The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
Jonty

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Jonty » 4 Dec 2010, 11:09pm

toontra wrote:
Jonty wrote:Frankly I think to say something along the lines "this depends on whether or not you think members are sheep" is IMO unfortunate and unnecessary.


Where did anyone say anything remotely corresponding to that? Your posts are becoming increasingly condescending and patronising in equal measure. Peppering them with smily emoticons doesn't alleviate the effect, I'm afraid :roll:

You appear to have made your mind up based on your own interpretation of the information you have gleaned - fine. That's what this whole process should be about. However I'm sure you would agree that others may reach a quite different conclusion based on examining the same data. It's not helpful to personalise this issue and talk down to those who disagree with you.


I agree that some of my comments have been laced with a touch of sarcasm. But when people say that the CTC offering modest prizes for voting will unduly influence the outcome of the vote, or that offering a raffle could be seen as a conspiracy to influence the outcome of the vote, perhaps a touch of sarcasm and irony is in order.
Anyone I apologise if I've taken it a bit too far.
jonty

Jonty

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Jonty » 5 Dec 2010, 10:52am

drossall wrote:
Si on Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:21 am wrote:I guess it depends on whether you believe that the majority of the membership are sheep?

I'm somewhat unsure how to vote this time. However, I have not been impressed by the line of argument that says that the last vote was not proper because of the way the chair used his proxy votes. Members are entitled to give the chair their votes, it's normal practice, and it should not be assumed that they did not know what they are doing, just because their actions did not suit one side or the other.


I'm surprised that the people involved haven't apologised for misleading members and causing unnecessary distrust between members and the CTC. I'm fairly sure that they didn't set out to deliberately mispresent the validity of the voting, but it's a serious matter IMO nonetheless.
Anyway let's look to the future.
jonty

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby meic » 5 Dec 2010, 11:08am

I dont think they will be in the mood to apologise on those grounds as they are still smarting from what they see as far more serious breaches of the same nature which came before hand.
Yma o Hyd

Jonty

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Jonty » 5 Dec 2010, 11:24am

meic wrote:I dont think they will be in the mood to apologise on those grounds as they are still smarting from what they see as far more serious breaches of the same nature which came before hand.


Thanks Meic. I hope those concerns were better grounded than those concerning the validity of the voting arrangements. Let's look to the future. I haven't voted yet.
jonty

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

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Simon L6 » 5 Dec 2010, 1:51pm

Jonty wrote:
drossall wrote:
Si on Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:21 am wrote:I guess it depends on whether you believe that the majority of the membership are sheep?

I'm somewhat unsure how to vote this time. However, I have not been impressed by the line of argument that says that the last vote was not proper because of the way the chair used his proxy votes. Members are entitled to give the chair their votes, it's normal practice, and it should not be assumed that they did not know what they are doing, just because their actions did not suit one side or the other.


I'm surprised that the people involved haven't apologised for misleading members and causing unnecessary distrust between members and the CTC. I'm fairly sure that they didn't set out to deliberately mispresent the validity of the voting, but it's a serious matter IMO nonetheless.
Anyway let's look to the future.
jonty

I take it you're being flippant, or that you haven't troubled to find out how the first vote was run.....as for 'unneccessary distrust' - my distrust is total. To be clear - the way the first vote was run was partial, scurrilous, and anti-democratic.

Jonty

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Jonty » 5 Dec 2010, 5:39pm

Simon
The point I have made on several occasions is that the members are entitled to elect for the chairman to vote on their behalf if they so choose. This is a simple point of fact not a matter of opinion.
If you don't believe me have a word with a corporate lawyer.
And it anyone suggests that members who did elect for the chairman to vote on their behalf did not understand the implications of what they were doing then, in my view, they are making an inappropriate judgement and displaying a low regard for the abilities of the members involved.
I am pleased to see that this matter of fact is belatedly being accepted by recent posters.
I am quite sure that if I had been under this misapprehension I would have apologised unreservedly once the matter had been brought to my attention.
jonty

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby meic » 5 Dec 2010, 6:40pm

When an issue is as evenly supported on both sides (and vastly ignored by the overwhelming majority) as was the case here, the result is equally likely to be a result of the system used as of the number of supporters for or against.

Plenty of surveys have shown how positioning questions and phrasing questions on a ballot sheet alters the outcome of the vote. The Council are convinced they are right and have used the advantages that they could.

In any event like this a small fraction of people will make a mistake, when you have over 60,000 people involved 400 votes is a very small fraction.
So I said that of the 4,000 people who really considered the issue the most likely reason for giving the proxy is that they knew it would be used by the Chairman.
However I think that they could easily be matched or exceeded by the tiny fraction of the much larger 60,000 who just didnt think about it at all, were having a joke, accidentally ticked the wrong box etc and neither know nor care about the result.
This view is not formed from looking down on people but from being one of them.

As there is no 100% fair election system, to me that seems like just one of those things you have to live with.
However this is NOT the issue that had people steaming, they had already been boiling for a while.

Fortunately the constitution has the built in safeguard of needing a significant majority to vote for changes to it.
Yma o Hyd

jabbs
Posts: 4
Joined: 2 Dec 2010, 9:26pm

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby jabbs » 5 Dec 2010, 7:55pm

Simon L6 wrote:the really interesting thing about this page on the National Office website is that it goes to great lengths to tell us about the benefits that have accrued from the structure we have.

Except, of course, that the claim that members have benefited is codswallop. Members do not benefit from the Trust. That's the point.


[quote] "the claim that members have benefited is codswallop"
If members have not benefited before it's probably because the Trust was a separate entity. The 2006 Act accorded Charitable Status to "Groups that advance amateur sport", this now includes the CTC. which provides the framework under which Members can enjoy the benefits of cycle-sport.

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

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Simon L6 » 5 Dec 2010, 9:37pm

Jonty wrote:Simon
The point I have made on several occasions is that the members are entitled to elect for the chairman to vote on their behalf if they so choose. This is a simple point of fact not a matter of opinion.
If you don't believe me have a word with a corporate lawyer.
And it anyone suggests that members who did elect for the chairman to vote on their behalf did not understand the implications of what they were doing then, in my view, they are making an inappropriate judgement and displaying a low regard for the abilities of the members involved.
I am pleased to see that this matter of fact is belatedly being accepted by recent posters.
I am quite sure that if I had been under this misapprehension I would have apologised unreservedly once the matter had been brought to my attention.
jonty

again, you're showing a complete ignorance of the way the first vote was run......

User avatar
Yorkshireman
Posts: 352
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 6:59am
Location: North Hykeham, Lincoln.
Contact:

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Yorkshireman » 6 Dec 2010, 9:26am

To get back to the original topic ... A quick look at the post made by Greg here
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=44855 may be of interest.
Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... but the wind is mostly in your face!
http://www.freewebs.com/yorkshireman1/

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14952
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Si » 6 Dec 2010, 10:52am

drossall wrote:
Si on Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:21 am wrote:I guess it depends on whether you believe that the majority of the membership are sheep?

I'm somewhat unsure how to vote this time. However, I have not been impressed by the line of argument that says that the last vote was not proper because of the way the chair used his proxy votes. Members are entitled to give the chair their votes, it's normal practice, and it should not be assumed that they did not know what they are doing, just because their actions did not suit one side or the other.


dunno why you've chosen to quote from me where I was talking about something totally different there? My point was that some people have said that the use of a prize to get more people top vote might end up with people voting only because they want to be entered in the draw, and in that case they were most likely to vote with the Yes campaign. Whether you believe that this is really the case or not would depend on if you believe that any members will vote in a sheepish way (blindly and without considering the issues). It was not a comment on the proxy votes given to the chair.

edit: Jonty, please note, yet again, I have not called anyone sheep in this post, just as I did not in the previous ones. If you want to read it that way then that's your choice, however, 1/ you'd be wrong, and 2/ you'd just be stirring it again for not beneficial reason.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14952
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Si » 6 Dec 2010, 11:02am

Jonty wrote:
Si wrote:
Jonty wrote:
Even if you got some feedback on this it would be anecodatal and fairly worthless. I'm surprised at the low regard some posters hold about other CTC members and their ability to understand simply voting arrangements. :wink:
jonty


3/ Given that the chair's votes have been raised as a major issue (whether he used them in the way that people who made him their proxy would have wanted) I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask how many of these people (who gave the chair their proxy) were unhappy with the way that it was used, or would not have given it if they knew how things would turn out. If this information was available then it would not be anecdotal, it would be a matter of fact, and it would also help to clear up one of the points of argument arising from the AGM.


To assume this process was flawed because the Chairmane exercised his right to cast the votes elected to him my members is simply nonsense and grossly misleading.
Also to come to the view that CTC members are incapable of working out what they were voting for is in my view judgemental and demeaning. As I said previously I detect a sense of elitism on this forum which I find surprising.
jonty


Jonty thinks that the chair acted fairly. The problem is that a number of people are unhappy with the way that the chair has used his proxy votes. I put forward a suggestion that could actually reduce the adverse argument by showing that the chair did use the votes as the voters would have wanted. And what happens? Jonty manages to argue against me. Unbelievable, no wonder this part of the forum is so incomprehensible " :wink: " (to quote Jonty).

drossall
Posts: 4211
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby drossall » 6 Dec 2010, 9:43pm

Sorry for any misrepresentation. I think incomprehensible may the word. Looks as though understanding the issues around the proposed merger is going to be easier than understanding the discussions here on the topic...

Jonty

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Jonty » 7 Dec 2010, 11:21am

Si - Sorry for misinterpreting what you meant.
jonty

Boltzmann
Posts: 9
Joined: 6 May 2008, 9:05pm

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Postby Boltzmann » 5 Apr 2011, 9:59pm

We now have 17 pages of posts but as Trevor, of Beiderbecke fame, might say "All I want to know is ..." what is the CTC?

If the Cyclists Touring Club is it's members then the CTC Memorandum and Articles of Association 5.8.1 say that "It shall be the duty of members of the Council to promote and be responsible for the interests of the Club". Translated this says that they are responsible for the interests of the members and as a result they must not vote in favour of any motion which degrades membership.

If the Cyclists Touring Club is an entity independent of it's members then there is no problem since the word "Club" takes on any meaning which the Council cares to assign. In this event they can vote for conversion to charitable status and they then have no further obligations towards the members.

Trevor again - "and another thing ..." never make an investment decision based on tax advantages unless you want a poor return.