Cycling UK Forum

Voluntarily separated out from an existing thread in an effort to avoid taking it further off topic (no moderator intervention).

bertgrower wrote:

mjr wrote:

gaz wrote:The turnout was closer to 2600, attendance by proxy is no less valid than attendance in person. You don't have to get up as early and it helps to avoid overcrowding in the room .

I hope the means that you know that's nutmegs. Voting turnout is not attendance. A large number of proxy authorities given to one person is a sign of a failing democracy, isn't it? After all, if Theresa May was proxy for 99% of UK voters, loads of people would be crying foul... (AFAIK that's not currently possible for the simple physical reason that you have to visit the polling station of each voter who you are proxying for.)

There is a way to get around lack of participation in voting at AGM it is to broadcast the AGM over the internet like the Nationsl Trust did last year and have real time voting on line. There was a motion to that effect at the 2017 AGM but was not pass because CUK said it would cost too much. They fail to mention that you can broadcast live via you tube for free and use a smart phone, even if you hired a decent equipment the cost would be few 000's pounds. But IMHO CUK hq does not want the membership to be well informed, I wonder why?

Before rushing to adopt the National Trust model please be aware that:

Votes can be cast either by proxy (in advance of the meeting) or by attendance in person on the day. There is no provision for on-line real time voting. Resolutions passed by the NT AGM are not binding on the NT Board.

Essentially apart from the live broadcast of the AGM this is the same as Cycling UK.

bertgrower wrote:There is a way to get around lack of participation in voting at AGM it is to broadcast the AGM over the internet like the Nationsl Trust did last year and have real time voting on line.

Assuming a Cycling UK membership approx 67000 and voter participation of 2,600 that's about a 3.8% voter turnout.

National Trust membership 2016, 4,588,393 (source p3)
National Trust members participating at 2016 AGM, about 25,000 source.

A voter turnout of approximately 0.5%. Hardly evidence that an internet broadcast increases voter participation.

There is a legal obligation on Cycling UK to provide proxy voting. That obligation remains even if you introduce a real time on-line voting mechanism.

I can't imagine large numbers of those Members not currently participating through proxy voting sitting glued to youtube at the precise time of the AGM waiting to press their button as each motion comes up for the vote.

Limited imagination isn't a good argument against improvement.

But I feel the lack of member democratic development is a bigger barrier than the AGM having been deliberately put in hard to reach times and places.

It has been suggested on Facebook that CUK is a charity your CUK membership fee is a donation . Does that mean that we are not members but supporters.

Given I have heard it reported that that the CUK trustees do not like being lobbied by CUK members/ supporters.

Some could suggest that any wishes/needs of members as to the direction that CUK should take must not be taken into account.

IMO that comes down to three things. How Cycling UK considers it, how the law interprets it and how the individual Member/Prospective Member views it.

Cycling UK's view is very clear. The Membership Fee is a membership fee. Donations can be made separately and will be accepted from both Members and Non-members.

Legally payment (and acceptance) of the Membership Fee means you become a Member of the Company. Members of the Company have financial obligations in the event that the Company is wound up, Members have voting rights at AGM, EGM, Trustee Elections (these may vary by Membership category, you get what you pay for). Members have other responsibilities and there are disciplinary procedures in place to investigate and deal with allegations of misconduct. Simply making a donation does not make you a Member.

Whilst I understand the supporter/donation view it is flawed from a legal standpoint. I don't expect that to change any individual's view on the matter and if they only see themselves as a supporter making a donation any counter argument would be futile.

mjr wrote:Limited imagination isn't a good argument against improvement.

"Something must me done, this is something, let's do it!" is also not a good argument for improvement, not least when your organisation already has a higher proportion of its Membership participating in its AGM than that of the organisation you are seeking to emulate to deliver an "improved" model.

gaz wrote:

mjr wrote:Limited imagination isn't a good argument against improvement.

"Something must me done, this is something, let's do it!" is also not a good argument for improvement, not least when your organisation already has a higher proportion of its Membership participating in its AGM than that of the organisation you are seeking to emulate to deliver an "improved" model.

"Something must be done, let's try a few things out and see if they work" is a good argument for improvement.

I know the National Trust* has been quoted as a model by some but I don't see it as relevant myself. I suspect the NT has a very, very high proportion of passive members who joined solely for the benefits package, specifically the free entry to properties. Also the NT is governed by its very own acts of Parliament, so it's a bit of a special case.

It would be helpful if the charities who've tried AGM webcasting could publish facts and figures about the reach of their webcasts and the effect (if any) that it's had on member engagement. I can't find any that have. If I were a trustee I'd be looking to talk to some of those other charities about it.

Live webcasting of AGMs is widespread and relatively cheap to do now - and no, I don't just mean Bert at the back with a smartphone - so it might be worth a trial, so long as clear objectives are set (what do we expect to achieve?) and the results are evaluated properly. As for online realtime voting during an AGM, it exists but isn't widely used so I expect that costs will still be high. Something for the future, perhaps.


* Soon to be rebranded 'Big Old Houses UK'

AndyK wrote:- and no, I don't just mean Bert at the back with a smartphone -

That's just as well. I understand that the Trustees don't approve of covert surveillance operations at Cycling UK meetings .

Anyone looking for a seconder for an AGM motion? (or suggestions that i could Propose?)

gaz wrote:...........

mjr wrote:..............Voting turnout is not attendance. A large number of proxy authorities given to one person is a sign of a failing democracy, isn't it? ....................)

[/quote]
quote]

To answer mjr's question - yes, I believe it is.

For what little it's worth, I'm definitely with mjr.