AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16717
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

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

Postby mjr » 28 Apr 2015, 5:12pm

Si wrote: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.

And look how much NO encourages members to take part. There's no training on the democracy, on the rights and responsibilities of membership, is there? Even the co-operative group, which is rather imperfect (to put it mildly), regularly offers education services to its members, most recently through https://www.co-operativememberevents.coop
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

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, 5:21pm

There is no evidence that the vast majority of members have opinions upon whether they would be shut out or not (and whether anyone has been shut out all depends on which side of the fence you stand on) - they just haven't tried to get active in this area. It would seem, from the lack of widescale protest, that they trust N.O. to get on with it* without troubling them too much.

Any member also has the option of standing for Council and trying to change things from within. Conversations with certain ex-counsellors would indicate that this doesn't quite work like it ought, but the vast majority of the membership do not know this - thus one might conclude that their reasons for not standing may be that either they are reasonably happy or that they are not so unhappy as to go to the effort of trying to change things.

Indeed, I have seen how difficult it can be to get the average member to even hold office within his or her M.G. Thus it might appear that the reasons for being a member are mainly to be insured and ride a bike or similar - anything beyond that would seem much less important to them. This is not a criticism of the membership, after all they pay their subs so it's up to them to pick and choose which aspects of the CTC they involve themselves with.

*whatever 'it' might be.

Psamathe
Posts: 12247
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

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

Postby Psamathe » 28 Apr 2015, 5:23pm

mjr wrote:
Si wrote: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.

And look how much NO encourages members to take part. There's no training on the democracy, on the rights and responsibilities of membership, is there?...

Exactly. they should be happy that the membership has taken interest to ask for points to be included and discussed rather than just effectively saying "Your wrong, we're right, go away". Who is going to bother to become active with attitudes like that in Head Office.

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, 5:30pm

There's no training on the democracy, on the rights and responsibilities of membership, is there?


Surely if one feels sufficiently moved by an issue it should not be too difficult to find out how to raise it with a councillor, how to contact N.O., how to stand as a councillor (I seem to remember seeing regular pieces in Cycle asking for people to stand), etc?

Obviously we do hear reports of people being ignored by Councillors, N.O. etc...but, on the other hand, do people get worked up enough about positive communications to report each one?

And if N.O. did try to tell people their responsibilities, oh, the outcry that would ensue - N.O. trying to nanny the membership again :lol:

As for your link to the Coop - looks like an attempt at setting up Member Groups.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16717
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

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

Postby mjr » 28 Apr 2015, 5:38pm

Si wrote:There is no evidence that the vast majority of members have opinions upon whether they would be shut out or not (and whether anyone has been shut out all depends on which side of the fence you stand on) - they just haven't tried to get active in this area.

How can you say there is no evidence and then claim to know they haven't tried? :lol: I think it's more likely that they try, get confused by the lack of available information or fobbed off by someone and give up, but there is no evidence.

It would seem, from the lack of widescale protest, that they trust N.O. to get on with it* without troubling them too much.

If anyone really was confident that NO was generally trusted, the "Membership no longer has confidence in CTC HQ Management..." motion would have been allowed forward with whatever factual corrections required so that it could be soundly defeated and put the point to rest.

Any member also has the option of standing for Council and trying to change things from within. Conversations with certain ex-counsellors would indicate that this doesn't quite work like it ought, but the vast majority of the membership do not know this - thus one might conclude that their reasons for not standing may be that either they are reasonably happy or that they are not so unhappy as to go to the effort of trying to change things.

How unhappy would someone need to be to attempt what looks impossible?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

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, 5:39pm

Psamathe wrote:
mjr wrote:
Si wrote: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.

And look how much NO encourages members to take part. There's no training on the democracy, on the rights and responsibilities of membership, is there?...

Exactly. they should be happy that the membership has taken interest to ask for points to be included and discussed rather than just effectively saying "Your wrong, we're right, go away". Who is going to bother to become active with attitudes like that in Head Office.

Ian


I repeat my previous comment - on the one hand we have a motion ruled out due to potential procedural/legal issues, on the other we have it ruled out due to a wim of N.O. - depending upon which side of the fence you stand. But the thing is, there is no evidence that the vast majority of the membership have any notion that anything that they put forward will be steamrollered if it does not follow N.O. thinking, thus why are they not voicing their concerns if they have them?

I will remind you that I am in favour of having touring and technical officers (I will gladly sign up to a bring back CJ petition, etc). I have been along to a councillor and said this. I have said it on an open forum. But, if it's only you, me and thee saying it (and at least one of us isn't a member anyway) then should we really expect to have the CTC change course?

Psamathe
Posts: 12247
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

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

Postby Psamathe » 28 Apr 2015, 5:42pm

Si wrote:
There's no training on the democracy, on the rights and responsibilities of membership, is there?


Surely if one feels sufficiently moved by an issue it should not be too difficult to find out how to raise it with a councillor, how to contact N.O., how to stand as a councillor (I seem to remember seeing regular pieces in Cycle asking for people to stand), etc?

I've contacted NO twice on this issue (by e-mail) and neither time have I had any response or even acknowledgement.

The issue has been raised with a Councillor on this forum, but every time it is he just shuts-up and disappears from the thread - doesn't seem to want to know or discuss or do anything or answer any questions on it ...

Democracy like that just discourages people. Well you can't really call it democracy. More like dictatorship - where you can only discuss what NO want you to discuss and anything they don't agree with or might be critical of them is off the agenda.

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, 5:50pm

mjr wrote:
Si wrote:There is no evidence that the vast majority of members have opinions upon whether they would be shut out or not (and whether anyone has been shut out all depends on which side of the fence you stand on) - they just haven't tried to get active in this area.

How can you say there is no evidence and then claim to know they haven't tried? :lol: I think it's more likely that they try, get confused by the lack of available information or fobbed off by someone and give up, but there is no evidence.

Erm, that's not what I said. But please fell free to produce the evidence.


mjr wrote:
Si wrote:It would seem, from the lack of widescale protest, that they trust N.O. to get on with it* without troubling them too much.

If anyone really was confident that NO was generally trusted, the "Membership no longer has confidence in CTC HQ Management..." motion would have been allowed forward with whatever factual corrections required so that it could be soundly defeated and put the point to rest.

N.O. would claim that the motion was ruled out on a procedural/legal issue not because they didn't want it, and also that it is not their job to rewrite people's motions for them. If you believe that they have acted against the articles of the CTC then surely you ought to be able to get it re-included should you not?

mjr wrote:
Si wrote:Any member also has the option of standing for Council and trying to change things from within. Conversations with certain ex-counsellors would indicate that this doesn't quite work like it ought, but the vast majority of the membership do not know this - thus one might conclude that their reasons for not standing may be that either they are reasonably happy or that they are not so unhappy as to go to the effort of trying to change things.

How unhappy would someone need to be to attempt what looks impossible?

Why impossible - if massed feeling is as you believe then the support ought to be there and it ought to be entirely possible. Remember that all of the Councillors who are currently in place started as ordinary members and decided that they could serve the CTC by standing for election - it would seem that those members who voted were happy to elect them. It may be that the major was against any particular councillor but none of that majority appears to have stood against them.

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, 5:51pm

Psamathe wrote:
Si wrote:
There's no training on the democracy, on the rights and responsibilities of membership, is there?


Surely if one feels sufficiently moved by an issue it should not be too difficult to find out how to raise it with a councillor, how to contact N.O., how to stand as a councillor (I seem to remember seeing regular pieces in Cycle asking for people to stand), etc?

I've contacted NO twice on this issue (by e-mail) and neither time have I had any response or even acknowledgement.

The issue has been raised with a Councillor on this forum, but every time it is he just shuts-up and disappears from the thread - doesn't seem to want to know or discuss or do anything or answer any questions on it ...

Democracy like that just discourages people. Well you can't really call it democracy. More like dictatorship - where you can only discuss what NO want you to discuss and anything they don't agree with or might be critical of them is off the agenda.

Ian


I see that you didn't bother including the rest of my post that went on to discuss issues of communication. My experience of talking with a councillor was that although we were opposed in our views, he was ready to listen and discuss. The intangibles are: how many had my experience vs how many had yours, and how many haven't even tried to talk to a councillor.

Psamathe
Posts: 12247
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

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

Postby Psamathe » 28 Apr 2015, 5:52pm

Si wrote:... But the thing is, there is no evidence that the vast majority of the membership have any notion that anything that they put forward will be steamrollered if it does not follow N.O. thinking, thus why are they not voicing their concerns if they have them?...

I believe you are looking at this the wrong way round. "Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence". There is no evidence of lots of things but that does not make them true. Certainly a portion of the membership are unhappy with N.O. to the point of trying to raise a motion of no confidence. There is evidence that a portion of the membership are unhappy with the N.O. actions over the Technical Officer.There is no evidence that this feeling is or is not widespread so you cannot assume it is not (nor that it is). All you can say is that there is dissatisfaction, people are trying to discuss it and are getting nowhere. And this reflects very very badly on N.O and the organisation and this will undoubtedly hinder it in achieving its goals.

As I said earlier, not impressed with the way Councillors seem to be handling this (avoiding the issue, not answering questions, basically hiding away). Again, reflects badly on an organisation that is so dependent on a membership.

Ian

Psamathe
Posts: 12247
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

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

Postby Psamathe » 28 Apr 2015, 6:03pm

Si wrote:
Psamathe wrote:
Si wrote:...

Surely if one feels sufficiently moved by an issue it should not be too difficult to find out how to raise it with a councillor, how to contact N.O., how to stand as a councillor (I seem to remember seeing regular pieces in Cycle asking for people to stand), etc?

I've contacted NO twice on this issue (by e-mail) and neither time have I had any response or even acknowledgement.

The issue has been raised with a Councillor on this forum, but every time it is he just shuts-up and disappears from the thread - doesn't seem to want to know or discuss or do anything or answer any questions on it ...

Democracy like that just discourages people. Well you can't really call it democracy. More like dictatorship - where you can only discuss what NO want you to discuss and anything they don't agree with or might be critical of them is off the agenda.

Ian


I see that you didn't bother including the rest of my post that went on to discuss issues of communication. My experience of talking with a councillor was that although we were opposed in our views, he was ready to listen and discuss. The intangibles are: how many had my experience vs how many had yours, and how many haven't even tried to talk to a councillor.

Not truncating what you said to hide anything, more because I was raising the issues with communicating with N.O. or getting answers from Councillors. (I try to edit out bits of quotes I'm not answering so it makes more sense and avoids ever increasing long quotes - but occasionally I may inadvertently get it wrong but I didn't think I had on this occasion, but sorry if you felt I did).

I have tried to contact National Office in relation to two issues (on two occasions). 1st experience was many e-mails sent, not one acknowledged or answered.

Then in relation to Technical Officer I have contacted Nation Office twice and not received an acknowledgement or reply. I still get the reminders that my membership should be renewed but I get no response from them.

And the Councillor who visits this forum, whenever he has been asked direct questions about the Technical Officer situation we get no answers and he just disappears. So I have tried to raise the issue with a Councillor and got nowhere. I would have hoped a Councillor would have been happy to discuss his/their position on the issue. But nothing. It's like they have all decided that if they keep their heads stuck in the sand long enough the issue will just go away. Well they are probably right because members will not renew and just disappear and they wont achieve what they could were they run in a proper open manner.

Ian

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14163
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

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

Postby gaz » 28 Apr 2015, 7:48pm

Psamathe wrote:....
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.
....

Last time I checked, CTC had a membership of around 67,000. It takes just two members to raise a motion for inclusion at the AGM.

What do you mean by "widely held"? What do you mean by "the active membership"? What evidence do you have that these issues "are widely held by the active membership"?

Si wrote:... 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. ...


I am always surprised when anyone thinks that comments expressed here should be considered representative of the views of the 67,000 strong CTC membership as a whole. The Charity Debate boards are simple testament to that fact. The forum is also open to members and non-members alike.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

Psamathe
Posts: 12247
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

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

Postby Psamathe » 28 Apr 2015, 7:58pm

gaz wrote:Last time I checked, CTC had a membership of around 67,000. It takes just two members to raise a motion for inclusion at the AGM.

What do you mean by "widely held"? What do you mean by "the active membership"? What evidence do you have that these issues "are widely held by the active membership"?
...
I am always surprised when anyone thinks that comments expressed here should be considered representative of the views of the 67,000 strong CTC membership as a whole. The Charity Debate boards are simple testament to that fact. The forum is also open to members and non-members alike.

You can say the same about any group of people. You have to ignore those who express no opinion and take a balance between the opinions of those expressing one (just like in General Elections, etc.).

When members tried to raise a several motions for inclusion at the AGM and Head Office refused them (basically no discussion on things they don't want discussed). I suppose they did achieve something - they managed to get a response out of National Office !!

When I say active membership I am talking about my personal experience of members (both on this forum and from local cyclists). There is no data so I have to go on my experience. I suspect that many of the members have standing orders for payment, glance through Cycle Magazine and that is it. Others take an interest in cycling, discuss issues, etc. and those are who I would describe as "active". Beyond my own experience the issues raised seem to have been discussed in a number of local groups who seem unhappy. There is the link earlier in the thread and an earlier thread referenced another CTC group who were "unhappy".

Ian

SA_SA_SA
Posts: 2036
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 1:46pm

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

Postby SA_SA_SA » 28 Apr 2015, 8:08pm

I don't see how claiming requiring minimum qualifications and experience, preferably with an interest cycle touring for a Technical Officer post is discriminatory, can be taken seriously: in that case most job requirements are discriminatory.... so its just nonsense way of avoiding the option and discussion.

Similarly, the response to the Motion of No Confidence, that it is factually incorrect: how could anyone ever get such a motion adopted if it can simply be rejected as incorrect based on the opinion of those in power....

Is there nothing the AGM can do?
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14163
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

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

Postby gaz » 28 Apr 2015, 11:09pm

SA_SA_SA wrote:Is there nothing the AGM can do?

Mem & Arts
9.3 No business shall be transacted at a General Meeting other than that specified in the Agenda thereof;
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...