Disagreement with AGM resolutions

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1284
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby Philip Benstead » 2 Sep 2020, 8:22pm

In order not to mislead or for persons to misinterpret my comment I have given below in full my observations or questions regarding the proposed change in the article

THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING of the Cyclists’ Touring Club, trading as Cycling UK, will be held at 11am on Friday 4th September 2020.

1) To adopt as a true record, the minutes of the Annual General Meeting held in London on 15th June 2019.

According to a CTC member present at last year’s AGM the minutes have not reflection of what occurs at the meeting, it was promised by the CEO that a full set of minutes will be produced. WHY have they not been produced?
2) To adopt the Annual Report of the Board of Trustees and the audited accounts for the year ended 30th September 2019, as published on the Cycling UK website.
The motion below was passed at the CTC AGM 2019, I can see no mention of KPI in this report WHY?


This AGM proposes that a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) shall be set for the Cycling UK. They shall include targets for membership, finance, campaigns, local group activity, public awareness etc. The outcomes of these performance indicators shall be published in the annual report and on the Cycling UK website. The results shall cover a three-year cycle.

This AGM proposes that a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) shall be set for the Cycling UK. They shall include targets for membership, finance, campaigns, local group activity, public awareness etc. The outcomes of these performance indicators shall be published in the annual report and on the Cycling UK website. The results shall cover a three-year cycle.

4) That the membership fee set pursuant to Article 11 of the Articles of Association shall increase as follows: Household rate from
£74 to £75; the Concession rate from £29.50 to £30.50; the Junior/Young Person rate
from £22 to £24.
The Individual rate shall remain unchanged. There shall no longer be an age-related concessionary rate.

Board response: We are very proud of all our success last year, which we can only achieve with the support provided by members.
We carried out a major review of membership at the end of 2019, including a member survey with almost 4,000 responses.

QUESTION no details published WHY?
Taking on board this feedback, and a review of many other membership charities, we are proposing to both improve our membership offer and launch a fairer fee structure this year, with our concessions based on the ability to pay, rather than age. This will allow us to support more people on lower incomes to join us.
No details of proof that low income person will take this offer up, CTC have previously had introduction offer of reduced membership fee, it had very limited uptake and was done away with.
5) i) That Articles 12.9 and 12.10 in the Articles of Association are deleted in their entirety with subsequent Articles and cross-references renumbered accordingly.

ii) That the Articles of Association be amended as follows:
C) In Article 17.1.2 replace the word two with three and after ‘Trustees’, provided that such co-opted Trustee may only serve for a period of one year and may be re-appointed annually by the Board up to a maximum term of nine years, after which they may not be co-opted again for a period of three years.
In exceptional circumstances, the Board may appoint as a Co-opted trustee, a trustee who is returning as an Elected Trustee for up to a maximum term of one year in addition to any term of office served as an elected trustee.
15.1 The Trustees may from time to time appoint any Trustee to the office of
Chair, Vice-Chair or such other offices as they deem appropriate.
16.1 Subject to Article 14.3 (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.
16.2 The term of office for an Elected Trustee shall be as near as possible to three years from the date of his appointment.
16.3 An Elected Trustee may be elected for three consecutive terms of three years but thereafter may not serve for one term (three years) after which s/he may be re-elected for a future term or terms.
The previous change to the electoral process was bought in to enable the board of directors to be refreshed and new talent and new ideal. The requirement was having maximum term of 9 years was way to achieve this. Other formers councillor and trustee ended their association with CTC at board level at the end of their term.
The current selected trustee has served there of 3 and 6 year so have enough background experience to run the board.
NCVO https://www.google.com/search?q=ncvo&rl ... e&ie=UTF-8
NCVO say making changes to the articles for the benefit for and individual or trustee is bad practice.
QUESTION Why the change

6) Reduction of promotion of holiday flights.
Proposer’s note: The CTC (Cycling UK) Articles of Association state four Objectives of the Club. Three are related specially to cycling. The fourth states ‘promote the conservation and protection of the environment’. The member survey indicated
71% support for ‘Encouraging cycle use to benefit the environment’. We would like to propose that the Club adopts a progressive strategy to reduce, and ultimately stop, promotion of cycling holidays that involve flying. An organisation whose stated objective is to protect the environment should not be promoting flying as it so massively increases a person’s annual carbon footprint and hence contributes to climate change. The current promotion is in the form of CTC branded holidays, which involve flying; articles in the magazine; and the adverts in the magazine selling holidays involving flying.
Proposer: Martin Crane
Seconder: Alison Hill

Given that the by far the greater amount of air pollution from transportation come from road traffic I would suggest that the motion is flawed. We should suggest that any CTC/CUK event should not be run with the use of a motor vehicle.
You could argue that marine transportation is just as bad as flying

Should the CTC campaign for better rail transportation across Europe in conjunction with ECF?
https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/sites ... T_IM_0.pdf SEE PAGE 7 FIGURE 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environme ... _transport
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

Posts: 70
Joined: 6 Nov 2014, 9:35am

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby Tompsk » 2 Sep 2020, 11:06pm

roberts8 wrote:I think Neil raises some good points and I would love a response from whoever proposed this and the thought of getting to The Med with a bike is possible but a joke.

With so many pages and questions raised, comented on and quoted which questions are you referring to?

User avatar
Posts: 3062
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby CJ » 5 Sep 2020, 10:19am

AndyK wrote:Sorry, I'm still not seeing the logic at all. Comparing one CTC holiday with two Exodus holidays a year is not a fair comparison. It's not an either/or choice that many people make in the real world, not least because the latter would probably cost a lot more than the former. It's far more likely that someone would be choosing between having one Exodus holiday or one CTC holiday. And as PH pointed out, two flights is two flights, regardless of whether the gap between them is a bit longer.

It's a simple matter of 'value for carbon'. Carbon will continue to be burnt doing things that cannot yet be done renewably. Exporing foreign parts by bike is one of them, because despite panglossian articles in Cycle, we all know that the trains don't carry bikes like they used to.

And it is an arithmetical fact that the more time abroad one has for the same amount of flying, the more value one is extracting from that burnt carbon.

Example: my brother emigrated to New Zealand 40 years ago and I don't think one should fly that far without spending at least a month over there. He's been back several times for a week or two in UK/Europe, but in all that time I've only visited him once, having saved up my holiday and carried as much of it over into the next year as my employer would allow. Now I'm retired I might go again, but not for less than six months. Long and seldom instead of little and often. That's how value for carbon works when it comes to holidays.

Edit: P.S. I don't imply criticism of my brother. Unlike when I went to see him, on his visits he's able to renew relationships with several friends and relatives. So he's getting more of a different kind of value from his burnt carbon.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.

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

Re: Disagreement with AGM resolutions

Postby PH » 5 Sep 2020, 11:47am

CJ wrote: Long and seldom instead of little and often. That's how value for carbon works when it comes to holidays.

And the evidence that's what people taking CTC Holidays are doing?
I haven't seen any, though you'll have a much bigger sample size than me. Do people taking three week CTC Holidays really fly less than people taking two week holidays from a different supplier? How about yourself, have you been a seldom flyer in the last few years?
It is obviously simple arithmetic that those taking longer holidays are getting better value for their carbon usage than those taking shorter ones, but that value is only to them. A flight is still a flight, whether it's to Australia for six months or Budapest for a stag party. A work mate did the latter, he's in his 30's and it was the first time he'd flown, how does that work in your equation?