CTC AGM 2017

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby PH » 27 Nov 2016, 9:08pm

Steady rider wrote: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.

That's very undemocratic, it's one member one vote and it's entirely the decision of the member how they want to use that vote. But we've all been here before...

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 27 Nov 2016, 9:09pm

Steady rider wrote: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.

There are a number of possible statements of an individual voters wishes that can be made by a voter on their voting form. For, against, abstain or undirected proxy given to the Chair. Every possible statement of an individual voter's wishes carries equal validity. It is also possible to spoil a ballot paper which some may also see as an equally valid course of action.

Steady rider wrote: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.

Be careful what you wish for because it might just be remarkably close to what already happens :wink: . As stated above, ordinary AGM Motions are not binding on Council. They can already reconsider every ordinary AGM motion whether it is passed or rejected by the member votes. That's how we came to have a Council election with non-members on the ballot paper.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 27 Nov 2016, 9:29pm

That's very undemocratic, it's one member one vote and it's entirely the decision of the member how they want to use that vote. But we've all been here before...


A review process could be useful, Councils reasons provided to members may have been invalid and a motion presented would not have the opportunity prior to a vote to explain to the full membership how they were invalid.

There are a number of possible statements of an individual voters wishes that can be made by a voter on their voting form. For, against, abstain or undirected proxy given to the Chair.


The information provided to members makes it easier to vote for the unnamed 'Chair' all other proxies have to be named. All other proxies may have divided votes on motions, weakening other proxy votes effectiveness to affect a motion. So not all votes are equally effective. If the intended Chair did not arrive at the AGM the deputy Chair would act as Chair, if other proxies did not arrive at the meeting their votes may not be counted. The process is bias or staked towards the Chair and Council.

Another possible motion
The CTC Chair, Deputy Chair and Chief Executive apology to the membership for allowing candidates to stand for Council who were CTC members for less than 12 months, as voted on as a requirement at the CTC AGM 2016

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 27 Nov 2016, 9:46pm

Steady rider wrote:The process is bias or staked towards the Chair and Council.

Members can choose the Chair as their proxy and direct the Chair as to how their individual vote is cast. Many members do that already.

Some members choose to appoint and direct a named proxy. When they do that they know that their vote will not be cast if their proxy is not present at the AGM.

It's their choice to make. Perhaps some feel it sends a strong message to Council, in reality every eligible member has one vote and all votes cast are equal.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 27 Nov 2016, 9:51pm

Steady rider wrote: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.

You want a process whereby a decision of the members at AGM can be overridden. As I pointed out such a process already exists.
Steady rider wrote:The CTC Chair, Deputy Chair and Chief Executive apology to the membership for allowing candidates to stand for Council who were CTC members for less than 12 months, as voted on as a requirement at the CTC AGM 2016

You want an apology for using the process to override an AGM decision.

I don't really see how you can ask for both :? .
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

JohnW
Posts: 6450
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby JohnW » 27 Nov 2016, 10:12pm

PH wrote:..................That's very undemocratic, it's one member one vote and it's entirely the decision of the member how they want to use that vote. But we've all been here before..........


Yes, but CUK is a charity, and not a member club controlled by the membership, for the members...........it's been explained (although not in so many words) above that members wishes only have status if in-line with what the trustees want. This is only a democratic organisation until the trustees decide that members' wishes are not in line with what they see as being in the best interests of the charity. This avoids the problem of any member bullying to get their own way (even if it's what the members want and vote for) and ensures that the trustees get their own way.

A lot of us don't like it, but a lot of us still see 'CTC', and our club/family. Those days are gone.

Incidentally - what is our 'official' designation? Are we members, supporters, contributors?
Last edited by JohnW on 27 Nov 2016, 10:18pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 27 Nov 2016, 10:18pm

You want a process whereby a decision of the members at AGM can be overridden. As I pointed out such a process already exists.


I suggested a possible motion
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.

This general idea could be included in the Articles of Association and would provide members with a stronger base to ask Council to reconsider a motion based on additional evidence.

You want an apology for using the process to override an AGM decision.

No, I want an apology because the AGM 2016 motion requested candidates to have at least 12 months membership. it was passed and then people were included as candidates who had less than 12 months membership. Council ask for motions then mislead in replies, use the Chairs discretionary votes to cause motions to fail, have a bias system in place that allows unnamed Chairs when all other proxies have to be named. The system is quite poor and fails to get the best outcome.

A motion to review the AGM process and voting procedure to try and ensure the voting is fair and not bias in procedure to disadvantage members in putting forward motions.

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby PH » 27 Nov 2016, 10:24pm

Steady rider wrote:A review process could be useful, Councils reasons provided to members may have been invalid and a motion presented would not have the opportunity prior to a vote to explain to the full membership how they were invalid.

If a members vote is given to the chair and the chair has three months to reconsider how to place that vote, then why shouldn't an individual have the same three months to reconsider? Where is the difference? I can't see the sense in it at all.

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 27 Nov 2016, 10:35pm

JohnW wrote:Incidentally - what is our 'official' designation? Are we members, supporters, contributors?

The official designation is contained in our Articles of Association.
1.1.16 “Member” means member of the Club;
...
4 MEMBERS
4.1 For the purposes of registration the number of Members is declared to be unlimited.
... (etc.)

Some would have it that we are cash cows.
Philip Benstead wrote:Members are cash cow , let them think they have some power, the poor fools :mrgreen:

CJ has said milk cows.
CJ wrote:This applies especially to the profitable full-adult members, the proud super-supporters (or unknowing milk-cows) of CTC.

It doesn't really matter what the designation is on paper, what matters is how much you personally feel you are a member, supporter, contributor, cash cow ...

I'm a member, YMMV.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 27 Nov 2016, 11:11pm

Steady rider wrote:Council ask for motions then mislead in replies, use the Chairs discretionary votes to cause motions to fail, have a bias system in place that allows unnamed Chairs when all other proxies have to be named. The system is quite poor and fails to get the best outcome.

The proposer of a motion makes comment in support, Council makes comments either for/against. Every member is free to draw their own conclusions from those statements alone or to make whatever additional research they wish before deciding how to vote.

The Chair's discretionary votes are member votes, it is the result of all member votes cast that determine whether a motion is passed or fails. I do not understand why you feel some votes should be more equal than others, it certainly would not be democratic.

There is no bias in the system. The Chair can be appointed to cast directed proxy votes. If you could not appoint the Chair then only members who know someone who plans to attend the AGM would be able to appoint a proxy. You can't seriously be suggesting that would be democratic for a club of 67,000 members where recent AGM attendance is in double figures.

The system is driven by our legal obligations under the Companies Act 2006 and is demonstrably more democratic than anything you seem to be advocating.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 27 Nov 2016, 11:27pm

PH wrote:But we've all been here before...

Indeed, déjà vu.

Should save me a bit of typing :wink: .
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 28 Nov 2016, 9:17am

In reply to the PH post 27 Nov 2016, 10:24pm

Steady rider wrote:
A review process could be useful, Councils reasons provided to members may have been invalid and a motion presented would not have the opportunity prior to a vote to explain to the full membership how they were invalid.


PH wrote;
If a members vote is given to the chair and the chair has three months to reconsider how to place that vote, then why shouldn't an individual have the same three months to reconsider? Where is the difference? I can't see the sense in it at all.


If a motion states, say for example, 10 cyclists die as part of the details or reasons, and if Councils reply states 5 cyclists die, and in fact 10 had died. Council would have misled the membership and if Council advise to oppose the motion. The motions proposer and seconder would not be able to correct the details before the membership voted.
A review process in such a situation could be warranted.
Last edited by Steady rider on 28 Nov 2016, 9:39am, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 28 Nov 2016, 9:38am


Steady rider wrote:
Council ask for motions then mislead in replies, use the Chairs discretionary votes to cause motions to fail, have a bias system in place that allows unnamed Chairs when all other proxies have to be named. The system is quite poor and fails to get the best outcome.


Gaz
The proposer of a motion makes comment in support, Council makes comments either for/against. Every member is free to draw their own conclusions from those statements alone or to make whatever additional research they wish before deciding how to vote.

The Chair's discretionary votes are member votes, it is the result of all member votes cast that determine whether a motion is passed or fails. I do not understand why you feel some votes should be more equal than others, it certainly would not be democratic.

There is no bias in the system. The Chair can be appointed to cast directed proxy votes. If you could not appoint the Chair then only members who know someone who plans to attend the AGM would be able to appoint a proxy. You can't seriously be suggesting that would be democratic for a club of 67,000 members where recent AGM attendance is in double figures.

The system is driven by our legal obligations under the Companies Act 2006 and is demonstrably more democratic than anything you seem to be advocating.


The motions are limited to about 100 words and can relate to say parts of the Highway Code where to fully explain may take 1000 words. If Council misleads in their reply they can undermine the motions and the membership cannot be expected to fully understand the situation.

Members have been asked to vote on motions, if they pass their vote to the discretion of the Chair, they have not effectively voted on the actual motion themselves. The voting procedure makes it easier to vote for the Chair than any other proxy and unites votes in favour of the Councils view. It is bias in the set up and procedures.

My suggestion is to review the system and consider changes to minimise bias and favouring the Council /Chair and making it more accountable, with changes to the Articles to support members right to holding Council to account for their actions.

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 28 Nov 2016, 7:20pm

Steady rider wrote:Members have been asked to vote on motions, if they pass their vote to the discretion of the Chair, they have not effectively voted on the actual motion themselves.

I do not accept that giving discretion to a proxy to cast your vote is less valid than any other voting choice. Having reviewed my déjà vu, in principle any proxy can be given a discretionary vote not just the Chair.

If you are intending to propose a review of voting procedures, please be aware that such a review would be conducted by our elected Board of Trustees or a sub-committee appointed by the Board who I expect will not feel any changes are required.

Please also be aware that any amendments to our Articles of Association require a 75% majority of votes cast. The wording will need to be clear, unambiguous and compatible with the legal requirements of our structure as both a Limited Company and a Charity.

The articles are due for revision under the ongoing governance review.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

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

Re: CTC AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 28 Nov 2016, 9:09pm

The Articles provides details for proxies in general, no specific mention of the Chair, but the voting papers gives one proxy - the Chair prominence, that helps to lead or encourages people to vote for the easy option, tick Chair.

Is the 75% figure a general legal requirement?