Why didn’t CTC do this?

Discussion of the re-branding of CTC as Cycling UK.
Labrat
Posts: 131
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Labrat » 1 Apr 2016, 5:25pm

I think I said or implied that the minutes were incomplete and misleading



I am confused by this claim:

Are you saying that this is an issue that has only occurred with the single, solitary set of minutes that had been published since your term expired?

If so, then how would you know if it was not representative if you were not at the meeting?

If you are saying that it has been an ongoing problem for some time, then why the hell did you approve the minutes rather than dissenting when you were on council yourself?

AndyK
Posts: 648
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby AndyK » 1 Apr 2016, 5:44pm

OK, first of all you are confusing the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) with FOI (Freedom of Information) legislation. The ICO is the government body that enforces both FOI and Data Protection legislation.

Secondly, there is no conflict between the Charity Commission guidance and the ICO guidance. Charities are not public authorities and are not directly covered by FOI legislation.

A government minister has recently suggested that perhaps charities that are paid to provide public services should be subject to FOI in future, but that's a long way off happening, especially as it's being vigorously resisted by some big charities.

As an aside, if the charity shares information with a public sector body, you can make an FOI request to that public body to see the information given to it by the charity. (For example, letters between CTC and the Charity Commission would be fair game for an FOI request to the Charity Commission.)

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

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby TonyR » 1 Apr 2016, 5:49pm

Philip Benstead 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.


Why did you need to be told by a long serving councillor? Its a matter of public record that you were at the Campfire presentation so why did you not know and have to be told?

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, 5:51pm

TonyR wrote:
Philip Benstead 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.


Why did you need to be told by a long serving councillor? Its a matter of public record that you were at the Campfire presentation so why did you not know and have to be told?


Trying to make a point at CTC Council meetings if other do not want to listen is like pushing water up hill
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

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

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby TonyR » 1 Apr 2016, 6:00pm

Philip Benstead wrote:Trying to make a point at CTC Council meetings if other do not want to listen is like pushing water up hill


So to summarise, your views at Council were not shared by other Councillors and you were not re-elected by the membership to represent them. So exactly where is the democratic deficit in your views not prevailing?

Oh, and it still doesn't explain why you had to be told by another Councillor and had failed to recognise it yourself.

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, 6:15pm

AndyK wrote:OK, first of all you are confusing the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) with FOI (Freedom of Information) legislation. The ICO is the government body that enforces both FOI and Data Protection legislation.

Secondly, there is no conflict between the Charity Commission guidance and the ICO guidance. Charities are not public authorities and are not directly covered by FOI legislation.

A government minister has recently suggested that perhaps charities that are paid to provide public services should be subject to FOI in future, but that's a long way off happening, especially as it's being vigorously resisted by some big charities.

As an aside, if the charity shares information with a public sector body, you can make an FOI request to that public body to see the information given to it by the charity. (For example, letters between CTC and the Charity Commission would be fair game for an FOI request to the Charity Commission.)



I understand your points and agree with them.
I am saying if we want more openness from the CTC Council so that members can monitor what is going on it will be difficult to obtain if they do not publish minutes earlier with the supporting documentation (taking due regard for comical confidentiality and personal information).

Regarding the FOI request that the HMG is suggesting should apply to charities. I agree it may be some time before it is implement, but should we not jump before being push. As a aside when John Meudell a serving councillor asked for information that was covered by FOI from the CTC he was refused for over one year, in the end he place FOI request to the government department and received them, this action upset the council and Kevin Mayen.
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

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

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby TonyR » 1 Apr 2016, 6:19pm

Philip Benstead wrote:I think I said or implied that the minutes were incomplete and misleading.


As I said you have said the minutes were untrue. You have a duty to approve the minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting. You are now telling us that the minutes that you approved were not a true and accurate record. So why did you approve them?


Also the minutes should be made available to members’ sooner after the meeting with any support documents.


Minutes are not made available until they have been approved as there may be errors in the draft minutes. For example the draft minutes could say "PB stated that membership fees should be increased to cover the shortfall" You would clearly not want that to be made public before you had had a chance to review and correct them to what you actually said of "PB stated that membership fees should not be increased to cover the shortfall" as the error in the draft could substantially compromise your position with the membership.

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, 6:55pm

TonyR wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:I think I said or implied that the minutes were incomplete and misleading.


As I said you have said the minutes were untrue. You have a duty to approve the minutes as a true and accurate record of the meeting. You are now telling us that the minutes that you approved were not a true and accurate record. So why did you approve them?


Also the minutes should be made available to members’ sooner after the meeting with any support documents.


Minutes are not made available until they have been approved as there may be errors in the draft minutes. For example the draft minutes could say "PB stated that membership fees should be increased to cover the shortfall" You would clearly not want that to be made public before you had had a chance to review and correct them to what you actually said of "PB stated that membership fees should not be increased to cover the shortfall" as the error in the draft could substantially compromise your position with the membership.


See the Ramblers different level of approval of minutes

I am one person, i err I should have made even more trouble on council which made me disliked. So I am wrong if I do I am wrong if I don't
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/about-us/how ... nutes.aspx
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: 131
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Labrat » 1 Apr 2016, 7:07pm

Philip Benstead wrote:
See the Ramblers different level of approval of minutes

I am one person, i err I should have made even more trouble on council which made me disliked. So I am wrong if I do I am wrong if I don't
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/about-us/how ... nutes.aspx


Thats not answering the question

did you approve/assent to the approval of the minutes that you now claim to have not been an accurate representation of the discussions at council or 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 » 1 Apr 2016, 10:16pm

gaz wrote:
Philip benstead 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. ...

According to the published figures 15 Councillors to whom the business case was presented were satisfied that it had been made, 1 was not.
no business case was made at that presentation I have been told by two councillors. Of course it does depend what is meant by a business case?
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 » 1 Apr 2016, 10:18pm

Labrat wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:
See the Ramblers different level of approval of minutes

I am one person, i err I should have made even more trouble on council which made me disliked. So I am wrong if I do I am wrong if I don't
http://www.ramblers.org.uk/about-us/how ... nutes.aspx


Thats not answering the question

did you approve/assent to the approval of the minutes that you now claim to have not been an accurate representation of the discussions at council or not?
what point are you trying to make,?
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

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

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby TonyR » 1 Apr 2016, 10:25pm

Philip Benstead wrote:
gaz wrote:
Philip benstead 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. ...

According to the published figures 15 Councillors to whom the business case was presented were satisfied that it had been made, 1 was not.
no business case was made at that presentation I have been told by two councillors. Of course it does depend what is meant by a business case?


I am completely confused. Was is in the Campfire presentation as you claimed earlier or wasn't it? And was it one Councillor who told you as you claimed earlier or was it two?

Labrat
Posts: 131
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Labrat » 1 Apr 2016, 10:35pm

Philip Benstead wrote:what point are you trying to make,?


Obvious swerve is obvious!

however its a pretty critical point that we are getting down to really Philip - you have been most vociferous in saying that other councillors are not doing their job properly and accused them gf being "worn down by pt cabal", that "some on council do not understand the concept of democracy" and suggesting undue influence.

You have attacked others as not doing their job and not representing the 'membership' properly.

Most damningly, you have said that: "You must remember the minutes of council do not give the true feeling of the councillor's". Well - it was YOUR flipping job to make sure that this did not happen wasn't it!

Why should any of us accept anything you have to say now if you failed to do anything about it or object while you were on council yourself? It stinks of hypocrisy!

So, I am going to ask you very simply and very clearly again:

did you approve/assent to the approval of the minutes that you now claim to have not been an accurate representation of the discussions at council or not?

I am sure that anyone else reading this will be able to make their own judgement if you continue to avoid answering this simple and fair question

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

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby TonyR » 2 Apr 2016, 8:14am

Labrat wrote:So, I am going to ask you very simply and very clearly again:

did you approve/assent to the approval of the minutes that you now claim to have not been an accurate representation of the discussions at council or not?


You are, as the Americans say, trying to nail jelly to the wall.

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 » 17 Apr 2016, 7:48am

Si wrote:...why didn't the CTC do it? Dunno but you can bet that if they had then there would be all sorts of posts criticising them for wasting money and effort on jollies for the lads. It's just another situation where no matter what the CTC do someone will find a way of holding it against them.

FWIW, when he came to visit our group he smiled for the cameras, metaphorically kissed the babies, ignored everything that was said to him and left us wondering why we bothered. Let us hope that having someone with the national fame and eloquence of CB with him might have made more of an impression on him this time.
that is the point I have been trying to get across to does not care what members think. He will with the help of the chair turn CTC into a grant/contract chasing body. To do this he has destroyed one of cycling greatest resource that of cycling knowledge eg technical and travel information. I do not accept this information is available on the web easy, it need organised for potential and current members.
By removing this resource it give more reason not to be a CTC member. So my question is if I can get my TP insurance cheap elsewhere and I do not want to ride with a group why should join 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