DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Discussion of the re-branding of CTC as Cycling UK.
Psamathe
Posts: 10090
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby Psamathe » 6 Mar 2016, 9:45pm

TonyR wrote:
Psamathe wrote:I can't see where we get to being critical of the petition because of something Philip may or may not have done that may or may not have been recorded in documents available to you.


Not available to me. Available to everyone since it was published in the Dec 2013 issue of Cycle. Top of p2 of http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... 401005.pdf
I can't quite understand all the aggression towards Philip when all he has done is to organise a petition that clearly a lot of members seem to want to sign ("a lot of members" in terms of the numbers of members who I'm guessing will be aware of the petition).


Because he's participated in the whole rebranding exercise as a Councillor for two years and now because he wasn't re-elected has taken it on himself to try to overturn those two years work by the CTC.

Yes, a number of people have signed the petition after he has lobbied member groups to sign it as well as running a Facebook campaign. Nobody has yet heard the CTC proposals.

An analogy, though analogies have limited use, it might help explain how I see participation in decisions:
Family situation with wife expecting a 3rd child. So Mum & Dad sit down and agree they really need a new car. Both husband and wife agree an new car is a good idea. Next day husband comes home with an MG Midget. Oh dear, wife expected a people carrier/SUV or something big enough for the family, but after all, she did agree they needed a new car and husband did get a new car and she was party to the "new car decision".

A lot depends on the details and agreement with a principle does not mean you also agree with the detail.

(I can't see the relevance of the article you reference. All is seems to say is that CTC is looking at how it presents itself. Maybe I'm being slow but I can't see why that article justifies all the aggression towards Philip. (Assuming you mean page 12/page 6 not page 2 as there isn't a page 2 in the pdf - 1st page is page 60/page 5 - I don't understand the page numbering whoever published it uses).

Ian

PH
Posts: 7385
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby PH » 6 Mar 2016, 9:52pm

Anyone who questions Phillips relationship with council should look at the last election where people joined CTC weeks before standing against him.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby TonyR » 6 Mar 2016, 10:44pm

Psamathe wrote:An analogy, though analogies have limited use, it might help explain how I see participation in decisions:
Family situation with wife expecting a 3rd child. So Mum & Dad sit down and agree they really need a new car. Both husband and wife agree an new car is a good idea. Next day husband comes home with an MG Midget. Oh dear, wife expected a people carrier/SUV or something big enough for the family, but after all, she did agree they needed a new car and husband did get a new car and she was party to the "new car decision".

A lot depends on the details and agreement with a principle does not mean you also agree with the detail.


Your analogy is wrong. The correct analogy is that Mum and Dad agree that Grandpa is good with cars and should be asked to find them a car. Grandpa finds a car and Mum shouts at him for having the temerity to find a car for her.

(I can't see the relevance of the article you reference. All is seems to say is that CTC is looking at how it presents itself. Maybe I'm being slow but I can't see why that article justifies all the aggression towards Philip.


Because the decision set out there which Philip was part of was, in respect of the the choice of future name and logo was

"Our elected Councillors will review all that we've learned and decide how we'll present ourselves in the future"

So its nothing to do with the logo and name. Its to do with the fact that a process to decide a new logo and name was agreed by Councillors including Philip and publicised to the membership. Its that process that PB is now seeking to overturn.

And why is he doing this. Well its worth considering that he has been a willing party to that decision for the past two years and sat through in October a full presentation by the branding consultants on the results of their membership consultations and what they were recommending without a peep of objection. Then he fails to get elected and suddenly a barrage of procedural complaints go off to the CTC - that the election was fixed, that Council shouldn't make the decision on the name and logo and that Governance is flawed.

But I don't expect you to agree with any of that because you are not a fan of Council either.

Psamathe
Posts: 10090
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby Psamathe » 7 Mar 2016, 12:03am

TonyR wrote:...
Because the decision set out there which Philip was part of was, in respect of the the choice of future name and logo was

"Our elected Councillors will review all that we've learned and decide how we'll present ourselves in the future"
...

And they did decide ... at the end of Jan after Philip was no longer a Councillor.

TonyR wrote:...
So its nothing to do with the logo and name. Its to do with the fact that a process to decide a new logo and name was agreed by Councillors including Philip and publicised to the membership. Its that process that PB is now seeking to overturn.
...

I thought it was the decision Philip was trying to overturn, not the process.

TonyR wrote:...
And why is he doing this. Well its worth considering that he has been a willing party to that decision for the past two years and sat through in October a full presentation by the branding consultants on the results of their membership consultations and what they were recommending without a peep of objection. Then he fails to get elected and suddenly a barrage of procedural complaints go off to the CTC - that the election was fixed, that Council shouldn't make the decision on the name and logo and that Governance is flawed....

I understood that these presentations to the Council as well as their discussions, etc. were private. Nobody has mentioned that they were public and on the assumption they were private I do wonder how you know that Philip sat through this presentation "without a peep of objection". Were the discussions following the presentation even minuted ?

But that is not really the point because it seems quite a few other members are also not happy; at least I consider it a surprising number who have signed the petition (as I said earlier, given the membership communications and time available to Philip).

Ian

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby TonyR » 7 Mar 2016, 5:19am

Psamathe wrote:I understood that these presentations to the Council as well as their discussions, etc. were private. Nobody has mentioned that they were public and on the assumption they were private I do wonder how you know that Philip sat through this presentation "without a peep of objection". Were the discussions following the presentation even minuted ?


From the minutes of the meeting of Council on 17 October 2015. PB present as a Councillor.
7 Re-Brand

Paul Handley from Campfire thanked everyone for taking part in the workshops and/or questionnaires and he confirmed that just over 2000 people had been consulted. Paul then gave an excellent presentation and a few responses have been noted below.

Absolutely amazing piece of work, I’m so proud, perfect, superb.

Part of the way we do our campaigning – it is not who we are at the moment it is

who we need to be moving on.

The essence is absolutely right but it is hard to get campaigners on board.

Maybe we should consider a sub-brand when presenting at campaigning events.

Much more positive experience than in the past. Some words may need tweaking but a good process overall. Just need to be mindful of the images to

be used.

The presentation pulled everything together and it is what I’d like my young

daughter to be involved in.

Enjoyed the presentation very much, really powerful.

The words ‘protecting the joy of cycling’ works really well.

The words ‘freedom of our roads’ maybe should say ‘freedom to ride’ rather than

excluding people that ride off road.

After the presentation Paul Tuohy thanked everyone for their feed-back and reminded Council that agreement was needed that Campfire have captured the ‘essence’. That is the important point. Councillors agreed unanimously that Campfire had captured the ‘essence’.The next stage is for Campfire to develop the creative brief and present back to the Leadership team.

Jim Brown left the meeting as pre-agreed with the Chair.


http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... 171015.pdf

While the presentation itself has not been made public it is pretty obvious from discussion of some of the phrases that are being used in the new name and branding that the new name and branding were discussed and welcomed by Councillors who were unanimously positive about it. There is no record in the official minutes that PB raised any objection to what was happening. It is notable also from the minutes that at that point PB did not know he had not been re-elected to Council. That news came six items later in the agenda as Agenda item 13.

Now given the extremely positive comments of our elected Councillors on the proposed rebranding, (which has not yet been launched so we've only seen the leaked parts) and given that a consultation with a representative sample of the membership has taken place why is everyone so against what is happening. All we have to go on is PB's negative email to all the member groups. If he felt so negative (and all he has to go on is what he sat through on Oct 17 and what little has been leaked) why did he not raise all these objection when PT asked for Council's agreement and got unanimous support which must have included the explicit support of PB?

I think our former Councillor has to account for himself as he agreed he would do when he became a Councillor. So far he has refused to do so, preferring to accuse me of mental illness for asking questions.

Code of Conduct signed by all Councillors on appointment:

1.7. I will seek to be accountable for my actions as a trustee and Councillor of CTC and will submit myself to whatever scrutiny is appropriate

User avatar
Paulatic
Posts: 4074
Joined: 2 Feb 2014, 1:03pm
Location: 24 Hours from Lands End

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby Paulatic » 7 Mar 2016, 7:55am

Back to the car Tony,
So Mum was happy with the car it was one she would have bought. Just upset that Grandpa bought it without her being there?
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life

https://stcleve.wordpress.com/category/lejog/

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby TonyR » 7 Mar 2016, 8:08am

Paulatic wrote:Back to the car Tony,
So Mum was happy with the car it was one she would have bought. Just upset that Grandpa bought it without her being there?


Having previously agreed that he should get on and buy it without her.

Psamathe
Posts: 10090
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby Psamathe » 7 Mar 2016, 9:44am

TonyR wrote:
Psamathe wrote:I understood that these presentations to the Council as well as their discussions, etc. were private. Nobody has mentioned that they were public and on the assumption they were private I do wonder how you know that Philip sat through this presentation "without a peep of objection". Were the discussions following the presentation even minuted ?


From the minutes of the meeting of Council on 17 October 2015. PB present as a Councillor.
7 Re-Brand

Paul Handley from Campfire thanked everyone for taking part in the workshops and/or questionnaires and he confirmed that just over 2000 people had been consulted. Paul then gave an excellent presentation and a few responses have been noted below.

Absolutely amazing piece of work, I’m so proud, perfect, superb.

Part of the way we do our campaigning – it is not who we are at the moment it is

who we need to be moving on.

The essence is absolutely right but it is hard to get campaigners on board.

Maybe we should consider a sub-brand when presenting at campaigning events.

Much more positive experience than in the past. Some words may need tweaking but a good process overall. Just need to be mindful of the images to

be used.

The presentation pulled everything together and it is what I’d like my young

daughter to be involved in.

Enjoyed the presentation very much, really powerful.

The words ‘protecting the joy of cycling’ works really well.

The words ‘freedom of our roads’ maybe should say ‘freedom to ride’ rather than

excluding people that ride off road.

After the presentation Paul Tuohy thanked everyone for their feed-back and reminded Council that agreement was needed that Campfire have captured the ‘essence’. That is the important point. Councillors agreed unanimously that Campfire had captured the ‘essence’.The next stage is for Campfire to develop the creative brief and present back to the Leadership team.

Jim Brown left the meeting as pre-agreed with the Chair.


http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... 171015.pdf

While the presentation itself has not been made public it is pretty obvious from discussion of some of the phrases that are being used in the new name and branding that the new name and branding were discussed and welcomed by Councillors who were unanimously positive about it. There is no record in the official minutes that PB raised any objection to what was happening. It is notable also from the minutes that at that point PB did not know he had not been re-elected to Council. That news came six items later in the agenda as Agenda item 13.

Now given the extremely positive comments of our elected Councillors on the proposed rebranding, (which has not yet been launched so we've only seen the leaked parts) and given that a consultation with a representative sample of the membership has taken place why is everyone so against what is happening. All we have to go on is PB's negative email to all the member groups. If he felt so negative (and all he has to go on is what he sat through on Oct 17 and what little has been leaked) why did he not raise all these objection when PT asked for Council's agreement and got unanimous support which must have included the explicit support of PB?

I think our former Councillor has to account for himself as he agreed he would do when he became a Councillor. So far he has refused to do so, preferring to accuse me of mental illness for asking questions.
...

I still can't see anything in that that shows "Philip sat through this presentation "without a peep of objection".". Maybe I'm being blind but no reference even to Philip (that I can see). It might be that Councillors raised objections as the minutes only quote "a few responses have been noted below" and "a few responses" does not even have to be a balanced summary of the meeting (it could be but all it is presenting are a few of the comments made by some Councillors.

Ian

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby TonyR » 7 Mar 2016, 9:58am

Psamathe wrote:I still can't see anything in that that shows "Philip sat through this presentation "without a peep of objection".". Maybe I'm being blind but no reference even to Philip (that I can see). It might be that Councillors raised objections as the minutes only quote "a few responses have been noted below" and "a few responses" does not even have to be a balanced summary of the meeting (it could be but all it is presenting are a few of the comments made by some Councillors.


I was sure you wouldn't see anything preferring instead to see the minutes as wrong/misleading/selective. But it is rather difficult to get unanimous agreement when one person objects to the extent they are now objecting.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17042
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby Vorpal » 7 Mar 2016, 10:11am

Just because there was unanimous agreement that Campfire had 'captured the essence' of the CTC doesn't mean that everything they did, nor everything in the process had no objections. I have never been to a CTC council meeting, but my experience with organisations run by committee is that an hour of heated debate can be distilled down to a couple of action items, a note that 'there was some discussion', and whatever the outcome was.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

Steady rider
Posts: 2165
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby Steady rider » 7 Mar 2016, 10:13am

The Articles of the club includes the safeguard to question any decision by having a pole, thus the demand. PB and all members can question any decision and seek support for a pole.
Today a letter arrived from the CTC seeking support. On the envelope it states 'Cyclists' Touring Club' and on the contents it includes 'Cyclists' Touring Club' founded in 1878, incorporated 1887.

So I assume that the CTC attaches some value to the old name, blending the old with any new ID may be the best approach.

Psamathe
Posts: 10090
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby Psamathe » 7 Mar 2016, 10:38am

TonyR wrote:
Psamathe wrote:I still can't see anything in that that shows "Philip sat through this presentation "without a peep of objection".". Maybe I'm being blind but no reference even to Philip (that I can see). It might be that Councillors raised objections as the minutes only quote "a few responses have been noted below" and "a few responses" does not even have to be a balanced summary of the meeting (it could be but all it is presenting are a few of the comments made by some Councillors.


I was sure you wouldn't see anything preferring instead to see the minutes as wrong/misleading/selective. But it is rather difficult to get unanimous agreement when one person objects to the extent they are now objecting.

Sorry. You stated that Philip sat through the presentation without a peep of objection.
TonyR wrote:... and sat through in October a full presentation by the branding consultants on the results of their membership consultations and what they were recommending without a peep of objection.....

I was just trying to find out how you knew that Philip did not raise any "peeps of objection". I would have thought we'd need a transcript, but you said it so I'm just asking how you knew that fact.

Ian

Psamathe
Posts: 10090
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby Psamathe » 7 Mar 2016, 10:39am

Steady rider wrote:...
Today a letter arrived from the CTC seeking support...

Out of interest, what were they seeking support for (i.e. general financial support, support for a specific campaign, etc.)

Ian

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby TonyR » 7 Mar 2016, 10:49am

Psamathe wrote:I was just trying to find out how you knew that Philip did not raise any "peeps of objection". I would have thought we'd need a transcript, but you said it so I'm just asking how you knew that fact.


The minutes are the legal record of the discussion and these are approved minutes which means they have been approved as a true and accurate record of the discussions by those who were present including PB. Its why we have minutes. There is no peep of objection from PB recorded in those minutes. Given the strength of feeling he has since expressed do you not think that if those had been expressed in the meeting they would have been recorded or the minutes would not have been approved by PB until his objections were properly recorded and the agreement would not have been recorded as unanimous?

As far as it being a fact, if a Court were asked to decide as a matter of fact if PB had raised an objection it would take one look at those minutes and say he did not as they have been confirmed as a true and accurate legal record by all those present including PB and no objection is recorded.

But why are you bothered? You're not even a member.

Steady rider
Posts: 2165
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

Postby Steady rider » 7 Mar 2016, 11:02am

Support for a 'gift in your will', Leaflet is dated March 2016, the inside is interesting with 29 bits of history from 1878 to 2015. Not seen a link on the CTC web site.