CTC forum thread on 'Charity' status

[theclaud]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

.....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]

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)