Cycling UK Forum

The second implies they need to be (or become) a member in order to take up their position.

The first could be open to interpretation. As long as 9 of the 12 are both elected & members what about the others? They could just co-opt a non-member for any of the remainder of the 12 places {article 17).

You could argue that opening up for election the additional places is over & above what they need to do.

There's also a common principle of co-opting people from outside your "constituency" in order to better represent a wider range of interests. Selecting only from amongst those who are already there can easily lead to self-satisfied conservatism, resistance to change and sticking with "the way it is" just because it is. At worst, it can lead to majoritarianism ("I was the most popular candidate so obviously everyone agrees with me").

Following the charity conversion and the name change, CUK is trying to appeal to everyone who cycles and everyone who might cycle, rather than those who are traditional club members. Representing those who haven't yet joined but who they would like to appeal to is why they endorse this non-member candidate. So far, it's hard to say that they've really been successful, but we'll see.

Bmblbzzz wrote:Selecting only from amongst those who are already there can easily lead to self-satisfied conservatism, resistance to change and sticking with "the way it is" just because it is. At worst, it can lead to majoritarianism ("I was the most popular candidate so obviously everyone agrees with me").

However, selecting only from amongst those blessed by gatekeepers appointed by the current leaders is unlikely to avoid self-satisfied conservatism, resistance to change and sticking with "the way it is" just because it is, so I doubt that's the reason for putting non-members forwards for election.

mjr wrote:

Bmblbzzz wrote:Selecting only from amongst those who are already there can easily lead to self-satisfied conservatism, resistance to change and sticking with "the way it is" just because it is. At worst, it can lead to majoritarianism ("I was the most popular candidate so obviously everyone agrees with me").

However, selecting only from amongst those blessed by gatekeepers appointed by the current leaders is unlikely to avoid self-satisfied conservatism, resistance to change and sticking with "the way it is" just because it is, so I doubt that's the reason for putting non-members forwards for election.

Or because those already in authority have their own vision of where they want to take the organisation, which they know is not shared by the pre-existing membership, so they select (endorse) those candidates they feel share that vision? Most people don't bother to vote or just give their vote to the chair, so endorsement means in effect those candidates are a shoo-in, as with motions at AGM. I wouldn't say that an organisation which has undergone radical and irreversible changes in the last few years (charity conversion, name change, sacking CJ, "mission" to represent the unrepresented) provoking much ire among members, is showing resistance to change at the leadership level. Self-satisfaction, yes, but not conservatism!

It does seem odd to me that people up for election are not members of Cycling UK.

Surely they could spend the small amount to join the organisation they are wanting to be a Trustee of?

Why haven't they joined the organisation? Don't they want to be members for some reason?

by admin » 8 Oct 2018, 11:19am
It does seem odd to me that people up for election are not members of Cycling UK.

Surely they could spend the small amount to join the organisation they are wanting to be a Trustee of?

Why haven't they joined the organisation? Don't they want to be members for some reason?

That is a bit weird. I don't recognise any of these people, are any of them on this forum ? My inclination is to vote in reverse order of membership commitment.

(I meant vote for the longest membership first, then work back towards now.)

admin wrote:It does seem odd to me that people up for election are not members of Cycling UK.

Surely they could spend the small amount to join the organisation they are wanting to be a Trustee of?

Why haven't they joined the organisation? Don't they want to be members for some reason?

I think in Tiffany's case it will have been largely that she wasn't resident in the UK until quite recently, but she was active in promoting cycling in Washington DC. There's a bit more about her on the 100 Women of Cycling 2018 pages, here's a link to her bit. I don't think that it is all that unreasonable to include someone who has got relevant recent experience in another country.

I understand that candidates might not be Cycling UK members, but surely they should be able to afford ~£50 to join if they want to be a Trustee of the Club/Charity?

Perhaps they're only going to join if they get elected, to possibly save the membership fee if they're not?

I don't think all these people, or Tiffany at least, have put themselves forward to be trustees. Rather, CUK Board have contacted them, asking them to stand because they (Board) feel Tiffany (and possibly others) has/have qualities and experience that would be beneficial to CUK. We don't know, of course, who else they might have asked but has declined the invitation.

admin wrote:I understand that candidates might not be Cycling UK members, but surely they should be able to afford ~£50 to join if they want to be a Trustee of the Club/Charity?

Perhaps they're only going to join if they get elected, to possibly save the membership fee if they're not?

Completely agree. if you want to go to the trouble of putting yourself up for a leadership position you should be a member. It disrespects the principle of membership otherwise. If we were talking about major sums or prohibitive time-served that would be different, but £50 for something you would apparently value should not be a barrier.

Tinnishill wrote:That is a bit weird. I don't recognise any of these people, are any of them on this forum ? My inclination is to vote in reverse order of membership commitment.

(I meant vote for the longest membership first, then work back towards now.)

One member one vote and we're free to choose our own criteria, I choose on the basis of the people I think would make a contribution most in line with my opinions. The idea that those with the longest membership make the best decisions hasn't IMO been borne out by recent history.

Not sure who you have in mind. I assume those with a long membership may have a good general understanding of issues and have a strong cycling background. These are not unimportant aspects. I think the process of a small group having a narrow selection criteria is questionable.

Steady rider wrote:I think the process of a small group having a narrow selection criteria is questionable.

Not sure. You want to cover certain skill sets in a team of trustees and I'd not be against a long list being drawn up by those who know the gaps in the current balance. It could lead to cronyism of course and so the process needs to be transparent.

I don't think length of memberships is a good rule of thumb but I do think trustees should be members.

Steady rider wrote:Not sure who you have in mind.

I'm not going to name individuals, we got where we are with a series of councils made up entirely of long standing members.

I assume those with a long membership may have a good general understanding of issues and have a strong cycling background.

Well yes, but that understanding and background isn't exclusive to CTC members, nor does it necessarily make them suitable candidates.

It is speculation but it seems to me the idea of having charity status was to gain extra funds but other substantial changes were added.
One major change was probably sufficient and regain stability. Changing the format of the board and trade name made for added complications. A lot seems to have stemmed from the legal advice/charity advice. In some ways it does not seem quite the same as being in a 'cycling club'. At a local level it appears just the same.