AGM, CEO/Head Office and Technical Officer decision

MartinC
Posts: 1909
Joined: 10 May 2007, 6:31pm
Location: Bredon

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

Postby MartinC » 29 Apr 2015, 8:42am

Si wrote:.......................................criticism of CTC staff or volunteers must be kept civil...................


Given this it might be appropriate for the CTC Management to treat members (and staff) with a bit more civility. It was noticeably absent with demise of the Technical Officer capability that CTC had. Demanding respect doesn't work - it needs to be earned. Those delivering lectures on civility need to look a bit closer to home.

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

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

Postby Si » 29 Apr 2015, 10:52am

MartinC wrote:
Si wrote:.......................................criticism of CTC staff or volunteers must be kept civil...................


Given this it might be appropriate for the CTC Management to treat members (and staff) with a bit more civility. It was noticeably absent with demise of the Technical Officer capability that CTC had. Demanding respect doesn't work - it needs to be earned. Those delivering lectures on civility need to look a bit closer to home.


I think that you are getting confused by:
1/ the difference between the forum and the wider world
2/ the difference between the volunteers that look after the forum, and the people who work in N.O.

I am citing the forum rules. If you believe that any forum member, be they N.O. staff, CTC member or member of the public has broken said rules then please report it. As you might recall, during the charity debate posts by N.O./Council were removed as the broke the forum rules, just as others by the 'opposing' side were when they broke the rules.

However, we, the forum staff, have little impact on how N.O. communicates with the membership beyond the forum.

As for respect - I would have hoped that everyone comes to the table already showing respect for others by default, rather than only treating others with respect once they have earned it.

MartinC
Posts: 1909
Joined: 10 May 2007, 6:31pm
Location: Bredon

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

Postby MartinC » 29 Apr 2015, 1:26pm

Si, let's not get embroiled in semantics. The attitude shown by NO though the Technical Officer debacle has been disrespectful to both the members and staff. The post you commented on had described an NO communication as 'weaselly' . It wasn't applied to a person, It's civil (uncomplimentary though) and many would regard it as fair comment. I hope the forum rules are in place so that civilised discussion can take place not to protect the organisation from criticism.

I too thought that the reply to the submission of motions was contrived, arrogant, self serving and showed little respect for the members who'd submitted the motions. If there needs to be some constructive criticism for NO to go with that it's: when you're in a hole stop digging.

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

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

Postby Si » 29 Apr 2015, 4:58pm

My point stands, no matter how people act in the outside world and how they might mistreat each other, they are expected to act according to the forum rules on the forum. The easel comment was boarder-line hence it's still there and hasn't been removed but is accusing people of acting in a weasel like fashion the best way to engage with them?

As you may or may not be aware, at one point N.O. staff were discouraged from using the forum because of the risk of them getting involved in ill tempered arguments when they should have been working on other stuff instead. We have tried to encourage N.O. staff and Councillors to use the forum more, as has Matt Malender since his return. We ask that people do not give them an easy excuse to use for not engaging with membership on the forum - that of not wanting to be the victim of uncivil behaviour.

Of course we must also remember that right since the forum's inception the CTC line has been that the forum is not an official means of communication. Some of us would like to change that and get more of the N.O. staff and Councillors involved*, but that will be an uphill battle if they were to come here and ill-treated.



* I did suggest that monitoring the forum and responding to relevant issues ought to be part of someone's job remit but then I got accused of trying to create a job for myself!!!! :wink:

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 » 29 Apr 2015, 7:37pm

Si wrote:... We have tried to encourage N.O. staff and Councillors to use the forum more, as has Matt Malender since his return. We ask that people do not give them an easy excuse to use for not engaging with membership on the forum - that of not wanting to be the victim of uncivil behaviour. ...


Matt Mallinder said in June 2014 "I feel passionately about improving the communication outputs from CTC- Cycle magazine, web and social media etc".

In the nine months or so since then Matt has posted twice on the forum.

I do realise it is not your role to defend Matt's actions but if he is trying to encourage other National Office staff to engage with people on the forum he's not exactly leading by example.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

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

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

Postby Si » 30 Apr 2015, 8:54am

Ah, well, there's at least two halves to it.

There's the coming onto the forum and posting stuff...which as you say is rarer than we'd all like but see below*

And there's the coming onto the forum to see what people are saying...which from my infrequent chats with Matt / Councillors this does seem to be increasing a bit.


* N.O. sometimes, rather than making announcements on the forum, would let the moderators have the information to disseminate. But relationships have been in a state of flux recently due to staff changes.


The other factor has been the discussion of what the forum is for: in the past it has been suggested that the forum should be a place for members to get together and chat without interference from N.O. Whereas others have suggested that Councillors ought to be on here a lot more gauging the opinion of the people that they represent. The problem with the latter, of course, is that they would have no idea if the person telling them to change tack is one of their 'constituents' or even a member of the CTC. And as with many forums, what seems to stick in people's minds is that it's a handful of the same 'usual suspects' shouting very loudly on any and every issue, rather than a representative swathe of the CTC. Even if this were true it, of course, misses the point that although only a few people might be contributing, a lot might be reading and having their view of the CTC changed.

thirdcrank
Posts: 30856
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

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

Postby thirdcrank » 30 Apr 2015, 9:52am

The point was also made when the forum was launched that it's not a formal channel of communication with HQ and fair enough: the CTC hasn't the resources to monitor the forum and reply to everything. OTOH, it offers an opportunity to identify problems quickly and to deal with them before they get worse. A current example is the CTC shop.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=96275

One of the most significant member benefits seems to have dropped off the CTC's www without any explanation. Here one minute, gone the next. It's been raised on here and it's hardly one obsessive malcontent banging away over nothing. It may be an IT glitch or the CTC hoping that nobody will notice. Still no clarification here or, afaik, anywhere else.

At the risk of appearing to criticise an individual, I'll just mention that the person carpeted :wink: by gaz above was once the manager of the CTC shop.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 16726
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

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

Postby mjr » 30 Apr 2015, 10:28am

Si wrote:Whereas others have suggested that Councillors ought to be on here a lot more gauging the opinion of the people that they represent. The problem with the latter, of course, is that they would have no idea if the person telling them to change tack is one of their 'constituents' or even a member of the CTC. And as with many forums, what seems to stick in people's minds is that it's a handful of the same 'usual suspects' shouting very loudly on any and every issue, rather than a representative swathe of the CTC. Even if this were true it, of course, misses the point that although only a few people might be contributing, a lot might be reading and having their view of the CTC changed.

There are ways that could be used to show who are constituents or members if wanted, so that's sort of a silly reason not to use it. There's also little attempt to get a representative swathe of the CTC on this forum - or indeed in anything as far as I can tell. CTC Norfolk or whatever the local group is now called seems to be happy in its comfortable little rut and National Office seems to be getting on with things with minimal member input.

It's a bit of the same problem as Sustrans, where most people find they're only too keen to take your money and volunteered work but as soon as they ask for them even to give a reply, they seem much less keen. I've heard refrains like "I asked Sustrans and they didn't reply, so I've stopped answering their requests for help" quite a few times. Not heard it about CTC yet, but they've had fewer riders here paying them AFAICT. I think this behaviour is a really huge turn-off to a lot of riders on the fringes of any charity, but it's long-term damage, so the short-term professionals will often have moved on to the next charity and leave the next wave of professionals to blame the previous ones for the decline while launching a few short-term stunts to help them get their next job on the charity-go-round.

There are a few people at CTC head office who do seem long-termers and to have their hearts in the right places. I can't quite figure out if they're dazzled by the new pro's or if they're cynical or something else.
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.

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

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

Postby Psamathe » 30 Apr 2015, 10:41am

Si wrote:...The other factor has been the discussion of what the forum is for: in the past it has been suggested that the forum should be a place for members to get together and chat without interference from N.O. Whereas others have suggested that Councillors ought to be on here a lot more gauging the opinion of the people that they represent. The problem with the latter, of course, is that they would have no idea if the person telling them to change tack is one of their 'constituents' or even a member of the CTC....

Personally, I don't see why it cannot be both (i.e. place for members to chat as well as a means for councillors to gauge opinions). And it could be both without formally needing to define forum sections or thread "This is for ...".

As to Councillors only interacting with people they represent there would be a number of possibilities (e.g. if a poster wants their point taken as a formal "member opinion" then the add their membership number e.g. at the bottom of the post). But also, the forum can provide an excellent platform for NO as Councillors to gauge opinion from the general cycling community. After all, CTC is becomming less concerned about membership (members having perks removed and being treated more like donors; CTC campaigning for cycling as a whole rather than acting for its membership; etc.).

Certainly the forum is available to all (internet connected) members and certainly used to be raised in Cycle Magazine. CTC make extensive use of e-mail and internet so using the forum as an additional means of cummunication and of getting a feel for attitudes in teh cycling community would only help and improve the organisation.

There would seem to be no reason why CTC cannot use the forum as an official means of communication - that would be official NOT exclusive. so when they have an announcement or are seeking opinions, it would make sense to use the forum in addition to other methods of communication. They already use multiple means of communication for any official communication, so using the forum can only help and improve communications at no cost and no real extra effort.

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 » 30 Apr 2015, 12:44pm

I used the slang phrase to describe actions because I thought it communicated how disappointed I am: I could have used more words (from a dictionary definition) to mean exactly the same thing but why would that be better other than perhaps not invoking the moderators?

About Head Office:
How difficult would it have been to print (in the April/ May Cycle issue) an official thanks to Chris Juden for all his work as Technical Officer (not just the phone/email info service) and clearly stating that his post was made redundant*, and apologising for not placing it (the thanks) in the previous (February) issue (and for not clearly stating that the post was made redundant in said issue) . *The February issue was vague enough to allow for him leaving of his own accord as a possibility.

How difficult would it have been to print an apology in the April May Issue for not informing members of the possible removal of Technical Officer role* (which would have allowed members to comment)?
*who was also answering some Touring queries it seems.

It would have been nice if there was a statement that the reintroduction of the post(s)/combined post would be considered.

The cycle clips email could also have contained the above messages.

But, disappointingly, none of the above civil behaviour happened .

And then related options for the AGM are rejected with nonsense arguments...

So the only vote members seem to be left with is their feet.

I would rather wait for a new CEO etc than seem to support the current Head Office/CEO behaviour.
------------You may not use this post in Cycle or other magazine ------ 8)

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 » 30 Apr 2015, 5:43pm

Si wrote:Ah, well, there's at least two halves to it.

There's the coming onto the forum and posting stuff...which as you say is rarer than we'd all like but see below*

And there's the coming onto the forum to see what people are saying...which from my infrequent chats with Matt / Councillors this does seem to be increasing a bit.

* N.O. sometimes, rather than making announcements on the forum, would let the moderators have the information to disseminate. But relationships have been in a state of flux recently due to staff changes.
....

Matt Mallinder's on the record remarks are about improving communication outputs. I suppose improving communication inputs (reading forum posts) is a prerequisite to improving communication outputs but nevertheless, in respect of the forum, those improved communication outputs haven't appeared.


I thought improvements in communications between the staff and the moderators had been thrashed out at the start of the year: viewtopic.php?f=45&t=93655
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

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

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

Postby Si » 30 Apr 2015, 6:35pm

Re the issue of identifying forum members as being CTC members, or specific CTC members - I'm afraid that it's not as easy as it might sound. I'm not keen on publishing membership numbers to an unknown audience....a while back we had some trouble with that which I won't go into in detail.

As for creating a member log-in so that it takes your membership number/ name/etc like the main CTC site and then puts a flag on your post to show that you are a member - yes that could be done but it would cost money and traditionally the forum has been treated as a minimal expense add-on to other forms of communication. Plus it would mean Anthony having to do it, last I heard he was already up to his eyeballs in work.