Requesting help from CTC members

[Pat "5mph"]

I am a CTC member, my group is affiliated, I know lots of other members- on here and not on here - just checked, there must be at least 2 dozen CTC emails in my inbox.
From the op's other thread, I assume there are internal disagreements, but did not have time to take an interest, sorry!

 

[Racing roadkill]

CTC are a bit like Masons, but with bikes.

 

[ianrauk]

Gawd sake. No one really cares and it's getting very tedious.
Most people on here I can imagine are with CTC for insurance purposes and not really bothered at what goes on behind the scenes.

 

[ianrauk]

Well, some people were bothered, very much so, when the transition to being 'a charity' was first mooted. They had to suffer a shameful amount of abuse and scorn, but they persisted in saying that the club (for that is what it was) would be killed off by this ridiculous and frankly suspect change. Despite their best efforts, the transition was made, and they were right - the current sad state of affairs is the result. RIP CTC, too late for it now.

Yup I'm very aware of that. But I stand by my post that most on here are with CTC for the insurance. Myself included.

 

[Bollo]

CTC are a bit like Masons, but with bikes.

It's more like the Mansons.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The corpse of the club continues to twitch.

Let.it.go.

 

[martint235]

I think the CTC was terminally ill long before the switch to being a charity. Like many organisations, it had lost sight of what it's goal was and who it was supposed to be representing. It became self-serving and once that happens it's difficult to change it back again as any new blood at the top is quickly corrupted.

My membership has just lapsed and I doubt I'll be renewing it.

 

[mjr]

I think the CTC was terminally ill long before the switch to being a charity.

It seems like it was a club with a load of members who didn't act like members (turnout rates of all sorts were astonishingly low - not only voting ones) and were happy to leave things to the paid workers, elected members who didn't change this (if only there had been more @Philip Benstead earlier) and paid workers who seem quite happy to take control of a low-oversight low-participation organisation, rather than work to encourage and enable the members to make CTC the most of what it could be.

I do have some fear that as larger Cyclenation groups like LCC and CamCycle hire paid workers, they could slip into the same failure pattern, but only time will tell.

 

[srw]

It was a club with a load of members who didn't act like members (turnout rates of all sorts were astonishingly low - not only voting ones) and were happy to leave things to the paid workers, elected members who didn't change this (if only there had been more @Philip Benstead earlier) and paid workers who seem quite happy to take control of a low-oversight low-participation organisation, rather than work to encourage and enable the members to make CTC what it could be.

So it was a bit like every other national club ever, then.

Clubs only work on the relatively local, relatively small scale.

 

[martint235]

As discussed on other threads, LCC has already gone down that path. It has its own agenda that it pushes by using a "voice of the majority of London cyclists" mandate that it doesn't possess. I'm not convinced it speaks for the majority of LCC members any longer

 

[swansonj]

Well, some people were bothered, very much so, when the transition to being 'a charity' was first mooted. They had to suffer a shameful amount of abuse and scorn, but they persisted in saying that the club (for that is what it was) would be killed off by this ridiculous and frankly suspect change. Despite their best efforts, the transition was made, and they were right - the current sad state of affairs is the result. RIP CTC, too late for it now.

^^^ exactly.

Philip: as I've said to you before, I share every view you have about where the CTC has gone wrong ... except for whether it's worth fighting for. It was worth fighting for five years ago (or, perhaps that should be, ten and twenty years ago when the rot that led to the changes of five years ago set in), and I fought for it then. But it's over now. Energy devoted to lost causes is energy wasted. Go cycling instead.

 

[Arrowfoot]

Requesting help from CTC members
.....It is not possible for CTC trustees to communicate directly with their constituents.....
.

...This not unusual the CTC he has always held all the lever of communication....

To me this is oppressive conduct. Trustees cannot operate in a vacuum and they must have access to members. The chair needs to be reminded that it is a member fee paying organisation and that members need to understand what the trustees feel.

Occasionally an organisation moves from serving the membership to serving the needs of an individual or a select group. That individual or the select group will start treating the movers and shakers of society as their own audience in order to build bridges, build a favourable personal image as step towards to personal goals. Or worse still taking the wrong folk based on poor advise or bad vision. We cannot afford that.

I would suggest the following;

1. Table a motion to discuss opening communications with the membership at large.
2. If thereafter it does not address the issue in the interest of the membership, gather like minded trustees and go to the press with the intention of informing the membership at large ( as it is now the only way to communicate with members) for a EOGM to address the issue.

Anyway it is pointless being a trustee and a eunuch.

 

[srw]

To me this is oppressive conduct. Trustee cannot operate within a vacuum and they must have access to communication with members.

In legal reality, that's the job of the executive. The trustees are there to make sure that the executive do their job properly. In the words of the gov.uk website:

• ensure appropriate accountability to members, if your charity has a membership separate from the trustees

• ensure accountability within the charity, particularly where you delegate responsibility for particular tasks or decisions to staff or volunteers

That word "ensure" doesn't mean "do". It means "make sure someone does".

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/charity-trustee-whats-involved

 

[midliferider]

I recently joined the CTC, mainly to get the insurance and the magazine is sometimes good.
I had no other expectation from them. I sometimes see CTC members at a local cafe while I am cycling on my own. They make it very clear that I am not one of them.
I once telephoned them regarding their holidays after they failed to respond to my E mails. They were very clear that I am not welcome.
They are essentially a club. Like any club it serves its members. But when I joined, I knew that I am not joining the club but was happy to take the insurance.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

I recently joined the CTC, mainly to get the insurance and the magazine is sometimes good.
I had no other expectation from them. I sometimes see CTC members at a local cafe while I am cycling on my own. They make it very clear that I am not one of them.
I once telephoned them regarding their holidays after they failed to respond to my E mails. They were very clear that I am not welcome.
They are essentially a club. Like any club it serves its members. But when I joined, I knew that I am not joining the club but was happy to take the insurance.

How did you know he/she was a CTC member? You mean you know them to speak to, but they don't want you to ride with them? Rude, then, not CTC rude, just plain rude.
Here the CTC are welcoming, they have a Meetup page with their rides, I don't even think you have to be a member to come along.
Most experienced riding folks I know, or folks that have a job in cycling, are CTC members but belong to other organizations too, like GoBike, Spokes, or indeed the Belles on Bikes. They may also belong to racing groups.
I don't see how a CTC member could say "I'm not riding with you because my membership is higher than yours".