DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

[Psamathe]

I was just trying to find out how you knew that Philip did not raise any "peeps of objection". I would have thought we'd need a transcript, but you said it so I'm just asking how you knew that fact.

The minutes are the legal record of the discussion and these are approved minutes which means they have been approved as a true and accurate record of the discussions by those who were present including PB. Its why we have minutes. There is no peep of objection from PB recorded in those minutes. Given the strength of feeling he has since expressed do you not think that if those had been expressed in the meeting they would have been recorded or the minutes would not have been approved by PB until his objections were properly recorded and the agreement would not have been recorded as unanimous?...

Having sat through numerous board meetings, minutes are different from a transcript. Often there were disagreements of issues, discussion and conclusion and minutes have never recorded every detail. They might note that "the question was discussed" and "the decision was ...".

And when you then vote on an issue you have to vote on the balance of aspects of that issue. So whilst there might have been aspects you did not agree with (and raised as part of that discussion) you might have received verbal reassurances (e.g. "we will get to vote on that later") so your vote doe snot necessarily indicate no disagreement raised on aspects. But you said "did not raise any "peeps of objection" which is totally different from the outcome of any votes.

So I was just asking how you knew the details of the discussion. And I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know Philip "did not raise any "peeps of objection"" but are guessing. So please point me to where you get this from.

Ian

[TonyR]

Having sat through numerous board meetings, minutes are different from a transcript. Often there were disagreements of issues, discussion and conclusion and minutes have never recorded every detail. They might note that "the question was discussed" and "the decision was ...".

So what, it does happen but that is clearly not the case here. The minutes are quite detailed and record lots of questions and comments from various Councillors including PB.

So I was just asking how you knew the details of the discussion. And I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know Philip "did not raise any "peeps of objection"" but are guessing. So please point me to where you get this from

Because I am reading a true and accurate record of the discussion as agreed by PB called the minutes. As said the minutes are quite detailed and record the contributions of all the Councillors including PBs comments on helmets and the election but doesn't record any concerns about the proposed rebranding/name change. Can you point me to a single piece of evidence that PB expressed any concerns to Council about the rebranding and name change over the two plus years the exercise has been running while he was a Councillor.

[Graham Smith]

My recall may not be 100% but when Seabright was CE - there was a huge 'explosion' (Jan 2014?) when the juggernaut of 'name change' was presented for voting. Suddenly what was, partly, a research exploration was becoming a name change process. This was recognised as too major a step without members being adequately consulted.

The process was stopped by a motion to 'stop discussing this matter', which was seconded and passed. Subsequently, in attempting to rescue something from the debris and perhaps to assuage the hurt feelings of some councillors, a proposal was made for another attempt at addressing the issue of the name. This was a rescue attempt and in good faith as far as the proposer (Barry F?) and seconder were concerned (Phil B?). This may be seen by Forum as being too close to 'agreeing a rebrand', which it could not be, but importantly maintained the 'exploratory side' rather than giving anyone a carte blanche for change.

The oft-repeated but infrequently recorded issue of 'addressing the membership' was certainly mentioned by myself and other councillors.

The dual issues of name-change and of governance had stuttered along for a year and a half when a presentation by Campfire was made in October's Council meeting (2015?). The company had done a pretty convincing job of describing the club, how it saw itself and how it was seen by others. I think we were all impressed by the subtlety of their work, especially compared with the previous effort. Clearly it was part of the process of considering the name and potential for change but there was not a whiff of a name proposal. The special Derby meeting of Council had rejected a name proposal by an earlier consultant and I would say that this possibility, rejection, was in everyone's mind.

South East elections:
I accepted the election of others, last year, and losing my seat. In some ways six years is enough I thought. But as what seemed to be irregularities in the election process became clearer, and complaints were not (in my opinion) adequately dealt with, I and others began to wonder to what extent the situation on Council was being changed. I'd say that there is now a strong intention of 'doing it' which may be seen as exactly what Councillors are elected for. Or it could be making changes that the membership would upset by, had they been reasonably informed. Whilst 'name change' is the discussion here the changes in the way CTC could be governed are equally significant. Council may be large and have many voices but it is, democratically or not, 'yours'. With Governance Review Council is to become smaller, more selected and distant from members (as far as I knew when a councillor). I was suspicious of the reasons for governance proposals and I now wonder if, or to what extent, my/our loss of a seat was 'planned' because I/we may have opposed such major changes.

I hope this helps put much of the Forum discussion into context.

Graham

[Psamathe]

Having sat through numerous board meetings, minutes are different from a transcript. Often there were disagreements of issues, discussion and conclusion and minutes have never recorded every detail. They might note that "the question was discussed" and "the decision was ...".

So what, it does happen but that is clearly not the case here. The minutes are quite detailed and record lots of questions and comments from various Councillors including PB.

So I was just asking how you knew the details of the discussion. And I'm beginning to suspect that you don't know Philip "did not raise any "peeps of objection"" but are guessing. So please point me to where you get this from

Because I am reading a true and accurate record of the discussion as agreed by PB called the minutes. As said the minutes are quite detailed and record the contributions of all the Councillors including PBs comments on helmets and the election but doesn't record any concerns about the proposed rebranding/name change. Can you point me to a single piece of evidence that PB expressed any concerns to Council about the rebranding and name change over the two plus years the exercise has been running while he was a Councillor.

I give up. I've repeatedly asked where you get the "did not raise any "peeps of objection"" and your pointed me to documents that show no such thing. Minutes of a meeting are NOT the same as a transcript.
so, for example you quote

From the minutes of the meeting of Council on 17 October 2015. PB present as a Councillor.

7 Re-Brand

Paul Handley from Campfire thanked everyone for taking part in the workshops and/or questionnaires and he confirmed that just over 2000 people had been consulted. Paul then gave an excellent presentation and a few responses have been noted below.

Absolutely amazing piece of work, I’m so proud, perfect, superb.

Part of the way we do our campaigning – it is not who we are at the moment it is

who we need to be moving on.

The essence is absolutely right but it is hard to get campaigners on board.

Maybe we should consider a sub-brand when presenting at campaigning events.

Much more positive experience than in the past. Some words may need tweaking but a good process overall. Just need to be mindful of the images to

be used.

The presentation pulled everything together and it is what I’d like my young

daughter to be involved in.

Enjoyed the presentation very much, really powerful.

The words ‘protecting the joy of cycling’ works really well.

The words ‘freedom of our roads’ maybe should say ‘freedom to ride’ rather than

excluding people that ride off road.

After the presentation Paul Tuohy thanked everyone for their feed-back and reminded Council that agreement was needed that Campfire have captured the ‘essence’. That is the important point. Councillors agreed unanimously that Campfire had captured the ‘essence’.The next stage is for Campfire to develop the creative brief and present back to the Leadership team.

Jim Brown left the meeting as pre-agreed with the Chair.

...

Lots of comments, no suggestion as to who said what. So how can it be "true and accurate record of the discussion" when there are no names indicating who said what. The minutes even say "and a few responses" - so what about the other responses that are not in the minutes ? How can it be a "true and accurate record" when some responses are missed out ? Answer is that Minutes are a summary and do not included everything said.

And the "Councillors agreed unanimously" relates to "Campfire had captured the ‘essence’". But does not say the essence of what. The essence of their brief ? the essence of what the CTC was ? what the CTC is ? what some people want the CTC to become ?, etc. And agreeing that somebody has captured the essence of something does not also mean you agree with what is happening. I might read an article about a political speech and think it has "captured the essence of that speech" but that does not mean I agree with what the speech.

So it seems not worth asking and getting more documents that don't show what I'm asking (i.e supporting you assertion that did not raise any "peeps of objection"). I can draw my own obvious conclusions.

Ian

[TonyR]

So it seems not worth asking and getting more documents that don't show what I'm asking (i.e supporting you assertion that did not raise any "peeps of objection"). I can draw my own obvious conclusions.

Feel free still to post any scintilla of evidence that at anytime during his stint as Councillor, PB objected to the rebranding and name change project. Our ex-Councillor is keeping very quiet about it himself.

[gaz]

Graham, thank you for joining the thread. The minutes of the meeting can be found here. Your thoughtful post has caused me to revisit them which has been worthwhile. I've selected some quotes from the relevant item 14 Brand Review

The recommendation is to move to a self-explanatory name so it is obvious who CTC are and what we do. He [Dan Howard] felt the process has been very thorough, over 8,000 people have responded, on-line focus groups have taken place, we couldn’t do anymore to consult with our members. ... Dan Howard confirmed that over 7,000 Members had taken part in the survey; on-line focus groups had been set up and one to one sessions had taken place. The Group and Researchers couldn’t have done any more to consult with the membership. It is a matter of engaging with future members and the message that came out of the survey was that we need to change.

The early stages of the consultation were much broader than I had recalled, over 7,000 Members is a significant proportion of the membership.

My recall may not be 100% but when Seabright was CE - there was a huge 'explosion' (Jan 2014?) when the juggernaut of 'name change' was presented for voting. Suddenly what was, partly, a research exploration was becoming a name change process. This was recognised as too major a step without members being adequately consulted.

A general debate on the name change followed:- Arthur Spurr expressed concern on what is being recommended. He feels that Members have a sense of ownership of CTC and are not just customers there needs to be a sense of democracy; they will feel the decision has been made for them without consultation. We need to take the membership with us on this issue, have we not learnt from the Charity debate? It should be a motion at the AGM so Members feel engaged. Reading the report he highlighted the term National Cycling was mentioned three times. He stated he has no confidence in the process and will vote against.

There was some debate about having a motion at the AGM if we are to change our trading name; no decision was made.

The minutes certainly reflect considerable debate but don't go so far as Council concluding that a change of trading name should go to AGM.

The process was stopped by a motion to 'stop discussing this matter', which was seconded and passed.

Jim Brown’s concern was Councillors haven’t been allowed to consult with Groups. The decision of 63 people is a dangerous sample. We need an enthusiastic consensus – we’re stumbling into something and not coming up with the magic name. This is a waste of energy and time – we should pause. He then proposed the following Motion. Motion: Do not recommend a name change today to give more time to reflect and consider. Proposed by: Jim Brown Seconded by: Graham Smith

You seem to have summed it up well.

Subsequently, in attempting to rescue something from the debris and perhaps to assuage the hurt feelings of some councillors, a proposal was made for another attempt at addressing the issue of the name. This was a rescue attempt and in good faith as far as the proposer (Barry F?) and seconder were concerned (Phil B?). This may be seen by Forum as being too close to 'agreeing a rebrand', which it could not be, but importantly maintained the 'exploratory side' rather than giving anyone a carte blanche for change.

Barry Flood felt the ‘Oversight’ group haven’t had the thanks that they deserve they had worked extremely hard over the 9 month process. He continued saying CTC is a different organisation to 135 years ago, will a name change create brand awareness and increase membership, maybe the organisation needs to change first and changing the name won’t do that. Don’t just do the easy thing, more work needs to be completed before anything is changed and Council need to be appropriately engaged. Therefore, he would not vote for the recommendation in the paper today. He again thanked the ‘Oversight’ group, recommended that they stand down and a new group be formed to look at how the business I developed. He then proposed the following Motion.
Motion:
Agree in principle to a trading name change. Take the necessary action to register and protect the name of National Cycling Association.
To set up a new working group to carry out further work to look at the implementation and wider brand issues as well as any name change. To bring a report back to Council in April for approval.
Proposed by: Barry Flood Seconded by: Philip Benstead

The oft-repeated but infrequently recorded issue of 'addressing the membership' was certainly mentioned by myself and other councillors.

I'd agree this was a step in the process. However it does register and protect a name that does not include CTC. It does allow for further development of a new brand and how it should be implemented. So far as 'carte blanche' goes it is clearly not the end of the process but the Motion in no way diminishes Council's ability to proceed without taking a change of name to an AGM.

David Cox said he was taken by comments from Gwenda Owen and Jaki Lowe and would feel uncomfortable without taking it to the Membership without more consensus.

Or to put that another way David Cox said he would feel comfortable without taking it to the membership with more consensus on Council.

Jumping forward to October 2015, 7 Re-brand.

The dual issues of name-change and of governance had stuttered along for a year and a half when a presentation by Campfire was made in October's Council meeting (2015?). The company had done a pretty convincing job of describing the club, how it saw itself and how it was seen by others. I think we were all impressed by the subtlety of their work, especially compared with the previous effort. Clearly it was part of the process of considering the name and potential for change but there was not a whiff of a name proposal. The special Derby meeting of Council had rejected a name proposal by an earlier consultant and I would say that this possibility, rejection, was in everyone's mind.

After the presentation Paul Tuohy thanked everyone for their feed-back and reminded Council that agreement was needed that Campfire have captured the ‘essence’. That is the important point. Councillors agreed unanimously that Campfire had captured the ‘essence’.

"Cycling UK" does not appear in the Minutes. That seems to have been presented in January 2016, minutes will not be available until late April at the earliest. The Chair's statement says

The Council meeting on 23 January resolved to accept the new name and design proposed by the professional team working to reflect the ‘brand essence’ ... Only one Council member voted against the proposed rebrand, with 15 voting in favour.

David Cox had achieved the consensus in Council that two years before he felt would be necessary before proceeding with the re-brand without taking it to an AGM.

I do not wish to address the subject of governance at this time.

... I hope this helps put much of the Forum discussion into context.

Thanks again for your contribution.

Edits: Typed the wrong year (see below)

[Psamathe]

So it seems not worth asking and getting more documents that don't show what I'm asking (i.e supporting you assertion that did not raise any "peeps of objection"). I can draw my own obvious conclusions.

Feel free still to post any scintilla of evidence that at anytime during his stint as Councillor, PB objected to the rebranding and name change project. Our ex-Councillor is keeping very quiet about it himself.

I have no knowledge as to whether Philip did or didn't raise any objections. You claimed he didn't and I asked for the evidence he didn't. And none has been forthcoming.

Ian

[Steady rider]

"Cycling UK" does not appear in the Minutes. That seems to have been presented in January 2015,

did you mean 2016?

[gaz]

... did you mean 2016?

I certainly did, thanks. Now edited.

[Philip Benstead]

Petition update with new sheets received the total comes to 522, I will send them to CTC HQ next week.

I am still accepting submissions, keep them coming.

Many thanks

[Steady rider]

It seems that the name change was approved on the 23 January 2016 and disclosed to some members on or about the 18 February and still to be disclosed via Cycle to all members.
In practice then hardly time for members to discuss the new name, some will probably not even know about it.

As pointed out by the Chair of the Policy Committee,

Arthur Spurr expressed concern on what is being recommended. He feels that Members have a sense of ownership of CTC and are not just customers there needs to be a sense of democracy; they will feel the decision has been made for them without consultation. We need to take the membership with us on this issue, have we not learnt from the Charity debate? It should be a motion at the AGM so Members feel engaged.

All a bit of a mess.

just some ideas
CTC - Cycling UK
CTC - Cycling England
CTC - Cycling Scotland
CTC - Cycling Wales
edit adding CTC- Northern Ireland, sorry for overlooking that part.
keeping the history part with the CTC and disclosing the organisation and catering for all parts or jointly.

[Velocio]

It seems that the name change was approved on the 23 January 2016 and disclosed to some members on or about the 18 February and still to be disclosed via Cycle to all members.
In practice then hardly time for members to discuss the new name, some will probably not even know about it.
As pointed out by the Chair of the Policy Committee,

Arthur Spurr expressed concern on what is being recommended. He feels that Members have a sense of ownership of CTC and are not just customers there needs to be a sense of democracy; they will feel the decision has been made for them without consultation. We need to take the membership with us on this issue, have we not learnt from the Charity debate? It should be a motion at the AGM so Members feel engaged.

All a bit of a mess.

My views as a member of CTC have not been sought and no one has contacted me directly to inform me of a name change. I only heard for the first time of the proposed name change of our Club on Saturday.

All a bit of a mess indeed!

Not happy!!!

[Psamathe]

It seems that the name change was approved on the 23 January 2016 and disclosed to some members on or about the 18 February and still to be disclosed via Cycle to all members.
In practice then hardly time for members to discuss the new name, some will probably not even know about it.
As pointed out by the Chair of the Policy Committee,

Arthur Spurr expressed concern on what is being recommended. He feels that Members have a sense of ownership of CTC and are not just customers there needs to be a sense of democracy; they will feel the decision has been made for them without consultation. We need to take the membership with us on this issue, have we not learnt from the Charity debate? It should be a motion at the AGM so Members feel engaged.

All a bit of a mess.

My views as a member of CTC have not been sought and no one has contacted me directly to inform me of a name change. I only heard for the first time of the proposed name change of our Club on Saturday.

All a bit of a mess indeed!

Not happy!!! :(

It's one thing managers experienced in change management do. They understand how things should be handled and make sure such situations don't arise. CTC needs to get itself such experience (either in-house (which one would have expected given the salary levels) or if not an external consultant).

Ian

[Karen Sutton]

So it would seem that concerns were raised about going ahead with the name change with no mention of it to the membership, but it was not concerning enough for the Board to pause things and consult. Those councillors who originally agreed with investigating a change of name should be forgiven for not expecting the name change to be pushed through in the way it has been; with councillors being worn to secrecy about it.

[TonyR]

So it would seem that concerns were raised about going ahead with the name change with no mention of it to the membership, but it was not concerning enough for the Board to pause things and consult. Those councillors who originally agreed with investigating a change of name should be forgiven for not expecting the name change to be pushed through in the way it has been; with councillors being worn to secrecy about it.

Well no actually. Councils intention to make the decision on a name and branding change itself was published two years ago in Cycle and no-one raised any objection in the intervening two years.