2016 AGM

[CJ]

Did anyone on here attend?

So what did you think of it?

I happened to have a family engagement nearby so I popped along - even though I know it's a largely waste of time nowadays.

The reason it's a waste of time is that votes already placed far outnumber those on the day. So any debate, no matter how convincing, is highly unlikely to alter the result. So the only point in going is either to congratulate staff and councillors on a job well done, or to give them a bit of a grilling. You can guess which of those motivations is the stronger!

The powers that be don't like to be put on the spot however, so even though debate could not change the result, they did all they could to stifle it by disallowing statements from the floor - only questions. The propriety of such a manner of conducting an AGM was itself questioned and I couldn't help feeling sorry for the poor Vice Chairman chap, trying to sit on the lid of a boiling saucepan. It flew off a few times!

The bit I appreciated most is when the mask slipped for a moment, during the debate (if you can call it that under such restrictions) on CTC/CyclingUK's failure to publish its Equality Policy. Some councillor or staff member (don't know which, but a white male himself) blurted out an angry objection to all you old grey-haired somethings. Which, ironically, would seem to confirm our suspicion that the Equality Policy of Cycling UK goes something like this:

All cyclists are equal, but old touring cyclists are less equal than others!

I'm not sorry I didn't stay to the end of this otherwise unedifying charade, indeed was glad to have a very good excuse to leave: to attend the 90th birthday of my beloved (I do mean that) mother-in-law, Doreen Leheup, who just happens also to have been a lifelong CTC member, tireless campaigner for cyclists' rights (saved numerous bridleways from extinction at a time long before MTBs) and long-serving CTC Councillor. I just hope she does not realise what has become of our mutually beloved CTC.

[MickTheCyclist]

Thanks Chris. I was thinking about not renewing my membership in July due to all the changes. Your post has convinced me. I first joined CTC in 1982. The CTC has left me.

[Toeclip]

Thanks, my membership will not be renewed when it falls due. It is a sign of the times

[al_yrpal]

My CTC membership runs to July 2018 so I am resigning now that the Councils direction is clear. The poll regarding the CTC will no doubt be ignored. The refund of my CTC membership subscription will go to help fund the Touring Cyclists Club http://www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk

Us old and grey are apparently no longer welcome in this 'We are Cycling' nonsense.

Sign the petition that the 'We are Cycling' lot rejected, https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/128190 Already more than 12000 have.

Al

[Psamathe]

Thanks Chris. I was thinking about not renewing my membership in July due to all the changes. Your post has convinced me. I first joined CTC in 1982. The CTC has left me.

Thanks, my membership will not be renewed when it falls due. It is a sign of the times

My CTC membership runs to July 2018 so I am resigning and the proceeds will go to help fund the Touring Cyclists Club http://www.touringcyclistclub.org.uk
...

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

[Philip Benstead]

Why there is a delay in publishing the results of the AGM?
Could it be CTC HQ are trying to find ways around the motions that got passed the Council did not like?
http://www.cyclinguk.org/agm

AGM 2016
Our AGM took place on 7th May 2016 in Derby. With a packed agenda, including 16 wide-ranging motions, It was an informative and important day for the organisation.
Information about the AGM
The Annual General Meeting of the Cyclists’ Touring Club was held at on Saturday 7th May 2016 at the Hallmark Hotel, Derby, 11.30am.
The results of the AGM motions will be posted on this page soon.
Below you will find the following papers for reference:-
• 2016 AGM Agenda and 2015 Minutes as printed in the April/May issue of Cycle.
• Governance Paper with track changes which reflect the changes made at the January 2016 National Council meeting.
• Orders in Council paper with track changes.
• Annual accounts

[sjs]

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 one of those who just let their membership lapse. Since then, no communication at all. No reminders, no "are you sure?"s. They're either very incompetent or they really don't want me.

[Bmblbzzz]

Did anyone on here attend?

So what did you think of it?

I happened to have a family engagement nearby so I popped along - even though I know it's a largely waste of time nowadays.

The reason it's a waste of time is that votes already placed far outnumber those on the day. So any debate, no matter how convincing, is highly unlikely to alter the result. So the only point in going is either to congratulate staff and councillors on a job well done, or to give them a bit of a grilling. You can guess which of those motivations is the stronger!
<snip>

For any large organisation unless the date is extremely carefully chosen and the organisation subsidises travel and/or accommodation, most of the people entitled to attend will be unable to do so. That's why I think it's only right (in fact isn't it also a legal requirement?) that people are allowed to vote "in absentia" via a proxy or online. The problem is not voting in advance but the way those votes are encouraged/allowed to be given to the Chair to use as he or she decides; where a vote has been cast in advance according to the voter's decision rather than the Chair's, this has to be an advance over members not being able to cast votes.

Of course it would be good if we were all able to take part in the AGM through some kind of webcast. At the very least to watch it, ideally also to ask questions (or make statements!). But even then a weekday is hardly conducive to mass participation. Hold it on a weekend with webcast enabling two-way participation and live electronic voting, as well as voting in advance for those who prefer, and only allow votes which are actively cast rather than given to the Chair (or someone else) to do what they want with.

[Si]

The problem is not voting in advance but the way those votes are encouraged/allowed to be given to the Chair to use as he or she decides

Why is that a problem? The magazine makes abundantly clear what the Council's view is on each motion so anyone giving their vote to the Chair should know exactly how it will be used. If they are not happy with how the Chair would use it then it is very easy to put a cross on the appropriate box next to the motion to instruct the proxy how their vote should be cast.

If lots of votes are given to the Chair to cast it means one of two things: either those voters' views are in line with those of the Chair/Council in which case no problem; or the voter doesn't understand the issues and is trusting that the Council's previously printed views on each motion are for the best of C.UK - you can't really blame the Chair if a voter hasn't bothered investigating an issue enough to make up their own mind on it.

[al_yrpal]

This thread vividly illustrates how the CTC has fallen into the hands of a group of people who are intent on their own agenda which does not reflect the views of its members. The council will undoubtably include more of their mates in future now that Governance has been adjusted in line with Mr Ts wishes. Its no longer a club.

I left.

Al

[Bmblbzzz]

The problem is not voting in advance but the way those votes are encouraged/allowed to be given to the Chair to use as he or she decides

Why is that a problem? The magazine makes abundantly clear what the Council's view is on each motion so anyone giving their vote to the Chair should know exactly how it will be used. If they are not happy with how the Chair would use it then it is very easy to put a cross on the appropriate box next to the motion to instruct the proxy how their vote should be cast.

If lots of votes are given to the Chair to cast it means one of two things: either those voters' views are in line with those of the Chair/Council in which case no problem; or the voter doesn't understand the issues and is trusting that the Council's previously printed views on each motion are for the best of C.UK - you can't really blame the Chair if a voter hasn't bothered investigating an issue enough to make up their own mind on it.

Obviously the first (giving the Chair your vote because you agree with them) is not a problem. The second is. "I don't know or understand, so you can vote for me." 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! If you don't understand the issue, you need not vote, rather than blindly giving your vote to someone else.

[PH]

How do you know these people are giving their vote blindly? Trusting someone else to make a decision for you is as democratic a choice as any other, the comparison with suffrage falls apart with that matter of choice.
Where there are IMO problems is in both the lack of interest and the restricted debate. The entire vote was a couple of thousand members out of we’re told 67,000 (Though I’m not sure how many of those are affiliates without a vote) Unless more members decide they want some say over the running of the club it’s always going to be a minority who make the decisions. I believe all parties think they know what that majority want, but no one knows.
The debate at the AGM was interesting, points were raised that although didn’t affect the way I voted did make me consider another view. I don’t think there is enough debate, but I suspect the reason for that is there just isn’t enough interest. The club riders I know just get on with the riding, they see CTC as something they have to be a member of but otherwise have little interest. The campaigners I know (A smaller sample) largely seem to think CTC is doing OK, or if not that then at least better than nothing. Then there’s that group who want the insurance and to feel they are helping the cause, I think like many charity givers, they feel it’s the right thing to contribute without knowing (Or wanting to know) too much detail.

[Philip Benstead]

The problem is not voting in advance but the way those votes are encouraged/allowed to be given to the Chair to use as he or she decides

Why is that a problem? The magazine makes abundantly clear what the Council's view is on each motion so anyone giving their vote to the Chair should know exactly how it will be used. If they are not happy with how the Chair would use it then it is very easy to put a cross on the appropriate box next to the motion to instruct the proxy how their vote should be cast.

If lots of votes are given to the Chair to cast it means one of two things: either those voters' views are in line with those of the Chair/Council in which case no problem; or the voter doesn't understand the issues and is trusting that the Council's previously printed views on each motion are for the best of C.UK - you can't really blame the Chair if a voter hasn't bothered investigating an issue enough to make up their own mind on it.

Obviously the first (giving the Chair your vote because you agree with them) is not a problem. The second is. "I don't know or understand, so you can vote for me." 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! If you don't understand the issue, you need not vote, rather than blindly giving your vote to someone else.

I was talking with Jeff Tollerman the CTC member who organized the petition for the charity poll, he told me he has received telephone calls from CTC memebers to apologies about their lack of interest in the charity poll. They said they had not realized the implications of becoming a charity. I suspect it had been the same with the CTC members who vote for motion 5 or gave their vote to the chair

[Si]

The problem is not voting in advance but the way those votes are encouraged/allowed to be given to the Chair to use as he or she decides

Why is that a problem? The magazine makes abundantly clear what the Council's view is on each motion so anyone giving their vote to the Chair should know exactly how it will be used. If they are not happy with how the Chair would use it then it is very easy to put a cross on the appropriate box next to the motion to instruct the proxy how their vote should be cast.

If lots of votes are given to the Chair to cast it means one of two things: either those voters' views are in line with those of the Chair/Council in which case no problem; or the voter doesn't understand the issues and is trusting that the Council's previously printed views on each motion are for the best of C.UK - you can't really blame the Chair if a voter hasn't bothered investigating an issue enough to make up their own mind on it.

Obviously the first (giving the Chair your vote because you agree with them) is not a problem. The second is. "I don't know or understand, so you can vote for me." 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! If you don't understand the issue, you need not vote, rather than blindly giving your vote to someone else.

Don't see the connection with women's suffrage - in that case they were being disallowed the vote because it was thought they could not be trusted with it. In the case of the chair's use of proxies, people are freely giving up a vote that they already have. Totally different thing.

[PH]

I was talking with Jeff Tollerman the CTC member who organized the petition for the charity poll, he told me he has received telephone calls from CTC memebers to apologies about their lack of interest in the charity poll. They said they had not realized the implications of becoming a charity. I suspect it had been the same with the CTC members who vote for motion 5 or gave their vote to the chair

It's called democracy, whatever it's faults no one has yet come up with anything better.