CANDIDATES FOR THE CTC/CUK ELECTION

[gaz]

CTC's Articles of Association.

[fionat]

CTC's Articles of Association.

Thank you. Is that the latest version? It still talks about the electoral divisions, and states that you need to be a member to serve on the Council (although not specifically to be elected to it)

[gaz]

Yes, that is the latest version.

5.4 The area over which the Club operates shall be deemed to be divided into such number of electoral Divisions having such boundaries as the Council may from time to time determine. Each Division shall be entitled to be represented on the Council by such number of representatives as the Club in General Meeting may from time to time determine, provided that the total number of such representatives shall be within the limits stated in Article 5.1.

My interpretation would be that following the 2016 AGM there is a single electoral Division and the 2016 AGM determined the number of Councillors for that single Division.

AIUI any non-member appointed or elected to the Board of Trustees will be expected to become a member before they take up their Trustee position.

[Philip Benstead]

CTC's Articles of Association.

Thank you. Is that the latest version? It still talks about the electoral divisions, and states that you need to be a member to serve on the Council (although not specifically to be elected to it)

please put me out of my misery what is the name of the organization

[fionat]

I've PMed you

[Philip Benstead]

Saturday 22 October 2016 in central London
BOARD MEETING OF CYCLING UK
There were two discussions that will be of interest.

At CTC AGM 2016 a motion was carried to the effect that anyone standing for election should have been a member for at least 12 months prior losing date for nominations. This was triggered by the last election where a candidate joined a matter of days before.
It was also passed that although CUK now use a Nominations Committee to vet applications, it was stated at the AGM and council meetings that any qualified member was still allowed to stand for election.

The terms of reference of the Nominations Committee were as an advisory body, all final decisions were to be made by the full board (council) of CUK.
CTC (now CUK) had previously agreed that all elections were to be conducted by the single transferable vote system, not first past the post.
In the event, none of the above were followed through and despite many nominations (as CUK now no longer operates on regional elections but a national one), the majority were not put forward, and non-members were placed on the ballot paper and the ballot paper was issued with the last magazine without board/council approval which led to a complaint about procedure.

The complaint was not upheld by a panel, and at the meeting on Saturday a motion to set aside the current process due to a failure to comply with previous decisions and AGM motions was defeated despite strong arguments and the position in relation to the committee exceeding is authority being clearly put.

[gaz]

Motion to overturn the ctc election failed 9 to 5

The complaint was not upheld by a panel, and at the meeting on Saturday a motion to set aside the current process due to a failure to comply with previous decisions and AGM motions was defeated despite strong arguments and the position in relation to the committee exceeding is authority being clearly put.

From the result it would appear that the majority of our elected Trustees, having listened to those strong arguments found the counter arguments more persuasive.

[Philip Benstead]

Motion to overturn the ctc election failed 9 to 5

The complaint was not upheld by a panel, and at the meeting on Saturday a motion to set aside the current process due to a failure to comply with previous decisions and AGM motions was defeated despite strong arguments and the position in relation to the committee exceeding is authority being clearly put.

From the result it would appear that the majority of our elected Trustees, having listened to those strong arguments found the counter arguments more persuasive.

I think your faith in motives of your fellow man is touching.

If current direction of CTC Council continues I predict, in approximately two to three years’ time you and other who have said that I am wrong or misguided will either change your mind or go very quiet.

[Psamathe]

If they had to follow the procedures agreed at the AGM how would they ensure that they only have trustees who will go along with the direction from the Executive. They might end-up with "difficult" trustees who have their own opinions and thoughts and don't just "do as told".

Ian

[JohnW]

If they had to follow the procedures agreed at the AGM how would they ensure that they only have trustees who will go along with the direction from the Executive. They might end-up with "difficult" trustees who have their own opinions and thoughts and don't just "do as told".

Ian

I think you're absolutely right. It's tragic. But my question is, why are they doing this? - what's in it for them?...............whoever 'they' are.

[mjr]

I think you're absolutely right. It's tragic. But my question is, why are they doing this? - what's in it for them?...............whoever 'they' are.

In the short term, probably a quiet life, not fighting their executive and ultimately trying to replace them. Being a board member of a divided organisation isn't great for the CV... especially as many organisations seem to interpret "collective responsibility" as "omerta" so no-one can ever tell what any individual did, unless someone blows the whistle... so you might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb and hope that a strategy you doubt succeeds after all, then take credit for it.

In the longer term, they've probably been sold a vision of CUK as bigger than Jesu^H^H^H^HBritish Cycling and the undisputed king of the hill. Dissenters and democrats will form other groupings - such schisms have happened before and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[gaz]

Results in Cycleclips: http://www.cyclinguk.org/publication/cy ... ember-2016

A warm welcome to our three new trustees

With thanks to our members for a great turn-out, we would like to welcome three new Trustees to our board at Cycling UK. With an unprecedented 3,440 valid votes cast, Dr. Janet Atherton (1,875 votes) and Rachel Kirkwood (1,200 votes) were elected into post and are due to start in office from January 2017. They will be joined by Dr. Julian Huppert (2,066 votes) as our new Senior Independent Trustee.

All elected Trustees have been members for over 12 months, joined 01/2014, 08/2014 and 01/2014 respectively.

[Psamathe]

Results in Cycleclips: http://www.cyclinguk.org/publication/cy ... ember-2016

A warm welcome to our three new trustees

With thanks to our members for a great turn-out, we would like to welcome three new Trustees to our board at Cycling UK. With an unprecedented 3,440 valid votes cast, Dr. Janet Atherton (1,875 votes) and Rachel Kirkwood (1,200 votes) were elected into post and are due to start in office from January 2017. They will be joined by Dr. Julian Huppert (2,066 votes) as our new Senior Independent Trustee.

All elected Trustees have been members for over 12 months, joined 01/2014, 08/2014 and 01/2014 respectively.

But how many of them were not from the "approved list" ? (Approved lists of candidates still reminds me of e.g. North Korea democracy).

Ian

[gaz]

As we know, all the elected Trustees were on the approved list.

With the candidate list published I am in bit of pickle. There no real CTC members all bar one. A lot of corporate blether who want to massage their CV.

I don't know if the real member was elected a Trustee, nor if any of the alleged CV massagers were voted into post.

IMO we have elected three excellent Trustees.

[Graham57]

Philip Bensted has been banned from posting in the forum, he Wishes you to know he has not given up

You can se more of his views on Facebook 'where should CTC be going'