Cycling UK Forum

I'd take issue with the depiction of status quo for the doubters. For my own part I'm unhappy with the way things are at present, so the status quo is certainly not what I'm looking for.

Those seeking charitable status talk about when we become a charity, not if. That's typical of the incremental transfer of power from member's club to executive lobby group that's happened over the last few years. Simon and Greg have highlighted a few unsavoury issues that were dismissed as anecdote and one-offs by the administration and their points have not been addressed in a spirit of openness but of adversarial point scoring and innuendo. Even if it were plain old awkwardsquad-ism the club needs to get used to having its shibboleths challenged and not hope to bounce through current administrative fashions by one-sided blanket mailshots.

In the light of present concerns passing the charity vote this time around seems premature.

glueman wrote:I'd take issue with the depiction of status quo for the doubters [...]

I've re-worded my piece above.

I'm sorry if I've missed the answer to this in what has gone before, but I've tried to be diligent in reading everything and if I've missed it I cannot be theonly one.

Can anybody in the know point to another membership organisation of a similar type which has already successfully taken advantage of the change in the charity legislation to change in the way proposed for the CTC?

thirdcrank wrote:I'm sorry if I've missed the answer to this in what has gone before, but I've tried to be diligent in reading everything and if I've missed it I cannot be theonly one.

Can anybody in the know point to another membership organisation of a similar type which has already successfully taken advantage of the change in the charity legislation to change in the way proposed for the CTC?

How about the London Cycling Campaign http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=4 ?

John Catt

Thanks for that. Is there some way of knowing what membership benefits they provide of the legal assistance, free third party insurance, free technical advice type? (By free I obviously mean included in the subs.) It's not obvious to me from looking at the site, although that could easily be me missing something obvious. These are the things which the CTC has publicised in the past and which are popular with members who apparently cite them as their reason for belonging. OTOH they are the things which some fear, perhaps wrongly, will be lost.

thirdcrank wrote:John Catt

Thanks for that. Is there some way of knowing what membership benefits they provide of the legal assistance, free third party insurance, free technical advice type? (By free I obviously mean included in the subs.) It's not obvious to me from looking at the site, although that could easily be me missing something obvious. These are the things which the CTC has publicised in the past and which are popular with members who apparently cite them as their reason for belonging. OTOH they are the things which some fear, perhaps wrongly, will be lost.

Does this help?
http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=47

Hence most of our member benefits, in that they promote the amateur sport of cycle touring, meet the criteria for charitable status.

Since when has cycle touring been a sport? What are the implications if a more common sense definition is applied?

I think it's the same link as your earlier post (?) I couldn't see anything to click for benefits.

In the meantime, I ploughed through the sitemap and I have found the insurance and other benefits, including the legal advice. Thanks.

..............................................................................
Sorry. I see now that when I thought I was looking at your second link in a new tab, I was mistakenly looking at the tab with the first. (This is the sort of thing I mean when I talk about missing something obvious.)

John Catt wrote:

thirdcrank wrote:I'm sorry if I've missed the answer to this in what has gone before, but I've tried to be diligent in reading everything and if I've missed it I cannot be theonly one.

Can anybody in the know point to another membership organisation of a similar type which has already successfully taken advantage of the change in the charity legislation to change in the way proposed for the CTC?

How about the London Cycling Campaign http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=4 ?

which is so different an organisation that the comparison is futile, not to say embarrassing. If the CTC meshed volunteering and professional work in the manner that the LCC manages to do we'd be having a different conversation. When it comes to involving the membership in campaigning the LCC leaves us for dead - but then again, it was a campaigning organisation from the off, with the member benefits being, more or less, a means of competing with the CTC.

Go in to the LCC offices, John, and see if you can distinguish between the volunteers and the paid staff. And compare the low level of support with the RtR movement with the extrarordinary level of localised campaigning - I've been to a Wandsworth Cycle Campaign meeting in which the head of the Borough's planning policy team was brought in to explain the borough's Local Development Framework and given some pretty clear 'insight' in to where he should be going with it.

If it came down to a choice between two charities the SWLDA committee would push off to the LCC.

Grandad wrote:Since when has cycle touring been a sport? What are the implications if a more common sense definition is applied?

Surely this is just expressing the idea that promotion of physical activity is a good thing for society. Cycle touring may not be a competitive sport, but it's not exactly tiddleywinks

The following is a very poignant summary of the arguments posted on the Yacf forum by member Manotea. I thought it well worth reproducing here to contribute to the debate.

“Reading the Yes and No pieces in Cycle I found myself slightly befuddled because Manotea is like a country mouse visiting the big city when it comes to such matters.

As far as I can make out, the chap in the suit thnks the CTC Club should join the Trust in becoming a charity because it would save the club money and that it made sense for the two CTC organisations to be become as one. He didn't really explain what the Trust does or who pays for it.

On the other hand, the chap on the bike explained the Trust wanted to takeover/merge with the Club because the Trust was vary good at spending money but didnt really make any and was constantly needing to be bailed out by the Club. Further, like delinquent teenagers everywhere, it refused to say what it was spending the money on and was not at all interested in helping with the washing up.

Knowing nothing of these things all I can say is the chap on the bike's prose was very persuasive and has a definate air of plausibility about it. The whole thing is rather reminiscent of the plotline from a movie called Wall Street.

Whilst fundamentally agreeing 'Greed is Good', Manotea shall be voting 'No'.”

There are always problems with comparisons. LCC is first and foremost a campaigning organisation, CTC members spend a lot higher proportion of their time riding. But there's also geography:

Simon L6 wrote:Go in to the LCC offices, John, and see if you can distinguish between the volunteers and the paid staff. And compare the low level of support with the RtR movement with the extrarordinary level of localised campaigning - I've been to a Wandsworth Cycle Campaign meeting in which the head of the Borough's planning policy team was brought in to explain the borough's Local Development Framework and given some pretty clear 'insight' in to where he should be going with it.

The LCC's office is within cycling distance of all council offices in the London area. Alternatively less than an hour by public transport. I don't expect anyone based at CTC National Office to come to a Cycle Users meeting where I'm based, Coventry. A train journey from Guildford would take 2.5 hours each way. Off-peak return fare £46.40. It would be nice to have someone from the CTC working to promote cycling in Coventry (there's one up the road in Leicester), but not being a charity CTC cannot afford to have many.

George Riches wrote:... It would be nice to have someone from the CTC working to promote cycling in Coventry (there's one up the road in Leicester), but not being a charity CTC cannot afford to have many.

I think one point is that when somebody from the CTC does get involved locally they do it as paid consultants for the relevant highway authority, not in consultation (but possibly in conflict) with the local RtoR rep. I was amazed when I thought SimonL6 was making this assertion and I raised it as a specific issue in meic's "Are we looking forward to being a charity?" thread. It think it's fair to say that it was dismissed as a difference in priorities between local and national levels.

thirdcrank wrote:I think one point is that when somebody from the CTC does get involved locally they do it as paid consultants for the relevant highway authority, not in consultation (but possibly in conflict) with the local RtoR rep.

I think that's all about where the CTC gives a few days of advice; which is somewhat different to the situation where someone has a 12 month contract and is based locally.

The RtR network has its weaknesses. Less than 40% are joined up to its emailing group. There is an issue of people being signed up to RtR and then taking opposing views to other RtR people covering the same local authority. At least in part because the reps haven't been bothered to hammer out a common approach.

Does this mean anything for Charitable Status debate? Do we hope that if the CTC can't afford to give professional advice, local CTC members will give better advice or be taken more seriously by the Highway Men?

George Riches

I'm well-aware of the limitations of volunteers and I'm not claiming that the RtoR network is ideal. In a perfect world, the CTC would have the funds to employ numerous professionals with knowledge of transport engineering in general and cycling in particular. Obviously a dream. With limited funds I should look for a small team of such professionals with perhaps three roles: training of the volunteers; supervision of the volunteers; providing a consultancy / advisory role for the volunteers, especially with things like public inquiries. (If I understand what has been said about the LCC, you seem to feel that the thing preventing this within the CTC is lack of funds and the distances involved for a national organisation.)

As I understand it, what the CTC is now doing is offering a professional consultancy service direct to highway authorities bypassing the RtoR reps. I cannot see how that can be right.

It's my own impression that at times the CTC's paid staff are rather embarrassed by the volunteers. I remember an anonymous article in the mag during my time as a RtR rep urging reps at local level to grumble less because whenever he attended conferences with his professional colleagues they bombarded him about the attitudes of CTC volunteers. (I don't keep old copies so I'm summarising from memory.) I wrote the author a sharp letter suggesting he should be telling them that if they collectively improved their act the attitudes of CTC volunteers might improve.