Result in

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
make
Posts: 1
Joined: 16 May 2010, 1:43am

Re: Result in

Postby make » 18 Jan 2011, 5:22pm

I think that 75% to 25% settles it, there is little doubt that the others do NOT care and that is how the other 75% voted:- "I dont care...whatever." They have voted to leave it to the rest of us to sort out.


This is prety much my first ever post on the boards and I tried to vote on the status of the club but my lack of vote wasn't down to "I don't care....whatever", through apathy, lack of care, feelings of having a lack of effect or anything else you wish you suggest. I did not vote on the matter because despite sending an email that I had not received a ballot paper nor a copy of Cycle magazine, I still did not receive one.

So now it would seem that with a completely underwhelming 'majority', the club will be changed over to a charity whose main aim is to 'promote cycling for all', which, correct me if I have this wrong, is the aims of Sustrain.

Also, I have tried to look for this but it is not very clear but now the CTC is a charitable trust, how are the board elected? And are they elected by the members? When will the next board elections be?

Ellieb
Posts: 842
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Result in

Postby Ellieb » 18 Jan 2011, 5:30pm

I don't think you can categorise the 75% who didn't vote as being opposed. Where is your evidence. You could just as well assign them to the 'yes' camp. You can't say that these poeple are 'disenfranchised' The truth is they aren't bothered one way or the other.

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

Re: Result in

Postby glueman » 18 Jan 2011, 5:35pm

Ellieb wrote: You can't say that these poeple are 'disenfranchised' The truth is they aren't bothered one way or the other.


I wouldn't say the whole 75% are disenfranchised but I'd bet a substantial proportion are. There was a time when I, perhaps naively, identified with the aims of the Cyclists' Touring Club. Now I have no idea what they represent and the family subs are too pricey to sponsor a regime you have so many doubts about.

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

Re: Result in

Postby Regulator » 18 Jan 2011, 7:00pm

*
Last edited by Regulator on 18 Jan 2011, 11:35pm, edited 1 time in total.

Karen Sutton
Posts: 608
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:18pm
Location: Greater Manchester

Re: Result in

Postby Karen Sutton » 18 Jan 2011, 8:32pm

I actually don't believe that the swing to 75% for and 25% against is due to members changing their mind and voting for the motion instead of against it.

I suspect some members who didn't vote before voted this time because of the prize draw offer. Many of those would not have ensured they were well informed to make the right choice, but would vote for becoming a charity because it sounds worthy, and because they think being a Charity is somehow better than being simply a Club.

If I didn't have commuted membership I would probably let my membership lapse next year. As it is I have a few years to see how things go, and see how the member benefits stand up to the cuts.

toontra
Posts: 678
Joined: 21 Dec 2007, 11:01am
Location: London

Re: Result in

Postby toontra » 18 Jan 2011, 8:57pm

Karen Sutton wrote:I actually don't believe that the swing to 75% for and 25% against is due to members changing their mind and voting for the motion instead of against it.

I suspect some members who didn't vote before voted this time because of the prize draw offer. Many of those would not have ensured they were well informed to make the right choice, but would vote for becoming a charity because it sounds worthy, and because they think being a Charity is somehow better than being simply a Club.


I suspect that's exactly what happened. Any casual reading of Cycle would have lead them to think that voting "yes" was the only rational thing to do.

I won't be re-joining. Every single councillor (some now ex-councillors) whom I've had personal dealings with thinks this is potentially a disastrous strategy for Council to be following. They know a lot more about the inner workings of CTC than I do and I trust their judgement.

My father joined CTC in 1936. I still have his enamel badge and wear it on special trips. This is all very sad.

PW
Posts: 4519
Joined: 23 Jan 2007, 10:50am
Location: N. Derbys.

Re: Result in

Postby PW » 18 Jan 2011, 9:02pm

I too have commuted membership. While it lasts I'll make a point of voting against those who did this, if they come up for re-election, then I'll let the membership lapse.
If at first you don't succeed - cheat!!

sadjack
Posts: 47
Joined: 11 Sep 2008, 6:19pm

Re: Result in

Postby sadjack » 18 Jan 2011, 9:03pm

It does seem a pity that a quarter of the club can decide on such an important issue. I suppose those that did not vote only have themselves to blame if it goes against what they would have preferred.

Is there nothing in the clubs constitution which states that there must be a certain percentage voting to make it binding, like a quorum in a committee?

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48193
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Result in

Postby Mick F » 18 Jan 2011, 9:32pm

sadjack wrote:Is there nothing in the clubs constitution which states that there must be a certain percentage voting to make it binding, like a quorum in a committee?
Exactly.
That was my point, above.

Quorum or otherwise, the moral objection to any vote has to be the number of members that turn out.

The majority of the membership has to vote, and unless the majority vote, the result is meaningless.
Mick F. Cornwall

drossall
Posts: 4700
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Result in

Postby drossall » 18 Jan 2011, 10:04pm

It's reasonable to ask about a quorum, but in my experience few organisations get a majority of the members who are entitled to vote doing so. When you have important decisions that must be made, or the organisation faces collapse or ruin, that's a recipe for disaster.

I offer no view in this posting on the merits of the current vote, but if you can't accept a majority of the voting members that is in line with a club's rules, you'll end up with no club quite soon. Chances are, you won't even be able to satisfy regulations on the annual meeting accepting the accounts.

sadjack
Posts: 47
Joined: 11 Sep 2008, 6:19pm

Re: Result in

Postby sadjack » 18 Jan 2011, 10:11pm

If the rules say a majority of the regardless of the numbers then of course we must accept that. My question was simply is there any rule on this? I dont know and dont really know where to look.

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 48193
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Result in

Postby Mick F » 18 Jan 2011, 10:17pm

Mick F wrote:Quorum or otherwise, the moral objection to any vote has to be the number of members that turn out.
Take the argument to extreme ..........

10,000 members, and only 10 people vote "Yes".
No other votes are cast, so the motion is carried?

I don't think so.
Mick F. Cornwall

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

Re: Result in

Postby gaz » 18 Jan 2011, 10:19pm

2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!

drossall
Posts: 4700
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: Result in

Postby drossall » 18 Jan 2011, 11:14pm

25 members quorum at a general meeting then. Simple majority applies in a poll of the club - the assumption being, presumably, that you'd get more than 25 votes :lol:

Jimmy The Hand
Posts: 116
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 11:26am

Re: Result in

Postby Jimmy The Hand » 19 Jan 2011, 9:24am

Mick F wrote:......... It means that a quarter of the membership are disenfranchised and ignored.

it wasn't a quarter of the membership, it was a quarter of the members who could be botherd to vote.

Moving to this thread as a whole - would we being having this disscusion if the vote went the other way?