CTC Membership Services - and the run-up to the 2010 AGM

[peanut]

Peanut, you're missing the following. I run the FNRttC in part to persuade people to join the CTC - and I've been reasonably successful, although when they tell me that their membership card has the wrong date on it I do get a little disheartened.
And I did start it on the CTC forum as well, where, as you will see, it remains. And is unlikely to get closed down in a hurry because..........I'm a mod there.

not trying to knock the very commendable work you do in promoting CTC and trying to bring about much needed improvements. You are one of the few people I know that is prepared to spend a lot of your own time for the benefit of other cyclists and I respect and applaud that whole-heartedly.

I am one of the many couch potatoes that sit and criticise others that are prepared to get of their arse and do something constructive.

Thank god for the Dell's of this world .

 

[StuartG]

I'm troubled that the CTC appears to have a problem with transparency. I didn't know about the membership until I considered joining (as a result of a FNRttC). I can only read the report of why I might find it problematic joining after the navigating a problematic membership process?

No thank you. I don't do the secrecy thing.

What possible justification could there be? Paying the membership gets you insurance, discounts and the right to vote. it shouldn't be some sort of Masonic access to secrets of a cycling organisation (or not unless you are on Council).

Thinking harder I am genuinely confused about whether the CTC is primarily a Cycling Club (in competition with smaller friendlier? clubs) or a campaigning organisation representing all cyclists (or at least the touring variety). Or, as Jimmy would say - an insurance/travel business.

Looks like I may remain a member of my local CC and when i want to ride further afield rely on the hope of reciprocity between clubs which is the way many other sports work.

 

[theclaud]

I'm troubled that the CTC appears to have a problem with transparency. I didn't know about the membership until I considered joining (as a result of a FNRttC). I can only read the report of why I might find it problematic joining after the navigating a problematic membership process?

No thank you. I don't do the secrecy thing.

What possible justification could there be? Paying the membership gets you insurance, discounts and the right to vote. it shouldn't be some sort of Masonic access to secrets of a cycling organisation (or not unless you are on Council).

Thinking harder I am genuinely confused about whether the CTC is primarily a Cycling Club (in competition with smaller friendlier? clubs) or a campaigning organisation representing all cyclists (or at least the touring variety). Or, as Jimmy would say - an insurance/travel business.

Looks like I may remain a member of my local CC and when i want to ride further afield rely on the hope of reciprocity between clubs which is the way many other sports work.

I sympathise, but the reasons to join still stand, and are pretty well summed up in what, though it pains me slightly to use the phrase, you might call their mission statement. No other organisation fulfils this function on this scale, and it is something we can only do collectively:

"CTC has been protecting and promoting the rights of cyclists since 1878. [...]. By joining CTC you are supporting UK cycling and giving us a louder voice when campaigning locally and nationally on the issues that are important to you"

It is troubling when membership problems don't appear to be taken seriously or remedied, and troubling for individuals if a membership problem leads to problems accessing a particular benefit. However, these problems are more likely to be dealt with effectively by members insisting on accountability. And membership is the bottom line there, I'm afraid - you can't hold CTC accountable if you don't join. It's not like a utility company - we're not just customers and you can't just switch to some other indistinguishable provider whenever there's a problem. Oh, and I've just checked, and my direct debit seems to be working!

 

[theclaud]

By the way, is Peanut's last post for real? Has he been on the sauce?

 

[peanut]

By the way, is Peanut's last post for real? Has he been on the sauce?

I forgot my meds this morning. normal service will be resumed tomorrow

 

[Origamist]

By the way, is Peanut's last post for real? Has he been on the sauce?

It's characterised by self-awareness, perspicacity and a real sense of fraternal admiration. All things considered, I reckon 3 bottles of Buckfast have cleansed the doors of perception...

 

[Origamist]

I forgot my meds this morning. normal service will be resumed tomorrow

 

[Bollo]

Nurse Ratched and an Aldous Huxley reference in almost one go. Origamist, you are a scamp.

 

[peanut]

It's characterised by self-awareness, perspicacity and a real sense of fraternal admiration. All things considered, I reckon 3 bottles of Buckfast have cleansed the doors of perception...

if I had a nurse like that i think I'd feel a lot better sooner

 

[Bollo]

if I had a nurse like that i think I'd feel a lot better sooner

Watch what she does to Jack Nicholson in 'One flew over the cuckoo's nest' and you may want to change your mind.

 

[Bollo]

Back On Topic, I think the CTC fulfils its core mandate well, particularly on the campaigning front. But there appears to be a growing tendency to diversify the service that it offers. All well and good, as long as this doesn't have a negative impact on the core stuff.

The are clearly members of the CTC council who have ambitions for the CTC that, depending on your viewpoint, are either farsighted, a betrayal of traditional values or wildly misguided and overreaching. Its a worrying sign that these members don't seem too keen to have their plans subjected to scrutiny, or that they're uninterested in the mundane details of service delivery once all the sexy strategy has been written.

Ultimately, the skim from the Wiggle shop isn't going to keep the CTC going so they still need the subs to see their plans through, misguided or not.

 

[dellzeqq]

Ultimately, the skim from the Wiggle shop isn't going to keep the CTC going so they still need the subs to see their plans through, misguided or not.

I've always taken the view that if you take on a DfT contract then it should wash its face. That's stage 1. If it's a loser then there is absolutely no justification for it.

We've got a nice little earner in Holidays and Tours, but some of the government work is sporting red ink.

And, yes, management time has been diverted from running the club.

 

[Bodger]

TBH, like birth, death and taxes I've always accepted the CTC's inability to organise a piss up in a membership services dept. as an inalienable fact of life. Indeed, it is a testament to the CTC that they are still able to achieve so much with such a shaky foundation (I'm sure that I have aired my views on the CTC and it's relationship with the DAs before).

However, after reading the document in question and the surrounding discussions across three forums, I'm starting to become very afeared of , and feel very uninformed about, the move to charity status. Perhaps someone who understands it better than I, and is in a position to give a critical overview, might like to outline the whys and wherefors for us? If such a person exists?

 

[Bodger]

No? I guess everyone is as mystified by it as me then :-(

 

[dellzeqq]

Bodger - sorry, I've been unwell.

It's about the vision that people have for the CTC. There's a vogue for using the voluntary sector to deliver local and national government services. The idea is that the voluntary bodies offer willingness and flexibility, together with experience and knowledge. The Council is predominantly of the view that the CTC can fulfill a role and make money while doing so.

The problem with this is that the CTC is not capitalising on the willingness, flexibility, experience and knowledge of the membership (which is considerable) because the contracts they are winning have no connection with the volunteer base, and, in any case, the support for volunteers is close to zero. Charities for the elderly, hospices and political parties look upon retired people (let's face it, the bulk of the volunteer base) as vigourous assets and sweat them. We send them forms to fill in. To add insult to injury not all of these contracts are making money. Some are big losers.

Stick to the core activities, and build organically off those. There's nothing wrong with the CTC being a membership organisation running campaigns for cyclists. Nothing at all. Getting involved in a disparate collection of business activities pretty much on an ad-hoc basis simply puts the members funds at risk. And, at the last AGM we learned that the club had not only given the Charity our principal asset, but loaned it £370,000 as well. Once the Charity swallows the Club we will be well and truly stuffed.

If people have a yen to do all this government contracting then good luck to them - they can go off and do it somewhere else.