Cycling UK Forum

swansonj wrote:Is that what you really think - that the things some of us would like changed about CTC are unrelated to the move to a unified charity - or are you just getting carried away a bit and expressing yourself a bit more forcefully than is really the case?

Hmm, a choice between being frightening or worrying....

I think some very valid and perceptive points have been raised, particularly about the ability to understand CTC's activities through the published financial statements. This is why I perceive the change is a good thing. However, I think a large number of points have been raised (and continue to be raised) that are unrelated to the change; they are instead a 'wish list' of what individual members would like their CTC to look like.

Regulator wrote:Our Standing Orders are outdated and refer to committees that no longer exist

I agree

Regulator wrote:we have no proper scheme of delegations in place (that's being created at present)

As you note, this is being addressed and you are one of the key authors.

Regulator wrote:we have decisions being taken outside of Council by a small group of councillors on a commitee that does not formally exist

You'll have to help me with this - I don't recognise this statement.

Regulator wrote: Decisions are also being taken by the Chair which are not properly reported to Council, as they should be.

Again, please could you provide an example rather than an unsubstantiated statement?

Regulator wrote:Papers for meeting are regularly provided at the last minute, not providing time for proper scrutiny and and debate on substantive and serious issues is limited.

I agree there is an issue with the timeliness of papers, but that's not assisted when Councillors due to present on a matter don't attend.

Regulator wrote:Even the report from CASS flags the issues of governance and accountability as matter for concern.

The report doesn't refer to them as a 'matter for concern', it makes reccommendations on how they can be improved. As you and I both know, work on this is progressing (such as the delegations work noted above) though it could go somewhat faster.

Regulator wrote:they have been look at by people whose experience as accountants vastly exceeds yours. They have flagged significant concerns over the accounting procedures and have even gone as far as to say they cannot reconcile the management figures and the audited accounts.

A person. Not people. That person was provided with a full reconciliation of the management accounts to the statutory accounts.

Simon L6 wrote:and not a single reference to the case against other than a bit of Ciceronian dismissal. And certainly no reference to savethectc's little website.

Simon L6 wrote:1. I've always been candid about this - the powers that be want something that we've got, and this is our opportunity to make them put their house in order. I'm exploiting the charity thing - no question about it.

You've answered your own question; there is no cogent 'case against', just a number of things you'd like changed about the CTC which are unrelated to a move to a unified charity.

swansonj wrote:I think one of the issues at the heart of many people's concerns about CTC is actually closely related to accountability - it is the sense that the powers-that-be in CTC are running the organisation for the sake of the organisation (and for the prestige that goes with running a bigger organisation, handling bigger budgets, managing more staff, playing the lobbying game in a higher league) rather than being accountable to members.

Ah, I think we're looking through different ends of the telescope. If you dive into the link below and start digging around you'll find enormous quanities of information produced by CTC staff, councillors, and independent experts on the subject of the proposed unification. It contains, in honesty, far more detail than I think most private sector organisations would disclose.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5398

The Mechanic wrote:it is along the lines "please put your cross in the right place so we can become a charity". My understanding of ballots is that there should be a clear choice on the ballot paper and not a thinly veiled direction from those issuing the paper on how we should vote.

That's incorrect. The ballot paper says;

"At the CTC AGM in May, Motion 8 was carried. A petition from some members means that the members of the Club are now being asked to vote to either confirm or reverse that decision"

...

"Motion 8 Proposed by B Flood on behalf of the Council, seconded by A Spurr.

This AGM agrees that Cyclists' Touring Club should be registered as a charity and merge with CTC Charitable Trust to form a single, unified membership organisation with charitable status"

It's not a thinly-veiled direction. A majority of members voted in favour of the motion, passing it at the AGM. Members are now being asked either to accept or reject that decision, which at the moment still stands as the wish of both Council and the membership (the motion having been passed).

Jonty wrote:reduce duplication

Yes; we have two processes in place for many activities at the momet, which would be obviated under a unified structure.

Jonty wrote:reduce costs

Personally, I wouldn't see this as too much of an issue - the resources of the organisation and its cost base remain the same, but at the margin because of the reduced process duplication we gain at least something.

Jonty wrote:produce a more streamlined structure

Absolutely - with one charitable organisation at the core we remove the need for two sets of administration on every item of accounting and legal compliance, audit, bank charges, payroll, accounts...

Jonty wrote:provide more opportunities to win Gift Aid

Yes - and the sums involved could make a real difference to the CTC's activities we call care about.

Jonty wrote:create a structure which would be more responsive to increased accountability and transparency.

Yes - the organisation has good accountability at the moment (as this debate demonstrates), but the Charity Commission will have oversight of the entire organisation. As regards transparency, much of the obfuscation currently being experienced (created?) by Save the CTC seems to arise from the fact that we file accounts in two formats for the Club and Trust, and that therefore payments made between the two organisations are misunderstood. Heck, see here http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/About_Us/Further_financial_extracts_April2010.doc for a couple of dozen pages on the matter - quite neatly demonstrating the improvements in transparency and efficiency that could be gained.

Jonty wrote:Is that a fair summary?
jonty

I think so.

Jonty wrote:You consider however that these deficiences would be better addressed and resolved under the new proposed structure rather than the existing one. Why do you say this?

Jonty wrote: in my experience any structure can be made to work if there's a will to make it work and if you have right people and the right ethos.

Hi Jonty,

I'm aware I'm not John, but I thought I'd respond to your thoughtful post.

I think many of the issues raised by Save the CTC about the organisation are a canard as far as unification is concerned; you yourself have noted the principle benefits are administrative and financial. Few if any of the 'drawbacks' cited by Save the CTC relate specifically to a change in structure, but are instead criticisms of the way CTC operates regardless of structure.

For me, the CTC is hampered by a split structure. This shows up at most levels - in Council where we have Trustees for the charity side, in National Office where we have individuals sitting alongside each other but working for two different organisations, and in the accounts where we have to publish under two presentation formats.

Therefore, my principle basis for supporting a single, unified structure is that it removes many of the dual processes and structures currently in place, and makes the organisation easier to run and easier to understand (both internally and externally). I absolutely agree that any structure can be made to work, and I think the growth (membership, income, staff) and success of the CTC in recent years attests to this. That's no reason for continuing to be hobbled by the current structure.

Simon L6 wrote:I was shocked. Gobsmacked.

Please. I know it's pantomime season but the discussion will proceed a lot better without the histrionics.

Simon L6 wrote:Architectural practices used to run by comparing the money that came in each month with the money that went out. And then the hard time came and a lot of them went skint - so those that survived decided to record how much was spent on each job, and how it was spent in order that they could price the next job properly and get out of those jobs that were not making money. Simples, I hear 99% of the people reading this say - we fill in timesheets, it's not difficult..........

I'd have chosen law firms as an example of resource recording as a fine art. However, both architects and law firms rely on billing clients by the hour for open-ended work - it's the core of their business. I don't know how CTC members would react to getting a subscription rate that reflected their usage of various CTC services (minutes spent on the 'phone to CTC, hours spent on the forum etc).

If staff are assigned to a particular piece of externally-funded work, their time spent on that contract is monitored - so there is adequate oversight of the issue that concerns you. To suggest staff should complete timesheets is to impose an entirely unwarranted piece of bureaucracy on an organisation that patently doesn't require it.

There's a full breakdown of the supporting data on staff costs here for anyone that would like to take a look (in particular the second table);

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5363

Simon L6 wrote:I think, Si, a valuable point was made - one which had slipped my mind. The CTC Council commissioned independent advice on the tax position. The vast majority of the members have never seen the unedited version of that advice - the one that Council decided quite deliberately not to publish.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The report on the tax position was originally commissioned for the use of Council, and thus contained one section relating to enagement with the Inland Revenue to optimise the outcome for the CTC. As I'm sure you can imagine, publishing that section might be counterproductive in such discussions, so it was redacted from the publicly available copy. No conspiracy theory, no smoking gun, and indeed for that matter nothing to do with the current club / charity vote either.

For the purposes of transparency, I think it was originally me who noted the section had been included in the report circulated to Council and therefore suggested it be removed.

Simon Connell
Financial Advisor to Council

Simon L6 wrote:1. If you look at the list of things that the CTC members consider to be important they're not that expensive. The insurance, the mag, the website, the legal advice.

This is becoming a bit of a stuck record - all the survey data shows the membership as a whole values all the elements of the proposition. Are you suggesting people would jettison:

The campaigning?
The touring service?
Chris Juden / technical support?
The magazine?
Access to member groups ?
...?

Simon L6 wrote:A new rival just wouldn't bother doing it any other way than electronically.

Perversely, I almost agree with you. Just look at how an entirely 'virtual' group like LFGSS has grown up, and yet spawned weekly events, rides, bike polo etc. However, I think much of the value in what we offer is that CTC is not structured to 'crowdsource' - and as a result we are a respected stakeholder to represent the interests of cycling to government (locally and nationally) and other decision-making bodies. We have the resources to fund the required infrastructure to support the organisation, and the financial strength to offer things like legal aid support as mentioned before.

Simon L6 wrote:3. Yes. Some people join cycling organisations because of the campaigning and the good works - but the good works didn't figure in the top ten reasons for joining offered by CTC members, and campaigning wasn't that high on the list.

Please could you give a source for this assertion, because it doesn't square with my understanding.

Simon L6 wrote:Put it another way - the replacement cost of the 'must-have' items that are included within the affiliated membership is about four quid.

But they're only 'must have' items in your view - some members probably don't want them, and others consider additional CTC services 'must have'.

Simon L6 wrote:There's an admin cost for membership which is about another four quid... [which] could be improved on.

If you really believe that to be the case, please let me know how (call me, PM me, e-mail me or post here) because I'd be interested to know how we can deliver the quality of services members want at a lower price. Based on what I heard of a discussion at the last Management Committee, the average interaction time between a member and the call centre is one or two orders of magnitude higher than the commercial average - because members want an in-depth interaction. That costs more than script-based processing run from a call centre in the subcontinent.

Simon L6 wrote:Goodbye campaigning, goodbye good works.

Goodbye to a fair portion of the membership....

thirdcrank wrote:

Simon L6 wrote:[... I can't believe that the cost of the helpline is anything much - other firms beside RJW offer a similar service for free....

Although I've never managed to get anybody to explain to me the details, from my reading of the CTC accounts, the Accident Line actually makes money for the CTC.

...

(As I've said when I've posted on similar lines before, this is my understanding of how it works.)

* I'm Simon, CTC's Independent Financial Advisor and Chair of Investments Committee*

CTC doesn't make a profit on the legal aid scheme - in effecte it's an insurance scheme. The scheme is funded by a sum charged on each case that RJW handles (billed to the defendant, not to the CTC member). Ove time, these contributions allow the scheme to pay the costs of those cases where the member does not win.

Currently this premium is ring-fenced for this purpose. However, because of RJW's strong performance in the cases they take on, the accumulated premiums are growing faster than the expected draw-down rate for lost cases. If this continues, CTC has the ability to re-allocate some of the premium for other purposes.

andun84 wrote:Here is the guidance:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/eim21667a.htm

"The exemption for certain loaned cycles will be prevented from applying if any agreement builds in from the outset an automatic transfer of ownership to the employee at the end of a loan or hire period"

Well that's my idea done for...

This is interesting:

"this approach cannot be used for expensive specialist cycles that have been individually hand built to order"

Overall a bit of a stinker, and I'll be interested to see how the likes of Halfords, who make plenty of money from the scheme, propose to get around the restrictions in order to maintain the viability of the scheme.

I need to read the detailed guidance so the below should be taken with a pinch of salt:

Under the current arrangement, the employee opts for a salary sacrifice equivalent to the gross value of the bicycle, which is a net asset to the employer. The employer then enters into a contract to purchase a bicycle for the value of the salary sacrifice, creating a matching liability. Because of the salary sacrifice, the impact upon the employee is net of taxation.

At the end of the scheme, the employer is the owner of the asset (bicycle) because they purchased it. The employee is in posession of the bike (and has nominally paid for it), giving rise to the current situation whereby the employee makes a nominal contribution to the employer to secure perpetual ownership of the bicycle.

Where the scheme now changes is that the 'market value' of the bicycle must change hands at the end of the scheme. However, I'm wondering if a structure could be created within the rules of the scheme such that the difference between the purchase price and 'market value' after 12 months is paid by the employee on a monthly basis (and subject to the current CTW tax benefits), followed by a transfer of market value by the employee at the end of the scheme to meet their obligation to their employer, and close out the residual liability held by the employer.

This approach addresses what seems to be the criticism of the revised approach, which is that henceforth the employee basically has no economic incentive (other than no financing costs) for participating in the scheme.

Karen Sutton wrote:The way I see it, is that Motions 8 & 9 were not passed by those members were in favour of Charity conversion, but by those who couldn't be bothered to decide, and left it up to the Chair to decide for them. So passing those motions is not actually a mandate from the members to go ahead. The only way to get a true picture is to look at the votes from those who actually decided for themselves; that is those who were at the meeting and those who actually indicated which way they wanted to vote on their proxy papers. Simon, do you or Greg have those figures? it would be interesting to see the numbers without the discretionary votes added.

I was there until the start of the debate of Motion 8. Unfortunately I had to leave at that point, so missed the actual voting on the last 3 motions.

So does this result actually mean Council can convert the Club to a Charity, but cannot merge it with the Trust?

Karen,

I think that's a little disingenuous - the same as claiming that those who gave John Meudell, Greg Price, Simon Legg or Helen Vecht a discretionary vote also "couldn't be bothered to decide". I think it was clear which way the wind was blowing for those giving discretion to the Chair (for), or to one of the above names (against), but that it allowed more flexibility in ceding to amendments agreed on the day.

Motion 8 garnered substantive debate (I think the running tally was 16 speakers, plus right of reply from proposer and seconder). Motion 9 went through without any real comment. Motion 10 again stirred up a bit of discussion but still little compared to 8.

I think the outcome means that steps can be made toward conversion, but that the CTC only has the existing Mem & Arts to share with the Charity Commission, who would probably reject it. Therefore it'll an EGM, or 2011 AGM, before further progress can be made.