CTC forum thread on 'Charity' status

[BigSteev]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks!

 

[jonesy]

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]

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

 

[Origamist]

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

 

[theclaud]

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]

The more the merrier as far sa we are concerned!

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

 

[GrumpyGregry]

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]

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?