Cycling UK Forum

Regulator wrote: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.

Perhaps they're just streamlining the process in the knowledge members have busy lives and don't appreciate the need to move forward.


On second thoughts, you're right. We're cash fodder in a grand design.

I think Management are worried that, as in the case of the CTC Councillor elections, most will not bother to vote. Also in the case of the Councillor elections it is mainly the active DA (Member Group) people who vote. If the voting was left solely to these members the vote may be a resounding"No". I would presume Management are aware of this and hence they are trying to make the voting procedure easy for those quite frankly aren't really bothered, and quite possibly don't want to go to the trouble of finding out the facts in order to make an informed decision.

.

Council and Management are two different things. Council gets elected, and Management is appointed to run the CTC.

I think we are clueless about the vote. I know Karen thinks that I'm a pessimist, and she's probably right, but in truth we can only go on what we see and hear, and none of us know how many people who will have heard nothing at all about the vote apart from the barrage of information from National Office will bother to do as they suggest and give all their votes to the Chair.

I am struck by one thing, though. Kevin has been very complimentary about our 'campaign', but, in truth, we're not running a campaign. We send out a few e-mails to the relatively small number of people on our mailing list, which is skewed toward London and the Southeast. Kevin is running a campaign, and it's a lousy campaign because it seems to inspire people to vote against.

Time will tell.

gaz wrote:I cannot understand your distinction between Management and Council. Surely Council are the Management.

No. Council are Council.

"Management" is the cabal on Council that pulls the strings behind the scenes - the 'Executive Committee' (although it hasn't actually been agreed by Council that it should exist).

I'm pessimistic about the vote. I'm not too confident in my own ability to ignore the tactics that lead to a yes vote and pretend everything is hunky dory. A rubicon was crossed, if only of good taste and class.

Unless the ERS is releasing returns about proxies received, it's hard to see how anybody can have much idea of even how many members might vote, let alone which way it will go. There are no pollsters, no swingometer, no phone-in debates, and no real precedents. I tend to assume that the official side in anything like this attracts a lot of loyalty and deference voting. There are divided loyalties here and no visible signs of deference. Inevitably, the official side always has a big advantage in terms of having the means to canvass the electorate through existing official communications and knowing who they all are. It's my impression that the official side here took it pretty much as a forgone conclusion - pretty much a formality - and was caught utterly unprepared. That was the cause of so many emergency hospital admissions for bullet wounds in the feet. (And apoplexy.) In the meantime, everybody I've asked, with a single exception, has said they are going to vote 'no'. A relatively few people, completely unrepresentative and who may not all be revealing their real intentions - which they may not eventually carry out. The exception was somebody I asked in an email exchange about something else who did not reply to the question, even when asked several times. (I'll put that down as 'don't know' )

Simon L6 wrote:Council and Management are two different things. Council gets elected, and Management is appointed to run the CTC.

I think we are clueless about the vote. I know Karen thinks that I'm a pessimist, and she's probably right, but in truth we can only go on what we see and hear, and none of us know how many people who will have heard nothing at all about the vote apart from the barrage of information from National Office will bother to do as they suggest and give all their votes to the Chair.

I am also minded to believe that as Management have been able to get their views across to more members than the SaveTheCTC campaign the pro-vote lobby is probably winning. However I'm trying to look on the bright side and am heartened by the fact that all the members I've spoken to or had emails from are going to vote against. These are not just the member group I ride with, but others who have not received information from us, but had arrived at their views against by themselves. Some have also told me that they know of lots of members who are also voting against. these are all, however, members active with CTC Groups.

I am also minded to believe that as Management have been able to get their views across to more members than the SaveTheCTC campaign the pro-vote lobby is probably winning

Ah, but they've the bigger task I'd think. With no-voters the vote is often based upon outrage and the feeling of a need to do something. OF those who have only received info from the yes side I'd suspect that although they might regard the Yes vote as the correct course of action, many fewer will view voting as such a priority. Publicity-wise i think that although the No Vote campaign might have a smaller audience they will have a higher conversion rate. Whether it's high enough - who knows?

Anyhoo, as an aside - will there be someone at the event hooked up to the internet to pass on the result to the rest of the world as it happens?

Si wrote:... Anyhoo, as an aside - will there be someone at the event hooked up to the internet to pass on the result to the rest of the world as it happens?

I sincerely hope that the Dimbleby Bros will be there on their respective channels doing all night programmes, complete with sophisticated graphics of the yes/ no distribution. Paxo grilling somebody from the side which prevails, asking if they are proud of what they've done, local media correspondents in town halls around the land .... perhaps not.

Si wrote:

I am also minded to believe that as Management have been able to get their views across to more members than the SaveTheCTC campaign the pro-vote lobby is probably winning

Ah, but they've the bigger task I'd think. With no-voters the vote is often based upon outrage and the feeling of a need to do something. OF those who have only received info from the yes side I'd suspect that although they might regard the Yes vote as the correct course of action, many fewer will view voting as such a priority. Publicity-wise i think that although the No Vote campaign might have a smaller audience they will have a higher conversion rate. Whether it's high enough - who knows?

Anyhoo, as an aside - will there be someone at the event hooked up to the internet to pass on the result to the rest of the world as it happens?

Oh yes!

That's all sorted.

Somewhere upthread (don't ask me to try and find it...) there was a suggestion that "if a motion were amended significantly in the hall that the proxy votes would be disregarded".

At what point/to what extent can the agenda and motions be amended, and to what extent is the above true?

I simply don't think it will happen. If it did, and the Chair switched all his proxy votes, there would be uproar - but, as I say, I just don't believe it will happen.

Council wisely decided to put the counting of votes in the hands of the ERS but they seem to have placed two obstacles in the way for many members.
Firstly each copy of Cycle contained a single ballot paper regardless of how many members live at the same address. Not a show stopper, but it hardly encourages people to exercise their rights and responsibilities to the club!
Secondly, the rules state that each member must state their own individual membership number on the ballot paper. Since CTC now sends only one membership card to each household, bearing the membership number of the first-named member, other members at the same address may well not know their membership number. Granted, those who are intending to vote might pick up the phone and ring the membership services number (which could of course be the start of another saga....) or they could ask their member group secretary. Intererestingly, as secretary of a member group with over 800 members, I have not received a single enquiry from anyone wanting to know their membership number!

I wonder whether the ERS would consider the requirement to state one's personal membership number on the ballot paper, while not providing the information to each member, is a breach of 'good practice', perhaps sufficiently to render the vote invalid??

I haven't seen this point discussed so far, apologies if it has been covered somewhere in the mass of chatter in the subject!

Keith

.