CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post Reply
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Philip Benstead »

It should be noted that there has been not report of the CTC AGM in the magazine nor on the website. I wonder what the CTC Council have to hide.

I wonder how many CTC members realized the result of the AGM votes and how they affect the future of the CTC.

CYCLING UK AGM – 7 MAY 2016

Our report of voting for the above elections for which postal voting closed on Thursday 5
May 2016 at 9am is as follows:


6) ELECTIONS TO COUNCIL

This AGM proposes that candidates must have been fully paid-up members for least a year prior to the closing date for nominations. Candidates shall state on their election address the date they joined CTC and length of time as members.
Proposer’s note: There has been concern at the short time some new councilors had been members. Some had been members less than one year. Candidates must be sufficiently committed/knowledgeable of CTC to be able
to comply with the requirement that they can
‘represent the full diversity of membership’.
Proposer Tim Court,
Seconder William Goodge



Motion 6 Discr'y Votes
Held

For

Against

Abstain
Meeting Votes 31 15 1
Proxy Votes 45 94 3
Chair Directed Votes 1616 409

Chair Discretionary Votes
901
901

Total Votes Cast 1741 1328

%age Voting For the
Motion
56.73%
43.27%

Result Passed




7) ACCEPTANCE OF MOTIONS

This AGM proposes that any amended
or rejected motions should be published (redacted if confidential personal information is involved) on the website with subsequent communications.

Proposer’s note: This will show that the Agenda Committee has correctly dealt with motions as stated by Orders in Council and Standing Orders as at 12th May 2004, ‘The Committee may at its discretion re-draft a motion in order to prevent its rejection or to make it more intelligible but in any such revision the Committee shall not alter the sense or purpose of the motion without the consent of the proposer.’
Proposer Charles Halliday,
Seconder Michael Simmons



Motion 7
Discr'y Votes
Held

For

Against
Meeting Votes 41 2
Proxy Votes 47 97 0
Chair Directed Votes 1921 50
Chair Discretionary Votes 947 947

Total Votes Cast 3006 52

%age Voting For the Motion 98.30% 1.70%

Result Passed



8) REPORTING REMUNERATION OF CTC STAFF

This AGM proposes that CTC follow the recommendations of NCVO – Report of the Inquiry into Charity Senior Executive Pay: https://www.ncvo.org.uk/images/documents/ about us/our-finances-and-pay/Executive_ Pay_Report.pdf
Proposer’s note: Report shows the need for transparency/openness, that show trustees are fulfilling their legal obligations. The report’s main recommendations in brief are as follows.
• It is good practice to publish the remuneration, job titles and the names of their highest-paid.
• It is good practice to publish the reasons to justify the amounts and explain how they reflect the charity’s ethos and values.
• It is good practice to publish in both annual accounts/websites.
Proposer Peter Kanssen,
seconder David Aylett




Motion 8 Discr'y
Votes
Held


For


Against


Abstain
Meeting Votes 20 19 7
Proxy Votes 48 91 6
Chair Directed Votes 1536 325
Chair Discretionary Votes 949 949

Total Votes Cast 1647 1299

%age Voting For the Motion 55.91% 44.09%

Result Passed










The Election Centre, 33 Clarendon Road, London N8 0NW

9) CTC COUNCIL ELECTION PROCESS
This AGM proposes that Council elections will be undertaken through the Electoral Reform Services, initially for a trial period. There should be a period of 30 days between the issue of ballot papers and the deadline for returning them to the Returning Officer.

Proposer’s note: Using ERS will permit votes to be collected via the internet, reducing the cost
of administration, with provision made for non- internet users. Staff to be strictly impartial so that no questions can be raised about the propriety of the voting system.
Proposer Rupert Gardner,
seconder John Frederick Osborne



Motion 9 Discr'y
Votes
Held

For

Against
Meeting Votes 47 0
Proxy Votes 48 96 1
Chair Directed Votes 1909 41
Chair Discretionary Votes 950 950

Total Votes Cast 3002 42

%age Voting For the Motion 98.62% 1.38%

Result Passed
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Philip Benstead »

Cycling UK - Your complaint relating to the handling of current election process for Trustees

Dear Philip

I am writing to let you know how your recent complaint will be considered.

A panel of two Trustees has been set up comprising Gwenda Owen and myself to investigate the complaint and in due course respond to you with our decision. Neither of us was involved with the Nominations Committee when making its assessment of potential candidates or with the decisions it reached on the process for the election.

We will contact you if in the course of the investigation if we feel we need to clarify any points.

We will be investigating your complaint in tandem with another which in part is along similar lines. We estimate that it will take us about two weeks to reach an outcome.

Kind regards

Martin Cockersole
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Philip Benstead »

Philip:

Please feel free to copy this to anybody who you feel would be interested in these matters — that is, if you feel I make valid points.

Sincerely,

Martin.
Martin Webster
London


From: Martin Webster
Date: Wednesday, 5 October 2016 17:10
To: Cycling UK <cycling@cyclinguk.org>, David Cox <david.cox@cyclinguk.org>
Subject: Re: Vote for cycling: trustee elections to Cycling UK’s board

Dear Mr. Cox,

I write with reference to your e-mail dated Tuesday 4th October regarding the current elections for the Board of Trustees.

I have to tell you that I have no confidence in elections staged by ‘Cycling UK’ (formerly the CTC), even when he count is performed by the Electoal Reform Society.

About a year ago my vote was solicited concerning a raft of changes to the organisation which essentially converting it from a club for touring cyclists into a merchandising/advertising entity which decorates itself with the words “Registered Charity”.

Yet on looking at the paperwork which came with that voting paper, I gained the impression that all the proposed changes had already been implemented and that all the ‘club’ leadership was looking for was an after-the-fact endorsement for a fait accompli.

I did not think it right that I should endorse such a flawed and unjust procedure by participating in it, so I did not vote.

The procedure re-enforced my suspicion (engendered more than six years ago) that the CTC was being subjected to a creeping staff takeover, aided and abetted by elements outside the staff and membership — and unknown to most of the membership.

‘Cycling UK’ is now registered as a “Charity”, but like so many other organisations thus registered, I do not doubt that a major portion of the income of the club is devoted to staff salaries and their expenses, plus fees and emoluments to sundry outside advisers, service providers and sundry other hangers-on who are ‘in’ on the operation.

What was once the club’s magazine, now re-named Cycle, seems to have been hived away from the club into the ownership of what appears to be a separate private business and is increasingly little more than a catalogue.

I have occasionally thought to myself: “I wonder what an English Judge would make of all this?”

Now I am confronted with another vote: the current election to the Board of Trustees.

From the accompanying paperwork I learn that not all members of ‘Cycling UK’ who apply to do so may stand nominated in the election for the available places. As many as may wish to do so and who can secure the support of a Proposer and a Seconder may apply to stand nominated. But only the names of those who have been judged to be “qualified” appear on the ballot paper.

I cannot find information as to the name or names of the person/s empowered to act as ‘quality filters’ — nor who elected him/her/them to perform such a rôle. What constitutes necessary “qualification” in the eyes of this anonymous filtering entity is likewise not specified in the ballot paper paperwork.

Some of the candidates deemed “qualified” to stand nominated have only been members of ‘Cycling UK’ for a matters of months. But it gets worse.

Those deemed “qualified” to stand nominated do not even need to be members of ‘Cycling UK’ at the time of nomination! Several are described as “not currently a member”. Those are weasel words.

Does “not currently” mean:

(a) that they have never been a member; or
(b) that they were once a member but allowed their membership status to lapse; or
(c) that will consider joining, but only if they are elected?

Surely these candidates’ record of membership and their attitude to membership should have been given very much more precisely? The current “descriptions” are seriously misleading as to their qualifications, motivation and attitude.

Again I find myself thinking: “I wonder what an English Judge would make of all this?”

Yet again I do not think it right that I should endorse such a flawed and unjust procedure by participating in it, so I will not vote.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Webster

CTC Life Member XXXX
(Audax UK ‘Super Randonneur’ 1991)
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Philip Benstead »

DEAR CTC MEMBERS
I would welcome you to make a formal complaint in regard to this or contact martin.cockersole@ctc.org.uk to give your formal support to this updated complaint.

TO Mr Martin Cockersole
Chair – Complaint investigating Committee,
Cycling UK (trading name of Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC),
Registered Office: Parklands,
Railton Road, Guildford,
Surrey, GU2 9JX
martin.cockersole@ctc.org.uk
All CTC Council


FROM Mr Philip Benstead
19 Greencoat Mansions,
Greencoat Row,
London, SW1P 1PG
0794 980 1698
philipbenstead1@gmail.com
Thursday, 06 October 2016

SELECTION PROCESS FOR ELECTION TRUSTEESHIP
A FORMAL COMPLAINT - SECTION 5 - PROCEDURE FOR COMPLAINTS AGAINST COUNCILLORS

Dear Mr Martin Cockersole

I found substantive additional grounds and information that clarify the issues concerning this section process, please accept this updated version of my formal complaint.

I wish to make a formal complaint against the NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE in the execution of their duties of processing the application for trusteeship of the Cycling UK (is a trading name of Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC) a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no: 25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales charity no: 1147607 and in Scotland charity no: sco42541).

Members in this complaint refers to individuals who are full paid-up members of the organisation whose trading name is CYCLING UK.

My complaint is as follows, comprising seven parts;

1. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow the guidelines laid down in the Governance Working Group - Report and Recommendations - provided at the AGM 2016, voted on by CYCLING UK members and passed.
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... r-2016.pdf

The Guidelines State “All candidates shall be entitled to stand for election should they wish following receipt of their statement. The election material will note what statement has been applied to each candidate”

2. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow to the letter the requirements of the motion below that was passed at the AGM 2016.
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... inutes.pdf

“Elections to Council This AGM proposes that candidates must have been fully paid-up members for least a year prior to the closing date for nominations. Candidates shall state on their election address the date they joined CTC and length of time as members.”

I understand that:
• Six individuals have been selected to stand for election as trustee who have not been members for at least one year, which means they do not meet the criteria and hence it is not valid to select them.

• Non endorsed nominees have not been permitted to stand for election, and hence the selection process is not valid.

3. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow the requirements of Governance Working Group - Report and Recommendations - appendix 6 (terms of reference and other governance papers) - Terms of reference nominations committee. Page 36
Process of recruiting external appointments to the CTC Board
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... r-2016.pdf

That States All recommendations made by the Nominations Committee are subject to final approval by the board.

4. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow the requirements of the Memorandum of Association of the Cyclists’ Touring Club as amended by the AGM on 12 May 2012 –
7 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL
7.1 State ……Five or one third of the Council, whichever is the greater, shall form a quorum.
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... ay2012.pdf

5. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow the requirements laid down in the
ORDERS IN COUNCIL and STANDING ORDERS as at 12th May, 2004
That States 6 c Each member of the Club shall have one vote, which is to be cast by showing an order of preference between the candidates, with the most preferred candidate being numbered ‘1’, the next ‘2’, and so on until the member has no further preference between the candidates.

Even though par 6c was delete at the AGM 2016 there was no provision for replacement accordingly that provision for the method voting should stand.

6. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow the requirements laid down in the Charities and meetings (CC48)
The Charity Commission - First published: 1 March 2012 Part of: Managing your charity Applies to: England and Wales
Information about running, planning and recording meetings and what types of meetings a charity can have, Guidance - Charities and meetings
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... tings-cc48

10.2 Potential problems That States at a general meeting the Chair should make it clear to members which decisions (if Minutes That States ……The minutes usually record:
• the precise wording of any resolution together with the name of the proposer and (optionally) the seconder of the motion,
• a summary of the discussion on each item of business,
• information upon which the decision was based,
• details of the decision, i.e. who voted and how and, in the event of an equality of votes, if the Chair used a casting vote,
• the action required,
• the names of the people who are responsible for implementing the decision, ……and
Furthermore, it states …. The commission advise that minutes are drafted as soon as possible after the meeting and circulated promptly. This is particularly important for the minutes of trustees’ meetings in order to avoid delays in implementing decisions.
It also states…. The minutes of a general meeting are usually made available to members (in the case of a charitable company they have to be) but do not have to be made available for public inspection unless the charity’s governing document requires this.

15.7 Minutes That state The commission recommend that charities make the minutes of the AGM available to the public on request: they may charge a reasonable fee to cover the cost of making them available.

7. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow the requirements laid down in the
Memorandum of Association of the Cyclists’ Touring Club as amended by the AGM on 12 May 2012
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... ay2012.pdf
That States 6 POWERS OF THE COUNCIL
6.1 The transaction of the business of the Club and its entire management shall be vested in the Council, who in addition to the powers and authority expressly conferred on them by these Articles may exercise all powers and do all such acts and things as may be exercised and done by the Club and are not hereby or by statute expressly directed or required to be done by the Club in General Meeting.

COMMENT This means that the Council has power to manager things the club does but must follow the law and the wishes of the GENERAL MEETING.

COMMENT That provision overrules the requirement in the charity commission guidance as to where power lies.

Furthermore, 6.2.7 it states to delegate any of their powers to Members or to Committees of Members, and to make such regulations for proceedings of such Committees as may seem expedient;

COMMENT This means that the Council has power to form committees and give them power to do what the council wants them to do but unless state in the term of reference the council did not give the nomination committee power to make up or change the rules.


WHAT DO I WANT TO HAPPEN?
• That the selection process is restarted and that it conforms to the above requirement.

COMMENT
An impartial observer may contend that the NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE are open to a charge of electoral maladministration.
If the NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE proceed with this course of action they are in danger of bringing the Cycling UK and any potential nominees and candidate for trusteeship into the area of reputational risk.

I understand that you are required to respond formally to my complaint.
Yours sincerely

PHILIP BENSTEAD
MEMBERSHIP NUMBER XXXXX
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Philip Benstead »

CTC Trustee meeting
Saturday 22 October 2016

I have heard that a CTC Trustee (from that trustee who said it is not confidential) has submitted a motion that state word to the effect, the Trustee Election process should be suspended and the process started again following the rules and guidelines as given at the AGM.

I shall get the exact word in due course and post it.
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Philip Benstead »

Dear Sue

Please supply via email a copy of the minutes of the CTC AGM 2016 even if they are in draft form.
I would like to draw attention to
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... tings-cc48
Charities and meetings (CC48)
From:The Charity Commission
First published: 1 March 2012
Part of:Managing your charity
Applies to:England and Wales

Information about running, planning and recording meetings and what types of meetings a charity can have

Guidance - Charities and meetings

15.7 Minutes
The commission recommend that charities make the minutes of the AGM available to the public on request: they may charge a reasonable fee to cover the cost of making them available.
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
Steady rider
Posts: 2749
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Steady rider »

Open letter to all Candidates

Dear Election Candidate
Cycling UK Trustees election candidate, 2016

I wish to draw your attention to the following issue. The Cycling UK 2016 AGM voted for election candidates to meet certain requirement.

http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... inutes.pdf

6) Elections to Council
This AGM proposes that candidates must have been fully paid-up members for least a year prior to the closing date for nominations. Candidates shall state on their election address the date they joined CTC and length of time as members.

Result; http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... esults.pdf


Motion 6 Discretionary Votes Held For Against Abstain
Meeting Votes 31 15 1
Proxy Votes 45 94 3
Chair Directed Votes 1616 409
Chair Discretionary Votes 901 901
Total Votes Cast 1741 1328
%age Voting For the Motion 56.73% 43.27%
Result Passed


Cycling UK MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
OF THE CYCLISTS’ TOURING CLUB
As amended by the AGM on 12 May 2012 http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... ay2012.pdf

States;

6 POWERS OF THE COUNCIL
6.1 The transaction of the business of the Club and its entire management shall be vested in the Council, who in addition to the powers and authority expressly conferred on them by these Articles may exercise all powers and do all such acts and things as may be exercised and done by the Club and are not hereby or by statute expressly directed or required to be done by the Club in General Meeting.


As shown above the Club voted to require;
‘This AGM proposes that candidates must have been fully paid-up members for least a year prior to the closing date for nominations. Candidates shall state on their election address the date they joined CTC and length of time as members.’

From the list of 12 candidates, 7 have provided the details of ‘the date they joined CTC and length of time as members’ and 5 (possibly 6) did not meet the requirement.

The election process has preceeded contrary to the club’s requirements. The selection process was invalid, selecting 5 candidates not fulfilling the AGM requirements.
In these circumstances I would ask you consider withdrawing from the election process and allow the current trustees to consider how best to proceed.

I understand that a formal complaint is being made against the election process with several issues of concern.

The criteria first circulated to members would have discouraged some or many from standing so a cancellation of the elections may be the best option. The 6 qualified to stand if allowed, would mean they had little if any opposition, if the other 6 were disqualified.

The Chair and Ch Exe seem to be mainly accountable for this issue and both need to be held accountable and possibly replaced or dismissed. Perhaps 3 Council motions and votes are needed, one to cancel the elections, two to replace the Chair of Council, three to sack the Ch Exe. If it is not their fault they need to explain to Council and members the reasons.
User avatar
Chris Jeggo
Posts: 577
Joined: 3 Jul 2010, 9:44am
Location: Surrey

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Chris Jeggo »

A few days ago I received an email from a W Surrey CTC member asking the following question.

"Do you have any suggestions, please, about whom to vote for in the Cycling UK trustee elections? I don't know any of the names on the ballot paper that came with the magazine but I am surprised at how many are not actual members."

I replied as follows.

I do not know any of the candidates either, so I am not in a position to make suggestions as you ask, but I have plenty to say about the election.

The ballot paper reveals that Cycling UK management's disregard for the membership has become blatant.

Firstly, as you observed, half the candidates proposed are not CUK members, in defiance of Resolution 6 (... that candidates must have been fully paid-up members for at least a year ...), which was opposed by the Council but passed by the members at the May CTC AGM.

Secondly, the AGM also passed the Council resolution regarding governance changes. Here (in its entirety) is what the Governance Working Party recommended regarding the election of members to the board of trustees.

"Process for ensuring members wishing to stand for election to a trustee role on the CTC board meet the agreed person specification

"The Nomination Committee shall recommend a Job Description, Person Specification, board skills mix and diversity analysis to the Board. The board is responsible for final approval. All members wishing to stand for election as a trustee shall be invited to submit an application to the Nominations Committee to demonstrate how they meet the person specification.

"If the Nominations Committee feel they need further assurance around a candidate’s suitability they may choose to invite the candidate to take part in an interview, either face to face, telephone or visual electronic media.

"The Nominations will provide a statement on each individual candidate stating whether:
• The candidate meets the person specification, is fully competent to carry out the trustee role and would complement the skill mix on the Board
• The candidate meets the person specification and is fully competent to carry out the trustee role
• The committee has no recommendation to make on the candidate
• The candidate does not meet the person specification and is not recommended for election.

"All candidates shall be entitled to stand for election should they wish following receipt of their statement. The election material will note what statement has been applied to each candidate."

Note that last paragraph. I know of a person who applied to be a trustee and who tried hard to insist that his name be included on the ballot paper. It is not there. One cannot help but think of Russia and China, where they have "free elections", except that if you are not a well-behaved Party member you do not get on to the ballot paper.

The whole thing stinks. Democracy has gone out of the window.

I have heard a rumour that West Surrey CTC at its forthcoming AGM will formally consider ceasing being a CUK member group and converting to a stand-alone cycling club, albeit affiliated to CUK. West Surrey CTC is a club, and it's about touring. The CTC used to be the same, but it is now, as CUK, no longer either. What, now, is the point of belonging to it. There are far cheaper ways of getting third party insurance.
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Philip Benstead »

I HAVE IAN’S PERMISSION TO PUT THIS ON THE FORUM
FROM WHERE CTC SHOULD BE GOING FACEBOOK

Ian Macsporran
1 hr · Northampton
And here is my reply to Martin:
Dear Martin,
Thank you for your e-mail advising me that your panel will now not be considering my complaint.
I note that you will not be entering into correspondence but would ask that both you and "Guilford" note that my complaint is independent of Philip's and that I have not asked anyone to write to you to support it.
I thought it was proper that my complaint was being considered by two councillors / trustees who had no involvement in the original decision.
I would therefore seek an assurance that my complaint will continue to be considered in the same fashion and that my e-mail to you of 7th October will be considered alongside the complaint. If it is not within your remit to give me these assurances, then I hope that Carol (who is copied into this e-mail) or someone within whose remit it falls will do so.
With best wishes,
Ian Macsporran

Ian Macsporran
1 hr · Northampton
The councillors / trustees who were to investigate my complaint (about candidates who have not been members for twelve months being put onto the ballot paper) are no longer doing so. Here's the e-mail from Martin Cockersole:
Dear Ian
I am writing to advise you that Gwenda and I will only be considering Philip’s Benstead’s complaint. All others are being referred to Guildford for attention and will therefore be dealt with separately. The following is an explanation which I have sent to others who have written to me.
Thank you for your email arising from the complaint which has been made by Philip Benstead in relation to the current process for the election of new Trustees.
Philip has misrepresented my role in his social media and direct email communications. I am not Chair of any investigating committee as he suggests, rather one of two Trustees who have been asked to consider the complaint, to decide on the merits of each point raised and make any recommendations we feel appropriate. Neither of us were involved with the work of the Nominations Committee to which the complaint relates. Philip has decided to enlist support within parts of the wider membership by asking people to write to me. This is not appropriate as Gwenda and I will evaluate the issues on their merits and not on the basis of such lobbying. I am not proposing to enter into correspondence on this matter. Instead I will be forwarding all the emails I have received to Guildford and I hope you will understand my reasons for this.
Best wishes
Martin Cockersole
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Philip Benstead »

Who are and where are the Candidate for CTC Election?

I am surprised that of the 31 CTC members excluded from the election process, I only know only three of them.

I would have thought with the conversation on the CTC forum and on Facebook Where the CTC should be going at least some of them would make some kind of comment?
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by mjr »

Philip Benstead wrote:I would have thought with the conversation on the CTC forum and on Facebook Where the CTC should be going at least some of them would make some kind of comment?

Perhaps candidates can't get elected with only active member support any more and what matters is whether they have executive support?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Philip Benstead »

mjr wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:I would have thought with the conversation on the CTC forum and on Facebook Where the CTC should be going at least some of them would make some kind of comment?

Perhaps candidates can't get elected with only active member support any more and what matters is whether they have executive support?


If that is so the CTC is lost to it members it been stolen?
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Psamathe »

mjr wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:I would have thought with the conversation on the CTC forum and on Facebook Where the CTC should be going at least some of them would make some kind of comment?

Perhaps candidates can't get elected with only active member support any more and what matters is whether they have executive support?

Why else have this "Nominations Committee" - presumably to ensure that only those the executive approves of can even stand for election. All pretty well "sewn-up", executive is sure to get its own way with everything when they select who can and cannot be elected. Kim Jong-un would be proud of such a system.

Ian
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Philip Benstead »

I heard that CYCLING UK HQ are going to send around a rebuttal to my communications.

Has anybody got access to one already?
If yes or when you do please post it on here so I can have a look and have an opportunity to refute it statements.
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

Post by Philip Benstead »

DEAR CTC MEMBERS

I understand some of you have not received this.

UPDATE 4 Cycling UK (CTC) PLEASE FORWARD TO CTC MEMBERS – To understand this matter fully please read to the end.
If you have any questions, please contact me (details at the bottom of this email)

CTC Council is to discuss the following

Draft Proposal for the Cycling UK / CTC Board Meeting on Saturday 22nd October 2016

The Board is concerned that the Nomination Committee has exceeded its authority, disregarded the views of members, disregarded decisions made at Cycling UK Board / CTC Council meetings, and not reported to the Board before going ahead with some controversial actions.

1) Despite the large number of votes held by the Chair this year’s AGM voted by a clear majority (55.91% in favour) that all candidates should have been fully paid up members of CTC / Cycling UK for at least a year before nominations closed. This was a clear and unambiguous statement of members’ wishes at an AGM. However the nomination committee chose to ignore this and include six people on the ballot who did not meet this criterion. It is not acceptable for three people to overturn an AGM decision. Despite efforts to build bridges, move on and work together for the good of cycling and our organisation it should be noted that it was clear that members who had not supported the governance proposals would not be welcome on the nomination committee. Thus the current elections are invalid.

2) Consistently Council and Board meetings were reassured that members not endorsed by the nomination committee would be allowed to stand for election leaving members as a whole to make the choice by voting in the ballot. Indeed some members might choose to vote for unendorsed candidates as happens in some building societies and elsewhere. Excluding members from the ballot was not what was intended and is very dangerous. In the future it will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for those who disagree with the CTC / Cycling UK leadership of the day. Thus the current elections are invalid.

3) On many occasions, including recently, CTC Council and Cycling UK’s Board made it clear that elections should be by the transferable vote. The papers have gone out based on “first past the post.” It is certainly not acceptable for a small subcommittee to overturn a decision of Council. Transferable voting is not hard and, anyway, we have arranged for ERS to conduct this election but, critically, “first past the post” goes right against agreed policy. Thus the current elections are invalid.

This is so serious that a shrugging of the shoulders we’ll take steps to get it right next time is not acceptable. We cannot go through next year with a board set up by such an exclusive, undemocratic, unagreed process. The nomination committee have so over reached themselves that we must suspend the current elections and start again.

We should consult ERS on the best way to do this but perhaps:
• A small subcommittee including Barry Flood, Chair of Operations until its abolition, or his nominee to work with ERS.
• Disqualify those on the ballot with insufficient or zero membership.
• Circulate all those with at least twelve months membership who wanted to stand but were not approved to ask if they want to stand as unendorsed candidates.
• Change the voting system to transferable voting as previously agreed.
• If possible re-issue the correct ballot papers and instructions with the December magazine. Otherwise as soon as possible.

Proposed: Jim Brown
Seconded: Barry Flood

HOW CAN YOU HELP?
• Circulate this email to CTC members
• Make a formal complaint in regard to the CTC failure to follow its own rules and guidelines/policy.

Send it to Mr. Paul Tuohy Chief Executive Cyclists' Touring Club paul.tuohy@cyclinguk.org and to cycling@cyclinguk.org

DID THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE DO WHAT WAS GOOD OF THE CTC?

It should be noted that the Nominations Committee state their actions were for the good of CYCLING UK, it of course depends what is consider good. Is upsetting your members good for the wellbeing of CYCLING UK also the legality of their actions can be called in to question. Even though a legal advisor, advised the committee, that was just one opinion. I would suggest a second independent legal opinion may be useful as to the legality of the Nominations Committee actions.

WHO CAN YOU CONTACT TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION OF THE ACTIONS OF THE NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE

Mr. Paul Tuohy Chief Executive Cyclists' Touring Club paul.tuohy@cyclinguk.org and to cycling@cyclinguk.org
Ms. Michelle Barber, Electoral Reform Service michelle.barber@electoralreform.co.uk
Mr. David Cox Chair Board of Trustee Cycling UK (ctc council) david.cox@cyclinguk.org

ALSO contact your LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE on the board of trustee (CTC Councillor)
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... list_0.pdf

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMPLAINT TO THE CTC

Mr. Paul Tuohy
Chief Executive,
Cycling UK (trading name of Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC),
Registered Office: Parklands,
Railton Road, Guildford,
Surrey, GU2 9JX Mr Philip Benstead
19 Greencoat Mansions,
Greencoat Row,
London, SW1P 1PG

Monday, 10 October 2016
SELECTION PROCESS FOR ELECTION TRUSTEESHIP
A FORMAL COMPLAINT - SECTION 5 - PROCEDURE FOR COMPLAINTS AGAINST COUNCILLORS

Dear Mr. Paul Tuohy

I found substantive additional grounds and information that clarify the issues concerning this section process, please accept this updated version of my formal complaint.

I wish to make a formal complaint against the NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE in the execution of their duties of processing the application for trusteeship of the Cycling UK (is a trading name of Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC) a company limited by guarantee, registered in England no: 25185. Registered as a charity in England and Wales charity no: 1147607 and in Scotland charity no: sco42541).

Members in this complaint refers to individuals who are full paid-up members of the organisation whose trading name is CYCLING UK.

My complaint is as follows, comprising seven parts;

1. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow the guidelines laid down in the Governance Working Group - Report and Recommendations - provided at the AGM 2016, voted on by CYCLING UK members and passed.
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... r-2016.pdf

The Guidelines State “All candidates shall be entitled to stand for election should they wish following receipt of their statement. The election material will note what statement has been applied to each candidate”

2. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow to the letter the requirements of the motion below that was passed at the AGM 2016.
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... inutes.pdf

“Elections to Council This AGM proposes that candidates must have been fully paid-up members for least a year prior to the closing date for nominations. Candidates shall state on their election address the date they joined CTC and length of time as members.”

I understand that:
• Six individuals have been selected to stand for election as trustee who have not been members for at least one year, which means they do not meet the criteria and hence it is not valid to select them.

• Non endorsed nominees have not been permitted to stand for election, and hence the selection process is not valid.

3. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow the requirements of Governance Working Group - Report and Recommendations - appendix 6 (terms of reference and other governance papers) - Terms of reference nominations committee. Page 36
Process of recruiting external appointments to the CTC Board
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... r-2016.pdf

That States All recommendations made by the Nominations Committee are subject to final approval by the board.

4. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow the requirements of the Memorandum of Association of the Cyclists’ Touring Club as amended by the AGM on 12 May 2012 –
7 PROCEEDINGS OF THE COUNCIL
7.1 State ……Five or one third of the Council, whichever is the greater, shall form a quorum.
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... ay2012.pdf

5. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow the requirements laid down in the
ORDERS IN COUNCIL and STANDING ORDERS as at 12th May, 2004
That States 6 c Each member of the Club shall have one vote, which is to be cast by showing an order of preference between the candidates, with the most preferred candidate being numbered ‘1’, the next ‘2’, and so on until the member has no further preference between the candidates.

Even though par 6c was delete at the AGM 2016 there was no provision for replacement accordingly that provision for the method voting should stand.

6. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow the requirements laid down in the Charities and meetings (CC48)
The Charity Commission - First published: 1 March 2012 Part of: Managing your charity Applies to: England and Wales
Information about running, planning and recording meetings and what types of meetings a charity can have, Guidance - Charities and meetings
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... tings-cc48

10.2 Potential problems That States at a general meeting the Chair should make it clear to members which decisions (if Minutes That States ……The minutes usually record:
• the precise wording of any resolution together with the name of the proposer and (optionally) the seconder of the motion,
• a summary of the discussion on each item of business,
• information upon which the decision was based,
• details of the decision, i.e. who voted and how and, in the event of an equality of votes, if the Chair used a casting vote,
• the action required,
• the names of the people who are responsible for implementing the decision, ……and
Furthermore, it states …. The commission advise that minutes are drafted as soon as possible after the meeting and circulated promptly. This is particularly important for the minutes of trustees’ meetings in order to avoid delays in implementing decisions.
It also states…. The minutes of a general meeting are usually made available to members (in the case of a charitable company they have to be) but do not have to be made available for public inspection unless the charity’s governing document requires this.

15.7 Minutes That state The commission recommend that charities make the minutes of the AGM available to the public on request: they may charge a reasonable fee to cover the cost of making them available.

7. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow the requirements laid down in the
Memorandum of Association of the Cyclists’ Touring Club as amended by the AGM on 12 May 2012
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... ay2012.pdf
That States 6 POWERS OF THE COUNCIL
6.1 The transaction of the business of the Club and its entire management shall be vested in the Council, who in addition to the powers and authority expressly conferred on them by these Articles may exercise all powers and do all such acts and things as may be exercised and done by the Club and are not hereby or by statute expressly directed or required to be done by the Club in General Meeting.

COMMENT This means that the Council has power to manager things the club does but must follow the law and the wishes of the GENERAL MEETING.

COMMENT That provision overrules the requirement in the charity commission guidance as to where power lies.

Furthermore, 6.2.7 it states to delegate any of their powers to Members or to Committees of Members, and to make such regulations for proceedings of such Committees as may seem expedient;

COMMENT This means that the Council has power to form committees and give them power to do what the council wants them to do but unless state in the term of reference the council did not give the nomination committee power to make up or change the rules.


WHAT DO I WANT TO HAPPEN?
• That the selection process is restarted and that it conforms to the above requirement.

COMMENT
An impartial observer may contend that the NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE are open to a charge of electoral maladministration.
If the NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE proceed with this course of action they are in danger of bringing the Cycling UK and any potential nominees and candidate for trusteeship into the area of reputational risk.

I understand that you are required to respond formally to my complaint.
Yours sincerely

PHILIP BENSTEAD
MEMBERSHIP NUMBER 208840

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Philip Benstead B.Env.Sc. (Hons.) | Cyclists’ Touring Club – FORMER Councilor - South East England
| Mobile: 0794-980-1698 | Email: philipbenstead1@gmail.com
| Westminster, London, SW1
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
Post Reply