Why didn’t CTC do this?

Discussion of the re-branding of CTC as Cycling UK.
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14984
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Si » 27 Mar 2016, 4:56pm

if you look on Facebook I have said I have been told by a long serving councillor the business case has not been made. The presentation made by campfire look good but it was mother and Apple pie. In second and third reading the figures do not add up and were not subjected to rigorous analysis. So I think the council is being driven by pt. We will loses the framework that nine the ctc together.


Doesn't answer the question though does it. And I've no idea what your final sentence means....nine what, and what framework?

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 27 Mar 2016, 5:57pm

Si wrote:
if you look on Facebook I have said I have been told by a long serving councillor the business case has not been made. The presentation made by campfire look good but it was mother and Apple pie. In second and third reading the figures do not add up and were not subjected to rigorous analysis. So I think the council is being driven by pt. We will loses the framework that nine the ctc together.


Doesn't answer the question though does it. And I've no idea what your final sentence means....nine what, and what framework?
predictive text got me. I was talking about the emotional framework that binds the groups together. We are becoming a network of affiliated club whose only conect is third party insurance. The ctc could be so much more if the council implemented its agreed policy of creating network of campaigners who talked to each other. In addition some on council are getting worn down and are giving up, another councillor has suggested that ctc hq staff and some on council do not understand the concept of democracy.
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13569
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 27 Mar 2016, 6:22pm

Philip Benstead wrote:... I was talking about the emotional framework that binds the groups together. We are becoming a network of affiliated club whose only conect is third party insurance. ...

So you'll be keen to respond to this post and set out why MGs should not leave CTC (in effect taking CTC assets with them) and become affiliates.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 27 Mar 2016, 7:21pm

gaz wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:... I was talking about the emotional framework that binds the groups together. We are becoming a network of affiliated club whose only conect is third party insurance. ...

So you'll be keen to respond to this post and set out why MGs should not leave CTC (in effect taking CTC assets with them) and become affiliates.
. Why? It will happen if the ctc council and ha staff do not come their senses. Remember there are 186 member groups and over 800 affiliate group including hide in ctc chair region.
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

Labrat
Posts: 168
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Labrat » 27 Mar 2016, 8:12pm

Philip Benstead wrote:the councillor who said that to me was not the one who voted against. You must remember the minutes of council do not give the true feeling of the councillor s. Some have been worn down by pt cabal


They either voted 15 to 1 in favour or they didn't - which is it?

Philip Benstead wrote:another councillor has suggested that ctc hq staff and some on council do not understand the concept of democracy.


Another road to Damascus conversion that seems to have come to light only since you failed in your own bid for reelection... :roll:

How about you understanding the concept of democracy and accepting that you lost?

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 27 Mar 2016, 8:23pm

Labrat wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:the councillor who said that to me was not the one who voted against. You must remember the minutes of council do not give the true feeling of the councillor s. Some have been worn down by pt cabal


They either voted 15 to 1 in favour or they didn't - which is it?
you still do not understand politics about influences. Example a ctc councillor at agm proposed a motion for the council when it came to vote he voted against his motion,I was sitting next to them. One councillor said the ctc contract to a contract focus organisation. I can't give names for obvious reasons, you just have to trust me. I know that will be hard for some.
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

User avatar
robgul
Posts: 2831
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 8:40pm
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby robgul » 27 Mar 2016, 10:07pm

gaz wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:... I was talking about the emotional framework that binds the groups together. We are becoming a network of affiliated club whose only conect is third party insurance. ...

So you'll be keen to respond to this post and set out why MGs should not leave CTC (in effect taking CTC assets with them) and become affiliates.


For the record - when HoECC instructed CTC to place an SGM notice in the mag for the dissolve vote of the old CTC HoE MG there was not a peep from anyone ... not even David Cox who lives in what was the CTC HoE MG catchment area. Most organisations would be trying to keep "customers" - or at least ask why they were leaving .... Is that just poor management or welcoming the fact that another MG was out of CTC's hair?

Oh, and I'm pretty sure I saw David Cox riding his bike today when I was on my way (driving) to lunch with relatives - I was in a hurry otherwise I may have stopped and spoken to him.

Rob

Labrat
Posts: 168
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Labrat » 27 Mar 2016, 10:26pm

Philip Benstead wrote:you still do not understand politics about influences. Example a ctc councillor at agm proposed a motion for the council when it came to vote he voted against his motion,I was sitting next to them. One councillor said the ctc contract to a contract focus organisation. I can't give names for obvious reasons, you just have to trust me. I know that will be hard for some.


Aha, all fifteen are in it together, a conspiracy theory! Perfect!

PH
Posts: 7114
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby PH » 27 Mar 2016, 10:54pm

robgul wrote:For the record - when HoECC instructed CTC to place an SGM notice in the mag for the dissolve vote of the old CTC HoE MG there was not a peep from anyone ... not even David Cox who lives in what was the CTC HoE MG catchment area. Most organisations would be trying to keep "customers" - or at least ask why they were leaving .... Is that just poor management or welcoming the fact that another MG was out of CTC's hair?
Rob


Over on facebook, when HoECC secetary Dennis Snape is asked
I would be interested to know if a CTC Councillor or representative of the Guildford Head Office have made any attempt to try and dissuade H of E CTC group from taking this step.

He answers
Yes, our local CTC Councillor and NO have expressed concern and tried to dissuade us.


Seems there's more than one record...

User avatar
robgul
Posts: 2831
Joined: 8 Jan 2007, 8:40pm
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby robgul » 27 Mar 2016, 11:02pm

My recollection is that the question was asked by CTC when Dennis registered the new club BEFORE the request for the SGM notice.

Rob

PH
Posts: 7114
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby PH » 27 Mar 2016, 11:33pm

robgul wrote:My recollection is that the question was asked by CTC when Dennis registered the new club BEFORE the request for the SGM notice.

Rob


Whenever it was asked, it doesn't sit well with this part of your record
Most organisations would be trying to keep "customers" - or at least ask why they were leaving .... Is that just poor management or welcoming the fact that another MG was out of CTC's hair?


I understand HoE's reasons for dissolving the MG and setting up the CC, I find it harder to understand why you feel the need for the frequent sniping from the outside. For example why would an affiliated club be publishing the re-branding material aimed at those who are expected to use it? It's not a secret, it had already been sent to every member group, they're are dealing with it in whatever way they see fit. Nor do I get HOE's desire to encourage other MGs to follow them down the same path, they weren't the first, I doubt they'll be the last, they didn't do anything that isn't covered in the handbook. They/you do seem to lack the understanding that other MGs may have looked at the options and come to different conclusions. My own opinion is that unless there's a compelling reason for leaving now, MGs are better off keeping an open mind and waiting to see where we end up after this period of change.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14984
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Si » 29 Mar 2016, 4:10pm

I was talking about the emotional framework that binds the groups together. We are becoming a network of affiliated club whose only conect is third party insurance.


I agree with you that the traditional club structure of the CTC is eroding, but I would suggest that this started long before the current raft of changes. My local groups all stopped talking to each other for the most part, stopped doing inter club rides, stopped the regional club room nights, etc quite some while ago. The MGs (Sections) themselves also changed dramatically before the current raft of changes: very seldom that a family comes out on a club ride, rides virtually never use tracks any more as everyone has light road bikes, etc. Thus I would suggest that this framework had already started deteriorating long before the charity conversion / rebranding / etc.

As for changing to Affiliate groups: in some ways I welcome it. It puts cycling within the reach of many more people. For an employed adult to ride with my local MG group it costs around £40. If they change to an Affiliate (vote later this month) it will cost £1 + whatever they pay for 3rd party insurance (which they may have already via house insurance). The average person who might fancy having a go at cycling but doesn't see themselves as a 'keen cyclist' is not going to stump up £40 to ride with an MG. Thus the move to Affiliates could make the CTC less elitist and allow it to access areas that it had never been able to go near before.

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 29 Mar 2016, 5:31pm

Si wrote:
I was talking about the emotional framework that binds the groups together. We are becoming a network of affiliated club whose only conect is third party insurance.


I agree with you that the traditional club structure of the CTC is eroding, but I would suggest that this started long before the current raft of changes. My local groups all stopped talking to each other for the most part, stopped doing inter club rides, stopped the regional club room nights, etc quite some while ago. The MGs (Sections) themselves also changed dramatically before the current raft of changes: very seldom that a family comes out on a club ride, rides virtually never use tracks any more as everyone has light road bikes, etc. Thus I would suggest that this framework had already started deteriorating long before the charity conversion / rebranding / etc.

As for changing to Affiliate groups: in some ways I welcome it. It puts cycling within the reach of many more people. For an employed adult to ride with my local MG group it costs around £40. If they change to an Affiliate (vote later this month) it will cost £1 + whatever they pay for 3rd party insurance (which they may have already via house insurance). The average person who might fancy having a go at cycling but doesn't see themselves as a 'keen cyclist' is not going to stump up £40 to ride with an MG. Thus the move to Affiliates could make the CTC less elitist and allow it to access areas that it had never been able to go near before.
if I accept all that you say the eventual consequence there will be so few member groups and the numbers voting in any election and at agm be so small that the powers that be will say let's do away with elections and that all members will become supporters and hence have no vote. The council will be self appointed. Imho that will be a bad thing
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13569
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 29 Mar 2016, 6:41pm

Philip Benstead wrote:if I accept all that you say the eventual consequence there will be so few member groups and the numbers voting in any election and at agm be so small that the powers that be will say let's do away with elections and that all members will become supporters and hence have no vote. The council will be self appointed. Imho that will be a bad thing

The thing is that it is not just the members who happen to take part in MG activities who take an interest in what the Club does and how it is run.

Members who do not take part in MG activities get to vote too. One member, one vote and all members are equal.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 29 Mar 2016, 7:56pm

gaz wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:if I accept all that you say the eventual consequence there will be so few member groups and the numbers voting in any election and at agm be so small that the powers that be will say let's do away with elections and that all members will become supporters and hence have no vote. The council will be self appointed. Imho that will be a bad thing

The thing is that it is not just the members who happen to take part in MG activities who take an interest in what the Club does and how it is run.

Members who do not take part in MG activities get to vote too. One member, one vote and all members are equal.
so members who do not take part in any activities may cause the ctc to fold. Using you view I demand a say in your local ctc grouop plans for summer tour I have no intention of going on it but I am a ctc member I know my rights
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic