Flying Dodo
It'll soon be summer
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.
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.
:?: 
probably pertains.
