gaz wrote:mjr wrote:And another thread in this forum discussing the ballot has currently been removed.
It has since been merged into this one.
Edited somewhat, as you can see from the lack of sense it now makes!
gaz wrote:mjr wrote:And another thread in this forum discussing the ballot has currently been removed.
It has since been merged into this one.
Steady rider wrote: ... What was once a club representing members with regional representatives and fully accountable to members has taken on a different format.
(My emphasis)
App.6 wrote:The Nominations will provide a statement on each individual candidate stating whether:
• The candidate meets the person specification, is fully competent to carry out the trustee role and would complement the skill mix on the Board
• The candidate meets the person specification and is fully competent to carry out the trustee role
• The committee has no recommendation to make on the candidate
• The candidate does not meet the person specification and is not recommended for election
All candidates shall be entitled to stand for election should they wish following receipt of their statement. The election material will note what statement has been applied to each candidate.
These candidates exceeded the Trustee criteria by offering two or more of the additional skills, qualities and characteristics sought.
The Nominations Committee have also endorsed four candidates whom they feel match the skills required currently for the board.
Steady rider wrote:It appears that nearly every time Cycling UK do anything connected with elections or how the club is run, a degree of control is taken to ensure the outcome suits their own agenda. Other views by members are not allowed to be fully included by means of selection processes, conditions for AGM motions and changes to procedures. The bias shown in the current elections being one example. What was once a club representing members with regional representatives and fully accountable to members has taken on a different format.
Steady rider wrote:Even 'Charities' should be fully accountable, not bias and fair in dealings.
thirdcrank wrote:..... No way of us knowing whether that's the same people renewing or new converts to cycling - the latter being "a good thing" but either way, the satisfaction seems quite high.
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=113397&hilit=membership+leaving&start=105#p1130757 wrote:...it was hard to fathom how 16,000 people had joined but Membership dropped overall.
gaz wrote:http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/governancepaper-2016.pdfApp.6 wrote:The Nominations will provide a statement on each individual candidate stating whether:
• The candidate meets the person specification, is fully competent to carry out the trustee role and would complement the skill mix on the Board
• The candidate meets the person specification and is fully competent to carry out the trustee role
• The committee has no recommendation to make on the candidate
• The candidate does not meet the person specification and is not recommended for election
All candidates shall be entitled to stand for election should they wish following receipt of their statement. The election material will note what statement has been applied to each candidate.
gaz wrote:Churn amongst the Membership is nothing new. Oct 2013 Council minutes, Item 15 appears to show 14,000 members "leave" every year, presumably meaning that they do not renew.
16,000 seems a significant rise on that "average", it is disappointing to note that there is little apparent effort to determine why the figure has risen.
mjr wrote:I'm not seeing the power of the vetters to make those "exceeds" statements or extra endorsements there. Have I overlooked it or have the vetters exceeded their powers?
Psamathe wrote:gaz wrote:Churn amongst the Membership is nothing new. Oct 2013 Council minutes, Item 15 appears to show 14,000 members "leave" every year, presumably meaning that they do not renew.
16,000 seems a significant rise on that "average", it is disappointing to note that there is little apparent effort to determine why the figure has risen.
When you are losing more than 25% of your membership each year and not asking why or what is going on it really makes you wonder what abilities and experience those running the organisation have.
Ian