DEMAND FOR A POLL OF THE WHOLE CLUB

[gaz]

The Poll of the Whole Club is a referendum of the members on a single issue: Council's decision recorded in the OP as 'to replace the existing “Cyclists` Touring Club or CTC” and associated logo(s) and heritage marks with “CYCLING UK” or another branding name and logo(s)'.

The decision has been made. The question to be posed is whether the membership endorse or reject that decision.

Council will present the case that the change of name is in the best interests of the charity. They will show that their decision was reached after two and a half years of consultation, reflection and consideration with the aid of professional guidance. They will set out the entire brand, not just the trading name. They will explain how our heritage remains part of that brand and how member groups can continue to use it. They will show why they feel it is the right decision for the charity's future.

Council's role is to seek endorsement of their decision. Council will not suggest that the status quo has equal merit.

The members will vote.

[Psamathe]

The Poll of the Whole Club is a referendum of the members on a single issue: Council's decision recorded in the OP as 'to replace the existing “Cyclists` Touring Club or CTC” and associated logo(s) and heritage marks with “CYCLING UK” or another branding name and logo(s)'.

The decision has been made. The question to be posed is whether the membership endorse or reject that decision.

Council will present the case that the change of name is in the best interests of the charity. They will show that their decision was reached after two and a half years of consultation, reflection and consideration with the aid of professional guidance. They will set out the entire brand, not just the trading name. They will explain how our heritage remains part of that brand and how member groups can continue to use it. They will show why they feel it is the right decision for the charity's future.

Council's role is to seek endorsement of their decision. Council will not suggest that the status quo has equal merit.

The members will vote.

I had assumed the organisation has to put the actions on hold as the decisions of the Council can be overturned by the membership and they would be forced to wait 6 months (I seem to remember) before re-considering/acting. I'm sure somebody posted some regulation that should the membership vote against something the Council is bound to accept the decision.

11.5 All decisions arrived at by a poll of the whole Club shall bind the Club and the Council for six months.

So if vote goes against the change of name/brand then the new branding cannot go ahead for 6 months (at which point somebody might organise another petition, etc.).

To rush through and "get it out there" after the poll had been called but before the poll has happened would be the height of irresponsibility. Also, membership had no previous idea exactly what and when he Council were acting (there might have been long term "we are looking at" and mentions of "bringing it before an AGM", etc. but people (members) cannot make a decision if they are largely unaware of what is proposed). So to decide, it leaks out and then happens whilst waiting for a membership vote ... no organisation would act like that.

Ian

[gaz]

Article 11 provides that any action taken before the petition is presented remains valid until the vote happens.

11.4 Provided always that any action taken upon such resolution prior to receipt of such petition shall be valid.

The brand was registered before the Poll was received so that action is valid until the vote.

We can debate about whether the subsequent use of the registered brand after receipt of the petition is valid but I doubt that we'll reach agreement.

[Labrat]

And their

... the trustees must act in the best interests of the charity as a whole.

Suggests that if the trustees think voting for the new name/marketing is in the interests of the charity then they must act to see that such a decision is made by the membership (and I interpret the implication being that "trustees must act in the best interests of the charity as a whole" is more important than a balanced presentation of both sides to the issue).

IIRC, theres history to that - when the membership voted to include motorists, and the court ruled that the articles prevented it.

[gaz]

1906, members voted in favour of constitutional changes to become the "Touring Club" and to admit motorists to the organisation.

The losing faction took the matter to the High Court, who refused permission for the necessary alterations to our constitution. It was ruled that a single organisation could not represent the interest of both motorists and cyclists.

The Trustees are legally bound to act in the best interests of the club. The Charity Commission have previously expressed their concern that Article 11 isn't really appropriate for a charity.

Should the result of the Poll of the Whole Club called under Article 11 lead to the members binding Council to follow a course of action they would not otherwise have taken it will create a legal conundrum.

[Philip Benstead]

1906, members voted in favour of constitutional changes to become the "Touring Club" and to admit motorists to the organisation.

The losing faction took the matter to the High Court, who refused permission for the necessary alterations to our constitution. It was ruled that a single organisation could not represent the interest of both motorists and cyclists.

The Trustees are legally bound to act in the best interests of the club. The Charity Commission have previously expressed their concern that Article 11 isn't really appropriate for a charity.

Should the result of the Poll of the Whole Club called under Article 11 lead to the members binding Council to follow a course of action they would not otherwise have taken it will create a legal conundrum.

Please define what is menat by "The Trustees are legally bound to act in the best interests of the club."

[Psamathe]

1906, members voted in favour of constitutional changes to become the "Touring Club" and to admit motorists to the organisation.

The losing faction took the matter to the High Court, who refused permission for the necessary alterations to our constitution. It was ruled that a single organisation could not represent the interest of both motorists and cyclists.

The Trustees are legally bound to act in the best interests of the club. The Charity Commission have previously expressed their concern that Article 11 isn't really appropriate for a charity.

Should the result of the Poll of the Whole Club called under Article 11 lead to the members binding Council to follow a course of action they would not otherwise have taken it will create a legal conundrum.

My own interpretation is that it should not cause a problem as the charity commission only suggested that Article 11 is not appropriate and did not require it be got rid of. And there is no reason to assume that the trustees are the only people who can act in the interests of the club and that they are always absolutely right. So f the membership demands a vote and rejects the decision of the council, then the Council just accept the decision of the membership.

In many things there are many "right" answers. Some more right than others, sometimes different answers have similar outcomes. There are many considerations and many issues that impact "what is best for the club". The re-brand is not only way for the club to move forward. It is just one aspect of one consideration.

Same as when the Westminster Commons get legislation rejected by the House of Lords. It does not mean every MP has to resign and we have a general election. They just accept that a wider opinion had a better idea and they carry on. They may be angry and stamp their little feet a bit but no resignations. They just think again and even George Osborne has admitted (once) that they were right to reject his legislation.

Ian

[Philip Benstead]

It should be noted that the 5 companies within which the CTC local member’s groups sit are not part of the charity but merely control by the charity. Therefore, could these entities be hived off as independent bodies to plough their own furrow?

[Labrat]

Please define what is menat by "The Trustees are legally bound to act in the best interests of the club."

to support the use of any of the powers in S1.8 in order to achieve the objectives in S1.7

[Philip Benstead]

Please define what is menat by "The Trustees are legally bound to act in the best interests of the club."

to support the use of any of the powers in S1.8 in order to achieve the objectives in S1.7

explain s1.7 and as1.8

[PH]

It should be noted that the 5 companies within which the CTC local member’s groups sit are not part of the charity but merely control by the charity.

Are you sure about that Philip? The funds the Member Groups hold are owned by the charity and appear in it's accounts.

[Labrat]

explain s1.7 and as1.8

Well, i would have hoped that someone in your position would have known the about the club rules and constitution...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... ay2012.pdf

1.7: The objects for which the Club is established (the Objects) are to:

1.7.1: promote community participation in healthy recreation by promoting the amateur sport of cycling, cycle touring and associated amateur sports;
1.7.2: preserve and protect the health and safety of the public by encouraging and facilitating cycling and the safety of cyclists;
1.7.3: advance education by whatever means the trustees think fit, including the provision of cycling, training and educational activities related to cycling;
1.7.4: promote the conservation and protection of the environment.

I would really appreciate hearing which of those objects the rebranding undermines or prevents them fulfilling?

I would also particularly point out that 1.7.1 refers not only to cycle touring, which I believe undermines a lot of the criticism that you have voiced against the direction of the organisation.

[Philip Benstead]

explain s1.7 and as1.8

Well, i would have hoped that someone in your position would have known the about the club rules and constitution...
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... ay2012.pdf

1.7: The objects for which the Club is established (the Objects) are to:

1.7.1: promote community participation in healthy recreation by promoting the amateur sport of cycling, cycle touring and associated amateur sports;
1.7.2: preserve and protect the health and safety of the public by encouraging and facilitating cycling and the safety of cyclists;
1.7.3: advance education by whatever means the trustees think fit, including the provision of cycling, training and educational activities related to cycling;
1.7.4: promote the conservation and protection of the environment.

I would really appreciate hearing which of those objects the rebranding undermines or prevents them fulfilling?

I would also particularly point out that 1.7.1 refers not only to cycle touring, which I believe undermines a lot of the criticism that you have voiced against the direction of the organisation.

how am to know what op was talking about, it be referring to other documents. As stated elsewhere, there could be more than one course of action or inaction that could or may fullfill the aim and objective.

[gaz]

It should be noted that the 5 companies within which the CTC local member’s groups sit are not part of the charity but merely control by the charity.

The companies were set up in 1973, if I understand correctly one reason for this was to simplify VAT requirements for entry fees on events organised by both National Office and MGs. The MGs do indeed sit within the companies (IIRC CTC (Central) Ltd deals with NO events rather than MGs) and their assets are not inconsiderable as detailed in the end of the annual accounts, item 16.

Therefore, could these entities be hived off as independent bodies to plough their own furrow?

Without greater knowledge of their continuing role in the structure I can't comment but they clearly have value to the charity.

[Philip Benstead]

It should be noted that the 5 companies within which the CTC local member’s groups sit are not part of the charity but merely control by the charity.

The companies were set up in 1973, if I understand correctly one reason for this was to simplify VAT requirements for entry fees on events organised by both National Office and MGs. The MGs do indeed sit within the companies (IIRC CTC (Central) Ltd deals with NO events rather than MGs) and their assets are not inconsiderable as detailed in the end of the annual accounts, item 16.

Therefore, could these entities be hived off as independent bodies to plough their own furrow?

Without greater knowledge of their continuing role in the structure I can't comment but they clearly have value to the charity.

do you mean asking their members to leave a legacy to the ctc. My contention is that ctc is no longer interested in local members group I have been told by councillors the CEO as very limited contact with bodies outside London