CTC AGM 2020

[Philip Benstead]

You've caught me there. From the voting details you posted on another thread - kindly re-posted by somebody else in a form I could read - I understood the motion covering the change in membership fees had been approved by a vote at the agm.

11. MEMBERSHIP FEES

The Charity may require Members to pay reasonable Membership fees to the
Charity. The Membership fee for each class of Member may not be changed
without the approval of the Members in general meeting.

[thirdcrank]

viewtopic.php?p=1527767#p1527767

I thought that that was the voting details for the 2020 AGM and the motion to change membership fees (Motion 4) was carried by 2,075 votes to 1,418, majority = 657.

[Philip Benstead]

https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?p=1527767#p1527767

I thought that that was the voting details for the 2020 AGM and the motion to change membership fees (Motion 4) was carried by 2,075 votes to 1,418, majority = 657.

I mean next year and so on

[gaz]

By calling a General Meeting as and when required for that purpose and asking the members to vote on it as per Article 11 of course. There's no requirement for it to be done annually.

[Philip Benstead]

By calling a General Meeting as and when required for that purpose and asking the members to vote on it as per Article 11 of course. There's no requirement for it to be done annually.

So they will have a meeting annually then unless they do not put membership fees up.

[gaz]

Article 11 binds the Trustees to call a General Meeting and obtain the approval of the Members to changes in Membership rates.

They could continue to do this on an annual cycle, or six monthly, or every leap year, or when the stars are in an auspicious alignment, or to whatever criteria they wish to choose, so long as they give at least 21 days notice as required by the Articles.

They can call a General Meeting at which Membership rates are not discussed, so long as they don't want to change them.

[Philip Benstead]

Article 11 binds the Trustees to call a General Meeting and obtain the approval of the Members to changes in Membership rates.

They could continue to do this on an annual cycle, or six monthly, or every leap year, or when the stars are in an auspicious alignment, or to whatever criteria they wish to choose, so long as they give at least 21 days notice as required by the Articles.

They can call a General Meeting at which Membership rates are not discussed, so long as they don't want to change them.

So what was the point of doing away with the agm then.
?

[gaz]

I'm not really the best person to answer that, so I'll refer you to a quote from a Trustee who frequents this Parish.

As for the physical AGM:

Not a requirement of charity law. Since 2006 it hasn't been a requirement under company law either, except for PLCs. Private companies are only required to hold an AGM if it says in their articles that they have to - as it does in ours.

Attendance at the AGM is not big and has not been for some time. We've no intention of removing the AGM entirely but we think it's worth having the flexibility to try other approaches to fulfilling the functions it serves. One option would be to hold it "virtually" instead, i.e. by videoconference.

[Philip Benstead]

I'm not really the best person to answer that, so I'll refer you to a quote from a Trustee who frequents this Parish.

As for the physical AGM:

Not a requirement of charity law. Since 2006 it hasn't been a requirement under company law either, except for PLCs. Private companies are only required to hold an AGM if it says in their articles that they have to - as it does in ours.

Attendance at the AGM is not big and has not been for some time. We've no intention of removing the AGM entirely but we think it's worth having the flexibility to try other approaches to fulfilling the functions it serves. One option would be to hold it "virtually" instead, i.e. by videoconference.

If you had attended the agm you would have heard andy kay say no agm at all, so I am confused.

[gaz]

Since there is no longer any requirement for an AGM any future meeting will be a GM, whatever its frequency. Perhaps AndyK could have worded his post with a little more precision but the meaning is clear enough to me.

[AndyK]

I'm not really the best person to answer that, so I'll refer you to a quote from a Trustee who frequents this Parish.

As for the physical AGM:

Not a requirement of charity law. Since 2006 it hasn't been a requirement under company law either, except for PLCs. Private companies are only required to hold an AGM if it says in their articles that they have to - as it does in ours.

Attendance at the AGM is not big and has not been for some time. We've no intention of removing the AGM entirely but we think it's worth having the flexibility to try other approaches to fulfilling the functions it serves. One option would be to hold it "virtually" instead, i.e. by videoconference.

If you had attended the agm you would have heard andy kay say no agm at all, so I am confused.

That's funny, because I was there and I didn't hear me say that.

[AndyK]

Since there is no longer any requirement for an AGM any future meeting will be a GM, whatever its frequency. Perhaps AndyK could have worded his post with a little more precision but the meaning is clear enough to me.

Indeed. (Not sure which post you're referring to though.) It doesn't stop us holding a General Meeting on an annual basis. Membership fees still have to decided by a General Meeting (the articles use those words, not "Annual" General Meeting) so in theory it's only necessary to hold one when a change to the fees is proposed. We are no longer obliged to hold an AGM just to present the annual report and accounts and (re)appoint the auditors - the only pieces of business that the Articles actually required at the AGM.

The issue Philip won't face up to is that fewer than 0.1% of the membership actually attend the AGMs.

[gaz]

Indeed. (Not sure which post you're referring to though.)

Lack of precision on my part.

[PH]

The issue Philip won't face up to is that fewer than 0.1% of the membership actually attend the AGMs.

I'm sure he's aware of that, having attended enough of them. There are some who think it's that percentage of the membership who should be running the organisation, as it was in the good old days.
Maybe if CUK sent out free buffets to previous AGM attendees they'd be happy, having been to one I can't think of anything else lost by not having them.

[gaz]

Back in the day (well 1979) to win a motion and decide club policy you just had to organise a coach party to fill the room with supporters.

Some may feel democracy died with postal ballots and on-line voting .