Cycling UK Forum

psmiffy wrote:can anyone tell me where the draft proposals are published - I have been round and round on the CTC site without any joy

Have you seen the further reading at the "top" of this forum?

If the No lobby win through, what is the future for the trust? Currently the trust appears to be a net consumer of subscription fees, with spending having tenuous relevance to members or at least cannot be shown to provide value for money. Nevertheless the campaigning arm of CTC needs to be strengthened in a focussed way.

Does the trust have a long term future, or should campaigning be merged with other club roles as it once was? The lack of clear policy on what is and is not within the campaigning ambitions of the CTC seems to be at the root of this whole issue. The political framework cycling operates within changes but that's no excuse for an ad hoc response to cycling rights or the grape shot targetting of every government initiative. If we as a club try to chase down every contract will the important jobs not be diluted?

glueman wrote:If the No lobby win through, what is the future for the trust? Currently the trust appears to be a net consumer of subscription fees, with spending having tenuous relevance to members or at least cannot be shown to provide value for money. Nevertheless the campaigning arm of CTC needs to be strengthened in a focussed way.

Does the trust have a long term future, or should campaigning be merged with other club roles as it once was? The lack of clear policy on what is and is not within the campaigning ambitions of the CTC seems to be at the root of this whole issue. The political framework cycling operates within changes but that's no excuse for an ad hoc response to cycling rights or the grape shot targetting of every government initiative. If we as a club try to chase down every contract will the important jobs not be diluted?

The first thing that should happen to the Trust is that proper project accounting should be implemented, together with proper oversight and governance of its work. It needs to reel in its ambitions to do lots of big, high profile projects (which seem to be taken on in part to give Council and National Office 'bragging rights' when they meet with other organisations) and concentrate on quality rather than quantity.

Other than that there is nothing to happen to it - it carries on as usual.

glueman wrote:If the No lobby win through, what is the future for the trust?

If it's a charity then, presumably, it can only be wound down by merger with another charity with similar aims, or some-such means. Or changing its objectives by agreement with the Charity Commission (typically because the old ones are no longer relevant).

.

gaz wrote:
So as the Club has no control of the Trust how would the Club bring about any changes in the Trust's procedures and practices?

You've stated more succinctly what I was getting at in a roundabout way. Is there a role for the trust in its current format? Is it simply a case of better financial husbandry or does the philosophy behind the trust need spelling out so that never again falls prey to the temptation to over-reach itself?
And either way how the hell does the club do anything about it?

.

gaz wrote:I am yet to be convinced of the poor financial husbandry or that the Trust has over-reached itself. IMO both sides are spinning their case at a similar cadence. I'll wait to see some more detail, should it become available.

I'm surprised the pro-lobby haven't quashed any rumours of financial shortfalls or fiscal elastoplasts by publishing exactly where the money has gone. The best they seem to manage is a general we're a campaigning organisation, campaigning costs money, we know what we're doing argument, without any restriction whatsoever on the upper limit of involvement. Theoretically a member could donate 100% of his subs to chase down government contracts because it will be good for cycling. That isn't the game most of us signed up for, essential though practical rights campaigns are.

gaz wrote:

Regulator wrote:The first thing that should happen to the Trust is that proper project accounting should be implemented, together with proper oversight and governance of its work. It needs to reel in its ambitions to do lots of big, high profile projects (which seem to be taken on in part to give Council and National Office 'bragging rights' when they meet with other organisations) and concentrate on quality rather than quantity.

Other than that there is nothing to happen to it - it carries on as usual.

So as the Club has no control of the Trust how would the Club bring about any changes in the Trust's procedures and practices?

I haven't suggested that the Club will force the Trust to do this. The Trust is self-governing. However, if the Trust wants the continued supprt of the Club then it can effectively be told to sort itself out. Given that the Trust relies so heavily financially upon the Club then the Club has a very big lever to pull.

And the Club need to sort the same issues out as well.

drossall wrote:

glueman wrote:If the No lobby win through, what is the future for the trust?

If it's a charity then, presumably, it can only be wound down by merger with another charity with similar aims, or some-such means. Or changing its objectives by agreement with the Charity Commission (typically because the old ones are no longer relevant).

What I was trying to make clear is that a 'no' to the proposals won't bring about the demise of the Trust. It will continue to exist. It won't have to be wound down as it appears you suggest in your post above.

nobody has the monopoly of wisdom on this. I'm not enamoured of the Trust's activities, but I know full well that many members are. Fine. They have no need of the insurance cover afforded rides leaders and I most definitely do. If we confined the activities of the CTC to those that were supported by every single member then it wouldn't do a whole lot.

There are, however several issues that need to be sorted

- the risk inherent in trading and contracting has to be isolated from the members funds. Holidays and Tours is a seperate company, and, despite the fact that it turns a profit, there is every good reason why it should remain that way. I know Greg suggested that if the Trust and the Club were amalgamated then trading and contracting should be put in to seperate Community Interest Companies and it is, frankly, a disgrace that CASS didn't consider this fully or even offer a serious explanation of why it wouldn't work. Let's face it - we're entering hard times, and professional transport consultancies like Steare Davis Gleave will be eyeing up every bit of work the Trust does. Margins will be squeezed, and the potential for miscalculation such as that which took place on the Traning projects is ever-present.

- the division of management time between the Club's activities, and the Trust's activities has to be addressed. It shouldn't be up to Councillors to point out to National Office that Arvato were not answering phone calls for three weeks - the relationship between Arvato and National Office should be one of constant referral and honesty

- the volunteering base of the CTC - the thing that distinguishes us from transport consultancies and attracts many new members has to be supported. It's been neglected by the National Office and by Council. That's not happening, although I'd be foolish not to acknowledge that Barry Flood and Simon Connell fully intend to improve matters. It's to be hoped that a vibrant, knowledgeable volunteer base will put the CTC centre stage in cycling

Forget the hornswoggling crapdoodle coming out of the 'yes' campaign about 'inclusion', a matter they know nothing about. Look at what we are, and not at some seperate other future we have no particular expertise in. Look at the potential in what we are. Look at what seperates the CTC, an organisation which I credit with giving me the time of my life (marriage excluded, dear, if you're reading this) from any other organisation. Look at what we have to offer - volunteers holding Councils to account for the love of it, volunteers leading rides, volunteers writing to their MPs, volunteers bringing new people in to cycling and helping along newcomers as only experienced cyclists can. Nobody, but nobody else can do this. And this vote is our chance to ensure that we do it for a long time to come, and a lot better. The potential is there - it's just a question of using it.



-

On the subject of CASS, I've just had a glimpse of the BBC 10PM News. A chap from the CASS Business School (and I'm presuming it's the same one) explaining why it's necessary to pay out billions in bonuses to motivate bankers ( I think that's what he said )

John Catt wrote:Isn't the Council elected as the representatives of the members?

Yes, it is, but so is our government!!!!!!! But like the Iraq war, some changes have been made that were not supported by anyone that I've discussed them with; some high ranking officers in high places would term these as petty matters.

Apart from petty matters - like the CTC shop and use of the Winged Wheel, I take the view that we do indeed elect the Council, and we should trust them to lead the club well and in the right direction.

The club has changed a lot at national level, since my days of going to the Christmas parties as a child in the late 1940s. Now,and this is just my own view, I believe that the club is now of higher profile in high places, and achieves a lot for the greater good of cycling and cyclists; I inwardly generally support many of the changes - not all, and not in all details, but certainly we shouldn't forget the good things that have happened.

However, even having read so much on this forum, and even having read the e-mails which have been transmitted to me, I cannot support this proposed change, and I will vote against it.

If I tried to explain my position in full, my post would be as long winded and involved as all the documents that we've all read so far put together, and at the end of the day ------------ all I wanna do is ride my bike!!!!

I have to say, however, that I just have this fear that the tradditional 'Great Family of Ours' ethos that prevails locally, at least in my part of the world, would be eventually threatened.

My one edit of this post is a simple spelling correction - JohnW.

The main thing is that we really should all vote. We have that democratic right and even if the vote goes against what we ourselves would wish, the more members who vote, the fairer the result.

Just checking something I read on savethectc website

savethectc website wrote:DRAWBACKS

Fear that Members may lose control.
The further disenfranchisement of members

This isn’t a fear – it will be the reality. Those supporting these proposals are trying to paint them as ‘restoring control of the Club and its assets to members’ but the exact opposite is the truth.

If the Club becomes a charity and merges with the Trust, the main asset (the building) will not be returned to the members to do with as they please. Instead it will become the asset of the new charity – to be used for its charitable purposes. It will become a ‘restricted asset’.

I thought that the CTC Office had already been handed over to the (existing) Trust and therefore could not be "handed back" to the Club. If so, then the proposed merger would present no change of situation.
Can anyone clarify please ?

Graham wrote:Just checking something I read on savethectc website

savethectc website wrote:DRAWBACKS

Fear that Members may lose control.
The further disenfranchisement of members

This isn’t a fear – it will be the reality. Those supporting these proposals are trying to paint them as ‘restoring control of the Club and its assets to members’ but the exact opposite is the truth.

If the Club becomes a charity and merges with the Trust, the main asset (the building) will not be returned to the members to do with as they please. Instead it will become the asset of the new charity – to be used for its charitable purposes. It will become a ‘restricted asset’.

I thought that the CTC Office had already been handed over to the (existing) Trust and therefore could not be "handed back" to the Club. If so, then the proposed merger would present no change of situation.
Can anyone clarify please ?

The 'pro' lobby has been saying that if the two organisations are merged, then the Club's former main asset, which was endowed in the Trust, would come back into the control of members. What is being pointed out on the Save the CTC web-site is that this is not the case. The building would become a restricted asset of the new charity.

One of the main reasons that certain members of Council are supporting this move is that they were responsible for signing away the Club's main asset on the basis of poor advice and with little time to consider the implications of what they were doing. They seem to have convinced themselves that they will be 'restoring control of the asset to the members' - that simply isn't the case.