Name Change?

[Bazza55]

So according to 'Cycleclips' the CTC officially becomes Cycling UK on April 5th. ;

The 600 plus members who petitioned for a ballot of the full membership have just been ignored, disregarded and insulted.

Ladies and Gentlemen, your new Cycling UK ENJOY IT!

[TonyR]

So according to 'Cycleclips' the CTC officially becomes Cycling UK on April 5th. ;

The 600 plus members who petitioned for a ballot of the full membership have just been ignored, disregarded and insulted.

Ladies and Gentlemen, your new Cycling UK ENJOY IT!

The petitioners have not been ignored - the poll voting slips will be sent out in the June/July issue of Cycle in compliance with Articles 11.2 and 11.3, But also decisions made before the petition was received at HO can still be carried out in compliance with Article 11.4 which is what appears to be happening. Or do you only want the CTC to only follow the articles that you want them to and ignore the ones you don't?

Remembert the rebranding decision was taken on 25 January and the petition did not arrive until 5 February during which period its highly likely that the rebranding wheels will all have been set in motion and therefore can be continued under Article 11.4

[Bicycler]

Did anyone else notice the wording Cycle Clips used:

Watch out for a brand new look for CycleClips next week with CTC officially becoming Cycling UK from next Tuesday 5 April

I'm sure they meant to say "Watch out for a brand new look for CycleClips next week with CTC officially remaining the Cyclists' Touring Club but adopting a new brand name from next Tuesday 5 April"

[gaz]

... Remembert the rebranding decision was taken on 25 January and the petition did not arrive until 5 February ...

23 January and 4 March respectively.

Did anyone else notice the choice of wording Cycle Clips used:
...

Perhaps because whilst we are and will remain the Cyclists' Touring Club the current brand of CTC will be changing to Cycling UK .

[Bazza55]

"The petitioners have not been ignored - the poll voting slips will be sent out in the June/July issue of Cycle in compliance with Articles 11.2 and 11.3, But also decisions made before the petition was received at HO can still be carried out in compliance with Article 11.4 which is what appears to be happening. Or do you only want the CTC to only follow the articles that you want them to and ignore the ones you don't?

Remembert the rebranding decision was taken on 25 January and the petition did not arrive until 5 February during which period its highly likely that the rebranding wheels will all have been set in motion and therefore can be continued under Article 11.4"

The voting slips wouldn't be sent out at all if it wasn't for one (unnamed) Councilor having a morals and standards by letting the membership know of the intended secret name and plan. Amazingly for which he has received much internal criticism from the Chair. Personally I would award him a life membership, but on second thoughts, who would want one of these nowadays?

[Bicycler]

Did anyone else notice the wording Cycle Clips used:

Watch out for a brand new look for CycleClips next week with CTC officially becoming Cycling UK from next Tuesday 5 April

Perhaps because whilst we are and will remain the Cyclists' Touring Club the current brand of CTC will be changing to Cycling UK .

I see, it's an official change of name but not a change of official name Yet more clear and unambiguous communication which the members should understand without any reasonable prospect of confusion

I agree with you btw, that if we're getting queries about this from a brief mention in Cycle Clips we can expect a flood of them when Cycle hits doormats

[Bazza55]

I can't wait, they deserve everything that is coming. Oh and I hope that many of those people who read of this in Cycle, travel to Derby on 7th May to voice their concerns how this whole sorry mess has been handled

[TonyR]

... Remembert the rebranding decision was taken on 25 January and the petition did not arrive until 5 February ...

23 January and 4 March respectively.

Thanks for the correction. By 4 March the April edition of Cycle would have pretty much been put to bed and off to the printers. It would not have been realistically feasible to take out a major article at that late stage.

[TonyR]

The voting slips wouldn't be sent out at all if it wasn't for one (unnamed) Councilor having a morals and standards by letting the membership know of the intended secret name and plan. Amazingly for which he has received much internal criticism from the Chair.

Not forgetting that that Councillor was an active and willing part of the process of rebranding for at least two years including supporting the Campfire proposals last October until his epiphany after he failed to get re-elected as a Councillor and had to step down on 1 January this year.

Unless of course you believe his claims of a multiyear conspiracy to ignore his comments and falisfy the meeting minutes to censor his strident opposition in Council

[gaz]

The voting slips wouldn't be sent out at all if it wasn't for one (unnamed) Councilor having a morals and standards by letting the membership know of the intended secret name and plan. Amazingly for which he has received much internal criticism from the Chair.

Not forgetting that that Councillor was an active and willing part of the process of rebranding for at least two years including supporting the Campfire proposals last October until his epiphany after he failed to get re-elected as a Councillor and had to step down on 1 January this year.

Unless of course you believe his claims of a multiyear conspiracy to ignore his comments and falisfy the meeting minutes to censor his strident opposition in Council

I presume Bazza55 is talking about an (unnamed) Councillor who was present for the vote on 23 January which was 15 to 1 in favour of the re-brand, Philip had left Council before that meeting. There were a number of Councillors who began their current tenure on 1 January, though seemingly unlikely the (unnamed) Councillor involved may not have had any previous involvement in the rebrand process.

I cannot discount the possibility that the (unnamed) Councillor supports the name change but was unhappy that Council went ahead without putting the decision to the AGM.

[Psamathe]

The voting slips wouldn't be sent out at all if it wasn't for one (unnamed) Councilor having a morals and standards by letting the membership know of the intended secret name and plan. Amazingly for which he has received much internal criticism from the Chair.

Not forgetting that that Councillor was an active and willing part of the process of rebranding for at least two years including supporting the Campfire proposals last October until his epiphany after he failed to get re-elected as a Councillor and had to step down on 1 January this year.

Unless of course you believe his claims of a multiyear conspiracy to ignore his comments and falisfy the meeting minutes to censor his strident opposition in Council

I presume Bazza55 is talking about an (unnamed) Councillor who was present for the vote on 23 January which was 15 to 1 in favour of the re-brand, Philip had left Council before that meeting. ...

But we are continually being told Philip was party to the decision (change to WACU). If he was no longer on the Council how can he have been party to that decision ?

Ian

[Labrat]

But we are continually being told Philip was party to the decision (change to WACU). If he was no longer on the Council how can he have been party to that decision ?

Ian

I don't think anyone has alleged that

But its not like the Rebranding exercise has crept up silently on anyone over the past couple of years while Philip was on council, and numerous votes took place regards the process by which it has got there, including commissioning Campfire etc.

Its only now that Philip seems to claim that "the minutes of council do not give the true feeling of the councillor's" (despite having confirmed the minutes at the next meeting) and accusations of private cabals and other behind the scenes nefarious misdeeds.

[Psamathe]

But we are continually being told Philip was party to the decision (change to WACU). If he was no longer on the Council how can he have been party to that decision ?

Ian

I don't think anyone has alleged that

But its not like the Rebranding exercise has crept up silently on anyone over the past couple of years while Philip was on council, and numerous votes took place regards the process by which it has got there, including commissioning Campfire etc.

Its only now that Philip seems to claim that "the minutes of council do not give the true feeling of the councillor's" (despite having confirmed the minutes at the next meeting) and accusations of private cabals and other behind the scenes nefarious misdeeds.

Supporting a process is very different from supporting the final action. Suppose the PR company taking all that CTC money came up with the name "Plumbers 4 U". Does the fact that the Council supported the process of investigation mean that must everybody also support the proposed new brand of "Plumbers 4 U" with a new branding logo
?

Supporting the process is very different from supporting the final decision.

And as has been said very often before Minutes of a meeting are very different from a transcript of a meeting.

Ian

[Labrat]

Supporting a process is very different from supporting the final action. Suppose the PR company taking all that CTC money came up with the name "Plumbers 4 U". Does the fact that the Council supported the process of investigation mean that must everybody also support the proposed new brand of "Plumbers 4 U" with a new branding logo

Of course not - but neither does it mean that the process was carried out improperly or unfairly as Philip has repeatedly claimed, nor does it mean that the PR companies report is invalid or failed to make a 'business case' for the change.

Supporting the process is very different from supporting the final decision.

Again, of course, but neither does it mean that the process has not been democratic or failed to take into account alternative viewpoints. Nor does it mean that the committee are wrong to accept the findings/advice, even in the face of disapproval from vociferous opponents (or even, given their sworn undertaking to uphold the constitutional objectives of the charity, the majority of the membership)

And as has been said very often before Minutes of a meeting are very different from a transcript of a meeting.
Ian

That's not what Philip claimed, he said that the minutes were incomplete and misleading - despite having then gone on to agree that they were a true and accurate record of proceedings himself.

[Psamathe]

Supporting a process is very different from supporting the final action. Suppose the PR company taking all that CTC money came up with the name "Plumbers 4 U". Does the fact that the Council supported the process of investigation mean that must everybody also support the proposed new brand of "Plumbers 4 U" with a new branding logo

Of course not - but neither does it mean that the process was carried out improperly or unfairly as Philip has repeatedly claimed, nor does it mean that the PR companies report is invalid or failed to make a 'business case' for the change.

Supporting the process is very different from supporting the final decision.

Again, of course, but neither does it mean that the process has not been democratic or failed to take into account alternative viewpoints. Nor does it mean that the committee are wrong to accept the findings/advice, even in the face of disapproval from vociferous opponents (or even, given their sworn undertaking to uphold the constitutional objectives of the charity, the majority of the membership)

And as has been said very often before Minutes of a meeting are very different from a transcript of a meeting.
Ian

That's not what Philip claimed, he said that the minutes were incomplete and misleading - despite having then gone on to agree that they were a true and accurate record of proceedings himself.

It's a question of degree. Minutes will always be incomplete (as they are not a transcript and thus are a summary). And they can still be misleading even when true and accurate. For hypothetical example a statement in the Minutes "The motion was passed unanimously" might suggest everybody was in complete agreement - and might not suggest there were hours of heated debate including various verbal reassurances, etc.

Another (maybe more relevant) example of true but misleading "He stood for re-election of the charity board but times have changed and he received the lowest polling ever in CTC's 138 history with 0.2% of the possible share of voters." - where "he" actually only got one vote lower than the next lowest candidate(?) and the 0.2% suggests poor performance but can also mean a disastrously low turnout. Shows how people can use words to be "true" but "misleading".

Ian