AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Steady rider
Posts: 2254
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby Steady rider » 2 Aug 2020, 9:31pm

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... otions.pdf
Motions not to be discussed or voted on.

Publishing motions draws attention nation wide to the issues and the excuses provided are not really valid and could have been discussed at the AGM if Cycling UK had placed them on the agenda, another failing to support cyclists and restrict discussion and debate. In previous years they had failed to support reasonable motions and use their 'out of order' method to take away the right of members to have issues included for national debate.

PH
Posts: 9393
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Membership rates

Postby PH » 2 Aug 2020, 9:42pm

EDIT - irrelevant now thread split
Last edited by PH on 3 Aug 2020, 8:09am, edited 1 time in total.

Steady rider
Posts: 2254
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Membership rates

Postby Steady rider » 2 Aug 2020, 9:47pm

Not a lot I suppose, except members are paying for a second class service, pretending to promote full discussion and leading members up the garden path, and getting them to submit motions, agree to attend the AGM and then not including motions for questionable reasons. A new thread perhaps.

Oldjohnw
Posts: 4895
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: Northumberland

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby Oldjohnw » 3 Aug 2020, 7:57am

Doesn't it have quite a lot to do with membership rates? Since they will be voted on.
John

drossall
Posts: 4934
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby drossall » 3 Aug 2020, 8:58am

I think it's at least worth taking the responses seriously. Sometimes experience gained does show that a particular method, whilst initially attractive, can be counter-productive. Also, a single, coordinated approach may get a better reaction than lots of concerned members using different "angles of attack", leaving the (local) government department concerned with a feeling of defensiveness from being under seige, but without the feeling that a single form of response will help.

On these detailed things, I think it's often better to correspond with the CUK department concerned than bring it up at the AGM. Unless of course that's been happening with no response. I've been involved with small charities where things come up at the AGM, and you wonder why the member didn't just ask that first. At the very least, asking first means a more informed discussion that's of more interest to everyone else, than a question asked with no background where the team involved are struggling to know exactly how to respond.

Steady rider
Posts: 2254
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby Steady rider » 3 Aug 2020, 8:42pm

Regarding 'out of order' classifications.
If a proposed motion is unsuitable, for example defamatory, not clear, illegal in some way or may have been discussed at a relatively recent AGM, then there could be grounds for considering it out of order. Both motions by Colin Clarke could have provided a benefit for example;
That the CTC seeks a revision of the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning law so that it gives equal rights of appeal for proposers and objectors in the planning process for major developments.
Currently, the planning procedures permit applicants the right to appeal against refusal, however objectors are permitted to object but no right of appeal. A major prison development at Full Sutton in East Yorkshire was granted outline planning permission without undertaking an environmental impact assessment. If built, it will result in deterioration in conditions for both walking and cycling in the surrounding area due to the extra 1000 plus motor vehicle trips per day.

A fuller explanation was provided to CUK via email. Major developments are mostly presented by multi-million pound organisations who employ profession staff. If planning is refused they have 3 options of appeal, written, inquiry or via a planning inspector. In the proposed prison more than 3000 people objected, Sustrans, the police and all the local councils. They have no right of appeal. False and misleading information was published in support of the application.The system is unjust and subject to bias. The ERYC council (Conservative) voted in favour, mainly on party lines, to oppose would be rocking the boat for their party. See
https://stamfordbridgebypass.wordpress. ... ll-sutton/
CUK position should be to help cyclists challenge a planning system that is very much one sided and will adversely affect cycling. Members of Parliament should be made fully aware of the problems of allowing one side to have a major advantage over the general public. A right of appeal by objectors is needed to help protect the public from unsuitable major plans.

The second motion;
That the CTC seeks provision under the Freedom of Information
Act 2006 to improve access to data on the maintenance
standards and maintenance schedules for Highways/Local Authorities, by
• Obtaining a licence to publish information released under Freedom of Information.
• Making the information obtained via its website to members.
• Making FOI courses available to members at minimum charge


The standard of roads, particularly minor ones vary and, in some cases,
range from poor to potentially lifethreatening because of potholes.
Some local authorities are using poor procedures e.g. East Riding of
Yorkshire sometimes use the spray-on process and patching, without
compacting, which produces uneven surfaces and poor quality. Many
minor roads are in a poorer condition that they were 50 years ago and
improvements to methods, repairs and resurfacing procedures need to
be made. From 1984 to 1990 approximately 8.5% of Local Authorities road repairs were to minor
roads compared to 3.9% for 2014 to 2019. Lack of background knowledge
of the Freedom of Information Act by local campaigners may hinder their
ability to hold account Highways/Local Authorities as to the condition of roads.


The DfT collects details from all county councils and shows the totals. DfT ref RDC 0320 shows this data but on a national basis. Each local authority has this data and could be requested via FoI requests. CUK or any member would in effect only have to obtain the data from the DfT and publish on the web. This would have helped cyclists to know how their local authority was performing. Fixing potholes does not provide the basic data on how much each authority is spending on minor roads. CUK information does not cover the same period, e.g.
From 1984 to 1990 approximately 8.5% of Local Authorities road repairs were to minor roads compared to 3.9% for 2014 to 2019.

CUK does not covey this major change. The motion mentions the poor results from the spray on process, that can increase the risk to cyclist, by them riding out or moving to avoid the typical poor repair. The motion added extra information that CUK had not provided and could have prompted changes to improve safety, therefore it was worthy of including in the AGM.

Both motions were in order but CUK refused to allow members the opportunity to hear debate and vote on them.

Fratercula
Posts: 17
Joined: 18 Jan 2011, 3:20pm

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby Fratercula » 5 Aug 2020, 5:40pm

I fully agree with the statements being made here, especially in respect of the FOIA issue. CUK management is so out of touch with the rank and file of its members that it can have no concept of how hard it is to deal with a Local Authority following an accident related to the condition of the highway. I am sure that with some effort that it would be possible to challenge what has been done, and I know that many of the members in my own sizeable club feel strongly about the manner in which CUK is going about things. If you agree please get in touch.

GideonReade
Posts: 90
Joined: 4 Jul 2010, 10:46pm

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby GideonReade » 7 Aug 2020, 9:50am

I guess it comes down to whether the board disagreeing with a motion is a valid reason for not allowing it to be presented? I'd have thought that concept undermines the idea of members presenting motions. The motion could be presented and the board argue against it - usually they will prevail.

If such motions are too numerous and waste too much time then either the number of backers presenting such could go up, or they could be chosen by lottery?

If a lot of members felt that the board was out of line rejecting motions only because they might modify the boards chosen policy, then perhaps a motion specifically censuring the board for doing so could be presented. Very hard for a board to reject that while claiming accountability.

PS: I don't have any view myself on the actual motions. The planning one is perhaps overtaken by political events anyway - a valid reason to reject it? Or all the more reason to press it? Dunno...

Steady rider
Posts: 2254
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby Steady rider » 7 Aug 2020, 11:19am

Members have a right to present reasonable motions and were invited to submit. The board can either support, object or be neutral or even support in part. A few years ago Clarke presented a passing law motion that they objected to and stated they did not want to prescribe a safe passing distance or words to that effect. Within 12 months they were promoting a 1.5m passing requirement and now they promote similar requirements.

If a proposed motion is unsuitable, for example defamatory, not clear, illegal in some way or may have been discussed at a relatively recent AGM then these could be good reasons to class it as out of order. The proposer should have the opportunity to change a motion to comply with any concerns. The motions were submitted asking if any changes were needed.

The reasons provided to class it out of order are possible reasons to oppose but the motions can benefit cycling leading to improved maintained and helping encourage more and safer cycling and trying to ensure the planing system is just. This seems a reasonable approach and should have been supported.

PH
Posts: 9393
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby PH » 7 Aug 2020, 11:31am

Steady rider wrote:A few years ago Clarke presented a passing law motion that they objected to and stated they did not want to prescribe a safe passing distance or words to that effect. Within 12 months they were promoting a 1.5m passing requirement and not they promote similar requirements.

I was at that AGM, after the voting the CEO said it was an idea they were interested in, they would look at the evidence from countries that had implemented it and keep the matter under review.

Steady rider
Posts: 2254
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby Steady rider » 7 Aug 2020, 11:39am

Evidence of proposed UK law regarding motorists passing cyclists, Cycling Colloquium in Aveiro, Portugal, 18 November 2016.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... g_cyclists

PH » 7 Aug 2020, 11:31am wrote
I was at that AGM, after the voting the CEO said it was an idea they were interested in, they would look at the evidence from countries that had implemented it and keep the matter under review.


They should have not opposed the motion, they could have said we will look into the the evidence from countries that had implemented it and keep the matter under review. A fairly neutral position without causing the motion to fail. Saying something after the vote - how useful is that?

GideonReade
Posts: 90
Joined: 4 Jul 2010, 10:46pm

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby GideonReade » 7 Aug 2020, 11:48am

The reasons provided to class it out of order are possible reasons to oppose but the motions can benefit cycling leading to improved maintained and helping encourage more and safer cycling and trying to ensure the planing system is just. This seems a reasonable approach and should have been supported.


But isn't this confusing the case of rejecting the motion for presentation at the meeting and the case of arguing against it?

As I see it the reasons given for rejecting the motions are sensible arguments against them, but nothing that renders them "out of order" - they're sensible enough etc, it's just a question of whether they are more beneficial use of resources than current activities, given resources are finite? Which surely, is a perfectly valid topic to discuss.

Steady rider
Posts: 2254
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby Steady rider » 7 Aug 2020, 7:49pm

As I see it the reasons given for rejecting the motions are sensible arguments against them, but nothing that renders them "out of order" - they're sensible enough etc, it's just a question of whether they are more beneficial use of resources than current activities, given resources are finite? Which surely, is a perfectly valid topic to discuss


I agree with
'nothing that renders them "out of order"

So they should have been included and then a debate is whether
a question of whether they are more beneficial use of resources than current activities, given resources are finite?

The first motion;
That the CTC seeks a revision of
the National Planning Policy
Framework and Planning law so
that it gives equal rights of appeal
for proposers and objectors in the
planning process for major
developments.


A letter to the Minister stating this position and if the planning process arises in Parliament a similar approach would cover the issue. Any major developments that may adversely affect cycling / roads / environmental where the planning process had major weaknesses could be challenged if an appeal process was in place. I expect the Government could attached conditions for an appeal.
The reply includes;
The promoters are rightly aggrieved that
the planning system is skewed in favor of
granting planning permission for
unsustainable developments ( e.g. for
those whose location is likely to result in
high levels of car-dependence).
However the solution is not to strengthen
appeal rights but to strengthen the
requirements for planning authorities to
take account of the environmental
impacts ( and particularly climate
impacts) of development proposals, They
allude to this in mentioning the failure to
conduct an environmental impact
assessment in the case of the Full Sutton
prison expansion, yet the motion does not
address this point. Neither the
Government nor Parliament is likely to
support an increase in appeal rights, as
this would simply slow down the planning
process.

Neither the
'Government nor Parliament is likely to support an increase in appeal rights'. One MP has suggested a change to allow for an appeal process. The applicant can appeal and they have 3 options whereas objectors have no right of appeal. Objectors have a right to take the case to the High Court on issues of correct procedures and risk thousands of pounds and even if they win, the proposal can be resubmitted changing procedures and still proceed. An appeal process may require a outline draft of reasons for an appeal and if approved then a full appeal could be considered.
It could add a a few weeks but major developments can be their for 100+ years and trying to make sure it is the best outcome is more important then a QUICK PROCESS. An appeal process could cover many aspects, not just environmental and there is no guarantee that the planning authority will make the right decision based on the available evidence. An appeal process would act as a safeguard.

PH
Posts: 9393
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby PH » 7 Aug 2020, 8:16pm

Steady rider wrote: Saying something after the vote - how useful is that?

make your mind up, you want it both ways. The motion called for the CTC to promote a law, they opposed it, as far as I know they still do. As they said at the time
Council response: CTC Council disagrees with this motion. Council agrees that close overtaking should be tackled.

You're critical of the opposition to the motion and you're critical of them doing what they said they would, you can tie yourself in knots trying to link those two things together, not for the first time, but there's no contradiction between what they've said and done.

Steady rider
Posts: 2254
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: AGM (member-)motion procedures confounded

Postby Steady rider » 7 Aug 2020, 9:46pm

From memory they said they did not wish to specify a distance, https://action.cyclinguk.org/page/64572 ... ing.id=web
they now specify a distance.
viewtopic.php?t=103240