Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Steady rider
Posts: 2030
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby Steady rider » 31 Mar 2017, 1:53pm

Any views about this information, needs checking, looks to be correct. They have bypassed the 2016 AGM motion prescribing conditions for suitability to become trustees.

Report – Memorandum and Articles

Amendments following Member Consultation

3 Issues for Consideration

There were over one hundred responses to the open question in the survey on changes to the membership structure. There were about 240 responses to the request for any other comments. Those responses from members raise several issues for the Trustees to consider and these are listed below. Each comment has been considered and a response with notes where appropriate has been provided to the Operations Director. The revised articles of association incorporate changes to reflect, where appropriate, the comments received.

3.1 Should there be a requirement that new charity trustees must have been a member of the charity for at least a year?

We have assumed that this is not desired at present – and that is reflected in the revised draft memorandum and articles of association.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12839
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby gaz » 31 Mar 2017, 2:24pm

Steady rider wrote:Those voting for the chair to be their proxy have the added advantage of knowing if one chair does not attend another will step in. Tick box and no name, two major advantages over anyone else trying to get motions passed and not supported by Council.

Going back to the example given for the 2016 AGM. Motion 14 was not supported by Council.

1188 members used the tick box to instruct "the Chair" to be their proxy and ticked the subsequent boxes to vote "For" the Motion, a course of action that was not supported by Council. That was more than the 793 members who used the tick box to instruct "the Chair" to be their proxy and ticked the subsequent boxes to vote "Against" the Motion, the course of action supported by Council. It's hard to see where the "tick box" to appoint "the Chair" as proxy gave any advantage so far as directed proxy votes were concerned.

The outcome of the vote on Motion 14 is only changed if you believe that without the option to give discretion on how to cast their vote to "the Chair", at least 1 in 4 members who gave their discretion to "the Chair" (who was known to oppose the Motion) would instead have voted "For" the Motion.

Steady rider wrote:The system could be reviewed by an independent outside academic and assessed in terms of fairness.

Not one single member proposed a Motion to the AGM to either request a review of the voting system or to remove the power of members to give a discretionary vote to a proxy. Maybe one for 2018 but I really do hope not because IMO the "tick box" to appoint "the Chair" as proxy gives no significant advantage.

Steady rider wrote:Motion 14 would have passed except for Council putting people off with there claims. They said 1.5 may not be sufficient and they did not want to specify a passing distance. This year they are paying for mats showing a passing distance of 1.5m (passing clearance of about 1.2m). Blind leading the blind perhaps.

I haven't forgotten that the proposer of that Motion suggested 1.0m would be sufficient passing clearance at 30mph. The close pass mats are being discussed on another thread.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12839
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby gaz » 31 Mar 2017, 2:57pm

Steady rider wrote:Any views about this information, needs checking, looks to be correct. They have bypassed the 2016 AGM motion prescribing conditions for suitability to become trustees.


otion6.png
Motion 6, 2016 AGM
otion6.png (25.61 KiB) Viewed 5048 times

Whilst the Motion was carried, Ordinary Motions are not (nor ever have been) binding on the Trustees.

The Trustees subsequently allowed nominees for the 2016 Board elections who did not meet those criteria to proceed to the election process. The members voted in three new Trustees all of whom met the qualifying criteria.

I do not know what proportion of the membership are deeply upset, offended and concerned that the Trustees "ignored" the motion and what proportion of the membership accept the Trustees explanation that they "considered" the motion before acting in the best interests of the Charity.

The Trustees continue to believe that it is not in the best interests of the Charity to insist that a Trustee has been a member of Cycling UK for at least one year before nomination. This is why the Trustees have not added a supporting clause to the proposed Articles of Association.

If the members wish to bind the Trustees to such a condition it needs to be included in the Articles of Association, e.g. clause 14c. You'll need a proposer and seconder for a Special Resolution to an AGM and to obtain a 75% majority of the votes cast.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

Steady rider
Posts: 2030
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby Steady rider » 31 Mar 2017, 4:23pm

A good understanding is required. The 1.2m clearance suggested in 2011, 1.0 minimum up to 30 mph, 1.5m at higher speeds suggested in 2016. It is politics and what would be acceptable, a judgement, ask too much and not practical to gain support.

WMP and Cycling UK are using a 1.2m (clearance) advertised at 1.5m passing.
In the USA they have various rules, guidance, provided a strong message to drivers is given not to pass too close, not less than 1.0m, it is progress I think.

belgiangoth
Posts: 1123
Joined: 29 Mar 2007, 4:10pm

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby belgiangoth » 1 Apr 2017, 9:26am

Okay then, I think it would make sense to propose two motions for the next agm:
1- allow postal/ absentee ballots without a proxy, e.g. You vote for/against/abstain, don't need someone to cast your vote as it's all on paper/electronic
2 - get rid of discretionary proxy voting. This reflects that a minority of members attend the agm and debate before voting, the majority of votes are decided in advance. Therefore the proxy decision vote is simply a tool to allow "the chair" to wield a block of votes.

Chances are, though, that I will miss the deadline as I only notice that it's agm time come the actual agm.
If I had a baby elephant I would let it sleep in the garage in place of the car. If I had either a garage or a car. (I miss sigs about baby elephants)

thirdcrank
Posts: 26246
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby thirdcrank » 1 Apr 2017, 9:30am

belgiangoth

The logical next step would be to scrap the meeting.

PH
Posts: 5589
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby PH » 1 Apr 2017, 9:56am

belgiangoth wrote:Okay then, I think it would make sense to propose two motions for the next agm:
1- allow postal/ absentee ballots without a proxy, e.g. You vote for/against/abstain, don't need someone to cast your vote as it's all on paper/electronic

I think that would need a change in company law, so a bit beyond the CTC - All the votes are cast on the day, all the paper/online options are to appoint your proxy, even if that isn't clear.
2 - get rid of discretionary proxy voting. This reflects that a minority of members attend the agm and debate before voting, the majority of votes are decided in advance. Therefore the proxy decision vote is simply a tool to allow "the chair" to wield a block of votes.

Let me get this right - You're going to propose a motion to do away with discretionary voting, which you think will be decided by discretionary voting. What do you think is going to happen there?

belgiangoth
Posts: 1123
Joined: 29 Mar 2007, 4:10pm

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby belgiangoth » 1 Apr 2017, 3:31pm

Both good points ^^
If I had a baby elephant I would let it sleep in the garage in place of the car. If I had either a garage or a car. (I miss sigs about baby elephants)

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12839
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby gaz » 2 Apr 2017, 11:34am

PH wrote:Let me get this right - You're going to propose a motion to do away with discretionary voting, which you think will be decided by discretionary voting. What do you think is going to happen there?

Whilst looking for something else I came across this from the 2012 AGM.
2012.png
Motion 9, 2012 AGM - Defeated.

IMO rather illustrative of what is likely to happen.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

MartinBrice
Posts: 441
Joined: 13 Nov 2007, 9:57am

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby MartinBrice » 3 Apr 2017, 10:33pm

belgiangoth wrote: the proxy decision vote is simply a tool to allow "the chair" to wield a block of votes.
Indeed it is, and a jolly good idea it is too. It's a method of allowing members to place their trust in the chair by giving members the chance to place their vote in the hands of the chair.

dodbinmule
Posts: 21
Joined: 4 Apr 2017, 12:38pm

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby dodbinmule » 4 Apr 2017, 12:42pm

I am new here but have been watching for some time.

I just seen this

http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... s_2016.pdf

Any views?

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 9788
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby mjr » 4 Apr 2017, 2:18pm

gaz wrote:
Barred1 wrote:That's fine to ask who is coming BUT there should be no limit on numbers which is the implication - everyone has the right to be there.

Yes, although on the other hand short of booking a venue that can seat 67,000 (or whatever the current number of voting members is) there will always be a limit on numbers.

The usual (and IMO correct) procedure is to book a reasonable-sized venue, have some contingency provision for a secondary chamber with audio (probably video these days) link that can be used if needed and if all else fails, adjourn the meeting until a suitable venue can be hired. While some companies have given me incentives to let them know I will attend (refreshments is a common one), I do not remember seeing such an attempt to scare people off attending if they haven't booked before and I am surprised if it is legal, just like I'm surprised if it's legal to exclude members from an AGM on the day.

PH wrote:
belgiangoth wrote:Okay then, I think it would make sense to propose two motions for the next agm:
1- allow postal/ absentee ballots without a proxy, e.g. You vote for/against/abstain, don't need someone to cast your vote as it's all on paper/electronic

I think that would need a change in company law, so a bit beyond the CTC - All the votes are cast on the day, all the paper/online options are to appoint your proxy, even if that isn't clear.

I cast AGM votes in some companies online without appointing a proxy. As I understand it, it's been legal for a few years now but usually requires the company M&A and standing orders to be updated to allow it. It's not a big amendment, though.

It's not a surprise to me that rule updates helpful to member democratic control haven't been made by CTC.
PH wrote:
belgiangoth wrote:2 - get rid of discretionary proxy voting. This reflects that a minority of members attend the agm and debate before voting, the majority of votes are decided in advance. Therefore the proxy decision vote is simply a tool to allow "the chair" to wield a block of votes.

Let me get this right - You're going to propose a motion to do away with discretionary voting, which you think will be decided by discretionary voting. What do you think is going to happen there?

We discover whether you can use a bad decision-making process to fix a bad decision-making process? ;)

dodbinmule wrote:http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/file_Public/consolidated_accounts_2016.pdf

Any views?

It seems a bit odd to list board members not re-elected as "resigned" rather than "retired".

I'm surprised if there are still "over 67,000 members" (page 10) and anyway, that seems poor compared to increasing cycling levels and a HSBCUKBC which has doubled in size in the last few years.

I suspect "13,000 local events and rides" (page 10) which are mostly member-only-with-some-guests probably means "Delivery of most services is free at the point of delivery" (page 9) isn't actually true.

There's one employee on £6x,000 and one on £8x,000 excluding employer pension contributions.
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
gaz
Posts: 12839
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby gaz » 4 Apr 2017, 9:43pm

dodbinmule wrote:Any views?

Thanks for the link.

The accounts document £13,842 spent on conducting the Poll of the Whole Club :| .

Worth knowing when considering how to vote on Motion 5.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

dodbinmule
Posts: 21
Joined: 4 Apr 2017, 12:38pm

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby dodbinmule » 4 Apr 2017, 11:33pm

gaz wrote:
dodbinmule wrote:Any views?

Thanks for the link.

The accounts document £13,842 spent on conducting the Poll of the Whole Club :| .

Worth knowing when considering how to vote on Motion 5.



The Poll cost of £13,842 represent approx. 3.7% of unrestricted funds.
CTC COUNCIL
During the year out of pocket travelling expenses amounting to £9,839 (2015 - £14,243)
were reimbursed to 18 (2015 - 18) trustees.

AndyK
Posts: 635
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Cycling UK AGM : 13th May 2017 : London

Postby AndyK » 5 Apr 2017, 12:28am

gaz wrote:
dodbinmule wrote:Any views?

Thanks for the link.

The accounts document £13,842 spent on conducting the Poll of the Whole Club :| .

Worth knowing when considering how to vote on Motion 5.


It's the annual report that quotes that figure, not the accounts. It's not identified as an item in the accounts, so we still have no explanation of where this oft-quoted figure came from. I note that the same section of the report makes no mention of the costs of carrying out the rebranding. Odd that one figure should be picked out for special attention in the report, but not the other. :|