CTC forum thread on 'Charity' status

[Bollo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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

 

[dellzeqq]

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]

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



This was a response to an e-mail complaining about CTC scheduling the AGM on the same day as a CTC national event... and it doesn't seem to answer that point. The author of the original complaint e-mail just happened to mention he supported the charity proposals - and he got this back.

Can he really be surprised about the feedback he's getting when he adopts such an arrogant and patronising air? Yet again we get spin and baseless allegations/suggestions that those against the proposals are either wanting to be seen as a 'persecuted minority' or don't want CTC to be a vibrant organisation...

As for it being personal and vituperative, perhaps he didn't read the various e-mails sent out by his fellow pro councillors where they attack named individuals?

They really don't get it, do they...

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]

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!)

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]

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]

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.