New Vote

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
Old pedaller
Posts: 6
Joined: 4 Sep 2009, 9:54pm

New Vote

Postby Old pedaller » 5 Dec 2010, 8:42pm

The below is not accusative but is the perspective of someone who, professionally, has been involved in processes which have to be conducted confidentially but subject to rules regarding conduct of the process and which conduct is liable to inspection; I am also involved in inspection/audit of matters of propriety in relation to commercial/public contracts etc.

The controversial nature of the "charity" proposal was obviously recognised by CTC and the original postal vote was conducted through the Electoral Reform Society, presumably to obviate any potential criticism.

From what I read in the latest Cycle it seems to be the case that the validity of the direction in which certain votes were cast has been queried, rightly or wrongly, by some members.

I note that the latest vote appears to be conducted entirely in house and, given the enthusiasm of some parties to scrutinise matters, am more than somewhat surprised that CTC has chosen this path.

Are funds really so low that CTC can not afford to ensure that, as it absolutely must be this time round, the result is final and decisive and beyond any query or debate by conducting it through the same channels as before?
Last edited by Old pedaller on 6 Dec 2010, 2:13am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13898
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: New Vote

Postby gaz » 5 Dec 2010, 9:03pm

I'm sure the majority of us posting on this forum board feel that ERS should have been conducting this poll on our behalf.

The AGM turnout was very low, the result on Motion 8 was very close. It is hard to envisage a decisive outcome to the poll (I may of course have to eat my words at a later date :wink: ).

If we vote "no" I hope it will lay the matter to rest. However I'd expect it to become a question of how long until the Motion re-appears at a future AGM.

If we vote "yes" then we still have to have a re-run of 2010 AGM's Motion 10 which was defeated. Then the debate will go on.
2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!