Possible motions for AGM 2017

Steady rider
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 5 Dec 2016, 7:26pm

Edited to revise some motions. Some motions accepted and other not. Motions in blue accepted. The Articles of Association requires motions to be submitted by one member and seconded by another. Reasons were provided for rejecting some motions, but however valid or invalid the reasons may be, it hinders members ability to put motions as they wish to be phrased and hinder debate and allows more control over what is presented and how it is presented. Controlling what members read and content.

Motions submitted
1
Cycling to primary school
That Cycling UK shall encourage children to cycle to school by encouraging parents to cycle with them.
Reasons
It sets a benchmark of safe cycling for children and reduces the need for car trips.



2
Discouraging deliberate close passing
That Cycling UK shall campaign with others, where possible, for improvement in the advice regarding minimum passing distance for motor vehicles passing cyclists and to press for compliance with the introduction of a statuary law on passing distance.
Reasons
So that cyclist feel less threatened and to assist in promoting cycling and improve safety, as it is essential to discourage intimidating close passing.

3
Highway Code extra requirement
That CTC campaigns for revision of section 286 of the Highway Code so that in event of personal injury to another person you MUST provide a statement to the police within 24 hours explaining in as much detail as possible how the accident occurred.

Reasons
Having to, ‘provide a statement to the police, explaining in detail’ would create a strong incentive to avoid any accident that may harm pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.

4
Articles of Association remain unchanged for the time being
That the Articles of Association remain unchanged for the time being and that additional consultation should be carried out before amendments are made.

Reasons
Only 12 days of consultation were provided by a recent consultation. A longer consultation detailing the advantages and disadvantages needs to occur before suggesting any changes. Amendments suggested included attaching unfair conditions for a poll for the whole club, suggesting members (but not trustees) may be charged expenses in some circumstances, reduced the number of trustees and area representation options.

5
Scrutiny Committee
That Cycling UK provide a scrutiny committee, independent of the trustees, to investigate any aspect of concern.

Reasons
The 2016 AGM passed a motion requiring all candidates for trustees to have at least 12 months’ membership, but election saw several candidates who did not comply with the motion. A scrutiny committee could provide a balanced view. It would promote a culture of transparency and openness.


6
Use ‘Cyclists' Touring Club’ for promoting touring events
That ‘Cyclists' Touring Club’, in addition to ‘Cycling UK’, shall be used in promotional material for touring type events and rides.

Reasons
For touring type events it signifies a national cycling organisation plus an experienced touring club in promoting the events. It would put the organisation in it historical context.


7
AGM motion: proposers right to reply
That proposers of AGM motion have a right of reply in ‘Cycle’ before the AGM, if Trustees opposes the motion.

Reasons
Trustees may oppose a motion in “Cycle” before the AGM, but this would put the proposer at a disadvantage. If reasons opposing a motion are invalid or weak the proposers should have the right to point this out to members prior to voting.


8
Provide full business name
Membership cards of the club/charity to include the words, ‘Cyclists' Touring Club’ and ‘we are CYCLING UK’.

Reasons
Life membership cards include ‘we are CYCLING UK’ and not the full business name ‘Cyclists' Touring Club’. Companies must disclose their registered name on all forms of its business correspondence and documentation. Membership cards are a form of documentation showing the name of the person who has joined.


9
Cycling UK website
That Cycling UK website shall provide links to documents (grouped under one heading) that relate to governing the Club, e.g.
How the club is managed
1 Articles of Association
2 Company Act
3 Charity Act and any related documents
4 Standing Orders relating to meeting and conditions for proposed motions
5 Board meeting details
6 Any other documents that help in understanding how the Club is governed, e.g. previous AGM details and full details of results

Reasons
To assist members in understanding how the Cyclists’ Touring Club is governed.


10
Proposed governance change

That amendment is made to the Governance documents to allow for an extra 12 elected regional trustees in addition to the 12 trustees planned for.

Reason
Currently the Nomination Committee can select candidates they consider suitable to become a Trustee. In 2016 they selected 6 candidates who had been CTC members for less than 12 months and CTC members were not selected or discouraged from standing by the selection criteria. Currently Council has approximately 15 trustees, but can consist of between 5 and 22 elected trustees plus 4 members co-opted by the Council, a total of 26. The extra 12 regional trustees proposed could include seven for England (2 North, 2 Central, 2 South and 1 London) and two each for Scotland and Wales, plus one for Northern Ireland. Nominations for the 12 regional trustees could be by the membership, 4 seconders required for each. From the current maximum of 26 the change would result in a possible 24, rather than the 12 in the Governance document. The significant benefits would be more trustees could attend AGMs, cycle rallies or events and be known to the membership and be regional representatives in supporting cycling.

11
Articles of Association
That the Articles of Association when revised should include the following;

The area over which the Club operates shall be deemed to be either one whole electoral division or 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 the Articles and approved by the membership.

Reason
To allow the Trustees to use their judgement in determining the electoral divisions that best suit the objects of the club or to have one whole electoral division.

It allows for more choices, say England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland or London as possible divisions or some divisions within. It does not tie the hands of the trustees to a single electoral division.

12
Election of Honorary Officers
That the Honorary Consulting Solicitor and Financial Advisor should be subject to election to office every three years, by the membership and not appointed. For each position, at least two candidates should be included to allow for choice.

Reasons
If questions arise about the merits of advice to Council, the membership can vote to replace them. As an example, the draft revision of the Articles of Association suggested members (but not trustees) may be charged expenses in some circumstances, which is an approach that may cause division. An approach potentially weakening the cohesion of the club and charity.

13
Revision cycle helmet advice
That Cycling UK shall campaign for the revision of advice on cycle helmets in the Highway Code to reflect the latest evidence regarding safety doubts of their overall usefulness.
Reasons
The evidence for their use is inconclusive and the Highway Code advice can be used in legal proceedings to reduce fair compensation for non-helmeted cyclists compared to pedestrians or indeed motor vehicle occupants who sustain head injuries.
Examples of research includes;
Erke and Elvik 2007 stated: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent."
Porter et al 2016 recently detailed that for the USA, adult cyclists wearing helmets had more than twice the odds of suffering an injury than cyclists not wearing helmets, with an OR value 2.81, 95% CL =1.14, 6.94.
Robinson's submission to the Australia Senate in 2015 included details for New Zealand of an increased risk of injury per cyclist since helmet laws were introduced. It detailed between 1989 and 2012, fatal or serious injuries per million hours of cycling increased by 86% for children, 181% for teenagers and 64% for adults.

14
CTC AGM live broadcast

That CTC shall broadcast in real time the AGM live over the internet.
Reason
The National Trust used this method for their AGM for 2016
https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/featur ... al-meeting
This would aid transparency and openness and forest increase greater participate by members.


-------------------------
details and discussion below were early versions of AGM Motions

The following motions are being considered for submitting to the AGM in London 13 May 2017. A proposer and seconder are required for lodging one or more motions or one proposer and one seconder for all. Some motions may be withdrawn or changed. Please send a PM if you wish to second or propose a motion.
http://www.cyclinguk.org/agm2017 Motions 1- 3 are designed to improve safety. The other motions are mainly concerning the CTC. Motin 13 is helmet related. Motions need submitting by 1 February 2017. Only a few days left for submitting.
Time is simply running out!

1
That Cycling UK promotes cycling to school by encouraging parents to cycle with their young children to and from school, where suitable.

Reasons
Sets the example for children of how to cycle safely. Reduces the need to cars trips. Promotes cycling.
Cycling UK could consider providing a simple guide, cycling to primary school with parent’s supervision.

2
To request improvements to the advice and legal requirements for minimum passing clearance and passing speed, when vehicles overtake or pass near to pedestrians, cyclists and horses. The CTC should campaign with others where possible for a minimum passing space law and for that law to be properly enforced. The CTC should carry out research (e.g. the proportion of people who feel threatened by vehicles passing too close) and consultations on safe passing distances in preparation for any government consultation on new passing clearance laws. Deliberate close passing should be considered dangerous driving and specifically mentioned in the Highway code.

Reasons
It is essential to improve safety and discourage intimidating close passing. It would result in cyclists feeling less threatened, assist in promoting cycling and improve safety. Refer ‘Evidence of proposed UK law regarding motorists passing cyclists’ email colinclarkecycling@hotmail.co.uk for details on this or any other motion. At the 2016 AGM the Chairs discretionary votes prevented motion 'Legal minimum passing clearance' from passing.

3
That section 286 of the Highway Code should be revised by adding, ‘In the event of injury to another person you MUST provide a statement to the police within 24 hours explaining in as much detail as possible how the accident occurred.’

Currently section 286 states;
If you are involved in a collision which causes damage or injury to any other person,
vehicle, animal or property, you MUST
• stop
• give your own and the vehicle owner’s name and address, and the registration
number of the vehicle, to anyone having reasonable grounds for requiring them
• if you do not give your name and address at the time of the collision, report it to
the police as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case within 24 hours.
Law RTA 1988 sect 170

Reasons
Having to, ‘Provide a statement to the police within 24 hours explaining in as much detail as possible how the accident occurred’, would create a strong desire to avoid any accident that may harm pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.


4
That the Articles of Association remain unchanged for the time being and that additional consultation on proposals to amend the Articles of Association is undertaken.

Reasons
The recent consultation draft Articles of Association attached unfair conditions for a poll for the whole club, suggesting members (but not trustees) may be charged expenses in some circumstances, omitted details on the LIFE MEMBERSHIP ACCOUNT (the provision provided protection for the funds to be used over a 25 year period and should be retained in the Articles), reduced the number of trustees and area representation options. Only 12 days of consultation was provided. A longer consultation with details of the advantages and disadvantages needs to occur before suggesting changes to the Articles.

5
That the Club provide a scrutiny committee (possibly 3 or more people), independent of the trustees, to investigate any aspect of concern.

Reasons
The 2016 AGM passed a motion requiring all candidates for trustees to have at least 12 months membership, but later in 2016 several candidates were put forward without 12 months membership. The ‘Governance costs’ for 2015 were £270,213 and it may be possible to reduce some of the high costs. A scrutiny committee could provide an independent report and offer advice on where savings may be possible, offer advice to best serve the club/charity and generally take a balanced view. It would promote a culture of transparency and openness and be able to look in detail at any issue.

6
Asks the CTC to use the name;
‘Cycling UK - the original Cyclists' Touring Club’, or similar name, to promote touring type events and rides.

Reasons
The combined name identifies the trade name Cycling UK, with the full business name Cyclists' Touring Club’. For touring type events it signify a national cycling organisation plus an experienced touring club in promoting the events. It could be helpful in understanding the background to the club and mentions the full business name and trade name of the club/charity.

7
Proposers of AGM motion have a right of reply in ‘Cycle’, if Council response is opposing their motion.

Reasons
Members put forward motions with their reason, Council may support or oppose, the Articles of Association make no mention or either supporting or opposing. Proposers have a right to reply to responses at the AGM, before the vote and the motion asks for the same right to be provided in ‘Cycle’. In 2016 Council opposed motion 13 (asking for national governments funding cycling infrastructure, with a 3% minimum investment of transport spending on cycling infrastructure) with reasons that could have misled members.

8
Membership cards of the club/charity to include the words, ‘Cyclists' Touring Club’ and ‘we are cycling UK’.

Reasons
Life membership cards include ‘we are cycling UK’ and not the full business name ‘Cyclists' Touring Club’. Companies must disclose their registered name on all forms of its business correspondence and documentation. Membership cards are a form of documentation showing the name of the person who has joined.

9
The CTC website provide links to documents (grouped under one heading) that relate to governing the Club, e.g.
How the club is managed
1 Articles of Association
2 Company Act
3 Charity Act and any related documents
4 Standing Orders relating to meeting and conditions for proposed motions
5 Board meeting details
6 Any other documents that help in understanding how the Club is governed, e.g previous AGM details and full details of results

Reasons
To assist members in understanding how the club is governed, legal obligations and procedures/requirements for meeting.

10
Proposed governance change

That amendment is made to the Governance documents to allow for an extra 12 elected regional trustees in addition to the 12 trustees planned for.

Reason
Currently the Nomination Committee can select candidates they consider suitable to become a Trustee. In 2016 they selected 6 candidates who had been CTC members for less than 12 months and CTC members were not selected or discouraged from standing by the selection criteria. Currently Council has approximately 15 trustees, but can consist of between 5 and 22 elected trustees plus 4 members co-opted by the Council, a total of 26. The extra 12 regional trustees proposed could include seven for England (2 North, 2 Central, 2 South and 1 London) and two each for Scotland and Wales, plus one for Northern Ireland. Nominations for the 12 regional trustees could be by the membership, 4 seconders required for each. From the current maximum of 26 the change would result in a possible 24, rather than the 12 in the Governance document. The significant benefits would be more trustees could attend AGMs, cycle rallies or events and be known to the membership and be regional representatives in supporting cycling.


11
That the Articles of Association when revised should include the following;

The area over which the Club operates shall be deemed to be either one whole electoral division or 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 the Article and approved by the membership.

Reason
To allow the Trustees to use their judgement in determining the electoral divisions that best suit the objects of the club.

This would have the advantages of specifying a number larger than 12 in case the Trustees wanted to add more and allowing the Club to be governed under one whole electoral division or to use more than one electoral division. It allows for more choices, say England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland or London as possible divisions or some divisions within. It does not tie the hands of the trustees to a single electoral division.

12
That Councils legal adviser or others on council should be subject to election to office every three years, by the membership and not appointed. For each position at least two candidates should be included to allow for choice.

Reasons
If questions arise about the merits of legal advice or by others appointed to Council, the membership can vote to replace any advisers. As an example, the draft revision of the Articles of Association by Shivaji Shiva, legal adviser, suggested members (but not trustees) may be charged expenses in some circumstances. An approach potentially weakening the cohesion of the club and charity. The draft left out the ‘Life membership provision’, raising concerns.

13
That the Highway Code advice on cycle helmets be revised.
Currently, Rule 59 includes;
Clothing. You should wear
• a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened

Reasons

The evidence for helmet use is inconclusive.
Erke and Elvik 2007 stated: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent."

Goldacre and Spiegelhalter 2013 article in the BMJ reported ‘Canadian legislation had minimal effect on serious head injuries’.

Robinson's submission to the Australia Senate in 2015 included details for New Zealand of an increased risk of injury per cyclist since helmet laws were introduced.

Porter et al 2016 detailed that for the USA, adult cyclists wearing helmets had more than twice the odds of suffering an injury than cyclists not wearing helmets.

The advice to wear a helmet, based on excessive claims, was added to the Code in 1993. The Code can be used in legal proceedings and should be changed to ensure cyclists who are not wearing helmets receive full compensation when due. Pedestrians with similar head injuries to cyclists may obtain full compensation.
Last edited by Steady rider on 22 Mar 2017, 6:59pm, edited 37 times in total.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14163
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Possibly motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 5 Dec 2016, 8:33pm

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=109990
Steady rider wrote:3
That the Articles of Association be unchanged for the time being.

Reasons
The recent consultation draft Articles of Association attached unfair conditions for a poll for the whole club, suggesting members (but not trustees) may be charged expenses in some circumstances, omitted details on the LIFE MEMBERSHIP ACCOUNT, reduced the number of trustees and area representation options. Only 12 days of consultation was provided. A longer consultation with details of the advantages and disadvantages needs to occur before suggesting changes to the Articles.

We know that the Trustees intend to bring a revised set of Articles of Association to the AGM for adoption. This must be in the form of a Special Resolution requiring a 75% majority of votes cast to be approved.

We know that the membership will already be voting on whether or not to adopt the new AoA, there's hardly going to be two votes on the same matter at the same AGM.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

Steady rider
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possibly motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 5 Dec 2016, 9:49pm

We know that the membership will already be voting on whether or not to adopt the new AoA,


No this is not certain. The draft was for consultation on the AoA, they may decide not to put a resolution on the matter. There are drawbacks to the suggested draft AoA.

Members are equally allowed to put resolutions and word them accordingly. If Council puts another resolution on the AoA, they can also put their reasons and would use Cycle and other means to put their point of view. I see no reason why two motions could not be put. Motion Number 3 would not require a special resolution and a Council resolution seeking changes would I assume.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14163
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Possibly motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 5 Dec 2016, 10:27pm

The Trustees have two choices. They can abandon any proposal to make changes to the Articles of Association or they can bring their proposals to the AGM. The Trustees cannot amend a single letter of the AoA without an AGM vote.

It is the Companies Act 2006 that requires our Members to approve any change to the AoA by passing a Special Resolution (75% majority at an AGM).

The Trustees are not above the law, it says so in Article 6.1 :wink: .
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14163
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Possibly motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 5 Dec 2016, 11:02pm

I have realised that there is another issue.

Resolutions by their nature are proposals for change. I don't believe you can put a resolution to the meeting to vote to maintain the status quo.

Consider what would happen if the members were to vote on your suggested Resolution, "That the Articles of Association be unchanged for the time being."

If it is passed the result is that we keep the current AoA. If it is defeated it does not propose an alternative, what do you think the outcome would be?
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

AndyK
Posts: 989
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Possibly motions for AGM 2017

Postby AndyK » 6 Dec 2016, 1:11am

If there is no motion to change the Articles, your motions 2 and 3 are meaningless.

If there is a motion to change the Articles...
  • Your motion 2 should be lodged as an amendment to that motion, not a motion in its own right.
  • Your motion 3 simply contradicts the motion to change the Articles, so is meaningless as a motion. It's just a statement of opposition to the article-change motion, and a vague one at that, as Gaz points out.

The way to make motion 3 into a proper motion would be for it to specify conditions that must apply before any change can be made to the Articles. For instance:

"That before any change can be made to the Articles of Association, the Trustees must undertake a consultation with members, allowing a period of at least two months for members to respond to proposals and reporting the full results of the consultation prior to the AGM."

The trouble with this is that the chair can schedule this item towards the end of the agenda, so that this motion only applies to changes proposed after the 2017 AGM, not during it.

The fundamental problem with motion 4 (scrutiny committee) is that what you're defining is supposed to be what trustees are for. They are there to keep an eye on the executive and ensure it doesn't overstep the mark. Even if they're not doing their job very well, it doesn't really justify introducing a new level of meta-trustee that watches over the trustees. Where would you stop? And who would select the meta-trustees? ("The members" is not a sufficient answer.) It doesn't feel very fully thought-out. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, as we say down the pub.

Motion 7 is quite right, a membership card is a piece of business documentation so should include the company's registered name (as per The Company, Limited Liability Partnership and Business (Names and Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2015, section 24(1)) but the motion is effectively saying "This company should obey the law." Which it should do, but it shouldn't need an AGM motion to tell it to do that. It's the job of the Trustees to make sure that the company obeys the law, so one hopes that they will have a sharp word with the executive as soon as they've been informed of this oversight. :)

Steady rider
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 6 Dec 2016, 6:37pm

Gaz, It seems committees often vote to maintain the status quo, rather than change.
you say
I don't believe you can put a resolution to the meeting to vote to maintain the status quo

Can you provide any reference to support this view?
If the government consulted on speed limits, for 12 days, and wanted to make in town speed limits 40 mph in all areas, would you object to a motion that the speed limits should remain unchanged?

The Articles state;
9.4 Any motion for inclusion in the Agenda for a General Meeting shall be proposed by one Member
and seconded by another Member;

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14163
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 6 Dec 2016, 7:22pm

Can I provide a reference to support my view, no. Let me do my best to illustrate by expanding a little on your example.

The current "town speed limits are 30mph". The government consults on speed limits, for 12 days on proposals for an increase to 40mph. For simplicity I'll assume the only possible outcomes are 30mph or 40mph.


Outcome 1: After considering the submissions received, the government announces they will stick with 30mph.

Rather than there being a proposal to parliament for no change, there is simply no proposal to parliament. No vote is required to maintain the status quo. The limit remains 30mph.


Outcome 2: After considering the submissions received, the government announces they wish to increase the limit to 40mph. They draft the relevant legislation which is put to parliament for a vote.

There is debate on the relative merits of the status quo v the proposed limit. A vote is required becasue there is a proposal for change. If the vote goes in the governments favour, the speed limit will change. If they are defeated then the status quo is maintained.

The outcome of a vote may very well be to maintain the status quo, but the vote is on the proposal to change.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

Steady rider
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 6 Dec 2016, 7:34pm

One difference would be all MPs could hear the debate. A CTC Council motion could put the case for changing the Articles, using their web site, Cycle, emails and bogs, and there would be no requirement for opposing views to be made public or space provided in Cycle. A bias system. I would not consider the comparison with the Parliamentary system justified. Opposing views expressed at the AGM would only be considered by a small proportion of members.

This relates to motion Number 6

Proposers of AGM motion have a right of reply in ‘Cycle’, if Council response is opposing their motion.

Steady rider
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 6 Dec 2016, 7:56pm

Reply to
AndyK » 6 Dec 2016, 1:11am

The regards to motion 7,
The following details were sent to the membership dept 18 April 2016

refer you to;

http://www.bromley.gov.uk/leaflet/204102/4/675/d

REGISTERED NAME TO APPEAR IN COMMUNICATIONS

Companies must disclose their registered name on:

· business letters
•all other forms of its business correspondence and documentation

I consider my membership card to represent a form of business document, having paid for it and it showing my membership. A brand name may change is not sufficient in my view. I would like my membership card to show the registration name in keeping with UK legal practice.


The CTC has been a company for more than 100 years, they have legal advice where required.
Motion number 4
That the Club provide a scrutiny committee (possibly 3 or more people), independent of the trustees, to investigate any aspect of concern

could have considered any aspect of concern. It seems the trustees can miss basic issues.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14163
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 6 Dec 2016, 8:05pm

Steady rider wrote:I would not consider the comparison with the Parliamentary system justified.

I simply expanded upon the example you gave, perhaps you should have chosen an example you considered to be comparable.

My underlying point is that a motion needs to propose change, so that there can be a vote between the proposed change and the status quo. There is no need to propose maintaining the status quo and you cannot have a vote without a choice to vote on.

If you won't accept from me that there is a problem with your proposed motion please consider the other response you have received on thread.

If you feel the 12 day consultation period is too short, please include comments to that effect in your response to the consultation.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14163
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 6 Dec 2016, 9:15pm

AndyK wrote:The fundamental problem with motion 4 (scrutiny committee) is that what you're defining is supposed to be what trustees are for. They are there to keep an eye on the executive and ensure it doesn't overstep the mark. Even if they're not doing their job very well, it doesn't really justify introducing a new level of meta-trustee that watches over the trustees. Where would you stop? And who would select the meta-trustees? ("The members" is not a sufficient answer.) It doesn't feel very fully thought-out. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, as we say down the pub.

Agreed, it isn't going to get anywhere near the AGM even with a seconder.

I also note that on this proposed major change to our governance Steady rider feels there would be no need for any period of prior consultation with the memberhship :wink: .

Edit: Blimey, I got that one wrong didn't I :oops: .
Last edited by gaz on 31 Mar 2017, 7:00pm, edited 1 time in total.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

Steady rider
Posts: 2287
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby Steady rider » 7 Dec 2016, 3:14pm

I take note of the comments and have revised motion 3 (That the Articles of Association be unchanged for the time being.) to read,

3
That the Articles of Association be unchanged for the time being and that additional consultation on proposals to amend the Articles of Association be undertaken.

gaz wrote
I also note that on this proposed major change to our governance Steady rider feels there would be no need for any period of prior consultation with the memberhship :wink:
Not the case.



AndyK wrote:
The fundamental problem with motion 4 (scrutiny committee) is that what you're defining is supposed to be what trustees are for. They are there to keep an eye on the executive and ensure it doesn't overstep the mark. Even if they're not doing their job very well, it doesn't really justify introducing a new level of meta-trustee that watches over the trustees. Where would you stop? And who would select the meta-trustees? ("The members" is not a sufficient answer.) It doesn't feel very fully thought-out. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, as we say down the pub.
Agreed, it isn't going to get anywhere near the AGM even with a seconder.


Motion 4 currently reads
That the Club provide a scrutiny committee (possibly 3 or more people), independent of the trustees, to investigate any aspect of concern.

Reasons
The 2016 AGM passed a motion requiring all candidates for trustees to have at least 12 months membership, but later in 2016 several candidates were put forward without 12 months membership. The ‘Governance costs’ for 2015 were £270,213 and it may be possible to reduce some of the high costs. A scrutiny committee could provide an independent report and offer advice on where savings may be possible, offer advice to best serve the club/charity and generally take a balanced view.


In Parliament they have the second chamber to examine legislation, in nearly all western governments they have a second group to look at legislation. The trustees may have been involved in a decision process, if there is problem, 3 independent scrutiny committee members, perhaps directly elected by the member, could look at the issue. They would be independent and could report their findings. If the trustees looked at an issue, they may be less inclined to say 'we missed that point'. it was in part at least our fault. Putting out a consultation on the AoA and omitting the Life membership account without providing any reasons could be one issue a scrutiny committee could consider, was the AoA consultation inadequate?
http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/Pages/default.aspx as an example.

gaz wrote
it isn't going to get anywhere near the AGM even with a seconder

How would it be prevented?

At the AGM 2016 motion number 4.http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... inutes.pdf

4) That the subscription table to the determination pursuant to current Article 4.4 of the Articles of Association shall remain unchanged, for the year from 1st October 2016.
Proposer Barry Flood on behalf of Council, seconder Dan Howard

The motion was for the articles to remain unchanged, put by Council.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14163
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 7 Dec 2016, 7:38pm

Steady rider wrote:At the AGM 2016 motion number 4.http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... inutes.pdf

4) That the subscription table to the determination pursuant to current Article 4.4 of the Articles of Association shall remain unchanged, for the year from 1st October 2016.
Proposer Barry Flood on behalf of Council, seconder Dan Howard

The motion was for the articles to remain unchanged, put by Council.

That Motion was not about the articles, it was required by them. The Motion was about subscription rates.

At the 2016 AGM the Trustees recommended that the subscription rates for all the various classes of membership remain unchanged. Article 4.4 of the current AoA requires subscription rates to be set by the membership.
4.4 The subscription for each class of Member shall be such and shall be payable at such time as theClub may determine, from time to time in General Meeting. Every subscription so determined shall be subject at the time of payment to the addition of Value Added Tax at the statutory rate then applicable.

The Trustees are bound by the AoA to put the motion to member vote at the AGM. The law required such a Motion to be put to the meeting, the fact that the proposal was to leave the rates unchanged is incidental.

BTW the consultation on the proposed AoA asks whether members feel the Trustees should set the rate in future without reference to the members at AGM.
Do you agree that the Trustees should be able to change the membership fee without the approval of the membership at a general meeting?
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14163
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Possible motions for AGM 2017

Postby gaz » 7 Dec 2016, 8:11pm

Steady rider wrote:gaz wrote
it isn't going to get anywhere near the AGM even with a seconder

How would it be prevented?

I have commented on two of your motions is I feel they are both fatally flawed. Proposals from members for the AGM are submitted to the Trustees for scrutiny. The Trustees will examine the wording of the motions to make sure that they are in order. Were he not currently barred from the forum Philip Benstead may have been able to shed more light on the process.
AndyK wrote:The fundamental problem with motion 4 (scrutiny committee) is that what you're defining is supposed to be what trustees are for.

A motion that proposes a course of action that cannot legally be undertaken will not reach the agenda. I strongly suspect this is such a motion, perhaps I'll be proved wrong.

The members motion submission paperwork includes the following comment.
As you are drafting your motion we’d really like to hear from you to learn more about your ideas and to offer our help and guidance.

If you haven't already done so I would recommend that you follow that advice.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...