Could someone please explain

[Labrat]

The current Cycle magazine includes the minutes from the 2015 AGM. Motion 6 at that AGM stated that "CTC Councillors shall take the wishes of the membership into account when interpreting the Articles of Association of the club and when deciding how to implement the objectives of the club". This motion was carried (almost unanimously).

How then have the Councillors taken the wishes of the membership into account over this issue of completely changing the focus and image of the club, when they have not actually bothered to ask what those wishes are?

Has Council not simply ignored the approved motion carried in 2015?

Please explain.

W

It's a non sequitur to presume that "take the wishes of the membership into account" would automatically mean "follow the wishes of the membership" - to do so would be illegal given their position as trustees.

Their primary frame of reference has to be the best interests of the organisation in the light of its objectives, where this diverges from the wishes of the membership they have to follow the former.

[PH]

It's a non sequitur to presume that "take the wishes of the membership into account" would automatically mean "follow the wishes of the membership" - to do so would be illegal given their position as trustees.

No one is suggesting it does mean that and it would only be illegal if the membership was asking it to do something contrary to it's objectives.

Their primary frame of reference has to be the best interests of the organisation in the light of its objectives, where this diverges from the wishes of the membership they have to follow the former.

I think everyone has got that, if they didn't at the time of the charity debate they probably have now. But although we keep being reminded that CTC is a charity, some seem to forget that it's a membership charity which have their own set of rules. Shaping the agenda within the objectives is not only permitted but encouraged, as several examples on this forum of how other membership charities do it has shown.
The motion passed last year to take the wishes of the membership into account when deciding how to implement the objectives, is just that. Those asking for more than that are as wrong as those telling us we have to settle for less.

[Psamathe]

...
Their primary frame of reference has to be the best interests of the organisation in the light of its objectives, where this diverges from the wishes of the membership they have to follow the former.

But that would assume that there is only a single path that "is the best interests of the charity" and that the Councillors always get it 100% right and are the only ones who can identify what is the right path. I doubt many Councillors would claim to be that arrogant.

Ian

[Labrat]

...
Their primary frame of reference has to be the best interests of the organisation in the light of its objectives, where this diverges from the wishes of the membership they have to follow the former.

But that would assume that there is only a single path that "is the best interests of the charity" and that the Councillors always get it 100% right and are the only ones who can identify what is the right path. I doubt many Councillors would claim to be that arrogant.

Ian

There is usually more than one way to skin any cat, it doesn't get away from the fact that the council HAVE to do what they believe is in the best interest of the organisation and its objectives, even if this is in conflict to the will of the membership.

often it won't be, sometimes it may, or even will be.

theres precedence here too of course - you'll recall that long ago, the membership voted overwhelmingly in favour of renaming the club "the touring club" and admitting motorists.

[Bicycler]

That was under a completely different set of circumstances and a completely different pre-charity club, so not a precedent for the situation under discussion.

In reality I don't think anybody is under any illusion about the duty of council, but that is not to say that the membership should not have any influence. In fact, CUK is partially justifying the name change by saying that they are reflecting the results of consultation with members. If a full poll produces different results about the views of the membership from those inferred from the consultation, it would only be right to take this into account.

The membership are not completely separate to the objectives. To a large extent the CTC seeks to achieve its objectives through its membership, not in spite of them. They are a vital part of how it operates and their continued support is integral to its success. Any subject which caused such controversy as to result in a written petition and a majority vote of the membership against the expressed wish of the council ought to result in some serious reconsideration about whether it truly is the best and most effective policy to be followed in the interests of the club.

[Labrat]

In reality I don't think anybody is under any illusion about the duty of council, but that is not to say that the membership should not have any influence. In fact, CUK is partially justifying the name change by saying that they are reflecting the results of consultation with members. If a full poll produces different results about the views of the membership from those inferred from the consultation, it would only be right to take this into account.

i agree completley

though the fact remains that "take this into account" still does not and cannot automatically lead to "not changing to CyclingUK"

[gaz]

.

[gaz]

.

[Velocio]

Does anyone know of a member who was consulted?

...good question ...there may well have been surveys and consultations in recent months / years ... but I can not remember ever being asked the direct questions: "Do you no longer wish to be a member of the Cyclist's Touring Club/CTC?", and/or "Would you like the Cyclists' Touring Club/CTC to change its name to Cycling UK/CUK?" ...or being presented with a series of alternative logos / brands to choose for a change of our Club's name...??