2016 AGM

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 3845
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby Bmblbzzz » 13 May 2016, 5:48pm

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.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15184
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby Si » 13 May 2016, 5:55pm

Bmblbzzz wrote: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
Posts: 3845
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby Bmblbzzz » 13 May 2016, 6:23pm

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
Posts: 3845
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby Bmblbzzz » 13 May 2016, 6:25pm

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
Moderator
Posts: 18752
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby Vorpal » 13 May 2016, 6:32pm

Yes, well, there's an easy way to prevent the chair from having so many proxy votes, isn't there?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
robgul
Posts: 3017
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 8:40pm
Contact:

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby robgul » 13 May 2016, 6:35pm

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
E2E http://www.cycle-endtoend.org.uk
HoECC http://www.heartofenglandcyclingclub.org.uk
Cytech accredited mechanic . . . and woodworker

User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5324
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby RickH » 14 May 2016, 11:17pm

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.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14164
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby gaz » 18 May 2016, 7:19pm

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.
Last edited by gaz on 20 May 2016, 12:55pm, edited 1 time in total.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1418
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby Philip Benstead » 18 May 2016, 8:29pm

gaz wrote: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
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14164
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby gaz » 18 May 2016, 8:32pm

Linked from here at 16:11 today.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1418
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby Philip Benstead » 18 May 2016, 8:54pm

gaz wrote:Linked from here at 16:11 today.
thanks
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

Steady rider
Posts: 2288
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby Steady rider » 25 May 2016, 9:04pm

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
Posts: 1429
Joined: 29 Mar 2007, 4:10pm

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby belgiangoth » 10 Jul 2016, 12:10pm

Psamathe wrote:
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?
If I had a baby elephant, it would point out that there is no evidence for planing. Then it would eat all my bananas.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14164
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby gaz » 10 Jul 2016, 12:48pm

belgiangoth wrote: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.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

PH
Posts: 9973
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: 2016 AGM

Postby PH » 10 Jul 2016, 1:09pm

Psamathe wrote: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.