Miscellaneous questions

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1198
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:27pm
Location: Lancing, West Sussex
Contact:

Miscellaneous questions

Postby admin » 14 Jan 2010, 5:51pm

Reply to this topic for general comments about this page on the main CTC site: Miscellaneous questions

Please start a new thread, with a suitable subject, for particularly complicated or controversial discussions relating to this page.

If this thread gets excessively long, or new topics emerge within the discussion, the moderators may also split this thread into separate topics.

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

Re: Miscellaneous questions

Postby glueman » 31 Jan 2010, 10:09am

Now council know our email addresses, can we hope for a continuing dialogue on the future direction of CTC?

bikepacker
Posts: 2003
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:08pm
Location: Worcestershire
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous questions

Postby bikepacker » 31 Jan 2010, 10:58am

If you go by KMs article in C+ the direction has already been decided. He states: "This year - subject to a vote from members - the organisation will apply for charitable status, and the "sleeping giant" as it was once called , will be officially awake and talking on behalf of cyclists".

First two things that spring to my mind are:
Why would it make if official?
Is it impossible then to be an awakened giant and not be a charity?
There is your way. There is my way. But there is no "the way".

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15083
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Miscellaneous questions

Postby Si » 31 Jan 2010, 12:33pm

Seems to me that a lot of the pro-arguments seem to be revolving around the major strides forward that the Trust has allowed. This sort of suggests that:
1/ without the Trust none of these 'victories' would have been possible - something that is both difficult to believe and pretty insulting to the RTR network.
2/ if the Trust has been so good then why change thing?
....they seem to be inferring tht every achievement of the CTC is down to the Trust and that if we don't become charity then all is lost! Seems a bit tenuous.


Putting aside the pros and cons of becoming a charity, I'm afraid that I have to say that the way that the case has been presented (forced?) by the council has left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. Especially the recent spate of emails sent out by the councillors - surely if being a charity was such a good thing then all that they would need to do would be to list the facts with no additional opinion thus allowing the membership to make up their own minds?

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

Re: Miscellaneous questions

Postby meic » 31 Jan 2010, 1:34pm

There are a lot of people opposing this merger for different reasons. Simon L6 has become the "official No spokesperson". Yet his reasons are not mine. The few people that I have spoken to in the local section are against it but for a third set of reasons.
Nobody seems to know what is happening in the minds of the membership but it certainly isnt just the two options that have been offered.

If we had had the debate and vote before deciding I would have been a lot happier with just going along with the majority, accepting if it wasnt my chosen path.
The negative campaigning isnt going to work very well because they are trying to defeat Simon rather than fighting a no vote. also the complaints about having to waste time and effort because of his activities, however it is their choice to fight him rather than be more supportive of the issues.

The campaign as it is being fought now is causing an increased polarisation and determination to fight the enemy rather than to do what is best for the club.
However what is best for the club is an unkown and not necesarily the same as what is best for some of us individuals or sections of the club.
The power of us being united as one club is very valuable but only so long as it is going in the same direction as the individuals within it want to go.

Funnily enough I have just had the same argument about in fighting between CTC and Sustrans.
Yma o Hyd

Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: Miscellaneous questions

Postby Regulator » 1 Feb 2010, 9:03am

Si wrote:Seems to me that a lot of the pro-arguments seem to be revolving around the major strides forward that the Trust has allowed. This sort of suggests that:
1/ without the Trust none of these 'victories' would have been possible - something that is both difficult to believe and pretty insulting to the RTR network.
2/ if the Trust has been so good then why change thing?
....they seem to be inferring tht every achievement of the CTC is down to the Trust and that if we don't become charity then all is lost! Seems a bit tenuous.


Putting aside the pros and cons of becoming a charity, I'm afraid that I have to say that the way that the case has been presented (forced?) by the council has left a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. Especially the recent spate of emails sent out by the councillors - surely if being a charity was such a good thing then all that they would need to do would be to list the facts with no additional opinion thus allowing the membership to make up their own minds?



A good summary Si. What also leaves a sour taste in my mouth is the insinuation in the emails that are being sent out that those who are opposed to this proposal at this time, such as me and John Meudell (who are both currently Councillors) and Simon (a former Councillor) are against it for some sort of nefarious or malicious reason. It's been suggested that we've made false allegations of fraud against staff - this is simply not the case. We've simply challenged the opaqueness of the accounting policies and the shakiness of the governance procedures... and isn't that what diretors are supposed to do?

Just think of the number of company failures there have been recently - and nearly all of them were because the directors didn't challenge the accounting and governance cultures within the organisations.

It seems to me that the 'pro' camp think they can't win the vote without attacking those who express concerns, rather than addressing the concerns.

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

Re: Miscellaneous questions

Postby glueman » 3 Apr 2010, 6:24pm

This may have been answered elsewhere and apologies if has but I've been on holiday and return to see a form stating family members are eligible to vote. My 3 year old has expressed a keen interest in the democratic process and a willingness to partake. Is there a minimum voting age?

User avatar
robgul
Posts: 2963
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 8:40pm
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous questions

Postby robgul » 3 Apr 2010, 7:24pm

No - as long as he has a member number he can vote.

Rob

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

Re: Miscellaneous questions

Postby glueman » 3 Apr 2010, 7:32pm

robgul wrote:No - as long as he has a member number he can vote.

Rob

Thank You.