CTC Vote Rerun - Happening Now

[just jim]

No copy of "Cycle" to go on as yet, the Postman can't get through.

 

[Norm]

Sorry, Reg, but that is as petty, low and meaningless as the article which I mentioned in Cycle. I don't care about the BS around the rights and wrongs of the voting, I care about the impact that the change to charity status will have.

In a year or five, the contents of that letter will mean nothing, what will matter is whether or not the CTC status has changed.

FFS, the efforts of both sides just makes the CTC look like some pathetic local council or PCC, putting drivel forwards in place of any real argument in an attempt to just score pitiful points.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in that letter about the actual issue, they barely even mention what "motion 8" is about, hidden in a subordinate phrase.

Shockingly deplorable.

 

[Norm]

Sorry, but I really don't understand what your issue with the letter is.

At risk of repeating myself, my issue is that the letter doesn't actually say why there is a problem with motion 8.

The content of motion 8 is made clear in the second paragraph (I relaise that when it cpied over the first and second paragrpah got combined. I've edited my post to reflect how it looks as it has been sent to members).

As I said above, the content of motion 8 only appears as a subordinate phrase in the letter.

I'm sure that many politicians don't like it when they get criticised for scoring political points rather than addressing the issues (see Paxman interviews passim) but I think that you might view the letter differently if you could read it as someone who was more interested in whether or not CTC should be a charity than the number of signatures required by article 36.

To be blunt, cut out the pissing contest, I don't give a flying duck who voted which way in the past, and whether the protection enshrined by the regulations requires 200, 600 or 6 million signatures. The issue is that there is to be a vote about becoming a charity and we have been given absolutely no information by either side in the recent documents about the pros and cons of changing the status.

 

[Norm]

The letter isn't intended to rehash the issues - and it would be a hell of a lot longer if it did. There is an explantion of the issues in the magazine which accompanies the ballot form and the letter is also accompanied by a link to the web-site which cover the issues in more detail (which doesn't show on the version here as most people already know them: The CTC and Save the CTC).

I don't think that the magazine properly addresses the issues, although they are given more room than they were given in the letter above.

The magazine does raise a couple of points, one of which I have posted above, which haven't been addressed in the letter.

If one side campaigns on political point-scoring with one argument on-topic, and the response is just political point-scoring, then the former will win my vote.

Members are also quite aware of the issues - this isn't the first time this has been discussed.

I'd suggest that not all members are quite aware of the issues.

What we don't want to do is treat them like idiots or suggest that they need us to spoon feed them information. As was said elsewhere...

"As David says, again, treat us as grown ups and we will listen and give you our considered judgement on your proposals. Treat us as children, and we will simply say, 'No'."

So, the argument against the vote is actually nothing more concrete than "we're being treated as children so we will act as children"? That seems to be an approach which does nothing more than confirm the treatment was correct.

I may be distrustful of council but the opponents are doing little to show themselves any more worthy or trust, nor any more able of conducting a campaign which references the issues rather than the people.

 

[Norm]

I find that suggestion rather offensive. Those involved in the no campaign have always been open and honest.

We've provided members with our honest opinions and views, and with a large amount of information that had been withheld or glossed over by Council and National Office. We've spent a lot of time unravelling the spin put on figures, reports and advice for members.

We've been open about our disagreement with 'the party line' and have suffered as a result of it. We've also been open about who we are - we've not hidden behind usernames on fora such as this.

Sorry, Reg, but that's the view of someone who has only been an interested party over the past few months.

I've seen little about the rights and wrongs of charity status and a lot of mud-slinging and I was hoping to at least offer you the objective view of someone who hasn't been wrapped up in it over the past year.

I think that you'd see things differently if you were a little more detached, and that you'd think again about responding to a request for more information with a comment like "Members are also quite aware of the issues - this isn't the first time this has been discussed". It is so obviously not true that writing it was unhelpful and dismissive.

I don't get the comment about hiding behind usernames. Was that aimed at me?

 

[Flying Dodo]

The trouble is both sides don't look good at times.

After all Barry, at the AGM you stood up in defence of the motion and made a case that you and the rest of Council were being accused of fraud and financial misappropriation, in trying to push through the change to a charity. I hadn't seen any evidence of that on the Save the CTC web site, or other forums, and none of the speakers opposing the change had made those comments.

 

[Flying Dodo]

The trouble is both sides don't look good at times.

After all Barry, at the AGM you stood up in defence of the motion and made a case that you and the rest of Council were being accused of fraud and financial misappropriation, in trying to push through the change to a charity. I hadn't seen any evidence of that on the Save the CTC web site, or other forums, and none of the speakers opposing the change had made those comments.

Interesting. Barry has deleted his comment, to which the above was my response. I knew I should have quoted him...................

 

[Norm]

Not aimed at you at all, Norm. I was merely reflecting on the habit of people from National Office and Council to appear on various forums and pretend to be ordinary members.

I must say you've always been up front and, even though we obviously disagree on this point, we'd probably still enjoy a pint or three together.

I look forward to it.

 

[PBancroft]

Just out of interest, is there a viable alternative to CTC? I mean, a national (or international) organisation which provides decent advice, insurance, campaigning and consumer benefits?

If there is, where is it?

If there isn't, why not if there is such demand?

 

[porteous]

As an outsider I'd just like to say that I have been completely put off joining the CTC by the nature of this dispute. Clubs are for the members, not the committee. Having supervised the running of small clubs, (within the army), I am surprised a club the size of the CTC has got itself into this mess. I certainly won't be joining until it sorts itself out to the satisfaction of a large majority of it's members.

 

[Yorkshireman]

A brief background that partly explains why (some) members may wish to vote 'No' at this time (there isn't a 'Not at this time' option on the ballot). Once 'unified' the CTC can't be 'un-unified' (as I understand it).

 

[Fiona N]

I find the lack of properly run accounting to be atrocious for such a large organisation. The fact that the CTC council apparently cannot say how much projects carried out by the Trust have actually cost (or conceivably made for) the CTC 'Club' is an extraordinary dereliction of duty. The turnover of the CTC far exceeds that of the town council of which I am a councillor and we would have ended up in court if we were to run the council is such a ridiculously amateur manner.

This is the crux of my objection to the charitable status proposals - if they can't run the CTC transparently on behalf of the membership, just why exactly should that membership pay for a charitable organisation which doesn't even have their interests at heart? As the no lobby have repeatedly pointed out, a charity must be run for public good, not for the good of the membership other than in that they are members of the public. So we as members would have no greater call on the facilities of the CTC charity than any non-paying member of the public. Furthermore if we as paid up members don't like what the council is doing we will have no means of objecting - other than withdrawing our membership and leaving the organisation - if the council's proposals meet the requirements of charitable status. E.g. The magazine could be considered as an excessive drain on resources as it is only available to members, so it could be discontinued with no need for the council to heed anyone's objections.

I am afraid that I will cease to be a member if this change goes through as it's one thing to support a charity, indeed I used to donate regularly to Sustrans, and another to pay to be a member of a 'club' which is not run in the interests of the membership.

 

[Hover Fly]

...As the no lobby have repeatedly pointed out, a charity must be run for public good, not for the good of the membership other than in that they are members of the public...

Not necessarily, from the Charities Commission site

In some cases, the benefits of an organisation's aims are delivered through a membership structure.​

Some charities have a membership structure under which the members are also the charity's beneficiaries. In this case, any restrictions placed on who may join as a member should be reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances if the public benefit of the organisation is not to be affected.​

For example, where a person has to be a member in order to benefit, a membership system that required potential members to be proposed and seconded by existing members may lack the necessary 'public' element; being primarily a private members' club.​

 

[J.Y.Kelly]

I used to be a member of the CTC, but resigned when it decided to go corporate.

 

[Maz]

However, whatever your decision on the merits of Motion 8, we would urge you to make sure you vote.

Thanks, I did. I voted in favour of Motion 8.