Steady rider wrote:It is speculation but it seems to me the idea of having charity status was to gain extra funds but other substantial changes were added.
One major change was probably sufficient and regain stability. Changing the format of the board and trade name made for added complications. A lot seems to have stemmed from the legal advice/charity advice. In some ways it does not seem quite the same as being in a 'cycling club'. At a local level it appears just the same.
Having become a charity, the CTC had to change the format of the board to some extent. The old Councillors were there to protect the interests of the members. Trustees are there to protect the public interest above all else, and are bound by a whole raft of legal restrictions which didn't apply before.
When deciding how to vote, it's important to bear in mind that you're voting for someone who will act - must act - in the interests of the charity and its beneficiaries first and foremost, not in your own interests. (Luckily those interests will often be the same in the long run.)
You might say that this should have been explained more clearly to members before they voted to convert to a charity. I couldn't possibly comment. But we are a charity and that requires a different way of looking at the priorities.