why I would give away my children's inheritance?

[531colin]

I am a long-standing member of an organisation which used to be a members' club, paid for by the membership fees and run for the benefit of the members.
A group of people have annexed my members club, and the headquarters building which it owned, and I imagine they are paying themselves salaries on a level expected by executives working at the headquarters of any nationally-known company.....or charity.
There people are so arrogant that they think it beneath them to answer a simple (and polite) question about the number of people with disabilities they have helped to cycle http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=94840......this is one of the objectives enshrined in the sanctimonious objectives of this new charity.
Does anyone know why I would feel it appropriate to give my children's inheritance to these people to squander?

[phil parker]

No - you've got me there!

[pwa]

Reluctantly, Colin, I have stopped being a member and the CTC no longer gets any money off me. I've moved on. I've consoled myself with the thought that the sense of being part of something is still to be found from meeting and riding alongside other cyclists on the road.

[old_windbag]

I imagine they are paying themselves salaries on a level expected by executives working at the headquarters of any nationally-known company.....or charity.

According to accounts for 2014( they were on charities commision site, but I think they're included once a year in the magazine ), there was only one person on a salary between 60-70k, the total staff count was 54 with a cost of 586k.

So if we assume 66k for Mr Big( keep it simple ) then we have 520k for 53 staff, 9.8k per staff member. So there must be quite a number of part timers on very little to allow for a few others to be on say 20-30k.

So I think you can put thoughts of fat cat salaries at CTC aside, for 2014 at least. But would you leave a legacy to them? I'm sure theres many very worthy charities/individuals that could still use money effectively for their/your cause. And much better than family buying trinkets with it, the problem is finding them. Or even think about setting up your own trust style arrangement giving bikes or whatever to those you feel need it directly.

I'm pondering going to BC at £22 yr ( liability insurance already in home insurance ) and possibly AUK ( £19 yr for first yr then £14 yr renewal ), or drop out of being a member of anything.

[pete75]

Yes Colin just think of those poor folk working at HQ who may lose their jobs and not be able to find another well paid sinecure if the donations don't keep rolling in. Think of their golf clubs, their children's private schools, the swanky restaurants they use, Harvey Nichols and even Harrods all losing out for want of your money.

If those thoughts don't bring a tear to your eye you're a heart hearted chap....

[Psamathe]

...
According to accounts for 2014( they were on charities commision site, but I think they're included once a year in the magazine ), there was only one person on a salary between 60-70k, the total staff count was 54 with a cost of 586k.....

Other recent comment on the forum (from people who I'd expect to know) say a salary of £81k in National Office (http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=102190&p=962991&p962991#p962991).

Ian

[old_windbag]

Well I stated these are 2014 figures, but they are from the posted accounts. Perhaps its now 81k for 2015, but that was one individual and the other staff aren't paid at those levels. I'm not defending excessive salaries etc just trying to keep balance that not all in the organisation are on the take.

[geocycle]

Well I stated these are 2014 figures, but they are from the posted accounts. Perhaps its now 81k for 2015, but that was one individual and the other staff aren't paid at those levels. I'm not defending excessive salaries etc just trying to keep balance that not all in the organisation are on the take.

Yes, I think we should go easy on the staff at HQ, the majority who are probably hard working fellow cyclists on moderate wages. Even if the £81k for the CEO is accurate I'd not consider that excessive for the size of the role and the location. This is not to excuse some highly questionable decisions.

[531colin]

With apologies to the forum moderators, who I think are doing a thankless job trying to balance all sorts of conflicting demands..............
I posted this thread in "does anyone know" simply because its a board that gets read by many people.
Now its been moved to a backwater.....don't know about you, but I have to be exceptionally bored before I even look at this board. I got an E mail at 11.02 to-day telling me the thread had been moved, i don't know, but looking at the times of the replies, I would guess that E mail was sent a few minutes after the thread was moved?
I also complained here http://forum.ctc.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=94840 on another "backwater board" about a "monitoring and evaluation officer" presumably paid by head office who would not, or could not, justify or give any detail on the numbers she had published on the "inclusive cycling" board.
Its now nearly a year since i raised that query.....I think the query is legitimate, and I think it should be answered by the individual concerned, or their manager.
I don't see how you can "monitor and evaluate" the influence of the charity in one of their stated aims, that is increasing uptake of cycling by disadvantaged minorities unless you can provide robust numerical data.
If the head office of a national charity cannot provide robust numerical data to show how well they are achieving one of their stated aims, then they are failing......whatever rate they pay their headquarters staff.
All in my opinion, of course.

[MartinC]

.........................A group of people have annexed my members club...................

I share your sentiment exactly. We have to remember though that the members couldn't be bothered to stop them. The CTC was lost 'cos there weren't enough members who cared about it to vote.

[Psamathe]

...
I don't see how you can "monitor and evaluate" the influence of the charity in one of their stated aims, that is increasing uptake of cycling by disadvantaged minorities unless you can provide robust numerical data.
If the head office of a national charity cannot provide robust numerical data to show how well they are achieving one of their stated aims, then they are failing......whatever rate they pay their headquarters staff.
All in my opinion, of course.

It makes you wonder what is happening when it comes to accurate information about achievement for projects paid for by taxpayers (i.e. money from government). Some of the other cyclists I chat with when we meet out riding seem to have knowledge of this type of thing so I'll ask. Maybe some FOI requests to e.g. DoT to find out exactly how the successes of these projects have been independently assessed. I would assume the government does independently assess outcomes, particularly after all the questions over Kid's Company and their "marking their own homework".

Ian

[Norman H]

I don't think the achievements of many charities would survive very close scrutiny. Especially when their aims are rather nebulous in the first place. If you spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on a campaign to get people out of their armchairs, then that is seen as justification enough. You're not supposed to ask how many.

In any case how much faith would you have with their figures. Even hard statistics can be manipulated to support a case. According to the auditors, all those banks were doing fine until they went bust.

[531colin]

.........................A group of people have annexed my members club...................

I share your sentiment exactly. We have to remember though that the members couldn't be bothered to stop them. The CTC was lost 'cos there weren't enough members who cared about it to vote.

I am quite prepared to be wrong, but my recollection is that I was a bit busy at the time trying to keep a roof over my family's heads, i don't think i had access to a computer at all, and the whole thing was presented in the CTC magazine as "offering advantages to the CTC in terms of maintaining the services to the members, recouping income tax on membership fees, blah blah". I might have sat up and listened if they had said what (it turns out) would actually happen.
Too late now.

[Paulatic]

My thoughts exactly Colin, very much how I recall it.
The fact your question of a year ago has not been answered is beyond belief.
The moderators do what they seem fit. I've had a number of items removed in the couple of years I've been here. I accept it but believe me I won't forget it. Don't worry too much as if there are users who like me use the dreaded Tapatalk and constantly view on "timeline" it doesn't matter a jot where it's moved to we catch it.
I won't feel guilty about the CEO poor salary as I suspect he must have other benefits. The number and of times he tweets he is on holiday at http://lechatox.com/ he must have shares in the place.

[Graham]

Kay Lakin posted on CTC Forum on 9th & 10th March 2015.

That was her last login.

Si has tried to establish the current situation and has received a reply that she is no longer employed by CTC.

Whether in the employ of CTC or not, it doesn't look like she will ever post again.

My current thoughts on the "Inclusive Cycling" section is that it has failed reach any sort of critical mass to justify its existence.
I would prefer to distribute anything useful to other sections and shut it down.

We have to seek the guidance of CTC HQ first, as they were the initiators of this project.
( A reply is expected within the next 12 months. )