Cycling UK Forum

...I have just used the AGM VOTE NOW links in this week's Cycling Clips...

"Help shape the future of Cycling UK... There are just eight days to go until our AGM on Saturday 7 May – and our members have a real opportunity to shape the way that Cycling UK is run so that we are able to fulfil our potential to improve and support cycling. Our board of trustees (or Council) is proposing to make changes to our governance to make our board leaner and to help unlock the talent and experience we are certain exists within our 67,000-strong membership to help run our charity. Our chair David Cox and President Jon Snow tell us more about this great chance to shape our future and share details on how to vote online. VOTE NOW"

...by far the easiest way to vote and appoint your proxy

There are 4 motions at this year’s CTC AGM that are in fact mind. Can anybody guess which ones they are?

IMO, motions 6, 7, 8 and 10. viewtopic.php?f=45&t=103096

Whichever motions you are laying claim to, why didn't you just propose them yourself in a spirit of open and transparent communication?

gaz wrote:IMO, motions 6, 7, 8 and 10. viewtopic.php?f=45&t=103096

Whichever motions you are laying claim to, why didn't you just propose them yourself in a spirit of open and transparent communication?

I'm a bit lost with a couple of posts above - I've not been able to steer through what appear to be mis-types. I think you do well gaz. I'm not trying to contradict anyone when I say that, in my opinion, council's Motion '5' is cynical, and could be sinister..............in my opinion.

JohnW wrote:

gaz wrote:IMO, motions 6, 7, 8 and 10. viewtopic.php?f=45&t=103096

Whichever motions you are laying claim to, why didn't you just propose them yourself in a spirit of open and transparent communication?

I'm a bit lost with a couple of posts above - I've not been able to steer through what appear to be mis-types. I think you do well gaz. I'm not trying to contradict anyone when I say that, in my opinion, council's Motion '5' is cynical, and could be sinister..............in my opinion.

surly not please know you place the council knows what is good for you??

JohnW wrote:...in my opinion, council's Motion '5' is cynical, and could be sinister..............in my opinion.

Having read through the governance document, I tend to think it is more facing the world as it is rather than how we might wish it were. At the moment there has been no formal representation for Scotland for some time & many of those currently on council stood unopposed so have only actually been backed (actively) by their 5(?) proposers. With a nationally elected council all candidates should face election & all members should get a chance to vote.

An alternative view on the size of council is that it will be leaner & more productive. Bigger governing bodies can have a tendency to get side tracked by issues at a tangent to the business in hand.

Rick

RickH wrote:

JohnW wrote:...in my opinion, council's Motion '5' is cynical, and could be sinister..............in my opinion.

Having read through the governance document, I tend to think it is more facing the world as it is rather than how we might wish it were. At the moment there has been no formal representation for Scotland for some time & many of those currently on council stood unopposed so have only actually been backed (actively) by their 5(?) proposers. With a nationally elected council all candidates should face election & all members should get a chance to vote.

An alternative view on the size of council is that it will be leaner & more productive. Bigger governing bodies can have a tendency to get side tracked by issues at a tangent to the business in hand.

Rick

I take what you say Rick - but in Yorks/Humberside we've nominated and elected two council members from within our region, with all the benefits and implications of that. My fear of the effect of the proposal if adopted, is that Council will decide who is appropriate (or possibly more accurately 'cosy' with) and ask us to vote between their own nominees (AKA chums?).

I may be just cynical and I'd prefer to be wrong in having that fear - but at the moment, I don't think I am. I do not for one minute suggest that anything is corrupt or intended to be - but I fear that it will be more vulnerable to becoming so in the long term. There will be fewer of our representatives to keep the inner sanctum/privileged few on the straight and narrow. There has been a few suggestions of how Philip Benstead failed to be elected to Council, and it all worries me.

However, we all have the right to vote - I shall vote - and I'll accept the results, but until the results are known I shall express my opinion if appropriate.

Whatever happens however, once it's done, my view is that we should go with it for the sake of the work that the erstwhile CTC has to do.

JohnW wrote:... My fear of the effect of the proposal if adopted, is that Council will decide who is appropriate (or possibly more accurately 'cosy' with) and ask us to vote between their own nominees (AKA chums?). ...

I was not aware the Council had productivity problems. And is this motion actually "fixing an identified problem", etc. I don't think you are being cynical. To me it sounds like there are other much bigger problems facing the Organisation that need to be addressed. (e.g. http://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=104944&p=1007709&hilit=right+to+ride#p1007709).

Ian

Psamathe wrote:... is this motion actually "fixing an identified problem", etc. ...

The Motion refers to the governance report.

The report sets out the issues that the changes are seeking to address. The vote is to see if the membership endorse Council's approach to addressing those issues.

gaz wrote:

Psamathe wrote:... is this motion actually "fixing an identified problem", etc. ...

The Motion refers to the governance report.

The report sets out the issues that the changes are seeking to address. The vote is to see if the membership endorse Council's approach to addressing those issues.

What'll happen will be that more members who 'vote' by returning their voting papers or on-line will give free, undirected proxy to the chair, than will actually express their considered wish on the more crucial motions.

Whatever their reasons, hopes and aspirations in respect of this motion, council and the chair know this, and they'll get their own way anyway - that's what happens.........and that's what will happen, and then the regions will not be specifically represented in council, and neither will those who are not 'cosy' with council and the chair.

The choice is in our hands (or in our pencils ) and we still have time. However, once the vote is decided, and the result is adopted and activated, we must live and move on with it - subsequent rocking the boat could sink it. Many of us won't like it though.

JohnW wrote:... My fear of the effect of the proposal if adopted, is that Council will decide who is appropriate (or possibly more accurately 'cosy' with) and ask us to vote between their own nominees (AKA chums?). ...

Except the proposals don't say this. It will still be up to individual members to seek election. Individual members will still need to find five members to support their nomination.

The proposals include the introduction of a Nominations Committee who will set a job description and person specification for each position on Council. They will inform prospective candidates how well the NC feels they meet the role. The NC does not choose the candidates.

Whatever the NC's opinion of them any candidate can choose to stand for election, the NC will publish their opinion on the candidate's suitability alongside the candidate's own election address.

The members still vote for the candidate(s) they feel can best fill the position, there are no proxy votes. The members will continue to elect the Trustees.

gaz wrote:

JohnW wrote:... My fear of the effect of the proposal if adopted, is that Council will decide who is appropriate (or possibly more accurately 'cosy' with) and ask us to vote between their own nominees (AKA chums?). ...

...
The members still vote for the candidate(s) they feel can best fill the position, there are no proxy votes. The members will continue to elect the Trustees.

For that to work there need to be safeguards included regarding communications between candidates and the electorate. We have heard how National Office has something of a stranglehold over how and what is sent out to members. So there needs to be safeguards that provides all candidates with equal and un-censored access to communications. So a candidate standing with a platform critical of elements of the existing Organisation (or elements or campaigns or policies) has the same opportunity to communicate those concerns to members (as part of their election bid) as a candidate who is pro existing Organisation/policies/campaigns/etc.

It would be too easy for National Office to decline to circulate a candidates platform if they did not like he criticism of themselves and/or to provide their favoured candidate with more opportunity to communicate with the membership.

And it does sound like communications available to Councillors are already tightly controlled (more than one councillor has reported this on this forum).

Ian

Psamathe wrote:... It would be too easy for National Office to decline to circulate a candidates platform if they did not like he criticism of themselves and/or to provide their favoured candidate with more opportunity to communicate with the membership. ...

It will be quite obvious from the Nominations Committee statements which candidates they consider most suitable.

At present all candidates can submit a personal statement of up to 500 words with the ballot paper, I cannot find any change to this aspect of the process within the governance paper. I do not know what regulations are applied to the content of such statements. The electoral statements for the last South East Councillor election have been posted on YACF.

Whilst candidates are free to distribute any other electoral information they wish, candidates are unable to use CTC's member database, e-mail lists, etc to do so.

How much was paid for producing the governance paper, to which company, do they go around charities telling them they need to update their procedures?

http://www.anthonycollins.com/legal-ser ... harity-law

For more information on how our charity lawyers can help you, please contact Shivaji Shiva on 0121 214 3693, shivaji.shiva@anthonycollins.com or Phil Watts on 0121 214 3645, phil.watts@anthonycollins.com.

I have no knowledge of the costs associated with producing the report.

Governance costs appear in the Annual Accounts:

2012 £207,044
2013 £242,652
2014 £251,336
2015 £270,213

I would expect that the hire of suitable facilities for Council Meetings and the AGM, Councillors reasonable travel expenses and the costs of ERS and in-house voting systems all fall under Governance Costs. It seems reasonable to assume that the governance report and other professional advice also forms part of such costs. There is no detailed breakdown to support my view on the matter.