THIS IS A PERSONAL VIEW OF PHILIP BENSTEAD AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE VIEW OF ANY GROUP.
CTC MEMBERSHIP SURVEY
YOU MAY HAVE RECEIVED A SURVEY.
Some of us on CTC Council believe these proposals are pernicious.
The questions are frame in such a way to give the impression that the CTC members support the suggestion that a smaller council is better. What they fail to tell you that there is opposition to this view in council but the idea is being push by CEO and the chair. If you go along with this the membership will have even less control than you do now,
IMHO the next stage if they get a smaller council that is elected on a low voter turnout will be the removal of the vote from members. Then the CTC will like yha or sustain a NGO going after government grant and will no longer be independent or democratic.
Please use any of the text below if you think it reflects your view, but even better use your own words to get your view across.
Please read my suggested answer below that you will need to cut and paste into question 8.
1. If you have any ideas for improving the governance of CTC which you would like the governance working group to consider, please add them here. Note: This survey is anonymous so we will not be able to respond directly to your ideas, although your input will be considered within this review.
Q1 Go for local councillor. This question does not state clearly say that the second option means losing local representation. In the real world it is unusual to elect all the representatives across the whole UK e.g. local authority areas is divided is divided into thirteen areas called wards, trade unions and many voluntary, religious and sports organisations have regional representation. There is a real risk that the second option, particularly along with the proposal to reduce the number of CTC Councillors, will mean that future representatives will largely come from the area round Guildford and perhaps London. In the world outside CTC the talk is about Devo-max to countries within the UK and degrees of devolution from London to varieties of regions. In this context it is inconceivable that there will not be representation from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland directly elected by members within those countries. Even the bicycle has a different status in different parts of the UK.
Q2 this question is pretty pointless unless it’s an attempt to lead by the nose. CTC Councillors are directors of a company limited by guarantee (i.e. not for profit) and trustees of a charity registered in England and Scotland. Of course we are all responsible by definition but perhaps sometimes not everything is shared with all Councillors and there is currently a huge blurring of the responsibilities of paid staff and elected representatives. There is now no way to discuss member group issues within the committees. There may be a case for devolving / delegating some decisions to local elected Councillors or groups of Councillors.
Q3 the premise confuses the role of elected Councillors (agreeing policy and strategy) with officers (implementing). We already can co-opt non-voting members of Council; we can ask people to come on a one-off basis to discuss specific topics and from time to time we can commission consultants (but the project specification must be fit for purpose) but to be blunt if the organisation is missing skills that are needed on a regular long term basis then the job descriptions, person specifications and staff structure that we have now are not fit for purpose.
I have indicated strongly disagree for the reasons given.
Q4 this is a way to get experience people removed from the council and to get them interfering with local groups at too low a level. IMHO this will create friction between local member groups and the CTC. Well yes and our volunteers should be valued but this gives no idea what that role might be. Are these the ambassadors, a bit like Seb Coe and Nike or as described at a recent committee meeting “district commissioners” (very top down). Once again this does not say that this is at the expense of voluntary councillors that come from the members.
This gives you no idea what is proposed so again I suggest indicate uncertain and use question 8.
Q5 I do not know where you got the number 26 from. The CEO is trying to populate the council with yes man/woman that does to not reflect the membership but the population of the UK. Using his logic there should be a non-cyclist who hates cyclists.http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/ctc-nat ... il-regions
CTC council has 20 elected seats with 4 unfilled so the maximum number of trustee at council is 16
CTC does not need a compliant Council. We need sufficient critical mass to generate alternative views and be a critical friend to what sometimes can be a very strong minded, controlling Executive.
This statement does not make it clear that the proposers of this change also propose to take up some of those twelve places with appointees so the number of elected Councillors (or whatever they might be called in the future) accountable to the membership will be even less.
It will be very hard to maintain any meaningful regional or smaller country representation with 12 or less elected CTC Councillors.
I have indicated strongly disagree for the reasons given.
Q6 The ideals and founding purpose of the original Cyclists’ Touring Club have been lost in what appears to me to have been a staff takeover of the ‘club’ during the past 8 to 10 years. The proposed great reduction in the number of the ruling committee’s members, and the suggestion that the Committee be entitled to co-opt unelected persons to the committee, are just further stages in this takeover.
Q7 this is a trick question all organisation could be improve, you are just seeking evidence to justify your desire to move the CTC from a membership lead organisation to executive lead one.
CTC too centralised, too top down, are members, even Councillors, and member groups being asked to carry out instructions from national office rather than being valued, engaged with and able to influence? For example there is now no committee with the responsibility to discuss member group issues. Most of you may not yet have noticed much difference but those involved in administering member groups and organising events will have spotted how hard it is to get any kind of sympathetic response, sometimes any response at all from Guildford.
Please use this text if you wish and cut paste into box 8