AGM Motions

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
belgiangoth
Posts: 1139
Joined: 29 Mar 2007, 4:10pm

AGM Motions

Postby belgiangoth » 4 Apr 2011, 10:25pm

Other than motion 1, what are people's views?

Are the minutes correct (2), I wasn't there; can we trust our accounts (3); what about our accountants (4); why do fees need to be increased (5); damn those disabled cyclists (6); Lets make change to who can ride for some reason - this is clear as mud (7); etc (8 and 9).

I'm confused by (7), are we looking to restrict or remove restrictions?

As to (5), I am a bit concerned that the average member pays about £25 but the full cost is being mooted at just under £40. Is it fair to have such a disparity in membership cost, especially when those who make the most use of it (retired or unwaged members) will pay the least. Should we not have a lower flat rate membership for both the bulk of my local CTC group (retired and unwaged) as well as the inactive members (commuters who want the insurance and people who vaguely want to support cycle campaigning), instead of charging the latter more?
If I had a baby elephant I would let it sleep in the garage in place of the car. If I had either a garage or a car. (I miss sigs about baby elephants)

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

Re: AGM Motions

Postby Regulator » 5 Apr 2011, 7:05am

belgiangoth wrote:Other than motion 1, what are people's views?

Are the minutes correct (2), I wasn't there; can we trust our accounts (3); what about our accountants (4); why do fees need to be increased (5); damn those disabled cyclists (6); Lets make change to who can ride for some reason - this is clear as mud (7); etc (8 and 9).

I'm confused by (7), are we looking to restrict or remove restrictions?

As to (5), I am a bit concerned that the average member pays about £25 but the full cost is being mooted at just under £40. Is it fair to have such a disparity in membership cost, especially when those who make the most use of it (retired or unwaged members) will pay the least. Should we not have a lower flat rate membership for both the bulk of my local CTC group (retired and unwaged) as well as the inactive members (commuters who want the insurance and people who vaguely want to support cycle campaigning), instead of charging the latter more?




(3) I am an ex-councillor. I do not believe that the accounts, as they are presented, give a true pitcure of the transactions during the year. I shall be voting against.

(4) I'll be happy to see new auditors - it's something I've been pushing for, so I'll be voting for this motion.

(5) I'm disappointed to see that the ordinary membership is being raised yet again - and you can guarantee the extra money will not be used for members but to prop up the failing Trust, as much of its government funding will disappear this year. I understand there was a proposal to put it up even more - to £42, but even Council realised that would be suicidal. I think that Council should 'cut its cloth to suit' and I shall vote against the increase. If that means the Trust needs to seriously rationalise its expenditure then so be it.

(6) I'm glad to see this motion and shall be supporting it. Interesting that Council mention the Vision in their response to it - after all, they're ignoring the Vision by pushing forward the charity proposal, It seems they have selective 'vision'.

(7) I don't support this motion. It smacks somewhat of elitism. I think we should value our affiliate members, and expand the role they're able to play, rather than take a dig at them.

(8) and (9). I'll be supporting both of these, although I think they don't go far enough and may be abused by Council/National Office. But they're a good start and it's about time our Club became a little more open with members. Council has been promising to publish papers for years but has failed to do so with any real effect.

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

Re: AGM Motions

Postby Karen Sutton » 5 Apr 2011, 2:39pm

Regulator wrote:
belgiangoth wrote:Other than motion 1, what are people's views?

Are the minutes correct (2), I wasn't there; can we trust our accounts (3); what about our accountants (4); why do fees need to be increased (5); damn those disabled cyclists (6); Lets make change to who can ride for some reason - this is clear as mud (7); etc (8 and 9).

I'm confused by (7), are we looking to restrict or remove restrictions?

As to (5), I am a bit concerned that the average member pays about £25 but the full cost is being mooted at just under £40. Is it fair to have such a disparity in membership cost, especially when those who make the most use of it (retired or unwaged members) will pay the least. Should we not have a lower flat rate membership for both the bulk of my local CTC group (retired and unwaged) as well as the inactive members (commuters who want the insurance and people who vaguely want to support cycle campaigning), instead of charging the latter more?




(3) I am an ex-councillor. I do not believe that the accounts, as they are presented, give a true pitcure of the transactions during the year. I shall be voting against.

(4) I'll be happy to see new auditors - it's something I've been pushing for, so I'll be voting for this motion.

(5) I'm disappointed to see that the ordinary membership is being raised yet again - and you can guarantee the extra money will not be used for members but to prop up the failing Trust, as much of its government funding will disappear this year. I understand there was a proposal to put it up even more - to £42, but even Council realised that would be suicidal. I think that Council should 'cut its cloth to suit' and I shall vote against the increase. If that means the Trust needs to seriously rationalise its expenditure then so be it.

(6) I'm glad to see this motion and shall be supporting it. Interesting that Council mention the Vision in their response to it - after all, they're ignoring the Vision by pushing forward the charity proposal, It seems they have selective 'vision'.

(7) I don't support this motion. It smacks somewhat of elitism. I think we should value our affiliate members, and expand the role they're able to play, rather than take a dig at them.

(8) and (9). I'll be supporting both of these, although I think they don't go far enough and may be abused by Council/National Office. But they're a good start and it's about time our Club became a little more open with members. Council has been promising to publish papers for years but has failed to do so with any real effect.


Motions 8 & 9 asked for more in their original form. However they were going to be so fervently opposed by Council that we had to cut them right down. Too many members would take on board Council's opposition and both Motions may well have been lost had we asked for more. In the end about 10 versions of these motions were submitted before we got the wording such as would be accepted by Council (even if they still oppose one of them).

Why do Council not want members to know what they are doing? Please don't just believe publishing the items on the website is going to make a lot of work. There have to be other reasons :|

Of course even if the motions are passed nothing will be published until the new website goes live. Don't hold your breath waiting folks!

Clarion
Posts: 39
Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 7:25pm
Location: Up hill and down dale

Re: AGM Motions

Postby Clarion » 5 Apr 2011, 10:21pm

1. I'm voting against. The case has not been made, but a lot of people would like to win the prize draw.

2. Minutes are adequate.

3. I'm voting against the acceptance of the accounts. They do not reflect the position.

4. For the same reason, I am happy with a change of auditors. It's healthy to do it every few years anyway, and, given that the 'subvention' has been presented three different ways in three years, the current auditors have not been giving a good service.

5. I'm not convinced that the increase in membership fees will be reflected in benefits to the members.

6. I will be supporting Kevin Hickman's motion on disabilities wholeheartedly. It's one of the things we should be about.

7. I don't know what this motion is about, and don't see why it is a motion at the AGM.

8. I fully support this motion

9. I fully support this motion. The 'bureaucracy' argument is specious, since the information will be recorded anyway. it is important for club democracy that members know what is being done in their name. i wonder why they want to hide any of this information.
Fellowship Is Life! Unity Is Strength!