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

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

Post by Regulator »

meic wrote:"some Councillors and not others were invited to send script to National Office. Is this fair?"

Are you saying that those councilors who are not supporting the movement have not got access to the mailing list for their region in the way that those who have sent out these emails have?



Yes. That is exactly what has happened.

I have asked the Chair of Council if those members of Council who have concerns about the proposals (and there's more than just one or two) will be given access to the e-mail facility that those who are 'pro' have had...

... and he hasn't bothered to respond.
User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

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

Post by Simon L6 »

AndyK wrote:My email came from Richard Bates, who is apparently an SE Councillor. It's quite obscurely-written, to the point where it's not clear at all why he thinks we should all vote Yes. Phrases like "to match cycling in the 21st century", and "an organisation that matches cycling aspirations" don't actually mean anything. My favourite line is: "Charity Status sends out the message to the public of what we are about." Right. And the message the public sends back will be: "Yeah, whatever."

lets be fair here. Richard may not have known that this was going to be used in a mass mailout. We have no idea what he was asked to provide.
workhard

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

Post by workhard »

Simon L6 wrote:
AndyK wrote:My email came from Richard Bates, who is apparently an SE Councillor. It's quite obscurely-written, to the point where it's not clear at all why he thinks we should all vote Yes. Phrases like "to match cycling in the 21st century", and "an organisation that matches cycling aspirations" don't actually mean anything. My favourite line is: "Charity Status sends out the message to the public of what we are about." Right. And the message the public sends back will be: "Yeah, whatever."

lets be fair here. Richard may not have known that this was going to be used in a mass mailout. We have no idea what he was asked to provide.


Creditable even handedness Simon. Surely when asked by 'whoever' for such a missive various questions would spring to mind especially in the mind of a proficient operator like Mr Bates who is nobody's fool

What do I want to communicate? Why do I need to communicate this now? Who is my intended audience? How are they going to get the message? etc., etc..

The whole process, post the apparent even handedness of the articles in the mag, esp the tone and content of the pro-lobby emails, and the absence of any nay-lobby response mechanism, has the appearance of a stage managed attempt at rail roading a decision through and leaves a very bad taste in the mouth. I was never in favour of the Club / Trust merger, a merged mess is still a mess after all. Now, if chicanery is how things are done at the highest levels within the Club, which claims to represent me, then I'm not sure I'm even in favour of being a CTC member any more.
JohnW
Posts: 6474
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

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

Post by JohnW »

Simon L6 wrote:......................lets be fair here. Richard may not have known that this was going to be used in a mass mailout. We have no idea what he was asked to provide.


That's true and fair, but why was it, and the others, written? - and Richard's letter doesn't suggest that he actually believes in what he appears to have been asked to provide.

I have quoted the letter that some of us in West Yorkshire received on the other similar thread - but I've not mentioned names; I thought that the letter was unjustifiably personal about Simon Legg - I saw it as an attack - but the problem surely is the issue and not the individuals.

Except that Simon Legg seems to be emerging as something ao a hero.

The more I think about this, the more desperate some of our 'ruling class' seem to be to get their own way, and I genuinely don't know why. This alone is reason for me to vote against the motion.

Do we really have politicians/ex-politicians on Council? If we do, then what is their real agenda?
thirdcrank
Posts: 31343
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

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

Post by thirdcrank »

JohnW wrote:... Do we really have politicians/ex-politicians on Council? If we do, then what is their real agenda?


Would you Adam 'n' Eve it? Elsewhere in this debate, I wrote:

David Robinson, who signs as Chairman, so I'll use that, is a very experienced local party politician and highlights that as one of his qualities for the role - it's on his electoral address on the CTC www.


I've just looked at it again to point you towards an answer to your question and the text has been amended, removing any reference to local politics. I understand he has had a distinguished career in local politics, including serving as a County Councillor in Cheshire.

http://www.chesterlabour.org/5b69e9c6-e ... cd559e9d48
User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

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

Post by Simon L6 »

thirdcrank wrote:I've just looked at it again to point you towards an answer to your question and the text has been amended, removing any reference to local politics.

not many got away on your watch, did they.....?
JohnW
Posts: 6474
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

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

Post by JohnW »

Simon L6 wrote:
thirdcrank wrote:I've just looked at it again to point you towards an answer to your question and the text has been amended, removing any reference to local politics.

not many got away on your watch, did they.....?


That's one of tc's many good points Si.
PaulB
Posts: 384
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 10:35pm

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

Post by PaulB »

Oh dear, the plot thickens. Do we have hidden agendas here? Maybe it's time for a vote of no confidence in the CTC "leadership"?
User avatar
patricktaylor
Posts: 2302
Joined: 11 Jun 2008, 11:20am
Location: Winter Hill
Contact:

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

Post by patricktaylor »

I too received the email: "A Message from your CTC North West Councillors - In the 'against' article the impression is wrongly given... etc etc." The 'for' and 'against' were given their chance in the magazine. Job done. Make up your mind.

The email thing is out of order on this occasion.
John Catt
Posts: 113
Joined: 21 Dec 2009, 6:08pm

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

Post by John Catt »

PaulB wrote:Oh dear, the plot thickens. Do we have hidden agendas here? Maybe it's time for a vote of no confidence in the CTC "leadership"?


Must say my message appears to have been ignored but I post it below for the record.

I hope you will forgive the intrusion of this email following my
election as one of the CTC Councillors for the East Midlands. Whilst it
would be impossible for me to meet all the members in the region, I can
be contacted by email and would welcome any comments you have about the
work of the CTC. You will have to forgive me if I do not always respond
immediately, like many of you I am a volunteer.

My main purpose in writing to on this occasion is about the main matter
for discussion at our January Council Meeting which looked at the
formalities involved in reuniting the CTC “Club” and the CTC “Charitable
Trust”. This is to be achieved by the “Club” becoming a charity and then
re-absorbing the assets of the Trust, so that we once again become a
single body governed by the Council, as elected by members.

This involved Councillors scrutinising proposed changes to the
Memorandum and Articles of Association which have to be updated to
comply with the latest Company's Act as well as the requirements of the
Charity Commissioners.

I perhaps have the distinct advantage over some of the other Councillors
in that I have been able to come to the subject with a completely open
mind and I have been able to spend quite a lot of time since my election
in October assessing what has been going on, not only to satisfy myself
but to make sure I could adequately represent CTC members in the east
Midlands. I can now make it clear that my study of the subject has lead
me to conclude that, beyond reasonable doubt, this is the correct course
for the CTC going forward.

All but two of the Council agree with this and Council is urging members
to support the necessary resolutions at the AGM. This is to be held in
Loughborough, so many of you should be able to attend and cast your vote.

There is a group of members who oppose the merger, wishing to see the
“Club” remain independent. They have a website where they set out their
arguments at http://www.savethectc.org.uk <http://www.savethectc.org.uk/> . I
have no doubt that these members are honourable, but I believe their
concerns to be mistaken. The CTC has, I think, answered all the points
raised in a special area of its website devoted to this matter which can
be found at http://tr.im/LrZM and I have set out my thoughts in a blog
at http://tr.im/LOPZ .

My conclusion is that there is nothing that we do at the moment, or that
I can foresee the CTC and its members wanting to do, that it will not be
able to take forward as a unified charity.

Opponents of the change have also suggested that Council members have a
vested interest in changing to charitable status. Two of the advantages
of charitable status that I have been able to identify should give you
complete reassurance about my position:

a) the trustees of a charity (which is what the Councillors will become)
are not entitled to any remuneration apart from out of pocket expenses;

b) the standards expected in law of charity trustees is higher than that
required of company directors.

The suggestion has also been made that the accounts of the CTC hide a
subsidy from the Club to the Charity to cover losses on contracts with
government bodies, such as the “Cycle Champions” initiative. The income
and expenditure accounts relating to these contracts has been vetted by
our auditors, the bodies funding the contracts and some Council Members
(including a member co-opted for his financial expertise) and all
concluded that the contracts they examined had covered their costs and
provided an income towards the finances of the CTC as a whole.

The accounts show that the “Club” made a donation to the “Trust” of
£453K for the year ending 30/9/09. Whilst some describe this as a
subsidy, it has to be appreciated that the Trust funded most of our
campaigns, right to ride work, volunteer development and promotion
(including the internet site), the total cost of which was £994K. The
difference was covered from the resources available because of the
financial opportunities and advantages open to the Trust as a charity.

Other points about various problems the CTC has had, such as with the
membership system, have also been raised. I have yet to find an
organisation that did not have its problems. Both council and staff are
working hard to improve all aspects of the organisation and, whilst it
will never be perfect, it will be easier to move forward without the
administrative burden of maintaining and reporting on two separate
organisations.

I believe it is vital that we become one again. If the “Club” were to be
managed separately, as some seem to wish, then there could easily be a
conflict of interest between Council members and the trustees of the
Trust. Such problems would eventually, I believe, result in the
organisations “divorcing”.

In my view we are much stronger united than divided and I urge you to
vote, either at the AGM or by proxy vote, for the proposed changes.

Please feel free to let me know your questions or views

Good cycling.

John Catt


Nobody can prevent conspiracy theories arising (just look at 9/11), but could I suggest that readers might like to consider using "Occam's Razor" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor when reviewing some of these posts. Could I suggest that the reason that most councillors are supporting unification is because they believe it to be in the best interests of the Club.
User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

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

Post by Simon L6 »

John Catt wrote:
PaulB wrote:Oh dear, the plot thickens. Do we have hidden agendas here? Maybe it's time for a vote of no confidence in the CTC "leadership"?


Must say my message appears to have been ignored but I post it below for the record.


Nobody can prevent conspiracy theories arising (just look at 9/11), but could I suggest that readers might like to consider using "Occam's Razor" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor when reviewing some of these posts. Could I suggest that the reason that most councillors are supporting unification is because they believe it to be in the best interests of the Club.


John - doesn't it trouble you that some Councillors were asked to submit script for these e-mails (I'm assuming that you didn't send this out) and some weren't? And reviewing the posts here, don't you think that this was a bit misguided? And which way did you vote in Council on the matter of giving the 'nay' campaign equal access?
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14193
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

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

Post by gaz »

John Catt wrote:My conclusion is that there is nothing that we do at the moment, or that I can foresee the CTC and its members wanting to do, that it will not be able to take forward as a unified charity.


Is there something we do at the moment, or that you can forsee the CTC and it's members wanting to do, that it will not be able to take forward under the existing dual structure?

John Catt wrote:I believe it is vital that we become one again. If the “Club” were to be managed separately, as some seem to wish, then there could easily be a conflict of interest between Council members and the trustees of the Trust.


Surely we would never have set up the dual structure if there could easily be a conflict of interest. This must have been considered fully at the time the Trust was set up.

John Catt wrote:Such problems would eventually, I believe, result in the organisations “divorcing”.


IMO the analogy would be that the Club and the CTC Trust are currently "co-habiting" happily. The merger would be the "marriage" from which there is no option of "divorce". The consideration of "marriage" has only arisen because of a change in Charity Law, it could not have been envisaged at the outset.

Whilst I'm not yet convinced there should be a "marriage" I see no reason for the Club and the Trust to separate but if they did we already know who gets the house; what about the family silver? :wink:
Missing, presumed fed.
Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

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

Post by Regulator »

Regulator wrote:
meic wrote:"some Councillors and not others were invited to send script to National Office. Is this fair?"

Are you saying that those councilors who are not supporting the movement have not got access to the mailing list for their region in the way that those who have sent out these emails have?



Yes. That is exactly what has happened.

I have asked the Chair of Council if those members of Council who have concerns about the proposals (and there's more than just one or two) will be given access to the e-mail facility that those who are 'pro' have had...

... and he hasn't bothered to respond.


The Chair has now responded. He says that e-mail facility is available to all councillors but:

"
National Office (XXXXX or XXXXX) have normally checked the accuracy of the communication, before it is forwarded to members.

I assume that whilst you may now have some reservations yourself you will ensure that your members understand the position taken by national council in the charity debate.


So... it seems we can send e-mails but only if we toe the party line and have our e-mails checked by National Office. :roll:
toontra
Posts: 761
Joined: 21 Dec 2007, 11:01am
Location: London

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

Post by toontra »

So it would appear that National Office have personally approved the text of the emails (many subsequently posted on this board) attacking some councillors with opposing views, especially Simon. Just when you think it can't get any worse....!

I think some of the "anti" lobby need to take up this offer, not only to find out what is "acceptable" to NO, but in an effort to re-balance the information offered to members via email before the vote, most of whom won't be visiting this forum and may not even have read the last edition of Cycle.
Last edited by toontra on 3 Feb 2010, 12:05pm, edited 1 time in total.
Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

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

Post by Regulator »

toontra wrote:So it would appear that National Office have personally approved the text of the emails on this board attacking some councillors with opposing views, especially Simon. Just when you think it can't get any worse....!



I prefer to think that it was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy...
Post Reply