Graham, thank you for joining the thread. The minutes of the meeting can be found here
. Your thoughtful post has caused me to revisit them which has been worthwhile. I've selected some quotes from the relevant item 14 Brand Review
The recommendation is to move to a self-explanatory name so it is obvious who CTC are and what we do. He [Dan Howard] felt the process has been very thorough, over 8,000 people have responded, on-line focus groups have taken place, we couldn’t do anymore to consult with our members. ... Dan Howard confirmed that over 7,000 Members had taken part in the survey; on-line focus groups had been set up and one to one sessions had taken place. The Group and Researchers couldn’t have done any more to consult with the membership. It is a matter of engaging with future members and the message that came out of the survey was that we need to change.
The early stages of the consultation were much broader than I had recalled, over 7,000 Members is a significant proportion of the membership.
Graham Smith wrote:My recall may not be 100% but when Seabright was CE - there was a huge 'explosion' (Jan 2014?) when the juggernaut of 'name change' was presented for voting. Suddenly what was, partly, a research exploration was becoming a name change process. This was recognised as too major a step without members being adequately consulted.
A general debate on the name change followed:- Arthur Spurr expressed concern on what is being recommended. He feels that Members have a sense of ownership of CTC and are not just customers there needs to be a sense of democracy; they will feel the decision has been made for them without consultation. We need to take the membership with us on this issue, have we not learnt from the Charity debate? It should be a motion at the AGM so Members feel engaged. Reading the report he highlighted the term National Cycling was mentioned three times. He stated he has no confidence in the process and will vote against.
There was some debate about having a motion at the AGM if we are to change our trading name; no decision was made.
The minutes certainly reflect considerable debate but don't go so far as Council concluding that a change of trading name should go to AGM.
Graham Smith wrote:The process was stopped by a motion to 'stop discussing this matter', which was seconded and passed.
Jim Brown’s concern was Councillors haven’t been allowed to consult with Groups. The decision of 63 people is a dangerous sample. We need an enthusiastic consensus – we’re stumbling into something and not coming up with the magic name. This is a waste of energy and time – we should pause. He then proposed the following Motion. Motion: Do not recommend a name change today to give more time to reflect and consider. Proposed by: Jim Brown Seconded by: Graham Smith
You seem to have summed it up well.
Graham Smith wrote:Subsequently, in attempting to rescue something from the debris and perhaps to assuage the hurt feelings of some councillors, a proposal was made for another attempt at addressing the issue of the name. This was a rescue attempt and in good faith as far as the proposer (Barry F?) and seconder were concerned (Phil B?). This may be seen by Forum as being too close to 'agreeing a rebrand', which it could not be, but importantly maintained the 'exploratory side' rather than giving anyone a carte blanche for change.
Barry Flood felt the ‘Oversight’ group haven’t had the thanks that they deserve they had worked extremely hard over the 9 month process. He continued saying CTC is a different organisation to 135 years ago, will a name change create brand awareness and increase membership, maybe the organisation needs to change first and changing the name won’t do that. Don’t just do the easy thing, more work needs to be completed before anything is changed and Council need to be appropriately engaged. Therefore, he would not vote for the recommendation in the paper today. He again thanked the ‘Oversight’ group, recommended that they stand down and a new group be formed to look at how the business I developed. He then proposed the following Motion.
Agree in principle to a trading name change. Take the necessary action to register and protect the name of National Cycling Association.
To set up a new working group to carry out further work to look at the implementation and wider brand issues as well as any name change. To bring a report back to Council in April for approval.
Proposed by: Barry Flood Seconded by: Philip Benstead
The oft-repeated but infrequently recorded issue of 'addressing the membership' was certainly mentioned by myself and other councillors.
I'd agree this was a step in the process. However it does register and protect a name that does not include CTC. It does allow for further development of a new brand and how it should be implemented. So far as 'carte blanche' goes it is clearly not the end of the process but the Motion in no way diminishes Council's ability to proceed without taking a change of name to an AGM.
David Cox said he was taken by comments from Gwenda Owen and Jaki Lowe and would feel uncomfortable without taking it to the Membership without more consensus.
Or to put that another way David Cox said he would feel comfortable without taking it to the membership with more consensus on Council.
Jumping forward to October 2015
, 7 Re-brand
Graham Smith wrote:The dual issues of name-change and of governance had stuttered along for a year and a half when a presentation by Campfire was made in October's Council meeting (2015?). The company had done a pretty convincing job of describing the club, how it saw itself and how it was seen by others. I think we were all impressed by the subtlety of their work, especially compared with the previous effort. Clearly it was part of the process of considering the name and potential for change but there was not a whiff of a name proposal. The special Derby meeting of Council had rejected a name proposal by an earlier consultant and I would say that this possibility, rejection, was in everyone's mind.
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’.
"Cycling UK" does not appear in the Minutes. That seems to have been presented in January 2016
, minutes will not be available until late April at the earliest. The Chair's statement says
The Council meeting on 23 January resolved to accept the new name and design proposed by the professional team working to reflect the ‘brand essence’ ... Only one Council member voted against the proposed rebrand, with 15 voting in favour.
David Cox had achieved the consensus in Council that two years before he felt would be necessary before proceeding with the re-brand without taking it to an AGM.
I do not wish to address the subject of governance at this time.
Graham Smith wrote:... I hope this helps put much of the Forum discussion into context.
Thanks again for your contribution.
Edits: Typed the wrong year
2020 : To redundancy ... and beyond!