Disagreement with AGM resolutions

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1302
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby Philip Benstead » 2 Sep 2020, 8:22pm

In order not to mislead or for persons to misinterpret my comment I have given below in full my observations or questions regarding the proposed change in the article


THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING of the Cyclists’ Touring Club, trading as Cycling UK, will be held at 11am on Friday 4th September 2020.

Agenda
ORDINARY BUSINESS
1) To adopt as a true record, the minutes of the Annual General Meeting held in London on 15th June 2019.

QUESTION
According to a CTC member present at last year’s AGM the minutes have not reflection of what occurs at the meeting, it was promised by the CEO that a full set of minutes will be produced. WHY have they not been produced?
2) To adopt the Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and the audited accounts for the year ended 30th September 2019, as published on the Cycling UK website.
The motion below was passed at the CTC AGM 2019, I can see no mention of KPI in this report WHY?

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPI)

This AGM proposes that a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) shall be set for the Cycling UK. They shall include targets for membership, finance, campaigns, local group activity, public awareness etc. The outcomes of these performance indicators shall be published in the annual report and on the Cycling UK website. The results shall cover a three-year cycle.
KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPI)

This AGM proposes that a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) shall be set for the Cycling UK. They shall include targets for membership, finance, campaigns, local group activity, public awareness etc. The outcomes of these performance indicators shall be published in the annual report and on the Cycling UK website. The results shall cover a three-year cycle.



ORDINARY RESOLUTION
4) That the membership fee set pursuant to Article 11 of the Articles of Association shall increase as follows: Household rate from
£74 to £75; the Concession rate from £29.50 to £30.50; the Junior/Young Person rate
from £22 to £24.
The Individual rate shall remain unchanged. There shall no longer be an age-related concessionary rate.

Board response: We are very proud of all our success last year, which we can only achieve with the support provided by members.
We carried out a major review of membership at the end of 2019, including a member survey with almost 4,000 responses.

QUESTION no details published WHY?
Taking on board this feedback, and a review of many other membership charities, we are proposing to both improve our membership offer and launch a fairer fee structure this year, with our concessions based on the ability to pay, rather than age. This will allow us to support more people on lower incomes to join us.
COMMENT
No details of proof that low income person will take this offer up, CTC have previously had introduction offer of reduced membership fee, it had very limited uptake and was done away with.
SPECIAL RESOLUTION
5) i) That Articles 12.9 and 12.10 in the Articles of Association are deleted in their entirety with subsequent Articles and cross-references renumbered accordingly.

ii) That the Articles of Association be amended as follows:
C) In Article 17.1.2 replace the word two with three and after ‘Trustees’, provided that such co-opted Trustee may only serve for a period of one year and may be re-appointed annually by the Board up to a maximum term of nine years, after which they may not be co-opted again for a period of three years.
In exceptional circumstances, the Board may appoint as a Co-opted trustee, a trustee who is returning as an Elected Trustee for up to a maximum term of one year in addition to any term of office served as an elected trustee.
THE CURRENT ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF CYCLISTS TOURING CLUB
15. HONORARY OFFICERS
15.1 The Trustees may from time to time appoint any Trustee to the office of
Chair, Vice-Chair or such other offices as they deem appropriate.
16. ELECTED TRUSTEES
16.1 Subject to Article 14.3 (confirmation of consent and eligibility), the Members shall be entitled to elect at least nine persons as Elected Trustees from amongst their number. The Trustees shall determine the procedure for election to the office of Elected Trustee.
16.2 The term of office for an Elected Trustee shall be as near as possible to three years from the date of his appointment.
16.3 An Elected Trustee may be elected for three consecutive terms of three years but thereafter may not serve for one term (three years) after which s/he may be re-elected for a future term or terms.
COMENT
The previous change to the electoral process was bought in to enable the board of directors to be refreshed and new talent and new ideal. The requirement was having maximum term of 9 years was way to achieve this. Other formers councillor and trustee ended their association with CTC at board level at the end of their term.
The current selected trustee has served there of 3 and 6 year so have enough background experience to run the board.
NCVO https://www.google.com/search?q=ncvo&rl ... e&ie=UTF-8
NCVO say making changes to the articles for the benefit for and individual or trustee is bad practice.
QUESTION Why the change


ORDINARY RESOLUTIONS
6) Reduction of promotion of holiday flights.
Proposer’s note: The CTC (Cycling UK) Articles of Association state four Objectives of the Club. Three are related specially to cycling. The fourth states ‘promote the conservation and protection of the environment’. The member survey indicated
71% support for ‘Encouraging cycle use to benefit the environment’. We would like to propose that the Club adopts a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop, promotion of cycling holidays that involve flying. An organisation whose stated objective is to protect the environment should not be promoting flying as it so massively increases a person’s annual carbon footprint and hence contributes to climate change. The current promotion is in the form of CTC branded holidays, which involve flying; articles in the magazine; and the adverts in the magazine selling holidays involving flying.
Proposer: Martin Crane
Seconder: Alison Hill


COMMENT
Given that the by far the greater amount of air pollution from transportation come from road traffic I would suggest that the motion is flawed. We should suggest that any CTC/CUK event should not be run with the use of a motor vehicle.
You could argue that marine transportation is just as bad as flying

Should the CTC campaign for better rail transportation across Europe in conjunction with ECF?
https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/sites ... T_IM_0.pdf SEE PAGE 7 FIGURE 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environme ... _transport
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

Tompsk
Posts: 77
Joined: 6 Nov 2014, 9:35am

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby Tompsk » 2 Sep 2020, 11:06pm

roberts8 wrote:I think Neil raises some good points and I would love a response from whoever proposed this and the thought of getting to The Med with a bike is possible but a joke.


With so many pages and questions raised, comented on and quoted which questions are you referring to?

User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3065
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby CJ » 5 Sep 2020, 10:19am

AndyK wrote:Sorry, I'm still not seeing the logic at all. Comparing one CTC holiday with two Exodus holidays a year is not a fair comparison. It's not an either/or choice that many people make in the real world, not least because the latter would probably cost a lot more than the former. It's far more likely that someone would be choosing between having one Exodus holiday or one CTC holiday. And as PH pointed out, two flights is two flights, regardless of whether the gap between them is a bit longer.

It's a simple matter of 'value for carbon'. Carbon will continue to be burnt doing things that cannot yet be done renewably. Exporing foreign parts by bike is one of them, because despite panglossian articles in Cycle, we all know that the trains don't carry bikes like they used to.

And it is an arithmetical fact that the more time abroad one has for the same amount of flying, the more value one is extracting from that burnt carbon.

Example: my brother emigrated to New Zealand 40 years ago and I don't think one should fly that far without spending at least a month over there. He's been back several times for a week or two in UK/Europe, but in all that time I've only visited him once, having saved up my holiday and carried as much of it over into the next year as my employer would allow. Now I'm retired I might go again, but not for less than six months. Long and seldom instead of little and often. That's how value for carbon works when it comes to holidays.

Edit: P.S. I don't imply criticism of my brother. Unlike when I went to see him, on his visits he's able to renew relationships with several friends and relatives. So he's getting more of a different kind of value from his burnt carbon.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.

PH
Posts: 9521
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby PH » 5 Sep 2020, 11:47am

CJ wrote: Long and seldom instead of little and often. That's how value for carbon works when it comes to holidays.

And the evidence that's what people taking CTC Holidays are doing?
I haven't seen any, though you'll have a much bigger sample size than me. Do people taking three week CTC Holidays really fly less than people taking two week holidays from a different supplier? How about yourself, have you been a seldom flyer in the last few years?
It is obviously simple arithmetic that those taking longer holidays are getting better value for their carbon usage than those taking shorter ones, but that value is only to them. A flight is still a flight, whether it's to Australia for six months or Budapest for a stag party. A work mate did the latter, he's in his 30's and it was the first time he'd flown, how does that work in your equation?

Ianwhitwell
Posts: 14
Joined: 13 May 2020, 10:31pm

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby Ianwhitwell » 22 Sep 2020, 4:23pm

Sadly this is why I will not be joining the CUK. In my a club is there to fight for cycling improvements and opportunities and not to reduce or restrict members individual rights or opportunities. The are plenty of other organisations fighting for a better environment and I laud them.

Simon Preston
Posts: 1
Joined: 16 Oct 2020, 6:32pm

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby Simon Preston » 16 Oct 2020, 6:58pm

In spite of the motion being passed I note that the latest issue of Cycle continues to promote flying. If the club (as I still think of it) is to make a new rule then surely it ought to police it or else it’s just a publicity stunt. Perhaps the increased subscriptions from retired members will be used to pay for a sub editor who can perform this task?

On page 5 Dame Sarah Storey references her favourite cycle journey in Lanzarote. Should she not have been asked about her favourite no-fly journey?
On page 28 a book review mentions adventures across the globe. Has this been checked to ensure no flying was involved?
On page 53 an article about touring in Switzerland suggests flying to Basel or Zurich
On page 75 an advertisement for the club’s own holidays mentions far flung destinations. Should we assume that these now involve land or sea travel for access?

Cyril Haearn
Posts: 14288
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Location: Leafy suburbia

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby Cyril Haearn » 16 Oct 2020, 8:34pm

Magazine lead times are long, some organisations outsource magazine production, has this been done with the Gazette?
Entertainer, intellectual, idealist, PoB, 30120
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we hate bullies

PH
Posts: 9521
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby PH » 16 Oct 2020, 9:07pm

Simon Preston wrote:In spite of the motion being passed

Did you read the motion? It's only a couple of posts up if you need to refresh your memory.

User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3065
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby CJ » 17 Oct 2020, 12:57pm

PH wrote:How about yourself, have you been a seldom flyer in the last few years?

I think I dealt with that already above. I'd like to visit my brother in New Zealand more often, but have only been once in 40 years, when I managed to get enough time of work to stay for a whole month. Obviously I didn't have the holiday left to go flying anywhere else that year - or the one after! Now I'm retired I might go again, but if I do I'll want to stay for like half a year after travelling that far.

Better than that, I've done my level best to be part of the non-flying cycle-touring solution, in organising more group tours into Europe using trains than any other CTC Holidays Tour Manager. I am, in fact, the last to have succeeded in combining bikes with trains for continental group tours, in a series of Bavarian and Austrian tours that sadly came to an end in 2016. It was always very much more difficult and risky to organise than flying and is now impossible. And largely that is due to CUK's utter failure to persuade Eurostar not to reduce from ten to only two spaces, the bike capacity of their new rolling stock. And as Eurostar has a monopoly on direct rail travel to the rest of Europe, that effectively shuts the door until their trains are next renewed or refurbished. And as I'm 65 now, that probably does for the rest of my cycling lifetime.

Those tours using trains were always very popular. Many of my regular participants are either very reluctant flyers (who will try almost anything else to avoid flying, even resorting to inferior rental bikes or folders that detract from their enjoyment of the tour itself!) or will ONLY come on such holidays as I am able to organise using trains or ferries. Even those who often fly with their bikes, view this as a necessary evil. We all hate what we have to do to our precious touring bikes to pack them small and protect them from damage, which we nevertheless continue to worry about. That is why I say touring cyclists are reluctant flyers. I don't know about racers (whose minimal bikes are much easier to pack), but for tourists I know it is true.

All you have to do is make it just as easy to take your intact bike by train and cycle-tourists will flock back to the railways. It doesn't need to be as quick as flying - within reason - especially if one can sleep on the train. And we'll happily pay a bit more. It just has to work without the mental stress of byzantine booking proceedures or the physical stress of dragging a bagged-up bike around when changing trains.

IMHO Cycling UK should be promoting and channelling cycle tourists subscriptions into the European Cycling Federation's Bikes on Trains campaign, which is devoted to restoring the services by which I used to run those tours. But it isn't even a member of ECF anymore. So it strikes me as hypocricy and a cheap, publicity-seeking stunt to pillory cyclists who fly instead.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1302
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby Philip Benstead » 17 Oct 2020, 2:40pm

<SNIP>
Now it is CUK policy to discourage flying I assume all Trustees and CUK staff will no longer fly. If they do it could be seen as hypocrisy.
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

AndyK
Posts: 937
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby AndyK » 17 Oct 2020, 11:08pm

Philip Benstead wrote:<SNIP>
Now it is CUK policy to discourage flying I assume all Trustees and CUK staff will no longer fly. If they do it could be seen as hypocrisy.

It's policy "to reduce the promotion of holiday flights". That's very different from what you said. Nice attempt at trolling, Phil, but no cigar. Thanks for playing.

AndyK
Posts: 937
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby AndyK » 17 Oct 2020, 11:17pm

Ianwhitwell wrote:Sadly this is why I will not be joining the CUK. In my a club is there to fight for cycling improvements and opportunities and not to reduce or restrict members individual rights or opportunities. The are plenty of other organisations fighting for a better environment and I laud them.

Nobody is trying to restrict your rights as a member (or otherwise) to do what you want. The motion was about reducing the active promotion of flying. The organisation's four registered Charitable Objectives include:

"4. PROMOTE THE CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT."

so I don't think it's unreasonable for Cycling UK to do its bit in this regard. It's one thing for members to fly off to foreign parts to have cycling holidays; it's quite another for Cycling UK to actively encourage them to do so.

Bikes`n`guns
Posts: 39
Joined: 7 Jan 2018, 10:54pm

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby Bikes`n`guns » 17 Oct 2020, 11:43pm

I'm not a member.
Let me start by stating that.

if I was joining a cycling club/organisation I would expect them to promote cycling.
There are other bodies that promote environmental causes and they should carry on doing so. Cycling bodies, maybe not.

Promoting tourism and all the benefits it provides using cycling as a tool to do so should be promoted.
Try telling an Indian villager who relies on passers by to provide income that cyclists won't be back as flying is bad sounds a bit crap to me.

User avatar
Graham
Moderator
Posts: 6376
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:48pm

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby Graham » 18 Oct 2020, 9:58am

Global Mass tourism discounts / ignores the environmental harm it causes.

Moving people around uses massive amounts of energy and most of this is provided by burning fossil fuels - except when done using your own physical effort. . . . bikes & foot are good !

If fossil-fuel tourism is the only way of sharing our wealth & resources with fellow humans - there may be trouble ahead ?

Oldjohnw
Posts: 5034
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby Oldjohnw » 18 Oct 2020, 10:25am

So we destroy an Indian village by ruining the climate but spend a few coins there as compensation.
John