Trustee elections 2017

Steady rider
Posts: 2160
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby Steady rider » 28 Sep 2017, 2:15pm

http://www.cyclinguk.org/agm

http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... ebsite.pdf
motion 14 was passed, so information on how the club is governed should have been provided on the Clubs web site.

The membership figures may change on average by several thousand per year, say gain 10k and lose 10k, but cycling has increased in some parts of the country, London in particular. Many members may use local rides and need to be members to take part, so even if not too happy with the way the club is run, they need the insurance, so just keep going.
Last edited by Steady rider on 28 Sep 2017, 2:20pm, edited 1 time in total.

Psamathe
Posts: 9790
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby Psamathe » 28 Sep 2017, 2:20pm

PH wrote:
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


There may well be some analysis of these figures, I'd be surprised if there wasn't. For example, how many of those leaving rejoin shortly afterwards? I've left and rejoined three times over the last two decades, but never for more than a few weeks, once because I forgot, and the other two times because it wasn't convenient to pay the annual membership in the month it was due. Then, how many of those leaving were recruited via promotions? And how does that compare to other organisations? We don't know many are no longer cycling, a large proportion of the traditional membership are at an age where that's increasingly likely and sadly some may no longer be with us.
It'll be interesting to see how the long overdue ability to pay for membership monthly helps recruit and retain members. I know from a MG point of view it makes it an easier sell. On a positive note, my local group has gained around eight members in the last year which is considerably up on recent years.

If there were any analysis I would not expect Paul Tuohy to be describing is as "hard to fathom how" and that he would instead be commenting on the causes. I'd expect members delaying rejoining for a few months to be recognised and even if that were a significant cause (guess) it is a massive number which itself would raise questions.

Ian

Steady rider
Posts: 2160
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby Steady rider » 28 Sep 2017, 2:45pm

Gaz wrote
http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... r-2016.pdf

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.
The voting papers state all eight candidates either meet or exceed the second category:


These candidates exceeded the Trustee criteria by offering two or more of the additional skills, qualities and characteristics sought.

The voting papers place four candidates in the first category, giving them "glowing" endorsements:


The Nominations Committee have also endorsed four candidates whom they feel match the skills required currently for the board.

The election system Members now have is broadly the one that Members voted for in the Governance Review Motion at the 2016 AGM, including the endorsement of individual candidates by the Nominations Commitee.


Did the Committee exceed their authority in making boarder statements, for example in Dan Howards case detailing part of his history and saying he should chair Cycling UK, prior to the voting process. If for example Dan received 200 votes and had the lowest level of support. I think it indicates a degree of bias in provided added information in excess of that approved previously.
• 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

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13531
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby gaz » 28 Sep 2017, 2:53pm

Steady rider wrote:Did the Committee exceed their authority in making boarder statements, ...

gaz wrote:As for determining whether or not they are exceeding their powers, that would need me to know what those powers are. I do not.

The Trustees have previously confirmed that the version of the Terms of Reference for the Nominations Committee included in the report of the Governance Working Group approved by the 2016 AGM was not the final version of the Terms of Reference approved by the Trustees. I have quoted from the former as I have no access to the latter.


If you are wondering how that came about you need to review Motion 5 of the 2016 AGM: 2016 AGM Minutes.
Proposed governance changes
CTC Council (the charity Trustees) invite members to:

(i) note the report of the Governance Working Group on the results of the Governance Review (see pages 11-12 of the April/May magazine);
(ii) approve the approach agreed by council; and
(iii) approve the changes to the Orders in Council of CTC that are necessary to implement that approach ('the Proposed Changes').

The Members did not approve the report and instruct the Trustees to adopt it as presented. The Members passed the Motion as worded; noting the governance report, approving the approach to be taken and giving the Trustees the powers to implement that approach.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

Steady rider
Posts: 2160
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby Steady rider » 28 Sep 2017, 3:05pm

http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... ebsite.pdf
motion 14 was passed, so information on how the club is governed should have been provided on the Clubs web site.

The approved document provided four option. Does any of the minutes of CTC board meeting specify that changes have been approved to allow extra comments by the nomination committee I wonder?

http://www.cyclinguk.org/about-ctc/poli ... -and-rules

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby thirdcrank » 28 Sep 2017, 6:27pm

I've no idea what the turnover in membership has been over the years and I don't remember it as something the CTC was good at analysing. It would be reasonable to expect that a modern computer system would provide loads of info.

As I understand it, charity status and the grants that hopefully come with it assume a targeting of the type of potential cyclist that traditionally might not have been attracted to a cycling club. Supporting a charity implies giving rather than receiving so the existing membership might reasonably be expected to encourage new riders with their experience of the sport. As has been posted already, some will stop being members just through the passage of time. Others may have decided that charity is not for them.

Cycling as a whole can be pretty short-term if measured by the numbers of bikes bought and rarely ridden. I could imagine that Cuk membership among new cyclists who decided cycling wasn't for them would lead to quite a rapid turnover. It's also possible that there's no space in the market for this relatively new cycling charity.

This thread is about the selection and appointment of trustees to guide the charity. Suggesting that the organisation has hitherto been mismanaged implies a need for change in that the charity management aspect is a specialist subject and not necessarily suited to well-intentioned club cyclists.

bertgrower
Posts: 173
Joined: 2 Jun 2017, 6:47pm

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby bertgrower » 28 Sep 2017, 7:10pm

thirdcrank wrote:I've no idea what the turnover in membership has been over the years and I don't remember it as something the CTC was good at analysing. It would be reasonable to expect that a modern computer system would provide loads of info.

As I understand it, charity status and the grants that hopefully come with it assume a targeting of the type of potential cyclist that traditionally might not have been attracted to a cycling club. Supporting a charity implies giving rather than receiving so the existing membership might reasonably be expected to encourage new riders with their experience of the sport. As has been posted already, some will stop being members just through the passage of time. Others may have decided that charity is not for them.

Cycling as a whole can be pretty short-term if measured by the numbers of bikes bought and rarely ridden. I could imagine that Cuk membership among new cyclists who decided cycling wasn't for them would lead to quite a rapid turnover. It's also possible that there's no space in the market for this relatively new cycling charity.

This thread is about the selection and appointment of trustees to guide the charity. Suggesting that the organisation has hitherto been mismanaged implies a need for change in that the charity management aspect is a specialist subject and not necessarily suited to well-intentioned club cyclists.

So are you suggesting long term members of the board of trustees are unsuitable to be reelected?

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13531
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby gaz » 28 Sep 2017, 7:16pm

Steady rider wrote:The approved document provided four option.

The broad approach was approved by Members at the 2016 AGM, not the specific wording of the document. The detail may have changed before the Trustees approved the NC's remit and processes. There was certainly talk of reviewing NC processes following the 2016 elections which were not without controversy.

The Nominations Committee have applied a liberal interpretation to option one, not just saying that they feel a candidate would complement the skill mix on the Board but also outlining why they feel that is the case.

bertgrower wrote:So are you suggesting long term members of the board of trustees are unsuitable to be reelected?

There's no need to suggest that as our current Articles of Association only allow an elected Trustee to be in post for a maximum of nine consecutive years.
bertgrower wrote:At 2016 AGM is was stated that the nine year limit would start counting from Jan 2017

I expect you are right about that although IMO it's at odds with the reasons given for introducing a time limit.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

Steady rider
Posts: 2160
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby Steady rider » 28 Sep 2017, 8:00pm

The running of elections needs to be clear.

http://www.cyclinguk.org/agm
motion 14 asked for all documents to be made available on how the club is run.

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

http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... voting.pdf
The final articles do not seem to mention the Nomination Committee.

What was previously an old fashion Articles of Association but effective for 100 years plus, has been turned into a less accountable, less representative, more complicated multi document without clarity. A very poor job of work.

The information that should be available on the web to check that all information is in order, is not available for members to use. My view remain the same that the information provided is bias and not a fair election process.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby thirdcrank » 28 Sep 2017, 8:18pm

bertgrower wrote: ... So are you suggesting long term members of the board of trustees are unsuitable to be reelected?


Not at all. I'm saying that some of the current criticism relates to what went before eg not analysing why members didn't renew. Beyond that, I'm saying that the requirements of being a charity trustee are different from those of being an elected representative in a members' club. That's not to say that one person couldn't be capable of both. There must be some qualities such as integrity that are fundamental to both roles. It's Cuk that's apparentlydoing the selection here, not me.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13531
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby gaz » 28 Sep 2017, 8:26pm

Steady rider wrote:What was previously an old fashion Articles of Association but effective for 100 years plus, has been turned into a less accountable, less representative, more complicated multi document without clarity. A very poor job of work.

The Articles of Association have never been the sole document covering how the Club is run. There were (are?) Standing Orders for the AGM, Standing Orders for Council, the Member Group Policy Handbook and doubtless many more.

The Articles of Association has always been the document that sets the limits on the Trustees powers within the law and it remains so. IMO the current document is much clearer than its predecessor. The Trustees Powers are largely to be found under Section 21.
21.2 to delegate any of their functions to committees consisting of two or more individuals appointed by them. At least one member of every committee must be a Trustee and all proceedings of committees must be reported promptly to the Trustees;
...
21.4 to make rules consistent with the Memorandum, the Articles and the Act to govern their proceedings and proceedings of committees;
21.5 to make regulations consistent with the Memorandum, the Articles and the Act to govern the administration of the Charity;
...
21.7 to exercise in their capacity as Trustees any powers of the Charity which are not reserved to the Members.

Quite sufficient for the Trustees to set up a Nominations Committee and agree its Terms of Reference with (or even without) 2016 AGM Motion 5 giving approval to that broad way forward.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

bertgrower
Posts: 173
Joined: 2 Jun 2017, 6:47pm

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby bertgrower » 28 Sep 2017, 8:45pm

thirdcrank wrote:
bertgrower wrote: ... So are you suggesting long term members of the board of trustees are unsuitable to be reelected?


Not at all. I'm saying that some of the current criticism relates to what went before eg not analysing why members didn't renew. Beyond that, I'm saying that the requirements of being a charity trustee are different from those of being an elected representative in a members' club. That's not to say that one person couldn't be capable of both. There must be some qualities such as integrity that are fundamental to both roles. It's Cuk that's apparentlydoing the selection here, not me.


Yes, it is important that we have "qualities such as integrity that are fundamental" such as following agree procedure and being accountable , I could not agree more.

Steady rider
Posts: 2160
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby Steady rider » 28 Sep 2017, 9:30pm

Gaz wrote
Quite sufficient for the Trustees to set up a Nominations Committee and agree its Terms of Reference with (or even without) 2016 AGM Motion 5 giving approval to that broad way forward.


They are the trustees, if they determine the terms of reference on the nominations procedure they could incur a conflict of interest, setting the terms to suit their own interest rather than that which may provide the most benefit to cycling nationally.

The old AOA used to provide for one member proposing a resolution and seconded by a second member. The new AoA do not provide this same provision. The safeguard of members being allowed to put motions is weakened by such a change. Plus they have added the option for motions to be classified as 'Out of order', a provision not included in the old AoA. It makes the Club less accountable overall to the members and less open to scrutiny.

So I prefer the old AoA for clarity and to safeguard members interests.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13531
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby gaz » 28 Sep 2017, 10:19pm

Steady rider wrote:They are the trustees, if they determine the terms of reference on the nominations procedure they could incur a conflict of interest, setting the terms to suit their own interest rather than that which may provide the most benefit to cycling nationally.

Yes, they are the Trustees. Their legal duty is to do what is best for the Charity and act in the public interest.
Steady rider wrote:Plus they have added the option for motions to be classified as 'Out of order', a provision not included in the old AoA.

I'm sure you are aware that it was already within the powers of the Trustees to classify Motions as "Out of order" before this year's changes to the AoA.

Putting it into the AoA provides greater clarity on the matter.

Steady rider wrote:The old AOA used to provide for one member proposing a resolution and seconded by a second member.

Yes, the old AoA included such a clause and the new one does not. I do not know whether that principle is enshrined in Company Law with respect to a Company Limited by Guarantee and therefore unnecessary as part of the AoA or not.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

bertgrower
Posts: 173
Joined: 2 Jun 2017, 6:47pm

Re: Trustee elections 2017

Postby bertgrower » 29 Sep 2017, 7:49am

CUK membership is going in the wrong direction but do not know why


http://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/ ... 010417.pdf