Trustee Elections – how to choose?

[Bmblbzzz]

It's CUK board election time again. This time it's trustees. We have a brief statement of a few paragraphs from each candidate. We also have a statement from CUK that they're "particularly keen to ensure we have candidates who bring experience and skills in: [various areas]". What most of us don't have is experience of what a trustee (of any organisation) really does. And the personal statements are all fairly similar to each other – perhaps not surprising, as CUK "believe the candidates presented collectively provide the skills that are needed to enhance the board." So really they'll all be good? It's not like say a parliamentary election where you have widely differing views and intentions.

So how do you choose? And does it really matter if you do or don't?

[mattheus]

CUK "believe the candidates presented collectively provide the skills that are needed to enhance the board." So really they'll all be good? It's not like say a parliamentary election where you have widely differing views and intentions.

Maybe ...
I'm a bit suspicious of that guy in the Shell Oil polo shirt.

[Chris Jeggo]

<snip>

So how do you choose? And does it really matter if you do or don't?

It doesn't matter to me. Before Paul Tuohy came along, rebranded CTC as CUK, sacked Chris Juden etc., I paid my subscription annually. After that, I lost interest in CUK nationally but wanted to keep riding with my DA/MG, so I switched to life membership, which cost me (because of my age and my years of annual membership) four and a bit annual subscriptions, and that was distinctly more than four and a bit years ago and I'm still riding. That was the last money they received from me. Before Paul Tuohy came along the process of nomination and election of councillors was more democratic than the process for trustees is now, but that doesn't bother me. I've lost interest.