Cycling UK Forum

Its all gone very quiet on the forum - no debate about the AGM? Apart from the charity motion (which, going by the last vote will likely be tight - as in close to the 75% threshold) there's also Philip's motions on transparency.

I don't really understand why council supports motion 8 (publication of Council minutes) but opposes motion 9 (publication of council votes) when the latter is not very onerous if you are doing the former?

I'm in favour of the CTC remaining as a broadly based hybrid organisation (both campaigning and also grant accepting through a trust). I am not interested in its becoming a narrowly based club - neither this nor full charitable status in my view fully reflect its role properly.

I agree with this, my primary interest in CTC is its campaigning etc, but there's no reason why a club necessarily has to be narrowly based. That said, as I understand it, serious campaigning charities like Liberty have used a dual structure like CTC's current structure precisely because they are concerned that they couldn't campaign as a charity (but presumably see some benefit having a charitable arm).

While I think much of the work of the CTC charitable trust is surely very fine, I feel quite uncomfortable with a campaigning organisation getting lots of government funding. I was therefore intrigued / unsettled when I came across this website:
http://fakecharities.org/

which seeks to 'out':

"any organisation registered as a UK charity that derives more than 10% of its income—and/or more than £1 million—from the government, while also lobbying the government. That lobbying can take the form of calling for new policies, changes to the law or increases in (their own) funding."

How much did the CTC charitable trust get from government last financial year - is it greater than 1m or 10% of income? Does anybody else feel uncomfortable that the CTC might find itself classed as little better than a QUANGO?

Neal