2016 AGM

[Bmblbzzz]

I said it reminds me of one of the reasons which people gave at the time for opposing votes for women. I did not say it is like women's suffrage.

[Si]

I said it reminds me of one of the reasons which people gave at the time for opposing votes for women. I did not say it is like women's suffrage.

Your comment reminds me of people who try to damn an subject by using guilt by association rather than actually debating the facts of it. Note: I do not say that you are trying to damn using guilt by association or that you cannot make a case based only on the facts, merely that it reminds me of such.

- you see the issue here

[Bmblbzzz]

The fact is that my original sentence was "It actually reminds me of one of the reasons for opposition to suffrage for women; that husbands and fathers would obviously vote for women as women could not be expected to understand or have a view!" The key word being "reminds". Now, where's that going round in irrelevant circles smiley?

The issue I was addressing, on the other hand, is the exercise of proxy votes by the Chair. That people are encouraged to give their votes to the Chair is not just my opinion, it's one that's been discussed a few times on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. In some ways it might be good; where issues are complex it can be better to trust experts rather than popular opinion. At the same time though, it's also good to encourage people to consider the issues that affect them. For example, Philip Benstead mentions people who regret their incomplete understanding of the charity conversion and I know people locally who voted for it but now wish they had not, including one who was at the time rather high up in the regional administration. That's a particularly controversial issue which I don't wish to get into here, I'm only using it as an example since Philip Benstead raised it, but others will come up from time to time in all organisations.

PH asks how you know whether people who give their vote to the Chair are "just trusting blindly". Obviously it's impossible to know the motives of an individual voter without talking to them. But it seems to me there's a difference between asking someone to vote for you in a certain way and allowing them to vote without direction from you. If you had arranged a proxy vote for the recent local elections, would you say to your proxy "vote for me however you want" or "please vote for this district councillor and that county councillor"? You might add "as you're a copper I'll trust your expertise for the Police Commissioner". But giving someone a blank slate seems like a non-vote to me. And it doesn't, to me, matter that we know how the Chair will vote; I'd still instruct a proxy to vote as I wanted even though I were sure they would vote the same.

[Bmblbzzz]

However, I think bigger issues still might be general lack of interest and lack of accessibility. The first is always a factor in large organisations, the second can be dealt with.

[Vorpal]

Yes, well, there's an easy way to prevent the chair from having so many proxy votes, isn't there?

[robgul]

7 days on from the CTC AGM and Heart of England Cycling Club (formerly CTC Heart of England) has had 6 enquiries from CTC MGs asking why and how we went about the breakaway from CTC in September 2015 - the common theme is disillusionment. To answer the questions we've added a document to the Library section on the club website, under "Conversion"

Rob
Webmaster & Vice-Chairman HoECC

[RickH]

There can be a positive reason for leaving your vote to the discretion of the chair (or any other proxy). With giving discretion to your proxy, even though you know their position going into the AGM, you leave open the possibility that there might be a compelling argument for a change of opinion on the day (I've no idea off the top of my head if that has ever happened with proxies given to the chair - but the possibility is left open) rather than a direct for or against vote which will not change whatever is said at the AGM.

I may be in a minority, I've no idea, but I try to consider all the options (for/against/discretion/abstain) for every individual motion when assigning my proxy vote (assuming I'm not going to be there in person - I've not made it yet).

Rick.

[gaz]

ERS Results
Unless I am mistaken, members' undirected proxy votes cast by the Chair had no effect on the outcomes of Motions 1-9 and 15 - 17 (i.e. if such votes are ignored the outcome is unchanged).

Members' undirected proxy votes cast by the Chair contributed to Motions 10 - 14 being lost (i.e. if such votes are ignored the Motions would have been passed).

Edit: Something seems wrong on Motion 2. 46 Discretionary votes are recorded as being in the hands of proxy(s) other than the Chair. A total of 45 votes are recorded as being cast by proxy(s) other than the Chair, even though the total figures would include directed proxy(s) as on all other Motions. Whilst the reported figures don't look right it's not about to change the outcome.

[Philip Benstead]

ERS Results
Unless I am mistaken, members' undirected proxy votes cast by the Chair had no effect on the outcomes of Motions 1-9 and 15 - 17 (i.e. if such votes are ignored the outcome is unchanged).

Members' undirected proxy votes cast by the Chair contributed to Motions 10 - 14 being lost (i.e. if such votes are ignored the Motions would have been passed).

Where did you get file from I am unable to find it

[gaz]

Linked from here at 16:11 today.

[Philip Benstead]

Linked from here at 16:11 today.

thanks

[Steady rider]

Motion 13 – 17 without the Chairs discretionary votes

Motion 13, 1,160 for vs 854 against – would have passed

Motion 14, passing law motion
1,261 for vs 844 against – would have passed
AGM result motion 14

http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... esults.pdf

At the AGM the directed voting were 1261 (20+53+1188) for and 844 (14+37+793) against. I make this 59.9% in favour of directed voting.


Motion 15, 983 for vs 1,015 against – lost

Motion 16, 974 for vs 1,073 against – lost

Motion 17, 906 for vs 1,095 against – lost

Motion 9 attracted 98% of the voters, approx 3050 voters in total, from 60k members, about 5% of members voted.

CTC AGMs votes cast

2011 http://www.cyclinguk.org/file/public/ct ... inutes.pdf approx 10000 + votes

2012 http://www.cyclinguk.org/file/public/20 ... inutes.pdf 8000 + votes

2013
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... enda_0.pdf approx 2700 votes

2014 approx 1500 votes
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... inutes.pdf


2015 http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... inutes.pdf
approx 1900 votes

2016
Approx 3050 voted

Why the big drop in members bothering to vote? Has the new on-line system not functioned properly?
Will the vote of the whole club be valid? How can it be checked? Would pure postal voting be more reliable?

[belgiangoth]

Others leaving have left immediately rather than waiting for their renewal to fall due. They have reported here that they get their outstanding membership fee refunded on a pro-rata basis (which as Al says can be given to more deserving organisations/causes). Personally I think it also makes a stronger point to National Office that (ex) members are not happy with the direction they are taking. Just an e-mail so not too onerous.

Ian

I'm wonder whether that will work for life membership?

[gaz]

I'm wonder whether that will work for life membership?

IIRC life members can in effect "resign" their membership, I believe the process is known as placing your nomination in abeyance and is reversable.

IMO a proportional refund is extremely unlikely. If you want to find out for sure ask National Office.

[PH]

Others leaving have left immediately rather than waiting for their renewal to fall due. They have reported here that they get their outstanding membership fee refunded on a pro-rata basis (which as Al says can be given to more deserving organisations/causes).

I know this get's repeated in the plural many times on here, but does anyone know of another example other than that of robgul?
Might that have been a mistake? I can't see anything that would oblige them to refund and can't imagine why they would do so otherwise.