Cycling UK Forum

Vorpal wrote:... But I agree that it isn't a club anymore, and members should not expect the rights of club members.

Trouble is, you become a member of an organisation called a Club. You get membership benefits as having paid to be a member of that club, etc., etc. So it is probably reasonable for members to assume it is a club and they are members of that club.

So the current complete re-organisation really is taking the club away from the members.

That people paying to become a member of a club are not actually becoming members of a club should be made much more clear BEFORE people pay out their money. In some sectors to take money on the basis of false or misleading information is fraudulent..

Ian

Join the CTC and you become a member of the Cyclists ' Touring Club, just like anyone joining the RAC becomes a member of the Royal Automobile Club.

Just like people joining RAC, those that join CTC look at the organisation's aims, the various member benefits they will recevie and decide if they feel they will get value for money when they pay their subs/fees. A small proportion may look at the governance structures and exactly what "Club" might mean to them.

Psamathe wrote:So the current complete re-organisation really is taking the club away from the members.

If you want to attribute any event to "taking the club away from the members" you would be better advised to attribute that to the charity conversion, which was completed 7 June 2012. The reality however is that nobody took the club away, the members voted to hand it over*.

The change of name to Cycling UK does not change any of CTC's Charitable Objects. The proposed changes to the governance structures are being put forward under the existing Memorandum of Association. All the relevant powers of Council to make these changes were in the MoA before the Charity conversion.

*The Club is still governed by Council. As Directors of a Limited Company, Council were entrusted with running the Club in the interests of its members as defined in our Memorandum of Association. As Trustees of a Charity, Council are entrusted with running the Club in the interests of the public as defined in our Charitable Objects.

Edit: typo

Psamathe wrote:

Vorpal wrote:... But I agree that it isn't a club anymore, and members should not expect the rights of club members.

Trouble is, you become a member of an organisation called a Club. You get membership benefits as having paid to be a member of that club, etc., etc. So it is probably reasonable for members to assume it is a club and they are members of that club.

So the current complete re-organisation really is taking the club away from the members.

That people paying to become a member of a club are not actually becoming members of a club should be made much more clear BEFORE people pay out their money. In some sectors to take money on the basis of false or misleading information is fraudulent..

Ian

Is it called a club? I thought it was 'CTC the National Cycling Charity'. The current re-organisation isn't. It's just a rebranding at this point. It may have some organisational impacts, but it was becoming a charity that meant the CTC was no longer a club. Affiliated groups can still be clubs. I'm not sure about member groups. If members still thought it was reasonable to assume that they were members of a club, they did not understand what becoming a charity meant.

Vorpal wrote: If members still thought it was reasonable to assume that they were members of a club, they did not understand what becoming a charity meant.

How silly of them! To be fair the changes in arrangements were not made abundantly clear at the time. It was perfectly reasonable to read the information the CTC was putting out and to believe that you were still a member of a club, that its heritage and member services were protected, and that you had a say in how the club was run

Converting to a charity the part of CTC we term the “Club” and absorbing into it the work of the part we term the “Charitable Trust” will enable us to take all our charitable work into a single core organisation, to be known simply as the Club, whilst retaining all our present membership services, arrangements, democracy and heritage

Control of Council and CTC’s activities will remain firmly with Members. The merger of the Club and CTC Charitable Trust will give Members more direct control than they have at present, not less

https://web.archive.org/web/20110702054 ... TabID=5356

Is it unreasonable for somebody who believed information like that to be angry upon finding that their membership services have been reduced, that they are no longer part of a club, that the organisation's name is to be changed without meaningful consultation and that they do not have a say in any of it?

> In the event that there is a 'poll' I will of course read the opposing views with interest
> For me the name of the organisation is not important to me, not really.
> What is of value to me is that I belong to an organisation whose goals and objectives I'm largely in accord with, but primarily it's because under the club's banner my local cycling group (currently known as Portsmouth CTC) has brought together a whole host of like minded cyclist whose company I enjoy on the many rides that I do with them
> Now, if something were to happen that changed the dynamics of my local cycling group, then maybe I'd get a bit more interested in a 'poll', but for now......

Vorpal wrote:A poll costs lots of money that might be better spent on campaigning.

It won't make any difference either. The vote to become a charity was 80% in favour but didn't resolve the issue and people are still banging on about it being wrong five years later. If there were a 99% vote in favour of a name change I would still expect people here to be banging on about it being against the members wishes for the next decade or few.

Yes Tony. I agree.
It's the vocally loud minority who make the most noise.
The vote was 80% in favour ................ of the people who voted, not the total membership.

It's all about my hobby horse regarding "democracy" ........................ just think about the forthcoming referendum.

What are the rules?

50.001% of the people who vote want to stay in.
49.999% of the people who vote want to leave.

Who is going to make the most noise?
The voters, or the people who didn't vote?

Mick F wrote:Yes Tony. I agree.
It's the vocally loud minority who make the most noise.
The vote was 80% in favour ................ of the people who voted, not the total membership.

It's all about my hobby horse regarding "democracy" ........................ just think about the forthcoming referendum.

It's quite possible that you know something I don't but before there can be a referendum the petition must attract the signatures of 200 members. I don't doubt that it will but I don't know that it has.

Mick F wrote:What are the rules?

All current members are eligible to vote. One member, one vote. Simple majority of votes cast required to "win" the poll. Council has the National Office machine on its side in terms of putting across its view on the re-brand. Petitioners have their own resources, such as they may be.

Edit: In the event of an exact 50/50 split the original decision is confirmed, i.e. Cycling UK

Mick F wrote:Who is going to make the most noise?

So far as the forum is concerned could it be all the declared non-members who have deeply held views on the CTC? Noisy bunch in my experience but very glad to have them here .

TonyR wrote:

Vorpal wrote:A poll costs lots of money that might be better spent on campaigning.

It won't make any difference either. The vote to become a charity was 80% in favour but didn't resolve the issue and people are still banging on about it being wrong five years later. If there were a 99% vote in favour of a name change I would still expect people here to be banging on about it being against the members wishes for the next decade or few.

No doubt you are right.
I think I was one who voted to become a charity because I was led to believe it was the way forward. As a local club we were also led to believe becoming a MG was the way forward.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing but I wouldn't agree to either of them now.

Could more than one question be asked in a poll of the whole club? edit would not apply in this case.

Mick F wrote:Yes Tony. I agree.
It's the vocally loud minority who make the most noise.
The vote was 80% in favour ................ of the people who voted, not the total membership.

It's all about my hobby horse regarding "democracy" ........................ just think about the forthcoming referendum.

What are the rules?

50.001% of the people who vote want to stay in.
49.999% of the people who vote want to leave.

Who is going to make the most noise?
The voters, or the people who didn't vote?

You have a suggestion for a better system? [Mick F decides for everyone does not count ]

Mick F wrote:What are the rules?
Who is going to make the most noise?

gaz wrote:All current members are eligible to vote. One member, one vote. Simple majority of votes cast required to "win" the poll.
So far as the forum is concerned could it be all the declared non-members who have deeply held views on the CTC? Noisy bunch in my experience but very glad to have them here .

Yes, the losers make the noise because their views aren't represented.
If it's a 51/49 split, the 49 are alienated ................ and vocal.
If the vocal non-members aren't considered, they will still be vocal.

Bicycler wrote:Is it unreasonable for somebody who believed information like that to be angry upon finding that their membership services have been reduced, that they are no longer part of a club, that the organisation's name is to be changed without meaningful consultation and that they do not have a say in any of it?

I'm not sure, but I think the Charity Commission is pretty clear that a charity has to serve the aims of the charity, not the members of a club.

There was a lot of discussion about that on this forum in the weeks leading up to the charity vote.

Vorpal wrote:There was a lot of discussion about that on this forum in the weeks leading up to the charity vote.

Weeks, months, years ....

TonyR wrote:You have a suggestion for a better system? [Mick F decides for everyone does not count ]

Some of our Scottish members may be able to cast their minds back to the referendum for Scottish independence in 1975(?)
Correct me if I have the wrong year. Could have been 1977(?)

There was a huge furore regarding the majority to pass the referendum.
It wasn't a plain 50/50 of the voters, it needed a particular percentage of the electorate to vote YES.