CTC Vote Rerun - Happening Now

[User]

 

[Headgardener]

Thanks User I will keep my eyes open for the slip in the magazine.

 

[Canardly]

Am I to take it that the key complaint here is that members cease to control/direct the club due to the limitations imposed by a change of status?

 

[threebikesmcginty]

So, is this like a second go and they'll keep going until they get the answer they want?

 

[srw]

Am I to take it that the key complaint here is that members cease to control/direct the club due to the limitations imposed by a change of status?

A very good question. One observation, which the "Save the CTC" campaign may or may not wish to take on board is that the key complaint is far from clear. It seems to be a mixture of personal animosity towards certain CTC leading lights, complaints about accounting policy, complaints about the long-term profitability or otherwise of the existing charity, complaints about potential reduction in (what is currently a very modest) democratic input and a certain amount of disgruntlement about the general direction of policy.

A single rallying cry that people can understand and get behind, a lot of behind-the-scenes lobbying and a hell of a lot of long-term strategic thinking would probably get further than a rerun vote on a motion which has already fallen because of a different vote - which seems to this individual to be a very expensive way of losing friends.

I'm not going to get drawn into the rights and wrongs of the case - for me a £36 a year charge is pretty good value for a magazine, some campaigning, some advice and some insurance.

 

[srw]

That is one of the reasons.

There are others, such as the loss of member benefits and the lack of proper accountability of Council and National Office.

Other people are just hacked off about being lied to and bullied by National Office and some councillors.

QED.

I may be being naive, but in the business world, a board which squabbles in public is terminally sick. Once policy has been made, the board's job is to implement that policy or leave the board.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

I'm not going to get drawn into the rights and wrongs of the case - for me a £36 a year charge is pretty good value for a magazine, some campaigning, some advice and some insurance.

Well that's kind of how I see it too but if there are others, who I've met and who are involved with the CTC, who feel strongly about keeping the club as it is then I'm happy to support them.

 

[P.H]

So, is this like a second go and they'll keep going until they get the answer they want?

No, they already got the answer they wanted.  This is about a handful of people (600?) signing a petition in an attempt to get that vote overturned.  The main objection as far as I can see to that vote is that the Chairman used the proxy votes given to him to be used at his discretion were enough to change the result.  IMO this is complete rubbish, those giving the Chairman control of their vote did so knowingly, the accusation that it was somehow shameful is nonsense and shows a lack of respect to those who gave their proxy in this way.

I voted no at the AGM, I will vote no to the change in the Articles that make becoming a unified charity possible.  However I think the AGM vote on Motion 8 was carried in a proper way and I shall be voting yes to uphold that decision.  

 

[Headgardener]

No, they already got the answer they wanted. This is about a handful of people (600?) signing a petition in an attempt to get that vote overturned. The main objection as far as I can see to that vote is that the Chairman used the proxy votes given to him to be used at his discretion were enough to change the result. IMO this is complete rubbish, those giving the Chairman control of their vote did so knowingly, the accusation that it was somehow shameful is nonsense and shows a lack of respect to those who gave their proxy in this way.

I voted no at the AGM, I will vote no to the change in the Articles that make becoming a unified charity possible. However I think the AGM vote on Motion 8 was carried in a proper way and I shall be voting yes to uphold that decision.

From what I understand it was the way the chairman used the proxy votes "after" the main votes had been counted, and announced to the AGM, to influence the result that has got peoples backs up.

 

[P.H]

But nobody thinks the Chairman was ever going to vote any way other than for the Motion as presented, do they?

 

[Flying Dodo]

Any organisation where
a) the AGM is delayed by an hour whilst they deliberate how to deal with people turning up who had already voted in the postal vote (despite the fact that they had publicised that such people could come along if they wanted to, and could also alter their vote if desired), and then
b) try and coerce some of those people not to alter their vote, then
c) have the Chair finally start the AGM by saying he's not going to record the "Abstains" of those present at the meeting, but by Motion 2 is then forced to record them
d) require an AGM to pass a Motion in order to draw up a job description for the Chief Executive, despite the fact he's been doing the job since 1998

shows they have no grasp on how to properly run a business. I was quite shocked at not just how the AGM was run, but also the fact it was clear that the financial implications of the alteration had not been considered fully.

 

[asterix]

Fear that Members may lose control.
The further disenfranchisement of members

No Way Back!

Given these two issues the proposed change seems premature and almost certainly ill-conceived. And in any case, how can a cycling club be considered a charity (Yes, I know some rather odd things are charities, but..)? I'm reasonably happy with the CTC as it is and cannot foresee any good emerging from this particular change.

 

[Tollers]

Unfortunately, Council has gone back on its promise to provide unbiased and balanced information on the vote. The article in 'Cycle' unfairly criticises the petition organiser, Jeff Tollerman, and doesn't provide an accurate picture of what the vote is about and why members have concerns over the proposal to convert the Club into a charity.

Has anyone got a scan or the article? I have heard of this Jeff Tollerman chap.

 

[Gerry Attrick]

I consider it a fair point that members lose a degree of control of their organisation when it becomes a charity. That certainly appeared to happen to another club of which I was a member for many years.

 

[Shaun]

I don't understand why clubs do that - is it some soft of tax incentive?

Cheers,
Shaun