Cycling UK Forum

Ok, so we have to vote for four or none at all. Do we have a thread for discussion of the various merits and demerits of the candidates? Particularly but not only from the pov of the "specific qualities" the Board are looking for.

JohnW wrote:Again I ask - is this legal - does anyone know?

The Articles of Association set out that there will be at least 9 elected Trustees and that the Trustees determine the detail of the election procedures:

16. ELECTED TRUSTEES

16.1 Subject to Article 13 (confirmation of consent and eligibility), the Members shall be entitled to elect at least nine persons as Elected Trustees from amongst their number. The Trustees shall determine the procedure for election to the office of Elected Trustee.

There are eight candidates for four vacancies. Insisting that every Member votes for four candidates means that all four vacancies will be filled by elected candidates.

Allowing Members to vote for less than four candidates runs the risk, admitedly extremely unlikely to occur in practice, that fewer than four candidates receive any votes.

Allowing Members to vote for less than four candidates runs the risk, admitedly extremely unlikely to occur in practice, that fewer than four candidates receive any votes.


Let me get this right, if you force members to vote for somebody they do not like or have no confidence in, this proves that the members have confidence in the voted in trustees and the choice of the nomination committee?

It has been pointed out to us in the recent past, that the trustees may countermand any voted resolution if they agree that, in their opinion, it would not be in what they regard as the best interest of the charity. I imagine that what would happen would be that the trustees would appoint their chosen ones anyway.

They may anyway.

Thanks for clarifying my question gaz.

JohnW wrote:It has been pointed out to us in the recent past, that the trustees may countermand any voted resolution if they agree that, in their opinion, it would not be in what they regard as the best interest of the charity. I imagine that what would happen would be that the trustees would appoint their chosen ones anyway.

They may anyway.

Thanks for clarifying my question gaz.

You must remember the trustee are all seeing and have greater insight in the working of the CUK.

Conversion to a charity could have proceeded with little changes to how the club was run. Most the extra changes have been tagged on. The way the changes have been made and values selected, have in large part resulted in the current situation.

JohnW wrote:It has been pointed out to us in the recent past, that the trustees may countermand any voted resolution if they agree that, in their opinion, it would not be in what they regard as the best interest of the charity. I imagine that what would happen would be that the trustees would appoint their chosen ones anyway.

They may anyway.

Thanks for clarifying my question gaz.

The truetee can only appoint up 3 trustee onto the board the remainder must be elected acording to the AoA.

Bmblbzzz wrote:Ok, so we have to vote for four or none at all. Do we have a thread for discussion of the various merits and demerits of the candidates? Particularly but not only from the pov of the "specific qualities" the Board are looking for.

Good idea but do we have enough information to go on.

bertgrower wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:Ok, so we have to vote for four or none at all. Do we have a thread for discussion of the various merits and demerits of the candidates? Particularly but not only from the pov of the "specific qualities" the Board are looking for.

Good idea but do we have enough information to go on.

My take on this is that there are three candidates that I would like to vote for - two of whom are already favoured by the 'committee'. I don't know any of them, but what little I do know about them suggests to me that they'll be an asset, and worthy of our votes. They are also the longest serving CTC/CUK members and I'm sure didn't join the 'Club' (as it was when they joined) with a view to joining the hierarchy.

That leaves five other candidates, two of whom are 'endorsed' (favoured) by the committee. These are the two candidates who have the shortest membership terms - 2 years and one year - which makes me think that their applications for membership were at the instigation of the 'committee', or the board of trustees, for their own reasons - I think that the term may be 'Head Hunted'. I just can't bring myself to think that those reasons are cycling related.

If I vote for four candidates, than my fourth vote will go to the fourth longest serving member, who is not endorsed by the 'committee'.

My guess is that two of my votes will be wasted, because the four endorsed candidates will be elected anyway.

That's just my take on this situation - being forced to place a fourth vote to make my three votes valid is, to me, unethical and downright wrong. This is not to be taken as suggesting that there is anything wrong, or unacceptable, or of lack of competence, or unsuitable about any of the other candidates, I'm sure that they're good, decent able folk and with positive intentions (although I do worry about short membership terms and then seeking office). It is simply because conditions imposed on my right to vote are in my view wrongful.

I think it's time for me to shut up now - these are only my views, and the situation may very well be the same in other organisations - but it wasn't the situation in the dear, departed and loved (by me, at any rate) CTC.

In some respects I think you will be reflecting many people view. The UK tradition is to have a right to vote, not a requirement to vote. Insisting you have to vote for four, for your voting to count is a long way from the UK approach.
Who are the members of the Nomination Committee I wonder and was it them who set the requirement insisting on having to vote for four?

http://www.cyclinguk.org/about/cycling- ... c-governed

bertgrower wrote:

gaz wrote:Allowing Members to vote for less than four candidates runs the risk, admitedly extremely unlikely to occur in practice, that fewer than four candidates receive any votes.

Let me get this right, if you force members to vote for somebody they do not like or have no confidence in, this proves that the members have confidence in the voted in trustees and the choice of the nomination committee?

From the perspective of the Nominations Committee who wrote the electoral procedures there are eight excellent candidates* and the Members can have complete confidence that they would make fully capable Trustees.

I'm not sure it will have crossed their minds that a Member might not have confidence in their selection process .

*Whilst the NC have made it clear that all eight candidates are excellent candidates they have also outlined their firm belief that some excellent candidates are more excellent than others.

Prior to becoming a candidate perhaps all eight or more should have been asked to attend a weekend cycling meeting, at say a youth hostel and take part in rides and meet members. Their riding skills and other cycling aspects may have been evident.

gaz wrote:

bertgrower wrote:

gaz wrote:Allowing Members to vote for less than four candidates runs the risk, admitedly extremely unlikely to occur in practice, that fewer than four candidates receive any votes.

Let me get this right, if you force members to vote for somebody they do not like or have no confidence in, this proves that the members have confidence in the voted in trustees and the choice of the nomination committee?

From the perspective of the Nominations Committee who wrote the electoral procedures there are eight excellent candidates* and the Members can have complete confidence that they would make fully capable Trustees.

I'm not sure it will have crossed their minds that a Member might not have confidence in their selection process .

*Whilst the NC have made it clear that all eight candidates are excellent candidates they have also outlined their firm belief that some excellent candidates are more excellent than others.

That is assuming that the process by which the trustees on the nomination committee were elected to the CTC Council/board of trustee was in itself enjoyed the confidence of the membership.

Noting that at least 2 of the nomination committee secured their seats without opposition whilst one trustee election was subject to formal complaint due to possible electoral irregularities.

There was suggestion once that the chair of the nomination committee should be independent from outside the CTC/CUK. That was drop and instead the chair of council was appointed as chair.

It does say above that the chair of the board agree to step aside from the nomination process as they were up for re-election.

Steady rider wrote:Prior to becoming a candidate perhaps all eight or more should have been asked to attend a weekend cycling meeting, at say a youth hostel and take part in rides and meet members. Their riding skills and other cycling aspects may have been evident.

How are their riding skills relevant to the administrative skills, organisational growth, marketing and digital strategy the Board is looking for?

Probably reflect their experience as a cyclist.

other cycling aspects

Road safety, legal aspects, club knowledge and related experience. This could be an insight into their background as well as the technical aspects they may have.