CTC AGM Resolution 4

[Jimmy The Hand]

............. My concern is that if the accounts aren't in tip-top condition then we'll not be able to make an informed choice.

Simon, please explain why you think the accounts "aren't in tip-top condition".

And if the aren't then we should be voting NOT to adopt the audited accounts!

[bikepacker]

Well, to be fair, resolution 9 is nothing other than an enabling resolution. It makes no commitment to a change in status. My concern is that if the accounts aren't in tip-top condition then we'll not be able to make an informed choice.

At the moment my gut instinct is that the Charity offers little to the members, and that the mixing of the two puts the funds and services at some risk - but I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise. I'm just not prepared to be persuaded on the basis of the information at hand.

For most of the time I was a RTR I was arguing that Charity status would do nothing for CTC members. Confirming what Karen imtimated: To further embed charity status with in the CTC will only serve to speed up the demise of the club as most of us know it.

[Simon L6]

............. My concern is that if the accounts aren't in tip-top condition then we'll not be able to make an informed choice.

Simon, please explain why you think the accounts "aren't in tip-top condition".

And if the aren't then we should be voting NOT to adopt the audited accounts!

Well, for the reasons I've set out. They don't show how the contracting entreprises are doing.

You make a valid point. To start at the beginning. I've asked people to think seriously about resolution 4. I'd intended to speak on the adoption of the accounts, which is resolution 3, but I thought that starting a debate on the adoption of the accounts would be unneccesarily divisive. I'm not alleging that the accounts are incorrect. I'm simply saying that they don't give us the information that we need, and that they should be audited, if only for one year, by a different auditor.

[Jimmy The Hand]

I'm not alleging that the accounts are incorrect. I'm simply saying that they don't give us the information that we need ................

But the auditors can only work on the information they are given. It's the Finance Directors' responsibilty to make sure that the relevent information is given to the auditors and given in such a way that we can glean from the report the information we want.

I really don't see that changing the auditors for one year would make any difference, they would also be working with the information given.

Maybe what we need is for the auditors to attend the AGM to answer our questions (watch for the flying pigs!!!)

[thirdcrank]

[Jimmy The Hand]

[Simon L6]

But the auditors can only work on the information they are given. It's the Finance Directors' responsibilty to make sure that the relevent information is given to the auditors and given in such a way that we can glean from the report the information we want.
I really don't see that changing the auditors for one year would make any difference, they would also be working with the information given.

there are two matters at hand, and they are linked - because they both bear on the decision that members will be asked to make in 2010 on charity status. I'm not saying that the two are one and the same, but simply that they both have to be sorted by April 2010
1. The auditors should be changed, because keeping the same auditors for decades is poor practice.
2. The accounts have to be sufficiently detailed for the members to understand where we are making a profit and where we are not, and the financial implications of the change to charitable status.

I intend to vote against resolution 4. I happen to think that the Management Committee and, by extension, the Auditors should have seen to it that the accounts were clear.
I intend to put the point to the AGM that resolution 3 should have something more substantial about it, and that there will be hell to pay next year if the accounts aren't in tip-top shape.

I realise that the two resolutions are interlinked - but, as I've said, I think a vote against accepting the accounts would be a bit of a blunt instrument. I've no doubt that the numbers are correct. I just think they don't mean very much.