Page 6 of 8

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

Posted: 6 Apr 2017, 4:22pm
by thirdcrank
The reasons why a charities trustees have to follow their own judgment rather than the directions of its members were aired by SimonL6 in this thread:-

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=62180&p=530901

For anybody who doesn't like ploghing through stuff, here's the main bit It's in a communication from the Charities Commission to the CTC (as was.)

The trustees are legally defined in charity law as the persons responsible for administering the charity. As such, charity trustees have a duty to act in the best interests of their charity. It is therefore they – not the members – who should decide what the charity does in its best interests in furtherance of its objects. Any member who has a different vision for the charity is of course entitled to put their views to the trustees for their consideration (though the trustees may decline to do so), and stand for election themselves. Ultimately, the trustees are liable for their actions and for any losses that may be incurred as a result.

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

Posted: 6 Apr 2017, 5:41pm
by Steady rider
The trustees are legally defined in charity law as the persons responsible for administering the charity.

This is similar to Council members, who were and still are responsible for overall control of the CTC.
They run the club/charity in accordance with the general direction of the Articles of Association.

As such, charity trustees have a duty to act in the best interests of their charity.

Similar to before for Council members to act in the best interest of the CTC and cycling with meeting the 'objects'.

It is therefore they – not the members – who should decide what the charity does in its best interests in furtherance of its objects.

A big step, they decide but the Articles make provisions to override their decision by a poll of the whole club if need be. The above statement sets the trustees above the members in all decisions.
If 1 million members wanted to do 'A' to meet the 'object' and 7 from 12 trustees wanted to do 'B'.
The 7 would override the 5 other trustees and all the members, that would not be a reasonable outcome. The above statement also tends to follow the trustees decide something without a procedure to have it tested to see if the decision was correct or in the best interests, a bit like judge and jury. The Articles do not follow the same approach but are more engaging with the members.

Any member who has a different vision for the charity is of course entitled to put their views to the trustees for their consideration (though the trustees may decline to do so), and stand for election themselves.

I read 50 people put themselves forward at the last election of trustees /councillors and a criteria was prescribed for the selection process. The above statement is therefore invalid, as the trustees will have control over the selection criteria and in deciding who may stand. It is unreasonable to say if someone wants something to be considered or acted upon their option is to stand for election, a fuller process of addressing any issues should be available without having to stand for election.

Ultimately, the trustees are liable for their actions and for any losses that may be incurred as a result.

The members agree to limited liability in joining, £1 each I think. The trustees carry the same liability AFAIK. So again an incorrect statement perhaps in some ways. What evidence is there to show trustees have incurred any losses?

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

Posted: 6 Apr 2017, 6:26pm
by gaz
Steady rider wrote:
It is therefore they – not the members – who should decide what the charity does in its best interests in furtherance of its objects.

A big step, ...

Yes, the big step was taken in June 2012. I'll just link back (again) to what Regulator said beforehand. The Trustees make the decisions that matter, end of.

Posted on behalf of the CTC Charity Conversion Historical Re-enactment Society.

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

Posted: 6 Apr 2017, 6:28pm
by gaz
Steady rider wrote:The members agree to limited liability in joining, £1 each I think.

Members join "The Cyclists' Touring Club Ltd", a company limited by guarantee. This refers to the limit of a Members liability exclusively in the event of the Club being wound up.

I'm quoting from the proposed version of the AoA because the language is a little clearer, the current edition does set the limit as 50p (10 shillings).
7.2 Every Member of the Charity undertakes to contribute to the assets of the Charity in the event of the same being wound up while he is a Member or within one year after he ceases to be a Member for payment of the debts and liabilities of the Charity contracted before he ceases to be a Member and of the costs, charges and expenses of winding up and for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories among themselves, such amount as may be required not exceeding £1


This explanation is of course déjà vu.

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

Posted: 6 Apr 2017, 7:26pm
by thirdcrank
In spite of a growing feeling that I am banging my head against a very thick wall, here's a summary of the duties of a charity trustee.

Tucked away as the first bullet-point in item 3 there's this:-

do what you and your co-trustees (and no one else) decide will best enable the charity to carry out its purposes


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/charity-tru ... s-involved

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

Posted: 6 Apr 2017, 7:57pm
by dodbinmule
gaz wrote:
dodbinmule wrote:WHAT IS A CTC MEMBER?
What going on here?
...
3 Should there be provision for ‘supporters’ or ‘informal members’ who are not members of the charity for the purposes of company law?

This is a commonly used means to make clear that a charity may decide for engaging people who do not wish to become company members of the charity, and have no interest in participating in its governance, but may be willing to support the charity by making a small donation or in other ways. For that reason, we propose to leave this provision in place.

...

There are posts elsewhere on the Cycling UK forum that offer a view that only "Real Members" should be involved in Cycling UK's governance. There are posts elsewhere on the Cycling UK forum suggesting that the Membership fee is a barrier to participation.

The introduction of a "supporter" category of "member" might have benefits in both regards. I've no knowledge of what benefits and obligations the Trustees intend to place on the "Cycling UK Membership Benefits Table" for the "supporter" category.


Should the CTC membership fees be based upon income

Say a person on £10,000 per year should pay less than somebody on £50,000 per year.

Would that increase membership from the lower income?

If they did come out , could they afford going into cafes and pubs?

Any views?

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

Posted: 6 Apr 2017, 8:03pm
by PH
EDIT - I fell for that
Welcome back :wink:

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

Posted: 6 Apr 2017, 8:08pm
by gaz
Once you've paid your subs you can always donate more, you can even donate without being a Member :wink: .
dodbinmule wrote:If they did come out , could they afford going into cafes and pubs?

I trust that when a Member Group stops at a cafe or pub it is permissible to sit in a bus stop over the road with your home-made sandwiches and flask of tea whether through financial need or personal preference :wink: .

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

Posted: 6 Apr 2017, 8:22pm
by dodbinmule
What is the demography of cycling groups in the Netherlands?
Is it white middle class?
Is the CTC too white and middle class and middle age and old and male dominated?
Will having support group change that?

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

Posted: 6 Apr 2017, 9:58pm
by AndyK
dodbinmule wrote:What is the demography of cycling groups in the Netherlands?
Is it white middle class?
Is the CTC too white and middle class and middle age and old and male dominated?
Will having support group change that?

You are PB and ICMFP. 8)

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

Posted: 6 Apr 2017, 10:13pm
by gaz
PB? Paolo Bettini has joined the forum? Who'd a thought it :mrgreen: .

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

Posted: 6 Apr 2017, 11:53pm
by AndyK
gaz wrote:PB? Paolo Bettini has joined the forum? Who'd a thought it :mrgreen: .

Naah, I meant Paddington Bear, obvs. Marmalade sandwich, anyone?

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

Posted: 7 Apr 2017, 9:12am
by gaz
I've probably earned a "Hard Stare" for suggesting Paolo Bettini.

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

Posted: 7 Apr 2017, 9:35am
by AndyK
gaz wrote:I've probably earned a "Hard Stare" for suggesting Paolo Bettini.

Paddington has just sent me a Hard Stare via private message. I expect you've received one too. :(

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

Posted: 7 Apr 2017, 11:07am
by Psamathe
(Whilst I left the CTC as I was unhappy with the way it was being run), I see nothing in the AGM agenda to report on what a great success the re-branding has been. It must have cost a fair bit of money (that could have been spent on actually improving things for cyclists and cycling) so I would have hoped that those pushing it would have felt it appropriate to report how it has enabled them (or even the organisation) to achieve so much more, to attract far more members, etc.

Instead the organisation is still focusing on Governance Reviews, trying to prevent members from calling a membership vote and making them pay for it if management get angered by having their plans disrupted, limiting the number of motions one person can raise at an AGM, ...

But is seems done, dusted, money spent .... end-of.

I did find it amusing that the "Board Opposes" increasing membership engagement (e.g. appalling low vote turnouts) - I assume the Board does not want greater membership engagement. That the Board opposes a "Scrutiny Committee". That the Board opposes giving the proposer of a motion the "right to reply" in Cycle Magazine (i.e. membership can only get to hear the Board's view on the motion!).

Ian