Why didn’t CTC do this?

Discussion of the re-branding of CTC as Cycling UK.
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 » 31 Mar 2016, 11:06am

Labrat wrote:Make your mind up

Members of cycling organisation does not equal members who want to ride with a group

Just a few posts ago you were saying that those who didn't take part in group activities shouldn't be allowed to vote.



I am just highlighting that by going though all these change with the CTC may not have the desired effect of increasing membership.

I did not say any group of members should not vote, what I said was how can they vote without the correct information and experience of the CTC.
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: 13524
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 31 Mar 2016, 12:21pm

Philip Benstead wrote:...I did not say any group of members should not vote, what I said was how can they vote without the correct information and experience of the CTC.

What on earth does "correct information and experience of the CTC" mean?
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 » 31 Mar 2016, 12:56pm

gaz wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:...I did not say any group of members should not vote, what I said was how can they vote without the correct information and experience of the CTC.

What on earth does "correct information and experience of the CTC" mean?


Come on, the power that be have all the leaver of communication with the membership. I suspect 90% of members do not read the minutes nor read this forum.

The cycle mag in April will have strange combination of views. So how can any none informed member can be expected to make a rational decision?
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: 13524
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 31 Mar 2016, 1:19pm

You recently called for members to sign a petition for a Poll of the Whole Club.

In making that call did you check that signatories had "experience of the CTC" and reject those that didn't meet your criteria on principal?

In making that call did you wait for the public launch of the brand so that potential signatories would have as much information as possible before making their decision to sign?

Since you believe that only members with the "correct information and experience of CTC" should vote, when you present your case in Cycle please be sure to make those criteria clear.
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 » 31 Mar 2016, 1:28pm

gaz wrote:You recently called for members to sign a petition for a Poll of the Whole Club.

In making that call did you check that signatories had "experience of the CTC" and reject those that didn't meet your criteria on principal?

In making that call did you wait for the public launch of the brand so that potential signatories would have as much information as possible before making their decision to sign?

Since you believe that only members with the "correct information and experience of CTC" should vote, when you present your case in Cycle please be sure to make those criteria clear.

Come on my reach into the membership is the active members, their depth and width of information is better than the average member, but not perfect. It the best I can do.
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
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14972
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Si » 31 Mar 2016, 1:37pm

I lead 12 rides a years at beginner level at about 25 miles


"beginner" "25miles" .... sums up well the lack of understanding for me. If for the CTC a beginner is someone capable of that mileage then it demonstrates how the CTC is neglecting all of those who are real beginners - just getting onto a bike, finding 4 miles a minor triumph, seeing 25 miles as something that only tour de france riders can do. :lol:

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13524
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 31 Mar 2016, 1:46pm

Philip, you keep making statements to the effect that only CTC members who are active in MGs can be considered ̶s̶u̶f̶f̶i̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶e̶l̶l̶ correctly informed to vote on CTC's future.

IMO that is rather insulting to the majority of the membership.
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 » 31 Mar 2016, 1:54pm

gaz wrote:Philip, you keep making statements to the effect that only CTC members who are active in MGs can be considered ̶s̶u̶f̶f̶i̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶e̶l̶l̶ correctly informed to vote on CTC's future.

IMO that is rather insulting to the majority of the membership.


What are your views on the Patagonia fishing crises?

What are your views on the Eutrophication crises?

What are your views on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership crises?
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
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14972
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Si » 31 Mar 2016, 2:02pm

I've not done one MG ride in the last two years...does that mean I would not be allowed to vote in the CTC AGM under your leadership Phil?

Or does that make me a second class citizen in your so-called membership organisation where some members seem to be of much less value than others despite paying the same subs?

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13524
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 31 Mar 2016, 2:07pm

Philip Benstead wrote:What are your views on the ...
Matters for a different thread, or more probably a different forum :wink: . Let's try and stick to the subject.
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 » 31 Mar 2016, 2:30pm

Si wrote:I've not done one MG ride in the last two years...does that mean I would not be allowed to vote in the CTC AGM under your leadership Phil?

Or does that make me a second class citizen in your so-called membership organisation where some members seem to be of much less value than others despite paying the same subs?


come on you have a back ground in the CTC just being on this forum.
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
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14972
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Si » 31 Mar 2016, 3:13pm

So? There are many people who have a back ground with the CTC due to paying their subs, reading the mag, reading CycleClips, and beiong out on a bike seeing what cycling conditions are like on our roads. Why am I more privileged than them?

Likewise, I know a number of people who ride with MGs every week but have virtually no idea with what is happening in the wider world of the CTC..a few don't even realise that we became a charity. Why should they get a vote and others not?

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 » 31 Mar 2016, 4:07pm

Si wrote:So? There are many people who have a back ground with the CTC due to paying their subs, reading the mag, reading CycleClips, and beiong out on a bike seeing what cycling conditions are like on our roads. Why am I more privileged than them?

Likewise, I know a number of people who ride with MGs every week but have virtually no idea with what is happening in the wider world of the CTC..a few don't even realise that we became a charity. Why should they get a vote and others not?


Bring back the property voting qualification.

If more CTC memebers had seen the below, would they have voted for the charity?


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
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
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14972
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Si » 31 Mar 2016, 4:47pm

I think that that is somewhat irrelevant to the question in hand. Whether someone was or was not an active MG user would have made no difference to whether they saw that piece.

The totally undemocratic nature of your statement about voting rights still stands.

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

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Labrat » 31 Mar 2016, 5:15pm

gaz wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:...I did not say any group of members should not vote, what I said was how can they vote without the correct information and experience of the CTC.

What on earth does "correct information and experience of the CTC" mean?


Image