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, 5:26pm

Si wrote: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.




So the proposal to have a nomination committee in order to select the right to type of person for the council, anybody who does make the grade will not get recommended for council, is ok then, is that democratic then.
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: 13104
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 31 Mar 2016, 6:33pm

I'm aware of the confidential proposals on governance that were put to Council on 23 January 2016, because somebody leaked them and they found their way to me. I do not know whether Council approved them unamended.

The proposals set out the context in which the existence of a Nominations Committe has been put forward. I'd rather not go into it all, not least because a "cut and paste" of the document would produce a lengthy post.

My summary of the relevant bit would be: The Nominations Committee (NC) will draw up person and role specifications for Council. Any members wishing to stand for Council submit their CV to the NC who assess how well they will meet those criteria. They let all the candidates know the outcome of their own application on a "Recommendation" scale from "Ideal" to "Unsuitable". All candidates will then decide for themselves if they wish to proceed to election. NCs "Recommendation" will be published alongside each candidates electoral address. If a candidate that NC considers "Unsuitable" for the position receives the support of the electorate they will be voted on to Council.

The members vote for who they want on Council. One member, one vote.

Edit: The various bits of "terminology" are my own, not as they appear in the propsals but I think mine give the general gist of things.
Last edited by gaz on 31 Mar 2016, 8:13pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14947
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Si » 31 Mar 2016, 7:33pm

Philip Benstead wrote:
Si wrote: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.




So the proposal to have a nomination committee in order to select the right to type of person for the council, anybody who does make the grade will not get recommended for council, is ok then, is that democratic then.


That has no bearing on your proposal that a large part of the membership should not be allowed the same voting privileges as others. Indeed, the conclusion that I draw from your responce is that you appear happy to do things that you see as wrong when others do them.

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, 8:12pm

Si wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:
Si wrote: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.




So the proposal to have a nomination committee in order to select the right to type of person for the council, anybody who does make the grade will not get recommended for council, is ok then, is that democratic then.


That has no bearing on your proposal that a large part of the membership should not be allowed the same voting privileges as others. Indeed, the conclusion that I draw from your responce is that you appear happy to do things that you see as wrong when others do them.



What draws you to that conclusion?
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

PH
Posts: 6075
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby PH » 31 Mar 2016, 8:22pm

Labrat wrote:Image


Oh dear, those pastel colours are frighteningly similar and the victim appears to be wearing the old guard CTC gold...

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, 8:29pm

The CTC keep secret from it members, the minutes and support documents are not distributed to members with due regard to confidential and personal information.

As I keep saying the business case for rebranding and governance has not been made, even in the next edition of cycle they just say it a good idea.

Serving councillor have asked for the business case for rebranding and governance many times but none have been forthcoming. Even councillor who voted for the new name some believe it will not make any difference
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
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, 8:36pm

PH wrote:
Labrat wrote:Image


Oh dear, those pastel colours are frighteningly similar and the victim appears to be wearing the old guard CTC gold...


Well I was reading The Third Reich: A New History Paperback – 6 Jul 2001
by Michael Burleigh (Author) http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Third-Reich ... 0330487574

Its a great book. But a section regarding the control of the press to instill the feeling of community and a common view, this remind me .....

Godwin's law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
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: 13104
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 31 Mar 2016, 8:38pm

PH wrote:Oh dear, those pastel colours are frighteningly similar and the victim appears to be wearing the old guard CTC gold...

I thought the old guard had been depicted in dark green Devonshire serge jackets :wink: . The artist forgot the knickerbockers, Stanley helmet with small peak, and Cambridge grey stockings :mrgreen: .
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

AndyK
Posts: 678
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby AndyK » 31 Mar 2016, 9:52pm

gaz wrote:I'm aware of the confidential proposals on governance that were put to Council on 23 January 2016, because somebody leaked them and they found their way to me. I do not know whether Council approved them unamended.

The proposals set out the context in which the existence of a Nominations Committe has been put forward. I'd rather not go into it all, not least because a "cut and paste" of the document would produce a lengthy post.

My summary of the relevant bit would be: The Nominations Committee (NC) will draw up person and role specifications for Council. Any members wishing to stand for Council submit their CV to the NC who assess how well they will meet those criteria. They let all the candidates know the outcome of their own application on a "Recommendation" scale from "Ideal" to "Unsuitable". All candidates will then decide for themselves if they wish to proceed to election. NCs "Recommendation" will be published alongside each candidates electoral address. If a candidate that NC considers "Unsuitable" for the position receives the support of the electorate they will be voted on to Council.

The members vote for who they want on Council. One member, one vote.

Edit: The various bits of "terminology" are my own, not as they appear in the proposals but I think mine give the general gist of things.


They would have to be very careful with this, as it sounds like they would be looking for "people like us". They can specify requirements for the role and assess how well the applicant matches those requirements... but then to say an individual is "ideal" or "unsuitable" on the basis of (presumably) personal preference? That would bring them into uncomfortably close contact with equalities legislation - which, as trustees of a charity accepting public sector funding, Council members are bound to observe.

They would need to be objective in assessing candidates, and couch any recommendations in terms of the job description.

Example of a statement that's probably acceptable: "We advertised for a trustee with experience in branding and PR, as Council is currently lacking expertise in those areas. This candidate does not appear to have the relevant experience."

Example of a statement that's probably not acceptable: "We believe that this particular candidate is not suitable."

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13104
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 31 Mar 2016, 10:14pm

A little "cut and paste" to clarify.
...
The Nominations will provide a statement on each individual candidate stating whether:

· The candidate meets the person specification ,is fully competent to carry out the trustee role and would complement the skill mix on the Board

· The candidate meets the person specification and is fully competent to carry out the trustee role

· The committee has no recommendation to make on the candidate

· The candidate does not meet the person specification and is not recommended for election

...
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

AndyK
Posts: 678
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby AndyK » 31 Mar 2016, 10:42pm

gaz wrote:A little "cut and paste" to clarify.
...
The Nominations will provide a statement on each individual candidate stating whether:

· The candidate meets the person specification ,is fully competent to carry out the trustee role and would complement the skill mix on the Board

· The candidate meets the person specification and is fully competent to carry out the trustee role

· The committee has no recommendation to make on the candidate

· The candidate does not meet the person specification and is not recommended for election

...

OK, that sounds more plausible. Sorry, I appreciate your attempt to summarise - unlike some people (naming no names) who would simply cut and paste the whole thing with no formatting or explanation - but the exact wording did matter in this case. I still can't help suspecting that in practice it would come down to "people like us", though.

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

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby TonyR » 1 Apr 2016, 7:46am

AndyK wrote:OK, that sounds more plausible. Sorry, I appreciate your attempt to summarise - unlike some people (naming no names) who would simply cut and paste the whole thing with no formatting or explanation - but the exact wording did matter in this case. I still can't help suspecting that in practice it would come down to "people like us", though.


I think the world has changed post Coop Bank and Kids Company and now there is an implicit if not explicit need to demonstrate that Trustees and Directors, who lets face it in the CTC are responsible for significant sums of members and Government money, are competent to undertake their role. And if what PB has been alleging about the conduct of Councillors and Council were true (voting like sheep, approving untrue minutes etc) then a Governance overhaul would seem both essential and urgent.

User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2440
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby honesty » 1 Apr 2016, 8:50am

TonyR wrote:
AndyK wrote:OK, that sounds more plausible. Sorry, I appreciate your attempt to summarise - unlike some people (naming no names) who would simply cut and paste the whole thing with no formatting or explanation - but the exact wording did matter in this case. I still can't help suspecting that in practice it would come down to "people like us", though.


I think the world has changed post Coop Bank and Kids Company and now there is an implicit if not explicit need to demonstrate that Trustees and Directors, who lets face it in the CTC are responsible for significant sums of members and Government money, are competent to undertake their role. And if what PB has been alleging about the conduct of Councillors and Council were true (voting like sheep, approving untrue minutes etc) then a Governance overhaul would seem both essential and urgent.


Yes, but the problem being that it's all his word with not a drop of evidence to support it, but I guess my objections don't matter to him as I'm not a member of an MG :roll:

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

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby TonyR » 1 Apr 2016, 8:57am

honesty wrote:
TonyR wrote:
AndyK wrote:OK, that sounds more plausible. Sorry, I appreciate your attempt to summarise - unlike some people (naming no names) who would simply cut and paste the whole thing with no formatting or explanation - but the exact wording did matter in this case. I still can't help suspecting that in practice it would come down to "people like us", though.


I think the world has changed post Coop Bank and Kids Company and now there is an implicit if not explicit need to demonstrate that Trustees and Directors, who lets face it in the CTC are responsible for significant sums of members and Government money, are competent to undertake their role. And if what PB has been alleging about the conduct of Councillors and Council were true (voting like sheep, approving untrue minutes etc) then a Governance overhaul would seem both essential and urgent.


Yes, but the problem being that it's all his word with not a drop of evidence to support it, but I guess my objections don't matter to him as I'm not a member of an MG :roll:


I agree and if PB is wrong then its good practice to do it anyway and if he's right its essential. Either way he makes the case for the changes he's objecting to.

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 » 1 Apr 2016, 5:10pm

TonyR wrote:
AndyK wrote:OK, that sounds more plausible. Sorry, I appreciate your attempt to summarise - unlike some people (naming no names) who would simply cut and paste the whole thing with no formatting or explanation - but the exact wording did matter in this case. I still can't help suspecting that in practice it would come down to "people like us", though.


I think the world has changed post Coop Bank and Kids Company and now there is an implicit if not explicit need to demonstrate that Trustees and Directors, who lets face it in the CTC are responsible for significant sums of members and Government money, are competent to undertake their role. And if what PB has been alleging about the conduct of Councillors and Council were true (voting like sheep, approving untrue minutes etc) then a Governance overhaul would seem both essential and urgent.


I think I said or implied that the minutes were incomplete and misleading.
Also the minutes should be made available to members’ sooner after the meeting with any support documents.
Otherwise memebers will be unable to object to any monition passed within te 3 month time limite.
I do note a conflict between the Charirty Commission and ICO. The ICO applies to public bodies such as local authoties .
IMHO GIVEN CTC recives public monies and is a membership orgainisation , it is my beli that the CTC as moral obligation to complie in full the requirement of the ICO.

I also note many of the requirement of the Charity commission for minutes are not follow by the CTC.

Regarding new trustees, I do not hold out much fath in the goverance unless there is a good interpendent chair, and is not influence by CEO, Based upon recent experances I can a load of place (Wo)men being inserted.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gu ... on-scheme/

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisati ... gendas.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... d-meetings

INFORMATION COMMISSION OFFICE
As a general rule, a public authority should publish the following on a routine basis:
• minutes and agendas of public meetings; • documents it is required to make public by other legislation, such as the Local Government Act 1972; • minutes of senior-level policy and strategy meetings, e.g. board meetings; and • any background documents which are referred to in the agenda or minutes, or were circulated in preparation for the meeting. These are considered part of the agenda.

CHARITY COMMISSION

Minutes
The taking and keeping of minutes of some types of meeting can be required by either company law or the governing document of the charity. It is important to check whether any requirements about minute taking apply to your charity. Whatever may be the legal requirements, the commission recommend that accurate minutes are kept of all meetings. The minutes do not need to be a word-for-word record, but need to record information that is important to the charity. It recommends that each set of minutes gives:
Ideally, the minutes of any meeting should be taken by someone not directly involved in the meeting, for example the secretary to the trustees rather than one of the trustees themselves. This is because it is usually difficult to take adequate notes and actively participate at the same time. However, sometimes the secretary will not be able to take the minutes, due to absence or some other reason. Equally, many smaller charities do not have staff or willing volunteers to take on this task. Where one of the trustees is to take the minutes, this person should be clearly nominated before the meeting starts (in some cases one of the trustees will also have the role of honorary secretary, in which case the task should fall naturally to them). Where a trustee is taking the minutes that person should ensure that they are able also to contribute actively to any discussion.
The approval of, and any changes made to, minutes of a previous meeting must be recorded, together with matters arising from the previous minutes which are not dealt with as a separate item of business.
The minutes usually record:
• the precise wording of any resolution together with the name of the proposer and (optionally) the seconder of the motion,
• a summary of the discussion on each item of business,
• information upon which the decision was based,
• details of the decision, i.e. who voted and how and, in the event of an equality of votes, if the Chair used a casting vote,
• the action required,
• the names of the people who are responsible for implementing the decision, and
• the date, time and venue of the next meeting
…..The minutes of trustees’ meetings must be made available to all charity trustees and where necessary, to appropriate professional advisers (eg auditors). Minutes of trustees’ meetings are not open documents and do not have to be made available for public inspection, unless the charity’s governing document requires this. The minutes of a general meeting are usually made available to members (in the case of a charitable company they have to be) but do not have to be made available for public inspection unless the charity’s governing document requires this.
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