how much did the Club donate to the Trust in 2008/2009?

[PW]

It will only split the CTC if we start getting personal. Up to now we seem to be a group of civilised people having a rational debate and respecting each other's positions. Let's keep it that way.
For the record I'm currently leaning to the "No" vote but I'm still open to reasoned argument.

[thirdcrank]

If what SimonL6 says is provable - and it should be in the minutes- then perhaps the whole process and the result could be subject to judicial review? What do you think TC? That action might split the CTC apart.

Completely beyond my area of knowledge - except to reiterate that I find it very worrying.

[Simon L6]

I think, given the way numbers have floated around, that nobody has the monopoly on wisdom - that's why there's a question mark at the tail end of the title to this thread. And that the reforecast donation from Club to Trust of £872,000, together with the figures associated with expenditure on benefits to members and the expense of running the Club represents little more than a general indication that members aren't getting the kind of service you'd associate with £36 a year. I also think that if the financial advisor to the Council, the chair of the Management Comittee and the Director spend three (or was it only two) days in a hotel room only this month interrogating the figures that it's a certainty that we will know more next year than this - but (and it's a sizeable but) Council have to make the members an offer that they can rely on, and the only way that's going to happen is if people see some meat for the money - and a Council more aware of the potential of volunteer effort and a combined approach, both national and local to retaining and inspiring members. I couldn't help noticing the size of the advertisement for the RtR support officer in this month's mag - that looks like a statement of intent.

I've been banging the same drum - it's fixable, but not fixed. Council had the option of bringing the Special Resolution to the 2011 AGM, or going for broke in 2010. They are choosing the latter. John Meudell, Greg Price, Simon Connell and Barry Flood among others are committed to making the CTC as transparent as it can possibly be, and (put simply) value for money - but it's not going to happen overnight - particularly as all bets are off as far as future government spending on cycling is concerned.

[irc]

If what SimonL6 says is provable - and it should be in the minutes- then perhaps the whole process and the result could be subject to judicial review? What do you think TC? That action might split the CTC apart.

Completely beyond my area of knowledge - except to reiterate that I find it very worrying.

I've also received an e-mail stating that the merger is a good idea and the charity activities make a profit. In fact far from the club subsidising the charity it's the other way round. As yet I've not seen any breakdown showing the costs and the income for each activity. My e-mail stated that project funds

"All ended up adding to Club funds, some rather more that was intended."

I also find it worrying that there is no agreement on whether or not the club is subsidising the charity or vice versa. Surely if adequate records are kept this part of the argument should be a matter of fact and not a case of different opinions from each side?

Or are the management for some reason not willing or able to show the numbers? If I've missed them somewhere on the website or elsewhere I'd appreciate a pointer as to where they are. The full e-mail I received is below.

From Peter Hayman
CTC Councillor, Scotland

Dear CTC member in Scotland

When I first started my time as Councillor for Scotland, three years ago, we were told that the legal requirements for transforming CTC membership organisation into a charity had been fully investigated and there were no significant problems.

The reason to look at this was mainly because of the increasing administrative complications of dealing with two parts of one CTC. Also as more and more CTC activity was being done under the Trust, it meant that there was at least a nominal risk to democratic control of the whole. Even though the sole Trustee of the Charity is the CTC, represented by four elected Councillors who act as Trustees, it is clumsy and a rather unwieldy.

As a new boy, coming mainly from cycle campaigning, I was a bit concerned about any possible curbing of CTC’s freedom to be critical of the powers that be. Along with several others we wanted, and got, more investigation and consideration. It has been a long drag with my personal inquiries, workshops looking at other experiences and alternatives and significantly a change in the law allowing full-on advocacy and benefits to members. The key is that what is done is in the public interest. With an increasingly inclusive Club this is no problem.

Finally we paid for an in depth Independent Review of CTC Governance by Cass Business School of City University London, whose recommendations were adopted by the Council and are the basis for us moving forward.

The CTC Charitable Trust, was set up when the new National Office was being built at Guildford to take advantage of the savings charities enjoy. Soon after that Big Lottery money the CTC received as part of an Active Travel programme (partly because we now had a Charitable arm) allowed CTC cycle promotion officers to start CTC work across England. The first ‘Gathering’ of Scottish membership in November 2007 made it clear that similar work should be done in Scotland. We have been trying to get funding since then and the two Bike Club officers coming to Scotland shortly, thanks to ASDA Trust money, will be the first CTC professionals we have had.

Meanwhile CTC has been blossoming over the last couple of years, in terms of membership and activities, as cycling moves up the public and political agenda. Each new piece of work the CTC Trust has engaged in has spread the word and also brought income to the Club to improve its services.

The idea now is to convert the CTC membership organisation into a charity. This will then allow it to be merged with the CTC Charitable Trust. I am convinced there is no cogent reason it shouldn’t. We will then have what we have now except as a simpler whole, with guaranteed democracy but without the admin hassle.

There will also be some financial advantages. Funders like working with charities and there will be gift aid potential on subscriptions which will all go to improving the club.

OK – so why don’t we just get on with it. Well it is your Club and it needs 75% of your votes at a CTC AGM to make this sort of change.

That would normally be fine but democracy is a fragile animal. You will see in your copy of Cycle this weekend that a platform has been given to an ex Councillor Simon Legg who has taken against the process and is actively campaigning in South-West London against the vote. You will see that he wants to turn the clock back and contract into a mainly exclusive cycle ride organisation, with services. A few ‘antis’ and their friends using the Proxy voting system could upset the progress being made.

CTC does all that Simon calls for but has become so much more. The arguments he uses to turn back just don’t stand up to scrutiny. Unfortunately this challenge has meant that an enormous amount of extra time and effort has had to go into doing just that by staff, Councillors and advisors. This is on top of the normal rigorous oversight of all CTC activities which must be as thorough as for any dynamic, democratic operation.

There is no suggestion of fraud, but the implication of mismanagement and a ‘them and us’ culture could be seen as an insult to the enthusiastic, hard working and dedicated staff as well as the volunteer Councillors who set and check the agenda. CTC Project accounts, audited by funders as well as CTC’s independent auditors, have been gone through with a fine tooth comb by extremely well qualified Councillors. All ended up adding to Club funds, some rather more that was intended. There is no case made.

When I joined Council I never thought I’d be interested in the admin. side, but this vote is important. It is about growing the CTC family and improving services while sharing our experience, know how and the pleasures of cycling with everyone else.

Please use your Proxy vote in the Apr-May Cycle, if you can’t get to the AGM, to ensure a smooth passage so we can get on with the work of the CTC ‘Vision’. Alternatively you can nominate myself, David Robinson, CTC chair, or another to vote on your behalf.

Normally enjoying your cycling is what matters most, but in this case it is your vote which can really make the difference in ensuring an ongoing happy, healthy club.

Best regards."

[meic]

It had me going along with him and thinking, yes possibly I should vote for the merger, it all sounds very reasonable.
Then he wrote
"A few ‘antis’ and their friends using the Proxy voting system could upset the progress being made."

I take it this is part of the new inclusive idealogy that the CTC is trying to generate.
Not like the backward looking "us and them" attitude of the doubters.

I am in danger of getting to the point where I would no longer care which was the right decision and just vote against the merger because of the techniques being used to manipulate the way the membership vote, rather than presenting the facts and letting them decide.
If this progress is in danger of being upset by the membership then they should have been asked before the event rather than having to complain that they say no, after it has been started.

[irc]

It had me going along with him and thinking, yes possibly I should vote for the merger, it all sounds very reasonable.
Then he wrote
"A few ‘antis’ and their friends using the Proxy voting system could upset the progress being made."

Yes, annoying that democracy thing. Proxy votes and all that. Those voters don't always do what they are told?

Incidentally I keep hearing that one reason for going to a charity is that funders prefer it. The govt and councils don't seem to have any problem giving money to profit making companies to provide services such as road maintainance and building and maintaining schools and hospitals. So why has the CTC got to be a charity to attract funding for projects?

[Simon L6]

having wittered on about transparency for the last three weeks, you're entitled to be a bit grumpy about the quality if the images - but these tables are the background to my question at the beginning of this thread...

and then there's the question of the £388,000....

[sbothwell]

In terms of cash assets of the Club, what sort of burden does a forecasted ongoing (average) loss of £160000 per year impose?

It is curious to note that the size of the donation from the club for 2008/2009 results in a surplus for the trust, when in the proposed budgets for the next 2 years it cunningly assures a £0 balance. I would note, however, that there is a minor addition error in the 'total income' proposed for the trust in 2011/2012 which would suggest the 'total' was not entered as a sum of the income items, but as a target before the individual items were determined. Presumably this is normal practice, but one would think some regard would be paid to ensuring consistency.

[Fonant]

Those account figures are very broken

I see a Donation from the Club to the Trust for 2008/2009 of £872,628 which mysteriously changes to become an amount of £873,562 when it arrives at the Trust. How on earth were these numbers calculated?

And both these numbers are very different to the £453,000 quoted on the official CTC pages, with accompanying text saying that the donation from the Club to the Trust is reducing each year. If you replace £453,000 with £873,000 a different conclusion suggests itself to me.

As the Trust has grown and its contracts and grants make an increasing contribution to overheads, the Club has been able to reduce the amount donated each year.

Here are the numbers we have to support this, specified as being the donations from Club to Trust each year:

2005/06 = £375,000
2006/07 = £606,000
2007/08 = £758,000
2008/09 = £453,000 (or perhaps £873,000 depending on whose numbers you believe)

Looking at percentages:

2006/07 = 62% increase in donation
2007/08 = 25% increase in donation
2008/09 = 40% decrease (or 15% increase, depending on which numbers you believe)

Please could the "Yes" camp explain why the donation from CTC to Trust was able to be cut by 40% in 2008/09 having been increasing rapidly in previous years? The Trust must have made additional profits of several hundred thousand pounds - which must have required a very large project (or projects) to achieve. Surely such a huge increase in profits is worth talking about?

Or is Simon correct when he says that actual figure for 2008/09 is more like £873,000? This would appear to follow the trend better: a slowly decreasing rate of increase in donation per year, as the Trust becomes established.

[Regulator]

According to the figures given the the Council meeting on Saturday 23 January 2010, the donation from the Club to the Trust in 2008/9 was £860,000, of which £407,000 was for 'services' supplied by the Trust to the Club.

I asked for an explanation and breakdown of the other £453,000 - such an explanation has not been forthcoming.


Edited to clarify figures when I had them to hand

[admin]

According to the figures given the the Council meeting on Saturday 23 January 2010, the donation from the Club to the Trust in 2008/9 was £863,000, of which £403,000 was for 'services' supplied by the Trust to the Club.

Now that's more like the numbers we need, thank you! Sadly the "services to the club" money-go-round figures don't appear in the accounts posted above, nor in the accounts held by the Charity Commission. And, following any merge these numbers would cease to exist, of course.

So perhaps the official page's £453,000 donation has had the £403,000 amount on the money-go-round subtracted (with a small error). I wonder whether the other figures have also had the money-go-round sums deducted too?

I would like to know how much of my membership fee (not donation) is being spent on charitable works via the Trust, on top of the normal CTC membership benefits and campaigning that have always been done by the organisation. The push to become a single charity suggests to me that CTC wants to spend more on charitable work, but I'm not sure how much of my membership fee is currently treated as a donation, and how much might be treated as a donation in future.

[irc]

I see in the Trust accounts posted by Simon L6 that the Trust lists for 2008 income under the classification " PROJECT OVERHEAD CONTRIBUTIONS" . The numbers are Cycle training 11000, Health & On Road 47226, Bike Club - zero , Big Lottery Cycle Champion 122945, Total - £181,171 Off Road is listed as a loss of 17976 so the net profit from these projects is £163,195

I presume this is why it is claimed that the projects are profit making.

Surely though if the Trust is spending £1,069,990 and the main activity of the Trust is running these projects then that is a substantial loss for the Trust. Even if the £1,069,990 includes circa 400'000 for services provided to the CTC. That still means the Trust is losing around 500'000 a year. Surely these activities should generate enough income to cover their share of the Trust overheads?

It seems to me that the Trust wouldn't be viable without regular substantial donations from the CTC.

I'm sorry if what I've said isn't clear but I don't think the accounts are all that clear. I think it would be more useful if the Trust listed more detail for the categories like Cycle Training, Health and On Road etc to include what the total amount spent was and the total amount received in funding for each project instead of what appears to me to be the profit or loss made by each area.

In the end I think it boils down to what the CTC is for. Whether it is a club to provide benefits for members and to benefit other cyclists incidentally by campaigning etc or whether it is a campaigning organisation. IMO the important part is the club so I don't see why we should be subsidising loss making projects.

[Simon L6]

One thing that would do no harm at all would be to post videos of Council meetings on Youtube. I say it would do no harm despite appreciating that half of the audience would be shouting at the screen and the other half would be throwing themselves under trains, but my point is that you would all be shocked by the brevity of proceedings and the way that complex matters are closed down by the Chair on the grounds that they all have to get away at four o'clock. Add to this the fact that briefing papers are still not being issued in time for proper interrogation to be made (although it has improved in the last couple of years) and youtube videowatchers would almost inevitably come to the conclusion that full sessions of Council are superficial in the extreme.

Now, this isn't all a bad thing. Frankly there's only so much that can be said about the CTC's relationship with European cycling organisations. Stick it on paper. But the means by which financial reporting is taken to full Council and discussed is unsatisfactory. The assumption is that the Management Committee has gone over everything with a fine tooth comb - and, to be fair, since Barry Flood and Simon Connell have been on the case the oversight in Management Committee has improved. Having said that, if the last Council meeting is in any way representative, with the critical numbers being felt-tipped on an easel, the level of consideration isn't good enough - although in this particular instance it should be noted that the figures were the product of a marathon 2 or 3 day session in a hotel room that had finished only the previous Thursday!

I know that Greg isn't accepting the figures at face value, but I'd like, at the risk of boring you all, to return to my point - they are nothing more than an indication that members aren't getting £36 worth of services. We see figures assigned to various functions of running the club, and then there''s the assertion that over £400,000 is expended by the Trust on behalf of members - to which assertion I respond by saying 'bedknobs and broomsticks'. Why is the Club donating money to the Trust to be expended on Club business, and, much, much more to the point, where is the evidence in terms of service delivery? Who are these people beavering away on behalf of members? If Adrian Lawson is just one among many, why does it take two months to get the names of members out to the local groups? Where is the massed rank of RtR support?

So, the figures are useful only in a general sort of way - and even then there is at least one that I simply don't believe. The Trust apparently spends £90,000 on Volunteer Support. Where? How? Who?

[Regulator]

One thing that would do no harm at all would be to post videos of Council meetings on Youtube.

If you did that, members might see one or two Councillors having a nap during proceedings...

I say it would do no harm despite appreciating that half of the audience would be shouting at the screen and the other half would be throwing themselves under trains, but my point is that you would all be shocked by the brevity of proceedings and the way that complex matters are closed down by the Chair on the grounds that they all have to get away at four o'clock.

Agendas are stuffed full and this is used as an excuse to shut down debate.

Add to this the fact that briefing papers are still not being issued in time for proper interrogation to be made (although it has improved in the last couple of years) and youtube videowatchers would almost inevitably come to the conclusion that full sessions of Council are superficial in the extreme.

Papers are supposed to go out 2 weeks in advance of meetings. Somehow, this has been changed to a week before - and there are still papers being tabled on the day...

[Regulator]

Some questions you may want to ask your local councillor if s/he e-mails you and assures you everything is OK with the CTC accounts and accounting system, and that you should vote for the charitable option.

In the 2008/9 accounts, there are payments totalling £863,599 from the Club to the Trust. An explanation of this sum was given at the Council meeting on 23 January 2010. The Chair of the Management Committee explained that, of the £860,000 (rounded down for ease):

• £407,000 was for ‘services’ supplied by the Trust to the Club
• £453,000 was a ‘subvention*’ from the Club to the Trust

You might want to ask your Councillor to explain (and itemise):

1. what ‘services’ were provided for the sum of £407,000 and what each of those services cost; and,

2. why the Club is giving the Trust a ‘subvention’ (a grant of financial aid) of £453,000? What is it for and why is it necessary, given the assertion in the recent e-mails that the Trust is making money on its contracts?

Another assertion made in several of the e-mails is that the Trust has ‘saved the Club £430,000’. Can your Councillor is explain what these ‘savings’ actually are and how the figure of £430,000 is reached?

Those who are assuring you that everything is OK and the Trust isn't losing money, or who are suggesting that some councillors and ex-councillors are acting maliciously, must surely be able to answer these questions as they relate to substantial sums of money and go to the heart of the concerns people are expressing over the financial situation.

If they're saying everything is OK then they should be able to give coherent and detailed answers to these questions.

*(A ‘subvention’ is defined as: ‘(1) Provision of help, aid, or support. (2) An endowment or a subsidy, as that given by a government to an institution for research; a grant of financial aid.’)