CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

AndyK
Posts: 776
Joined: 17 Aug 2007, 2:08pm

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby AndyK » 18 Apr 2018, 11:21am

thirdcrank wrote:AndyK

Thanks for that.

From your first link, this seems to be the key:
Responsibility for the recruitment of new trustees rests firmly with the existing trustees. They must oversee the management of an open and efficient process and always act in the best interests of the charity.


Members don't really enter into it.

It's not quite that they don't enter into it, but it's pretty obvious that the Charity Commission is not very interested in their role. The second link focuses largely on the perceived problems of having voting members in your charity, though it does mention some of the advantages. The CC doesn't seem very bothered about "democracy" in charities generally. Its overriding concern is that the charity is run efficiently and legally and uses its resources to advance its stated charitable objectives.

But yes, in short, Charity Commission guidance indicates that the buck stops with the existing trustees when it comes to choosing new trustees. This does clash a bit with company law, in which the members of the company have the final say about who's on the board. It's one of the many interesting features of having a company that's also a charity.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby thirdcrank » 18 Apr 2018, 11:55am

AndyK wrote: ... But yes, in short, Charity Commission guidance indicates that the buck stops with the existing trustees when it comes to choosing new trustees. This does clash a bit with company law, in which the members of the company have the final say about who's on the board. It's one of the many interesting features of having a company that's also a charity.


I should make clear that having voted against the conversion to charity status I accepted the decision to convert to the extent that I voted with my feet as they say and didn't renew my membership. My interest now is only as a member of the public concerned that charities, as beneficiaries of various financial benefits should operate within the law.

On the clash with company law, it's notable that some of the criticism of the way CyclingUK and before it the CTC have conducted AGM's etc., has been because the normal way of running a limited company has applied. I am thinking particularly of proxy voting which in the wider world of business is widely used. With any national organisation, especially one with a lot of people entitled to vote, getting everybody there is going to be impossible. Proxy voting is the answer and - as we have discussed before - those appointing a proxy have various choices including appointing the chair of the meeting, with a directed or undirected proxy. While some like to characterise undirected proxies as a sign of apathy etc., it's just as reasonable to suggest that it's a sign of satisfaction with the way things are moving and trust in the chair to vote in good faith.

In any event, a re-enactment of the conversion debate is futile.

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby Steady rider » 18 Apr 2018, 6:08pm

Sorry for any confusion. I was quoting from above, my opinion, Steady rider » 17 Apr 2018, 9:10am not from a reference source. The main points I was making were;
No1
I think the Charity Commission would say proceed in the best interests of the charity.
No2
The best interests of the Charity are served by the members and public having a high degree of confidence in the way the charity is run and open and fair elections.
No3
Open and fair elections mean allowing candidates with a range of cycling/qualifications to be put forward and not to be restricted to a narrow selection process controlled by a committee.

I think the above points are valid

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2225
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby The utility cyclist » 26 Apr 2018, 2:56pm

Just got around to voting, I voted against motion 5.
Surely as a trustee one requires some formal background check and indeed simply to ascertain if they are fully aware of what is entailed and that candidates would meet some minimum criteria, this cuts down the chances of people who simply are not suitable/capable from being in the running. This to me would be wasteful and people voting would have no idea whatsoever who they are voting for, what their background is in any detail at all nor indeed as to how their character is. Yes 10 other members may sound a lot to be able to be nominated but it still tells me nothing about that person and their ability to do the job, so how could I vote with assurance as to their suitability.?

Meeting the conditions surely by definition weeds out the wheat from the chaff and unless there is bias or discrimination in the conditions to be met then how is that not the correct way to go?

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2225
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby The utility cyclist » 26 Apr 2018, 3:03pm

Steady rider wrote:Sorry for any confusion. I was quoting from above, my opinion, Steady rider » 17 Apr 2018, 9:10am not from a reference source. The main points I was making were;
No1
I think the Charity Commission would say proceed in the best interests of the charity.
No2
The best interests of the Charity are served by the members and public having a high degree of confidence in the way the charity is run and open and fair election
s.
No3
Open and fair elections mean allowing candidates with a range of cycling/qualifications to be put forward and not to be restricted to a narrow selection process controlled by a committee.


I think the above points are valid

Who decides what's in the best interests, how do you define that, we all view matters differently and that we have a vote on this matter surely is proceeding in the best interests and is open is it not?
Are you saying the nomination process isn't open, please define how?
Are you saying that the selection process is too stringent, please explain why you wouldn't want a certain level to be met for an important role in the charity?
Are you suggesting that there is an element of discrimination and bias in the selection committee and/or that the committee such by their actions to date by following the current process is by your understanding and will to allow people not to be scrutinised before being put up for election is damaging or not what is in the best interests of the charity? Please explain how?

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby Steady rider » 26 Apr 2018, 5:08pm

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... _final.pdf

If you look at the Cycling UK AGM motions and 'out of order' documents you will see one reads
'The CTC to promote research (hopefully DfT funded) investigating any connection between wearing helmets and the accident rate which, according to several reports, appears to increase with helmet usage.' and their reply includes 'This motion is ruled out of order because it is not Cycling UK’s role to promote new research and Cycling UK does not have the resources to commission such research in any event. Even if it did, there would be other priorities above'

A motion that happens to be on helmets, not asking for funding, but the reply excludes promoting new research. Research could be in many forms, questionnaires, asking others to consider - universities for example or perhaps even very simple research at an almost zero cost or asking others like the ECF to consider if research could be promoted. Cycling UK could suggest more research is required in how to mend potholes that result in a much longer life before requiring repairing, I have known one this last winter that required repairing again after 6 weeks.

Motion No 2 ruled out of order
'The CTC provides (either alone or with others) a biennial (every two
years) road safety 'Bikesafe' conference.'

Hopefully UK universities could be encouraged to become involved and provide suitable research or host the event.


The precise wording of either motion could have been revised if the Trustees had suggested changes, they did not suggest changes. These and other AGM motions have shown the trustees have not acted in the best interests of cycling. They provided reasons to oppose No 2 motion but I would not consider the reasons sufficient to rule it out of order.

ps I will provide a more detailed reply to the specific questions in due course I expect.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby thirdcrank » 26 Apr 2018, 6:33pm

I assume that the CyclingUK trustees are acting in good faith in a way they believe to be lawful. I expect they take proper advice as necessary. AFAIK, the personal risks to trustees of not acting in the interests of the charity are substantial.

Disliking the way charities discharge their duties doesn't make them wrong. It seems to be a part of the law full of grey areas. Part of the reason is that charitable provision began as a way of helping rich men to get through the eye of a needle (Matthew 19:24) but has ended up as a rich person's tax wheeze.

Although the Charities Commission is the relevant watchdoggy, I don't get the impression they are keen to get involved. I see there's guidance on resolving conflicts in the running of a charity:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... f-approach
and advice about complaining:-
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -charities

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby Steady rider » 26 Apr 2018, 6:58pm

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... 1_copy.pdf

Motion No 11 in 2017 opposed by Cycling UK
11) Scrutiny Committee: that Cycling UK provide a scrutiny committee, independent of
the trustees, to investigate any aspect of concern.

The trustees opposed having a scrutiny committee, they allow motions to be classed as out of order for reasons that may not be valid. There is no impartial effective process to hold them to account. They organise the elections for future trustees and set a criteria they decide for allowing candidates to stand. This has resulted in a narrow selection of possible candidates for the membership to choose from and they recommend who to vote for. The whole process is bias.

The 2016 AGM passed a motion requiring all candidates for trustees to have at least 12 months membership, but later in 2016 several candidates were put forward without 12 months membership.

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby Steady rider » 17 May 2018, 9:26pm

https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default ... report.pdf

With the bias system in place roughly as expected.

No details on how many attended, I hear not many,
In 2016 about 3000 bothered to vote. I presented 5 motions with discussions on various topic.

Looks like about 2224 voted this year, a drop of about 25%.

I feel sure Cycling UK will come up with ways to make you vote in future. They will not want to been seen to be failing. This is more than about Cycling UK or the Trustees or a charity, it is about having an effective cycling organisation representing cycling. Having few motions for the AGM, poor attendance and low numbers voting shows a lack of connectively and very poor leadership. I suggest the Chair and Honorary Solicitor resign in the best interests of the Charity and cycling.

JohnW
Posts: 6101
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 9:12pm
Location: Yorkshire

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby JohnW » 17 May 2018, 10:25pm

Steady rider wrote:https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2018/05/cycling_uk_-_agm_2018_post_meeting_report.pdf

With the bias system in place roughly as expected.

No details on how many attended, I hear not many,
In 2016 about 3000 bothered to vote. I presented 5 motions with discussions on various topic.

Looks like about 2224 voted this year, a drop of about 25%.

I feel sure Cycling UK will come up with ways to make you vote in future. They will not want to been seen to be failing. This is more than about Cycling UK or the Trustees or a charity, it is about having an effective cycling organisation representing cycling. Having few motions for the AGM, poor attendance and low numbers voting shows a lack of connectively and very poor leadership. I suggest the Chair and Honorary Solicitor resign in the best interests of the Charity and cycling.

+1 to that.

PH
Posts: 7128
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby PH » 18 May 2018, 1:46pm

Steady rider wrote:Having few motions for the AGM, poor attendance and low numbers voting shows a lack of connectively and very poor leadership. I suggest the Chair and Honorary Solicitor resign in the best interests of the Charity and cycling.

How do the numbers voting compare historically? I don't know, I suspect it's never been very high, that seems the nature of most such organisations. The poor attendance is no surprise to me, more of a surprise is that anyone goes at all, apart from the free food there doesn't seem any point, the decisions have already been made. I've only been to one, it was round the corner from my home so it seemed rude not to. It was still a waste of a nice cycling day, going through the formalities and legal requirements, if the handful of people there made the decisions it would have been even less democratic than the couple of thousand people voting online.
If I were to campaign for anything regarding the AGM it would be for better information/debate before the votes were cast rather than anything afterwards. But as you will see from this forum, there's little interest even among enthusiastic members.
The result from Motion 5 was closer than I thought it would be - I voted against, the requirement to get on the ballot was IMO inadequate and I thought could easily have become unworkable.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13574
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby gaz » 18 May 2018, 2:41pm

PH wrote:How do the numbers voting compare historically?

ERS figures available from links here.

2012 approx 9000
2013 approx 2600
2014 approx 1500
2015 approx 1900
2016 approx 3000
2017 approx 2600
2018 approx 2200

I can't give you the percentages in terms of members eligible to vote.

2012 was the final AGM vote on the Charity conversion, 2016 the Governance Review. Perhaps more Members participate when they feel/are told (delete according to personal preference :wink: ) the issues are of great importance, perhaps more Members participate when there's a prize draw entry for voting :wink: .

PH
Posts: 7128
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby PH » 18 May 2018, 4:18pm

gaz wrote:
PH wrote:How do the numbers voting compare historically?

ERS figures available from links here.

Thanks Gaz, I'd seen those. When I was asking historically I was probably thinking of back in the good old days that some seem to think were different. Do you have a source for voting numbers for previous decades? I'm sure they'll be recorded somewhere and you seem to know how to find such things :wink:

Steady rider
Posts: 2164
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby Steady rider » 18 May 2018, 4:44pm

Number of AGM motions added in last column
2012 approx 9000 - 10
2013 approx 2600 - 6
2014 approx 1500 - 5
2015 approx 1900 - 8
2016 approx 3000 - 17
2017 approx 2600 - 15
2018 approx 2200 - 5

Perhaps more AGM motions result in more people voting, they may relate to one or more motions and reasons stated, or they provide more interest in general. In 2012 the extra write-up in Cycle probably increased the voting numbers.

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 13574
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, car park of England

Re: CTC - Cycling UK AGM motion Number 5

Postby gaz » 18 May 2018, 10:08pm

PH wrote:Thanks Gaz, I'd seen those. When I was asking historically I was probably thinking of back in the good old days that some seem to think were different. Do you have a source for voting numbers for previous decades? I'm sure they'll be recorded somewhere and you seem to know how to find such things :wink:

I'd probably be able to dig up 2010 and 2011 somewhere on the forum, although I've no inclination to do so.

I've no idea where you might find anything older. Little more than a decade ago we didn't have proxy voting. Results may well have just been recorded as carried or lost. Has anyone got a complete set of back issues of the Gazette :wink: ?
Steady rider wrote:Perhaps more AGM motions result in more people voting,

Perhaps.