# CTC forum thread on 'Charity' status



## dellzeqq (31 Dec 2009)

http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=32222 with Shaun's indulgence and only for those with time on their hands - we're all going to get fantastically bored with this by May.

The proponents of the takeover spend most of their time in hiding - while the sceptics run around stating the obvious. It's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but it has to be done!


----------



## MacB (31 Dec 2009)

I've been following it with interest, not sure you're going to get the transparency on the accounts though. Probably a combination of the natural 'secret squirrel' stuff that surrounds finance and some/many embarrassing bits. On the pros and cons front I find it hard to see beyond the 'empire building' benefits of charitable status. The Trust already has the main asset of the club which the club now pays rent on? that's a good trick! It's possible to paint quite a dim view:-

CTC a club set up to benefit members and is very financially sound - Trust created on the back of this as a business - Trust gradually takes assets and control from Club - Trust uses Club finances via asset grab, donation and loan to support itself - Club is secure in respect that it can pull the plug and members benefits are sacrosanct - Trust wishes whole shebang to become one in form of charity - Trust, or more specifically the empire builders at the top, secures a larger guaranteed income stream - the new CTC Charity no longer has to guarantee member benefits - new CTC Charity attracts enough in government grants to rid itself altogether of the pesky, lacking in vision, members - ex CTC members sit around wondering how their name, assets and club seem to be trundling on without them - CTC2 created as a members club and the 'cycle' begins again


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Dec 2009)

your gift for summary does you credit.....

as for finding stuff out - FOI !


----------



## MacB (31 Dec 2009)

I'm also curious about the campaigning and effectiveness v expectations. Like others I wonder how much some of it does, barring burning money and making some noise? I'm joing the CTC purely based on the fact that I've more than got my moneys worth from the night rides. If I were to look at what I'd like from my membership then it would be:-

Insurance - this is a key benefit and very attractive to prospective members, particularly the legal advice, also expanded to include optional bike insurance for theft etc.

Magazine - I would be happy with online content only but there should be the option of either

Large Cycling events - these are excellent for visibility

Database - shared information on routes, maps etc

Discounts - yep any club should negotiate whatever group discounts it can

Tours and Holidays - run as a seperate venture but linked in

Pretty much what exists already plus the tehnical/product/practical advice, and it's this area that I'd want to see more money spent on. At the moment local stuff seems patchy and reliant on volunteers. I'd want to remove the burden from volunteers and start paying people, starting from the bottom up. Chuck the money in at grassroots level, run utility as well as social rides. Create regional drop in centres for hands on practical training in riding skills and mechanics. Visit local schools and organise after school clubs. National campaigns and once a year events are fine but localised, ever present, activities are what will encourage more people to ride. Go door to door and chat to people, send bike mechanics door to door to 'fettle for free' as an intro to the CTC. Embrace commuters, pootlers, families, local issues and make it feel like a club for everyone.

In all of this HQ should only be a guiding hand with a super slick membership process. The executive should be focused on building the club not themselves.


----------



## WJHall (31 Dec 2009)

*cf IEE*

See faint trace of similar bustup at IEE:

http://www.theiet.org/forums/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=174&threadid=7080

Unfortunately the IEE had been a charity for a long time, so members were only able to stop some of the further transfer of power.

John Hall


----------



## theclaud (4 Jan 2010)

It hadn't occurred to me until I read one of your posts via the link, Simon, that Newsnet has been effectively a "yes" campaign tool. The importance of the issue is belied by its essential dullness, and it's very easy for the casual observer to be swept along on a tide of enthusiasm from a generally trusted source, rather than read reams of tedious stuff in order to make up her own mind. I think it would have passed me by if you hadn't made a fuss about it. Newsnet is a great e-newsletter, after all, and many of us are benevolently inclined towards its contents before we open it. Have you had any progress with the perfectly reasonable idea of getting a "nay" voice represented in it?


----------



## Tollers (4 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> I've been following it with interest, not sure you're going to get the transparency on the accounts though. Probably a combination of the natural 'secret squirrel' stuff that surrounds finance and some/many embarrassing bits. On the pros and cons front I find it hard to see beyond the 'empire building' benefits of charitable status. The Trust already has the main asset of the club which the club now pays rent on? that's a good trick! It's possible to paint quite a dim view:-
> 
> CTC a club set up to benefit members and is very financially sound - Trust created on the back of this as a business - Trust gradually takes assets and control from Club - Trust uses Club finances via asset grab, donation and loan to support itself - Club is secure in respect that it can pull the plug and members benefits are sacrosanct - Trust wishes whole shebang to become one in form of charity - Trust, or more specifically the empire builders at the top, secures a larger guaranteed income stream - the new CTC Charity no longer has to guarantee member benefits - new CTC Charity attracts enough in government grants to rid itself altogether of the pesky, lacking in vision, members - ex CTC members sit around wondering how their name, assets and club seem to be trundling on without them - CTC2 created as a members club and the 'cycle' begins again




Well put! It seems to me that they the managment are already lost when they can't sort out how to renew, or even enroll new members. I joined the LCC this year as a result of CTC telling me that my address did not exist. I'll leave dad to fight the club's corner though.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> It hadn't occurred to me until I read one of your posts via the link, Simon, that Newsnet has been effectively a "yes" campaign tool. The importance of the issue is belied by its essential dullness, and it's very easy for the casual observer to be swept along on a tide of enthusiasm from a generally trusted source, rather than read reams of tedious stuff in order to make up her own mind. I think it would have passed me by if you hadn't made a fuss about it. Newsnet is a great e-newsletter, after all, and many of us are benevolently inclined towards its contents before we open it. *Have you had any progress with the perfectly reasonable idea of getting a "nay" voice represented in it*?


No. Strange, that. I have written a piece for the next issue of Cycle, but it would be nice to see some balance on Newsnet.

Incredibly (yeah, right) National Office has been tasked with delivering a 'yes' vote in advance of the Special Resolution going to Council. We presume it will be passd, but I do think that National Office should be neutral.


----------



## dellzeqq (4 Jan 2010)

Tollers said:


> Well put! It seems to me that they the managment are already lost when they can't sort out how to renew, or even enroll new members. I joined the LCC this year as a result of CTC telling me that my address did not exist. I'll leave dad to fight the club's corner though.


which he will do with his customary style, verve, elan, wit, je ne sais quoi, brio, chutzpah and all round good eggness!


----------



## theclaud (5 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> No. Strange, that. I have written a piece for the next issue of Cycle, but it would be nice to see some balance on Newsnet.
> 
> Incredibly (yeah, right) National Office has been tasked with delivering a 'yes' vote in advance of the Special Resolution going to Council. We presume it will be passd, but I do think that National Office should be neutral.



Just had (rather short) notice of the CTC Cymru AGM this weekend in Llandrindod, where KM will be speaking about the Charity thang. No mention of any nay-sayers! I might go, as long as I'm not expected to do mountain-bike bog snorkelling, which is popular in that bit of the world...


----------



## theclaud (5 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> No. Strange, that. I have written a piece for the next issue of Cycle, but it would be nice to see some balance on Newsnet.
> 
> Incredibly (yeah, right) National Office has been tasked with delivering a 'yes' vote in advance of the Special Resolution going to Council. We presume it will be passd, but I do think that National Office should be neutral.



Just had (rather short) notice of the CTC Cymru AGM this weekend in Llandrindod, where KM will be speaking about the Charity thang. No mention of any nay-sayers! I might go, as long as I'm not expected to do mountain-bike bog snorkelling, which is popular in that bit of the world...


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Just had (rather short) notice of the CTC Cymru AGM this weekend in Llandrindod, where KM will be speaking about the Charity thang. No mention of any nay-sayers! I might go, as long as I'm not expected to do mountain-bike bog snorkelling, which is popular in that bit of the world...


should you go, then, if the mood takes you, you might

a) ask KM why Newsnet and Cycle are being used as a mouthpiece for the 'pro' vote, and why National Office is running the 'pro' campaign (I have the paper in which the Way Forward Committee is asked to instruct the National Office to ensure the vote goes the 'right' way)
 suggest that the Charity is the product of vaunting personal ambition, and watch him struggle to keep his temper!
c) ask him how he intends to account properly for the Cycling Champions and Professional Services projects
d) mention the FNRttC, and stand well back!!
e) say hello to Peter Brake for me. He's a real doll.

sl


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Just had (rather short) notice of the CTC Cymru AGM this weekend in Llandrindod, where KM will be speaking about the Charity thang. No mention of any nay-sayers! I might go, as long as I'm not expected to do mountain-bike bog snorkelling, which is popular in that bit of the world...


should you go, then, if the mood takes you, you might

a) ask KM why Newsnet and Cycle are being used as a mouthpiece for the 'pro' vote, and why National Office is running the 'pro' campaign (I have the paper in which the Way Forward Committee is asked to instruct the National Office to ensure the vote goes the 'right' way)
 suggest that the Charity is the product of vaunting personal ambition, and watch him struggle to keep his temper!
c) ask him how he intends to account properly for the Cycling Champions and Professional Services projects
d) mention the FNRttC, and stand well back!!
e) say hello to Peter Brake for me. He's a real doll.

sl


----------



## theclaud (5 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> should you go, then, if the mood takes you, you might
> 
> a) ask KM why Newsnet and Cycle are being used as a mouthpiece for the 'pro' vote, and why National Office is running the 'pro' campaign (I have the paper in which the Way Forward Committee is asked to instruct the National Office to ensure the vote goes the 'right' way)
> suggest that the Charity is the product of vaunting personal ambition, and watch him struggle to keep his temper!
> ...



I might see how 'a' goes before I venture to try 'b'. Who is Peter and how will I spot him? Count on me for 'd'. All this, of course, is dependent on a quaint little theing called the Heart of Wales Line.


----------



## theclaud (5 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> should you go, then, if the mood takes you, you might
> 
> a) ask KM why Newsnet and Cycle are being used as a mouthpiece for the 'pro' vote, and why National Office is running the 'pro' campaign (I have the paper in which the Way Forward Committee is asked to instruct the National Office to ensure the vote goes the 'right' way)
> suggest that the Charity is the product of vaunting personal ambition, and watch him struggle to keep his temper!
> ...



I might see how 'a' goes before I venture to try 'b'. Who is Peter and how will I spot him? Count on me for 'd'. All this, of course, is dependent on a quaint little theing called the Heart of Wales Line.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Jan 2010)

Peter is your Councillor and will probably be sitting at the top table. He should certainly be introduced to the AGM


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Jan 2010)

Peter is your Councillor and will probably be sitting at the top table. He should certainly be introduced to the AGM


----------



## theclaud (5 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Peter is your Councillor and will probably be sitting at the top table. He should certainly be introduced to the AGM



The Wales rep on the national council? Jolly good - he shouldn't be hard to find.


----------



## theclaud (5 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Peter is your Councillor and will probably be sitting at the top table. He should certainly be introduced to the AGM



The Wales rep on the national council? Jolly good - he shouldn't be hard to find.


----------



## theclaud (7 Jan 2010)

Wales AGM postponed til 20 Feb, which is a good thing. Dellzeqq - The Swansea and West Wales sec is an 'anti', and he is going to circulate a link to your blog.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Wales AGM postponed til 20 Feb, which is a good thing. Dellzeqq - The Swansea and West Wales sec is an 'anti', and he is going to circulate a link to your blog.


if you could send him the link to the CTC forum thread, that would be helpful...


----------



## theclaud (7 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> if you could send him the link to the CTC forum thread, that would be helpful...



Will do.


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Jan 2010)

been asked to supply 400 words to the Guardian cycling blog. It's about the best 400 words I've ever put together - bar one tip of the hat to 'balance'....


----------



## theclaud (12 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> been asked to supply 400 words to the Guardian cycling blog.* It's about the best 400 words I've ever put together* - bar one tip of the hat to 'balance'....



Jolly good. Modesty is an over-rated virtue anyway. Alert us when it's live...


----------



## MacB (12 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> Jolly good. Modesty is an over-rated virtue anyway. Alert us when it's live...



we still think he's looking for work in architecture but maybe he's set his sights on an opportunity here


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Jan 2010)

I'm looking for a job in pie-charts


----------



## MacB (12 Jan 2010)

Pie charts are far too easy to understand, you want to go for some 3D block graphs and don't use distinct colours


----------



## theclaud (12 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> CLICK - READ - DESPAIR - VOTE



Only just noticed the sig. Like it!


----------



## Bollo (12 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> Pie charts are far too easy to understand, you want to go for some 3D block graphs and don't use distinct colours


That's a very tasteful palette, but a little tricky for the colour-blinds like me. Like most things, I'll have the good Mrs Dr Bollo explain it to me.

After a rare lurk on the CTC forum thread covering this topic, I can see how the transfer to charity status may get through. I get the impression that the committed core of CTC members are generally anti-charity status. These are the people that know faces and characters, will have an appreciation of the politics and are going to turn up at AGMs and will most definitely vote. There's a problem though, and that problem is me, or rather members like me.

I joined the CTC specifically to support the campaigning element. Not the proactive campaigning so much (STOP SMIDSY is an example), but more as an expert voice when the lot of the cyclist is being crapped on by the government, local council or drunk judge. The CTC may not be perfect, but in its present form its the best, most independent voice we have.

Apart from my recent sighting at a FNRttC, that's it between me and the CTC. At best I'm a consumer of a very limited range of its services (if Simon can be called a service - if so, its silver!). I don't have the grounding or an interest in the internal politics and, if it weren't for threads on CC, I wouldn't even have an idea there was a real issue with the conversion to a charity. I'd simply pick up my copy of Cycle from the water closet library, skip that article about the charity-thingy-meh and have a chuckle at Chris Juden getting angry about toe overlap again.

This is just speculation, but I imagine the executive (is that right? oooh I AM getting into the politics!) can see a scenario where the core members vote against and the rump of 'consumer' members like me just errr..... don't bother. Hence the use of the CTC channels of communication to hammer away the pro-vote message to get enough of us to stir our stumps and tick the box that we're told to tick, because like hell we're going to research the issues.

I'll finish with an observation. The CTC website charity status page suggests that we should get involved by going to AGMs, asking questions of councillors, emailing a dedicated email address or even sending an urchin with a telegram. It certainly doesn't mention the CTC Forum, which is strange considering that this would be the most open, accessible and balanced medium through which to discuss the issues. Afraid of what might get found out?


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2010)

a fair analysis. The irony is that Campaigning is in no better a position if the Club is taken over by the Trust - charity status will limit the scope and intention of Campaigning.

The strength of the 'nay' campaign is that nobody joins for the stuff that the Trust blows money on. The weakness is, as you suggest, we're not going to get a sniff at Newsnet, which is already blowing the trumpet for the takeover. The 600 words I've done for the next issue of Cycle is nicely presented and may just lead people to the blog - which needs work - but Newsnet would be the biggie....


----------



## Tompy (13 Jan 2010)

Would it help if Newsnet were at the appropriate time* "inundated" with requests for them, in the interest of balance, to include a link to the "nay" website? 

It would require a co-ordinated approach but that shouldn't be too difficult.

*The appropriate time being when everyone's received Cycle and has the form to hand to be able to vote against the resolution.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Jan 2010)

no it wouldn't. Let's just hope the CTC forum doesn't get straightened.


----------



## theclaud (15 Jan 2010)

Just got Newsnet. Rumours that this issue was to be where the Yes campaign pulls out the big guns were unfounded. Or perhaps minds were changed by the growing No campaign? Can Dellzeqq tell us more?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Jan 2010)

I read Newsnet from bit to byte but not a word on the Special Resolution and how it will being about peace in our time, motherhood and apple pie. But it prompted me to go on the Charity Commissioners website and tread up on the Trust's objectives/plans etc. More worried than ever now. imo the only thing the Trust is interested in about CTC Members is their debit card numbers.


----------



## theclaud (15 Jan 2010)

They've now locked the thread that this one links to, and diverted the debate to an over-complicated board with about a hundred subsections:
http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewforum.php?f=38.


----------



## MacB (15 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> They've now locked the thread that this one links to, and diverted the debate to an over-complicated board with about a hundred subsections:
> http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewforum.php?f=38.



Is that the blog some guy set up that's about as clear as mud?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 Jan 2010)

locking that thread was a bit clumsy to say the least. A conspiracy theorist would have a field day but I'm much more a cock-up man myself.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Jan 2010)

well, that is, as they say, interesting. The CTC Forum received word from Kevin Mayne, re-ordering the forum to line up with the new webpages on the National Office website that went live yesterday afternoon..........but no Newsnet blurb. There was I, finger hovering over the button and....nothing. I've no idea why.

The Peeps are beavering their way through the NO's ten pages (I passed out after reading the schlock on Member Groups that somehow failed to explain how Member Groups were supposed to keep in touch with members on 18p per member per year...) preparing a response for the soon-to-be-relaunched savethectc blog.


----------



## theclaud (16 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> Is that the blog some guy set up that's about as clear as mud?



You think so? It's fairly clear if you start at Home and work through it chronologically. I suppose it's the nature of blogs to present things backwards, so to speak. Looks like it's an interim thing while they get the website together. Anyway, at time of writing it's the only 'against' source in the Further Reading links section...


----------



## theclaud (16 Jan 2010)

Ah - my slack timing again. Hello Dellzeqq - I see you've been busy!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Jan 2010)

and as if by magic the CTC Forum thread is unlocked hokey cokey stylee


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> preparing a response for the soon-to-be-relaunched savethectc blog.



don't forget to update the links to the new board rather than just the locked/unlocked thread


----------



## dellzeqq (16 Jan 2010)

GregCollins said:


> don't forget to update the links to the new board rather than just the locked/unlocked thread


whoopsy! Ta!


----------



## MacB (16 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> You think so? It's fairly clear if you start at Home and work through it chronologically. I suppose it's the nature of blogs to present things backwards, so to speak. Looks like it's an interim thing while they get the website together. Anyway, at time of writing it's the only 'against' source in the Further Reading links section...



I was referring to the blog response put together by, john Catt I think, are we talking about the same thing?


----------



## theclaud (16 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> I was referring to the blog response put together by, john Catt I think, are we talking about the same thing?



No I thought you meant savethectc. Sorry. As you were.


----------



## theclaud (16 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> I was referring to the blog response put together by, john Catt I think, are we talking about the same thing?



No I thought you meant savethectc. Sorry. As you were.


----------



## MacB (16 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> No I thought you meant savethectc. Sorry. As you were.



C- TC, reading & comprehension, just coz you like slapping me down, it's no excuse for sloppy work!


----------



## MacB (16 Jan 2010)

theclaud said:


> No I thought you meant savethectc. Sorry. As you were.



C- TC, reading & comprehension, just coz you like slapping me down, it's no excuse for sloppy work!


----------



## theclaud (16 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> C- TC, reading & comprehension, just coz you like slapping me down, it's no excuse for sloppy work!



A thousand more apologies. I thought you were replying to the bit of my post that I edited out (because Dellzeqq's simultaneous one made it superfluous). I shall pay closer attention to what you write in future. I'll positively hang on your every word.


----------



## theclaud (16 Jan 2010)

MacB said:


> C- TC, reading & comprehension, just coz you like slapping me down, it's no excuse for sloppy work!



A thousand more apologies. I thought you were replying to the bit of my post that I edited out (because Dellzeqq's simultaneous one made it superfluous). I shall pay closer attention to what you write in future. I'll positively hang on your every word.


----------



## Dilbert (16 Jan 2010)

Bollo said:


> There's a problem though, and that problem is me, or rather members like me.



+1 Joined last year mainly for the 3rd party and what I felt they did for cycling in general, but was only vaugley aware of this upcoming vote and had no idea of the issues until I read the blog linked in Dellzeqqs post.

Keep up the good work Dellzeqq, you have one more vote here.


----------



## Dilbert (16 Jan 2010)

Bollo said:


> There's a problem though, and that problem is me, or rather members like me.



+1 Joined last year mainly for the 3rd party and what I felt they did for cycling in general, but was only vaugley aware of this upcoming vote and had no idea of the issues until I read the blog linked in Dellzeqqs post.

Keep up the good work Dellzeqq, you have one more vote here.


----------



## theclaud (19 Jan 2010)

The proxy voting form will be included in the April/May edition of _Cycle_, and downloadable from the website from the same time. Allowing for faffing and dithering, that means working fast to get people to use their proxy votes. I don't know if there's a limit on how many members a proxy can act for. It says on the CTC site that Special Motions _'cannot in general be amended at the AGM, unless it is to correct a grammatical or drafting error for example, so proxy votes should not be a problem'_, which is good news but worded a little too cautiously to inspire complete confidence. You can of course appoint the proxy either to vote as specified, or give them discretion to vote as they see fit after a debate. Talking to various members, I note that there are a lot who don't have a strong view but feel benevolently disposed to anything with the word 'charity' in it - I imagine that the more zealous 'pros' will be aiming to gather the proxy votes of this persuasion to deploy in a discretionary manner...


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Jan 2010)

the User is raising the question of proxy votes at the Council meeting this coming Saturday, and I should be able to report back on Monday. And, yes, the CTC's record on proxy voting is less than inspiring. I recall the former Chair having to be reminded that the proxy votes counted....


----------



## Bollo (19 Jan 2010)

Pardon my general ignorance here, but how will the proxy vote system work? I'd assumed a form of postal vote, but it sounds here as if you have to nominate someone to physically vote on your behalf at the meeting. 

Although I like the idea of Simon turning up like a 1970s trade unionist at a Labour Party conference with 100,000 votes in his pocket, this seems a little convoluted.


----------



## psmiffy (19 Jan 2010)

The proxy vote thing - it seems to me that it is not always clear who is going to vote which way - so that actual assigning a proxy is quite difficult


----------



## psmiffy (19 Jan 2010)

The proxy thing - As I remember there is a list of possible proxys - but no indication of their leanings - it makes it quite difficult to assign 



Bollo said:


> Although I like the idea of Simon turning up like a 1970s trade unionist at a Labour Party conference with 100,000 votes in his pocket, this seems a little convoluted.



I think there might be questions in the house if he did on a membership of approx 62000


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Jan 2010)

again - this is going to be discussed by Council on Saturday, and I'll report. However the general rule is that you can nominate anybody. 

If you've decided which way you want to vote on the resolutions then why not e-mail somebody who you are in broad agreement with, and say 'Id like to cast my vote this way on this resolution, and that way on the other resolution' and so on, and see if he or she is willing to act as your proxy. Of course you could always search around for some pillar of cycling society whose judgement you respect more than your own, and give them a blank cheque, but there's been too many blank cheques signed by CTC members over the last few years..........

What I don't know is this - can a person cast proxy votes for other people for and against the same motion?


----------



## Bollo (19 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> .....If you've decided which way you want to vote on the resolutions then why not e-mail somebody who you are in broad agreement with, and say 'Id like to cast my vote this way on this resolution, and that way on the other resolution' and so on, and see if he or she is willing to act as your proxy. Of course you could always search around for some pillar of cycling society whose judgement you respect more than your own, and give them a blank cheque.....



I hear this gentleman can be relied upon to get the right vote. Anyone know if he's a member?








Failing that, I suppose I could find someone else.

Thanks for the info Simon.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Jan 2010)

Such a person would have to advertise the fact that they are actually going to the AGM surely?

and don't proxy votes have to be registered at CTC HQ (aka Crackpot Towers)


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Jan 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Such a person would have to advertise the fact that they are actually going to the AGM surely?
> 
> and don't proxy votes have to be registered at CTC HQ (aka Crackpot Towers)


again - I don't know. The only time someone was foolish enough to give me her proxy vote she turned up in person - and then insisted we consumed vast amounts of alcohol before going on a shopping rampage....

I'll find out at the weekend


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Jan 2010)

I know I'm using this thread as a place to plant stray thoughts, but I must admit I'm mystified by the 'pro' campaign. It reminds me of an education programme on at some eerie hour of the night. You might look at it if you were completely bored, or if you had an interest in the subject of the programme, but there's no attempt to engage. And nobody's attempting to paper over the cracks.

All very odd..........


----------



## theclaud (25 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> the User is raising the question of proxy votes at the Council meeting this coming Saturday, and I should be able to report back on Monday. And, yes, the CTC's record on proxy voting is less than inspiring. I recall the former Chair having to be reminded that the proxy votes counted....



Bumpetty-bump! Any news from User on this?


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Jan 2010)

yes. I attended the Council meeting, which was a good deal more exciting than any I attended during my own stint. Some fairly big stuff was discussed, and there was some falling out. And there was stuff that was beyond satire. Not providing a link to the 'nay' campaign on the CTC website is, apparently, about showing leadership. And hang on for my thread on the CTC and disability....

Having said that, it was nice to see old friends, even those I disagree with. It was a bit weird being referred to in the third person, and having supposedly clever (actually highly, highly foolish) remarks addressed at me by the Chair.

So - voting

Greg succeeded, with support from John Catt and Kevin Mayne in getting a motion passed putting the matter in to the hands of the Electoral Reform Society. It'll cost about £4,000, but there's some savings elsewhere.

As for proxies 

every proxy vote will have to be registered with the ERS 48 hours before the AGM

you can proxy vote in three different ways

you can appoint the chair and, in effect, cast your votes beforehand by simply mandating the chair to vote in a certain way
you can appoint someone else and do the same thing
you can appoint someone else and let them cast your vote as they see fit. This enables your vote to be applied to amendments
I should say that I cannot conceive of amendments being made to the Special Resolution at the AGM. It would open the resulting vote open to a legal challenge.

Postal voting is very simple - you just send your form in to the ERS

I'll bring this post to Greg's attention and, if I've got it wrong, he'll put it right...


----------



## theclaud (25 Jan 2010)

OK thanks. from the amount of talk about proxy voting, I didn't even realise postal voting was an option on this one.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 Jan 2010)

some people are concerned about amendments - they think that they will be disenfranchised if some cleverclogs comes along and get an amendment passed. Put bluntly some people think that one or two people on Council would be not above proposing an amendment if they thought that the postal votes were against the Special Resolution. I do not for a second think that will happen.


----------



## theclaud (25 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> some people are concerned about amendments - they think that they will be disenfranchised if some cleverclogs comes along and get an amendment passed. Put bluntly some people think that one or two people on Council would be not above proposing an amendment if they thought that the postal votes were against the Special Resolution. I do not for a second think that will happen.



It all seems to make sense. Though it would be nice if the forms were made available earlier, to see if it's as straightforward in practice as it sounds in theory...


----------



## Bollo (25 Jan 2010)

Thanks for the report Simon. I didn't realise postal voting was an option either. Sorry for testing your patience on the mechanics of how this is going to work, but do we have to apply for a postal vote or will forms be sent out automatically?


----------



## dellzeqq (26 Jan 2010)

Bollo said:


> Thanks for the report Simon. I didn't realise postal voting was an option either. Sorry for testing your patience on the mechanics of how this is going to work, but do we have to apply for a postal vote or will forms be sent out automatically?


they'll be in the mag - not the issue coming out this week, but the next one.

I'd forgotten something! If there are two or more members in the same house they'll have to get additional forms.


----------



## Bollo (26 Jan 2010)

Ta Simon, I'll look out for it.


----------



## sheddy (28 Jan 2010)

Congrats on getting the NO vote side into the Mag (read today)


----------



## dellzeqq (28 Jan 2010)

sheddy said:


> Congrats on getting the NO vote side into the Mag (read today)


In fairness that's down to the editorial committee. What do you think? I've only seen a pre-print version (I thought the type was a bit cramped, and the photograph at the top was too big and not very interesting, but Dan had to tick the designers off to limit the photo to the size it was).


----------



## srw (29 Jan 2010)

I think the presentation of the debate is admirable, and reflects well on the CTC. There's one "pro charity" letter in the letters page, Simon's "anti" piece and a "pro" piece of equal length on facing pages, and ... that's it. I'll be interested to see what the NewsNet thingamabob does.

I must also read the pieces and make up my mind - I'm in the camp that doesn't go in for local activity.


----------



## Bollo (29 Jan 2010)

I haven't got my copy of Cycle yet, but I've just received a nice email from Richard Bates (SE Councillor) telling me about how great it's all going to be.

While it is admirable that the CTC are allowing some form of debate within the pages of Cycle, I agree with Simon that the one-sided access to Newsnet and the associated email list is a touch Berlusconiesque.


----------



## sunnyjim (29 Jan 2010)

I've been following this with interest, but not with any conviction either way, and being a passive member, not really having any right to make judgements. However, I'm beginning to get suspicious. 

quote email rxvd today
"
Dear CTC member in Scotland

When I first started my time as Councillor for Scotland, three years ago, we were told that the legal requirements for transforming CTC membership organisation into a charity had been fully investigated and there were no significant problems. 

The reason to look at this was mainly because of the increasing administrative complications of dealing with two parts of one CTC. Also as more and more CTC activity was being done under the Trust, it meant that there was at least a nominal risk to democratic control of the whole. Even though the sole Trustee of the Charity is the CTC, represented by four elected Councillors who act as Trustees, it is clumsy and a rather unwieldy.

As a new boy, coming mainly from cycle campaigning, I was a bit concerned about any possible curbing of CTC’s freedom to be critical of the powers that be. Along with several others we wanted, and got, more investigation and consideration. It has been a long drag with my personal inquiries, workshops looking at other experiences and alternatives and significantly a change in the law allowing full-on advocacy and benefits to members. The key is that what is done is in the public interest. With an increasingly inclusive Club this is no problem.

Finally we paid for an in depth Independent Review of CTC Governance by Cass Business School of City University London, whose recommendations were adopted by the Council and are the basis for us moving forward.

The CTC Charitable Trust, was set up when the new National Office was being built at Guildford to take advantage of the savings charities enjoy. Soon after that Big Lottery money the CTC received as part of an Active Travel programme (partly because we now had a Charitable arm) allowed CTC cycle promotion officers to start CTC work across England. The first ‘Gathering’ of Scottish membership in November 2007 made it clear that similar work should be done in Scotland. We have been trying to get funding since then and the two Bike Club officers coming to Scotland shortly, thanks to ASDA Trust money, will be the first CTC professionals we have had. 

Meanwhile CTC has been blossoming over the last couple of years, in terms of membership and activities, as cycling moves up the public and political agenda. Each new piece of work the CTC Trust has engaged in has spread the word and also brought income to the Club to improve its services.

The idea now is to convert the CTC membership organisation into a charity. This will then allow it to be merged with the CTC Charitable Trust. I am convinced there is no cogent reason it shouldn’t. We will then have what we have now except as a simpler whole, with guaranteed democracy but without the admin hassle.

There will also be some financial advantages. Funders like working with charities and there will be gift aid potential on subscriptions which will all go to improving the club.

OK – so why don’t we just get on with it. Well it is your Club and it needs 75% of your votes at a CTC AGM to make this sort of change. 

That would normally be fine but democracy is a fragile animal. You will see in your copy of Cycle this weekend that a platform has been given to an ex Councillor Simon Legg who has taken against the process and is actively campaigning in South-West London against the vote. You will see that he wants to turn the clock back and contract into a mainly exclusive cycle ride organisation, with services. A few ‘antis’ and their friends using the Proxy voting system could upset the progress being made.

CTC does all that Simon calls for but has become so much more. The arguments he uses to turn back just don’t stand up to scrutiny. Unfortunately this challenge has meant that an enormous amount of extra time and effort has had to go into doing just that by staff, Councillors and advisors. This is on top of the normal rigorous oversight of all CTC activities which must be as thorough as for any dynamic, democratic operation.

There is no suggestion of fraud, but the implication of mismanagement and a ‘them and us’ culture could be seen as an insult to the enthusiastic, hard working and dedicated staff as well as the volunteer Councillors who set and check the agenda. CTC Project accounts, audited by funders as well as CTC’s independent auditors, have been gone through with a fine tooth comb by extremely well qualified Councillors. All ended up adding to Club funds, some rather more that was intended. There is no case made.

When I joined Council I never thought I’d be interested in the admin. side, but this vote is important. It is about growing the CTC family and improving services while sharing our experience, know how and the pleasures of cycling with everyone else. 

Please use your Proxy vote in the Apr-May Cycle, if you can’t get to the AGM, to ensure a smooth passage so we can get on with the work of the CTC ‘Vision’. Alternatively you can nominate myself, David Robinson, CTC chair, or another to vote on your behalf. 

Normally enjoying your cycling is what matters most, but in this case it is your vote which can really make the difference in ensuring an ongoing happy, healthy club.

Best regards.


Peter Hayman
CTC Councillor, Scotland " /quote


----------



## Fab Foodie (29 Jan 2010)

I got my copy of 'Cycle' today and read the 2 arguments. I'm pretty clueless about this, but there was a beardy bloke on one side with suspect dress sense for the 'YES vote and some ugly bloke on a bike for the 'NO' vote...














After due consideration and discarding appearance...I'm going for the ugly bloke on the bike...


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Jan 2010)

Fab Foodie said:


> After due consideration and discarding appearance...I'm going for the ugly bloke on the bike...


too kind. 

There's clearly been a wave of orchestrated panic - messages from Councillors that members might previously have never heard from have been flopping in to inboxes all day. 

My bit on 'CTC and inclusion' will reach new heights of low politics.........


----------



## GrumpyGregry (29 Jan 2010)

It's amazing as I can't get an email out of my councillors or my DA for love nor money.


----------



## rich p (30 Jan 2010)

I, too had an email from Master Bates (sorry, irresistible) and replied telling him that we would be opposing and got a thank you in return,. Very polite!


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Jan 2010)

GregCollins said:


> It's amazing as I can't get an email out of my councillors or my DA for love nor money.


I may have sorted that - stand by your inbox!


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Jan 2010)

rich p said:


> I, too had an email from Master Bates (sorry, irresistible) and replied telling him that we would be opposing and got a thank you in return,. Very polite!


He's a good egg. I like Richard a lot, and live in hope of him joining us on a night ride. 

It would be a shame if people got the impression from the tone of some of these e-mails that animosity is rife within the CTC.


----------



## srw (30 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> It would be a shame if people got the impression from the tone of some of these e-mails that animosity is rife within the CTC.



Connoisseurs of organisational politics may enjoy - or be warned by - the spat currently being played out on the letters page of the Guardian.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (30 Jan 2010)

Got my copy of Cycle yesterday - I'm voting with the chap in the yellow jersey and the knee bandage.

Well put BTW Simon.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I may have sorted that - stand by your inbox!



just about to read my copy.

can't say my inbox is under siege as yet though.


----------



## dellzeqq (30 Jan 2010)

GregCollins said:


> can't say my inbox is under siege as yet though.


I've been in correspondence with Horsham and Crawley CTC


----------



## Tollers (30 Jan 2010)

Cheam & Morden, SW London and Wayfarers have a blog post care of Tollers Sr

"Don't be a sheep - be a lion! You have 100 days! Here endeth the first lesson."


----------



## mcshroom (30 Jan 2010)

Two North West representatives emailed me too. Funny thing is I've only been a member a couple weeks and don't even have a membership card yet (but I did get a copy of cycle )

I've attached the letter if anyone's that interested, but it seems that you may have stirred up a little panic at CTC HQ. Obviously they're worried about your well constructed argument rocking the boat


----------



## Bollo (30 Jan 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> He's a good egg. I like Richard a lot, and live in hope of him joining us on a night ride.
> 
> It would be a shame if people got the impression from the tone of some of these e-mails that animosity is rife within the CTC.



The contents of my particular email from Richard Bates was reasonable in itself - more of a pep talk than an argument, but its the fact that it's the first non-solicited communication I've had from the CTC in 4 years. I understand that the charity vote is a Very Big Thing, but it smacks of baby-kissing.

That email from Peter Hayman is an altogether different matter. It's a clever piece of writing that manages to smear the 'anti' campaign while failing to address directly any of the criticisms that fuel it. In particular, the funding, accounting and membership issues that Simon raises are concrete and measurable. If they're inaccurate, lets see a concrete rebuttal, instead of daft statements like "democracy is a fragile animal".


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Jan 2010)

it's not that clever. Inclusion is the Achilles heel of the 'pro' campaign. The danger of repeating the same phrases round and round the same table is that you lose the ability to question. But more of this later....


----------



## theclaud (31 Jan 2010)

Can anyone explain what these "breakthroughs that had eluded the club for 80 years" are, that David Cox says have been achieved because of the Trust? It's a bit disingenuous, I think, to finish the Yes article by reiterating core values such as the right to ride on roads and bridleways, as if it were not the Club that had been achieving, upholding and safeguarding these things in the first place. It's also very telling that the very notion of a club is derided as "exclusive" - perhaps this explains the psychology of the Yes campaign, which I admit eludes me thus far - beyond the Gift Aid thing, none of its advocates seems to be able to evoke any _tangible_ benefits for cyclists. I am forming the conclusion that they do not really like the idea that cyclists are a group of people with common interests that are not necessarily the same interests as other groups. It's all a bit Third Way.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Jan 2010)

It's a lot Third Way, except that Professor Cox has no clue about what the Third Sector is - he takes the Blair line which is to say that 'charities' are there simply as a means of privatising public services. There's no tangible difference between a Blair charity and a private company other than the absence of dividends.

The inclusion thing is, as I've said, a real weakness in the argument. You cannot buy inclusion or diversity, either by way of consultants reports or contracts aimed at hard-to-reach groups. When the contracts dry up it will be the same old CTC - not that that is a bad thing in and of itself, because it you were looking for active volunteers you'd be targetting the elderly, which we have an abundance of. The key to inclusion is asking why, acting on the answers, knowledge building, spreading best practice and opening up the imagination of the volunteers - all of which is absent from the National Office strategy. 

And then we get to the Great CTC Disability Insurance Scandal. Any FNRttCers remember Graham?


----------



## Flying Dodo (31 Jan 2010)

Mmm - having checked my email, I've noticed that I've had a directive from Councillors Jim Brown and Martin Cockersole imploring me to vote for the conversion. Even without the grammatical errors in it, I wouldn't have done so.

There seems to be an awful lot of spin & BS in their reasons for wanting the change, which almost smacks of desperation.


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Jan 2010)

before we get too down on Councillors.........they were asked for text, but, foul rumour has it, some of them didn't know there was going to be a mass e-mail. Blimey!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Jan 2010)

you don't think someone might have made use of "Send As..." functionaility do you?


----------



## dellzeqq (31 Jan 2010)

GregCollins said:


> you don't think someone might have made use of "Send As..." functionaility do you?


perish the thort, mi dears. I suppose a chap could always ask.........


----------



## robgul (31 Jan 2010)

This is the header text from my message ... it shows that the CTC HQ sent the message(s) out [My own receive details in this cut and paste have been omitted for security reasons]

Rob
===========
..... receive stuff ...
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: peter.mathison@CTC.ORG.UK
X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-21.messagelabs.com!1264780899!30130711!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=ctc.org.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [82.111.86.162]
Received: (qmail 4957 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2010 16:01:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO HOLLINS.CTC.ORG.UK) (82.111.86.162)
by server-4.tower-21.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2010 16:01:41 -0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CAA0FC.57D0026C"
Subject: NOTE TO CTC WEST MIDLANDS MEMBERS re UNIFIED MEMBER CHARITY
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:01:38 -0000
Message-ID: <8FCEAA188CCDC049A61E08F606D11E4DC9946F@HOLLINS.CTC.ORG.UK>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: NOTE TO CTC WEST MIDLANDS MEMBERS re UNIFIED MEMBER CHARITY
Thread-Index: Acqg/FbeJgjmd3SfQMq1jjeeda1Z3w==
From: "Peter Mathison" <peter.mathison@CTC.ORG.UK>
To: "Peter Mathison" <peter.mathison@CTC.ORG.UK>
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaimr01.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown,
refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.4B630668.0128:SCFSTAT6953507,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0,
ip=79.170.40.144,
so=2009-07-20 21:54:04,
dmn=5.7.1/2009-08-27,
mode=multiengine (bulk only)
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Return-Path: peter.mathison@CTC.ORG.UK
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2010 16:01:47.0485 (UTC) FILETIME=[5C5668D0:01CAA0FC]




.


----------



## jonesy (31 Jan 2010)

I've not received any emails from anyone about this- should I feel left out???

Had my copy of Cycle though- was a bit surprised that the 'pro' article didn't address any of the concerns Simon's article raises, given that his concerns have surely been well known for some time now?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Jan 2010)

robgul said:


> This is the header text from my message ... it shows that the CTC HQ sent the message(s) out



[pedant] all it means is that the email was sent from an MS Exchange email server on the ctc.org.uk domain. the sender could have been sat anywhere on the planet with an internet connection [/pedant]

if I used my work account it would appear exactly the same, and somehow I doubt that every member's* email address is in the CTC's Outlook address book!

*bar mine of course; not a dicky bird from anyone, even the councillors I emailed directly.


----------



## sunnyjim (31 Jan 2010)

GregCollins said:


> [pedant] all it means is that the email was sent from an MS Exchange email server on the ctc.org.uk domain. the sender could have been sat anywhere on the planet with an internet connection [/pedant]



Yebbut-My email from Peter Hayman was sent from the same place 82.111.86.162 =CTC Charitable Trust just 9 minutes earlier. Ctcscotland regional notices normally come from elsewhere.


----------



## Flying Dodo (31 Jan 2010)

The header on my email looks identical to Rob's apart from the change in sender email address, but sent 10 minutes later. So it looks like a mass emailing exercise.


----------



## psmiffy (31 Jan 2010)

Flying Dodo said:


> The header on my email looks identical to Rob's apart from the change in sender email address, but sent 10 minutes later. So it looks like a mass emailing exercise.



Are you suggesting that there is collusion between the pro comittee members to influence as many people as possible to their point of view?


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Feb 2010)

I'm suggesting that when I was a Councillor the idea that National Office would e-mail the membership in London (or, at least, the moiety for which they had e-mail addresses) on my behalf would strike me as odd. If it were done without my prior agreement or knowledge I'd have been cranking up the V-bomber.


----------



## Bollo (1 Feb 2010)

I'm not sure I'd read this as a grand conspiracy, but it is clearly an organised email campaign. I didn't think for a minute that Richard Bates was acting on his own initiative or stumbled upon my email address and thought he'd be friendly. However, the emails from specific councillors seem to be different enough to make it unlikely that they've been ghost-written. It smells more of panic than stitch-up.

On that subject, I never realised that the vote needs a 75% majority to pass - I'd assumed a simple majority would be enough. I can see now why the CTC higher-ups might be getting twitchy.

Finally dell, V-bombers are terribly old fashioned, its all remote drones these days.


----------



## psmiffy (1 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm suggesting that when I was a Councillor the idea that National Office would e-mail the membership in London (or, at least, the moiety for which they had e-mail addresses) on my behalf would strike me as odd. If it were done without my prior agreement or knowledge I'd have been cranking up the V-bomber.



I am sorry but I think it is wonderful - potentially its democracy at work – At the very least it is the beginnings of some sort of engagement with all members. I read somewhere that decisions at AGM are taken by considerable less than the contents of a couple of bendy buses – If this sort of thing means fewer voting forms end up in the recycling then I am for it. 

However, I did also read that this form of communication had been denied to the Nay Lobby – I would suggest that in the interests of democracy the Nay Lobby make a Formal request to National Office to be availed of the same facility – there must be some sort of rule at Companies House that regulates these things.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Feb 2010)

psmiffy - my point is that if councillors wanted to send out an e-mail, then they should request a list of e-mail addresses from National Office and do it themselves. That I'm all in favour of - and it would be nice if it became a habit. I'd also like to see different councillors in the same region sending out e-mails in their name - which, as far as I know hasn't happened. I hope that new Councillors have not seen their names tacked on to the bottom of e-mails.

And again, why were certain councillors invited to submit scripts and others not? And, again, did all the councillors who have nomimally sent out e-mails know what was going on. Perhaps it's time to ask.


----------



## psmiffy (1 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> psmiffy - my point is that if councillors wanted to send out an e-mail, then they should request a list of e-mail addresses from National Office and do it themselves. That I'm all in favour of - and it would be nice if it became a habit. I'd also like to see different councillors in the same region sending out e-mails in their name - which, as far as I know hasn't happened. I hope that new Councillors have not seen their names tacked on to the bottom of e-mails.
> 
> And again, why were certain councillors invited to submit scripts and others not? And, again, did all the councillors who have nomimally sent out e-mails know what was going on. Perhaps it's time to ask.



I would suggest that National Office sending out the emails may be attributed to an interpretation (or possibly a misinterpretation) of the Data Protection Act - However, I agree that if emails have been sent out pertaining to be from particular councillers without their agreement or knowledge then something smells in the Kingdom of Denmark. 

I would suggest that you or a nay counciller *should* be asking these questions. I would reiterate that the Nay Lobby should make a Formal request to be availed the same facility.


----------



## theclaud (1 Feb 2010)

What's happening at Member Group level, folks? Outside SW London, I mean. With the debate appearing in _Cycle_, it's a good moment to step up your efforts. I've been finding that a post of User's from the CTC forum has been coming in handy for summarising the issues with undecided or apathetic members (possibly handier in this context, if Simon will forgive me, than the savethectc blog, which I think works better as an information source for those already wary of the proposal). Hope User will excuse me copying it below:

_As some of you may know, I am on CTC Council and I was asked to sit on the Governance Working Group, which was supposed to look at all the options for the CTC's future shape and status. One reason I was asked to do this is that I used to work in the charitable sector (I was Deputy Chief Executive of two national charities) and I am the only person on Council with a formal qualification in charity management (I have the Institute of Chartered Secretaries & Administrators Certificate in Charity Management)._

_I went into my work with an open mind. I could understand the potential benefits to members of CTC having a unified structure. However, I was also mindful of the very real problems that such changes could bring, particularly if rushed into._

_The Governance Working Group was supposed to be given the chance to do some 'blue sky' thinking and to look at all the options. Council and National Office were supposed to be 'hands off' and give us space to do our work without undue pressure. Unfortunately, this did not happen. From the beginning, there was constant interference in our work._

_CTC is a dysfunctional organisation. This has become clearer over my year on Council. We have an imbalance where the membership are disregarded and National Office concentrates its efforts on project work for government through the Trust. Whilst I can see the benefit of some of the project work, it is badly managed and often loss-making. We don't even have a proper project accounting system in place - despite this being a contractual requirement._

_Significant sums of membership money (fees) have been used over the last few years to prop up loss-making projects in the Trust - somewhere in the region of £1.75 million. And we're not talking pre-approved losses - we're talking getting to the end of the year and the Club having to bail the Trust out. And this is on top of the significant sums that the Trust charges the Club for rent, services etc._

_Having seen just how bad things are, I can no longer support the idea of unification at this time and I will be actively campaigning against it. The Chair of Council is trying desparately to quell any discontent by suggesting that there is 'collective responsibility' on Council. I've reminded him that we are not a political party or a local authority - we are a board of directors and we individually have responsibility to be open and honest with our 'shareholders' - the members._

_This does not mean that I do not believe that it is not appropriate for the future - but at present, if we were to unify the Club and Trust, we would simply end up embedding bad practice, lack of proper governance and dysfunction. I'm sure there will be plenty of fine promises about how these issues will be addressed as part of the changes but I simply don't believe them. I want to see those changes made before any status change._

_Don't forget - once the changes have been made they can't be undone._

_Those opposing the changes have been promised a 'right of reply' in the next issue of Cycle... but they won't be able to see what they're replying to. There is also a website in the offing that will give CTC members the unspun figures and facts._

_There's a lot of guff being given out about the benefits (in particular around Gift Aid). The figures are overstated and most of these benefits can be accessed without unification as a charity. And those benefits that members currently get through the Club will not be guaranteed in any unified charity - they will become purely discretionary._

_The CTC Trust was created without reference to the members. The Club's main asset (its property) was given to the Trust without consultation with the members - and in a hurry. CTC's staff were transferred to the Trust without consultation with the membership._

_National Office and a few members of Council are trying to push through these changes without full and proper consultation with the membership. The fact that there is any consultation is only because some members of Council have insisted on it._

_I'm not going to tell people how to vote on this. All I'd say is read everything you can get your hands on - and read everything with a certain degree of scepticism. Ask questions - and treat the answers you get with due caution._

_Use your vote. If you can't get to the AGM then use your proxy vote. Don't forget that you can give your proxy vote to anyone - not just the Chair - and you can tell them how you want it cast. _

_Join us in insisting that the actual number of votes cast for any motion is recorded... this hasn't happened in the past. We've simply been told that the proxies mean that the vote has gone one way or the other - we weren't told how many were cast for or against. Transparency in voting is something the CTC is not good at._

_Tell your friends. Don't forget - at present the CTC is still a membership organisation and it is for the members to decide what to do. This may be your last chance to have your say!_

_And as I said before... *once any changes have been made, they can't be undone. If we don't get it right, we're screwed!* _


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Feb 2010)

psmiffy said:


> I would suggest that National Office sending out the emails may be attributed to an interpretation (or possibly a misinterpretation) of the Data Protection Act



Interesting. The only time I can recall being asked my email address, was by the local Bedfordshire Group, in order that they can email their regular newsletter, rather than sending it in the post. There certainly wasn't any specific Data Protection wording provided at that time.

However, the main CTC application form does request an email address and has the wording:-

_CTC will use the information you have provided here for the purpose of providing you with CTC membership services and membership benefits available to you as a member of CTC. CTC will not disclose this information to any other person or organisation except in connection with the above purposes. If you do not want us to contact you about CTC membership benefits, products or services, or if you have any query about the use we make of your data, please write to the Data Controller at Cyclists' Touring Club, Parklands, Railton Road, Guildford, GU2 9JX. I agree to the above use of my data._

So the fact I have subsequently provided my email address, as part of an update of my personal records, would give them carte blanche to email me anything they like, provided either the application form I completed originally had a similar wording (which is going to be the case as I only joined 5 years ago), or the annual renewal form has some form of Data Protection wording (which again is quite likely).

So I doubt there's any breach of Data Protection rules, unless of course the annual renewal form doesn't mention anything, in which case long serving members who joined before the Data Protection Act 1998 took effect (1st March 2000) could state there's been a breach.


----------



## srw (1 Feb 2010)

Flying Dodo said:


> _CTC will use the information you have provided here for the purpose of providing you with CTC membership services and membership benefits available to you as a member of CTC. _





> So the fact I have subsequently provided my email address, as part of an update of my personal records, would give them carte blanche to email me anything they like,



As long as it's a CTC membership service or a membership benefit. I don't know whether propaganda (from either side) counts as either.


----------



## summerdays (1 Feb 2010)

Flying Dodo said:


> So the fact I have subsequently provided my email address, as part of an update of my personal records, would give them carte blanche to email me anything they like......(snipped)
> 
> So I doubt there's any breach of Data Protection rules.



As far as I understand Data Protection, which isn't extensive, just because CTC have the right to mail you, doesn't give them the right to distribute your email address to other CTC individuals to then email you.

I'm reading all this with interest as I was considering joining (is there a current membership goodie to tempt me with). What would be the latest I could join and take part in any vote - or is it already too late? If so I may hold off joining until this is all finished and decide whether to join based on the outcome.


----------



## Crackle (1 Feb 2010)

summerdays said:


> I'm reading all this with interest as I was considering joining (is there a current membership goodie to tempt me with). What would be the latest I could join and take part in any vote - or is it already too late? If so I may hold off joining until this is all finished and decide whether to join based on the outcome.



Same boat here. I await the outcome of this now, I'm not joining in the middle of it, or there's British Cycling.


----------



## dellzeqq (1 Feb 2010)

srw said:


> As long as it's a CTC membership service or a membership benefit. I don't know whether propaganda (from either side) counts as either.



hah! Our reference to the campaign (and it's a passing one) is included in e-mails inviting people to join us on cycle rides! Oodathortit! A great pity that didn't occur to Messrs Spurr and Robinson - even after they'd received ours!


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Feb 2010)

srw said:


> As long as it's a CTC membership service or a membership benefit. I don't know whether propaganda (from either side) counts as either.



Even though I'm against the proposal, I would say any emailing about this issue is in connection with a CTC membership service. The Councillors for the conversion would, I'm sure, say converting to a charity is a membership benefit!


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Feb 2010)

summerdays said:


> As far as I understand Data Protection, which isn't extensive, just because CTC have the right to mail you, doesn't give them the right to distribute your email address to other CTC individuals to then email you.



The Councillors are representing the CTC, so in this respect they do have the right to contact the members, in accordance with the membership application form.

Obviously, I can use my right to opt-out of this form of communication.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 Feb 2010)

things have now taken a turn for the absurd. 

_IMPORTANT CHANGES TO THE REGISTRATION OF NATIONAL STANDARD CYCLE TRAINING_
_INSTRUCTORS._

_This is not a circular_

_RE: Transfer of instructor Details to the-Department for Transport_
_-_
_As you will be aware, CTC has been holding a central database of qualified __National Cycle Training Standard instructor records since the introduction_
_of the Adult Standards in 2003. In 2004, the Department for Transport (Dm) gave the CTC a grant to run a three-year programme of capacity building, utilising the CTC's database of instructors. The CTC continued to manage the database, but as DfT had, in Data Protection terms, become the Data Controller, this was on DfT's behalf. Following the end of the __capacity-building contract, DfT are moving the database of instructors to a* new contractor.*_

_This is part of the wider plans to centralise the governance of cycle __training to ensure that the high quality of training is maintained. Other __proposals include recognising a number of organisations to replace the __current system of instructor Training Providers and a scheme to inspect __cycle training schemes._

_As from 26 October 2009, all new instructors trained by the instructor __Training Providers (ITPs) were registered on a central database which is_
_managed on behalf of DfT by Steer Davies Gleave (SDG). We are now preparing to transfer the existing database to the DfT where the data will merge with the new database. DfT will become the sole Data Controller for this data under the terms of the Data Protection Act 1998._

The CTC held the database and now they don't - it's gone 'to another contractor'. And that is really the nub of it. This work is here today, gone tomorrow stuff. Today CTC, tomorrow SDG. It's not about influence or prestige or standing or any fine stuff about history. It's about doing a job for a commercial client. I don't know why the contract went from CTC to SDG, but gone it has. But if you're looking for an organisation that understands the words 'capacity building' the CTC probably isn't it.

The telling news is that SDG isn't a charity. So much for charitable status.


----------



## theclaud (2 Feb 2010)

Thanks, User. Useful stuff. The impression I get from talking to undecided members down here (not that Swansea and West Wales is necessarily representative of anything) is that a lot of them are quite impressed by the benefits of Gift Aid; to some extent they buy the "tidying up" argument about the management structure; and they are suspicious of the motives of people arguing the No case. It's a bit galling to be accused of bias, as our scrupulously proper RtR rep was at a meeting last night, when all he was trying to do was to provide information to balance the propaganda of the Yes campaign...


----------



## snorri (2 Feb 2010)

Just for information, I have now received from my DA a copy of SW London Resolution signed by one Mr S Legg, also a response from the Chairman to the resolution.
I will not attempt to precis either, but I note the Chairman welcomes the debate.
There is also a letter from one Jim Brown, who appears not to welcome debate.
No doubt other members will get copies of these documents in due course.


----------



## clivedb (2 Feb 2010)

Thanks for this thread, which I have come to after receiving unsolicited email from a Richard Bates. I was taken aback by the email which seemed an undemocratic exploitation of my email address by the CTC authorities.

I have replied to him making this point and asking whether there was a CTC policy that ensured equal opportunities for all sides of the argument to be made to members. I said: 'It seems to me unlikely that this will be the case if it is only councillors who are in favour of the unification of the organisation who are given the privilege of access to individual email addresses for the purpose of campaigning.'

I also suggested that a ballot on the issue might be conducted under the auspices of Electoral Reform services (a red herring, I am sure).

I also asked him the key financial questions that User suggested a few posts back.

I'll let you know the content of any reply.


----------



## Tynan (2 Feb 2010)

read the no case from said Legg in the CTC mag with breakfast, it made sense, I glazed over very quickly skimming the yes chap's pitch/sermon


----------



## StuAff (2 Feb 2010)

Not a CTC member, though I've thought about joining, one major reason I haven't is the problems I've heard regarding renewals, and another is this little issue. It sounds like a complete dog's breakfast- the CTC should get itself sorted out properly, not just throw more major change into an already somewhat shambolic situation....having perused Cycle in the library today, Simon made his case somewhat better than the other guy.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2010)

User said:


> The proposal was accepted, subject to confirmation of costs, and the final decision will be made at the Council meeting in February. *Perhaps people might want to suggest to their councillor that they support the move....*



But if you do so by email don't expect to get an acknowledgement or any sort of reply.


----------



## Bollo (3 Feb 2010)

StuAff said:


> It sounds like a complete dog's breakfast- the CTC should get itself sorted out properly, not just throw more major change into an already somewhat shambolic situation.


That sums it up for me nicely.


----------



## Aperitif (3 Feb 2010)

StuAff said:


> Not a CTC member, though I've thought about joining, one major reason I haven't is the problems I've heard regarding renewals, and another is this little issue. It sounds like a complete dog's breakfast- the CTC should get itself sorted out properly, not just throw more major change into an already somewhat shambolic situation....having perused Cycle in the library today, Simon made his case somewhat better than the other guy.



You really should join Stu...
For my part, I have only just realised that I have not informed anyone of a change of address and I miss my magazine.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2010)

User said:


> Your couldn't make it up folks...



There would be no need too though, all very predictable of clubby, self-serving, highly partial, be-blazered, bolloxologists of the second half of the 20th C.


----------



## psmiffy (3 Feb 2010)

User said:


> His response was that we could but:
> 
> So we can send e-mails to our constituents via the National Office facility but only if we toe the party line and our e-mails are approved by National Office...
> 
> You couldn't make it up folks...



I do not see a problem with that - as long as why anything is inaccurate is explained properly

I find it very difficult to see beyond the smoke and mirrors without facts - The statement that providing the facts is time consuming and is detracting from the core eforts of the organisation does not wash -the motion is probably the most important event in the recent (and possibly in the long) history of the club and therefore every effort should be made to get it *right!*


----------



## srw (3 Feb 2010)

User said:


> So we can send e-mails to our constituents via the National Office facility but only if we toe the party line and our e-mails are approved by National Office...





> I assume that whilst you may now have some reservations yourself you will ensure that your members understand the position taken by national council in the charity debate.



Not quite. You can tell your members what you like, but you have to say that the national council has come down on one side. Like you are.


----------



## Auntie Helen (3 Feb 2010)

Well I had an email from Martin Cockersole and just replied to it to say that the only CTC council members I've ever cycled with are Greg and Simon. I have no idea who the rest of 'em are but have no reason to trust their judgment over Greg/Simon's, so I will be voting no.


----------



## sunnyjim (4 Feb 2010)

The Mountain Bothies Association is a different type of organisation from the CTC, but the same old story of 
Complacency -> Executive with grandiose ideas -> Peasants revolt 
is as timeless as Boy-meets-Girl.
http://www.walkscotland.com/newsarchive23.htm (first part) and ​
http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tac/tac56/thebothy.htm​​
 may ring some bells, and perhaps give a ray of hope.


----------



## Auntie Helen (4 Feb 2010)

Sunnyjim, that made for a really interesting read - thanks for providing the links.


----------



## sunnyjim (4 Feb 2010)

User said:


> I hope you don't mind but I have shamelessly nicked this for use elsewhere...



Not at all- I didn't write it. I was just a simple bothy-ist and long standing maintenance volunteer, mostly for Saurdalan bothy in Glenelg. Some local bothy organisers who had worked hard for many years were treated very badly when they rebelled. We all forgot that carying in cement, slating roofs etc wasn't the only thing to be concerned about.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Feb 2010)

I had the great good fortune to listen not quite open-mouthed, but with an air of a student that had at last found his guru, to Robert Griffiths who runs the fundraising effort at Martlets, today. He regards volunteers as essential to the business - replacing them would cost about half a million quid a year, and they are the best means of spreading the message about the Hospice. Volunteers who are engaged, contributing and building the knowledge base of the organisation in co-operation with paid staff can make an organisation a better thing. 

As you can imagine e-mails have been tumbling in to my in-box. Some of them are dispiriting - particularly those from people who have given up RtR because they didn't feel valued, and, in once case, because the person simply couldn't afford to be an RtR rep.


----------



## BentMikey (8 Feb 2010)

Simon, I would like you to have my proxy and will sort it when the time comes. I feel distinctly distrusting of postal voting or other unknowns having control of it.


----------



## Bollo (8 Feb 2010)

I had a rootle around the web site and there's plenty in there. Thanks for putting it up.

Stepping back a minute, this is proving to be a very divisive issue. The central powers are clearly so committed to the 'Yes' vote that its unlikely that they've planned an alternative future for the CTC if the vote doesn't go their way. Cue several years of a rudderless CTC.

If the vote goes through, the same powers might assume that the issues highlighted by the 'No' campaign have magically disappeared and carry on as before, while a significant number of dissident or disaffected members simply walk away. I'm already picking a dress for my flounce.

In the short term at least, it's difficult to see how anyone wins. It's not good, is it?

FWIW I particularly enjoyed Arthur Spurr's email in SpinWATCH - I would have loved to have read it before its fateful passage through Google Translator.


----------



## theclaud (9 Feb 2010)

Bollo said:


> I particularly enjoyed Arthur Spurr's email in SpinWATCH - I would have loved to have read it before its fateful passage through Google Translator.



Hilarious! Can anyone help me out with the meaning of this?

"Our seeking only to be part of the transport lobby would clearly be myopic, cyclists aren’t physically engineered they’re educated so!"


----------



## BigSteev (9 Feb 2010)

I wonder when/if I'll get an e-mail from anyone at CTC.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Feb 2010)

BigSteev I'll stand you pint you get one before me, and I've emailed my DA/local sectin and my councillors. 

Maybe the CTC email system doesn't have a 'Reply' button


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Feb 2010)

BigSteev said:


> I wonder when/if I'll get an e-mail from anyone at CTC.


where do you live. If you're a Londoner then there's a reason - Greg (User) and Helen weren't invited to the e-mail party. I wonder why?

Greg - did you hear anything yet? I'm going to be a bit peeved if you haven't.


----------



## Aperitif (9 Feb 2010)

> Not allow a “no” campaign to gain momentum in wider arenas such as external forums or in one particular region without intervention



Wow!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Greg - did you hear anything yet? I'm going to be a bit peeved if you haven't.



I don't think I'd like to see you peeved. But I cannot tell a lie. Not a dickie bird either by way of reply to my e-mails or 'spontaneous' pro-active contact. 

I reckon you've been blackballed and I've been no balled.


----------



## marinyork (9 Feb 2010)

theclaud said:


> Hilarious! Can anyone help me out with the meaning of this?
> 
> "Our seeking only to be part of the transport lobby would clearly be myopic, cyclists aren’t physically engineered they’re educated so!"



I was checking e-mail recently and I came across this and found it pretty funny too.


----------



## Bollo (9 Feb 2010)

theclaud said:


> Hilarious! Can anyone help me out with the meaning of this?
> 
> "Our seeking only to be part of the transport lobby would clearly be myopic, cyclists aren’t physically engineered they’re educated so!"


It reminded me of the instructions for a coffee grinder I once bought that promised "a flavour-saving shape of ellipse".


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Feb 2010)

Aperitif said:


> Wow!


yeah, that one really worked, didn't it! And the really odd thing is that the pro-takeover Councillors have left the CTC forum alone, with the honourable exceptions of John Catt and Simon Connell. Where is David Robinson? Does he still exist?


----------



## Philip Benstead (10 Feb 2010)

*ALL IS NOT WELL AT THE CTC - CALLING ALL CYCLISTS’*


ALL IS NOT WELL AT THE CTC

*CALLING ALL CYCLISTS’*

YOU are aware that the CTC (Cyclists’ Touring Club) at its AGM is purposing conversion to full charitable status?

*AGAINST CONVERSION*
*http://www.savethectc.org.uk/*
http://savethectc.blogspot.com/
http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewforum.php?f=38

*FOR CONVERSATION*
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5355

*CTC ANURAL GENERAL MEETING (AGM)*

on Saturday 15th May 2010 at University of Loughborough
http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3416

Cycling 4 ALL says No Bike No Life:

Philip Benstead
Email: philipbenstead1@gmail.com


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Feb 2010)

the hot news is that we've been invited to a meeting at National Office. If nothing else it's a chance to compare misapprehensions


----------



## theclaud (11 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> the hot news is that we've been invited to a meeting at National Office. If nothing else it's a chance to compare misapprehensions



Interesting! Better take a few meaty confreres along, just in case. When's that happening?


----------



## dellzeqq (11 Feb 2010)

we've been offered 25th Feb, which I can't do, it being a certain birthday, and Greg can't do either, so it will probably be the week after.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Feb 2010)

Dellzeqq travels to Guildford for talks, a compromise is reached, he returns to London triumphant, dismounts from his bike, waving the piece of paper detailing the agreement, forums erupts with cheers, a year later the Club is annexed by the Trust......


.....sorry. couldn't resist it. Does HQ have a basement. Make sure you tell someone what time you expect to be home so we can send out search parties if you go awol.


----------



## Bollo (11 Feb 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Dellzeqq travels to Guildford for talks, a compromise is reached, he returns to London triumphant, dismounts from his bike, waving the piece of paper detailing the agreement, forums erupts with cheers, a year later the Club is annexed by the Trust......
> 
> 
> .....sorry. couldn't resist it. Does HQ have a basement. Make sure you tell someone what time you expect to be home so we can send out search parties if you go awol.



...or shuffles back on to the forum and recommends the change of status in a flat monotone, a faint scar glistening below the peak of his Rapha cap.

Should be interesting, although it's difficult to see that anyone's mind is going to changed.


----------



## dellzeqq (12 Feb 2010)

the problem is that being told that something is going to be done - to breathe some life in to the volunteer movement, or to ensure that membership services are run well, or to demonstrate value for money - is fine and dandy, but demonstrating it takes time. 

I know I'm getting wearied by the entire thing, but all of this kerfuffle and panic was completely avoidable. Had soundings been taken beforehand we could have worked out some assurances, considered some alternatives (Community Interest Companies for projects, for example), agreed a regime for donations to the Trust and satisfied almost everybody - me included, but, more importantly the RtR movement and the stalwarts in the DAs. 

At root it's just bloody carelessness - a failure to listen.


----------



## theclaud (12 Feb 2010)

Ooooh! Newsnet just pinged into my inbox and the Charity proposal is back as its number one item. The text of the newsletter itself has managed to avoid a propagandist approach, but the page it links to is unbelievable! The bold is mine.

_"CTC Council will present the 2010 CTC AGM with two proposals._
_The first will propose that the original CTC – Cyclists‘ Touring Club – becomes a charity. _
_The second proposal will be the modifications to our constitution (CTC’s Memorandum and Articles of Association) that enable us to meet the requirements of the Charity Commission._
_*When* this is completed the current CTC Charitable Trust *will* merge with Cyclists’ Touring Club to form one membership charity. _
*The Council's Position*
_We have arrived at this proposal after: _
_Achieving record membership, influence and financial strength from five years experience of working partly as a charity._
_Inviting expert consultants, financial advisors, lawyers and members to consider the proposals and make alternative suggestions._
_Taking feedback from member groups, member surveys and a campaign that has set itself up to oppose the change._
_At this point the Council can assure members _
_That there are real benefits for the club and for members in becoming a full charity._
_That *the Council has addressed the comments made by the campaign against the changes and found that they are either commenting in issues that are completely unaffected by the changes or they are making accusations about finances that have not been substantiated when scrutinised*."_

Go back to sleep everyone - your Council has everything under control. Nothing to see here. I see the proposal is now in two parts, presented in what seems like the wrong order - is this a technicality to flummox the proxy voting process?


----------



## theclaud (17 Feb 2010)

The rescheduled CTC Cymru AGM is on Saturday in Llandrindod. Thanks to the change of date, we now get reinforcements from the Yes campaign - David Robinson will be joining KM. Any other Welsh CCers going?


----------



## theclaud (19 Feb 2010)

theclaud said:


> The rescheduled CTC Cymru AGM is on Saturday in Llandrindod. [...] Any other Welsh CCers going?





I'll take that as a "No", then! So much for the CycleChat booze-up afterwards...


----------



## Bollo (19 Feb 2010)

theclaud said:


> I'll take that as a "No", then! So much for the CycleChat booze-up afterwards...



I'm sure dell' could organise some '80s style flying pickets to spice things up. I look quite handy in a donkey jacket, but Hampshire to Wales is a bit of a trek in the back of a rusty transit.

I notice that another Newsnet has failed to go large on the charity issue. Wild speculation, but do you think that the anti campaign has gathered sufficient momentum that the powers are worried that raising the profile of the vote may now be counterproductive? It might be a better tactic for them to play it down as administrative housekeeping, rather than a fundamental change to the club.


----------



## dellzeqq (19 Feb 2010)

Bollo said:


> I'm sure dell' could organise some '80s style flying pickets to spice things up. I look quite handy in a donkey jacket, but Hampshire to Wales is a bit of a trek in the back of a rusty transit.
> 
> I notice that another Newsnet has failed to go large on the charity issue. Wild speculation, but do you think that the anti campaign has gathered sufficient momentum that the powers are worried that raising the profile of the vote may now be counterproductive? It might be a better tactic for them to play it down as administrative housekeeping, rather than a fundamental change to the club.


the current plan is...

'Cycle' goes big on the AGM - message from the Chair, blah-blah-blah. Massive e-mail campaign from 'pro' Councillors, 'nay' Councillors told to boil their heads. Big articles in as much cycling press as they can manage, which, given the cross-marketing deals, is a lot. 'Pro' Councillors inviting themselves to DA committee meetings. More personal attacks on yrs truly, Greg and John. Communique from National Office saying 'nay' campaign accepts accounts as true and complete after meeting on 25th Feb

Nay campaign mostly consists of looking beautiful, loving everybody and circulating internal papers from CTC Towers. E-mail barrage after next issue of 'Cycle' (but please note ours will be well written, to the point, and totally amusing as opposed to theirs which will be pointless miserable complaining dirges). Devilishly clever demolition of CTC accounting standards after meeting on 25th Feb. Complete absence of personal abuse despite Arthur Spoor being a complete twat.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (19 Feb 2010)

think you might need to work on that last sentence...


----------



## Crackle (19 Feb 2010)

GregCollins said:


> think you might need to work on that last sentence...



Yep, it's missing an 'utter'


----------



## Bollo (21 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> the current plan is...
> 
> 'Cycle' goes big on the AGM - message from the Chair, blah-blah-blah. Massive e-mail campaign from 'pro' Councillors, 'nay' Councillors told to boil their heads. Big articles in as much cycling press as they can manage, which, given the cross-marketing deals, is a lot. 'Pro' Councillors inviting themselves to DA committee meetings. More personal attacks on yrs truly, Greg and John. Communique from National Office saying 'nay' campaign accepts accounts as true and complete after meeting on 25th Feb
> 
> Nay campaign mostly consists of looking beautiful, loving everybody and circulating internal papers from CTC Towers. E-mail barrage after next issue of 'Cycle' (but please note ours will be well written, to the point, and totally amusing as opposed to theirs which will be pointless miserable complaining dirges). Devilishly clever demolition of CTC accounting standards after meeting on 25th Feb.



I look forward to weighing each submission carefully, before not changing my mind one bit. And that to a certain degree is why I don't think the AGM is particularly relevant. Those present are likely to be long standing, committed members who'll have been tuned into the pro and anti arguments for long enough to firm up their opinions.

The info-war beforehand is much more important and its not one the inner party seem to have handled well as far as I can see. They've certainly not engaged with punters to any great extent outside their own playpen, which I don't think does them any favours. I'm interested to see how they'll spin the cycling press because I can't claim to have noticed the CTC ever having a great presence in the paper-shop publications (the comic, C+, etc). Still, if there's money in it......



dellzeqq said:


> Complete absence of personal abuse despite Arthur Spoor being a complete twat.



I just couldn't keep track of what he was trying to say (in which I claim the forum's first English/Dutch pun - 'teef, the gauntlet has been thrown). I did enjoy his Palin-like riffing on the London Liberal elite though. He does seem a bit of an @rsehole, although I may be doing both bums and voids a bit of a disservice.


Finally, just for giggles never ever talk about your membership of the CTC outside the UK........


----------



## Ian H (22 Feb 2010)

What's happened to http://www.savethectc.org.uk/ ?


----------



## Ian H (22 Feb 2010)

User said:


> With luck it'll be back up and running by the end of the week - either that or I'm going after the hosting company with some specially sharpened spokes...



Okay. Happy to link to it, or help in ant other way.


----------



## BentMikey (23 Feb 2010)

Blimey, get a move on chaps. I'll link it in my newsletter if you get it up in time, else it'll only be the next one. (7k recipients, many of whom cycle).


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Feb 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Blimey, get a move on chaps. I'll link it in my newsletter if you get it up in time, else it'll only be the next one. (7k recipients, many of whom cycle).


you could always link to the blog.. http://savethectc.blogspot.com/

I'll carry a link to the grown-up site when it's singing and dancing


----------



## sheddy (24 Feb 2010)

If you can't wait have a look at the free www.weebly.com.


----------



## theclaud (24 Feb 2010)

User said:


> Right.... hosting and domain name problems have been sorted.
> 
> The basic redesign has been sorted.
> 
> With luck, the web-site will be back up and running by Friday!



Good show, Reggers!


----------



## bicyclos (25 Feb 2010)

After all this so called mess has settled down and the CTC turns into a charity ??, can you see many "anti charity" members leaving the club. What is the worse case scenario of turning into a charity? Would the members not have to pay a membership fee but just donate what they feel like donating to join


----------



## Bollo (2 Mar 2010)

Bump!

How did the meeting of the 25th go, Simon?





or


----------



## BigSteev (3 Mar 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> where do you live. If you're a Londoner then there's a reason - Greg (User) and Helen weren't invited to the e-mail party. I wonder why?
> 
> Greg - did you hear anything yet? I'm going to be a bit peeved if you haven't.



Londoner born and bred.


----------



## theclaud (4 Mar 2010)

User said:


> The *savethectc *web-site is back online



When did this triple motion development occur, then, User? It looks like a bit of a googly - people are generally under the impression that the motion to merge is the crucial one that requires 75% - they may not realise that they need to vote on the others, and yet these look like they could now be carried much more easily. 

Website's looking good though.


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Mar 2010)

the triple resolution thing is pretty darn sneaky. They're hoping that if they don't get the 75% first time round they'll get it next year without making too much of an effort


----------



## theclaud (8 Mar 2010)

User said:


> Oh - it's even better than that. If they get the first two votes through on simple majorities and not the amendments on the 75% vote, they fully intend to go ahead with coversion to the point where the M&A have to be agreed and then call an EGM. And if they lose that vote, then they'll call another, and another, and another...
> 
> They may even take one of the other two options and simply make the change and then get member to 'opt in' with their renewals, without explaining the ramifications.



This is dastardly stuff, Reggers! How did it come about that the same motion (the first) that originally required a 75% vote now requires a only a simple majority? I assumed there was something in the existing constitution safeguarding this, otherwise they would have wriggled out of the 75% requirement much earlier anyway? Are they not up to something procedurally dodgy that can be flagged up to the ERS? It's starting to make my brain hurt...


----------



## theclaud (8 Mar 2010)

User said:


> The only vote that has ever required a 75% vote is the change of the M&A. The others have always only required simple majorities. We only got the 75% motion because that is what we effectively made Council agree to. There are two other 'transforming' options which only require simple majorities - or no vote at all!
> 
> *By rewriting the motions you increase the number of motions and divide out the issues.* Basically, I think Council wants one and two passed so that if the third motion fails it can fall back on one or other of the options.



And it's still only March. By May can we expect twelve different motions and the entire No vote to have collapsed in exhausted confusion and despair?


----------



## Aperitif (8 Mar 2010)

theclaud said:


> And it's still only March. By May can we expect twelve different motions and the entire No vote to have collapsed in exhausted confusion and despair?



How about a "Not in my Frame" protest? Round and round Hyde Park Corner, or a mass shadow of Boris on the way to work. Or surround Kulveer 'Lone' Ranger perhaps?
I have registered on the Save site - loyalty etc, (although I wouldn't want to be a saveloyAl  ).
Is there a way of offering up/pledging a CTC vote to be used as required by those who know Greg?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (29 Mar 2010)

Ok, got my Form of Proxy - I'm hopeless at forms and will probably manage to screw something up I'm that bad. Is there anything to be mindful of to make sure I don't invalidate my vote? I'm voting against motion 8 BTW. I notice they're not hanging around if they get their way, see motions 9 and 10!


----------



## threebikesmcginty (29 Mar 2010)

Thanks!


----------



## jonesy (30 Mar 2010)

A couple of queries about the tactics of proxy voting, apols if this should be obvious from the information already provided...

Firstly, are there any advantages in leaving it to the proxy to vote as they see fit rather than ticking the boxes? For example, is it possible that new or changed motions can be put forward on the day that the proxy can deal with better if left with an entirely free hand?

Secondly, what happens if the proxy is unable to attend on the day, for example through sickness? Is it sensible to try to find a greater number of people volunteering to be proxies, so as to spread the risk?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Mar 2010)

proxy form completed leaving my proxy to decide for themselves on many things but a big fat 'against' marked for 8, 9 & 10.


----------



## Origamist (31 Mar 2010)

The only tough decision for me is who to have as my proxy.


----------



## theclaud (31 Mar 2010)

Origamist said:


> The only tough decision for me is who to have as my proxy.



That reminds me - Reggers and Dellzeqq - I see from the Save the CTC site you are offering your services as proxies. Thanks for that - is it OK for those of us campaigning at the fringes to pass this offer on freely? I'm not sure how onerous the task is and I'm getting a few enquiries...


----------



## theclaud (31 Mar 2010)

User said:


> The more the merrier as far sa we are concerned!



Jolly good - thanks. Will you need their addresses and membership numbers?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Mar 2010)

theclaud said:


> That reminds me - Reggers and Dellzeqq - I see from the Save the CTC site you are offering your services as proxies. Thanks for that - is it OK for those of us campaigning at the fringes to pass this offer on freely? I'm not sure how onerous the task is and I'm getting a few enquiries...



What? You mean other CTC members in your locality speak to each other? Still I have fond memories of Swansea folk being friendly, off the rugby pitch anyway, in a way that would put Sussex folk to shame..

Sigh. Maybe I am the only one in purdah after all. They never write, they never call, they never e-mail... I knew going on that group ride in '99 on a MTB was a mistake.  

I've just learned that one of the people who was a leading light locally back then is no longer a member, "not enough support for local groups from HQ who have an agenda of their own", and has founded a local cycling club instead! Sums the sorry mess up quite well.


----------



## theclaud (31 Mar 2010)

User said:


> We've sent it to National Office and asked them to send it out, as they have done on behalf of other councillors. *It will be interesting to see if National Office does send it out*, or whether they refuse. Also, we'll wait and see if they try to amend or censor the message.



And did they?


----------



## Bollo (31 Mar 2010)

Mashing my ballpoint into the proxy form as we speak.

After reading the latest Cycle, its clear that Simon has become the CTC's own Goldstein. Boooo. Hissss!

David Robinson's little column was clumsy, but Mr Ramage's letter was a proper treat. I must say, I'm swayed by their strong arguments that everything will be absolutely fine honest. 

Daring to drift OT, my regular riding friend works for Which?, which is a charity. This surprises most people as they just think of it as a magazine, but a charity it indeed is. I was telling him about the CTC's current woes and we got on to the subject of charity status. My friend is no company (or charity) man, but the one thing he stressed was that 'independence' is absolutely at the centre of all they do. If I understand correctly, that means no vested interests and STRICTLY no contracts with the government, local authorities, companies etc. Members get the magazine and access to the information on the website in turn for funding the charity. Under similar conditions, I'd really consider the arguments for charity status for the CTC, but we know that's not what 's going to happen.

There's another difference in that its very easy for Which? to claim 'public interest' as we're all to a greater or lesser extent consumers. This is much more difficult for the CTC and I think the experiences of the YHA are very relevant. Whether we like it or not, cycling in the UK is a minority interest. It'd be easy enough to find conflict between the interests of cyclists and an interpretation of the greater public good for those of a mischievous bent.


----------



## theclaud (1 Apr 2010)

User said:


> I've just sent them a reminder, saying I hadn't heard anything...
> 
> If people want to pass the message around their contact lists I am more than happy for them to do so. Although the message is aimed at CTC members in London, it is just as relevant for members elsewhere. *Let me know and I can let you have a Word version or PDF to pass round (PM me your email addresses).*



Thanks Reg - I've just copied you in to an email to a member concerned about the proxy voting system - if you get a minute to reply to that then please attach a pdf while you're at it...


----------



## BigSteev (1 Apr 2010)

theclaud said:


> And did they?



Speaking as a London based CTC member, I can confirm that nothing of that nature has arrived in my inbox to date.


----------



## Flying Dodo (1 Apr 2010)

On looking at the official CTC web site, on their page for the AGM, they've conveniently omitted the last page from the agenda for the actual proxy form. Although at the bottom of the main page, they give a link to the proxy form, I wonder why the Agenda doesn't. Unless you scroll to the very bottom of the page, you might miss the link.

Accident or by design??


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Apr 2010)

I thought you just said 'cock up' over 'conspiracy' in matters CTC?

First question I always ask when confronted with either is 'Qui bono?'. ime cock ups usually don't benefit those who perpetrate them..... ymmv.


----------



## Aperitif (2 Apr 2010)

Hello Greg, What relevance does Motion 6 have in relation to this business? - job description for Chief Executive - given that the recommendation was 'key' in the eyes of the 'Centre for Charity Effectiveness' / Cass Business School etc...

Your name is on my proxy form - let's hope team 'Priceright' go forth!


----------



## cyberknight (4 Apr 2010)

GregCollins said:


> What? You mean other CTC members in your locality speak to each other? l.



All i ever got from my group was pay for a sub for a local mag and come on 100 mile w/e ride,other wise never ever seen 1 or had any contact.


----------



## Hover Fly (5 Apr 2010)

dellzeqq;1 061256 said:


> ... we're all going to get fantastically bored with this by May...



I can officially declare 5 April to be the day I decided I'm not reading another word about this and filled in the proxy form.


----------



## BigSteev (6 Apr 2010)

User said:


> Well, it looks like Helen Vecht and I (the two London Councillors) have been censored.
> 
> National Office hasn't sent out our message to our constituent members.
> 
> So much for fair play and openness by CTC, eh...



I just received the e-mail so you've not been 'entirely' censored, although it does come with this disclaimer at the top;

The message below and attached is to all CTC members in the London area, sent by CTC National Office on behalf of Greg Price and Helen Vecht, Council members representing London. The letter represents the personal views of these two members of Council and members should be aware is contrary to the resolution approved by Council as a whole.


----------



## Aperitif (6 Apr 2010)

I got 'mine' as well - maybe they are being sent out on a 'heavy blokes first' basis Steev!


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Apr 2010)

it's also a lie. We're all in favour of more people riding bikes. And where does the persecuted minority bit come from. The man is an arse.


----------



## mangaman (9 Apr 2010)

User said:


> An interesting e-mail from a senior Councillor in the pro-camp has reached me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm a bit removed from this as I left the CTC after numerous cock ups about resubscribing started to wear me down.

The vibe I got when dealing with them was very patronising and similar in tone to the e-mail you've quoted.

Just to take one sentence from the e-mail

"I am amazed at how vituperative it has got – apart from Karen Sutton it is an entirely male preserve" WTF is he on about.

I'm not involved now as I say, but quite apart from the ridiculous stereotyping in that sentence (are all men vituperative?) your fellow London CTC council member Helen Vecht I'm guessing is a woman 

Good luck with your campaign - I liked the CTC and only left because of the arrogance and incompetance of people I had to deal with. (While trying to give them some of my money!)


----------



## theclaud (9 Apr 2010)

mangaman said:


> I'm a bit removed from this as I left the CTC after numerous cock ups about resubscribing started to wear me down.
> 
> The vibe I got when dealing with them was very patronising and similar in tone to the e-mail you've quoted.
> 
> ...



Who is this Councillor, Reggers? I could drop him a line entitled CTC Women Say No . I personally know another four women intending to vote against, which is in fact all but one of the female members I know personally. I haven't a clue how she is voting. Looks like he's talking bollocks...


----------



## mangaman (13 Apr 2010)

User said:


> I am sorry to say that we now have substantive and irrefutable evidence that staff, in their official capacities and in CTC time, are lobbying members trying to get them to vote for the proposals. In doing so, they are providing members with misleading and inaccurate information.
> 
> The equivalent of the 'purdah' requirements that apply to civil and public servants at election times should apply in this case. Whilst staff may be members of CTC, any conversation they have should be in a private capacity - they should not be sending begging messages to members in their official capacities, suggesting that if the charity proposals are not carried that their jobs will be at risk or threatening to resign.



That doesn't sound quite legal Reg although you know much more then me about that sort of thing?. 

Surely at the momemt the CTC is a club with employed members. Actively making independent, employed staff campaiging against the club's future, seems to be at best dodgy, at worst illegal.


----------



## sunnyjim (16 Apr 2010)

Well I just received this, apparently from 'Mike Harrison secretary ctc Scotland' who normally restricts himself to sensible messages.

"
Your AGM vote matters!
Please vote FOR motions 8, 9 and 10 at the CTC AGM
Why? Because making CTC a charity means our subscriptions can be gift-aided. This will bring in an estimated extra £250,000 to CTC at no cost. It's a no-brainer! (At present only money going into the CTC Charitable Trust can be gift-aided.)
Other reasons: 
The merger will streamline the administration at National Office, meaning unnecessary duplication is eliminated and staff can therefore spend more time on issues that really matter. 
CTC has benefited hugely from the creation of the Trust. Staff levels have risen three-fold, which has meant that we in Scotland have received far more attention from National Office than we ever had in the past. As a result, we now have the two new Bike Club full-time posts, and regular visits from National Office staff, for example at our Gatherings, and at a wide range of meetings with outside organisations.
You may have received 'Against' messages from Simon Legg and others. If you read these carefully, you'll see they have no arguments of any substance to offer - it's mostly smear and innuendo. The pernicious aspect of their argument suggests that the Trust is somehow a drain on member services. In fact, the Charity was set up initially just to save on membership money and has now grown to distinctly enhance the services which can be afforded and provided for the membership. The notion that the Club exists only to serve the interests of its members is ludicrous. CTC has always sought to reach out to a wider audience, particularly through campaigning, which benefits all cyclists (and this campaigning is highly rated by members).
The CTC Scotland committee has unanimously supported a FOR vote and agreed to circulate the membership, asking Scottish members to use their proxy forms to achieve this. All the elected National Councillors, except one from south-east England, are also in support.
If the 'antis' win Scotland will lose out - just at a time when we are starting to move forwards.
So PLEASE make sure you use your proxy form - from Cycle magazine or from the website - to vote FOR Motions 8, 9 and 10, and make sure the form is received by 15 May. 
Peter Hawkins 
Chair, CTC Scotland

Dunno who this Hawkins guy is - never heard from him before.

My proxy vote is already cast, so he's a bit late. Sadly, I suspect the gentleman may be an untruther. 

Good Scotsman that I am, I rather think that the despised pernicious Londoner Legg and the aparently solitary councillor 'FROM THE SOUTH EAST OF ENGLAND' (Booo! Hissss! Sassenach!) , may have the right idea.

He deseves a special prize for:
"The notion that the Club exists ..to serve the interests of its members is ludicrous." .... 

Words fail me.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Apr 2010)

(later edit). Good to see Mike getting involved. 

SJ - has there been much discussion up in Scotland? We know that Wales is a hotbed of perniciousness, but our 'reach' in Scotland is next to zero.


----------



## sunnyjim (17 Apr 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> (later edit). Good to see Mike getting involved.
> 
> SJ - has there been much discussion up in Scotland? We know that Wales is a hotbed of perniciousness, but our 'reach' in Scotland is next to zero.



Not being a rgular club rider or getting involved in local politics & only having contact with a couple of other CTC members, I can't comment on the grassroots opinion. Official communications from both CTC Scotland and the Lothians group have generally maintained a dignified silence, while noting the importance of the issue and providing a link to the relevant CTC website pages.

I'm ashamed to say that it's partly such lack of engagement by people like me which has allowed this sorry state to develop.

That doesn't excuse otherwise good people demeaning themselves by trying to stifle open debate and free voting, of course.


----------



## theclaud (20 Apr 2010)

At the _Charity_ Centre, eh?


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Apr 2010)

I've asked for a place


----------



## Mac66 (22 Apr 2010)

Well I doubt that I can say anything that has not already been said, but I just need to vent my spleen about this.

That the CTC big wigs are pushing for the desired outcome, smacks of people that forget who they serve, much like many MPs. As far as I am aware the desired outcome would be whatever the CTC membership votes for, not what an elite few see as their vision.

There was an article in Cycle that said it was only fair to give the minority naysayers a chance to put their case. The word minority here was used in the us and them sense, to indicate that members should not let a few luddites spoil the party. Has this guy taken a poll of all members? Err no. So how does he know that the No vote is in a minority?

There was also quite a defensive piece about the accounts, with a statement that the transferring of about £400K between Club and Charity was audited and entirely legal. This misses the point completely. I don't recall anyone challenging the legality.The point being that there is nothing to stop them transferring all the assets of the Club to the Charity, irrespective of the Club's charitable status. Where then the Club and its members?

Sadly I believe the outcome to be a fait accompli (sp?). I understand that CTC has been worrking on becoming a Charity for 5 years? Surely this vote should have taken place 5 years ago before any such work was undertaken. Cart before horse me thinks.

Said my bit. Guess how I will be voting via proxy?


----------



## paddy01 (2 May 2010)

Having stayed up until 4am last night and continued this morning reading all the material I could find on the subject, it hasn't changed my initial view, that this seems more a fundamental choice about what the CTC wants to be than particularly about money. In either scenario the money is a means to facilitate that choice.

I've been reading on the subject from the point of a potential member, and I'd be quite clear that the reason I'd join would be member benefits such as the insurance etc, although I'd have no qualms at all about a portion of my subs being used for campaigning at local or national level. To me personally that's how you define a club, primarily existing to serve it's members with any benefits to the world at large a laudable all be it secondary activity.

On the subject of campaigning I've always held the belief that whilst broad brush national level campaigns have their place, fundamental change tends to happen at a more local level, often driven by a small number of passionate and dedicated individuals.

So the question remains, does the CTC want to remain a club where it's primary aim is to advance the lot of it's members with laudable co-incidental benefits to the wider cycling public, or does it want to be a cycling voice of the nation, member or not and indeed cyclist or not. As far as I can see, that is what the vote is going to decide.

The outcome will determine whether I join because it will determine what I'm joining. If the Yes vote is carried I won't be joining, simply because if I wished to support a cycling orientated charity, I'd do so by charitable donation with no expectation of any personal gain from the donation. In my case I wish to join an organisation that has some tangible benefits to me as a member, although I'd stand four square behind any aims it had to promote cycling on a wider scale. Not for any grand aims of sustainable transport and so forth but simply because it's an activity I highly enjoy and I'd like others to have the opportunity to share in that enjoyment.

I'm not sure where I really going with this, I think I've gone a bit insensible having been up most of the night reading about it so apologies if the above is a stream of dis-jointed gobbledegook.  Then again I once spent a whole night without sleep reading the court transcripts from the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case in the US regarding the teaching of creationism in science classes, just because I found the thrust and parry of the opposing views interesting rather than the subject in discussion. So I guess it takes all sorts 

As a non-member with no vested interest in which direction the CTC goes, from a purely cerebral view point I have to say that those of the nay standpoint do seem to have carried their argument with a deal more clarity and conviction than those for a Yes vote [1][2].

Paddy

[1] I should temper that by saying as a non-member I of course have not had access to necessarily all the CTC Yes vote material.

[2] From what I have read over the last 24 hours I would also have to take into account the behaviour of the CTC in any decision to become a member. I would have to ask myself whether this is an organisation with whom I wish to be associated via membership. That of course is an internal moral argument.


----------



## snorri (2 May 2010)

paddy01 said:


> As far as I can see, that is what the vote is going to decide.


You may well be right, I don't know.
I have voted against in the hope that things will be clarified in the coming year and we can have another vote when everyone has a clear idea of just what is going on.


----------



## dellzeqq (2 May 2010)

I think there's merit in that. I begged Barry Flood and Simon Connell to put the vote off for a year, to put in place improvements that I know they've been working on (although, at the time I had no clue about the near absence of cost reporting, which came as a big surprise). They turned it down. An extra year would have been a godsend - sufficient time to get to grips with the structural problems and offer safeguards, and sufficient time to make meaningful progress to putting volunteers at the centre of things.

CASS bears some responsibility in this. They simply refused to countenance CIC companies for projects despite being asked to do so by Greg (who was originally in favour of the proposal) and by me. Most councillors simply adopted a rhetorical line about 'unity' which, perhaps, some of them might now be questioning, if only inwardly.

What's gone on in the last few months, the suborning of HQ staff (more late evening phone calls from home numbers), the propaganda barrage, the refusal to allow an open debate and also some question being raised about the morality of the way the CTC does business has been an eyeopener for me, and my personal outlook has become more bleak, and I think that unless these resolutions are defeated decisively it's all up for the CTC as an organisation that I'd personally want to be associated with.

That doesn't mean to say that there aren't great people in it, both as members and officials, but I think there are certain things that are going to be very difficult to turn round without the AGM administering a big shock to the system - and that, as I've come to recognise, is going to be tough to do given the blockbuster barrage of propaganda flopping in to people's inboxes.

The sad thing is that this is so completely unneccessary. There could have been a sensible consultation, and a year's wait, improvements made and we'd have gone to the 2011 AGM in good heart.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 May 2010)

54.7% of the votes at the AGM were in favour of the change to Charity status.

The CTC is dead, as a members organisation, long live the CTC, as a public service charity.

I'm off to BC for my insurance


----------



## Bollo (15 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> 54.7% of the votes at the AGM were in favour of the change to Charity status.
> 
> The CTC is dead, as a members organisation, long live the CTC, as a public service charity.
> 
> I'm off to BC for my insurance



I thought it needed 75%?


----------



## theclaud (15 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> 54.7% of the votes at the AGM were in favour of the change to Charity status.
> 
> The CTC is dead, as a members organisation, long live the CTC, as a public service charity.
> 
> I'm off to BC for my insurance


Fuck! So bloody close.


----------



## theclaud (15 May 2010)

Bollo said:


> I thought it needed 75%?



Resolution 10 needed 75%; 8 and 9 just a simple majority. A bit of gerrymandering went on. When I say "a bit"...


----------



## Bollo (15 May 2010)

theclaud said:


> Resolution 10 needed 75%. A bit of gerrymandering went on. When I say "a bit"...



T'was from memory so I'm not surpised I was thinking wrong.

54% is hardly a ringing endorsement. Although I don't have the same emotional attachment to the CTC as many others
on here, I've been unimpressed enough with the charity escapade and their lack of support for local members that I'll be looking elsewhere for the services
come renewal. Sad.


----------



## theclaud (15 May 2010)

Bollo said:


> *T'was from memory so I'm not surpised I was thinking wrong.*
> 
> 54% is hardly a ringing endorsement. Although I don't have the same emotional attachment to the CTC as many others
> on here, I've been unimpressed enough with the charity escapade and their lack of support for local members that I'll be looking elsewhere for the services
> come renewal. Sad.



You were right that it was originally the case. Then when they realised it wasn't going to be the pushover they'd hoped, they fiddled it. Greg, do you know how the vote went for 10? Not that it'll be anything but a small stumbling block.


----------



## jonesy (15 May 2010)

theclaud said:


> You were right that it was originally the case. Then when they realised it wasn't going to be the pushover they'd hoped, they fiddled it. Greg, do you know how the vote went for 10? Not that it'll be anything but a small stumbling block.



Motion 10 not carried according to:
http://twitter.com/ctcpeterborough

I don't know what the significance of that is...?

Can you expand on the fiddling?


----------



## theclaud (15 May 2010)

jonesy said:


> Motion 10 not carried according to:
> http://twitter.com/ctcpeterborough
> 
> I don't know what the significance of that is...?
> ...



Not very usefully, as I don't really understand why it's allowed, but there originally seemed to be one resolution, about converting to a charity, and that was the Special Resolution (hence the 75% requirement). They split it into 3, meaning that 8 was the most important one, even though it was now an Ordinary Resolution requiring only a simple majority. 9 and 10 were then about the practical/procedural steps needed to bring it about, and would have been dropped if we'd beaten 8. I suppose 10 was deemed Special Resolution material because it was specifically about altering the Mem & Arts...


----------



## jonesy (15 May 2010)

Hmm. Guess we'll have to wait till someone who was there can pop up and explain what the implications are. I assume they wouldn't have put no. 10 in if it wasn't needed, so it not being carried must have some consequences...


----------



## theclaud (15 May 2010)

jonesy said:


> Hmm. Guess we'll have to wait till someone who was there can pop up and explain what the implications are. I assume they wouldn't have put no. 10 in if it wasn't needed, so *it not being carried must have some consequences...*



Yes I'm just being grumpy - hopefully it will be a significant obstacle, but as in itself it isn't the sort of thing to fire the passions, I'm guessing they'll just bide their time and sneak it through next time when the fuss has died down. I'm sure Greg and Simon will be able to elaborate. Better not add insult to injury by slipping any FA Cup spoilers into the thread


----------



## jonesy (15 May 2010)

theclaud said:


> Yes I'm just being grumpy - hopefully it will be a significant obstacle, but as in itself it isn't the sort of thing to fire the passions, I'm guessing they'll just bide their time and sneak it through next time when the fuss has died down. I'm sure Greg and Simon will be able to elaborate. Better not add insult to injury by slipping any FA Cup spoilers into the thread



This "FA Cup" being...?


----------



## theclaud (15 May 2010)

jonesy said:


> This "FA Cup" being...?



An annual sporting and drinking jamboree for the working classes, M'lud.


----------



## jonesy (15 May 2010)

interesting...

http://79.170.44.128/savethectc.org.uk/


> RESULTS - 1900 Saturday 15 May 2010
> The key motions :
> Motions 8 & 9 (to "prepare for charity status") required a simple majority and were narrowly carried by just 4%
> Motion 10 (to "make Constitutional changes to the Memorandum & Articles required by the Charity Commission") required 75% of those voting to vote Yes and was resoundingly defeated (just 60.9% voting Yes)
> OUTCOME : The process of preparation could be started but cannot be implemented without a 75% in favour vote to amend the Memorandum & Articles - that requires a membership-wide vote at an AGM or EGM.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 May 2010)

was so pissed off I had to go for a ride to calm down. (not really but it makes for a better story - I went for a ride, that bit IS true)

My guess, a propaganda campaign and an EGM will follow, or team yes will wait until next years AGM to have a go at 10 again. Can't recall from my reading of 'the rules' of changes to 'm of a' always need 75% or just special resolutions. If the later then they just need a simple majority at an EGM or AGM.

Any sensible organisation would look at the numbers and its leadership would dust off their plus two's and say "Well chaps, not quite the ringing endorsement we were looking for, what? Rum lot the members. Probably best we let the dust settle for bit eh? Who's for another brandy?"

The CTC does not fulfil my criteria for a sensible organisation.


----------



## theclaud (15 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Who's for another brandy?"



Dellzeqq, when the train runs out of vodka...


----------



## toekneep (15 May 2010)

At last I understand. So it seems that the fudging of items 8 and 9 didn't work and the rejection of 10 means that we live to fight another day as it were.


----------



## jonesy (15 May 2010)

GregCollins said:


> ... Can't recall from my reading of 'the rules' of changes to 'm of a' always need 75% or just special resolutions. If the later then they just need a simple majority at an EGM or AGM.
> ...



I've no idea about 'the rules', but it would seem strange if a change that required a 75% majority in this AGM could be held again with the bar set lower at another AGM...?


----------



## MacB (15 May 2010)

jonesy said:


> I've no idea about 'the rules', but it would seem strange if a change that required a 75% majority in this AGM could be held again with the bar set lower at another AGM...?



yep, but so does the idea of voting on 8 & 9 first if 10 could be a showstopper


----------



## Mac66 (15 May 2010)

Me thinks some stilted moments at the AGM dinner


----------



## GrumpyGregry (15 May 2010)

jonesy said:


> I've no idea about 'the rules', but it would seem strange if a change that required a 75% majority in this AGM could be held again with the bar set lower at another AGM...?



clearly you weren't in NALGO or the TGWU in the 80's


----------



## dellzeqq (15 May 2010)

So, it all went as Council would wish it, with the exception of resolution 10. Chantrey Vellacourt were re-appointed as auditors, and resolutions 8 and 9 passed with about 54% of the vote, courtesy of the 770 people who placed their faith in the Chair. 

Resolution 10 , the amendments to the Memorandum and Articles of Association, only gathered about 59% of the vote, and, requiring 75%, failed. We have a stay of execution.

I’m gutted. It means that I’ll have to stay on and help to sort this mess out, knowing that there are shortfalls in the character of the CTC that are far beyond my abilities to remedy. I’d hoped fervently for one of two outcomes – a solid vote against, or a vote in favour, however narrow. The former would have kicked the conversion to charity in to the long grass for years to come, and the latter would have allowed me to walk away from the CTC and worry about something else. Now I’m hooked.

The good news is that the reforming spirit on CTC Council can now use the ‘nay’ campaign for its own ends. We’ll meet, and, hopefully, agree a way forward. There needs to be safeguards for the members' funds and there needs to be transparency in the way things are costed. There needs to be a means of demonstrating value to the members. I doubt that those things that I hold dear (respect for the bike trade, and a more ethical way of trading) will transpire, but it is incumbent on the ‘nay’ campaign to effect as great an improvement as is humanly possible.

The bad news is that, while we did well against considerable odds. I’m doubtful that lessons, on openness, on fairness and on the value of volunteers will be learnt. Campaigns will still be a lobbyists ghetto. Member groups may get more dough, but the service may not improve. The CTC’s relationship with independent providers of cycle training may well be as toxic as ever (I’ve spared you this – it’s not nice). Still, and all, we may be a force for the better. I’ll be guided in my future actions by my DA committee, but my thought now is that if there is good to be done, we should do it.

Now, on to far more pressing matters. East Midland sends out trains with only six little bottles of gin. That's not right. We exhausted this meagre ration by the time the train arrived in Bedford, and, by Luton, we were on to the vodka. Honestly, you lot, the sacrifices I make on your behalf..........


----------



## Aperitif (15 May 2010)

> by Luton, we were on to the vodka.


Accentuate the 'prosit'ive...
Thank you for the report on events.


----------



## Flying Dodo (16 May 2010)

Here's my take on it. I'm just back (after a long ride), and I'm quite shocked by the levels of unprofessional behaviour displayed by some officials of the CTC.

The meeting started on time, but then it was pointed out some of the people who had previously given their vote to a proxy, might now want to vote. They hadn't considered this, and initially didn't want to make any changes*. Then someone stated that when they checked in at the venue, a CTC employee hold him his special coloured sticker meant he could vote. This wasn't actually the case. There were about 25 people present who had already given a proxy vote, so the meeting was adjourned for 45 minutes. It turns out the Chair and his colleagues tried to persuade all of those not to remove their votes from the proxy! 5 however did want to alter, and democracy did prevail, and their votes were taken off their proxy, and so allowing them to vote in person.

For the first Motion, the Chair stated he wasn't going to record abstentions, but when Simon stated his proxy votes were "Abstained", subsequently these were recorded. Then Kevin Mayne did a little talk about how the CTC was doing, although this should really have been done at the start. There was some robust debate about the accounts, with both User and Simon pointing out that there's no clear detail on the accounts and the true cost or benefit of anything. Barry Flood then defended the accounts, stating that as he was an ex HMRC Inspector, in no way could the CTC accounts be described as dodgy. However, that wasn't the argument being made.

Motion 5 to increase the subscription also had some debate with the point being made about how little went to the DA (18p?) with most of the work being done for nothing by volunteers.

Next up was the motion to draft and publish a job description for the Chief Executive. Obviously this was passed, but I really can't understand how an organisation the size of the CTC hasn't done that years ago. Again, it brings up the issue about lack of accountability and experience in how to properly run a business.

Finally we got to Motions 8 & 9 about converting the rest of the CTC to a charity. A lot of people wanted to have their say, but most of the pro comments, including a number of Councillors seemed to not grasp the comments made by User & Mr Legg, that converting may well be the right path, just not straight away, whilst it's clear the senior management aren't able to properly track and identify what the organisation is doing, coupled with the conflicting figures provided by the CTC for the supposed financial benefit. 

The Yes argument won by 4%, but this was purely down to the approx. 400 or so who had given their proxy vote to the Chair, and left it to the discretion of the Chair about how to vote, rather than Yes or No, so obviously the Chair gave those votes to the Yes side.

For the final Motion, about altering the Memorandum and Articles of Association to be in line with what's required for charities, I was very surprised by Barry Flood saying before hand that anyone who voted No on the previous 2 motions should reconsider, and note what the majority of the CTC had agreed, and so should vote Yes for the rule changes. I think less than 5% of the membership actually voted overall anyway, so not a majority!

Anyway, due to the requirement for this last one to get 75% agreement, it failed with only 60.9%.

So they're left with a mandate allowing them to continue down the path of converting fully to a charity, but they can't actually do it, without getting a 75% agreement at another AGM. What a farce.


The one bright spot was Mr FNRttC getting a volunteer of the year award.



Edit:

* the actual proxy form does quite clearly state that if someone attends, that would revoke the proxy. The Chair and his officials quite clearly wanted to ignore that and deny some people the opportunity of voting personally.


----------



## theclaud (16 May 2010)

Flying Dodo said:


> The one bright spot was Mr FNRttC getting a volunteer of the year award.


----------



## mangaman (16 May 2010)

As an ex-member I'm clearly not so involved, but having read what Simon and Greg and others have said, the whole charity thing does seem a ridiculous idea.

What I can't understand is everyone on this thread seems to agree. I haven't read every page, I admit, but there seems to be a vast opposition to this on this website.

It makes me wonder who the majority that voted for are? You'd expect quite a few to be members here and to have turned this thread into a debate.

Are they crusty old timers that haven't discovered the computer?


----------



## summerdays (16 May 2010)

There will be many who won't question the party line and will assume that they have their best wishes at heart...


----------



## theclaud (16 May 2010)

mangaman said:


> As an ex-member I'm clearly not so involved, but having read what Simon and Greg and others have said, the whole charity thing does seem a ridiculous idea.
> 
> What I can't understand is everyone on this thread seems to agree. I haven't read every page, I admit, but there seems to be a vast opposition to this on this website.
> 
> ...



From the number that handed their votes to the Chair, I'd guess that it was people who didn't feel strongly and were actively persuaded by nice people like Bike Club reps to trust in the nice shiny Yes campaign to take care of it all for them and hand over their forms. Unless you share the ambitions of the powers that be, or your job depends on the kind of work done by the Trust, there isn't really anything of substance to fire the passions in the Yes campaign...


----------



## theclaud (16 May 2010)

Summerdays put it more succinctly!


----------



## Mac66 (16 May 2010)

On such a fundamental issue, I am suprised that the voting turnout was so low at about 4%.

Hardly a resounding majority yes or no. More of a couldn't give a ... Is this a sign of the level of disengement within the CTC membership?

As in "real life" it seems that people are happy to let their fate be decided by, what is in effect, the small minority who can be bothered.

I think that however unworkable and/or idealistic it may be it would be preferable for motions to carry on a percentage of the membership basis rather than the percentage of votes cast, so 75% of the full membership voting for a yes say. However, on that basis I suppose nothing would get done!

It also bothers me that the Chair has a discretionary vote for proxies, where there is a clear conflict of interest. Surely there should only be yes/no options, with the Chair only getting a say in a dead-heat? Still a conflict there, but better than just wading in a couple of 100 yes votes because that's what he wants?

Lastly I would like to thank all the Councillors and others who have worked and will still work to keep the real interests and concerns of the CTC membership at the forefront of this somewhat shabby episode. Chapeau


----------



## Dan B (16 May 2010)

Mac66 said:


> As in "real life" it seems that people are happy to let their fate be decided by, what is in effect, the small minority who can be bothered.


I think TBH that most of them (us) will simply let their membership lapse if they feel the club (er, should I say the charity?) is not doing anything worthwhile, rather than working to change things.


----------



## snorri (16 May 2010)

coruskate said:


> rather than working to change things.



Change, CHANGE :?: 
The number of members bothering to vote recently would indicate to me that as long as the mag' and insurance cover continues the vast majority will be content.


----------



## dellzeqq (16 May 2010)

we've got to be careful here...

the first thing to recognise is that the 'nay' campaign capitalised on a number of issues and outlooks on life that didn't have much to do with the question of the charity. My main motivation was the preservation and enhancement of all that is best in the Club - I thought, and still think, that management had neglected the Club. In that respect I represented the Tory Backwoodsman Tendency, which, for me is a novelty. 

Greg's motivation was more technical - he smelt a rat on the finances, and has, I suspect a genuine Tory suspicion of all things governmental. John and Colin also smelt a rat on the finances and suspected that merging the two sets of accounts would make the finances less transparent rather than more transparent.

All of our suspicions were confirmed, and amplified, when it transpired that staff time is unnacounted for - people do not fill in time sheets. When members are told that nineteen staff members are working on Club business they're sceptical, and, if staff are not recording that they are on this or that day visiting branch officials, or corresponding with members, or whatever, then that scepticism cannot be allayed...and, more important still, there is no way that the CTC can get a handle on where the money goes. I'm sure that any of you who work in professional practice have to account for your time, and recognise this as a vital means of keeping track of expenditure, and forecasting expenditure on future undertakings; in the CTC that just doesn't happen! _The CTC cannot put a value to the services to members_.

So when we say that the accounts are mere numbers we mean that the numbers have no meaning. They cannot be said to represent expenditure. And, lets be fair, Barry Flood knows that improvements have got to be made and is in the best position to ensure that they are made - one of the principal effects of the 'nay' vote will be to strengthen Barry's hand, and that can only be for the good.

But, if we go back to the start of the debate, and pick up on contributions made by Rod King, there's something more fundamental at stake. Councillors get to be councillors because they want to do it, and their fellow members reckon that they're sound. You don't have to have a business head to be a councillor or to read accounts. In my case I became a Councillor because of bunch of awkward old buzzards thought that I had the makings of an awkward old buzzard myself. I don't think they were disappointed, but that doesn't make me the kind of person that a trading company like the Trust needs to ensure that the executive is doing the right things for the right money - that there is no project accounting is as much my fault as anybody else's. The truth is that I made a good Councillor of the Club, but I was rubbish at being a shadow Director of the Trust.

Organisations like the Trust shouldn't be run by volunteers. At the moment the Trust is blessed with Greg, Barry Flood and John Meudell, and my estimation, reinforced by some of the contributions made to the debate yesterday is that they are about the only ones up to the task, and, in particular, the only ones capable of holding the management to account. Had the Trust taken the high-end route and offered advice, undertaken research and set benchmarks then wise volunteers would have a role to play, but an opportunistic contractor, skittering from contract to contract needs experienced non-execs

A Councillor for the Club listens to the representations of the members, seeks out opinions from the members and gets the executive to sort things out - in my time Karen Sutton, Jill Kieran and I did this and we succeeded in part. We had no handle on the trading activities of the Trust.

The Trust should be a seperate company with non-exec Directors. The trading risk that it runs has no place in the same pot of money as the members subs - they're two entirely different types of business. The present arrangement is pretty much carte blanche for the executives, and, if my suspicions about the way that the Training operation is carried out are anything near correct then we have not just a scandal on our hands, but a real risk to the trading account. 

So I have to say that listening to some of the Councillors at the AGM has very much hardened my view against the proposed merger. 

The choice we have is this

a) we can quit. Frankly I've had enough, and the easiest thing for me to do is to join some of my fellow DA committee members in setting up a cycle club and affiliating to the LCC, and inviting others from around the country to join us
 we can help Barry Flood clean out the stables and be content that his best efforts are the best the CTC can expect, and acknowledge that it will never be as each of us would wish it.
c) we can regroup and seek to reverse resolutions 8 and 9 when the opportunity arises

each of these has its advantages - although I accept the advantages of the first option are more personal.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 May 2010)

The whole sorry mess seems to be summed up in the following which is a summary of something I read elsewhere...

*all income is credited to the trust, all outgoings are charged to the club.
*
If true then it may actually be that thing are broken beyond repair, and Simon's option  probably pertains.

My membership is due end of May. I will renew for one year if only to ensure I get a vote on resolution 10 again.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 May 2010)

User said:


> I and other have worked hard over the last year to try and put that right. But we are up against a combination of management intransigence and a *Council who either doesn't understand or doesn't care about such matters*.



There is a third option; the current arrangement suits the interests of the majority of the various 'vested interests' down to the ground.

That is my take. I look at any messy situation that has sensible people throwing their hands up and saying "How did we get here? What can be done?" and just ask "Qui bono?" Almost nothing happens during working hours by accident.


----------



## srw (17 May 2010)

coruskate said:


> I think TBH that most of them (us) will simply let their membership lapse if they feel the club (er, should I say the charity?) is not doing anything worthwhile, rather than working to change things.



Quite. I suspect I speak for the largely-silent majority(?) when I say that I pay £36 a year subscription, for which I get insurance, a decent magazine, a database of interesting routes and a warm fuzzy feeling that I'm contributing to some useful campaigning. That seems like a decent exchange to me.

I have no interest in being an active part a DA - I want to ride when I feel like it, not when someone else decides to organise a ride. And I have the Groucho Marx attitude to clubs and belonging.

From that perspective I don't particularly care about organisational structures. From a professional perspective I understand that they're very important things to get right, but also that if people outside the bureaucracy begin to notice them then something has gone wrong. An organisation ought to be able to operate without its members/supporters/customers/stakeholders noticing how it operates. At the moment what I'm seeing in CTC I can tolerate because the money is relatively unimportant to me in the grand scheme of things, and because the other stuff I'm paying for is still in place. If it was more money, or if I experienced a deterioration in service I might have another opinion.


----------

