CTC AGM 2017
CTC AGM 2017
I just received my CTC Cycle magazine, on page 14 it was advertising the agm fror Cycling UK, what is going on here, our organizations' name is the Cyclists' Touring Club as state by John Catt on Facebook. Please will the editor get it right. CUK is just the branding like daz soap power.
Last edited by greenroad on 21 Nov 2016, 4:04pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Ctc agm 2017
Looks like there should have been some cut and paste text here to explain what the poster is referring to?
Bi
Bi
....
Riding high!
Riding high!
Re: Ctc agm 2017
I believe the scribe is referring to a Facebook message (link https://www.facebook.com/groups/911322558887222/)
John Catt has written: I'd point out that we only changed our branding, not our name - we are still the Cyclists' Touring Club. Since it is a change of branding, if it is a mistake, it is as easy to change back (or change again) as the intitial change. Branding sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Hence the need to retain flexibility, which "consulting" members (not sure how) does not allow.
John Catt has written: I'd point out that we only changed our branding, not our name - we are still the Cyclists' Touring Club. Since it is a change of branding, if it is a mistake, it is as easy to change back (or change again) as the intitial change. Branding sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. Hence the need to retain flexibility, which "consulting" members (not sure how) does not allow.
Re: CTC AGM 2017
greenroad wrote:I just received my CTC Cycle magazine, ...
I have checked the front cover of my own Cycle magazine , described as the magazine of Cycling UK and I can find no reference to CTC on the front cover.
Is your's a special personalised edition or are we both being unnecessarily pedantic?
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: CTC AGM 2017
The same article on page 14 of the recent edition of Cycle states "Beyond our campaigning efforts, our AGM helps to guide us on the effective administration of our 138 year old organisation, it helps to steer our governance etc etc." At the 2016 AGM a motion was passed stating that applicants for Trustee status, must have been a member of Cycling UK for at least 12 months. Yet despite this the recent shortlist of 10 forwarded for ballot included four applicants that were not even members of Cycling UK. Where is the steer, where is the guidance, more importantly where is the democracy?
Re: CTC AGM 2017
look inside the magazinegaz wrote:greenroad wrote:I just received my CTC Cycle magazine, ...
I have checked the front cover of my own Cycle magazine , described as the magazine of Cycling UK and I can find no reference to CTC on the front cover.
Is your's a special personalised edition or are we both being unnecessarily pedantic?
Re: CTC AGM 2017
It is interesting to see on the cover the phrase "Cycling UK" used beneath CJ's photo of Cycling in Austria.
On a more specific note the article on page 14 refers to the 3 new Trustees elected to Cycling UK. Is this correct?
Roger>
On a more specific note the article on page 14 refers to the 3 new Trustees elected to Cycling UK. Is this correct?
Roger>
Re: CTC AGM 2017
For a bit of light relief, you could look at the discount code in the Spa Cycles advert
Re: CTC AGM 2017
Is it a slogan or an absence of spaces?
Roger.
Roger.
Re: CTC AGM 2017
PH wrote:For a bit of light relief, you could look at the discount code in the Spa Cycles advert
Wonderful piece of marketing .
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Re: CTC AGM 2017
Any ideas for motions for the CTC AGM 2017?
Re: CTC AGM 2017
Fred, as a recent joiner you may have missed the existing topic.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: CTC AGM 2017
Possible motion
Asks for improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance when overtaking or near to cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of vehicles passing too close.
At the 2016 AGM a similar motion, number 14, would have passed except for the Chairs discretionary votes, 881 against,
total votes for 1261, against 1764 (1764 - 881 = 883).
Where is the AGM next year?
Asks for improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance when overtaking or near to cyclists, to try and reduce the frequency of vehicles passing too close.
At the 2016 AGM a similar motion, number 14, would have passed except for the Chairs discretionary votes, 881 against,
total votes for 1261, against 1764 (1764 - 881 = 883).
Where is the AGM next year?
Re: CTC AGM 2017
IIRC the 2017 AGM will be in London.
Please remember that the "Chair's discretionary votes" are all individual member votes. Every member has the right to appoint the Chair as proxy and to give the Chair discretion as to how their own individual vote is cast. The motion was lost following a count of members' votes with every member vote cast having equal validity.
The Trustees are not bound by ordinary motions passed by members at the AGM. It is not even a case of balancing the wishes of the members with the public interest, they are legally bound to act in the best interests of the Charity.
I'll also quote from the thread linked above where that point is explained from another perspective:
Please remember that the "Chair's discretionary votes" are all individual member votes. Every member has the right to appoint the Chair as proxy and to give the Chair discretion as to how their own individual vote is cast. The motion was lost following a count of members' votes with every member vote cast having equal validity.
The Trustees are not bound by ordinary motions passed by members at the AGM. It is not even a case of balancing the wishes of the members with the public interest, they are legally bound to act in the best interests of the Charity.
I'll also quote from the thread linked above where that point is explained from another perspective:
Psamathe wrote:Why bother, they will just ignore the outcome and do what they want anyway. Seems these days motions passed at the AGM are quickly and easily ignored when they don't suit the wishes of the Executive.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
-
- Posts: 2749
- Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Re: CTC AGM 2017
Members half expect the Chair to know what is best or it may reflect a general vote of confidence in the CTC, but they can get it wrong on individual issues. The advice given to Council may be in error or misled by information provided or a lack of other useful information.
Where the actual votes that give direction to a motion, say to support the motion, and the Chairs discretionary votes results in the motion failing, there could perhaps be a procedure to allow full Council members to reconsider the motion/issue and accept submissions/evidence. The Chairs position may be decided in say January and by May other information may have come to light. Full Council could have the option to allow submissions for say up to 2 months for split motions, were the Chairs discretionary votes overturns an otherwise passed motion. This type of provision may be useful so that Council can reconsider any addition evidence without making a special case.
The discretionary votes cannot be proven to be against or for a motion by individual members because they have not specifically stated their wish on the individual motion. All other votes can be proven for or against.
A motion could be put along the lines of;
Following an AGM vote and where reasonable evidence exists to show Council should reconsider an AGM motion they can allow extra submissions to examine any concerns.
Perhaps 3 non-Council members could examine the 'reasonable evidence' and recommend or not for Council to review any concerns.
Following an AGM vote and where the Chairs discretionary votes results in the motion failing, Council will allow submissions for up to two months to reconsider any additional evidence and may change its position on the motion.
Where the actual votes that give direction to a motion, say to support the motion, and the Chairs discretionary votes results in the motion failing, there could perhaps be a procedure to allow full Council members to reconsider the motion/issue and accept submissions/evidence. The Chairs position may be decided in say January and by May other information may have come to light. Full Council could have the option to allow submissions for say up to 2 months for split motions, were the Chairs discretionary votes overturns an otherwise passed motion. This type of provision may be useful so that Council can reconsider any addition evidence without making a special case.
The discretionary votes cannot be proven to be against or for a motion by individual members because they have not specifically stated their wish on the individual motion. All other votes can be proven for or against.
A motion could be put along the lines of;
Following an AGM vote and where reasonable evidence exists to show Council should reconsider an AGM motion they can allow extra submissions to examine any concerns.
Perhaps 3 non-Council members could examine the 'reasonable evidence' and recommend or not for Council to review any concerns.
Following an AGM vote and where the Chairs discretionary votes results in the motion failing, Council will allow submissions for up to two months to reconsider any additional evidence and may change its position on the motion.
Last edited by Steady rider on 27 Nov 2016, 9:11pm, edited 2 times in total.