AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2037
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby SA_SA_SA » 27 Apr 2015, 12:35pm

Are there any disgruntled members* (over the removal Technical Officer) who have enough membership left to propose a motion about it at the AGM?

Can the CEO get a "vote of no confidence"?

*eg not going to renew until new management
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 50984
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby Mick F » 27 Apr 2015, 2:41pm

Sounds a good idea in principle.

The AGM had better hurry up if they want me there. My membership expires on Thursday and I'm not renewing.
Mick F. Cornwall

Psamathe
Posts: 12261
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby Psamathe » 27 Apr 2015, 3:57pm

Too late for me to help - I've already left (told them why via e-mail (twice) but never got a reply). Otherwise I would.

Ian

User avatar
robgul
Posts: 3017
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 8:40pm
Contact:

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby robgul » 27 Apr 2015, 5:40pm

... was there not a thread a short while back about proposed motions for either a Council meeting or an AGM being steam-rollered out by HQ ? - I don;t have the time or the inclination to search but it does seem that the dead horse has been flogged?

Rob
E2E http://www.cycle-endtoend.org.uk
HoECC http://www.heartofenglandcyclingclub.org.uk
Cytech accredited mechanic . . . and woodworker

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14164
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby gaz » 27 Apr 2015, 7:22pm

Too late.
How to influence CTC Policy.
Members are notified that motions for the AGM must be received by the Chief Executive at CTC Head Office no later than 1st February of each year

There was a call for motions from Chris Jeggo in December, I don't know if any were submitted as a result of that post.

There is currently more information about this year's AGM on the forum than there is on the main website :roll: . No details of Motions yet, I expect those in the next edition of Cycle complete with voting forms.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

PH
Posts: 9973
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby PH » 27 Apr 2015, 8:57pm

Details of some of the motions accepted and rejected are on the West Surrey website
http://westsurreyctc.co.uk/wp-content/u ... _forum.pdf

Well done to those who tried.

Psamathe
Posts: 12261
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby Psamathe » 27 Apr 2015, 9:09pm

PH wrote:Details of some of the motions accepted and rejected are on the West Surrey website
http://westsurreyctc.co.uk/wp-content/u ... _forum.pdf

Well done to those who tried.

So to employ somebody as a Technical Officer (with engineering degree, 3 years experience in cycle industry and an interest in cycle touring) has been classed as "...relates to staff contracts and would not meet current HR and Equalities legislation, as it could be perceived as indirect discrimination”. That is just complete madness. Requiring appropriate experience and qualification for a role "indirect discrimination". They are just trying to close the issue out and don't want to have it discussed. Which just shows how low the organisation has sunk.

And the vote that "Membership no longer has confidence in CTC HQ Management ..." ruled out in part because "The statement is also factually incorrect." - talk about "marking your own work". If it is "factually incorrect" there is no reason for it not to be discussed and aired and have it established as such (if it really is "factually incorrect").

An organisation so unprepared to listen to and discuss criticism or ideas from the membership is ... just madness. Very poor management at the top where it will not even have criticism discussed.

Ian

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2037
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby SA_SA_SA » 28 Apr 2015, 11:42am

PH wrote:Details of some of the motions accepted and rejected are on the West Surrey website......


The reasons given for rejecting options are depressingly weaselly :(

Can AGM options be legally rejected with nonsense arguments?
Doesn't that make a mockery of a Democratic AGM?

Is there anything that can be done by those at the AGM?
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)

Psamathe
Posts: 12261
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby Psamathe » 28 Apr 2015, 11:58am

SA_SA_SA wrote:
PH wrote:Details of some of the motions accepted and rejected are on the West Surrey website......


The reasons given for rejecting options are depressingly weaselly :(

Can AGM options be legally rejected with nonsense arguments?
Doesn't that make a mockery of a Democratic AGM?

Is there anything that can be done by those at the AGM?

Clearly Head Office/CEO do not take criticism well and will not allow their performance (or lack of it) to be discussed by those paying them (the membership).

Ian

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15184
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby Si » 28 Apr 2015, 12:56pm

A reminder as threads such as this always run the risk of crossing the line. While criticism of the CTC on this forum is acceptable, and constructive criticism encouraged if it helps the CTC improve, please be wary of attacks or unpleasantness directed to individuals and try to minimise use of emotive language.

For instance if you want to state "I do not believe that Council is taking the CTC in the correct direction because..." and then make a reasoned, logical but polite argument then fair enough. Not only is it acceptable on the forum, but also it gets your point across and is much more likely to see you taken seriously.

If on the other hand, you (for instance) accuse people of acting in a weaselly fashion, even though you undoubtedly have the best interests of the CTC at heart, you are more than likely to just entrench your opponents' views and give them the excuse to dismiss your argument as not worth bothering with as you are not engaging in a civil manner (believe me, this has happened before).

For what it's worth, I too mourn the loss of CJ / the tech exp post. I also do not agree with the current direction of the CTC. However, the rules of the forum state that an criticism of CTC staff or volunteers must be kept civil and so that's how it will be.

Psamathe
Posts: 12261
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby Psamathe » 28 Apr 2015, 1:08pm

Si wrote:"I do not believe that Council is taking the CTC in the correct direction because..."
Failing to even start to address genuine concern by the membership will only alienate the membership further, causing more people to leave and thus impacting both the income and reputation of the CTC.

Si wrote:"I do not believe that Council is taking the CTC in the correct direction because..."
Refusing to even discuss significant issues raised by the membership only highlights the low regard those running the organisation have of the membership, appearing to hold then as (at best) an irrelevance. Giving the membership the impression they are less important than a nuisance will not further the aims and achievement of the organisation.

Si wrote:"I do not believe that Council is taking the CTC in the correct direction because..."
Claims from the Organisation that it knows better than the membership (e.g. dismissing issues that are widely held by the active membership as "Factually incorrect") will be perceived as nothing more than arrogance. Businesses and Organisations that are unable to examine their own performance critically are doomed to under achieve. The impression given by the CTC's response to the AGM discussions is that they are not prepared to have their performance even discussed - which for any business or organisation is disgraceful and raises major questions over its management.

Ian

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15184
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby Si » 28 Apr 2015, 2:11pm

dismissing issues that are widely held by the active membership as "Factually incorrect"


TBH, both sides are correct - just depends upon how you spin it.

Psamathe
Posts: 12261
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby Psamathe » 28 Apr 2015, 2:30pm

Si wrote:
dismissing issues that are widely held by the active membership as "Factually incorrect"


TBH, both sides are correct - just depends upon how you spin it.

Then maybe it should be discussed rather than everything being based on the Head Office's view (after all, there is a "membership" of people who pay involved).

Ian

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15184
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby Si » 28 Apr 2015, 3:05pm

If you mean the appointment of a TeO including the detail in the motion, then because one of the corrects has it that it would be wrong to discuss it at the AGM.

This is not to say that discussion cannot take place - it is doing so, right here. N.O. would point out, though, that of the active members of the forum, let alone the 60,000+ CTC members, very few have so far felt the need to take part.

Again I point out, before the tar and feathers come out, this is a devil's advocate statement - personally I wish that many more members of the CTC got a lot more actively involved in how it is run and where it is going.

Psamathe
Posts: 12261
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

Postby Psamathe » 28 Apr 2015, 4:46pm

Si wrote:... personally I wish that many more members of the CTC got a lot more actively involved in how it is run and where it is going.

Who is going to bother to become active when those who are and who raise valid points for discussion (and attempt to get things changed) are just "shut out" by Head Office who seem to not like the idea of having their decisions questioned. Such refusal to discuss with those who are active, refusal to consider and review what they have done is a strong incentive to not get active - because you know you are going to be ignored or shut out.

Ian