Page 1 of 3
CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 29 Mar 2018, 10:33am
by Steady rider
Detail below are copied from a CTC group I understand. I have voted already to support No 5.
In the latest edition of Cycle Magazine (April/May 2018) There is a voting form on the inside and reverse of the address A4 sheet. DO NOT THROW THIS AWAY. The form allows you to vote on 5 motions for the 2018 AGM by postal vote. To vote you must sign against 2a to register your vote and once voted you can simply place your A4 sheet in an envelope then address it to "FREEPOST ERS" no address and no stamp needed.
Ordinary business 1,2 and 3 are self explanatory but Ordinary Resolutions 4 and 5 are much more important especially motion 5.
Motion 4 asks if you are willing to support a full membership increase of £1.50 per annum. (Take your pick)
Motion 5 is VERY IMPORTANT it reads " That each Cycling UK member is entitled to stand for election to the Board of Trustees without having to satisfy a nomination committee's conditions, instead which a proposal supported by 10 other members should be sufficient to place their name on the ballot paper."
For the sake of DEMOCRACY I URGE you to VOTE FOR this motion. Unless you know who is on the "Nominations Committee" and you know that each of them have been democratically installed themselves, I urge that you support this motion to help restore democracy to this once great organisation.
Do not post this ballot paper back with blank voting boxes, the rules state that this transfers your vote to the Chair, who will almost certainly vote against this so the 'Nominations Committee' have control of candidates who are forwarded as Trustees.
The ballot paper includes instructions for those who prefer to vote on line.
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 13 Apr 2018, 5:25pm
by jgurney
I'm surprised how little discussion of or info about this is around.
On the face of it it seems obvious that anyone should be able to stand. People can, after all, stand for Parliament as independents without needing the approval of any committee. My first reaction is that I don't like the idea of a committee telling me who I can or can't vote for.
Is this due to a concern that an unrestricted election might result in a board whose composition was unattractive to major donors? E.g. that given the proportion of older white men in the membership, there might be a preponderance of such candidates and thus of such board members, or that each board member should have a different speciality talent and an open election is unlikely to return the desired combination? I suppose the corollary to the above point about standing for Parliament is that while we can vote for MP's we cannot vote to decide which MP's get made ministers.
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 13 Apr 2018, 5:49pm
by Stradageek
Thanks for the reminder, done!
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 16 Apr 2018, 1:12pm
by JohnW
jgurney wrote:I'm surprised how little discussion of or info about this is around.
On the face of it it seems obvious that anyone should be able to stand. People can, after all, stand for Parliament as independents without needing the approval of any committee. My first reaction is that I don't like the idea of a committee telling me who I can or can't vote for.
Is this due to a concern that an unrestricted election might result in a board whose composition was unattractive to major donors? E.g. that given the proportion of older white men in the membership, there might be a preponderance of such candidates and thus of such board members, or that each board member should have a different speciality talent and an open election is unlikely to return the desired combination? I suppose the corollary to the above point about standing for Parliament is that while we can vote for MP's we cannot vote to decide which MP's get made ministers.
We've discussed this at our section committee meeting. I'm given to understand that, for a 'yes' vote on this motion to be binding, there would have to be a change in the Articles of Association (I think/hope that I've got my terminology right). The 'Board' opposes the motion, so whatever happens in the vote, it simply won't happen...........and in any case, it always happens that more members who return their ballot paper vest their votes in the chair, and we know how he'll vote - he'll vote against the motion and use his proxy votes to also vote against the motion. There's no point in voting.
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 16 Apr 2018, 5:38pm
by Steady rider
John W states;
I'm given to understand that, for a 'yes' vote on this motion to be binding, there would have to be a change in the Articles of Association
I think you may misunderstand the situation, motions are put to the AGM, none are bindings because the Council/Board determines policy but if reasonable motions are passed and not implemented it would show the Council is not taking notice of the members. Council has always been able to have extra assistance in technical issues and request specialises to help. Council members have traditionally represented cyclists and focused on cycling aspects.
If No 5 is passed the Council/Board can implement the motion. If they do implement such a motion it may allow for more candidates and in particular allow for candidates who would promote community participation in healthy recreation by promoting the amateur sport of cycling, cycle touring and associated amateur sports. It would be likely such candidates would already be actively involved in cycling and have experience, so they may well add to a Council/Board with practical experience.
https://www.informdirect.co.uk/company- ... hat-is-it/A special resolution does not seem to be required in regards to No5. So if passed should be implemented.
Over the past few years Council/Chair have voted against several motions that may have helped progress cycling and usually with lots of proxy votes. The system is bias towards Council/Board/Chair as may well be the case across all companies with shareholders in the UK.
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 16 Apr 2018, 10:19pm
by JohnW
Steady rider wrote:John W states;
I'm given to understand that, for a 'yes' vote on this motion to be binding, there would have to be a change in the Articles of Association
I think you may misunderstand the situation, motions are put to the AGM, none are bindings because the Council/Board determines policy but if reasonable motions are passed and not implemented it would show the Council is not taking notice of the members. Council has always been able to have extra assistance in technical issues and request specialises to help. Council members have traditionally represented cyclists and focused on cycling aspects.
If No 5 is passed the Council/Board can implement the motion. If they do implement such a motion it may allow for more candidates and in particular allow for candidates who would promote community participation in healthy recreation by promoting the amateur sport of cycling, cycle touring and associated amateur sports. It would be likely such candidates would already be actively involved in cycling and have experience, so they may well add to a Council/Board with practical experience.
https://www.informdirect.co.uk/company- ... hat-is-it/A special resolution does not seem to be required in regards to No5. So if passed should be implemented.
Over the past few years Council/Chair have voted against several motions that may have helped progress cycling and usually with lots of proxy votes. The system is bias towards Council/Board/Chair as may well be the case across all companies with shareholders in the UK.
Thank you steady rider - clearly I've not fully understood, and if : "......A special resolution is not required..........." then the information I've received may not be fully correct. In any case, however, in practical terms the situation remains as stated in your final paragraph (above). Knowing the 'board's' history it'll not get passed, but even if it was to be passed it'd not be implemented. Thanks for your clarification.
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 17 Apr 2018, 12:16am
by RickH
They are hardly likely to do something that goes against the recommended practice of the Charity Commissioners without very good reason.
I have quite a bit of sympathy - I was a trustee (as are the board members) for a number of years of a small charity (a church). When I took on the role, as treasurer, it was fairly simple dealing with a few 10s of thousands of pounds per annum to deal with & it was pretty much all straight ins & outs. Several years later the annual income had grown to hundreds of thousands, the church had its own premises - with all that entails - & I was way out of my depth (only surviving in the role with the help of our accountants who were very patient with a numpty like me
). I wasn't getting my head round it and I decided to step down.
What was needed was someone with the relevant expertise rather than someone "popular" or brimming with wonderful ideas (although either, or both, of those as well is no bad thing).
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 17 Apr 2018, 9:10am
by Steady rider
I think the Charity Commission would say proceed in the best interests of the charity. Having the existing board set the criteria for selecting candidates and advising who to vote for leads to candidates with specific backgrounds as seen desirable at that time. Allowing candidates with at least 10 supporters - presumable from cyclists, probably means they already have a good understanding of cycling and may have other qualifications. I know several cyclists who have professional backgrounds in various fields. The membership would see the information supporting each candidate and decide taking all advice into consideration. This would be in the best interests of the charity to allow for candidates with potentially a strong cycling background and understanding in addition to potentially other qualifications. Obviously the Board cannot see the benefits or are advised against. The best interests of the Charity are served by the members and public having a high degree of confidence in the way the charity is run and open and fair elections. Open and fair elections mean allowing candidates with a range of cycling/qualifications to be put forward and not to be restricted to a narrow selection process controlled by a committee.
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 17 Apr 2018, 9:26pm
by JohnW
RickH wrote:They are hardly likely to do something that goes against the recommended practice of the Charity Commissioners without very good reason.......................
I don't think that 'Motion 5' "goes against the recommended practice of the Charity Commissioners", does it? - how can it?
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 17 Apr 2018, 9:33pm
by thirdcrank
RickH wrote:They are hardly likely to do something that goes against the recommended practice of the Charity Commissioners without very good reason. ...
(My emphasis.)
Have you a link to this? It seems central to this discussion.
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 17 Apr 2018, 9:37pm
by JohnW
thirdcrank wrote:RickH wrote:They are hardly likely to do something that goes against the recommended practice of the Charity Commissioners without very good reason. ...
(My emphasis.)
Have you a link to this? It seems central to this discussion.
Sorry tc - I haven't - there are knowledgeable folk on this thread, so we won't have long to wait before someone comes up with one.
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 17 Apr 2018, 9:55pm
by AndyK
JohnW wrote:RickH wrote:They are hardly likely to do something that goes against the recommended practice of the Charity Commissioners without very good reason.......................
I don't think that 'Motion 5' "goes against the recommended practice of the Charity Commissioners", does it? - how can it?
You may want to have a look at the
Charity Commission guidance on "Finding new trustees". I'm not necessarily saying that I think it's right, nor am I saying that Cycling UK necessarily follows it completely, but it does give an idea of the pressure the CC places on charities concerning trustee selection.
Note how much space the guidance gives to the responsibilities of the existing trustees and how member votes get only a passing mention, way down in section 6.1.
if you're finding it hard to sleep, try also reading the CC's
Report RS7 on membership charities (PDF).
I felt it my duty to read a lot of this stuff before becoming a trustee. Some of it was a surprise, let's say.
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 18 Apr 2018, 7:22am
by thirdcrank
AndyK
Thanks for that.
From your first link, this seems to be the key:
Responsibility for the recruitment of new trustees rests firmly with the existing trustees. They must oversee the management of an open and efficient process and always act in the best interests of the charity.
Members don't really enter into it.
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 18 Apr 2018, 9:12am
by Steady rider
The best interests of the Charity are served by the members and public having a high degree of confidence in the way the charity is run and open and fair elections. Open and fair elections mean allowing candidates with a range of cycling/qualifications to be put forward and not to be restricted to a narrow selection process controlled by a committee.
It is also a company subject to company rules.
Having a committee select candidates is similar to the Chinese system with a choice of who the party selects as candidates.
Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5
Posted: 18 Apr 2018, 9:18am
by thirdcrank
Steady rider wrote:The best interests of the Charity are served by the members and public having a high degree of confidence in the way the charity is run and open and fair elections. Open and fair elections mean allowing candidates with a range of cycling/qualifications to be put forward and not to be restricted to a narrow selection process controlled by a committee.
It is also a company subject to company rules.
Having a committee select candidates is similar to the Chinese system with a choice of who the party selects as candidates.
The bit I quoted was from AndyK's link, as I mentioned. I've searched that link as best I can and I cannot find your quote. It would be helpful if you could link to the sorce of your quote.