Do we need a new Cyclists' Touring Club?

[Dennis_Snape]

Well worth a look is the Touring Cyclist Club. Currently going through a consultation phase whereby interested parties may express their interest to help run the club and/or make suggestions as to what facilities and services it should offer. See the website here: http://touringcyclistclub.org.uk/

[Philip Benstead]

FROM FACEBOOK https://www.facebook.com/groups/911322558887222/
Helen Juden

1 hr
https://www.pannier.cc/ourvision. Just discovered Pannier, further evidence, if any required, of the burgeoning growth in 21-century young people touring and forming a digital community. This is the space the CTC could have occupied, if it had stayed true to its roots and had leadership with the vision to see forward, rather than belatedly trying to get with the 20-century growth in road bike fitness riding. And Pannier is formed for mutual information sharing and support, just what the CTC did until they threw away the touring and technical information roles.

Pannier | Our Vision | Pannier Contributors and Team
The Pannier Vision shares our cycle touring values and engrained belief that travelling by bike is the best, and most joyous way of exploring and discovering the world. The all-important Pannier Contributors are listed here too.
http://WWW.PANNIER.CC

[Philip Benstead]

I spent the last 15 years or so of my work life involved in "governance" and came to the conclusion that governance has three core functions:-


1) the protection of the corporate backside.
2) the protection of the individual backside
and 3) the protection of the status quo.


The first two are of course essential - as long as you or the company / organisation stick to the rules set in place by either external entities (in my case it was the FSA) or the company, your backside is covered. (All the bad stuff that banking has got caught up in during the past 7 or 8 years can be placed fairly and squarely down to a failure to comply with the rules that were already in place - bad corporate and individual governance.


The third point is critical to the CTC issue:-


a) has proper governance been followed with regard to the changes being put in place? I believe they have - whether we like it or not the democratic structure inplace has been used to do this but

b) are new governance changes being made / suggested to further centralise decision making to Guildford and reduce the democracy of the organisation? I'm not sure but will start reading and taking much more interest in the "political stuff" coming from Guildford.


Cheers,


Geoff, Burry Port

[Philip Benstead]

With Johns permission

On Wednesday, 2 March 2016, 9:00,

I have only got a cup of tea in front of me while I write this. I could do with something stronger for courage!!! There is an irony about having no fears of writing to the local press upsetting the ‘jump in the car’ brigade’ but being apprehensive about writing to fellow cycling activists!!!

Phil makes an important point about the overwhelming majority of members being entirely passive. It surely is a point that the governance/management has to consider with regard the practicalities of how much to put out to members to get things done. It is my view that the club is going through a period where some change is necessary. The membership is no longer just ‘old school’ club cyclists, not even amongst those who join it primarily for touring. More importantly, from the campaigning perspective, “Cyclists Touring Club” did for many create an image of all very serious, traffic hardened cyclists, even ‘lycra louts,’ not in touch with the needs of ‘everyday’ cyclists. A misconception, but it could cause problems. I can only reiterate, that as far as the rebranding is concerned, I am pleased that HQ has taken action on something I thought it was conveniently ignoring. I wont have the embarrassing situation of having to explain what CTC stands for.

How can I put this? We elect a government to make decisions on our behalf (let’s not get into the debate about turnouts). There are however certain decisions that are for the electorate, e.g. whether or not we remain in the EU. Therefore, it was right that whether or not CTC becomes a charity needed to be put to members. However, with regard the rebranding, what is the reality of what the response would have been over something which, unless we totally distrust HQ – it seems some do! – is not going to affect the club’s activities – DAs and so on can retain their CTC identity - other than – IMHO – helping with a better perception of us for campaigning purposes. Are those critical of HQ saying that if a membership vote had said “yes” to rebranding that HQ should have asked for name suggestions from members and then put the suggestions to members, with some from HQ for a further vote? The vast majority would surely have got thoroughly bored with it. Actually, they might have felt CTC was losing credibility!

Yes, I want CTC to remain a true membership organisation. I will wait until I have seen the governance proposals.

Sorry if some think what I have written is thoroughly naive. All I can say is that I’m spending Saturday in Colchester in my regional rep capacity to support a local rep.

John Thompson
Waveney, Suffolk and eastern England

[NickM]

"...I want CTC to remain a true membership organisation..."

Eh? It hasn't been that since 2012.

I renewed my "membership" (that is to say, I became a supporter of CTC, the National Cycling Charity) to see how things turned out. That was a mistake which I won't be repeating.