Vote at discretion of proxy

[Benethi]

I'm probably just missing something here (I know it's not just with the CTC polls that I've seen this) but the way the poll is carried out just seems to be badly rigged to me...

As I see it:
The club want as many people to vote as possible, to try to get the opinion of the club as a whole, so to help in this they offer a prize draw to everyone who sends the form back. Fair enough.
So loads of people send the form back, regardless of whether or not they have any idea regarding what they are voting about or the implications it will have*. Now this would be fine if they abstained, or just voted on gut instinct. But instead, what we are encouraged to do if we don't know which way to vote (or if we're just lazy and can't be bothered to cross boxes, but want the chance to win a Garmin), is to leave it to the discretion of the proxy - in the vast majority of cases the chair.
So:
Don't worry if you don't know which way to vote - you can leave it to someone who does! What's more, this is the easy option - just sign your name and send it off and win prizes!
So the chair gets 75% of the votes and low and behold we have a charity.

Surely this is far worse than people not voting at all?

I'm sure I'm just being dumb here - but could someone explain to me how?

*incidentally, I intended to vote last time but didn't on this basis - I wanted to know what I was voting for first, and never got round to reading up on it all in time. This time I've read a bit and am voting.

[Clarion]

I think you have it in one.

I wonder whether having a prize draw for posted votes and not for votes in person is reasonable.

[Benethi]

Oh

[meic]

I'm probably just missing something here (I know it's not just with the CTC polls that I've seen this) but the way the poll is carried out just seems to be badly rigged to me...

As I see it:
The club want as many people to vote as possible, to try to get the opinion of the club as a whole, so to help in this they offer a prize draw to everyone who sends the form back. Fair enough.
So loads of people send the form back, regardless of whether or not they have any idea regarding what they are voting about or the implications it will have*. Now this would be fine if they abstained, or just voted on gut instinct. But instead, what we are encouraged to do if we don't know which way to vote (or if we're just lazy and can't be bothered to cross boxes, but want the chance to win a Garmin), is to leave it to the discretion of the proxy - in the vast majority of cases the chair.
So:
Don't worry if you don't know which way to vote - you can leave it to someone who does! What's more, this is the easy option - just sign your name and send it off and win prizes!
So the chair gets 75% of the votes and low and behold we have a charity.

Surely this is far worse than people not voting at all?

I'm sure I'm just being dumb here - but could someone explain to me how?

*incidentally, I intended to vote last time but didn't on this basis - I wanted to know what I was voting for first, and never got round to reading up on it all in time. This time I've read a bit and am voting.

I am not sure about that, I am fairly sure that if he gets 75% of the vote WE will have nothing at all. The CTC will become a charity and as such WE will no longer have it.

[Regulator]

I'm probably just missing something here (I know it's not just with the CTC polls that I've seen this) but the way the poll is carried out just seems to be badly rigged to me...

As I see it:
The club want as many people to vote as possible, to try to get the opinion of the club as a whole, so to help in this they offer a prize draw to everyone who sends the form back. Fair enough.
So loads of people send the form back, regardless of whether or not they have any idea regarding what they are voting about or the implications it will have*. Now this would be fine if they abstained, or just voted on gut instinct. But instead, what we are encouraged to do if we don't know which way to vote (or if we're just lazy and can't be bothered to cross boxes, but want the chance to win a Garmin), is to leave it to the discretion of the proxy - in the vast majority of cases the chair.
So:
Don't worry if you don't know which way to vote - you can leave it to someone who does! What's more, this is the easy option - just sign your name and send it off and win prizes!
So the chair gets 75% of the votes and low and behold we have a charity.

Surely this is far worse than people not voting at all?

I'm sure I'm just being dumb here - but could someone explain to me how?

*incidentally, I intended to vote last time but didn't on this basis - I wanted to know what I was voting for first, and never got round to reading up on it all in time. This time I've read a bit and am voting.

Because those who want to ruin the Club by turning it into a charity will do anything to push this through...

[Benethi]

Hmm, well I sit here waiting for someone to come and defend the council

In the meantime - I saw the 'Save the CTC' website, and feel honoured to have already made headline news!

[gaz]

What's all the fuss about.

You can't appoint any proxy in the quoted timescale.

2011 Proxy Form.jpg

To appoint a proxy using this form, the form must be;
...
c) ... received by Electoral Reform Services by 12:30pm on Thursday 12 May, 2010.
...

[Clarion]

Oh how embarrassing

[Karen Sutton]

I'll be at the AGM if anyone wants to name me as their proxy. To be clear, if you give me your vote to place it at my discretion I will vote No

[swansonj]

I have sent the form with the Chair nominated as proxy but instructed to vote "no" for all four members in our family - I felt there was some very small and petty satisfaction to be had from forcing the Chair to cast at least some "no" votes! But I predict the vote will go through with over 75% this time.

[Karen Sutton]

I wonder how many members will look closely at the accounts before they vote?

I have been looking for the "subvention" from the Club to the Charitable Trust for year end 2010. It's not obviously there, yet I had heard that there was one. I wonder whether it is included in the Club's "Charitable Projects" expenditure? The expenditure on that item was £1,456,407 year end 2009. For year end 2010 it is £2,959,237. If the subvention is in there, how much is it for this year? I'd like to know.

So why is the subvention not detailed? And what has happened to the 3 hundred and eighty odd thousand pound loan from the Club to the Charitable Trust for fitting out the new National Office? That was previously detailed in the accounts as a loan Has it been paid back?

If not, why has it disappeared?

I'm not surprised John Meudell has resigned. I would if I had been on Council now. I will contact my Regional Councillors to see if either of them can explain this.

[Regulator]

I wonder how many members will look closely at the accounts before they vote?

I have been looking for the "subvention" from the Club to the Charitable Trust for year end 2010. It's not obviously there, yet I had heard that there was one. I wonder whether it is included in the Club's "Charitable Projects" expenditure? The expenditure on that item was £1,456,407 year end 2009. For year end 2010 it is £2,959,237. If the subvention is in there, how much is it for this year? I'd like to know.

So why is the subvention not detailed? And what has happened to the 3 hundred and eighty odd thousand pound loan from the Club to the Charitable Trust for fitting out the new National Office? That was previously detailed in the accounts as a loan Has it been paid back?

If not, why has it disappeared?

I'm not surprised John Meudell has resigned. I would if I had been on Council now. I will contact my Regional Councillors to see if either of them can explain this.

The 'subvention' or donation from the Club to the Trust last year was £685,003. It only appears in the Trust's accounts (the Trust didn't get any other donations or legacies). One of the uses of consolidated accounts is that it allows you to 'bury' bad news.

I'm sure you'll get the usual bull and flannel about much money the Trust has 'made' for the Club.

[Karen Sutton]

I wonder how many members will look closely at the accounts before they vote?

I have been looking for the "subvention" from the Club to the Charitable Trust for year end 2010. It's not obviously there, yet I had heard that there was one. I wonder whether it is included in the Club's "Charitable Projects" expenditure? The expenditure on that item was £1,456,407 year end 2009. For year end 2010 it is £2,959,237. If the subvention is in there, how much is it for this year? I'd like to know.

So why is the subvention not detailed? And what has happened to the 3 hundred and eighty odd thousand pound loan from the Club to the Charitable Trust for fitting out the new National Office? That was previously detailed in the accounts as a loan Has it been paid back?

If not, why has it disappeared?

I'm not surprised John Meudell has resigned. I would if I had been on Council now. I will contact my Regional Councillors to see if either of them can explain this.

The 'subvention' or donation from the Club to the Trust last year was £685,003. It only appears in the Trust's accounts (the Trust didn't get any other donations or legacies). One of the uses of consolidated accounts is that it allows you to 'bury' bad news.

I'm sure you'll get the usual bull and flannel about much money the Trust has 'made' for the Club.

Surely it has to appear in the Club's expenditure somewhere? Are they calling it a donation now, instead of a subvention?

[Kevin Mayne]

To explain Greg's point Karen, the CTC accounts in the magazine are the CTC "Group" accounts, with all the elements such as Holidays and Tours, the Charitable Trust etc consolidated. At the consolidated level transactions between group companies cancel each other out so are not visible.

The Trust accounts are in a different format and as they cover a lot of work done in CTC's name a decision was made some years ago to include an extract in the CTC report.

I tend to agree with Greg that there may be limited value in going through all the arguements again about what the donation pays for, those with an interest in the detail have been through all the detail before and you can if you wish go back to all the financial FAQs, or I'll take some extracts from the papers tabled at Greg's last committee meeting of last year before he resigned where again the Council discussed around £1million of work that was commissioned by the Council from the Charitable Trust by agreement with the Trustees, for a donation of around £700,000. Its the same model we have had since the Trust was founded.

Specifics on this years numbers can be given via [url]members.matter@ctc.org.uk[/url] and as promised we will add FAQ material if items come up regularly

regards

Kevin Mayne

[Clarion]

Thanks, Kevin, but, since the first motion at the AGM, and the dominant debate for the past year and more, is the potential move to an overall charity status, it is important to understand how the charity currently performs within the organisation, and whether it is a net benefit to members or not. The elision of the subvention information doesn't fit with the declaration that the Council supports transparency.