Statement from the trustees on the 2023 elections

[Philip Benstead]

https://www.cyclinguk.org/about/cycling ... -a-trustee
Statement from the trustees on the 2023 elections

Dear members
Following the publication of the 2023 trustee election ballot paper and launch of voting for candidates, we are aware that some members are unhappy that only two candidates have been put forward to members.
We therefore wish to provide further clarification around our elections this year. This year we received fewer applications, not all of which, in view of the Nominations Committee, met the specific skills criteria or capability needed to continue to progress the work of the charity.
In addition, we received a number of applications from members who had been a member for less than 12 months and therefore were unable to stand for election as is a requirement specified under a motion voted on and passed at the annual general meeting in 2016. Both of these factors therefore limited the pool of eligible candidates to be considered for election.
In total we received:
• 4 eligible applications from members which were considered for election
• 3 applications from members who had been a member for less than 12 months and therefore were ineligible to stand under the 2016 ordinary resolution
• 1 application received after the closing date for the process
The board’s Nominations Committee then assessed the eligible applications received and considered the degree to which they have the personal qualities, skills and experience required; and how well they would complement the existing skills mix on the board. The applications were thoroughly evaluated by a process agreed by the board.
Of the four eligible applications received, two scored above 83% of the total marks available and were put forward for election. The two remaining candidates scored below 54%.
As it is the legal duty of the trustees as company directors, to ensure that the charity is operated effectively, and the work and assets of the company safeguarded, the board and Nominations Committee considered that it is only appropriate for candidates to appear on the ballot paper where the trustees are confident that candidates possess the capability to progress the work and effectiveness of the charity.
Unfortunately, the Nominations Committee did not consider this to be the case for two of the candidates and as there was a limited number of applications this year and with a number of ineligible candidates, the board regretfully had to put forward a smaller selection of candidates for consideration on this year’s ballot paper.
We welcome engagement from members in our governance but recognise that the number of members expressing an interest in becoming a trustee; voting on elections and at general meetings has fallen in recent years, despite the ongoing success and impact of the organisation.
We also recognise that the current election processes and minimum 12-month membership requirement to be eligible for election, are partially restrictive to newly joined members, but we encourage members to continue to seek to stand for election.
We are sorry that some members have expressed their dissatisfaction with this year’s process and we will continue to review how we ensure that future processes are more inclusive and open.
Paul Baker
Acting chair
Christine Gibbons
Vice chair

[Philip Benstead]

Statement from the trustees on the 2023 elections
Dear members
Following the publication of the 2023 trustee election ballot paper and launch of voting for candidates, we are aware that some members are unhappy that only two candidates have been put forward to members.
We therefore wish to provide further clarification around our elections this year. This year we received fewer applications, not all of which, in view of the Nominations Committee, met the specific skills criteria or capability needed to continue to progress the work of the charity.
In addition, we received a number of applications from members who had been a member for less than 12 months and therefore were unable to stand for election as is a requirement specified under a motion voted on and passed at the annual general meeting in 2016. Both of these factors therefore limited the pool of eligible candidates to be considered for election.
In total we received:
• 4 eligible applications from members which were considered for election
• 3 applications from members who had been a member for less than 12 months and therefore were ineligible to stand under the 2016 ordinary resolution
• 1 application received after the closing date for the process
The board’s Nominations Committee then assessed
LIST THE QUALIFICATION/TRAINING/EXPERIENCE OF THE ASSESSORS THAT QUALIFIES THEM TO MAKE THIS ASSESSMENT

the eligible applications received and considered the degree to which they have the personal qualities, skills and experience required; and how well they would complement the existing skills mix on the board. The applications were thoroughly evaluated by a process agreed by the board.
DEFINE EVALUATION

Of the four eligible applications received, two scored above 83% of the total marks available and were put forward for election. The two remaining candidates scored below 54%. DEFINE THE SHORTCOMINGS

As it is the legal duty of the trustees as company directors, to ensure that the charity is operated effectively, and the work and assets of the company safeguarded, the board and Nominations Committee considered that it is only appropriate for candidates to appear on the ballot paper where the trustees are confident that candidates possess the capability to progress the work and effectiveness of the charity.
THE LACK OF ANY LARGE INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP SUGGEST THE CURRENT BOARD IS LACKING THE REQUIRED SKILLSET.

Unfortunately, the Nominations Committee did not consider this to be the case for two of the candidates and as there was a limited number of applications this year and with a number of ineligible candidates, the board regretfully had to put forward a smaller selection of candidates for consideration on this year’s ballot paper.
We welcome engagement from members in our governance but recognise that the number of members expressing an interest in becoming a trustee; voting on elections and at general meetings has fallen in recent years, despite the ongoing success and impact of the organisation.
I WONDER WHY, DEFINE SUCCESS?

We also recognise that the current election processes and minimum 12-month membership requirement to be eligible for election, are partially restrictive to newly joined members, but we encourage members to continue to seek to stand for election.
We are sorry that some members have expressed their dissatisfaction with this year’s process and we will continue to review how we ensure that future processes are more inclusive and open.
PERMIT ANY MEMBERS TO STAND WHO HAVE BEEN A MEMBER FOR ONE YEAR.

Paul Baker
Acting chair
Christine Gibbons
Vice chair

[Psamathe]

(I'm not a member of CTC but ...) I dislike election systems where in effect those holding office decide who they consider "appropriate". I've no issues with rejecting people from ballot who do not qualify (e.g. how long they've been members) but considering the individuals and selecting candidates they feel suitable king of makes elections virtually nothing more than confirming the choice of the existing organbisation.

Free elections where people state their background, ideas, etc. and let the electorate decide - that's what elections should be about. How can you have a free election when those in power decide who can stand! (welcome to N Korea (only one candidate on a ballot paper), Iran , etc.

Ian

[drossall]

In my understanding, this follows from charity law and the interventions of the Charity Commission. There is a duty upon trustees to make sure that they, collectively, have the necessary skills to oversee and advance the work of the charity. If they perceive that they lack either something needed for regular oversight, or knowledge for the plans that they have made, they need to act to fill those gaps. Hence, they will define the skills needed either to replace retiring members, or to correct existing areas of weakness. Sometimes, and depending on governing documents (constitutions), trustees might need to co-opt people for similar reasons, or sometimes employ advisors.

For example, trustees none of whom had financial skills might struggle to run a large charity, even employing accountants to run the finances. And a charity setting out on major building projects might want to ensure that its trustees understood construction and project management.

I am a member but I've not looked into the skills and personalities involved in this instance; my comment is rather more generic.

[mjr]

Is the mark scheme published?

Was the pass mark set in advance?

If no to both, how can anyone trust it? In God we trust — all others must show their reasoning.

[drossall]

I have no brief to speak for the board or anyone else in this, and no special knowledge. However, the election papers stated the skills that the trustees were seeking, so it's possible to make guesses at how it was approached. I doubt whether it would be possible to publish the scoring in any useful way without breaching confidentiality towards the individuals involved. It does seem to be something where being a membership body with free and fair elections rubs up somewhat against being a charity with good governance, and the trustees have obligations in both areas.

[mjr]

I asked for the mark scheme — in other words, the weighting of the desired skills — not the scoring which I agree would breach confidentiality.

[millimole]

Having watched the shenanigans at the National Trust I now have a little bit of sympathy with the board - in particular the 12 month rule.