DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

[Mick F]

Found it.

The Scottish referendum of 1979 was a post-legislative referendum to decide whether there was sufficient support for a Scottish Assembly proposed in the Scotland Act 1978 among the Scottish electorate. This was an act to create a devolved deliberative assembly for Scotland. An amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if fewer than 40% of the total electorate voted Yes in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but with a turnout of 64%, this represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate. The Act was subsequently repealed.

From what I remember, the Scots voters complained a great deal. The Scots non-voters complained a great deal too.

Moral to the tale .................................. VOTE !!!!

[Vorpal]

There was a lot of discussion about that on this forum in the weeks leading up to the charity vote.

Weeks, months, years ....

Yes, well....

[gaz]

Based on recent turn-outs which I don't think have topped 8% in the last five years, requiring not just a simple majority but also a minimum 40% of CTC members to vote in agreement before any motion at an AGM, Polls of the Whole Club, etc is declared valid would seem a fairly effective way to hand control to Council.

[Bicycler]

I'm not sure, but I think the Charity Commission is pretty clear that a charity has to serve the aims of the charity, not the members of a club.

There was a lot of discussion about that on this forum in the weeks leading up to the charity vote.

I don't doubt the obligations that the CTC now has as a charity, nor do I deny that there was heated debate on the forum which did go into the details (I was reading but not contributing at that point). I was on about the more wider membership rather than forumites. I'm not saying that the vote would necessarily have gone differently had the situation been clearer, just that I can understand why some members didn't grasp the full implications based upon the information they were provided with at the time.

[Philip Benstead]

I'm not sure, but I think the Charity Commission is pretty clear that a charity has to serve the aims of the charity, not the members of a club.

There was a lot of discussion about that on this forum in the weeks leading up to the charity vote.

I don't doubt the obligations that the CTC now has as a charity, nor do I deny that there was heated debate on the forum which did go into the details (I was reading but not contributing at that point). I was on about the more wider membership rather than forumites. I'm not saying that the vote would necessarily have gone differently had the situation been clearer, just that I can understand why some members didn't grasp the full implications based upon the information they were provided with at the time.

That is why the majority vote was only obtained with
the chairs proxis , because most members were confused because any discenting voices were not permited to contact the members

[gaz]

The Chair's position on the Charity conversion was well known and it is somewhat insulting to suggest that members who gave the Chair an undirected proxy vote were "confused".

There were no proxy votes in the Poll of the Whole Club on the charity debate. It returned a result of 75% in favour, 25% against.

[Philip Benstead]

The Chair's position on the Charity conversion was well known and it is somewhat insulting to suggest that members who gave the Chair an undirected proxy vote were "confused".

There were no proxy votes in the Poll of the Whole Club on the charity debate. It returned a result of 75% in favour, 25% against.

The poll of the whole club was undertaken before the agm that made the CTC a charity
The poll had restricted information from descenting voices
The vote at the carriered with chair proxies I was there
The error of descenting voices was to have the before the agm

[gaz]

...
We are seeking the poll details to be in the April/May edition of “Cycle”; so time is short.
...

That can't be done.

Article 11

11.3 Upon receipt of the petition the Secretary shall publish in the next issue but one of the Club magazine to be distributed after the petition shall have been lodged with him ...

If the petition is submitted in either February or March, the next edition of Cycle is April/May. The earliest edition that the Articles allow it to be published in Cycle will be the next issue but one i.e. June/July.

Sorry I didn't spot that earlier.

[TonyR]

The poll had restricted information from descenting voices

That's not how I remember it. I remember articles for and against being published side by side in Cycle and quite a lot of information on both sides floating around at the time. But its virtually impossible for some people to accept they lost the vote and move on, preferring to console themselves with the view that the membership are idiots who are easily confused and manipulated. And the same will be true of any vote on a name change.

[Philip Benstead]

The poll had restricted information from descenting voices

That's not how I remember it. I remember articles for and against being published side by side in Cycle and quite a lot of information on both sides floating around at the time. But its virtually impossible for some people to accept they lost the vote and move on, preferring to console themselves with the view that the membership are idiots who are easily confused and manipulated. And the same will be true of any vote on a name change.

CTC HQ refuse to circulate this report to members leading up to the poll of the whole club
At the AGM where the vote was taken to become a charity, the members voted against the motion, then the proposer of the motion who was also chair of the AGM and of council used a large number of proxies to overrule the members.

IMHO this was immoral

CTC Charitable Status – The Case against Unification – Minorities Report

John Meudell (EX CTC Councillor)
Gregory Price (EX CTC Councillor)

a) Brief intro and history, rationale for a minority report;

Some years ago, in 2004, National Council undertook to determine the value of charitable status for CTC, although little was done until the opportunity to move the National Office, in 2006. At this time the CTC Charitable Trust was created and the Club’s main asset, the property, along with most of the staff, transferred to the new organization. The Club remained a Company Limited by Guarantee.

It has since become clear that the Trust/Company relationship leaves a lot to be desired and has created governance, strategic, financial and organizational issues that have proved difficult to resolve.

The CTC Council case for unification centres on a report commissioned from CASS which, far from providing an overwhelming case for unifying CTC into a single charitable organization, avoids addressing key implications of unification.

The authors believe current and future issues can be resolved within the existing structure, albeit with better separation and management of company and charity functions. Furthermore, this approach would provide business strategic, transparency and risk management advantages.

b) Disadvantages of a unified structure (reference the CASS report, Section 4.2):

• The 2006 Charities Act: would apply across all CTC’s activities, and CTC would become subject to the Charities Commission interpretation of acceptable “charitable activities”, “member benefits” and what constitutes the “public benefit”;

• Accountability: far from becoming more transparent, lines of accountability run the risk becoming even more unclear and diluted than they are at present;

• Governance: whilst a single body, CTC Council, would have control over all activities in practice this body would have a statutory obligation to act in the public interest and that of the Charity itself. With those statutory priorities benefits and services become discretionary in terms of trustee decision making (and governed by Charitable Commission interpretation of acceptable “member benefits”);

• Tax benefits: the facility of gift aid is available under the current structure, but CTC chooses not to provide it to members. The suggested scale of financial benefit is overstated and only marginally significant when overhead costs are included. Furthermore, tax benefits are at the discretion of government and cannot be guaranteed in the future;

• Greater public goodwill: there is no evidence to believe this will be the case;

• Protection against being privatised: government has said that it would favour a reduced number of charities, currently around 20,000 in England; a fully unified structure runs a greater risk of forced merger in the future;

• Diversity of income: direct exposure of members funds to losses and project over-runs on either trading or charitable activities, or both, will increase through unification;

• More inclusive: there is no evidence that CTC would become more inclusive;

• Protection from maverick council: as described earlier, CTC trustees would be obliged to act in the best interests of the charity and public benefit. In terms of members control, the risk of a maverick board is therefore more significant in a unified structure than in a split structure.

c) The Alternative: retain a split structure:

In principle a split structure should not present any difficulties, and there are many, many successful examples of such a structure. The current governance issues are a consequence of the lack of attention to strategic, organizational and operational implications when the trust was originally set up.

As a means to address these issues current activities, along with funding sources and staffing, would be divided between the two. Each would have separate governance arrangements, with those of the Charitable Trust strengthened by extending CTC board representation.

d) Benefits of a split structure;

• Freedom to choose regulatory regime: activities can be placed in Company or Charity, whichever is necessary to maximise strategic, financial and/or business advantage along with improvement of benefits to members, cyclists and the public;

• Membership control: members control the company subscriptions are paid to, with no possibility of conflicting company/charity requirements;

• Efficiency: management of each individual organization has a narrower and more focused set of activities to control. Accounting and performance evaluation becomes simpler, clearer and more transparent within each individual organization;

• Management of risk: risks to member and charitable funds can be better managed, with the impacts limited to respective organizations;

• Independence: the independence of both CTC and the CTC Charitable Trust would be better protected and even strengthened by remaining separate whilst still linked;

• Business Performance: each organization can concentrate on narrower and nonoverlapping sectors of the market for cyclist services and support.

• Tax Efficiency: There are tax and funding mechanisms, including Gift Aid, which either CTC or the Charitable Trust, or both, may take advantage of.

John Meudell (EX CTC Councillor)
Gregory Price (EX CTC Councillor)
January 2010

[Psamathe]

...

CTC Charitable Status – The Case against Unification – Minorities Report
a) Brief intro and history, rationale for a minority report;
Some years ago, in 2004, National Council undertook to determine the value of charitable status for CTC, although little was done until the opportunity to move the National Office, in 2006. At this time the CTC Charitable Trust was created and the Club’s main asset, the property, along with most of the staff, transferred to the new organization. The Club remained a Company Limited by Guarantee.
It has since become clear that the Trust/Company relationship leaves a lot to be desired and has created governance, strategic, financial and organizational issues that have proved difficult to resolve.
The CTC Council case for unification centres on a report commissioned from CASS which, far from providing an overwhelming case for unifying CTC into a single charitable organization, avoids addressing key implications of unification.
The authors believe current and future issues can be resolved within the existing structure, albeit with better separation and management of company and charity functions. Furthermore, this approach would provide business strategic, transparency and risk management advantages.
b) Disadvantages of a unified structure (reference the CASS report, Section 4.2):
• The 2006 Charities Act: would apply across all CTC’s activities, and CTC would become subject to the Charities Commission interpretation of acceptable “charitable activities”, “member benefits” and what constitutes the “public benefit”;
• Accountability: far from becoming more transparent, lines of accountability run the risk becoming even more unclear and diluted than they are at present;
• Governance: whilst a single body, CTC Council, would have control over all activities in practice this body would have a statutory obligation to act in the public interest and that of the Charity itself. With those statutory priorities benefits and services become discretionary in terms of trustee decision making (and governed by Charitable Commission interpretation of acceptable “member benefits”);
• Tax benefits: the facility of gift aid is available under the current structure, but CTC chooses not to provide it to members. The suggested scale of financial benefit is overstated and only marginally significant when overhead costs are included. Furthermore tax benefits are at the discretion of government and cannot be guaranteed in the future;
• Greater public goodwill: there is no evidence to believe this will be the case;
• Protection against being privatised: government has said that it would favour a reduced number of charities, currently around 20,000 in England; a fully unified structure runs a greater risk of forced merger in the future;
• Diversity of income: direct exposure of members funds to losses and project over-runs on either trading or charitable activities, or both, will increase through unification;
• More inclusive: there is no evidence that CTC would become more inclusive;
• Protection from maverick council: as described earlier, CTC trustees would be obliged to act in the best interests of the charity and public benefit. In terms of members control, the risk of a maverick board is therefore more significant in a unified structure than in a split structure.
c) The Alternative: retain a split structure:
In principle a split structure should not present any difficulties, and there are many, many successful examples of such a structure. The current governance issues are a consequence of the lack of attention to strategic, organizational and operational implications when the trust was originally set up.
As a means to address these issues current activities, along with funding sources and staffing, would be divided between the two. Each would have separate governance arrangements, with those of the Charitable Trust strengthened by extending CTC board representation.
d) Benefits of a split structure;
• Freedom to choose regulatory regime: activities can be placed in Company or Charity, whichever is necessary to maximise strategic, financial and/or business advantage along with improvement of benefits to members, cyclists and the public;
• Membership control: members control the company subscriptions are paid to, with no possibility of conflicting company/charity requirements;
• Efficiency: management of each individual organization has a narrower and more focussed set of activities to control. Accounting and performance evaluation becomes simpler, clearer and more transparent within each individual organization;
• Management of risk: risks to member and charitable funds can be better managed, with the impacts limited to respective organizations;
• Independence: the independence of both CTC and the CTC Charitable Trust would be better protected and even strengthened by remaining separate whilst still linked;
• Business Performance: each organization can concentrate on narrower and nonoverlapping sectors of the market for cyclist services and support.
• Tax Efficiency: There are tax and funding mechanisms, including Gift Aid, which either CTC or the Charitable Trust, or both, may take advantage of.
John Meudell Gregory Price January 2010

I am surprised that members still voted for charitable status after they were provided that report. It seems to present the risks in a moderate manner and does identify many of the issues that have subsequently (predictably) happened. I can only guess that either people didn't read it or ... I can't imagine more.

My only thought is that, I don't know in what format it was provided to members but it would need decent formatting (spaces, bold titles, etc.) to make it easier for members to read.

Ian

[Philip Benstead]

...

CTC Charitable Status – The Case against Unification – Minorities Report
a) Brief intro and history, rationale for a minority report;
Some years ago, in 2004, National Council undertook to determine the value of charitable status for CTC, although little was done until the opportunity to move the National Office, in 2006. At this time the CTC Charitable Trust was created and the Club’s main asset, the property, along with most of the staff, transferred to the new organization. The Club remained a Company Limited by Guarantee.
It has since become clear that the Trust/Company relationship leaves a lot to be desired and has created governance, strategic, financial and organizational issues that have proved difficult to resolve.
The CTC Council case for unification centres on a report commissioned from CASS which, far from providing an overwhelming case for unifying CTC into a single charitable organization, avoids addressing key implications of unification.
The authors believe current and future issues can be resolved within the existing structure, albeit with better separation and management of company and charity functions. Furthermore, this approach would provide business strategic, transparency and risk management advantages.
b) Disadvantages of a unified structure (reference the CASS report, Section 4.2):
• The 2006 Charities Act: would apply across all CTC’s activities, and CTC would become subject to the Charities Commission interpretation of acceptable “charitable activities”, “member benefits” and what constitutes the “public benefit”;
• Accountability: far from becoming more transparent, lines of accountability run the risk becoming even more unclear and diluted than they are at present;
• Governance: whilst a single body, CTC Council, would have control over all activities in practice this body would have a statutory obligation to act in the public interest and that of the Charity itself. With those statutory priorities benefits and services become discretionary in terms of trustee decision making (and governed by Charitable Commission interpretation of acceptable “member benefits”);
• Tax benefits: the facility of gift aid is available under the current structure, but CTC chooses not to provide it to members. The suggested scale of financial benefit is overstated and only marginally significant when overhead costs are included. Furthermore tax benefits are at the discretion of government and cannot be guaranteed in the future;
• Greater public goodwill: there is no evidence to believe this will be the case;
• Protection against being privatised: government has said that it would favour a reduced number of charities, currently around 20,000 in England; a fully unified structure runs a greater risk of forced merger in the future;
• Diversity of income: direct exposure of members funds to losses and project over-runs on either trading or charitable activities, or both, will increase through unification;
• More inclusive: there is no evidence that CTC would become more inclusive;
• Protection from maverick council: as described earlier, CTC trustees would be obliged to act in the best interests of the charity and public benefit. In terms of members control, the risk of a maverick board is therefore more significant in a unified structure than in a split structure.
c) The Alternative: retain a split structure:
In principle a split structure should not present any difficulties, and there are many, many successful examples of such a structure. The current governance issues are a consequence of the lack of attention to strategic, organizational and operational implications when the trust was originally set up.
As a means to address these issues current activities, along with funding sources and staffing, would be divided between the two. Each would have separate governance arrangements, with those of the Charitable Trust strengthened by extending CTC board representation.
d) Benefits of a split structure;
• Freedom to choose regulatory regime: activities can be placed in Company or Charity, whichever is necessary to maximise strategic, financial and/or business advantage along with improvement of benefits to members, cyclists and the public;
• Membership control: members control the company subscriptions are paid to, with no possibility of conflicting company/charity requirements;
• Efficiency: management of each individual organization has a narrower and more focussed set of activities to control. Accounting and performance evaluation becomes simpler, clearer and more transparent within each individual organization;
• Management of risk: risks to member and charitable funds can be better managed, with the impacts limited to respective organizations;
• Independence: the independence of both CTC and the CTC Charitable Trust would be better protected and even strengthened by remaining separate whilst still linked;
• Business Performance: each organization can concentrate on narrower and nonoverlapping sectors of the market for cyclist services and support.
• Tax Efficiency: There are tax and funding mechanisms, including Gift Aid, which either CTC or the Charitable Trust, or both, may take advantage of.
John Meudell Gregory Price January 2010

I am surprised that members still voted for charitable status after they were provided that report. It seems to present the risks in a moderate manner and does identify many of the issues that have subsequently (predictably) happened. I can only guess that either people didn't read it or ... I can't imagine more.

My only thought is that, I don't know in what format it was provided to members but it would need decent formatting (spaces, bold titles, etc.) to make it easier for members to read.

Ian

CTC HQ REFUSE to circulate this report to members leading up to the poll of the whole club

At the AGM where the vote was taken to become a charity, the members voted against the motion, then the proposer of the motion who was also chair of the AGM and of council used a large number of proxies to overrule the members.

IMHO this was immoral

On original document it was formated I just cut paste ,I have many things to do at the moment.

If you send me PM with your email address I send a nice formate document

[PH]

At the AGM where the vote was taken to become a charity, the members voted against the motion, then the proposer of the motion who was also chair of the AGM and of council used a large number of proxies to overrule the members.

IMHO this was immoral

One member one vote, the votes given by members to the chair were just as much member votes as any other. If you put your trust in someone to make the decision and place your vote, then that is how you voted. The membership didn't get overruled, that's how the membership voted.
It's disrespectful to those members to suggest they were any better or worse informed than those voting themselves. And ridiculous to think that those giving their vote to the chair ware not expecting him to use it in favour on the motion he'd proposed.

[gaz]

At the AGM where the vote was taken to become a charity, the members voted against the motion, then the proposer of the motion who was also chair of the AGM and of council used a large number of proxies to overrule the members.

IMHO this was immoral

In my opinion you are very much mistaken in your recollection because I know that you would not deliberately misrepresent the matter.

It was Motion 1 of the 2012 AGM at Sheffield that finally sealed the Charity Conversion. I wasn't there, but this isn't the first time that I've linked the ERS records for the vote which suggest the room was strongly in favour (90%) as were the majority of returned voting forms that gave directed proxy votes.

If the Chair's undirected proxy votes had been left uncast the result would have been 3978 For, 646 Against (86% in favour). If the Chair had then cast the undirected proxies against the mood of those who'd expressed an opinion the motion would have been lost. Unsurprisingly he cast them in favour.

[smuggers]

Not wanting to get involved in the rights & wrongs of the re-branding, I do think it's quite shocking that the majority of our club members, knew nothing about the change of name at our clubroom slideshow last Thursday.. This cant be right & some of our elder members felt let down by the CTC.. Some with 40+ years of loyalty towards the CTC.. Personally I shall be watching developments & if I feel the CTC is heading in the wrong direction I will look elsewhere to meet my needs as a touring cyclist... I probably need to have a good sit down and read the reams of posts & information online.