An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Cycling UK Publicity
Posts: 21
Joined: 9 Sep 2008, 2:25pm

An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby Cycling UK Publicity » 25 Oct 2016, 4:09pm

Following our Board of Trustees' meeting on Saturday 22 October, we would like to provide you with an update about our ongoing trustee election process. Here is a statement from the board of trustees.

Context

1. Our charity’s Nominations Committee (comprising the Chair, Deputy Chair, one trustee from Cycling UK’s board of trustees, and an independent HR expert) received an unprecedented number of high-quality applications this year, as we sought to fill three posts on the board – two vacancies for trustees and one vacancy for a senior independent trustee.

2. Members who wish to stand for election were invited to submit an application. The Board’s Nominations Committee assessed their application and considered the degree to which they have the personal qualities, skills and experience required; and how well they would complement the existing skill mix on the Board

3. There was an unprecedented number of high quality applications to join the Board. The applications were screened by the Committee following the thorough process agreed by the Board. The candidates put forward all exceeded the criteria in the person specification by demonstrating two or more of the additional skills, qualities and characteristics specified


Election Process

4. Elections to the Cycling UK Trustee Board are conducted using the First Past the Post system of voting (also known as simple majority voting). Members vote for their favoured candidates and those with the most votes become Trustees.

5. Those candidates selected by the Nominations Committee are listed on the voting form included with our latest edition of Cycle magazine to members for postal voting, and online at www.ersvotes.com/cyclinguk2016.

6. The deadline for online and postal voting is 9.00am, Monday 31 October 2016.

Frequently asked questions

7. How many applicants came forward for consideration?

There were 50 applicants who came forward for consideration – We see this large number of applicants to join the board of trustees as a very positive sign.

8. How did the Nominations Committee screen applications to decide who to put forward for election?

The first stage was to ensure that all candidates were legally eligible and met the essential requirements of the person specification. The candidates then put forward for election all exceeded the criteria for the role of Trustee by demonstrating two or more of the additional skills, qualities and characteristics specified in the application pack.

These relate to:
• the legal frameworks in the devolved nations which affect sustainable transport, health and wellbeing;
• marketing and communications skills, and specifically an interest in digital strategy;
• experience of operational and risk management;
• commercial experience, with a particular focus on organisational growth and/or income generation; and
• encouraging applications from younger people, women and ethnic minorities to ensure our Board is as diverse and inclusive as possible.

9. Why aren’t all of the candidates who came forward through the nomination process being put forward for election?


The role of the Nominations Committee in screening candidates was set out in the recommendations of the Governance Working Group as approved by members at the AGM. Had we put all those who applied on the ballot paper, it would have listed 50 people, which would have deterred some members from voting. Candidates were screened against the published criteria and we were lucky enough to be able to offer members a choice of 10 excellent candidates to join the board of trustees.
The candidates for election were assessed against published criteria using an objective scoring method adopted on the advice of our professional HR advisor in accordance with the Terms of Reference of the Nominations Committee. We did not need to interview any candidates because the committee members each felt able to allocate scores on the basis of the material provided to them by candidates.

10. Why aren’t all of the candidates members of Cycling UK?

The AGM resolution requiring candidates for election to the board to have been members for 12 months was not ignored. If we had wished to ignore or avoid it, the board of trustees could simply have co-opted trustees. We discussed the situation carefully and in depth and agreed that the membership should have the opportunity to choose trustees from those candidates who best fulfilled the specification for the role. The background, decision and rationale for that decision is clearly articulated on the voting form. If members wish to vote for people who have been members for more than 12 months, they can do so – and will still have a choice of excellent candidates.



11. Why wasn’t there an interview process as part of the Nominations Committee process?

The candidates for election were assessed against published criteria using an objective scoring method adopted on the advice of our professional HR advisor in accordance with the Terms of Reference of the Nominations Committee. We did not need to interview any candidates because the committee members each felt able to allocate scores on the basis of the material provided to them by candidates.

12. The Board of Trustees met on the 22nd October did it consider the current election process? Did this include discussion of a complaint from a candidate which has been shared on the Cycling UK Forum and other social media?

The election process was considered carefully. It is worth highlighting four aspects of the meeting:
(a) The Board of Trustees received a report on the work of the Nominations Committee including the lessons learned from the use of the new procedure.

(b) The Trustees heard an update progress of the election which recorded that 3000 votes had already been received by the Electoral Reform Society. This engagement of members is unprecedented and we hope that more will vote before the election closes at 9.00am on Monday 31 October.

(c) There has been one complaint from a candidate about not being on the ballot paper. This complaint was not upheld by a Complaints Panel and the decision of the Complaints Panel was endorsed by the Trustees.

(d) Two trustees put a motion to the meeting suggesting that the election was not valid and should be restarted. This motion was discussed at length and voted on. It was rejected by a majority vote.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13743
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby gaz » 25 Oct 2016, 7:20pm

Thank you for the update.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

Psamathe
Posts: 10603
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby Psamathe » 25 Oct 2016, 7:41pm

If there were too many applicants to fit on the ballot paper:

    1. Get a bigger ballot paper
    2. Have more confidence in the electorate - they CAN understand a lot of applicants
    etc.

But if you really feel (despite apparent previous assurances) that you must prune the list of people standing for election surely you must prioritise those who have been members for at least 12 months prior to election. To exclude some who meet the 12 month criteria whilst including others who are not even members more than stinks (smells of a put-up job pretty strongly).

CTC/CUK is behaving in a pretty disreputable manner these days - condemning itself to long term obscurity. Solution is obvious just that those running the show don't seem to want to take the necessary action.

Ian

geocycle
Posts: 1733
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 9:46am

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby geocycle » 25 Oct 2016, 7:58pm

Thanks for the update. I support the notion of getting new blood and well qualified trustees into the organisation. But I do have reservations about your response to point 10. It shows considerable disrespect to the value of membership if it is not a requirement for trustees. I also think ignoring the wishes of the AGM is a mistake even if it can be legally justified. All trustees should be members of the organisation even if they only joined on nomination.

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby Philip Benstead » 26 Oct 2016, 7:33am

Saturday 22 October 2016 in central London
BOARD MEETING OF CYCLING
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.

I hope this explains the situation
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

JohnW
Posts: 6235
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby JohnW » 26 Oct 2016, 10:16am

Cycling UK Publicity wrote:
..........................The AGM resolution requiring candidates for election to the board to have been members for 12 months was not ignored. If we had wished to ignore or avoid it, the board of trustees could simply have co-opted trustees........................


.............deliberately, consciously and calculatedly disregarded then.

Maybe the Board of Trustees didn't just co-opt their chosen ones onto the Board, but my interpretation is that they co-opted their chosen ones onto the list of candidates.

I'm sorry, but personally I see the term 'trustee' as a misnomer in this matter.

The 'Board' continue to deliberately disregard and act in opposition to what are clearly members' (actually ex-members now - we're no longer a club for members) wishes. There's no point in getting involved in what we believe to be right.........what's happened has happened and those of us who remain members have just got to get on with it - support what we can believe in about CUK and get on with it. There's no earthly point in upsetting ourselves - 'Those-Who-Must-Have-Their-Own-Way' are quite capable of doing the upsetting for us. Lets now just see how it goes, and ride our bikes. Why not try to identify the new 'Board' members, and if we live and ride near to them, encourage them to ride with us (a new experience for them?), particularly if there's a local section (sorry - 'Member Group' - I'll never get the hang of PC). We could even help them to choose their first bike.

As someone has said somewhere on these threads - CTC, RIP, gone but certainly not forgotten.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2892
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby Bmblbzzz » 30 Oct 2016, 8:32pm

Voted, though I did find the candidates' self-descriptions limited.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 14030
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby mjr » 31 Oct 2016, 11:08am

Bmblbzzz wrote:Voted, though I did find the candidates' self-descriptions limited.

Not providing any hustings is a frequent feature of organisations that are undergoing executive capture. The electorate votes primarily on moderated statements and the favoured ones are advised by the executive on what to include in the statement. The most outrageous examples are where the statements are in the form of answers to standard questions and some candidates are encouraged to completely ignore the questions in order to shoehorn compelling-but-irrelevant signal points in, such as membership of a particular political party known (from other surveys) to be supported by much of the membership.

Cycling UK Publicity wrote:The AGM resolution requiring candidates for election to the board to have been members for 12 months was not ignored. If we had wished to ignore or avoid it, the board of trustees could simply have co-opted trustees.

Replacing the board election with an advisory vote on who to co-opt would probably have made it pretty clear to many members not on this forum that CUK had finally become a post-democratic organisation, though.

I still find the above statement shocking: is it really saying that the board didn't feel it needed to even attempt to obey the members' resolution because it could see loopholes in it? :eek:

Stuff like this makes me really glad I didn't join CTC when I last moved into a borough with a local member group. That was for practical reasons, but these shenanigans would have made me quit.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby Philip Benstead » 31 Oct 2016, 2:19pm

I would like to hear from a fan of CUK I.e. Gaz and to hear the justification for the above.

It was stated at the last CTC Council meeting that the CTC has gone from a membership organisation to a project organisation. It was stated that CUK HQ reluctance to reply to emails and letter from members and r2r was undesirable.

There was little reaction from any of the 9 nine who voted against the complaint and the rerunning of election.
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

geocycle
Posts: 1733
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 9:46am

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby geocycle » 31 Oct 2016, 5:49pm

Philip Benstead wrote:I would like to hear from a fan of CUK I.e. Gaz and to hear the justification for the above.


I don't think a justification is needed as Cycling UK publicity states the AGM amendment could have been ignored under the rules as the legal team have agreed. Nevertheless it is bad judgement, bad PR and certainly bad practice to ignore the view of an AGM, even if it wasn't binding. Especially, as the matter could have easily been resolved by the trustees paying the membership fee.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2892
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby Bmblbzzz » 31 Oct 2016, 6:38pm

When and how will the results be announced? I don't see any date etc on the website.

Psamathe
Posts: 10603
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby Psamathe » 31 Oct 2016, 7:41pm

Bmblbzzz wrote:When and how will the results be announced? I don't see any date etc on the website.

Without wanting to suggest anything untoward but things like "pre-selection" by the Executive, only approved candidates being eligible to stand for election, AGM motions being ignored, assurances going "out-of-the-window", etc. do you really think this is a fair election ? North Korea is more transparent and democratic.

Ian

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby Philip Benstead » 31 Oct 2016, 7:44pm

Psamathe wrote:
Bmblbzzz wrote:When and how will the results be announced? I don't see any date etc on the website.

Without wanting to suggest anything untoward but things like "pre-selection" by the Executive, only approved candidates being eligible to stand for election, AGM motions being ignored, assurances going "out-of-the-window", etc. do you really think this is a fair election ? North Korea is more transparent and democratic.

Ian


You must remember the chair of the nomination committee was Dan Howard the same person who chaired the CTC AGM 2016, need i say more?
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

landsurfer
Posts: 4995
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 9:13pm
Location: Rotherham

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby landsurfer » 31 Oct 2016, 7:49pm

Having read all the details in this thread I am amazed the charity status of CUK is not being challenged via the Commissioners.
It's just like that, it's just the way it is.
The road goes on forever.

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: An update on Cycling UK's Board of Trustees' elections

Postby Philip Benstead » 31 Oct 2016, 7:50pm

landsurfer wrote:Having read all the details in this thread I am amazed the charity status of CUK is not being challenged via the Commissioners.
I am working on it give me time
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic