Cycling UK Forum

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 ?

Sorry John, but you can't really compare CTC and the London Cycling Campaign (of which I have also been a member for many years), as they are very different beasts:

• LCC was a single entity (unlike CTC which has multiple entities within it)
• LCC was run by a small team of paid staff and made great use of volunteers (unlike CTC which has a large paid staff and tends to ignore its volunteers - just ask the Right to Ride reps)
• LCC supported its member groups and volunteers (unlike CTC which seems to spends it time denigrating its member groups, e.g. the constant refrain of how few members belong to member groups)
• LCC takes great care of its members (unlike CTC, I've never had a problem with my LCC membership renewal or non-receipt of the magazine)
• LCC concentrated on a number of small issues (unlike CTC which tries to get involved in everything and grab every government contract which comes along)
• LCC had very transparent and open accounts - when it undertook projects it project accounted so it could tell whether it was making or losing money (unlike CTC which doesn't project account and whose accounts are far from transparent - and that's the opinion of the independent, qualified accountants who have looked at them)
• LCC is very responsive to its membership, and engages with and concults them regularly (unlike CTC, where some Councillors thought that a consultation about the proposed changes was unecessary, as they 'were elected to take such decisions')

If you want to look at an organisation that is similar in structure and scope as CTC, then you need to look at an organisation like the Royal Yachting Association. This is an organistion which looked at becoming a unified charity but decided against it - because it wouldn't benefit its membership. Instead, the RYA made sure that what it had worked properly.

If you want to see what happens when a membership group becomes a charity, and how the membership then become disenfranchised, just take a look at the Youth Hostelling Association. Their Council went down the route of a unified charity and now the membership regret it, as hostels are closed against members wishes - the trustees play the 'public benefit' card to ride roughshod over the membership.

I am not against CTC become a charity per se but it is not currently in a fit state to do so. It's governance is so poor as to be almost non-existant and its finances are a mess. Sort that out, sort out the membership problems, ensure that the structures are in place to support member groups and the volunteers, and then come back to the membership with proper plans to become a charity. Then you'll get my support - and that of the large portion of the membership who can see through the spin of the emails currently being sent out from National Office in the name of various Councillors.

I think whether or not CTC has charity status doesn't affect the relationship between National Office and local groups.

After all both Sustrans and the LCC are charities, but it seems to me the relationship in these organisations between central office and volunteers is quite different. Probably physical distance does play a big part in shaping the relationship; I hope that greater use of electronic communication will reduce the problem in the future.

George Riches wrote:I think whether or not CTC has charity status doesn't affect the relationship between National Office and local groups.

After all both Sustrans and the LCC are charities, but it seems to me the relationship in these organisations between central office and volunteers is quite different. Probably physical distance does play a big part in shaping the relationship; I hope that greater use of electronic communication will reduce the problem in the future.

It's an attitude thing, George. Sustrans and LCC see their volunteers as a valuable resource - CTC seems to see them as a hindrance. Why did CTC set up a Professional Services department in National Office, which has paid staff and which charges for its work, when this work was already being done for free by volunteers? And, of course, the support for those volunteers has dried up...

Regulator wrote:It's an attitude thing, George. Sustrans and LCC see their volunteers as a valuable resource - CTC seems to see them as a hindrance.

Well I've been a financial supporter of Sustrans for years and have probably been seen as a hinderance.
And I know of others who are more involved with Sustrans resenting Central Command coming up with agreements with LA's which they didn't go along with. Perhaps things are changing; I hope so.

So I maintain that the relationship between National Office and the local groups is not much to do with whether an organisation is a charity.

I can see that the Royal Yachting Association would have trouble in largely confining itself to activities in the Public Interest. It's hardly a pastime open to those on low or average income. No much use on environmental issues either. Cycling is different. As for the demise of the Youth Hostelling Association, what about the effect of Foot & Mouth on turnover? Or the tension between having a Youth focus and having a focus on the Lovers of the Great Outdoors?

.

gaz wrote:

Simon L6 wrote:If it came down to a choice between two charities the SWLDA committee would push off to the LCC.

If the membership votes "no" and the CTC does not become a charity, the CTC Trust remains in place and the status quo is preserved. However I get the feeling that many in the "no" campaign aren't happy with the status quo.

How is the status quo better than pushing off to the LCC?

everybody will have their own reasons, and a good number of CTC members in London are members of both, but the great thing about the CTC is that we own it. Then there's the rides - much as I admire the LCC there's not much in the way of rides in the countryside (although Lewisham Cyclists are changing that. But, as I say, individuals and groups will all have their own reasons.

gaz wrote:

Simon L6 wrote:If it came down to a choice between two charities the SWLDA committee would push off to the LCC.

If the membership votes "no" and the CTC does not become a charity, the CTC Trust remains in place and the status quo is preserved. However I get the feeling that many in the "no" campaign aren't happy with the status quo.

How is the status quo better than pushing off to the LCC?

I think the "No" camp are happy with the status quo, in respect of the structure of CTC. What they want to see is that structure improved, in things like accounting, governance and accountability.

Nothing wrong with such desires in my book...

.

gaz wrote:

Regulator wrote:I think the "No" camp are happy with the status quo, in respect of the structure of CTC. What they want to see is that structure improved, in things like accounting, governance and accountability.

Nothing wrong with such desires in my book...

Agreed, there's nothing wrong in seeking to improve the structure, but if some feel LCC have achieved sufficient accounting clarity, governance and accountability as a charity then surely CTC could it too.

LCC had that clarity, governance and accountability before it became a charity. It wasn't becoming a charity that made LCC such a well run organisation.

My concern is that unless these issues are addressed in the CTC before it becomes a charity,once the change to being a charity is made the impetus for addressing these issues will dwindle and poor practice will simply become embedded in the new organisation.

.

gaz wrote:

Regulator wrote:My concern is that unless these issues are addressed in the CTC before it becomes a charity,once the change to being a charity is made the impetus for addressing these issues will dwindle and poor practice will simply become embedded in the new organisation.

Thanks, I understand your concerns.

I aim to please!

Many modern charities become the tools of their employees as they seek advancement in the booming charity sector and the state funding available to it. This process can increase state control over a charity and reduce its independence.

The CTC is a club and should concentrate mainly on serving its members. Why can't those in the CTC who wish to form a charity to serve all cyclists start one up elsewhere and leave the CTC as it is?

I wasn't too impressed when the CTC's proposed move north was cancelled. Could it be that many CTC employees see the London area with its concentration of surprisingly affluent charity workers as the place to be?

I understand that Memorandum and Articles of Association will be amended to facillitate the change of status to a full Membership Charity - can anyone tell me where the draft proposals are published - I have been round and round on the CTC site without any joy

blackbike wrote:I wasn't too impressed when the CTC's proposed move north was cancelled. Could it be that many CTC employees see the London area with its concentration of surprisingly affluent charity workers as the place to be?

there were reasons for staying in the Guildford area - not least the redundancy costs and the loss of key staff.

Personally I thought they'd be better off in London (I found a building in Clerkenwell for £915,000, as opposed to the £1.4M in Guildford) because you would get a wider range of applicants, and you would be nearer the telly studios BUT even I, Londoner that I am, recognised that it would be a disaster for the Club's image with it's members. I would have thought Birmingham or Derby would have been clever, but, for some reason the only alternative given any kind of consideration was Peterborough!

Simon L6 wrote:

blackbike wrote:I wasn't too impressed when the CTC's proposed move north was cancelled. Could it be that many CTC employees see the London area with its concentration of surprisingly affluent charity workers as the place to be?

there were reasons for staying in the Guildford area - not least the redundancy costs and the loss of key staff.

Personally I thought they'd be better off in London (I found a building in Clerkenwell for £915,000, as opposed to the £1.4M in Guildford) because you would get a wider range of applicants, and you would be nearer the telly studios BUT even I, Londoner that I am, recognised that it would be a disaster for the Club's image with it's members. I would have thought Birmingham or Derby would have been clever, but, for some reason the only alternative given any kind of consideration was Peterborough!

I'm surprised no-one suggested Chester...