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
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

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

Postby Simon L6 » 18 Apr 2010, 8:21pm

well, Drossall, you'll take my point when I say that rejecting unspecified allegations is the stuff of cheap electioneering. And until I know what allegations I and others are alleged to have made all I can do is to confess my complete disdain for that kind of stuff. Allegedly.

On the other hand........

User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

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

Postby Simon L6 » 18 Apr 2010, 8:24pm

I've spared the addressees the pain of being listed here, but one of them did send out an e-mail half an hour after receiving this suggesting that if 8, 9 and 10 didn't pass she'd be out of a job

(my emphasis)


> Subject: Your contribution to the Charity Vote at the CTC AGM.
>
> There are just over 4 weeks to go to the CTC AGM.
>
> The first flurry of voting activity has now passed, now it is down to
> electoral hard work to get support for our merged charity proposal. Counting
> our allies and making sure they have voted is a case of personal action, not
> taking "later" for an answer and making sure each form has gone in. I am
> counting on CTC staff as a vital part of the process, but we do have to act
> now.
>
> I will be asking some of you to send out tailored messages to some targeted
> groups but what really matters now is the personal impact of individuals.
> Most of you work for CTC Charitable Trust, you know the sort of nonsense
> that has been said about your work, but you also now that you are making a
> huge difference for cyclists everywhere on a daily basis. You have friends,
> families, contacts and clubmates who care about cycling and CTC but may not
> regard voting as relevant to them, it is your job to get them to vote. To
> avoid complexity they can complete the form with just one tick, giving their
> proxy to the Chair of the meeting
.

>
> I am now walking round with a bag of voting forms knowing full well that
> many of my friends and contacts will already have lost their paperwork and
> if I leave it to them at home it will never happen, so I give them a hard
> copy. If they don't know their membership number I offer to get it for them,
> and I'll even post the forms to ERS.
>
> I also have the link on standby
> http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/About_U ... g_Form.pdf so I can
> email it to anyone I think might need a prompt and so they can send it to
> their friends.
>
> Sounds painful doing it vote by vote, but it is the way of our democracy.
> Set yourself the target of getting at least 10 votes a week for the next 4
> weeks and we can make a real difference.
>
> If you have any questions please ask, and let me know how it is going.
>
> Kevin Mayne
> Chief Executive
> CTC and CTC Charitable Trust

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

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

Postby thirdcrank » 19 Apr 2010, 8:14am

It would be interesting to run that through one of these computer programmes that will tell you that the works of Shakespeare were written by somebody else of the same name. I'll wager that that was ghosted by an experienced party politician.

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

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

Postby irc » 19 Apr 2010, 10:30am

That e-mail is a disgrace. It is like a politician sending an e-mail to civil servants telling them to drum up support for his party.
CTC employees should have nothing to do with campaigning for either side. If a CTC employee is also a member of CTC then any campaigning should be done as private individuals in their own time.
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?

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

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

Postby glueman » 19 Apr 2010, 10:44am

It does beg the question of how much integrity we can place in those writing such emails after the vote. A few have taken the stance that the ultimate prize - winning the accolade of National Cycling Organisation - is worth any kind of gamesmanship and propaganda. I disagree. I certainly won't feel 'represented' as a cyclist by such individuals whatever the official status of the CTC. That the game is being played for such high stakes is very worrying.

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"

Postby patricktaylor » 19 Apr 2010, 10:53am

glueman wrote:... That the game is being played for such high stakes is very worrying.

I quite agree with you glueman. It's beginning to really smell.

workhard

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

Postby workhard » 19 Apr 2010, 1:29pm

irc wrote:That e-mail is a disgrace. It is like a politician sending an e-mail to civil servants telling them to drum up support for his party.
CTC employees should have nothing to do with campaigning for either side. If a CTC employee is also a member of CTC then any campaigning should be done as private individuals in their own time.


Is it really? Reads more like an email the Chief Exec of a company might send his sales staff to me....

Kevin Mayne undoubtedly believes he has the best interests of ALL the CTC stakeholders at heart here (I believe him to be mistaken - but that is another matter). Staff are one set of such stakeholders so why would he not exhort them to do what he believes is best for the organisation he, and they, are employed by?

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

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

Postby glueman » 19 Apr 2010, 1:37pm

As a members' club surely it is the members who ultimately pay staff wages? Until the vote is passed to validate charitable status we are a still members club and such overtures (threats?) are premature. This is a facing down exercise on potentially undecided staff to inform them where their bread is buttered.

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

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

Postby Regulator » 19 Apr 2010, 1:54pm

workhard wrote:
irc wrote:That e-mail is a disgrace. It is like a politician sending an e-mail to civil servants telling them to drum up support for his party.
CTC employees should have nothing to do with campaigning for either side. If a CTC employee is also a member of CTC then any campaigning should be done as private individuals in their own time.


Is it really? Reads more like an email the Chief Exec of a company might send his sales staff to me....

Kevin Mayne undoubtedly believes he has the best interests of ALL the CTC stakeholders at heart here (I believe him to be mistaken - but that is another matter). Staff are one set of such stakeholders so why would he not exhort them to do what he believes is best for the organisation he, and they, are employed by?



I have to agree with irc. In these circumstances, CTC staff should behave as civil servants would. CTC staff may be members of the CTC but they are also servants of the members.

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"

Postby patricktaylor » 19 Apr 2010, 2:14pm

Requesting staff to drum up support for a "yes" vote is highly suspect (if not corrupt). As far as I know, the CTC exists for its members, not staff. Employees have a vested interest in keeping their jobs and improving their pay - good luck to them in that regard, but it's a completely separate issue from the matter in hand and should not influence the outcome. Does Local Government exist for the benefit of Council workers? No. They must remain politically neutral. It's the same principle.

workhard

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

Postby workhard » 19 Apr 2010, 3:49pm

glueman wrote:As a members' club surely it is the members who ultimately pay staff wages? Until the vote is passed to validate charitable status we are a still members club and such overtures (threats?) are premature. This is a facing down exercise on potentially undecided staff to inform them where their bread is buttered.


The members have delegated, since time immemorial, authority to run the club to a council, and council runbs things as council sees fit, just like a the board of directors. The 'board of directors' have employed people, quite appropriately, to do the operational stuff on a day-to-day basis. The 'board of directors' have approved a strategic change of direction, by a majority decision, and have thusly charged their employees, all of them, from the top down to the bottom, with delivering it. The wisdom of the specific direction we can argue until cows return home but setting it and insisting on people cooperating in its delivery is perfectly normal behaviour and, indeed, predicted as such by the no camp early doors.

Some of the membership, myself included, at least one ex-councillor and CTC activist, and some of council, albeit a small minority but a small minority that includes people whose judgement I trust, have misgivings about the change of direction at this time citing more serious concerns about issues that need to be addressed first. They aren't saying 'no' they are saying 'not now'. Our governance model is always liable to throw up things like this. It has in the past, and it will again in the future. As a model for governance, it's broke imo, completely kaput, because the professionals (the staff) always end up running rings around the amateurs (the board of directors).

Kevin Mayne
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Jan 2010, 9:02am

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

Postby Kevin Mayne » 19 Apr 2010, 5:02pm

As members will note I am not an active participant on this forum but I have to intervene on a matter such as this which relates to staff conduct.

For clarity on the policy position of staff.

It was clear that the subject of staff participation would come up in this discussion at some point. To clarify and protect the staff I took formal proposal to the Council's policy committee for communication which set out the sort of communication plan that could be envisaged, and its purpose. Others have posted it on this forum. Those who have seen it in earlier postings will know that it had little detail at that stage but it contained examples of the sort of things that could be done. Most importantly it explicitly said that if the plan was adopted staff would deliver a campaign in favour of the Council's position.

This gave the opportunity for Council to indicate whether staff should be involved in actively working for the Council's position or whether they should be providing the platform for debate and letting others fill it. A crude analogy might be an election where civil servants are neutral and a referendum where civil servants work to promote the position of the government of the day. This was an open debate, John Meudell was at the meeting, he spoke against and had the chance to make points like those in this forum to his peers.

This proposal was voted on by the Committee which chose to vote in favour of a communications plan which would be in support of the Council's recommendations.

Under CTC's standing orders it was subsequently reviewed by the full Council because some members questioned the decision of the committee. The Council voted on a proposal to overturn the Committee's decision supported by Greg and John. That proposal was defeated. In both cases staff did not comment during proceedings other than to explain why such a policy was needed.

Any subsequent communication is informed by that policy, I would not have any member of staff including myself work against any policy position of the Council.

Kevin Mayne

User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

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

Postby Simon L6 » 19 Apr 2010, 6:03pm

Councillors will be judged by this, but there is something fundamentally wrong with telling staff to do something that has nothing to do with their jobs, and cuts across the democratic principle that they are impartial in going about their employment.

The foolishness of this little tactic has been amply illustrated by the reaction of the staff, who appear to have been queueing up to leak this in what can only be seen as a cry for help.

The execution of this 'policy' has nothing to do with the protection of the staff and Kevin should retract the suggestion that it is - it's about the suborning of staff, some resolutely opposed to the special resolution, to act politically. The only people this is designed to protect is the Councillors who don't have the guts to do the job themselves.

I've no objection to staff having views one way or the other, or even talking to their fellow members, but this dragooning of staff, with targets being set is very, very low. I really do wonder if there's any way back for the CTC.

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

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

Postby toontra » 19 Apr 2010, 7:15pm

So the Council have instructed the staff to lobby on their behalf. Kevin explains the technicalities of the process which apparently permits them to do this. Personally I don't care if it's "legal" or not - it is just morally wrong and speaks volumes about the judgement of those currently in charge. Along with the personal slurs, it reveals an attitude of disdain, almost contempt, for ordinary members which has exemplified this whole process.

Anyone with confidence in their argument would simply put forward both alternatives in as clear and impartial a way as possible and allow the members to make up their own mind. The minute the Council, in their wisdom, started their campaign of "win at all costs" they relinquished the high ground and have created unpleasantness and confusion.

It reminds me of the Government's sham "public debate" on GM crops a few years ago, which was farcical as they had clearly made up their mind in advance to allow their use. They didn't allow for the huge upswell of grass-roots public opposition and were subsequently forced to back down. I sincerely hope the same happens in the vote to come.

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

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

Postby Edwards » 19 Apr 2010, 7:32pm

If the CTC staff have jobs "working for all cyclists" how can they have the time to do this extra work.
Is it saying that there are people working for the CTC that have time to spare and not fully employed.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar