CTC Membership Service
- Thread starter dellzeqq
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
To me this is really the key question people should be addressing - not whether the CTC becomes a trust or not.dellzeqq said:
Personally I see no reason why the CTC cannot continue to be:
a) A club - providing various services to its members like organised rides, route advice, cheap insurance, etc.
A campaign - to press for better cycling facilitiesc) A body which represents the interests of its members both voluntarily (e.g. through local cycling focums), and by taking public money to provide consultancy of various sorts.
Clearly there are risks if the organisation becomes too dependent on central or local government. But personally I think there are bigger long term risks if the CTC is not seen as a key "player" by government.
Hopefully whoever wins the next election is want to continue to try and boost cycling, and is going to look to the voluntary sector to help them achieve this. If the CTC doesn't get involved I fear that over time it will be surplanted by newer and more dynamic organisations.
Danny - The biggest risk is that the 'charity' (which is essentially a contracting organisation with one customer) squanders the members subs. So, while c) might be a nice idea, unless User and his colleagues can fix it so that the finances are ring-fenced, the 'club', which has been going for a hundred and thirty years, may go down the Swanee.
But, to answer your specific point, it's instructive to look at the LCC. The LCC is dependent on the Mayor, that is to say one person, in a way that the CTC will never be - that I accept. If the Mayor comes up with some lunatic idea, it would be nuts for the LCC to call it for what it is. Bonkers. Suicidal.
Left turn on red anybody?
Drucker, (I'm a fan) suggested a long time ago that 'third sector' organisations can deliver far more efficiently than private sector organisations - he pointed to Catholic hospitals in the U.S. which were good at mobilising volunteers who acted with initiative, and co-operatively in a way that paid employees didn't. However, to do that, you have to have the volunteers with the time, and the volunteers have to identify with the aims that you want to serve. That might work if the effort of the volunteers within the CTC was integrated, but, frankly, the volunteers are mostly left to their own devices - and a lot of them like it that way. And, it might work if the volunteers identified with the specific aims behind the programs that government effectively puts out to tender, but, to be candid, most of the active volunteers are located in the outer suburbs, geographically apart from the areas that government rightly sees as having the greatest priority, most are getting on, and few have any real interest in the fields in which the contracting arm of the CTC is involved.
I'm not being judgemental about either side - there is no finer organisation when it comes to getting people out for a day's (or night's) ride in the countryside. There's no finer organisation when it comes to knocking on the door of the local authority and saying - 'this bike path you want to put here, it's pants'. And, as I've said, the things that government wants to achieve are commendable. I simply can't see why the members subs (which only amount to about £1.7 million) should be used to subsidise cycle training. That's what we pay taxes for.
If somebody can show how the CTC can involve itself in contracting for government in a way that doesn't compromise its independence, brings a bit of our expertise to bear and doesn't cost the members their subs I'll vote for it. But, if we roll the thing in to one big basket the CTC may go bust in a very short space of time.
But, to answer your specific point, it's instructive to look at the LCC. The LCC is dependent on the Mayor, that is to say one person, in a way that the CTC will never be - that I accept. If the Mayor comes up with some lunatic idea, it would be nuts for the LCC to call it for what it is. Bonkers. Suicidal.
Left turn on red anybody?
Drucker, (I'm a fan) suggested a long time ago that 'third sector' organisations can deliver far more efficiently than private sector organisations - he pointed to Catholic hospitals in the U.S. which were good at mobilising volunteers who acted with initiative, and co-operatively in a way that paid employees didn't. However, to do that, you have to have the volunteers with the time, and the volunteers have to identify with the aims that you want to serve. That might work if the effort of the volunteers within the CTC was integrated, but, frankly, the volunteers are mostly left to their own devices - and a lot of them like it that way. And, it might work if the volunteers identified with the specific aims behind the programs that government effectively puts out to tender, but, to be candid, most of the active volunteers are located in the outer suburbs, geographically apart from the areas that government rightly sees as having the greatest priority, most are getting on, and few have any real interest in the fields in which the contracting arm of the CTC is involved.
I'm not being judgemental about either side - there is no finer organisation when it comes to getting people out for a day's (or night's) ride in the countryside. There's no finer organisation when it comes to knocking on the door of the local authority and saying - 'this bike path you want to put here, it's pants'. And, as I've said, the things that government wants to achieve are commendable. I simply can't see why the members subs (which only amount to about £1.7 million) should be used to subsidise cycle training. That's what we pay taxes for.
If somebody can show how the CTC can involve itself in contracting for government in a way that doesn't compromise its independence, brings a bit of our expertise to bear and doesn't cost the members their subs I'll vote for it. But, if we roll the thing in to one big basket the CTC may go bust in a very short space of time.