Save the CTC Web Site

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12835
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby gaz » 26 Feb 2010, 1:47pm

Simon L6 wrote:Newsnet goes to 38,000 addresses. I would have thought that the Councillors who were invited to send out e-mails reached 75% of those We've got a grand total of 4,000 addresses and that includes my family. We're up against it


Unless you've got an unusually large family then 4,000 addresses is no mean feat considering the savethectc website has been down for longer than it was up.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

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

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby Regulator » 26 Feb 2010, 2:38pm

gaz wrote:
Simon L6 wrote:Newsnet goes to 38,000 addresses. I would have thought that the Councillors who were invited to send out e-mails reached 75% of those We've got a grand total of 4,000 addresses and that includes my family. We're up against it


Unless you've got an unusually large family then 4,000 addresses is no mean feat considering the savethectc website has been down for longer than it was up.


It will be back up this weekend. And the problems with screen width have been sorted.

Sorry it's taken so long - we had a few hosting problems.

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

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby Regulator » 26 Feb 2010, 2:42pm

toontra wrote:Simon, is is fair to say that you didn't hear/see anything yesterday to make you change your view about the forthcoming vote?



From the feedback that I've had about yesterday's meeting (I was unable to attend due to work commitments), I am not sure that my three basic questions have been answered with the clarity and detail that I expected. I shall see what happens at the Council meeting tomorrow.

However, my main concerns are still that this proposed change will further disenfranchise members and does not address the fundamental issues around the lack of volunteer and member group support.

I have yet to be convinced that it is in the best interest of CTC and its members, and on that basis I will be voting against the motion to merge.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 18491
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby meic » 26 Feb 2010, 3:09pm

"He wanted me to agree that the numbers were fine.".

You could point out that you cant really testify to the membership that the numbers are fine as you dont have access to the mailing list. :lol:

Although if you did agree, I think that would change. 8)

I dont want to prick anybody's bubble here but the membership are not a flock of sheep following Simon the shepherd.
Most of the people that I have heard, came to their objection for their own reasons.
These views have been dismissed out of hand in a series of communications, leaving people thinking that the only time that they will be heard is on May 16th.

I dont anticipate any convincing new argument emerging from anyone before then and look forward to the date when the membership speak (or squeek :lol: ) and after having my vote I will go with whatever the majority has decided.
Yma o Hyd

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12835
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby gaz » 26 Feb 2010, 4:37pm

meic wrote:I dont anticipate any convincing new argument emerging from anyone before then and look forward to the date when the membership speak (or squeek :lol: )


I agree that the membership won't go "Baa". :wink:

There are two forms of "squeek". The obvious one is low voter turn out, regardless of the outcome. If you didn't vote you've only got yourself to blame if it's not the outcome you wanted.

meic wrote: after having my vote I will go with whatever the majority has decided.


However defeating the proposal by a 25.1% "no" vote is IMO another form of "squeek". It's a perfectly legitimate one but it may mean going with what the minority has decided. It may be hard for some to swallow.

If the vote is "no" there's still the matter of getting our house in order, no easy task when essentially the structure of the Club, the Trust and the Council will be the same as it was before the vote.

I would not expect any of the Councillors to stake their position on the outcome.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 18491
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby meic » 26 Feb 2010, 5:08pm

"However defeating the proposal by a 25.1% "no" vote is IMO another form of "squeek"."

An apathetic electorate make a mockery out of democracy dont they. :lol:

Everyone who joined the club, joined it as it is now. So you could argue that everyone who doesnt vote to change the club is in effect saying "Leave it as it is".

For proper democracy it should be required to get over 50% of the MEMBERSHIP not just voters. If that was the case they just would never get the turn out unless it was threatening them with instant financial loss.

So allowing for voter apathy, 75% of those who vote looks like a decent hurdle to jump.
It isnt a perfect guarantee against a minority pulling a fast one but now we have proxy votes it seems like meeting that condition will give them a mandate for change. Unless they resort to even more "unfair" tricks.

If I was writing the rule book it would have been 75% of the vote with the additional proviso that the number voting exceeded say 40% of the membership.
Which still means a minority of 30% could get their way, IN THEORY.

You are quite right that whichever way the vote goes it will probably not be a majority decision. Unless there is a crafty way of getting people to sign their proxy to the Chairman by default, without them having done anything towards it.

On the other hand if there are three people saying yes for each no, I will accept that I have been mixing with an unrepresentative slice of the membership. Which is quite common out here in West Wales. (If we meet ANYONE :lol: ).
Yma o Hyd

thirdcrank
Posts: 26208
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby thirdcrank » 26 Feb 2010, 5:34pm

I'm not clear whether the proposal to have the election conducted by the Electoral Reform Society was agreed. I think that would go a long way to making the result acceptable no matter what the result. I've had a look at the ERS www and I can't see anything about what conditions they impose, if any, in relation to level playing fields, before they agree to be involved.

As I've posted before, in the absence of opinion polls etc, nobody can have any real idea which way this will go. Perhaps the most common type of vote like this that many people are familiar with is the building society AGM where they try all sorts of things to improve the level of participation, and the occasional EGM. The Yorkshire Building Society recently had one to approve the rescue of, sorry, merger with the Chelsea Building Society. The Yorkshire's board of directors stated that they were satisfied this was the best all round and duly got their 75% majority (actually over 80%) but that was in the absence of any "no" campaign. Even the most superficial reading of the info showed that the Chelsea was in big trouble having just discovered but being unable to quantify a lat of fraud. Traditionally, the building society movement has always closed ranks whenever anything like this happens to minimise the Northern Rock effect and IMO that's all that was happening here. While for society as a whole, this takeover may have been a "good thing," for Yorkshire Building Society members there was no tangible benefit and potential downside.

CTC councillors seem a bit miffed that their support for the changes has not simply carried the day. The people I talk to, and I cannot claim they are numerous or particularly representative, are equivocal in that they generally have unswerving loyalty to the CTC combined with dissatisfaction about how things are done. The attitude "I don't normally bother with that sort of thing but when you read about it, they've already given away Headquarters...." seems typical. I suppose the point is that if you don't normally bother, that's when things tend to happen and it's no point then grumbling.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12835
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby gaz » 26 Feb 2010, 6:46pm

thirdcrank wrote:I'm not clear whether the proposal to have the election conducted by the Electoral Reform Society was agreed.


Cross threading.

Regulator wrote:I think I should note that CTC Council has only agreed in pronciple that it will go with using the Electoral Reform Society to oversee the charity vote this year. A final decision will be made on 27 February, when the costs have been clarified.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

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

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby Simon L6 » 28 Feb 2010, 8:06am

toontra wrote:Simon, is is fair to say that you didn't hear/see anything yesterday to make you change your view about the forthcoming vote?

Completely fair. I recognise that there is goodwill on both sides and that people on both sides have genuine hopes for the CTC, but I'm as resolutely opposed to the Special Resolution as I've ever been.

And TC - have no fears. Arthur Spurr's e-mail was copied to me a dozen times the day after it went out - from people who were taken aback by the tone.

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

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby Regulator » 3 Mar 2010, 9:26pm

Hi guys

The savethectc.org.uk website is back online!
Last edited by Regulator on 3 Mar 2010, 9:55pm, edited 1 time in total.

toontra
Posts: 499
Joined: 21 Dec 2007, 11:01am
Location: London

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby toontra » 3 Mar 2010, 9:31pm

Well done all! A good-looking site now.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12835
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby gaz » 4 Mar 2010, 8:16am

I notice that on the new site I can register and log in. I can't find anything to let me know what to expect if I do so, as yet, I haven't.

Is it simply a way to gain e-mail addresses for the "no" campaign or are there other "benefits" if I register and log in?

Having registered can I subsequently deregister?
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

User avatar
patricktaylor
Posts: 2299
Joined: 11 Jun 2008, 11:20am
Location: Winter Hill
Contact:

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby patricktaylor » 4 Mar 2010, 9:02am

The website looks fine. It's just a pity the IP address is planted in front of the domain name.

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

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby Regulator » 4 Mar 2010, 11:44am

patricktaylor wrote:The website looks fine. It's just a pity the IP address is planted in front of the domain name.


Hi Patrick

That will be changing as we change the domain name servers. This will happen over the next day or so.

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

Re: Save the CTC Web Site

Postby Regulator » 4 Mar 2010, 11:57am

gaz wrote:I notice that on the new site I can register and log in. I can't find anything to let me know what to expect if I do so, as yet, I haven't.

Is it simply a way to gain e-mail addresses for the "no" campaign or are there other "benefits" if I register and log in?

Having registered can I subsequently deregister?



Hi gaz

Thanks for the feedback. I've updated the registration page to make things clearer.