Cycling UK Forum

I must be alone in thinking that the merits or demerits of Phillip Benstead are completely irrelevant to the question of whether this club should change its brand name. I don't care if he's an angel or the devil incarnate.

Labrat wrote: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)

Nor does it mean the opposite. People may have the power to do things, but that doesn't make the actions appropriate. Something can be 'democratic' in that it is decided by nominally elected representatives without it being representative. Alternative viewpoints can be discussed without being adequately considered. Consultations can be flawed (without the documents we can't tell exactly who was consulted, what they were asked or what the results were). Results can be translated into policy in different ways. There may be many different possible perspectives on how to best meet the objectives of the charity. In summary, people can make the wrong decisions even with the best of intentions.

On a not unrelated note, I (as a regular pleb member) received a consultation document and voting form from CAMRA this morning. It appears that this charitable organisation does not consider that being a charity means having to keep members in the dark about changes to their organisation.

Gaz is right, I was NOT talking about Philip Benstead, the person who (thankfully) leaked the information is still a serving councilor. Though his card will be marked now.

Bicycler wrote:... the merits or demerits of Phillip Benstead are completely irrelevant to the question of whether this club should change its brand name.

+1.

Bazza55 wrote:Gaz is right, I was NOT talking about Philip Benstead, the person who (thankfully) leaked the information is still a serving councilor. Though his card will be marked now.

I'm not surprised if his card is marked. For a start he seriously breached the Code of Conduct he signed up to when he became a Councillor specifically

3.4 I will participate in collective decision making, accept a majority decision of the Council and will not act individually unless specifically authorised to do so.

He refused to accept a majority decision of Council (15-1 as I understand it) but then having been overwhelmingly out-voted, took matters into his own hand to attempt to overturn the decision. In the process he totally destroyed Council's plan to properly communicate the change in the April issue of Cycle and in place gazumped it with all the rumour, misinformation and speculation that has gone on since based on partial information.

When he signed up to the Code of Conduct he also accepted that if he breached the Code as he has that

6.1 I understand that substantial breach of any part of this Code may result in procedures being put in motion that may result in my being asked to resign from Council as the trustee board.

TonyR wrote:

Bazza55 wrote:Gaz is right, I was NOT talking about Philip Benstead, the person who (thankfully) leaked the information is still a serving councilor. Though his card will be marked now.

I'm not surprised if his card is marked. For a start he seriously breached the Code of Conduct he signed up to when he became a Councillor specifically

3.4 I will participate in collective decision making, accept a majority decision of the Council and will not act individually unless specifically authorised to do so.

He refused to accept a majority decision of Council (15-1 as I understand it) but then having been overwhelmingly out-voted, took matters into his own hand to attempt to overturn the decision. In the process he totally destroyed Council's plan to properly communicate the change in the April issue of Cycle and in place gazumped it with all the rumour, misinformation and speculation that has gone on since based on partial information.

When he signed up to the Code of Conduct he also accepted that if he breached the Code as he has that

6.1 I understand that substantial breach of any part of this Code may result in procedures being put in motion that may result in my being asked to resign from Council as the trustee board.

When I was elected for the se I was very unhappy about signing the code conduct, I took advice and in the end dined it. My doults about signing it have come to be true, as stated elsewhere by others on this forum the code is a gagging order. The council does not like debate.

TonyR wrote:I'm not surprised if his card is marked. For a start he seriously breached the Code of Conduct he signed up to when he became a Councillor specifically

3.4 I will participate in collective decision making, accept a majority decision of the Council and will not act individually unless specifically authorised to do so.

...
When he signed up to the Code of Conduct he also accepted that if he breached the Code as he has that

6.1 I understand that substantial breach of any part of this Code may result in procedures being put in motion that may result in my being asked to resign from Council as the trustee board.

The Code of Conduct for Council is a complex document. Every clause is open to interpretation.

4. I will respect organisational, Council, commercial and individual confidentiality, while never using confidentiality as an excuse not to disclose matters that should be transparent and open.

If he felt strongly that this matter should be transparent and open to the membership did he breach the code or follow it?

It's up to Council whether or not to instigate any form of disciplinary proceeding on the matter.

gaz wrote:

TonyR wrote:I'm not surprised if his card is marked. For a start he seriously breached the Code of Conduct he signed up to when he became a Councillor specifically

3.4 I will participate in collective decision making, accept a majority decision of the Council and will not act individually unless specifically authorised to do so.

...
When he signed up to the Code of Conduct he also accepted that if he breached the Code as he has that

6.1 I understand that substantial breach of any part of this Code may result in procedures being put in motion that may result in my being asked to resign from Council as the trustee board.

The Code of Conduct for Council is a complex document. Every clause is open to interpretation.

4. I will respect organisational, Council, commercial and individual confidentiality, while never using confidentiality as an excuse not to disclose matters that should be transparent and open.

If he felt strongly that this matter should be transparent and open to the membership did he breach the code or follow it?

It's up to Council whether or not to instigate any form of disciplinary proceeding on the matter.

I have come to the conclusion that many of the ctc documents could do with a rewrite eg articals, standing orders , orders in council, complaints procedure, data protection etc etc. They do not stand up to close reading and implementation. They are disjointed and oftern mix up subject in one sentence. The ctc needs more openness and transparently. In the case of the ctc leaker, he did the members a service. I knew the new name on the 25 January and gave hint on Facebook but nobody caught on, sorry I can be obscure in my references.

gaz wrote:If he felt strongly that this matter should be transparent and open to the membership did he breach the code or follow it?

If there had been an intention by Council to withold the information from the membership then transparency might be a defence. But that was not the case. Council intended to fully communicate the decision to the membership as soon as possible in Cycle which every member receives, and to send out the details to all MGs as has now happened. So there can be no transparency argument because there was a detailed communication plan in place. That was thrown into disarray by the leak and the only credible reason for the leak is not transparency but attempting to overturn a decision they were comprehensively outvoted on.

Whether Council takes action is up to Council but there is a substantial issue of breach of trust and cabinet responsibility that may make their position untenable anyway. It just doesn't work if all the discussions on difficult issues are guarded because of fears of them being leaked or used to brief against decisions.

Philip Benstead wrote:When I was elected for the se I was very unhappy about signing the code conduct, I took advice and in the end dined it. My doults about signing it have come to be true, as stated elsewhere by others on this forum the code is a gagging order. The council does not like debate.

But you did sign it and therefore are bound by it.

TonyR wrote:

Philip Benstead wrote:When I was elected for the se I was very unhappy about signing the code conduct, I took advice and in the end dined it. My doults about signing it have come to be true, as stated elsewhere by others on this forum the code is a gagging order. The council does not like debate.

But you did sign it and therefore are bound by it.

I am no longer on council.

Philip Benstead wrote: The ctc needs more openness and transparently. In the case of the ctc leaker, he did the members a service.

And we're you 'doing members a service' when you went off half cocked today and wrongly announced to the world that Roger had resigned?

Labrat wrote:

Philip Benstead wrote: The ctc needs more openness and transparently. In the case of the ctc leaker, he did the members a service.

And we're you 'doing members a service' when you went off half cocked today and wrongly announced to the world that Roger had resigned?

doh

It seems like a very warped sense of humour to "resign" and not mean it (given the current climate). Alarmist/misleading or what?

micksimm wrote:... Alarmist/misleading or what?

April Fool, apparently.

You'd have to ask Philip what his motivations were when he reported a resignation that had not taken place. Alarmist/misleading/open and transparent although genuinely mistaken or what?

His original title for the thread was: Roger Geffin resign from his job at the CTC.

Upon realising that he had made an error he did not change the thread title.

After being prompted to correct it, Philip's edit to the title read: Doh Correction Roger Geffin resign from his job at the CTC.

A Moderator has since stepped in to give us: Roger Geffen now works for CUK but had a nice April Fools.

Maybe with the benefit of hindsight Roger has had a "doh" moment about his April Fool too, maybe he thinks it's just a lot of fuss over nothing.

gaz wrote:

micksimm wrote:... Alarmist/misleading or what?

April Fool, apparently.

You'd have to ask Philip what his motivations were when he reported a resignation that had not taken place. Alarmist/misleading/open and transparent although genuinely mistaken or what?

His original title for the thread was: Roger Geffin resign from his job at the CTC.

Upon realising that he had made an error he did not change the thread title.

After being prompted to correct it, Philip's edit to the title read: Doh Correction Roger Geffin resign from his job at the CTC.

A Moderator has since stepped in to give us: Roger Geffen now works for CUK but had a nice April Fools.

Maybe with the benefit of hindsight Roger has had a "doh" moment about his April Fool too, maybe he thinks it's just a lot of fuss over nothing.

come on I admitted my error. I report a statement in good faith, I can not be reply immediately 24/7 I thought my doh correction was self explanatory.