'New' Groups

Anything relating to the clubs associated with Cycling UK
Jimmy The Hand
Posts: 116
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 11:26am

Postby Jimmy The Hand » 1 Apr 2008, 3:29pm

[/quote] Completely barmy, imho. All any group needs is an [i]organiser[/i] and an assistant.[/quote]

Forgive me if I've got it wrong but is that not what is now called an "infromal group"?

Andrew Mills
Posts: 52
Joined: 25 Jan 2007, 6:26pm

Postby Andrew Mills » 1 Apr 2008, 5:53pm

Jimmy The Hand wrote:
Completely barmy, imho. All any group needs is an organiser and an assistant.[/quote]

Forgive me if I've got it wrong but is that not what is now called an "infromal group"?[/quote]

An informal group does not need the other offices as its part of a member group.
I dont make the policy. As secretary for Norfolk DA I just try to make sure The DA and Sections comply with National Policy. This is not helped by National Council and Office who have yet to decide why we need a welfare officer or what the job intails.

glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Postby glueman » 1 Apr 2008, 6:45pm

These are only my opinions, the musings of someone who has, but doesn't currently ride with a DA/MG but rides with people who do, if that makes sense.
The purpose of any CTC group whatever they are called is to be as inclusive as possible to anyone who may want to ride with others. The group may be 2 or 3 strong or 52 or 53, it might be most interested in riding round it's own neck of the woods or cycling with the same sort of cycles or cyclists round one another's manor but the important thing is they are doing it as a group and enjoying themselves. T'committee aspect with its minutes and treasurers reports and stealth and hefty officer are all means to an end not the end in themselves.
I agree with those who believe the grassroots are the club and the more verdant and earthy the better.

byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Postby byegad » 1 Apr 2008, 7:55pm

If we really need five officers then that's the final straw. However, is the 'big five' really necessary?

Jimmy The Hand
Posts: 116
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 11:26am

Postby Jimmy The Hand » 2 Apr 2008, 10:01am

[quote="byegad"]If we really need five officers then that's the final straw. However, is the 'big five' really necessary?[/quote]

You don't [i]need[/i] five officers, one person can hold more than one "office" the only stipulation is that the secretary can't, or shouldn't, be welfare officer.

I may be over simplyfing but doesn't the "new" member group equate to the "old" DA and the informal group equate to the section? If that's so then there isn't a great deal of actual change apart of course from name changes and of course the introduction of a welfare officer.

Andrew Mills
Posts: 52
Joined: 25 Jan 2007, 6:26pm

Postby Andrew Mills » 3 Apr 2008, 12:37pm

you might get away with just 3

Secretary/Registration
Chairman/Treasurer
Welfare/Promotions

But less than that means everyone else is being very selfish

Jimmy The Hand
Posts: 116
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 11:26am

Postby Jimmy The Hand » 3 Apr 2008, 1:34pm

Andrew Mills wrote:you might get away with just 3..... .....But less than that means everyone else is being very selfish


Cyclist are no different from members of other groups/clubs who are not interested in how the activity is organised as long as they can take part!

I can't remember the last time someone was unselfish enough to volunteer to join our committee. :!:

Karen Sutton
Posts: 608
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:18pm
Location: Greater Manchester

Postby Karen Sutton » 3 Apr 2008, 9:00pm

Jimmy The Hand wrote:
byegad wrote:If we really need five officers then that's the final straw. However, is the 'big five' really necessary?


You don't need five officers, one person can hold more than one "office" the only stipulation is that the secretary can't, or shouldn't, be welfare officer.

I may be over simplyfing but doesn't the "new" member group equate to the "old" DA and the informal group equate to the section? If that's so then there isn't a great deal of actual change apart of course from name changes and of course the introduction of a welfare officer.



No, the old DA isn't now simply a Member Group and the old Section isn't now simply an informal group... for heavens sake that would be too easy. A member group can be either the old DA or the old Section, but they must have the specified 3 main officers, and two others which can be two of the main officers. A Member Group must also hold an AGM within a specified timeframe. A Member Group, in short, must comply with the new Policy and Rules for Groups.

An informal Group does not need to comply with the rules and policy, but cannot operate completely independently, it must be part of a 'parent' Member Group. For example, in Manchester DA, the Bolton Section was very small, so last November opted to be an informal activity of Manchester & District CTC (our new name). They are registered on the M & D CTC Volunteer list to be covered by the Organisers' Liability Insurance. This is one of the reasons that an Informal Activity cannot operate independently; they do not have an official structure and the 'parent' Member Group is expected to ensure that events/rides of the informal activity comply with CTC Rules and Guidelines.

An informal activity cannot hold funds in its own name, either; its account must be included and audited with those of the parent member group and then submitted to National Office.

JT
Posts: 90
Joined: 18 Feb 2007, 10:18pm
Location: Peterborough
Contact:

Postby JT » 3 Apr 2008, 9:46pm

Karen Sutton wrote:
Jimmy The Hand wrote:
byegad wrote:If we really need five officers then that's the final straw. However, is the 'big five' really necessary?


You don't need five officers, one person can hold more than one "office" the only stipulation is that the secretary can't, or shouldn't, be welfare officer.

I may be over simplyfing but doesn't the "new" member group equate to the "old" DA and the informal group equate to the section? If that's so then there isn't a great deal of actual change apart of course from name changes and of course the introduction of a welfare officer.



No, the old DA isn't now simply a Member Group and the old Section isn't now simply an informal group... for heavens sake that would be too easy. A member group can be either the old DA or the old Section, but they must have the specified 3 main officers, and two others which can be two of the main officers. A Member Group must also hold an AGM within a specified timeframe. A Member Group, in short, must comply with the new Policy and Rules for Groups.

An informal Group does not need to comply with the rules and policy, but cannot operate completely independently, it must be part of a 'parent' Member Group. For example, in Manchester DA, the Bolton Section was very small, so last November opted to be an informal activity of Manchester & District CTC (our new name). They are registered on the M & D CTC Volunteer list to be covered by the Organisers' Liability Insurance. This is one of the reasons that an Informal Activity cannot operate independently; they do not have an official structure and the 'parent' Member Group is expected to ensure that events/rides of the informal activity comply with CTC Rules and Guidelines.

An informal activity cannot hold funds in its own name, either; its account must be included and audited with those of the parent member group and then submitted to National Office.


As a relative newcomer to the CTC (member for 2 years, never heard of it before that), I have to say that I find it all very old fashioned and faintly ridiculous. And reading the above does my head in: a member group has to have an AGM? Why?

Apologies to the youngsters among you (Simon) but no wonder the membership is ageing. If you have a job, a family, some other interests (a life essentially), who the hell has time for all these policies, DAs, sections, "informal groups", councils, welfare officers, membership secretaries... it reminds of Martin in Ever Decreasing Circles.

It's all about going for a bike ride with some like minded people and it should be as easy as possible to set up a group. And it should be dead easy to find out how to set up a group.

I'm sorry, I'm ranting. It's only because I care and I believe that the CTC has the potential to be a lot more than it is currently.

Karen Sutton
Posts: 608
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:18pm
Location: Greater Manchester

Postby Karen Sutton » 3 Apr 2008, 9:57pm

Well, I'm younger than Simon and I also have a job, family and a life. TBH if you have the time for cycling and you are interested in being part of a group it doesn't take much effort to get to a couple of meetings every now and then. If your group is going to organise anything then you are going to have to meet up to talk about it aren't you?

If all you want to do is ride your bike with a few mates then why worry about starting a new group? Just go out and do it. It's only when you start advertising your rides to the general public that you start needing insurance and stuff; that's when you need the backing of something like CTC, to cover your back....and CTC will want some sort of assurance that you have at least considered the safety aspects of organising rides open to the public, otherwise they won't insure you, and you can't call it a CTC group.

User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Postby Simon L6 » 3 Apr 2008, 10:46pm

Karen Sutton wrote:Well, I'm younger than Simon ......


thankyou for pointing out the obvious.........................

byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Postby byegad » 4 Apr 2008, 4:33pm

I'm 57 this year and it all seems way too old fashioned to me.

If we don't want any money and want to organise a few rides why do we need 5, 4 or for that matter more than one officer. That officer would be a point of contact for members and no more. How hard can it get?

thirdcrank
Posts: 30839
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Postby thirdcrank » 4 Apr 2008, 4:56pm

The one I have difficulty with is the 'welfare officer.' I have no doubt of the importance of welfare to everybody and in a paid employment, a decent welfare departtment can change the life of staff from hell to something reasonable, but I cannot see the relevance in a voluntary organisation. Have I missed a job description?

Do they ride at the back to ensure nobody is dropped? Check the CRB disclosures to make sure no baddies have insinuated themselves? Repair punctures? Carry a few extra bits of Kendal Mint Cake, energy bars etc., for anybody with hunger knock? Keep any eye on the other four officials to see they do not fold under the stress?

What sanctions have they got if they feel somebody is pushing too high a gear or not paying attention to their ankling? Can they send somebody home who turns up in shorts at Easter?

What is their role with regard to helmets? Hi-viz togs?

User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Postby Simon L6 » 4 Apr 2008, 5:25pm

I'm really glad that you've mentioned this, because I started off thinking one way, had my mind changed by Kevin, and wound up with a sort of third way.

I thought that 'Welfare Officer' smacked of Nanny State, and had little to do with the way a Cycling Club is run. Kevin's made these points

1. Cycling Clubs tend to look after their members if they're injured, or going through a hard time. I think that my DA has a lot to be proud of in that respect. People are visited, cakes taken round, that kind of thing. But suppose it's a matter of helping someone whose confidence has taken a dent after an accident, and hasn't got the wherewithal to get legal advice, or, perhaps, needs transport. Clubs might have a good spirit about them, but it takes a bit of organising. Suppose again the member in difficulty is a solitary soul without any social connection to the rest of the club. Would that member receive the same kind of support without any organising? There are people in cycling clubs who are solitary souls....

2. There sometimes comes a time when people have to be told that they're no longer up to leading, or that they should be considering going on shorter rides.

Our DA committee decided not to appoint a welfare officer, but to put welfare on the agenda of every committee meeting, and this, I think will prove its worth.

Keith
Posts: 97
Joined: 9 Feb 2007, 11:31pm

welfare officer....

Postby Keith » 26 May 2008, 10:46pm

Hi, from Keith, Hon Sec., CTC Suffolk....

I was looking at how our group should deal with the still-unfilled role of welfare officer and came across this thread.
My first thought is that I wasn't party to the discussion that went into the drafting of the National Handbook for Local Groups so I don't know precisely what brought about the idea to create the welfare officer role. However, it seems to me that the role isn't clearly defined (so how do I seek someone to fill it?), possibly needs someone with the right background (again, unspecified) and, if the role is needed at all, there must be strong organizational support for the welfare officer to call upon (is there?).
Having looked at the way several other clubs that I have dealings with are organized (such as a local tennis club), they do not have welfare officers, yet they deal perfectly well with issues of vulnerable adults, member disputes and juvenile members so are we any different? The only organizations that I could envisage that do have posts similar to the proposed welfare officer are professional, such as educational or health organizations, or indeed businesses. In such organizations, the welfare role is dealt with by trained professionals with considerable organizational support.
So, after a search of the CTC website and finding that the Policy Index is "Awaiting content", where can I find a clear and succinct explanation of why we need a welfare officer and what they are really supposed to be doing?

Keith Halton
hon sec., CTC Suffolk