Returning subscription allocation to HQ

Anything relating to the clubs associated with Cycling UK
lescargo
Posts: 192
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 11:51pm
Location: Tyneside

Returning subscription allocation to HQ

Postby lescargo » 30 Mar 2020, 11:23pm

I might be posting this query on wrong page; moderator redirect if needed PLEASE.

Recently our Tyneside and Northumberland Member group had a request from Alex Cuppleditch, head of volunteering
at Cotterel House that "in these very tough times" " return our subscription allocation asap" "so we can urgently deploy the funds elsewhere".
Has every DA. received this request?
Our funds are healthy and well in the black.
Resolved by sec. polling our main group which make up 95% of those who attend agm.
42 for 3 against.

I would like to clarify if this request is across all member Groups or to that selected few with healthy funds.

Any body else or
Everybody else had this request?
I would appreciate your comments.

AndyK
Posts: 915
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Returning subscription allocation to HQ

Postby AndyK » 31 Mar 2020, 11:15am

I assumed it was everyone. (Remember it's just a request, so any MG that thinks it can't afford to relinquish the allocation can still keep it.) However I may be wrong. I can find out - or you can probably find out just as quickly by replying to the address that the email came from and asking the question.

Andy (trustee)

AndyK
Posts: 915
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Returning subscription allocation to HQ

Postby AndyK » 31 Mar 2020, 12:48pm

Alex tells me that the same request went to all Member Groups. Those who asked for clarification received a further email, which I'll reproduce part of here as I think it's very good:

Just to provide you with some clarification regarding the subscription allocation request: during the current crisis, our plan would be to use these funds to supplement our development work, for example by supporting Doctor Bikes at hospitals to keep key workers cycling and by giving local bike shops and bike recycling centres grants to keep them functioning. The previous email was a plea for a releasing the sub allocation if it was unnecessary during the pause in group activity. If you decide it’s not needed during the lockdown period, the grant would still be available as soon as we come out of the other side of this pandemic.

But to clarify: if you feel that your club still needs these funds at this present time, then this takes priority.

Whilst there is still a lot of planning and rethinking to do, Cycling UK feels confident that we can use the next few months to strengthen ourselves as an organisation and emphasise the vital role of cycling with our key stakeholders and the public. We also look forward to working with you to on our efforts to support local communities and the future of cycling.


It's not about taking back money from member groups, it's about not sending out more money right now if it's just going to sit in a local bank account doing nothing because the member group has had to suspend its activities. If it's still needed, that's fine.

A personal note: There seem to be a lot of individuals, couples and families who have dragged dusty bikes out of sheds to use for their daily exercise ration. When the movement restrictions eventually lift, there ought to be a big opportunity for member groups to bring more people in by offering easy/family/beginner/returner rides and events. I would hope Cycling UK could provide some support for any MG wanting to do that.

Bazza55
Posts: 45
Joined: 22 May 2013, 4:56pm

Re: Returning subscription allocation to HQ

Postby Bazza55 » 1 Apr 2020, 8:49pm

I trust that "in these very tough times" " return our subscription allocation asap" "so we can urgently deploy the funds elsewhere".
that things are so tough that bonuses are not being paid to the CEO and staff at CTC Head Office in Guildford?

PH
Posts: 9394
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Returning subscription allocation to HQ

Postby PH » 1 Apr 2020, 10:22pm

I'm a bit dubious about the whole idea.
First there's the sums involved, if all 95 MG's don't receive their grants, that's £19,000 or (If I have the calculation right) less than 1% of membership subscriptions. I can't see that going very far, if they really have a plan and a purpose why not ask for some of the £100's of thousands sat in MG accounts? Or a crowdfunder, didn't the last one raise that much for the mats?
I'm also annoyed that yet again there's this disconnect between central office and the local groups. As in
"use these funds to supplement our development work, for example by supporting Doctor Bikes at hospitals to keep key workers cycling and by giving local bike shops and bike recycling centres grants to keep them functioning."
My MG is part of the local cycling scene, as I expect are most, it's involved in those things, it has relationships with these organisations, it's probably better placed to know what can be done in terms of local development work than anyone in Guildford. Yet there's no communication, there's no offer of funds coming the other way, there's no request to share information. The first our MG is likely to hear about any local Cycling UK initiative is when we read about it in the local paper, it's as if we're not part of the same organisation.

AndyK
Posts: 915
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Returning subscription allocation to HQ

Postby AndyK » 2 Apr 2020, 12:26pm

PH wrote:I'm a bit dubious about the whole idea.
First there's the sums involved, if all 95 MG's don't receive their grants, that's £19,000 or (If I have the calculation right) less than 1% of membership subscriptions. I can't see that going very far, if they really have a plan and a purpose why not ask for some of the £100's of thousands sat in MG accounts? Or a crowdfunder, didn't the last one raise that much for the mats?
I'm also annoyed that yet again there's this disconnect between central office and the local groups. As in
"use these funds to supplement our development work, for example by supporting Doctor Bikes at hospitals to keep key workers cycling and by giving local bike shops and bike recycling centres grants to keep them functioning."
My MG is part of the local cycling scene, as I expect are most, it's involved in those things, it has relationships with these organisations, it's probably better placed to know what can be done in terms of local development work than anyone in Guildford. Yet there's no communication, there's no offer of funds coming the other way, there's no request to share information. The first our MG is likely to hear about any local Cycling UK initiative is when we read about it in the local paper, it's as if we're not part of the same organisation.

Some fair points, but it's something that is changing. That communication is better than it was a year or two ago but there's a way to go.

I would say that if your MG has an idea for something it can do locally now and needs a bit of money to help do it, you should drop a note to the volunteering team and ask them.

lescargo
Posts: 192
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 11:51pm
Location: Tyneside

Re: Returning subscription allocation to HQ

Postby lescargo » 5 Apr 2020, 6:58pm

Andy, thank you for responding to my questions about Alex Cuppleditch’s request that our member group effectively return our 2020 subscription allowance to HQ. “so we can urgently deploy the funds elsewhere”. You established that the request was posted to all MG secretaries, provided section of his reply to our good secretary’s question and commented that “I think it is very good”. I don’t think so. Consider the original request contents sent to all MG secretaries. Typically, charitable appeals would first seek to convince audience of urgent need for funds by demonstrating to possible donors that their donated funds can alleviate desperate conditions/hardship by illuminating examples of said cause. Here there was no specific objective to grab the attention of POTENTIAL donors. – “so we can urgently deploy these funds elsewhere”. At best vague; at worst so open ended to need a written *enquiry insisting on revealing where EXACTLY were these monies were going to be spent?
Constitutional procedure? Is this good practice that HQ message local secretaries asking them to transfer group funds without first consulting members; surely members have right to know where their funds are to be applied THEN democratically deciding whether or not to relinquish them? It was only after our good secretary’s *request for further information that we, Tyneside, were then able to have a meaningful representative vote by 90% of those members who attended our agm. Carried 42 for three against. Myself ‘for’ but only after Alex Cuppleditch’s reply of his “for example” intentions. What about the remaining monies?
I have alternative suggestions of how this additional donated income to Alex Cuppleditch’s 2020 project budget might be used to better effect “in the current crisis” to perhaps go a little way to “emphasize the vital role of cycling with our key stakeholders (Who are they?) and the public- (Joe in his motor car)”.
I note you are trustee for CUK. Thank you for your commitment to ensuring the good and reliable operation of CUK for us donors. I probably, previously have voted for you. I never vote for non-members or those newcomers joining, perceivably, so as to add another good line on their cv. for their political or even potential charitable organisation career. I haven’t an NVQ, I have an HNC in SCEPTICISM!!
Andy, you may be disappointed that now, five days on, I haven’t responded to your prompt, informative response to my previous queries. Deliberate strategy. HQ are aware of my post and the further critical posts from Bazza55 and PH. I had, naively hoped that this week-ends “news-speak” CUK posting to all would be—“in these very tough times” ” we have posted to all MG’s secretaries to “ return members subscription allocation asap.so we can deploy these funds to directly provide CUK support to NHS in CEREBOLA crisis.
Unsurprisingly, that didn’t happen. Best offer from the Cyclists’ Champion Kremlin to NHS staff is free CUK membership and free bike **repairs if you go to work on your bike. Good, I support this but I feel it falls short of our organisation’s capacity to deliver in national crisis. What we might be able to do with active participation of our (are we now?) members. No doubt there are many of our members amongst those who responded to appeal for active volunteers to assist NHS in any practical role. How can they optimise their skills for most effective, best contribution to NHS operations/logistics? What do we do well? WE ride our bikes!! Every Nightingale Hospital will need couriers/ local, regional, postal facility? Why not CUK provide this? And, if also needed motorcycle and vehicle support? Safety? I guess here, but in the car parks at some sites there will still be ‘live’ contractors’ cabin/offices that could be used as “post offices” meaning no need for our volunteers to enter hospital premises. Volunteers expenses? These to be available to all volunteers on full “out of town” expenses, lunch, tea, allowance and mileage allowance at our HQ rates. They will be taking “our turn at the front”; they deserve our full support. Some of them will be on furlough; they cannot afford to decline their costs. My past experience has been that very few, probably only those with genuine need, actually claim expenses entitlement.
Will this Happen? Only if HQ want it to happen? They have the resources. They have a management team. All they need now is the will to find a way. Well Andy what do you say? Yours curmudgeonly Lescargo

lescargo
Posts: 192
Joined: 27 Dec 2013, 11:51pm
Location: Tyneside

Re: Returning subscription allocation to HQ

Postby lescargo » 5 Apr 2020, 7:07pm

Andy, Apologies for script format.
Not Mischief.
I have recently had two cataracts done but am unable to get new,corrected glasses in present times.
For large print I did this in "word" -then copied to ctc site.
last week I did long text in 150% print then much of it got chopped off in transmission

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14075
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Returning subscription allocation to HQ

Postby gaz » 5 Apr 2020, 9:28pm

As AndyK said,
AndyK wrote:It's not about taking back money from member groups, it's about not sending out more money right now if it's just going to sit in a local bank account doing nothing because the member group has had to suspend its activities. If it's still needed, that's fine.

Whilst I hope it stays that way MGs would do well to remember that they are merely custodians of any funds held locally, not their owners.
lescargo wrote:Constitutional procedure?

Is this good practice that HQ message local secretaries asking them to transfer group funds without first consulting members; surely members have right to know where their funds are to be applied THEN democratically deciding whether or not to relinquish them?

In short, no consultation is necessary. At this stage national office has phrased it as a request, which means your MG can make its decision at committee level or choose to hold a SGM to vote on the matter (the voting procedures your MG have adopted are hardly constitutional but you're happy enough with them and I don't expect to persuade you otherwise).

It doesn't matter whether funds an MG holds were raised locally, grants given from national office, or a combination of both; they are property of the Cyclists' Touring Club.

Member Group Handbook
Handbook2.png
Control

Handbook1.png
Local Funds
2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!

AndyK
Posts: 915
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Returning subscription allocation to HQ

Postby AndyK » 6 Apr 2020, 1:59pm

Gaz is, as usual, correct. Each member group belongs to one of four limited companies (Cyclists' Touring Club (Northern) Ltd, Cyclists' Touring Club (Eastern) Ltd and you can guess the other two). These companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of the charity. All the money in all the bank accounts belongs, ultimately, to the charity. However it is normally left to the MGs to manage their own finances, so long as they do it responsibly and legally. In some ways it's a moot point: whether that £200 stays in a central bank account or goes to some MG's local bank account, it's still the charity's money.

In any case, MGs are not being asked to donate money, they are being asked to postpone collection of their annual allocation.

Lescargo, no problem re. the formatting, but you seem to be suggesting that Cycling UK should put its resources into setting up a separate, parallel Coronavirus volunteering service when there's already a perfectly good national, government-approved one in operation, not to mention various local community help efforts. For us to do that would, frankly, be unhelpful, wasteful and irresponsible. Also I think you'll find that many members have other skills besides cycling.