Cycling UK Forum

bikepacker wrote:If as I understand here, there is an expectance that wording or proposals will be changed in order to deflect proxy votes. I can't help thinking how bad this reflects on the integity of the Director and Council. If they are prepared to sink that low, in my opinion they all should resign immediately.

Utter codswallop - if the motion to be voted on changes materially as a result of debate at the AGM, all proxy votes pertaining to that motion become invalid. It wouldn't be in the interest of anyone to pre-suppose the result of any particular motion and 'deflect' the proxy votes, as there is a strong potential to shoot oneself in the foot.

manybikes wrote:...This brings me back to an earlier post where I stated that far too much hangs on one article to go in the magazine. I again ask the critical question:- how do the "no votes" lobby educate, enthuse and mobilise the majority entitled to vote who do not read this thread?

An awful lot depends on what SimonL6 says in his article in the CTC mag. As he's been one of the main ones highlighting the concerns and urging caution, I'd back him to make a good job of it. He seems confident that he is assured of the freedom of the press.

I suppose a lot depends on how far people look into this. Charity is an emotive word and although in some contexts it's associated with tax advantages, I'm not sure that everybody sees it as a "good thing". One thing that has surprised me is the absence of any specific rebuttal of much of what the opponents of the proposal have been alleging. I do tend to think that if there was something elementary they had missed we'd have heard about it PDQ if only to make them look silly.

Some people will always vote as a matter of civic duty and among them, some will vote with the Council as a matter of loyalty. Beyond that, I'd like to think that anybody listening to both sides might be attracted by a "wait and see" motion (although I'm saying that before the Pro and Con articles are published in the mag.)

We may well find out if the stereotype of the skinflint cyclist is accurate. How many members will pay 40 odd quid a year membership subs if they find that almost half of CTC income is going to things like cycling champions who have never won anything (pace Mr Hippo, I think.) Among the rest there are a few eye-openers in those pie charts, like the relatively large amount going on membership costs, and the comparatively small amounts on the mag and third party insurance. Members' groups and volunteers hardly qualify for their own coloured slice of the pie.

The challenge for the supporters of the change to complete charity status is to explain why such a great tax-saving money-spinning wheeze actually seems to cost members so much. Many may wonder why the CTC cannot just reduce subs to cover the "membership benefits" and collect charity donations from those willing and able to make them.

simonconnell wrote:

bikepacker wrote:If as I understand here, there is an expectance that wording or proposals will be changed in order to deflect proxy votes. I can't help thinking how bad this reflects on the integity (sic) of the Director and Council. If they are prepared to sink that low, in my opinion they all should resign immediately.

Utter codswallop - if the motion to be voted on changes materially as a result of debate at the AGM, all proxy votes pertaining to that motion become invalid. It wouldn't be in the interest of anyone to pre-suppose the result of any particular motion and 'deflect' the proxy votes, as there is a strong potential to shoot oneself in the foot.

Except that many a trades union branch or other meeting's motion has failed precisely because of this. You set someone up to change a critical motion, you set another someone up to cry foul "that has materially changed the motion", "Oh yes" says the Chair "proxy votes to be disregarded, next business."

When any 'committee men' are in favour of securing a particular outcome they tend to apply all their wiles and all the resources of any organisation they govern selectively to achieve that outcome. This appears to be the case in respect of the proposed changes. That of itself is enough for me to doubt the integrity of the process.

I think we can all hope that the Council meeting on the 23rd January comes to some decent arrangement on voting. We can all certainly rely on Regulator to let us know how things turn out.

As for the 'nay' campaign....there's a committed group of people who know their way around the CTC, who are capable of mobilising a minority report from the Council and who have put the figures pushed out by National Office through the ringer. Yes, I've been asked to write an article for Cycle. It's not the most elegant piece of work I've ever done but it will take folks to the blog http://savethectc.blogspot.com/ which has already gone out to about 1270 people on the SWLDA mailing list - and has been picked up by DA Secretaries around the country. There will, I hope be a website. I think the Guardian (the concerned CTCers paper of choice) will pick up on this - I've been asked to write an article for the cycling blog, and that may spill in to the print version. As for the rest - it's hit and hope. Press releases and so on. Newsnet is clearly out of bounds for us, which is a disgrace, but the reaction from DA secretaries suggests that the link to the blog will get around a bit.

The real strength of the 'nay' campaign is that the 'pro' campaign is so quiescent. I sense a degree of gloom, but, again, the Council meeting on the 23rd January will be revealing. I exchanged a cordial e-mail with one of the most insightful Council members this morning, and urged him to stop and consider, and take a year to put together a package that would command widespread support. I mentioned thirdcrank, and his analysis, which seems to me to be spot on - Council are gambling, and nobody can predict the outcome.

I have a question for Simon Connell - you mentioned (forgive me if I'm wrong) a figure of £450,000 for the 2009/10 donation to the Club. I'd seen a paper saying it was running at £750,000, but would reduce to £250,000 at the year end. I'm now given to believe that it is £750,000, of which £170,000 is for the perfectly legitimate purpose of campaigning. Have I got the wrong figures?

Newsnet is the weekly email newsletter that is sent to over 20,000 CTC members.

It’s a quick and easy way to keep up-to-date with news from CTC and the wider world of cycling. Topics covered each week include

* Latest news
* Cycle campaigning news
* Links to cycling websites, online videos and cartoons
* What's on
* Product of the week
* CTC member benefits

Simon and CTC Councillors in this forum...

On what basis/justification is access to newsnet, as a medium to disseminate information about any 'nay' campaign, being denied? What do our councillors have to say on the matter specifically? The 'nay' campaign is news for both the CTC and the wider world of cycling surely?

there is a 'Coms Plan'. It tasks National Office with delivering the required 75% vote in favour. The more astute of you will have realised that the CTC Forum is seen as a lost cause - to quote from the ever-insightful correspondent on Cycle Chat.....

I'll finish with an observation. The CTC website charity status page suggests that we should get involved by going to AGMs, asking questions of councillors, emailing a dedicated email address or even sending an urchin with a telegram. It certainly doesn't mention the CTC Forum, which is strange considering that this would be the most open, accessible and balanced medium through which to discuss the issues. Afraid of what might get found out?

Your branch secretary should have received my 'shimmering spokes' e-mail. If you don't have it sent on to you, or if you simply want a copy, please e-mail me on fnrttc@yahoo.co.uk

thirdcrank wrote:We may well find out if the stereotype of the skinflint cyclist is accurate. How many members will pay 40 odd quid a year membership subs if they find that almost half of CTC income is going to things like cycling champions who have never won anything ................ Many may wonder why the CTC cannot just reduce subs to cover the "membership benefits" and collect charity donations from those willing and able to make them.

Well, as a "skinflint cyclist" whose income has been halved this year and whose wife has found out she is losing her job I've decided that if this proposal goes through I'll be keeping my £40 quid in my pocket. I joined the CTC for the magazine, the 3rd party insurance, and to be part of a club that represented the interests of touring cyclists. The mag and insurance I can live without. It seems like representing touring cyclists will be a peripheral part of any merged CTC so I'll be letting my membership lapse if the merger goes through.

workhard wrote: You set someone up to change a critical motion, you set another someone up to cry foul "that has materially changed the motion", "Oh yes" says the Chair "proxy votes to be disregarded, next business."

So I'm voting against. I won't make the AGM so wish to give my proxy vote to someone. I seem to recall earlier in the threead the possibilty of giving a vote to someone to vote as appropriate rather than just a proxy NO vote. Would this approach eliminate the chance of proxy votes being discarded after a motion was amended? If so is the SavetheCTC blog or website going to nominate someone, and have an address proxy votes can be sent to, make forms available, and so on?

simonconnell wrote:

bikepacker wrote:If as I understand here, there is an expectance that wording or proposals will be changed in order to deflect proxy votes. I can't help thinking how bad this reflects on the integity of the Director and Council. If they are prepared to sink that low, in my opinion they all should resign immediately.

Utter codswallop - if the motion to be voted on changes materially as a result of debate at the AGM, all proxy votes pertaining to that motion become invalid. It wouldn't be in the interest of anyone to pre-suppose the result of any particular motion and 'deflect' the proxy votes, as there is a strong potential to shoot oneself in the foot.

But who decides whether a motion has 'materially changed'?

Having been involved in many student union debates where this has been an issue (particularly after compositing meetings), I can tell you that this often creates more conflict than the motion itself. Frankly, with this vote, if anything changes then the proxies should be invalid. If Council can't get its act together and get a properly worded motion in before the AGM, then it isn't doing its job properly.

irc wrote:So I'm voting against. I won't make the AGM so wish to give my proxy vote to someone. I seem to recall earlier in the threead the possibilty of giving a vote to someone to vote as appropriate rather than just a proxy NO vote. Would this approach eliminate the chance of proxy votes being discarded after a motion was amended? If so is the SavetheCTC blog or website going to nominate someone, and have an address proxy votes can be sent to, make forms available, and so on?

This will be happening - I'm afraid at the moment it is a case of 'watch this space' whilst we sort out the 'who' and the 'how'...

I would only give my proxy vote to the "nay" campaign as a last resort. As to be fair i know no more about them than I do about the "aye" campaign. Also I dont think it is yet time to make such decisions, the proxy is reversible in time but no need to rush.
I have trust in my councilor and will ask him first, if he insists on supporting the "aye" campaign then I will want to listen to what he says first, before making my decision. If he supports the nay campaign then I will trust HIM with my proxy.
Unfortunately he didnt go to the last AGM so SimonL6 did my proxy for me. However I think your local councilor should be the first choice.

Meic raises a good point. I suspect many members don't know their local CTC councillors from Adam himself and that makes it difficult to form a judgement on which councillor, if any, to give a proxy to. The use of pseudonym's in forums like this doesn't help much either, though complaining about that would be rank hypocrisy on my part.

I believe I've at least met and ridden as part of a group with and thus chatted briefly to Greg Price and Barry Jordan either on a FNRttC or last year's 'CTC Ride to Pride'. Both left +ve impressions on me anyway. Not sure if I've met John Meudell or Richard Bates though Richard is well known as a local cycling advocate and activist.

Either way I'll be emailing all the London and South East Councillors to ask their opinions/position on this.

I would not call myself a skinflint cyclist but I am now without any form of income (benefit stopped due to time). I have to rely on my wife's income (bless her).
We have family membership and it is up for renewal, so we have some very hard decisions to make with finances.
I have followed this thread from the start. From what I understand the CTC trust was set up so that the membership could be protected from the finances of the CTC Trust, if it all went wrong.
The membership is now putting every spare penny into the Trust to shore it up. So in my opinion it has all gone wrong. It is my opinion the whole CTC from the top to the membership should be looking at the viability of the Trust.
Instead it is proposed that the whole of the CTC join in a Trust that can not stand on its own financially.
I have put a lot of thought into posting here and in the opinions put above.
I do not have the spare money the give to an organisation that now seems to want to be wound up. As this could happen if Charity status happens.
Thus I will not be renewing my membership until I know the CTC is not a charity and that less money is transferred form the membership to shore up the Trust

workhard wrote:Meic raises a good point. I suspect many members don't know their local CTC councillors from Adam himself and that makes it difficult to form a judgement on which councillor, if any, to give a proxy to. The use of pseudonym's in forums like this doesn't help much either, though complaining about that would be rank hypocrisy on my part.

I believe I've at least met and ridden as part of a group with and thus chatted briefly to Greg Price and Barry Jordan either on a FNRttC or last year's 'CTC Ride to Pride'. Both left +ve impressions on me anyway. Not sure if I've met John Meudell or Richard Bates though Richard is well known as a local cycling advocate and activist.

Either way I'll be emailing all the London and South East Councillors to ask their opinions/position on this.

Workhard

My position, as one of the London Councillor's (I'm Greg Price), is quite clear: I am against this proposal as it currently stands and at this time. I do not believe it will benefit members nor return control of CTC to members. I firmly believe that the proposals as they stand will further disenfranchise members.

workhard wrote:Meic raises a good point. I suspect many members don't know their local CTC councillors from Adam himself and that makes it difficult to form a judgement on which councillor, if any, to give a proxy to. The use of pseudonym's in forums like this doesn't help much either, though complaining about that would be rank hypocrisy on my part.

I believe I've at least met and ridden as part of a group with and thus chatted briefly to Greg Price and Barry Jordan either on a FNRttC or last year's 'CTC Ride to Pride'. Both left +ve impressions on me anyway. Not sure if I've met John Meudell or Richard Bates though Richard is well known as a local cycling advocate and activist.

Either way I'll be emailing all the London and South East Councillors to ask their opinions/position on this.

I agree that many members probably don't know their local Councillor, but all the details are on the website - http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=4409

I don't go by a pseudonym for the exact reason you highlight.

For the record I am supportive of the unification proposal. I think the crux of the matter has been overshadowed by what has become a heated debate along far wider lines. The proposal is an attempt to tidy up CTC's structure, and this will address some of the more valid issues which have been raised. It's consistent with the overall aims of the CTC, and it'll deliver tax benefits which members are entitled to.