CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

[Philip Benstead]

ANOTHER ELECTION COMPLAINT


Philip –

Further to my copying to you my complaint to CUK about what appears to me to be misconduct on the part of the nominations committee; please see below a response from CUK, received this morning.

You can use this, but not my name or identity please.

I have also copied to my elected Councillor. Please don’t make reference to name

Kind regards, and keep cycling,
xxx

________________________________________
From: David Murray
To: xxxxx

Subject: RE: CUK elections.

Dear xxx

I am writing to confirm safe receipt of your complaint. I will pass this email onto our Board’s Nominations Committee, as well as ensuring that the complaint itself is in hand.

Best wishes

David Murray
Head of Communications and Campaigns
Cycling UK
Direct Line: 01483 238327
Mobile: 07786 320713
Main Line: 0844 736 8450

[JohnW]

I've heard nothing further from CUK.

[Philip Benstead]

Philip

Your Complaint

We are writing to respond to the complaint set out in ‘updated’ form in your letter dated 29 September but delivered by email to Dan Howard, copied to the whole board of trustees, on 30 September (timed at 11.05) and elaborated in subsequent emails.

As you know, Martin Cockersole and I have agreed to hear your complaint as the panel of serving trustees required under the Procedure for Complaints against Councillors. In that capacity we are required to:

(i) consider your complaint, and

(ii) respond in writing.

You have detailed your complaint in your emails and we are satisfied that we understand the seven key components of that complaint. We respond to each in turn below.

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.
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”

While the draft Terms of Reference for the Nominations Committee included in the report of the Governance Working Group that was approved by the AGM included the above statement, the final version of the Terms of Reference approved by the Trustees did not.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT The AGM does not matter you just make up the rules as you go along.

The final Terms of Reference are substantially in the same form as the draft approved by the members – and are consistent with the recommendations of the Governance Review - but in finalising them the Trustees decided that the Terms of Reference should not include detailed guidelines on the process by which the Committee’s recommendations should be implemented.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT So the term of reference did not give permission for the nomination committee to make up new rules.

As such, the decision of the Committee was not inconsistent with the Terms of Reference under which it operated.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT Prove it.

We recognise that you, and perhaps other candidates for the board of trustees, believed that you would be able to stand for election whether or not you were approved by the Nominations Committee. Some of the early conversations of the Governance Working Group and the Trustees raised that possibility though those conversations were not, so far as we can determine, conclusive.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT That is untrue, it was stated at the AGM and at Council meetings my Martin that that anybody could stand, he was not corrected by the Chair, CEO or Solicitor

In the event, the Nominations Committee were called upon to decide how to proceed in circumstances where:

(a) there was an urgency to reach a decision in order to ensure that the ballot papers could be finalised in time for the copy deadline for the relevant issue of Cycle magazine,

(b) there was an unusually high number of well qualified applicants for the two elected trustee positions – 50 of them - with the result that allowing all candidates to be placed on the ballot would have been impractical. A ballot paper listing 50 candidates (or even 35 – see below) would have been confusing and it is likely that being asked to consider 35-50 applicants would have deterred some members from voting; and

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT I suggest the committee was disorganised you had plenty of time to do it.

(c) importantly, the Terms of Reference approved by Trustees, to which they were working, did not address this issue so the committee did not believe themselves bound to place all candidates on the ballot.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT There was a governance document and statements made at the AGM and at council meetings.

2. That NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE failed to follow to the letter the requirements of the motion below that was passed at the AGM 2016.

“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.
The Nominations Committee could have invited the board of Trustees to co-opt the new trustees rather than recommending they were put forward for election by the members.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT Yes, they could have done that but I can’t believe of the 35 nominee that are CTC members there would been enough suitable candidates.

The governance structure approved at the AGM requires that at least 9 of the 12 trustees should be elected by the members.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT It does not say that in the article of association.

That requirement is met by the 9 standing trustees. The trustees are free to co-opt the Senior Independent Trustee and 2 trustees to fill the remaining vacancies.
However, the committee felt strongly that the members should be given the opportunity to choose the trustees. The committee also felt that the members should have the opportunity to select from the best of the candidates considered by the committee. The reasoning of the committee is reflected in the statement on the ballot paper which made clear to members that some of the candidates were non-members so that members could, if they wish, choose to select their two chosen candidates for ordinary trustees from among the four candidates for that role who had been members for over 12 months.
(The Governance Review recommendations approved at the AGM explicitly stated that the Senior Independent Trustee could be a non-member at the point s/he was selected, but would be expected to join before taking up the post.)
If members wish to vote for people who have been members for more than 12 months, they can do so – and will still have a choice of excellent candidates.

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.
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.

The requirement for approval by the board of Trustees relates, as you state, to external appointments to the board. It does not apply to elections to the board where the ultimate decision is the members rather than the Trustees.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT The nomination committee authority actions are listed in the Article of Association and hence it is the election that give approval to the candidate

All trustee are appointed by the board following the election by the nitrite of the CTC being a charity. All nominee that are not CTC members are external.

The process by which the candidates were chosen to be put forward for election was approved in outline by the board of Trustees and implemented with the assistance of the charity’s HR adviser and legal adviser. Even then, the committee might have sought the advice of the Trustees were it not for the short time-scale available to make a decision in time for the copy deadline for Cycle (a time-line approved by the Trustees).


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

We can confirm, having consulted the charity’s legal adviser that this quorum requirement relates to decisions of the full board of Trustees and does not apply to the Nominations Committee.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT A committee is part of the council.

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.

This issue was carefully considered by the Nominations Committee and was also discussed with ERS (the Electoral Reform Society). The committee agreed that in the best interests of the charity and with the intention of encouraging participation and engagement, the first past the post system should be used.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT What did the ERS say?

In reaching this conclusion, the committee were conscious that the use of the transferable voting system had fallen into disuse although the resolution you refer to remains in force. That resolution was passed some years ago but the first past the post system has in fact been used in several recent elections. As such, the committee were faced with the possibility that whichever approach they adopted would prompt complaints from members. They were also conscious of the additional effort that would be involved in operating a transferrable vote system, the risk that the additional effort (however small) would deter members from voting and the fact that the results of using the transferable vote system was unlikely to differ from using the first past the post system in the context of Cycling UK. (Comparisons conducted using past elections have shown that either system would have produced the same result.) We can not know how votes will be distributed on this occasion but the committee took the view that increasing member participation would produce a more robust mandate for new Trustees.

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.

This is something of a ‘catch all’ complaint. You do not specify your concern about the conduct of the charity’s meeting - or even which meeting(s) this complaint relates to. In relation to that wider issue, we observe that the charity’s legal adviser is generally asked to attend meetings at which contentious resolutions are to be considered. He is then available to provide guidance on procedural questions and respond to any specific concerns as and when they are raised.

The core of your complaint appears to be that the AGM minutes are not made available to members. We have considered this and can confirm that:

(i) the results of the meeting are made available to members in the form of a summary report, including the results of any formal resolutions, during the week following the AGM. This took place in 2016 and you can see the report online at: http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... esults.pdf

(ii) the minutes are then published in Cycle magazine together with the papers for the following AGM, at which they are formally approved by the members of the charity.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT That is almost a year after, can you remembers what happen a year ago.

The minutes of Trustee meetings are published more quickly since they may include decisions which need to be acted upon. Again the draft minutes are formally approved at the following meeting but a report of key decisions is made available to members more quickly.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT Detail please, the minutes are kept secret, publish them sooner.

The procedure by which Trustee meetings are carried out including the production of minutes is refined on an on-going basis in response to comments from Trustees (who are invited to provide feedback after every meeting) and advice from external professionals.

We appreciate that you would like to see minutes published to a different time-table. Resolutions relating to the publication of the minutes of board meetings and the AGM respectively were put to the 2016 AGM (and the latter was seconded by you). However, neither resolution was passed by the charity’s members and this is not the right forum to reconsider that issue.


7. 1. 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.

This complaint essentially states in general terms the concern underlying your six earlier complaints, namely that the Nominations Committee and the Board of Trustees must act within the scope of the authority conferred on them by the articles of association of the charity, the Terms of Reference of committees, and any specific resolutions of the members.

We agree that:

(i) the scope of the Nominations Committee’s role is determined by the Terms of Reference approved by the Board of Trustees, and

(ii) while the Trustees are ultimately responsible for the governance of the charity, they must remember that some decisions, such as decisions to alter the constitution of the charity, fall to be made by the members of the charity.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT What does fall mean in this context?

We are satisfied that the Nominations Committee sought conscientiously to work within this legal framework.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT You have not mention the power of the General Meeting you have not worked within the legal, moral or ethical framework of the CTC Code of conduct.

Your other comments

For completeness we also respond to your two comments about the process.

We accept that this complaint, like any complaint about electoral processes, raises the possibility of reputational damage. That is unavoidable. The charity is committed to dealing consistently and transparently with complaints and the trustees continue to believe it is important to do so.

We do not believe your comment referring to ‘electoral maladministration’ is justified for the reasons set out above.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT Your failure to recognise that point show the degree that some members of council are divorce itself from the man on Clapham omnibus.

Conclusion

The Nominations Committee had to make difficult decisions about how best to comply with the requirements of the AGM resolutions and complete the election process in the best interests of the charity as a whole.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT Define best, you have created an atmosphere of distrust in the organisation which will reduce standing in the community.

The approach that you have proposed would involve presenting members with a ballot listing 35 members, some of which did not meet the stated requirements for the role, which would have been confusing for members and likely to deter some from voting.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT Governance committee should have foreseen that and could have suggested that the one who were not endorse were informed and invited to stand down. The actual number standing would have been much reduced.

We are satisfied that the members of the Nominations Committee made their decision in good faith, with the benefit of advice from the charity’s professional advisers, and always with the wider best interests of the charity in mind.

Therefore your complaint is not upheld.




Next Steps

You have made clear what you would like to happen, namely: ‘That the selection process is restarted and that it conforms to the above requirement.’
We believe that this issue is something which should be determined by the board of trustees as a whole. That will happen at the next meeting of the trustees since the October meeting will deal with two relevant agenda items:

(i) following a suggestion by members of the Nominations Committee, the board will hear a summary of the lessons learned from the first use of the Nominations Committee and the governance issues which arose from it, and

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT When is it going to be published.

(ii) Jim Brown and Barry Flood have raised a specific resolution, with which you will be familiar.

We also propose to invite the board of trustees to endorse this response to your complaint as its final written ruling on the issue.

PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT The endorsement should have been done before the commencement of the election, any endorsement done after is not valid.

We appreciate that you may be disappointed by our findings and the fact that your application to stand for election to the board of trustees was not successful on this occasion. That does not, of course, prevent you from contributing to the work of Cycling UK in other ways – and we hope you will choose to do so.

Gwenda Owen and Martin Cockersole


PHILIP BENSTEAD COMMENT

This how far the CYCLING UK have gone down the road to divorce itself from its members wishes and its own rules. As somebody said elsewhere if the CYCLING UK survive it will not in any way like the CTC. IMHO the Council has divorce itself from its members.

I meet an ex member of CTC staff today, they said the CTC Council should not involve itself with members it is a flawed model. That say it all.

[Psamathe]

Philip, the response and I guess has some comments of yours added is impossible to tell what is the response and what are your comments. You need to use formatting to make it readable. I gave up reading as I just could not work out who was saying what.

Ian

[Philip Benstead]

lines that start with PJB are mine

[PH]

I gave up reading as I just could not work out who was saying what.
Ian

Me too, though I then just skipped to the predictable conclusion.

[Philip Benstead]

From: Philip Benstead <philipbenstead1@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 18 October, 2016 7:36 PM
To: Mr. Philip Benstead
Subject: Fwd: RE: Cyclists' Touring Club - 1147607 CRM:0207342

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "FC Do Not Reply (Queue)" <donotreply@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk>
Date: 18 Oct 2016 12:54
Subject: RE: Cyclists' Touring Club - 1147607 CRM:0207342
To: "philipbenstead1@gmail.com" <philipbenstead1@gmail.com>
Cc:

Dear Mr Benstead
Thank you for contacting us recently and raising your concerns about Cyclists’ Touring Club.
We note that you have made a formal complaint to the trustees about the process for
nominations not being followed.
We would advise that any nominations and appointments for trustees must be made in
accordance with the requirements of the charity’s governing document, Memorandum &
Articles of Association dated 17 May 2012, and not guidelines laid down in the Governance
Working Group.
There is no evidence in your email to suggest that the trustees have not followed the procedure
set out in the governing document. If you are not satisfied this procedure has been followed,
you need to raise this with the trustees directly.
Thank you again for contacting us.
Yours sincerely
Debbie Fleming
Charity Commission – Permissions and Compliance

------------------- Original Message -------------------
From: philipbenstead1@gmail.com
Received:
To: FC Email Team (Queue)
Subject: Cyclists' Touring Club - 1147607

Raising concerns about a charity Submitted: 27/09/2016 11:55:56
Charity name
Cyclists? Touring Club

Identify which of the below best represents the concerns that you wish to report:
Serious non-compliance in a charity that damages or has the potential to damage its reputation
and/or the reputation of charities generally

Do you have evidence of this?
Yes

Please provide a summary of the evidence
SELECTION PROCESS FOR ELECTION TRUSTEESHIP
A FORMAL COMPLAINT - SECTION 5 - PROCEDURE FOR COMPLAINTS AGAINST
COUNCILLORS

Dear Mr Dan Howard
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 two 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.
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.
?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.

Please set out any additional facts and information about the serious issue that you wish to
report
GOVERNANCE WORKING GROUP - REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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.

Details of attempts you have made to get the charity to address this issue. Please provide
details of when you reported this issue to the charity and the outcome:
Have complained via email , my comments are dismissed out of hand

Your name
Philip Benstead

Your email address
philipbenstead1@gmail.com

Your telephone number
07949801698

Your relationship to charity/organisation
former trustee and member

I hereby declare that the information I have provided is true to the best of my knowledge
and belief
True

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the sender and delete the original message from your system.

[JohnW]

Does anyone know the name of the chairman, and of the person who took the chair at the Annual Meeting in 2014 - the one at which the final decision was made to become a charity?

I think it was 2014, and if my memory serves me correctly the 'Chairman' couldn't take the chair. Please do correct me if any or all of that is wrong.

[Philip Benstead]

Does anyone know the name of the chairman, and of the person who took the chair at the Annual Meeting in 2014 - the one at which the final decision was made to become a charity?

I think it was 2014, and if my memory serves me correctly the 'Chairman' couldn't take the chair. Please do correct me if any or all of that is wrong.

CTC AGM 2010 was where the principal to become a charity was sealed. the Chair was David Robinson (deceased)

CTC AGM 2012 Chair was David Cox
http://www.cyclinguk.org/about/cycling- ... o-on-board
Contact List
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... ctlist.pdf

Agenda 2012 Chair was David Cox

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/335 ... inutes.pdf
Voting Results 2012
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/335 ... sagm12.pdf

CTC AGM 2013 Chair was David Cox

Agenda 2013
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/335 ... inutes.pdf
Voting Results 2012
http://www.cyclinguk.org/news/2012-05-1 ... gm-results

CTC AGM 2014 Chair was David Cox

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/335 ... enda_0.pdf

CTC AGM 2015 Chair was David Cox

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/335 ... enda_1.pdf

[Philip Benstead]

What are your views on cuk reply to my complaint?

[Philip Benstead]

Motion to overturn the ctc election failed 9 to 5 . Say goodbye to membership lead organisation. Also any motion at the agm can be ignored.

[JohnW]

That was predictable Philip. I don't know what the chair's or the Council's (or is it board of (don't) trustees?) is.

It seems to me that the chair has systematically destroyed something which was good, and now bailed out..................to laugh from afar? Why has he done it? I'm sure that everything was and is legal, but I see no honour or decency. I see nothing to be proud of - but I sincerely hope that it's not all destruction, and that CUK can rise like a phoenix from the ashes - but I'm not holding my breath.

Deliberately and knowingly to ignore an AGM's resolution is a nail in the coffin of any organisation. The chair's use of votes vested in him show that he was not in favour of the decision made by the AGM - why has the decision been ignored or countermined? - is it just simply spite from person or persons who can't cope with not having their own way?

[fionat]

I was surprised to see non-members on the ballot paper.

I am a member of another membership organisation - we have a similar process with a NomCo filtering applications and endorsing or not, but no-one is prevented from standing should they wish to do so. However, the electorate are informed which candidates the NomCo have found to be meeting the criteria.

We have published 'Rules' for elections (referred to in the AoA, but separate from them), which (for us) include the criteria that candidates need to have been full members for 12 months prior to standing, as well as the details of how the election should be run. This is good governance - it should not be made up on the hoof.

CTC/CUK is undergoing a period of change, and these things do take time to tweak and get right. It sounds like there needs to be 'lessons learned' from this election to ensure that future elections are operated according to agreed criteria.

If it's any comfort, I took membership into account when casting my votes, and I would be think most members would do the same.

[Philip Benstead]

I was surprised to see non-members on the ballot paper.

I am a member of another membership organisation - we have a similar process with a NomCo filtering applications and endorsing or not, but no-one is prevented from standing should they wish to do so. However, the electorate are informed which candidates the NomCo have found to be meeting the criteria.

We have published 'Rules' for elections (referred to in the AoA, but separate from them), which (for us) include the criteria that candidates need to have been full members for 12 months prior to standing, as well as the details of how the election should be run. This is good governance - it should not be made up on the hoof.

CTC/CUK is undergoing a period of change, and these things do take time to tweak and get right. It sounds like there needs to be 'lessons learned' from this election to ensure that future elections are operated according to agreed criteria.

If it's any comfort, I took membership into account when casting my votes, and I would be think most members would do the same.

was the other organizations the national trust by any other chance?

[fionat]

was the other organizations the national trust by any other chance?

No. But it has also recently undergone a rebrand and governance review, so many of the issues and concerns voiced here are sounding familiar

I can't find the AoA on the website - do you have a link please?