Personally, I think if one pays to join and is considered to be a 'member', one is entitled to the occasional voting opportuity or at least member surveys which are respected/acted on.
For charities and suchlike that just take financial donations (rather than charge for memberships) no problem, do what they like within charity legal rules.
To me its the status of 'membership' that is the deciding factor.
What do Sustrans members actually get in return other than just a label of 'member'? They can for example volunteer without joining, so joining in is not really a membership perk.
Yes, I think so. I dont know when. They were heavily invovled in the Bristol / Bath path I think. Ah, some Wikipedia info...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustrans
2022 info:
and the predominant person leading Sustrans for 30 years was
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grimshaw_(cyclist)
It says Mr Grimshaw lived in Clifton, Bristol with a view of the suspension bridge and now lives in Clifton Wood. Either he came from a very well off family or was very very fortunate in his personal income. Houses in both of those areas are historically some of the most expensive in Bristol, the lucky lad.
While looking for the above info I saw an interesting article
Article quote (historic) from:
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...hn-grimshaw-to-step-down-after-30-years-96710
Why assume membership being allowed a formal opinion is destabilising?
Financially in 2022 they were extreamely stable if Wikipedia is correct, but I am left wondering what they do to require nearly 500 staff to be employed by Sustrans. Do they directly and permanently employ building and maintenance workers rather than sub-contact?
I think you may need to look into that a bit more widely.
The NT have been over the last decade selling off properties left to them, including some kind of meadow to be preserved for the inhabitants which was then sold by the NT for a housing estate to be build on. They have sold off farm houses in the Lake District instead of leasing them to farming families, so no one can rent a farm with land attached to continue traditional farming. They have closed properties and the volunteers do not understand why when they were popular with the public. Lots of volunteers are being 'sacked' at short notice, making consistant opening of some properties difficult at times. There are a lot of complaints from long term volunteers. They have got rid of many curators.
When membership started complaining, members not happy with how things were going managed to get 3 representatives on the NT board. The board is large and only 50% of it can be voted into place by membership. Many members voted for new resolutions sucessfully. They were not extreame resolutions.
The original board stamped on any dissent by bringing in a new voting practice in the last 3 (?) years, since which only board recommended people have been able to sucessfuly stand for the board. Standees are not allowed to campaign or advertise themselves for the role, but the NT board sends out lists of thier own 'recommended' candidates to all of the membership, effectively advertising on thier behalf, so not technically breaking the new rules.
To clamp down further on any dissent, the NT board also brought in a 'quick vote' system which is basically the first thing voters see when voting, inclining them to select it - but if you do all your voting rights are imediatly transferred to the Chair of the Board and you cannot backtrack on that as far as I can see, for that years voting.
Since all of this, not a single 'unrecommended' board member has taken a seat at the board, not a single recommendation not put forward by the original board themselves has gone through - both of these despite VERY large supportive votes by the membership - such alternative votes/veiwpoints being totally swamped by the controlling votes of the Chairperson.
There is a story going around of extreame political views trying to 'take over' the NT board but if you look at the details, Restore Trust have put forward quite reasonable proposals and normal everyday members have often thought them worth voting for in large numbers. Most NT members are not extreamists of any kind.
I am not a member of Restore Trust, I am a member of the NT, so have seen the last few years of voting process which is undemocratic and manipulative to make sure the board is made up of people who 'think the right sort of way' and are in my view those of 'our sort' rather than a diverse board.
NT have always avoided democratic principles where they can, as with the decades ago stag hunting vote, where they offered members a vote thinking they would all keenly support the hunting of deer by dogs. The members did not and were then shocked to discover the NT announced it was just a sort of survey and the NT would be totally ignoring the massive vote against stag hunting. Huge numbers of members resigned over how they were abruptly ignored and the NT had a lot of terrible publicity over it all and lost loads of income.
Sorry for poor spelling, my spell checker has stopped working for some reason!