Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
User avatar
neildmoss
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Sep 2007, 2:47pm

Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby neildmoss » 31 Jan 2010, 2:57pm

Has anyone else received an email,apparently from Peter Hayman, subject "Making CTC wholesome again - Your Vote at the CTC AGM matters!", addressed to "CTC member in Scotland"?

The message contents provide an impassioned advocacy of a Yes vote, with [b]no[/b] balancing arguments from the No side.

The sending of this message appears to me to be an abuse of process with regards to the upcoming charity vote. Following just two days on from the publication of full-page statements from both "Yes" and "No" proponents, it seems inappropriate to use the central CTC mailing list for the purpose of promoting just one side of the debate.

Was this message officially sanctioned by CTC?

Regards,

Neil.

sbothwell
Posts: 2
Joined: 30 Jan 2010, 10:51pm

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby sbothwell » 31 Jan 2010, 3:36pm

I have also received this email. As I understand it a lot of councillors are sending out similarly worded emails, although some small few have had the decency to provide a link to the 'No' campaign in their empassioned pleas to not worry about it much, and trust them when they say a 'yes' vote is for the best.

PaulB
Posts: 384
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 10:35pm

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby PaulB » 31 Jan 2010, 5:55pm

Well, I'm not in Scotland but for the first time in 22 years of membership I have received an email from a councillor urging me to vote yes. Seems there is a three line whip to persuade us to vote yes which makes me wonder about the motives behind the campaign. If no councillor could be bothered to contact me in 22 years (I know email was not around then) I am not inclined to take much notice of them now!

drossall
Posts: 5131
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby drossall » 31 Jan 2010, 7:02pm

I'm kind of puzzled by this line of argument. I have read that the Council are all directors of the CTC. As such don't they have (legally) a collective responsibility for the decisions made, in spite of personal opinion, and a duty to promote the path that they are recommending?

Perhaps someone more expert in company law could advise?

In any case, they all seem to be referring to the pages on the CTC site, which in turn highlight the debate here. If I were being underhand, I wouldn't have done that...

mw3230
Posts: 1162
Joined: 31 May 2007, 11:22pm
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby mw3230 » 31 Jan 2010, 7:13pm

Similar email from the rep in the North East. I'm furious that he was given access to my address. I cleared the message without reading it and having just received my membership renewal, am considering my future which is a shame. No doubt I've agreed to this type of contact at some point but i do not like it. Will the CTC sell my particulars to outsiders, how secure is the data?
Retired and loving it

drossall
Posts: 5131
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby drossall » 31 Jan 2010, 9:40pm

The Councillor is an officer of the CTC. Surely when we give the CTC our data we expect them to use it?

If the emails were sent by National Office, the Councillors never actually had access to them anyway.

thirdcrank
Posts: 30856
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby thirdcrank » 31 Jan 2010, 10:13pm

drossall

I think there are two points which have come up in the fairly wide-ranging discussion about members' email addresses, both in relation to membership services and more recently the conversion-to-charity debate.

First it has been suggested that the organisation (possibly through its agents) has been slack in the collection of email addresses and has been reluctant to allow them to be used by local groups to make contact with local members. It is also suggested that data protection has been used as a defence "when evry fule kno" that a suitable data protection registration would permit that use. (A membership group facilitating contact with its own members.) Incidentally, I think those members now complaining about receiving emails from the CTC councillors may another symptom of the same sloppy data collection. When email addresses, phone numbers etc., are collected by any organisation, the intended use should be transparent, agreed by the person and within the organisation's data protection registration.

The other is one of simple fairness. To give both sides equal space and prominence to make their case in the organisation's mag is I think something most fair-minded people would applaud. For one side of the debate then immediately to mount a co-ordinated campaign of rebuttals, using a means of communication not available to the other will, I think, strike the same fair-minded people as wrong - even if it is legal or even perfectly legal.

From the speed with which the emails were launched to coincide with the distribution of the mag, I'll take some convincing that the authors of the emails had no advance sight of the "No" argument. Again, probably perfectly legal.

User avatar
neildmoss
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Sep 2007, 2:47pm

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby neildmoss » 31 Jan 2010, 10:28pm

@drossall

Perhaps some of my discomfort regarding this message is in the tone and structure of some of its contents. To quote (emphasis mine):

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.


And then a few paragraphs below:

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.


At first he implies that by me casting my vote via Simon as my proxy, I would be as some 5th columnist hacking at the pillars of the democratic process. And yet, he then asks me to do the very same thing in support of his aims.

When I gave my details to the CTC, it was for the purpose of receiving CTC newsletters and announcements - not manifestos from one faction of an internal political debate.

So, all told, I'm less than impressed.

thirdcrank
Posts: 30856
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby thirdcrank » 31 Jan 2010, 10:50pm

A few ‘antis’ and their friends


Speaking as a frequent contributor to this on here, I should like to make it clear that I do not know personally any of the other contributors, pro or anti - my only contact being though this forum.

With specific reference to Simon Legg, when he was a CTC councillor I wrote one of my many pieces on here about the bullying of cyclists by drivers and my suggestions on how it might be dealt with. Simon started threads on this and other forums to try to get some idea of the level of the problem and invited me by personal message to HQ to discuss it with the relevant people. This all coincided with the Highway Code "victory" which led me to jump up and down (Fortunately without injury on that occasion :wink: .) I knew that if I did go to HQ I should have had so much to say about the HC that it would have ruined the purpose of the meeting so I pulled out. That is my only contact with him.

drossall
Posts: 5131
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby drossall » 31 Jan 2010, 11:12pm

thirdcrank wrote:For one side of the debate then immediately to mount a co-ordinated campaign of rebuttals, using a means of communication not available to the other will, I think, strike the same fair-minded people as wrong - even if it is legal or even perfectly legal.

I guess I'm just trying to understand, but suspecting that it is not only legal but legally required, in that directors aren't supposed to give equal weight to both sides of a case, but to promote their jointly preferred course of action.

Or maybe I'm wrong...

irc
Posts: 4831
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby irc » 31 Jan 2010, 11:51pm

neildmoss wrote:When I gave my details to the CTC, it was for the purpose of receiving CTC newsletters and announcements - not manifestos from one faction of an internal political debate.

So, all told, I'm less than impressed.


I'm feeling much the same. IMO the two sides had their say in the magazine. These forums are open to anyone to continue the debate. I don't welcome one sided e-mails telling me how to vote when the other side are not given the same chance. I think referring to someone being "given a platform" implies that there is only one true path. and the other side only grudgingly being allowed a say. I'm not sure what is meant by "Democracy is a fragile animal". I believe that large numbers of proxy votes (for either side) are democratic. The people proposing the change need to persuade 75% of the voting members and they haven't convinced me.

If the changes proposed are the way forward now then they will still be the way forward in a years time which would allow more time to establish the true financial postion with regard to the Trust projects amongs other items. Once the step is taken though there is no going back.

I'm voting against.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

toontra
Posts: 746
Joined: 21 Dec 2007, 11:01am
Location: London

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby toontra » 31 Jan 2010, 11:51pm

drossall wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:For one side of the debate then immediately to mount a co-ordinated campaign of rebuttals, using a means of communication not available to the other will, I think, strike the same fair-minded people as wrong - even if it is legal or even perfectly legal.

I guess I'm just trying to understand, but suspecting that it is not only legal but legally required, in that directors aren't supposed to give equal weight to both sides of a case, but to promote their jointly preferred course of action.

Or maybe I'm wrong...


In this case I think you're wrong. How can it possibly be a legal necessity for certain councillors to be emailing members with biased and misleading information, some of which contain personal attacks on individuals who have done nothing other than take an opposing view to those with most power.

Even if it were legal technicality, that certainly doesn't stop it being morally reprehensible. It so happens that the only councillors who I've had personal dealings with are all opposed to the motion. They are all splendid individuals and have earned my respect for the work they have done for the CTC and cycling in general.

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

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby glueman » 31 Jan 2010, 11:59pm

drossall wrote: that directors aren't supposed to give equal weight to both sides of a case, but to promote their jointly preferred course of action.

Or maybe I'm wrong...


Then why go through the pretence of providing opposing viewpoints when the executive intended editorialising the conclusions through email shots? The cynic might suggest Simon Legg's case was sufficiently strong that the likelihood of a clear Yes vote had been undermined, if not scuppered, requiring a scramble to win hearts and minds - but above all votes - by innuendo.

If you believe strong leadership is presenting the case then going on to do what you intended all along, then you'll see no moral ambiguity in what's arisen. Should you feel members pay their subscriptions to be informed of facts, including comprehensive financial facts and have the chance of voting on that data, the CTCs actions are disreputable.
It's hard not to imagine someone suggesting I 'get real' and that I'm 'ten years too late' with the argument, which may be true on both counts.

drossall
Posts: 5131
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby drossall » 1 Feb 2010, 8:13am

I'm not going to carry this further because I am not sufficiently sure of my ground, but as far as I can see we have a current constitution under which the Councillors are directors, and may well have a duty to provide the strong leadership that you describe. It may at least be worth understanding the model that some of us would like to keep.

The email that I received did not make any allegations about people or motivations, although it did reject unspecified allegations made about the motivations of staff and the use of CTC funds.

thirdcrank
Posts: 30856
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Postby thirdcrank » 1 Feb 2010, 8:16am

drossall

You might like to reflect on what you said elsewhere in this discussion about the way the two sides were presenting their cases.