Cycling UK Forum

Since 10 November 2017, when Gaz kindly detailed the number of votes cast for the four successful candidates for CUK trusteeship, interest in this topic instantly evaporated. I'm sure that there will be well-informed followers on this forum, who will be able to enlighten me. Could somebody please direct me to the complete voting figures for the trustee elections, not just the bald number of votes cast for the four successful candidates?

They must be publicly available somewhere, but I have not been able to unearth them and have had no response from the ERS, who I believe managed the election. I would be most grateful for any help in tracking down these complete voting statistics, which I imagine are not confidential.

I do hope that this topic is not time-expired.

Many thanks.

Councillor Election Results for SE England

Censored by the CTC

Dear Fellow Cyclists,

With the last issue of Cycle some of us received voting papers for 3 trustee councillors to represent, not Members, but the interests of the charity known as the CTC, in SE England (excluding London) from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2018. After voting had closed, I searched in vain on the CTC website for the results. I therefore started a thread on the CTC Forum asking for news of the results. Phil Benstead was kind enough to reply and gave the results. The outcome is pretty dire. Throughout the whole of SE England, 170 valid ballot papers were received which is 1.83% of eligible voters. He provided a copy of the CTC Returning Officer's Report. I was intending to put a link to this on our club website.

When I tried, I found that, without explanation, the CTC had censored the thread that I had put on the Forum and deleted it, including Phil's reply. It does not now exist. You will not find it. Why? What is so intensely secret about election results? Why must we wait the ludicrously long period of two months for the rubber stamp of the CTC Council before results may be announced in the bi-monthly issue of Cycle magazine? Why not on the website? Why not in CycleClips? Why not NOW? There seems to be no rational reason. The provisional results could be announced, subject to ratification by a full meeting of the Council. Or does the Chairman insist on wielding the authority to overturn a democratic result, however derisory the turnout? For how long do most democracies withold election results?

This post may not survive the cutting room scissors long enough for you to read it.

The odds seem heavily stacked against survival.

Many thanks, Gaz. Most grateful. Couldn't do that on my own!

We have now received our proxy voting form for the CTC AGM to be held on 18 July 2015. I had to retrieve mine from the waste paper basket, where it was put with the covering junk mail offering private medical insurance. We do now have the option of voting online, but you may not realise that if you have inadvertantly binned the voting form, which also contains the url and your security code. Have I overlooked any reference to online voting in this issue of Cycle?

Motion 2 asks members 'to adopt the Annual Report of the Council and audited accounts for 2013/14'. You have to read page 17 of Cycle to discover that these documents are 'as published on the CTC website'.

I have searched on the website, but without success.

I would be grateful if somebody could direct me to the location of these essential documents, without which no member will be in a position to make an informed vote. Our only option will be to abstain.

I wonder how many will vote 'for', or leave blank, in ignorance?

I believe that the next meeting of the CTC National Council is in 2/3 days time, this Saturday, 21 January 2012. No doubt the implications for the CTC of the rejection of its application for registration as a charity in England and Wales will be on the agenda. We read on the website that:

"Agendas for all meetings will appear on the website one week before the meeting....."

I have looked in vain for an agenda at: http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5535

Is it there? If not, where is it please?

Arising from Mr Mayne's comments on 29 October, do we begin to get a glimmer of another major problem? It was hinted at in his first statement: " We are going to take some additional advice about the best way forward, including how we handle the different approaches taken by the Scottish and English regulators".

We now have the astonishing and, insofar as I am aware, hitherto undisclosed claim that, following its registration in Scotland, the CTC Club in England and Wales "is now required to ensure that the Club is solely charitable in purpose, regardless of where in the UK it operates". In other words, despite rejection of the CTC's application by the Charity Commission, the Club is now, to all intents and purposes a charity, because of its registration in Scotland, and subject to Scottish law.

I am no lawer, but this claim requires some legal clarification to the membership. Is this really true? An application for charitable status in England and Wales is made to the Charity Commission and rejected. However, an application by that same organisation not a charity, made to the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR), is accepted, which de facto makes the CTC Club a charity in England and Wales; in Mr Mayne's words: "required to ensure that its purpose is solely charitable".

Charitable status is denied by the CC in England and Wales, but accepted by the OSCR in Scotland. What monster has been born of this unholy congress?

Can somebody pleade explain the Charity Commission's guidance on 'English and Welsh charities working in Scotland'? Under the heading 'Can Scottish charities register with the Charity Commission as well?' the guidance states: "No. A Scottish charity is one that is set up under Scots law and registered with OSCR. This means that we cannot register Scottish charities. We can only register charities that are established under the law in England and Walesa and so are subject to our jurisdiction'.

By the definition above, it would seem that, if the this charity was set up under Scots law and registered with OSCR, the CTC is now a Scottish charity. Was it set up under Scots law? If registration as a charity in England and Wales had been obtained first, perhaps there would be no problem.

As for the Charity Commission's letter of rejection, that I would expect to be a reasoned justification of its decision, not a negotiating stance. In the light of the present ambiguity of the CTC's constitutional status, it is now even more crucial that members see what the CC letter says.

For those with more than a passing interest, here are two links, one to the Charity Commission and one to the CTC entry (29 August 2011) on the OSCR register of charities. I'm sure that there must be some very good reason why the CTC's gross income is recorded as £0 and that of the CTC Charitable Trust as £4,535,101.

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/Charity_requirements_guidance/Your_charitys_activities/Working_internationally/working_in_scotland.aspx

http://www.oscr.org.uk/search-charity-register/charity-extract/?charitynumber=SC042541

There does seem to be a puzzling and obdurate refusal to be open with members that is corrosive of trust and confidence in what is being done in their name. It is so unnecessary.

I apologise for the length of this post and for my legal naivety. I am just trying to understand.

Thanks Phil.
How much more does Mr Mayne's second statement tell us?

1. The proposed Memorandum & Articles of Association are "out of step with modern practice".

I infer that the Charity Commissioners are demanding far greater changes to the CTC's proposed constitution, to give dominance to charitable activities.

2. The 'old' i.e. current website, does not "accurately present the charitable nature of our work".

Perhaps that is because it is not essentially charitable. It reflects and promotes the interests, needs and concerns ot members, not the greater public benefit of cycling to society. In other words, we have a Club, whose purpose is to promote and support the interests of its membership. It looks like a club; it sounds like a club.... It is not a charity. Therefore, the application is rejected.

If I am drawing the wrong conclusions from the Chief Executive's two rather insubstantial statements, I am happy to be enlightened by the publication in full of the Commissioners' rejection letter.

The application submitted on behalf of members to the Commission, we have not seen. The ensuing letter of rejection, we have not seen. In the absence of these two crucial urtexts, the two major issues that emerge we may deduce to be:

i) The Memorandum & Articles of Association need to be rewritten to make the charitable aims dominant.
ii) The website does not reflect the image of a charity, but a club.

If the Constitution (M&As), agreed at the AGM, is to be rewritten, it will have to be resubmitted for approval by members at an AGM/EGM.

Who knows when, and at what further significant cost, the 'old' website will be replaced, in order to reflect the 'new' objectives required by the Charity Commissioners? The present one reflects the objectives, activities and interests of a members' club - which is what it is.

Mr Mayne's statement also refers to Member Groups - the essence of the CTC. How would their status change under a CTC Charitable Trust? As they are not currently part of a CTC charity, it is unclear why the CTC National Council/Office is requiring that Member Group funds be spent only on 'Charitable Purposes'. One would expect them to be spent on legitimate 'Club Purposes'. What is the Council's definition of 'Charitable Purposes' in relation to funds held by Groups not part of a charity? Why this attempt to restrict?

Oh, dear. Mr Mayne's statements do seem to raise more questions than answers. And why, alas, is it so difficult to get answers to those questions?

Hardly underwhelming.

As Regulator says, this rejection may well be just a hiccup. However, I was disquieted to read the Chief Executive's statement on this forum, addressed rather disparagingly only to those with an open mind (i.e. the same as his), which gives cause for concern. Facts are welcome, but in short supply. To say that the rejection by the Charity Commissioners "is certainly not something I assumed we would be putting on the website" show an unhealthy disdain towards the members of this club.

To remain silent about the outcome of an issue that has caused so much dissent among club members and required not one but two national votes, is not acceptable. A five minute discussion at a Council meeting, open to members who do not attend, is hardly open government.

To say that the issue bores some members is no justification for silence. The Chief Executive has a responsibility to keep members fully informed of the detail of what is happening and why. Failure to do so might well be considered neglect of duty.

We have Cycleclips for those online; we have Cycle magazine for all. It is his duty to provide a full, clear and objective report to members at the latest in the next issue of Cycle. Whether he likes it or not, he is the servant of members, not their master. He should use the resources at his disposal not to hide the facts, but to clarify:

1. what has happened to the application?
2. on what grounds has it been rejected?
3. what steps are now proposed?
4. What changes, if any, to the Memorandum and Articles of Association, agreed by members at the last AGM, are now being considered?
5. What consultation will take place and, if changes are significant, what steps will be taken to seeek member approval?

All we have been told is: that the Charity Commissioners "have some concerns that we will need to address before we can go ahead" and "if we need to make some changes to smooth our way past the Commissioners we will do so in due course". If? How dismissive! What concerns and what changes?

It may be that the changes required by the Charity Commissioners are minor, uncontroversial and easily adopted. The problem is: we just do not know, and the Chief Executive does not want to tell us. Perhaps the Charity Commissioners will.