CTC Vote Rerun - Happening Now

[Gerry Attrick]

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

Cheers,
Shaun

I think it is mainly financial. A charity can claim tax rebates from the subscibers providing they are tax payers. However the downside is that the club then has an obligation to the public, not just its members.

 

[asterix]

Well, I have decided to vote against.

If the CTC becomes a charity then I will cost my membership benefits against the membership fee and the cost of external provision. If I then leave and the new charity does work which see as worthwhile then as a member of the public I can always donate to it accordingly, can't I?

 

[dellzeqq]

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.

There's a long-standing convention that the Chair casts his or her discretionary proxies to preserve the status quo - which is what happened at the Belfast AGM.

TBH it's going from bad to worse. The Cycle Champions contracts are not going to be renewed and the Chief Exec has asked the Club for a £250,000 'bridging loan' to cover the cost of the staff. Except that it's less of a bridge and more of a pier....

Here's the way forward. Support a resolution at the 2011 AGM mandating Council to insist on the repayment of all loans made to the Trust. Take that repayment as a share of the building. When the Trust runs out of dough the Club will have the building. It will be a smaller, humbler CTC re-dedicated to it's core activities (now sadly neglected - support for local groups is running at one part-timer with other things to do) but it will be sustainable, and the subs can be kept sensible.

Personally I've had enough. My membership is up for renewal at the end of the month and, while the Milton Keynes scandal really dented my belief, for me there's a more immediate consideration.......

..............having checked the insurance factsheet I see that the '5x5' guidance is now a rule - and that means I'm not covered for leading the FNRttC. I pondered cancelling the November 19th ride, but decided to rely on my own preparation. Unless I get a rock-solid assurance then I'm going to have to put something else in place by March 18th. Of course I do my best to make sure I'm not negligent, but leading 100 cyclists through the night without insurance cover is just a tad worrying.

 

[dellzeqq]

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

a great man. Witty, debonair, an exceptional cyclist, dedicated to public service. An inspiration.

 

[theclaud]

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.

I don't think that's quite true - the arguments have been rehearsed at length, but there are a number of inter-releated issues - political, financial, democratic - and the problem for No campaigners is that the strongest arguments against are not necessarily the arguments that have the best soundbite appeal to casual members who are not especially active in the club. The Yes campaign, on the other hand, has been able to cash in on the goodwill that is evoked by idea of a Charity, and has been able to oversell simple-sounding benefits, which in fact are not all they're cracked up to be - the Giftaid thing is an obvious example. I have political objections to the manoeuvre, but I also take the more intuitive position that the skulduggery of the Yes campaign means they are trying to get something past the membership that is probably not in its best interests. People can quite easily be persuaded to compromise their subtler and longer term-interests for a few obvious and overpromoted benefits, but in my view members should treat such things with exactly the same scepticism that they would approach BOGOF bargains at Tesco...

 

[dellzeqq]

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.

All CTC AGMs are a mess. This was less messy than Cardiff, Godalming and especially less messy than Belfast, where the chair forget about the proxy votes.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Dell,

What's the MK scandal you mention?

 

[dellzeqq]

here's the summary.

Milton Keynes Council seeks bicycle training contractor. CTC is appointed* and subs the contract out to an independent company. Independent company says 'no way are you going to get the numbers'. CTC does diddly-squit (for a tenner a kid), independent does the marketing (why? - because nobody else was going to), numbers are not as programmed, independent gets fired, CTC attempts to hire away a member of the independent's staff.

*There appears to be no contract other than an inferred one, no scope of works, no written notes of anything.

 

[Flying Dodo]

..............having checked the insurance factsheet I see that the '5x5' guidance is now a rule - and that means I'm not covered for leading the FNRttC. I pondered cancelling the November 19th ride, but decided to rely on my own preparation. Unless I get a rock-solid assurance then I'm going to have to put something else in place by March 18th. Of course I do my best to make sure I'm not negligent, but leading 100 cyclists through the night without insurance cover is just a tad worrying.

But surely the FNRttC is an "event" registered with the CTC, as defined by them, so although you have more than 5 non CTC members on it, and/or they've been on more than 5 rides, it's still covered?

 

[dellzeqq]

But surely the FNRttC is an "event" registered with the CTC, as defined by them, so although you have more than 5 non CTC members on it, and/or they've been on more than 5 rides, it's still covered?

It's not, I'm afraid. It's a 'ride'. It could be an event, but that would mean registering it at the beginning of the year and having you all sign a standard form of disclaimer at the beginning of each ride (as we did with the Martlets ride) but that would, in my view, spoil the carefree nature of the ride.

What's coming across loud and clear is that those councillors who are enthused by the Club becoming part of the Trust don't see the two things as separate now. I'm afraid that all our squeaking about value for money has been in vain.

 

[Bollo]

Voting form in the post.

Personally I've had enough. My membership is up for renewal at the end of the month and, while the Milton Keynes scandal really dented my belief, for me there's a more immediate consideration.......

That is a genuine shame and I sympathise. My renewal popped through the door with the Cycle and I felt the same - do I want to support this any more? I've no real emotional attachment to the club and my renewal or non-renewal will have very little impact, but I can appreciate the significance of a statement like that from Simon.

 

[dellzeqq]

to be fair, Rob Fuller, who has always been supportive, is working on the insurance thing. If anybody can get a result, he can.

 

[Piemaster]

I had been dithering over joining the CTC. The dithering being because of the debate over the conversion and I didn't in the end as it all seemed to smack of the way some local government decisions have been in my area. Once a course of action has been decided upon, even if it is objected to and defeated, it will reappear again even if in a slightly altered form until it is passed (see also Maastrict treaty).
This also now seems to be happening to the CTC which, despite the best efforts of some, appears to be a shambles.
The whole thing is very off putting so I won't be joining, at least for the time being.

 

[Norm]

I wasn't a member at the time of the original vote and I must admit that I was, like pieman above, put off by the shenanigans. However, the insurance (and a handful of PRKs) swung it for me and I joined at the Cycle Show.

Some of the arguments for the change are quite compelling, IMO, especially the point that, since the 2006 Act, a "charity" can act on behalf of it's members so it could make the tax breaks a form of free money for the CTC.

However, I could never vote in favour of something which has been handled the way that the council appear to have handled it. The article in Cycle was completely biased, the CTC rep just used the space for gratuitous attacks on Jeff Tollerman and the other objectors, there was very little by way of persuasive argument, just pettiness. As campaigns go, it felt more like something from a 1970s political party (rivers of blood and all) than anything that I'd want to support in 2010.

 

[Headgardener]

Voting form in the post. The only reason that I continue to stay a member is because of the 10 million pound insurance cover, as the local group only seems to ride on a Sunday morning when I am otherwise occupied.