CTC AGM 2020

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

CTC AGM 2020

Postby Philip Benstead » 4 Sep 2020, 11:30am

AGM 2020

QUESTION
EXCLUDING Staff and Trustee how many people have registered and / or are attending this AGM?
Philip
We had 61 registrations in advance of the event

Phil Hall
Dir. of Organisational Effectiveness & Finance
Cycling UK

Comment that represent approx. 0.08 % of the membership

AGM 2020

QUESTION
EXCLUDING Staff and Trustee how many people have registered and / or are attending this AGM?
Philip
We had 61 registrations in advance of the event

Phil Hall
Dir. of Organisational Effectiveness & Finance
Cycling UK

Philip
The 61 were all non-staff or trustees. It was obviously entirely optional for these members as to whether they joined the meeting. There are currently 38 online.

We have a further 20 staff and trustees online presently

Phil Hall
Dir. of Organisational Effectiveness & Finance
Cycling UK
Last edited by Philip Benstead on 4 Sep 2020, 11:57am, edited 1 time in total.
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

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

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby PH » 4 Sep 2020, 11:54am

I'm surprised it's as many as that, is there anything to be achieved by attending? The vast majority of votes are already cast so nothing being said or done at the meeting is going to change the outcome.
That's no bad thing IMO, I know there are those who prefer the idea that a few dozen members keen enough to attend can influence the entire club, but I prefer the idea of thousands voting, even though it's still only a small proportion of the membership.

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

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby Philip Benstead » 4 Sep 2020, 12:09pm

PH wrote:I'm surprised it's as many as that, is there anything to be achieved by attending? The vast majority of votes are already cast so nothing being said or done at the meeting is going to change the outcome.
That's no bad thing IMO, I know there are those who prefer the idea that a few dozen members keen enough to attend can influence the entire club, but I prefer the idea of thousands voting, even though it's still only a small proportion of the membership.


1000 s ???

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... s_2019.pdf
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

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

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby PH » 4 Sep 2020, 12:15pm

Philip Benstead wrote:
PH wrote:I'm surprised it's as many as that, is there anything to be achieved by attending? The vast majority of votes are already cast so nothing being said or done at the meeting is going to change the outcome.
That's no bad thing IMO, I know there are those who prefer the idea that a few dozen members keen enough to attend can influence the entire club, but I prefer the idea of thousands voting, even though it's still only a small proportion of the membership.


1000 s ???

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... s_2019.pdf


Is 2,000+ not thousands?
What was the maximum number of voters at an AGM pre internet voting?

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

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby Philip Benstead » 4 Sep 2020, 12:53pm

PH wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:
PH wrote:I'm surprised it's as many as that, is there anything to be achieved by attending? The vast majority of votes are already cast so nothing being said or done at the meeting is going to change the outcome.
That's no bad thing IMO, I know there are those who prefer the idea that a few dozen members keen enough to attend can influence the entire club, but I prefer the idea of thousands voting, even though it's still only a small proportion of the membership.


1000 s ???

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... s_2019.pdf


Is 2,000+ not thousands?
What was the maximum number of voters at an AGM pre internet voting?


Most of the vote were given to the Chair. I do not consider they express a real view.
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

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

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby PH » 4 Sep 2020, 1:04pm

Philip Benstead wrote:Most of the vote were given to the Chair. I do not consider they express a real view.

I consider that to be utter nonsense, they've expressed the view that they'd like the Chair to place their vote.
If they had no view they'd simply not vote.
Who do you think you are to decide what a real view is?

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

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby Philip Benstead » 4 Sep 2020, 1:31pm

PH wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:Most of the vote were given to the Chair. I do not consider they express a real view.

I consider that to be utter nonsense, they've expressed the view that they'd like the Chair to place their vote.
If they had no view they'd simply not vote.
Who do you think you are to decide what a real view is?


Who do you think you are questioning my view, you may disagree with it,that is your right but I am entitled to have it .

Even staff of Electrorial Reform Society agree me with on this point.

Even ex-senior CTC Councillors/Trustees agree with me on this point
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

AndyK
Posts: 915
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby AndyK » 4 Sep 2020, 2:04pm

I find it's best not to question Philip's view at any time.

MattHodges
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Aug 2009, 2:23pm

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby MattHodges » 7 Sep 2020, 10:56pm

I agree with Philip regarding the unsatisfactory and undemocratic nature of the chair having the discretion over unallocated votes. Any unallocated votes should be automatically abstains or spoiled votes. The present system makes a mockery of the members vote.
How many actual members votes were recorded for, against and abstain for each resolution and how many members votes were decided by the chair? will you tell us or are you ashamed of the answer?

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

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby PH » 7 Sep 2020, 11:02pm

MattHodges wrote:I agree with Philip regarding the unsatisfactory and undemocratic nature of the chair having the discretion over unallocated votes. Any unallocated votes should be automatically abstains or spoiled votes. The present system makes a mockery of the members vote.
How many actual members votes were recorded for, against and abstain for each resolution and how many members votes were decided by the chair? will you tell us or are you ashamed of the answer?

That's an assumption that the members giving their votes to the Chair are too thick to understand what they're doing. That isn't an assumption I share.

AndyK
Posts: 915
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby AndyK » 7 Sep 2020, 11:41pm

The chair does not get to cast "unallocated" votes (whatever they are).

The chair gets to cast proxy votes where the member has nominated the chair to vote for them as their proxy and has given the chair the authority to decide how to cast that vote. That's a conscious and deliberate decision by the member. You might not like it but it's what the member has chosen to do. It's how it works in companies, charities and membership organisations across the land.

MattHodges
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Aug 2009, 2:23pm

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby MattHodges » 8 Sep 2020, 9:56pm

The chair does not get to cast "unallocated" votes (whatever they are).

The chair gets to cast proxy votes where the member has nominated the chair to vote for them as their proxy and has given the chair the authority to decide how to cast that vote. That's a conscious and deliberate decision by the member. You might not like it but it's what the member has chosen to do. It's how it works in companies, charities and membership organisations across the land.
The chair gets to cast proxy votes where the member has nominated the chair to vote for them as their proxy and has given the chair the authority to decide how to cast that vote. That's a conscious and deliberate decision by the member. You might not like it but it's what the member has chosen to do. It's how it works in companies, charities and membership organisations across the land
[/quote]

No! If a member who isn't going to be at the meeting wants to vote on any resolution he has to appoint a proxy and unless he knows someone who will be there he has to appoint the chair as proxy.
Any resolution he actually votes on online or on the paper are cast as per his instructions but any resolution where he does not positively vote for against or abstain is a vote he has not allocated. These are unallocated votes used by the chair to dominate the vote on that resolution. The member hasn't positively asked the chair to vote for him on that resolution. It happens by default. The only way he can stop that happening is to positively vote on it himself.

What I want to know is how many of the 2075 votes FOR resolution 4 were votes cast by the member and how many were votes where the member had not bothered to vote so the chair had chosen to pile those votes into the FOR basket to outweigh the 1418 actual members votes AGAINST. 1418 votes against is a very high vote against a board sponsored resolution. The difference between FOR and AGAINST was only 657. I find it incredible that more than 1418 members had actually chosen to vote FOR resolution 4 rather than just not bothered to vote on this issue.

Allowing the chair to outvote all the members who actually cast their vote is an abuse of the voting system worthy of Belarus.

Jdsk
Posts: 2216
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby Jdsk » 8 Sep 2020, 10:04pm

MattHodges wrote: I find it incredible that more than 1418 members had actually chosen to vote FOR resolution 4 rather than just not bothered to vote on this issue.

Why? I and others repeatedly asked why fees should drop with age alone and got very few reasons, or answers.

Jonathan

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14075
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby gaz » 8 Sep 2020, 11:34pm

MattHodges wrote:... The present system makes a mockery of the members vote. ...

Assume for a moment that we had a voting system that did not allow for undirected proxy voting.

I believe that those Members who gave the Chair their undirected proxy vote would still have voted, after all not voting is even easier still and they decided it was important to vote.

I believe they are unlikely to have abstained, historically numbers of abstentions are very low and with the option in front of them in the existing system they did not chose it.

The existing system already allows them to vote against the Trustees' published views, it's just a matter of ticking a few more boxes. They didn't chose that option either.

I believe that those Members would have ticked a few more boxes and voted in support of the Trustees. YMMV.

MattHodges wrote:... The only way he can stop that happening is to positively vote on it himself. ...

Nail. Head. On.

Now stop and ask yourself why with that option in front of them when they were casting their vote a member would not have ticked a few more boxes if that is what they wanted to happen.
2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!

AndyK
Posts: 915
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: CTC AGM 2020

Postby AndyK » 8 Sep 2020, 11:40pm

MattHodges wrote:No! If a member who isn't going to be at the meeting wants to vote on any resolution he has to appoint a proxy and unless he knows someone who will be there he has to appoint the chair as proxy.
Any resolution he actually votes on online or on the paper are cast as per his instructions but any resolution where he does not positively vote for against or abstain is a vote he has not allocated. These are unallocated votes used by the chair to dominate the vote on that resolution. The member hasn't positively asked the chair to vote for him on that resolution. It happens by default. The only way he can stop that happening is to positively vote on it himself.

What I want to know is how many of the 2075 votes FOR resolution 4 were votes cast by the member and how many were votes where the member had not bothered to vote so the chair had chosen to pile those votes into the FOR basket to outweigh the 1418 actual members votes AGAINST. 1418 votes against is a very high vote against a board sponsored resolution. The difference between FOR and AGAINST was only 657. I find it incredible that more than 1418 members had actually chosen to vote FOR resolution 4 rather than just not bothered to vote on this issue.

Allowing the chair to outvote all the members who actually cast their vote is an abuse of the voting system worthy of Belarus.

We are talking about a situation where the member has nominated the chair as his/her proxy and has left it to the chair's discretion as to how to use that proxy vote. As I said, you might not like it but it's normal practice at AGMs in the UK. It is not an abuse of the voting system, it's how corporate governance works. It's not something Cycling UK invented. If you own shares in any companies, try reading their AGM documents when you next receive them..