Cycling UK Forum

Simon L6 wrote:John - I'm taken aback by the assertion that most of our member benefits are charitable

1. Which benefits?
2. Why?
3. Why are the revised Mems and Arts careful to make benefits discretionary?

I'm aware that there is speculation on the CTC website about this, but it all looks a bit far-fetched to me.

And, to state the obvious, if the Club can be turned in to a charity, why is it being taken over by the Trust? Gift Aid can be claimed within the present structure, as the Minority Report, which you will have seen, makes clear. What your saying is that the only reason for the Trust taking over the Club is that the Club is a cash cow........

Have you taken a look at "Can member benefits be charitable?" http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5364#three ?

Under the current M&AA the benefits are discretionary. They are simply included in the objects so that they can be provided if the CTC so chooses. Just because they are in there does not mean they have to be provided.

Have you looked at "Are member benefits and fees specified by the Memorandum and Articles of Association, and will this change?" http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5364#four?

If you check out the proposals, the Club will be turned into a charity and will then take over then takeover/merge with (take your pick on terminology) the Trust.

Simon L6 wrote:John - I'm taken aback by the assertion that most of our member benefits are charitable

1. Which benefits?
2. Why?
3. Why are the revised Mems and Arts careful to make benefits discretionary?

I'm aware that there is speculation on the CTC website about this, but it all looks a bit far-fetched to me.

And, to state the obvious, if the Club can be turned in to a charity, why is it being taken over by the Trust? Gift Aid can be claimed within the present structure, as the Minority Report, which you will have seen, makes clear. What your saying is that the only reason for the Trust taking over the Club is that the Club is a cash cow........

Have you taken a look at "Can member benefits be charitable?" http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5364#three ?

Under the current M&AA the benefits are discretionary. They are simply included in the objects so that they can be provided if the CTC so chooses. Just because they are in does not mean they have to be provided.

Have you looked at "Are member benefits and fees specified by the Memorandum and Articles of Association, and will this change?" http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5364#four?

If you check out the proposals, the Club will be turned into a charity and will then take over then takeover/merge with (take your pick on terminology) the Trust.

.......and to state the obvious - if you can turn the Club in to a Charity - why the takeover?

I've read the draft mems and arts, John, and I read the version before that. It's as plain as a pikestaff that the 'charitable purposes' are the first priority

Simon L6 wrote:.......and to state the obvious - if you can turn the Club in to a Charity - why the takeover?

I've read the draft mems and arts, John, and I read the version before that. It's as plain as a pikestaff that the 'charitable purposes' are the first priority

I would have thought it quite obvious. One organisation is simpler to manage and report on and we get the benefit of being a charity for the vast majority of our activities.

If you want to stop doing the things the Trust in doing then the combined charity can do so. Simply because a charity has things in its objectives it doesn't have to pursue all of them. What it can't do is things not covered by them.

It's covered here http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5360#six

However, becoming a charity does not stop the activities of the Club from changing over time. The members will continue to have the same role in the governance of the Club - and will be able to change the way in which it operates if aspects of its activities as a charity are seen as undesirable.



The Club may also continue to deliver any activities the Charity Commission sees as non-charitable by using non-charitable subsidiaries (such as those which already exist).



In particular:

(a) The proposed charitable objects are broad, so there is considerable scope for the activities of the Club to develop over time in response to the views of the Membership as well as wider changes to the environment in which CTC operates.

(b) The Club is not obliged to undertake activities under all of its objects; if the Membership wishes to do so in the future, they can decide that the Club's activities should focus on a different range of cycling activities provided that those activities are consistent with at least one of the charitable objects. The scope of the charitable objects is being set up to include all CTC activities that were happening before the charitable changes.

(c) Other structures can be introduced for specific activities such as non charitable subsidiaries

My emphasis.

John Catt wrote:I would have thought it quite obvious. One organisation is simpler to manage and report on and we get the benefit of being a charity for the vast majority of our activities.

good grief, John, if you can't see that the management and reporting of our activities has been thoroughly compromised, and that putting all the money in the same pot makes a transparent accounting an even more remote possibility, then, to be honest, I kind of give up. Have you read the Minority Report? It refers to expenditure moved from one activity to another in the reporting line, and, to be frank, it points directly to the inability of part time, temporary and amateur directors (myself, and clearly yourself, included) to get a handle on and control expenditure......

As the thread title includes benefits here's one: If this vote can mobilise opinion and stimulate debate it will have served its purpose. I admit to being one of those who binned any voting forms before, mainly because I thought every vote was tied up and there was little point. Cynicism in other words. Not attractive but there you go. I'm sure many felt the same judging by numbers attending the AGM.

I do feel quite strongly on this issue but was considering not re-joining after three decades membership because the club was virtually unrecognisable from the one I signed up to. If the vote is passed in favour of charitable status I'll have some hard thinking to do, as I suspect will many others but at least it's better than 'no point'.

Reading the for and against arguments in the latest Cycle, one sentence in the Yes column by Prof David Cox caught my eye.
"The CTC should not become an exclusive club when it can encourage a new generation of cyclists from all our diverse communities to enjoy our type of cycling and ensure the future is not just on segregated paths or in competition."

An interesting elision of 'facts', or plain old monkey business depending on one's point of view.

First of all I'd always hoped the CTC might become a very inclusive club, with all the potential for active involvement that suggests. Whatever your definition a club is a far cry from 'give us your money, we know what's best for you' the charitable model suggests and either way it is a club and would not be becoming anything it is not already. I'm all for encouraging a new generation of cyclists and tapping into diverse communities but can't see why this couldn't be done through the existing structure?
The 'segregated paths' corollary is simply taking a notion and running with it to the point of illogicality in the hope no-one will notice, so favoured by party politicians. How club = excluding youth, diversity of race or gender = cyclepaths inferred by the polemic only Professor Cox will be able to tell us.

Speaking personally, if that's the level of discourse we can expect from the pro-charity lobby put me down for a big No.

the annoying thing about that is that it took a bit of bludgeoning from yours truly and Greg Price to get the insurance policy changed to allow riders with disability to be covered by the insurance. When first we raised this we were told that the blind rider had to be excluded from club rides.

I read both articles in Cycle last night.

There was nothing in the "Pro" article that persuaded me that this was a good idea. If anything it turned me more towards the no camp.

I think that the aims of the Trust are very different from what I think the aims of the Club should be. I wouldn't want to see the Club part dwindle and go away, so I will be voting against.

glueman wrote:Reading the for and against arguments in the latest Cycle, one sentence in the Yes column by Prof David Cox caught my eye.
"The CTC should not become an exclusive club when it can encourage a new generation of cyclists from all our diverse communities to enjoy our type of cycling and ensure the future is not just on segregated paths or in competition."

An interesting elision of 'facts', or plain old monkey business depending on one's point of view.

I agree with glueman, whether CTC is an inclusive organisation or not seems to me to be quite independent of its legal status. That this is used as an argument for charitable status confuses me: can anyone explain why being a charity automatically makes the club more inclusive than it already is?

A lack of inclusivity could be made against just about any sport organisation, simply because participation of males and females is rarely at similar levels. Then, there's a tradition of people moving from participation to admin etc as they use their experience to "put something back." Our type of cycling is not competitive but the effects similar, if less clearcut.

I fancy it's nothing to do with charity status, but everything to do with securing govt funding.

Compare cycling with something like golf clubs and I don't think we need be too anxious, although there's always room for improvement.

I'm new to the CTC and was not aware of the dual structure when I joined. I have read around the debate on here and the two opposing points of view. From what I have read the argument revolves around money, which means clarity will go out of the window.

I haven't been able to find a concise breakdown of how the money that is donated to the trust by the club is used beyond generic headings.

If i am correct the trust seeks money in the form of "contracts" to promote third party interests, and the suggestion is these contracts have in fact cost the membership money, this is not how I imagined the club would be run.

I assumed the third party work was what Sustrans was about?

Is this change part of an intention to ultimately transfer all cycling matters to the one organisation and save the government money? Whatever the intention it is in no doubt whatsoever the government will seek as much of the clubs money as it can after the next election, cycling is not a government priority.

I had expected the CTC to be run in a similar manner to something like the Motorcycle Action Group, an independant company run for the members on matters directly related to the members interests. It is not a charity and it has audited accounts available for review.

I look forward to reading the proposals from both points of view and will vote for one that promotes actively using my subscription directly for the benifit of its members.

The present structure was created following a review which concluded that it offered benefits to the membership. Like many other organisations, CTC engaged in a range of activities, some of which came within the remit of a charity, and could thus attract faviourable taxation, while others did not. The only way, at the time, to gain these benefits was to separate the activities into charitable and "non charitable" organisations. Whether the changes in legislation have been brought about by a recognition (by government) of the complication caused by this distinction, I am not sure, but what is fairly clear to me is that CTC only chose this course of action because it was appropriate at the time. Now, we have the opportunity to move to a simpler structure and that, I feel, is a sound objective.
There has been a lot of discussion about the transfer of funds between the two organisations (see the "£388,0000" thread for instance) but surely, this is a question of how the CTC spends money, not of how the organsisation should be structured. If anything, perhaps a single corporate structure would make these issues more transparent?

I fail to see any benefits from a yes vote. I'm appalled that so much money has been diverted to a Trust I personally don't trust to do the right thing.

I'll be voting No.

After spending a couple of hours on this ( ), I've decided to support the proposal for CTC to become a charity.

The Council have spent some time discussing the proposal, so unless those arguing for a NO vote can come up with strong arguments, I bow to the Council's greater acquaintance with the issues.

So how strong is the argument against the proposal? I'll take what is written on p37 of Feb/Mar Cycle as a reasonable presentation.

The trust is not a charity in the sense that you or I think of charities. It is a Contractor that works for national and local government

I don't think the general public have a clear idea of what a charity is. My understanding is that the law has been relaxed to allow an organisation to be recognised as charitable if its activities are mostly for the public good rather than for a self-selected group (but excluding support of candidates for government positions). The work to encourage more people to cycle is in the public interest and I think the government should pay for it. Do we really want such money to be managed by local authority bureaucrats who wouldn't dream of cycling to work? Or would we prefer committed cyclists, such as CTC members?

The present administration of the Trust is chaotic.

Is the Club any better? More accountability of the Trust would be desirable, but isn't that more likely if the control of the Trust by the members becomes more direct?

This year alone the Club has donated £750,000 to the Trust

I found this the strongest argument. But table 1 allays my fears about where the money went.

The membership system is in disarray

Whether or not the CTC has charitable status has no impact on that issue.

Funding and support for local groups is minimal

Would local groups accept support? As for funding, I'm sad to say that local groups can be pretty ineffective in getting more people to cycle more often even when they have lots of money. Anyway whether or not the CTC has charitable status has no impact on the issue.

The club should stick to [...] Campaigning, organising rides, tours and holidays

But Campaigning is in the public interest. Organising rides is as well (as long as they are not members only). Each tour or holiday is financed by those who participate on those events; not from club funds. So whether or not the CTC has charitable status has no impact.

The club should stick to [...] offering advice both technical and legal.

If the advice is not specific to a particular individual, it's difficult, and what's the point anyway, to restrict the advice to members? So that leaves advice to individuals. Is much spent on that, which isn't covered by the insurance?

The club should stick to [...] third party insurance and publishing the best cycling magazine

This indicates that these can be provided by the Trust, although perhaps gift aid won't apply.

Those who want us to vote against the proposal seem to overlook the promotion of cycling to the general public (is promotion and CTC's role in it the real issue ?). I think that's a vital activity which the government should finance. If successful it should lead to more "club" rides and more people on those rides. A good thing for the existing members as well as newcomers.