Cycling UK Forum

I have a question.

I've been told by approximately 35million members (actually I made that up, it's more like 35 members) that they have nominated me as their proxy. But some members might nominate me and not let me know.

The members that tell me will get an e-mail after the event, with a sort of mini-report, telling them what I did with their votes. How do the others find out how I vote? They could ask me, I suppose, but then their votes would not be secret, at least not from me. Will the ERS issue a report, or keep a record, allowing members to find out how the people they have nominated have cast their votes?

There is obviously a fair bit of ill-feeling and confusion around this whole area. As a Chartered Accountant I find some of the explanations far from clear and I certainly sympathise with anyone who doesn't understand them, especially the tangled relationship between the Trust and the Club. I also sympathise with those who feel that they want to belong to a membership club not a charity.
I would therefore like to propose that the AGM considers an alternative:
Separate the Club from the Trust, so that governance is separate and all transactions are at arms length
Reduce the membership fee, as the accounts demonstrate that the Club subsidises the Trust.
Allow Members to make an additional donation at the time of paying their membership fee, which would be paid to the Trust and would attract Gift Aid.

I welcome comments.

Recumbent Philip wrote:There is obviously a fair bit of ill-feeling and confusion around this whole area. As a Chartered Accountant I find some of the explanations far from clear and I certainly sympathise with anyone who doesn't understand them, especially the tangled relationship between the Trust and the Club. I also sympathise with those who feel that they want to belong to a membership club not a charity.
I would therefore like to propose that the AGM considers an alternative:
Separate the Club from the Trust, so that governance is separate and all transactions are at arms length
Reduce the membership fee, as the accounts demonstrate that the Club subsidises the Trust.
Allow Members to make an additional donation at the time of paying their membership fee, which would be paid to the Trust and would attract Gift Aid.

I welcome comments.

I would certainly welcome the first part of your suggestion - this is what I support wholeheartedly and have been trying to do for the last year (as have councillors before me).

I'd certainly be willing to consider your second and third points.

Regulator wrote:

Recumbent Philip wrote:There is obviously a fair bit of ill-feeling and confusion around this whole area. As a Chartered Accountant I find some of the explanations far from clear and I certainly sympathise with anyone who doesn't understand them, especially the tangled relationship between the Trust and the Club. I also sympathise with those who feel that they want to belong to a membership club not a charity.
I would therefore like to propose that the AGM considers an alternative:
Separate the Club from the Trust, so that governance is separate and all transactions are at arms length
Reduce the membership fee, as the accounts demonstrate that the Club subsidises the Trust.
Allow Members to make an additional donation at the time of paying their membership fee, which would be paid to the Trust and would attract Gift Aid.

I welcome comments.

I would certainly welcome the first part of your suggestion - this is what I support wholeheartedly and have been trying to do for the last year (as have councillors before me).

I'd certainly be willing to consider your second and third points.

As just an ordinary simple member, I think that Philip has got something there, and I also go along with Regulator's response, except that the CTC benefits us in many ways in addition to simply club membership and personal benefits. It is my perception that the campaigning and rights issues that the CTC is actvely engaged in are of such moment that I would favour not reducing the subscriptions, but splitting the subs between "club membership" and "trust", putting the rights issues, campaigning, 'Cycle Champions' etc under the umberella of the Trust, and the proportion of subscriptions which is forwarded to the Trust then becomes Gift Aid.

I think that Philip's submission is a good foundation to build on.

Regulator - do you think that Council may put this issue on the back burner whilst these submissions 'from the floor' are considered? I submit the point of view that it would be better than either a "yes" or a "no" vote, and the divisions which either would precipitate.

JohnW wrote:

Regulator wrote:

Recumbent Philip wrote:There is obviously a fair bit of ill-feeling and confusion around this whole area. As a Chartered Accountant I find some of the explanations far from clear and I certainly sympathise with anyone who doesn't understand them, especially the tangled relationship between the Trust and the Club. I also sympathise with those who feel that they want to belong to a membership club not a charity.
I would therefore like to propose that the AGM considers an alternative:
Separate the Club from the Trust, so that governance is separate and all transactions are at arms length
Reduce the membership fee, as the accounts demonstrate that the Club subsidises the Trust.
Allow Members to make an additional donation at the time of paying their membership fee, which would be paid to the Trust and would attract Gift Aid.

I welcome comments.

I would certainly welcome the first part of your suggestion - this is what I support wholeheartedly and have been trying to do for the last year (as have councillors before me).

I'd certainly be willing to consider your second and third points.

As just an ordinary simple member, I think that Philip has got something there, and I also go along with Regulator's response, except that the CTC benefits us in many ways in addition to simply club membership and personal benefits. It is my perception that the campaigning and rights issues that the CTC is actvely engaged in are of such moment that I would favour not reducing the subscriptions, but splitting the subs between "club membership" and "trust", putting the rights issues, campaigning, 'Cycle Champions' etc under the umberella of the Trust, and the proportion of subscriptions which is forwarded to the Trust then becomes Gift Aid.

I think that Philip's submission is a good foundation to build on.

Regulator - do you think that Council may put this issue on the back burner whilst these submissions 'from the floor' are considered? I submit the point of view that it would be better than either a "yes" or a "no" vote, and the divisions which either would precipitate.

I don't think they will. There is a rump of councillors who are determioned to push this through, irrespective of what other suggestions may be put forward (and quite a few have). In part their eagerness to push it through arises from embarassment at having created the mess that CTC is in at present.

Personally, I think that it would be better to clean up the mess and put proper structures in place, as yoou and Philip suggest, rather than create a new organisation where the governance and managment issues are just just carried on as before.

Regulator wrote:...There is a rump of councillors who are determioned to push this through...

Well, I hope they are reading this forum. If they insist on shackling the Club I joined to the Trust in which I have little interest and on using my Club membership subscription for purposes other than those for which I pay it, they must expect me (and a fair few others, I would guess) not to renew our membership. Which in my case goes back to 1986.

To propose an increase in subscriptions when members cannot find out what the Club got for the £453,000 of their money which disappeared into the Trust black hole in 2008-2009 is downright insulting.

Simon, count two more votes from this housheold...

Having read the form a few times I'm still unclear precisely how proxy voting operates. If I send the form to ERS as indicated would a named proxy then receive my voting intentions whether I've told them they were my proxy or not? Or do I send the proxy my forms instead of ERS? Also, what exactly does 'your proxy reverts to the chair' mean? Is my voting intention previously registered with ERS so they can tell whether my vote is being used by the proxy as intended, or could the chair (and I don't know who it'll be so I'm not casting aspirsions) simply ignore my crosses and claim them any way he/she intended?

This will be meat and drink to committee wallahs but is confusing to me.

glueman wrote:Having read the form a few times I'm still unclear precisely how proxy voting operates. If I send the form to ERS as indicated would a named proxy then receive my voting intentions whether I've told them they were my proxy or not? Or do I send the proxy my forms instead of ERS? Also, what exactly does 'your proxy reverts to the chair' mean? Is my voting intention previously registered with ERS so they can tell whether my vote is being used by the proxy as intended, or could the chair (and I don't know who it'll be so I'm not casting aspirsions) simply ignore my crosses and claim them any way he/she intended?

This will be meat and drink to committee wallahs but is confusing to me.

Send the forms to ERS.

Tell your proxy that you are nominating them as your proxy (not mandatory but good manners).

ERS will compile a list which will name the proxies and the votes that they have.

If you have indicated you wish the vote to be cast in a particular way, the proxy has to vote in that way - they can't change your vote. ERS will have a list of who has voted in what way if they have indicated a preference.

If you don't nominate a proxy (either the Chairor another person) then your vote will be invalid. If you name another person, and for some reason they are unable to attend the AGM, then your vote will be given to the Chair to cast. If you have indicated that your proxy must vote in a particular way (e.g. you have out a cross in the 'Against' boxes against Motions 8, 9 and 10) then the Chair will have to vote as you say. He can't change your vote.

Hope this helps...

Thanks and understood.

CTC website wrote:You can choose your voting preferences or for speed you can allocate your vote on all items to a person (your proxy) who can make a vote for you at the meeting. The option to choose the Chair of the meeting as your proxy means you can vote on all the items being proposed at the AGM in one tick.

For your convenience: speed voting. In just one tick, let someone else make your mind up for you and vote accordingly.

patricktaylor wrote:

CTC website wrote:You can choose your voting preferences or for speed you can allocate your vote on all items to a person (your proxy) who can make a vote for you at the meeting. The option to choose the Chair of the meeting as your proxy means you can vote on all the items being proposed at the AGM in one tick.

For your convenience: speed voting. In just one tick, let someone else make your mind up for you and vote accordingly.

I don't know whether this little bit of advice from CTC is new this year - is it new this year, or has it been a long standing piece of advice simply to encourage members to vote?

If it's new, then why, knowing the controversial nature of this years elections - or at least of one issue - why doesn't the same piece of advice encourage members to consider each issue individually?

Hands up out there if you think something sinister is going on - what on earth is going on? All this debate about Council's behaviour and actions takes the mind away from the issue, and is in danger of having more affect on the vote than the pros and cons of the issue itself.

And of course, there are the suggestions of skulduggery; but why skulduggery, aren't the motives of the pro-charity lobby completely innocent, above board and for the greater good of the CTC ??????

This whole thing has become so involved and discredited, that my feeling is that the proposal should be dropped for this year and a proper debate - in the full meaning of the words - conducted, and voting take place only when everyone is content that they know enough to place a meaningful vote.

For the record, I have already voted against.

Credit where credit is due: I emailed membership services this morning asking for the membership numbers of the other three members of my family on my family membership so that we could exercise all four proxy votes, and I got a reply with the requested information in exactly 15 minutes.

John
(given the prevailing negativity about CTC, which I share, I feel obliged to post a positive report when appropriate! But I'll still be voting "no")

swansonj wrote:Credit where credit is due: I emailed membership services this morning asking for the membership numbers of the other three members of my family on my family membership so that we could exercise all four proxy votes, and I got a reply with the requested information in exactly 15 minutes.

John
(given the prevailing negativity about CTC, which I share, I feel obliged to post a positive report when appropriate! But I'll still be voting "no")

It wouldn't surprise me if CTC HQ has hired an army of temps to support member number enquiries etc ... and doubtless suggest the direction of the enquirers' votes

Rob

JohnW wrote:

patricktaylor wrote:

CTC website wrote:You can choose your voting preferences or for speed you can allocate your vote on all items to a person (your proxy) who can make a vote for you at the meeting. The option to choose the Chair of the meeting as your proxy means you can vote on all the items being proposed at the AGM in one tick.

For your convenience: speed voting. In just one tick, let someone else make your mind up for you and vote accordingly.

I don't know whether this little bit of advice from CTC is new this year - is it new this year, or has it been a long standing piece of advice simply to encourage members to vote?
.

Council generally makes a recommendation, but I don't think there has been anything like the blunderbuss approach employed this year in a very long time.

Simon L6 wrote:

JohnW wrote:

patricktaylor wrote:For your convenience: speed voting. In just one tick, let someone else make your mind up for you and vote accordingly.

I don't know whether this little bit of advice from CTC is new this year - is it new this year, or has it been a long standing piece of advice simply to encourage members to vote?
.

Council generally makes a recommendation, but I don't think there has been anything like the blunderbuss approach employed this year in a very long time.

I think, to be fair, that this is only the second year in which proxy voting has been used, so certainly there isn't a history of telling people "not to worry their little heads and leave it all to the Chair".

I think the approach being taken by National Office, particularly the letter to new and renewing members, treats members as if they were idiots who couldn't understand the issues. It is patronising and insulting.