Cycling UK Forum

sadjack wrote:

Simon L6 wrote:
Motion 7 - the comedy motion. Passed overwhelmingly. That's fine, chaps. You're welcome on our rides..... http://fnrttc.blogspot.com/

Why do you call it the comedy motion?

If I read it right there is a legitimate concern here. With the rising costs of full membership, what is to stop large parts of the club starting their own "club" and availing themselves of affiliate membership saving considerable sums? Havinng saved themselves such funds they are prevented from sitting on committees and leading rides. Best of the fun bits none of the hard bits.

I dont understand how we can set up a method like this to undermine full membership. If the costs involved actually encouraged full membership I could understand it but £12 as opposed to £39? Plus a £50 admin fee if shared between enough is not a great deal. You only need enough member groups to think this way and we will all be affiliates

Personally I would welcome and encourage anyone on a ride but to me there seems some inbalance here.

PS - No I am not the proposer of the motion

I think you're asking yourself the wrong question. Why should anybody pay £39 when they could pay £12? And, what, pray, do they get for the extra £27.

I think that any DA that thinks of itself of a bike club should simply go the affiliate route.

JT wrote:

Regulator wrote:Still no response from Council about what they're going to do, given that the proxy votes at the AGM were invalid. One wonders why all Council members haven't been told about the problem...

Greg - Could you explain here or in a PM or email how the proxies were invalid? This is news to me.

Section 34.1.3 of the CTC Memorandum & Articles of Association in force at the time of the vote states:

“A proxy will only be valid if the document appointing the proxy (and any power of attorney or other authority (if any) under which it is signed) or a properly certified copy is deposited at the registered office of the company at least 48 hours before the starting time of the General Meeting or adjourned General Meeting at which the proxy proposes to vote.”

As you will be aware, the proxy voting forms used told members to return them to Electoral Reform Services’ address in London no later than 48 hours before the meeting – not to CTC’s registered office in Guildford. Members were not asked to provide a certified copy to the registered office address and ERS did not deposit the originals at the CTC registered office within the time period specified.

We have been advised that this means that the proxy votes are invalid, as they did not meet the requirements of the extant Memorandum & Articles of Association. I raised this with the Chair, who has come back suggesting that it is a "technicality" and that Council can "to make practical arrangements for a general meeting including the receipt and counting of proxy votes"... which of course they can - if they follow the Mem and Arts when they do so. They managed to do it correctly in 2010 - so why not in 2011?

Council are saying "no problem"... so it'll be down to the Charity Commission. They tend to be very keen on things being done properly - and CTC may find its application doesn't go smoothly.

Thanks.

It doesn't really change anything of course, but it certainly does not reflect well on the organisation.

JT wrote:Thanks.

It doesn't really change anything of course, but it certainly does not reflect well on the organisation.

Other than it means only the votes of those present at the meeting should be counted - and that means Council didn't get its 75% majority.

Really, rather than trying to bluff it, Council should rerun the vote - but that would mean having to explain to members that they cocked it up! Frankly, heads should roll, particularly given the cockups with the dates on the notice of AGM and the voting papers.

As I said, a farce ........................and it's still a matter of people wanting their own way and making sure, one way or another, that they get it, without any real consideration of the future and the worst possible implications.

I don't think there's any point in further rocking the boat - they'll get their way and any delaying tactics will only achieve just that. I really don't like the way it's going, but we elect our council, and we have to assume that they're doing their best, as they see it.

Even if we don't like it - and I most certainly don't.

Simon L6 wrote:

Simon L6 wrote:

I think you're asking yourself the wrong question. Why should anybody pay £39 when they could pay £12? And, what, pray, do they get for the extra £27.

I think that any DA that thinks of itself of a bike club should simply go the affiliate route.

I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet just to different tunes

The real issue for me is not that affiliates exist, if a club affiliates to the CTC and continues to ride as a club, fine and dandy, but the means exist for affiliates clubs to ride without limit with the CTC and without the responsibility of leading rides or taking any office. so all the fun bits none of the hard bits.

That I think is the thrust of the motion, in my view anyway. Its not against affiliates but seeks clarification on should they be able to ride, forever, with CTC groups when other "non member" riders are in theory allowed 5 rides before being asked to join CTC to continue.

If every group took your view, we would all be affiliates and there would be no membership to worry about charity status

Interested in thoughts on this

but then.....affiliates have their own structures, and they take maintaining (he says with some feeling). It's no different from someone from such and such a DA riding with another DA. The only distinction drawn in the resolution is the money, but, last time I looked only about 18p of that extra £27 made its way to the DA.

The resolution hints at a delusion. Each cycling club (accepting, for the sake of argument, that the DA is still in some sense a club) will sink or swim on its merits. If people who run DAs decide to exclude affiliate members and anybody else they don't have time for, then they will die out.

Another thought - as the CTC is now a charity, I imagine that the Charities Commission would want rides to be open to all - the YHA had to rid itself of the members only rule at the CC's request.

Simon L6 wrote:but then.....affiliates have their own structures, and they take maintaining (he says with some feeling). It's no different from someone from such and such a DA riding with another DA. The only distinction drawn in the resolution is the money, but, last time I looked only about 18p of that extra £27 made its way to the DA.

The resolution hints at a delusion. Each cycling club (accepting, for the sake of argument, that the DA is still in some sense a club) will sink or swim on its merits. If people who run DAs decide to exclude affiliate members and anybody else they don't have time for, then they will die out.

Another thought - as the CTC is now a charity, I imagine that the Charities Commission would want rides to be open to all - the YHA had to rid itself of the members only rule at the CC's request.

But the YHA charge non members an extra £3.00 per overnight stay. Perhaps CTC Member Groups could charge affiliated members a fee to join the rides?

I would have thought that regular YHA members are equivalent to affiliated CTC members, especially if you look at the annual membership fees.

So maybe the YHA should introduce a new "privileged" membership who pay over twice as much and have to execute YHAs policies for them, instead of just staying at Hostels occasionally.

meic wrote:I would have thought that regular YHA members are equivalent to affiliated CTC members, especially if you look at the annual membership fees.

So maybe the YHA should introduce a new "privileged" membership who pay over twice as much and have to execute YHAs policies for them, instead of just staying at Hostels occasionally.

I've been a life member of YHA since 1980 so I don't know what the membership fees are these days.

Karen Sutton wrote:But the YHA charge non members an extra £3.00 per overnight stay. Perhaps CTC Member Groups could charge affiliated members a fee to join the rides?

that would keep the interlopers out!

In all seriousness - if 18p of the extra £27 is going to DAs, then the question the DAs have to ask is 'what did they ever do for us?'

Simon L6 wrote:

Karen Sutton wrote:But the YHA charge non members an extra £3.00 per overnight stay. Perhaps CTC Member Groups could charge affiliated members a fee to join the rides?

that would keep the interlopers out!

In all seriousness - if 18p of the extra £27 is going to DAs, then the question the DAs have to ask is 'what did they ever do for us?'

Simon, you're so out of touch. Member Groups now get a massive 37p.

JT wrote:Simon, you're so out of touch. Member Groups now get a massive 37p.

apologies all round!!!!

JT wrote:

Simon L6 wrote:

Karen Sutton wrote:But the YHA charge non members an extra £3.00 per overnight stay. Perhaps CTC Member Groups could charge affiliated members a fee to join the rides?

that would keep the interlopers out!

In all seriousness - if 18p of the extra £27 is going to DAs, then the question the DAs have to ask is 'what did they ever do for us?'

Simon, you're so out of touch. Member Groups now get a massive 37p.

Ah, but doubling the grant payment was an interim measure whilst CTC decide how they are going to administer the grants in future. Who knows what will be offered next time?

Karen Sutton wrote:

JT wrote:

Simon L6 wrote:In all seriousness - if 18p of the extra £27 is going to DAs, then the question the DAs have to ask is 'what did they ever do for us?'

Simon, you're so out of touch. Member Groups now get a massive 37p.

Ah, but doubling the grant payment was an interim measure whilst CTC decide how they are going to administer the grants in future. Who knows what will be offered next time?

I wouldn't be surprised if it were nowt...