Cycling UK Forum

Not wishing to give anyone the idea that I am an uncaring soul who fails to take an active part in society, but I have just beeen surprised by the latest "Cycle Clips" informing me that my next magazine will include my voting form. I admit to not having taken much interest in the debate, but I thought it was all over and a decision which sealed CTC's future (to the delight of some, disgust of others and I suspect ignorance of many like me) had been made long since.

Should I be interested? Evangelist cycle tourers, this is your opportunity to save me from the fires of hell.

There is a further vote to ratify or overturn the decision on motion 8 forced through at the AGM by the Chair of Council. This vote has come about as a result of action by a large number of disgruntled members.

Any clue as to why this vote is not being done via Electoral Reform as per first time? Seems to leave a lot open to abuse.

workhard wrote:Any clue as to why this vote is not being done via Electoral Reform as per first time? Seems to leave a lot open to abuse.

Are you suggesting that a large proportion of the 'No' votes might accidently fall into a shredder or the National Office recycling box?

I don't think it's particularly helpful to suggest that there would be any form of vote tampering - it's just insulting to the people involved without any obvious grounds. OTOH, there are some pretty fundamental reasons why things are done in a particular way. For example, voters and abstainers in a secret ballot are always less open to feeling under pressure - real or imaginary - to vote in a certain way.

Prior to the AGM, there was at least one post on here suggesting that CTC employees had been given a pep talk or similar (I'm quoting from memory) the implication of the post being that this was likely to influence the way they completed their proxies. Even if that suggestion was completely false, postal votes being returned to HQ must tend to make paid staff cautious about how they vote. Presumably, the answer is that this is normal practice for limited companies, but in those cases, the voters are shareholders, not employees. Building societies - where employees usually also have member status - invariably use the ERS in my limited experience.

thirdcrank wrote:I don't think it's particularly helpful to suggest that there would be any form of vote tampering - it's just insulting to the people involved without any obvious grounds. OTOH, there are some pretty fundamental reasons why things are done in a particular way. For example, voters and abstainers in a secret ballot are always less open to feeling under pressure - real or imaginary - to vote in a certain way.

Prior to the AGM, there was at least one post on here suggesting that CTC employees had been given a pep talk or similar (I'm quoting from memory) the implication of the post being that this was likely to influence the way they completed their proxies. Even if that suggestion was completely false, postal votes being returned to HQ must tend to make paid staff cautious about how they vote. Presumably, the answer is that this is normal practice for limited companies, but in those cases, the voters are shareholders, not employees. Building societies - where employees usually also have member status - invariably use the ERS in my limited experience.

I was being silly and trying to raise a laugh.

But I think you're right in some ways. I find it somewhat bizarre that there isn't a secret ballot on this. Whilst the postal votes for the AGM had our names on them, they were only seen by a neutral third party (Electoral Reform Services).

This time round, Council has eschewed using ERS and they have decided that the votes will be counted by National Office, although they have suggested that ERS will be used for the next AGM. The ballot papers have members' details on them and, even where there is more than one person in a household, there is only one ballot paper so whoever is responsible for sending the paper in will know how everyone will be voting.

Everything about the way this vote is being handled is beginning to smell...

Why didn't CTC use ERS? Well, we've discovered on a different thread that some of the ballot papers sent out contain errors as to how many members there are at each house. This presumably reflects a chaotic member database. If I was being cynical I might wonder if CTC knew that if ERS were invited to run the ballot, they might have something to say about the quality of the member database, and criticism of that nature from ERS might be harder to dismiss than criticism from members...

John

Regulator wrote:

thirdcrank wrote:I don't think it's particularly helpful to suggest that there would be any form of vote tampering - it's just insulting to the people involved without any obvious grounds. OTOH, there are some pretty fundamental reasons why things are done in a particular way. For example, voters and abstainers in a secret ballot are always less open to feeling under pressure - real or imaginary - to vote in a certain way.

Prior to the AGM, there was at least one post on here suggesting that CTC employees had been given a pep talk or similar (I'm quoting from memory) the implication of the post being that this was likely to influence the way they completed their proxies. Even if that suggestion was completely false, postal votes being returned to HQ must tend to make paid staff cautious about how they vote. Presumably, the answer is that this is normal practice for limited companies, but in those cases, the voters are shareholders, not employees. Building societies - where employees usually also have member status - invariably use the ERS in my limited experience.

Everything about the way this vote is being handled is beginning to smell...

Indeed .... and there are "prizes" for voting .... or is that "bribes"

Rob

Indeed .... and there are "prizes" for voting .... or is that "bribes"

I'm sure that any other ideas on how to get a much larger percentage of the membership to take an interest and vote would be welcomed. As it was neither the Pro-charity campaign nor the SaveTheCTC managed it the last time around.

TBH, I can't really complain that N.O. are trying to get more people interested in how the club is run - turnouts, and interest from the grass roots has always been distressingly small. Whichever way the club/charity ends up going it would be better if it was with the support of the majority of the membership rather than just the majority of those bothered to vote the first time round.

While I would happily concede that offering prizes isn't the ideal way to get more people to vote, I have to say that I've not seen a better suggestion, and that I can't fault N.O. for it's attempt to get more people to vote on the future of their club. Throughout this issue both sides have appeared a little too quick, to me at least, to jump on whatever the other side does and try to portray it in the worst light. I like to believe that we have two groups who, despite having differing views on what is best for the club, both honestly believe that they are doing what is best for the club.

There are many organisations that I am a part of where I choose NOT to vote. I do so because I cant be bothered to do the research and dont really care too much about the outcome.
In those cases I will leave it to those who are more deeply involved, I dont see how it helps to bribe people to vote when they clearly are not concerned about the outcome of the vote.
However it is their vote and they can use it how they like.
If the voting turnout does go up dramatically we can conclude that the majority of cyclists are more in favour of Gore Jackets than internal politics.

meic wrote:... If the voting turnout does go up dramatically we can conclude that the majority of cyclists are more in favour of Gore Jackets than internal politics.

The otherwise unreachable, in pursuit of the breathable?

workhard wrote:Any clue as to why this vote is not being done via Electoral Reform as per first time?

So I'll ask again.... WHY the lack of independent scrutiny of the forthcoming vote?

I've had a chat with a former CTC staffer this evening. The lack of anonymity troubles him/her greatly, and she/he is not alone. Voting against the boss would be seriously stupid.

workhard wrote:

workhard wrote:Any clue as to why this vote is not being done via Electoral Reform as per first time?

So I'll ask again.... WHY the lack of independent scrutiny of the forthcoming vote?

As the skinflint Concillor who suggested that members pay their own postage on this poll, it is because it doesn't make any difference and ERS costs money.

Without the 75% vote to change the M&AA nothing can happen. This poll has no bearing on whether or not we become a charity. If passed it will only effect the 2011 AGM as it is only effective for 12 months. The 2012 AGM will be outside the time limit and Council has not proposed to return to the issue at the 2011 AGM.

Read the submission form from the proposer and the unedited submission to Cycle and judge what you think it is about.

At best this is an "opinion poll".

Regards,

John

John Catt wrote:

workhard wrote:

workhard wrote:Any clue as to why this vote is not being done via Electoral Reform as per first time?

So I'll ask again.... WHY the lack of independent scrutiny of the forthcoming vote?

As the skinflint Concillor who suggested that members pay their own postage on this poll, it is because it doesn't make any difference and ERS costs money.

Without the 75% vote to change the M&AA nothing can happen. This poll has no bearing on whether or not we become a charity. If passed it will only effect the 2011 AGM as it is only effective for 12 months. The 2012 AGM will be outside the time limit and Council has not proposed to return to the issue at the 2011 AGM.

Read the submission form from the proposer and the unedited submission to Cycle and judge what you think it is about.

At best this is an "opinion poll".

Regards,

John

John

Go and read the Mem & Arts. You clearly don't understand the Article 36 procedure.

Your post, and in particular your final remark, appears somewhat contemptuous of the membership. Almost as if you are suggesting that the 'pro' camp will do as it wishes, irrespective of the will of the members.