubt the CTC will be bought up by Anglo-Chinese Taser Corp or somesuch, but an unaccountable CTC is less likely to have the pulse of the cyclist on the street (or jumping the red ). As a taxpayer, I've no objection to the CTC receiving pennies from the government but then I do expect accountability in spades.




*the RAC is now owned by insurer Aviva and I believe the AA is controlled by a private-equity firm


----------



## MacB (18 Aug 2009)

Yet to join any cycling organisation, I've been following info on the CTC with interest. It's the one I feel most drawn to but I do get some worrying 'corporate style' vibes from it. Though I appreciate the view that if I don't get involved, and take an active part, then I'm being a bit hypocritical.

Transparency would be my biggest concern, I've been surrounded by 'secret squirrel' stuff all my corporate life. It's self perpetuating and has the ability to cause far more problems than it solves. At the very least agreements should be reached over what can be treated as need to know.

I think I'll be joining the CTC anyway but that's mainly due to the night rides. I feel the £36 membership fee is a small price to pay for what I get back from these. Knowing me I'll feel obliged to stck my oar in as well.


----------



## silverbow (19 Aug 2009)

I've considered joining the CTC recently but I'm not too sure having read this thread so far.

The lack of transparency and comments like "If the membership wants to have a member-led organisation, then it needs to get involved in this issue and provide feedback. The membership can no longer sit on its hands and bemoan what is done on their behalf."

The membership is the club, not just a method of funding. If those who run the CTC feel the members are not being listen to because the members are not organised or members are complaining then shouldn't the 'club management' do something about it? Shouldn't the CTC management make efforts to work with their club members rather than see than idle whingers?

I find it interesting that there is a view that the CTC's great asset is the CTC building, it is not. The CTC asset is is membership. Without a strong membership there is no government funding / BIG Lottery / DfT / Local Councils etc.

From what I have read here it seems the CTC is losing its way.


----------



## silverbow (19 Aug 2009)

User said:


> The CTC is currently involved in a large scale governance review, which I am part of. We asked people for their thoughts and views, and gave them feedback mechanisms. We got one e-mail!



This just underlines my point though. CTC [Management] I assume are aware that there are underlining feelings and views which are not being voiced / heard for whatever reason. Lets say a feeling of general unrest?

A feedback mechanism is put in place. One feedback is received. What does this tell you?

That there is little feedback? or the feedback mechanism wasn't right for the job? or more worryingly that members have no faith that their view will be listen too? General apathy from the membership? Who knows, there are countless reasons why one feedback could have been received.

Surely it is the responsibility of the management to get these views. If the CTC campaign on behalf of their members they first must establish without any doubt what those members want from cycling?


Re: CTC Membership - Yes probably will do once I hear good things [i.e. not bad things!] about members applications / renewals.


----------



## silverbow (19 Aug 2009)

User said:


> We suffer from the same things that all large member organisations, and organisations in wider society, suffer from - a high level of apathy. Just think about how many people whinge about the Government but don't bother to vote.



You can vote for the government? 



User said:


> Don't let that put you off. CTC is a great organisation to be a member of.



Well to be honest I think your enthusiasm on this subject has convinced me actually.


----------



## silverbow (19 Aug 2009)

User said:


> Your profile piccie did make me wonder whether you were the politician fromally known as Mr Orange (a.d. Robert Kilroy-Silk)....



It's a mannequin from a Gentlemans outfitters in Peru. It looked very funny with the wig , wearing a dodgy suit and not to mention it had no shoes, plus the teeth painted with a gloss white only George Michael would be proud of.

But the Kilroy-Silk reference has made me consider it's time for a change....


----------



## Dan B (19 Aug 2009)

Theclaud hit the nail on the head a while back (on this thread or another): as a member of a membership organisation you are not merely a consumer of the services it provides, but a participant in the things it does. And if you go into it with your "consumer" head on, you will not get as much from it as if you expect to take an active role

If your supermarket does something you don't like, you can bitch about it on forums if you want but ultimately your only option is to vote with your feet. If the CTC do something you don't like and feel strongly enough to get involved about, you can get involved and change it. It's a big organisation so I guess it doesn't necessarily feel like that because all the glossy "professional" trappings tend to settle on it like dandruff, but positions like Users, AIUI, are more or less open to anyone who can get x signatures of members and enough people voting for them.


----------



## MartinC (19 Aug 2009)

coruskate said:


> Theclaud hit the nail on the head a while back (on this thread or another): as a member of a membership organisation you are not merely a consumer of the services it provides, but a participant in the things it does. And if you go into it with your "consumer" head on, you will not get as much from it as if you expect to take an active role
> 
> If your supermarket does something you don't like, you can bitch about it on forums if you want but ultimately your only option is to vote with your feet. If the CTC do something you don't like and feel strongly enough to get involved about, you can get involved and change it. It's a big organisation so I guess it doesn't necessarily feel like that because all the glossy "professional" trappings tend to settle on it like dandruff, but positions like Users, AIUI, are more or less open to anyone who can get x signatures of members and enough people voting for them.



+1


----------



## silverbow (19 Aug 2009)

coruskate said:


> Theclaud hit the nail on the head a while back (on this thread or another): as a member of a membership organisation you are not merely a consumer of the services it provides, but a participant in the things it does. And if you go into it with your "consumer" head on, you will not get as much from it as if you expect to take an active role
> 
> If your supermarket does something you don't like, you can bitch about it on forums if you want but ultimately your only option is to vote with your feet. If the CTC do something you don't like and feel strongly enough to get involved about, you can get involved and change it. It's a big organisation so I guess it doesn't necessarily feel like that because all the glossy "professional" trappings tend to settle on it like dandruff, but positions like Users, AIUI, are more or less open to anyone who can get x signatures of members and enough people voting for them.



Exactly! That is why supermarkets go to great lengths to find out what their customers are thinking before they go elsewhere, and the supermarket is just after your money. So when it comes to the CTC surely they want to know what there members think for economic and ethical reasons. The CTC is a socially caring organisation not a multinational company.


----------



## hulver (19 Aug 2009)

User said:


> The CTC is currently involved in a large scale governance review, which I am part of. We asked people for their thoughts and views, and gave them feedback mechanisms. We got one e-mail!



I'm a CTC member, I get the Cycle mag, read the CTC forum and several others. I missed this. Either I didn't see it, or I did and didn't register what it was actually about. Committee speak involving too many words like "Governance" and "Engagement" tend to turn my brain off unless I'm actively translating it into readable english.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Aug 2009)

what hulver said. but as i work for a charity any trendy 3rd sector speak a la gouvernance makes me turn the page as fast as possible.

I think there is a flaw in some of the reasoning about member consultation though. CTC membership is at an all time high. How many of those members have contact with their DA? I've not ridden with or knowingly spoken to another DA member in 3+ years nor have they reached out to me. I'm also a member of the WDM. The local group get my details from head office and call me once in a while to ask if I want to deepen my involvement locally. Just a thought. I only found out Simon was a councillor by chance!

As a club the way it communicates with its membership is dreadful and largely one way. But I sort of like it that way.....


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Aug 2009)

silverbow said:


> I've considered joining the CTC recently but I'm not too sure having read this thread so far.
> 
> The lack of transparency and comments like "If the membership wants to have a member-led organisation, then it needs to get involved in this issue and provide feedback. The membership can no longer sit on its hands and bemoan what is done on their behalf."
> 
> ...


Silverbow, you've misconstrued my point. By asset I meant financial asset. That's the kind of asset that might be put at risk by the contracting activities.

Beyond that is the question of whether the CTC should be interested in government funding of any kind. It's a club, owned by its members. There is doubtless room in this world for an organisation that contracts itself to government, doing things that are probably beneficial to the wider world of cycling, but should the CTC be involving itself?


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Aug 2009)

GregCollins said:


> what hulver said. but as i work for a charity any trendy 3rd sector speak a la gouvernance makes me turn the page as fast as possible.
> 
> I think there is a flaw in some of the reasoning about member consultation though. CTC membership is at an all time high. How many of those members have contact with their DA? I've not ridden with or knowingly spoken to another DA member in 3+ years nor have they reached out to me. I'm also a member of the WDM. The local group get my details from head office and call me once in a while to ask if I want to deepen my involvement locally. Just a thought. I only found out Simon was a councillor by chance!
> 
> As a club the way it communicates with its membership is dreadful and largely one way. But I sort of like it that way.....


You've been on quite a few DA organised rides.........

and that, really, is how it should be. There shouldn't be the need to worry ourselves about the future of the club, but (and it's a big but) there's a decision to be made that will take the CTC irretrievably down one route or the other.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Aug 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> You've been on quite a few DA organised rides.........



indeed, but not with 'my' DA  though you ran through their turf on the last one you led. Hope you had permission, (and mudguards; they seemed very keen on mudguards 5 years ago......)


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Aug 2009)

Bollo said:


> I've been having a nice long stew about this thread. Now I'm nice and tender.
> 
> I'd consider myself one of the new breed of CTC members. I'm a utility cyclist who dresses up as a roadie at weekends. The closest I'll get to touring is an 80 mile blast to a boutique hotel, where I wave my ethically-sourced credit card in the direction of the receptionist before retiring to the jacuzzi.
> 
> ...


Bollo I've highlighted three sections of your post, because they embody, in the finest possible way the conundrum that is CTC membership. Most people join for a mix of the benefits and because they support the CTC's campaigning activities. They have no regular contact with their local DA, other than going on the occasional ride. In essence what they're buying, apart from the peace of mind that comes with the legal advice and 3rd party insurance, is a sense of belonging.........but, they're not interested in belonging in an active fashion.

That's the problem. There's probably a core of (I'm guessing) three thousand members who belong, that is to say volunteer, in an active way. They respond to local authority road schemes and planning applications. They write to local authorities and remind them of their failings. They organise rides and fund raising events. CTC is written through those three thousand members like a stick of rock.

Now the active ones (and I include myself in this category) are generally speaking of a traditionalist bent. The larger, wider membership really don't have a view on the matter. They want to belong. But the odd thing is that the thing that they want to belong to is essentially the three thousand active members. 

At one remove from all of this is the National Office. Let's first of all refer to the activities of Young Geffen and his henchpeople. We (the active and the inactive) love 'em. The Campaign staff, who are far less numerous than their achievements would have you believe, reach in to Government in ways that you scarcely want to think about. There's many a DfT old stager who's been scalped by Young Geffen, out thought, out-detailed, out-imagined. 

Look beyond the Campaigning team and we see what is basically a management organisation that does the stuff that needs to be done to keep the club running (although you'll see from my OP that I'm not convinced they're doing it as well as they might) and, (here's the rub) look for ways to make the CTC a bigger organisation. And in that looking they're looking beyond that core, active membership.

So we have an uneasy triangle. The active members like things as they are, or were. The larger inactive membership doesn't really mind, but would like the CTC to embody the noblest of impulses, and, generally speaking those nobler impulses are the product of the active volunteers. The National Office want to see the CTC grow in new ways. 

It may be that User and his merry band of Governancers can bring harmony to this triangle - he's certainly the best bet we've got. Me, I'm old and crusty and not optimistic. But I'm willing to be persuaded.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Aug 2009)

GregCollins said:


> indeed, but not with 'my' DA  though you ran through their turf on the last one you led. Hope you had permission, (and mudguards; they seemed very keen on mudguards 5 years ago......)


we don't have fixed geographic boundaries these days. I've just sent an e-mail to the secretary of the East Yorkshire crew, letting them know we're on our way!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Aug 2009)

User said:


> The current review has the aim of putting the membership back at the heart of and in control of the club.
> 
> Please everyone.... if you're a member take part in this exercise. It may be a bit of a jargon headache (although I try to use plain English wherever possible) but it is vitally important and needs your input.



tell me how, point me at the link, etc., etc., 

I'm happy to take part and I'm happy to be converted from mere paying member / consumer to an activist if the opportunity to do something meaningful presents itself... I suspect other less involved members feel the same.


----------



## purplepolly (19 Aug 2009)

User said:


> The CTC is currently involved in a large scale governance review, which I am part of. We asked people for their thoughts and views, and gave them feedback mechanisms. We got one e-mail!



It wasn't being handled by the membership/renewals staff was it?


----------



## sadjack (20 Aug 2009)

I have read this thread with a lot of interest. I have only been a CTC member a year or so and I have been really happy with what I have found. 

No problems with membership or my renewal 

I have got to know some great people with loads of knowledge on cycling and I have enjoyed riding out with them each Sunday. (They may appreciate the rest they get on each hill waiting for me  )

I have found the local club a little fussy over rules and regulations and that can be off putting to some, especially I would say to younger members. Where are all the youngsters anyway ? (OK so my three are in front of games machines. ) Our last AGM was attended by about 60 people and the new national rule book was debated hotly ( as was the need for mudguards  ) The interest and debate was a real eyeopener to me.

I agree that as members we should get involved if we can, but most people just want to ride their bikes with their friends and have a good time.

Its difficult at a local level to appreciate the finer points of decisions made at national level and thats why its important that such decisions are explained in a clear non jargon way so that people do not switch off in the first couple of sentences and start to yawn.

The concerns of the OP were very well put and I would look to the likes of User to publish the thought process behind whats going on in a clear way so that people can read, understand and express support or concern.

User mentions to keep a look out in CYCLE and the WEBSITE. I will do so with interest.

Thanks for the original post and Dellzeqq, interesting stuff. Shame I became aware of it here and not via the CTC itself and there maybe a lesson there in communication.


----------



## Noodley (20 Aug 2009)

I did not renew this year, after only two years of membership I had 4 reminders of expiry, none of which was correct then another a few months after expiry to tell me my membership was due to expire. And the attitudes of the local CTC clique did nothing to encourage me to remain a member, only really interested in doing things their way...

..oh well, CTCs loss is another organisation's gain..


----------



## bonj2 (20 Aug 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> Some of you with nothing better to do than go to CTC AGMs will remember that in April 2008 the AGM passed a resolution that said blah blah blah blah blah blah blah... blather blather blather



so, to cut a long story short, the CTC is shite, then?

I have no idea whether i'm a member of it or not.
I was, but whether my membership has expired or not I've no idea.

What I would like to know is if I suffer an irrepairable mechanical breakdown while cycling will I be able to call the CTC out i.e. have i got breakdown cover?


----------



## PBancroft (20 Aug 2009)

After reading this thread, I've signed up for CTC. Dunno if its reverse psychology or what, but it seemed like a good idea.


----------



## Noodley (20 Aug 2009)

bonj said:


> so, to cut a long story short, the CTC is shite, then?
> 
> I have no idea whether i'm a member of it or not.
> I was, but whether my membership has expired or not I've no idea.
> ...



Well find out if you are a member. Or maybe I should re-phrase that?


----------



## Bollo (20 Aug 2009)

bonj said:


> so, to cut a long story short, the CTC is shite, then?


Too short.
Governance in flux
Campaigning good
Membership shite
Local groups have reputation for stuffiness



bonj said:


> I have no idea whether i'm a member of it or not.
> I was, but whether my membership has expired or not I've no idea.


You may well be an honorary member.





bonj said:


> What I would like to know is if I suffer an irrepairable mechanical breakdown while cycling will I be able to call the CTC out i.e. have i got breakdown cover?


It's extra.


----------



## Danny (22 Aug 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> Beyond that is the question of whether the CTC should be interested in government funding of any kind. It's a club, owned by its members. There is doubtless room in this world for an organisation that contracts itself to government, doing things that are probably beneficial to the wider world of cycling, but should the CTC be involving itself?


To me this is really the key question people should be addressing - not whether the CTC becomes a trust or not.

Personally I see no reason why the CTC cannot continue to be:

a) A club - providing various services to its members like organised rides, route advice, cheap insurance, etc.

 A campaign - to press for better cycling facilities

c) A body which represents the interests of its members both voluntarily (e.g. through local cycling focums), and by taking public money to provide consultancy of various sorts.

Clearly there are risks if the organisation becomes too dependent on central or local government. But personally I think there are bigger long term risks if the CTC is not seen as a key "player" by government. 

Hopefully whoever wins the next election is want to continue to try and boost cycling, and is going to look to the voluntary sector to help them achieve this. If the CTC doesn't get involved I fear that over time it will be surplanted by newer and more dynamic organisations.


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Aug 2009)

Danny - The biggest risk is that the 'charity' (which is essentially a contracting organisation with one customer) squanders the members subs. So, while c) might be a nice idea, unless User and his colleagues can fix it so that the finances are ring-fenced, the 'club', which has been going for a hundred and thirty years, may go down the Swanee.

But, to answer your specific point, it's instructive to look at the LCC. The LCC is dependent on the Mayor, that is to say one person, in a way that the CTC will never be - that I accept. If the Mayor comes up with some lunatic idea, it would be nuts for the LCC to call it for what it is. Bonkers. Suicidal. 

Left turn on red anybody?

Drucker, (I'm a fan) suggested a long time ago that 'third sector' organisations can deliver far more efficiently than private sector organisations - he pointed to Catholic hospitals in the U.S. which were good at mobilising volunteers who acted with initiative, and co-operatively in a way that paid employees didn't. However, to do that, you have to have the volunteers with the time, and the volunteers have to identify with the aims that you want to serve. That might work if the effort of the volunteers within the CTC was integrated, but, frankly, the volunteers are mostly left to their own devices - and a lot of them like it that way. And, it might work if the volunteers identified with the specific aims behind the programs that government effectively puts out to tender, but, to be candid, most of the active volunteers are located in the outer suburbs, geographically apart from the areas that government rightly sees as having the greatest priority, most are getting on, and few have any real interest in the fields in which the contracting arm of the CTC is involved.

I'm not being judgemental about either side - there is no finer organisation when it comes to getting people out for a day's (or night's) ride in the countryside. There's no finer organisation when it comes to knocking on the door of the local authority and saying - 'this bike path you want to put here, it's pants'. And, as I've said, the things that government wants to achieve are commendable. I simply can't see why the members subs (which only amount to about £1.7 million) should be used to subsidise cycle training. That's what we pay taxes for. 

If somebody can show how the CTC can involve itself in contracting for government in a way that doesn't compromise its independence, brings a bit of our expertise to bear and doesn't cost the members their subs I'll vote for it. But, if we roll the thing in to one big basket the CTC may go bust in a very short space of time.


----------



## Danny (22 Aug 2009)

dellzeqq said:


> Danny - The biggest risk is that the 'charity' (which is essentially a contracting organisation with one customer) squanders the members subs. So, while c) might be a nice idea, unless User and his colleagues can fix it so that the finances are ring-fenced, the 'club', which has been going for a hundred and thirty years, may go down the Swanee.


This brings us back to the exciting issues of good governance and financial management. 

If the CTC has these in place there is no intrinsic reason why it should not be able to keep the club finances ring-fenced.


----------

