Page 4 of 8

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 3 Feb 2010, 12:16pm
by toontra
Regulator wrote:
toontra wrote:So it would appear that National Office have personally approved the text of the emails on this board attacking some councillors with opposing views, especially Simon. Just when you think it can't get any worse....!



I prefer to think that it was a cock-up rather than a conspiracy...


A cock-up of this magnitude is almost as serious as a conspiracy. It goes to the very heart of the issue of judgement (or lack of) at at the top level over this whole issue.

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 3 Feb 2010, 12:33pm
by glueman
Why are the pro-charity lobby not addressing specific concerns like the accounting gaps? Both parties are talking past one another, one side saying 'what happened here', the other saying 'it'll be much better when we're a charity'.

It smacks of macho management culture so prevalent these days - keep saying the same thing repeatedly with a straight face and the other side will grow bored of asking the question eventually. Has any pro bod got a handle on all the facts and figures, like what percentage of subscriptions go on Trust activities compared to say, member's groups? Because until the basics are nailed there's no point in trying to become anything grander.

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 3 Feb 2010, 3:28pm
by workhard
glueman wrote: Has any pro bod got a handle on all the facts and figures, like what percentage of subscriptions go on Trust activities compared to say, member's groups? Because until the basics are nailed there's no point in trying to become anything grander.


glueman such is the nature of much debate these days. As to %'s well they aren't here but if you look at the pie chart....

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 3 Feb 2010, 4:42pm
by Simon L6
I think we have to be realistic. Anything posted on this forum is a hostage to fortune. It's been written off by the 'pro' campaign, at least for now. And in campaigning terms the forum is not a big deal - this board has attracted a healthy number of contributors, but in relation to the number of members it's minor stuff..

So where is the real action?

Dan Joyce will be doing remarkably well if he maintains anything like balance in the next issue of 'Cycle' and the 'pro' campaign is relying on an e-mail blitzkrieg to be launched a couple of days after 'Cycle' hits the doormat. Even if the three or four dissenting Councillors are allowed to send out e-mails, the reach won't compare.....

The 'nay' campaign is just going to have to work out a way of getting the message in to as many inboxes as possible

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 3 Feb 2010, 4:47pm
by thirdcrank
John Catt wrote:... Must say my message appears to have been ignored but I post it below for the record.

... I perhaps have the distinct advantage over some of the other Councillors in that I have been able to come to the subject with a completely open mind ...



I suppose we'd all like to see ourselves as open-minded but even the wisest of us is probably only aware of the most obvious cases of their own intellectual baggage. To claim a monopoly of the attribute says more to me about the person making the claim than about those said to lack the quality.

(I appreciate that this only a phrase lifted from a much longer message - but its full text is available a few posts up for reading.)

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 4 Feb 2010, 12:00am
by JohnW
John Catt wrote:Must say my message appears to have been ignored but I post it below for the record.

I hope you will forgive the intrusion of this email following my
election as one of the CTC Councillors for the East Midlands. Whilst it
would be impossible for me to meet all the members in the region, I can
be contacted by email and would welcome any comments you have about the
work of the CTC. You will have to forgive me if I do not always respond
immediately, like many of you I am a volunteer.

My main purpose in writing to on this occasion is about the main matter
for discussion at our January Council Meeting which looked at the
formalities involved in reuniting the CTC “Club” and the CTC “Charitable
Trust”. This is to be achieved by the “Club” becoming a charity and then
re-absorbing the assets of the Trust, so that we once again become a
single body governed by the Council, as elected by members.

This involved Councillors scrutinising proposed changes to the
Memorandum and Articles of Association which have to be updated to
comply with the latest Company's Act as well as the requirements of the
Charity Commissioners.

I perhaps have the distinct advantage over some of the other Councillors
in that I have been able to come to the subject with a completely open
mind and I have been able to spend quite a lot of time since my election
in October assessing what has been going on, not only to satisfy myself
but to make sure I could adequately represent CTC members in the east
Midlands. I can now make it clear that my study of the subject has lead
me to conclude that, beyond reasonable doubt, this is the correct course
for the CTC going forward.

All but two of the Council agree with this and Council is urging members
to support the necessary resolutions at the AGM. This is to be held in
Loughborough, so many of you should be able to attend and cast your vote.

There is a group of members who oppose the merger, wishing to see the
“Club” remain independent. They have a website where they set out their
arguments at http://www.savethectc.org.uk <http://www.savethectc.org.uk/> . I
have no doubt that these members are honourable, but I believe their
concerns to be mistaken. The CTC has, I think, answered all the points
raised in a special area of its website devoted to this matter which can
be found at http://tr.im/LrZM and I have set out my thoughts in a blog
at http://tr.im/LOPZ .

My conclusion is that there is nothing that we do at the moment, or that
I can foresee the CTC and its members wanting to do, that it will not be
able to take forward as a unified charity.

Opponents of the change have also suggested that Council members have a
vested interest in changing to charitable status. Two of the advantages
of charitable status that I have been able to identify should give you
complete reassurance about my position:

a) the trustees of a charity (which is what the Councillors will become)
are not entitled to any remuneration apart from out of pocket expenses;

b) the standards expected in law of charity trustees is higher than that
required of company directors.

The suggestion has also been made that the accounts of the CTC hide a
subsidy from the Club to the Charity to cover losses on contracts with
government bodies, such as the “Cycle Champions” initiative. The income
and expenditure accounts relating to these contracts has been vetted by
our auditors, the bodies funding the contracts and some Council Members
(including a member co-opted for his financial expertise) and all
concluded that the contracts they examined had covered their costs and
provided an income towards the finances of the CTC as a whole.

The accounts show that the “Club” made a donation to the “Trust” of
£453K for the year ending 30/9/09. Whilst some describe this as a
subsidy, it has to be appreciated that the Trust funded most of our
campaigns, right to ride work, volunteer development and promotion
(including the internet site), the total cost of which was £994K. The
difference was covered from the resources available because of the
financial opportunities and advantages open to the Trust as a charity.

Other points about various problems the CTC has had, such as with the
membership system, have also been raised. I have yet to find an
organisation that did not have its problems. Both council and staff are
working hard to improve all aspects of the organisation and, whilst it
will never be perfect, it will be easier to move forward without the
administrative burden of maintaining and reporting on two separate
organisations.

I believe it is vital that we become one again. If the “Club” were to be
managed separately, as some seem to wish, then there could easily be a
conflict of interest between Council members and the trustees of the
Trust. Such problems would eventually, I believe, result in the
organisations “divorcing”.

In my view we are much stronger united than divided and I urge you to
vote, either at the AGM or by proxy vote, for the proposed changes.

Please feel free to let me know your questions or views

Good cycling.

John Catt


Nobody can prevent conspiracy theories arising (just look at 9/11), but could I suggest that readers might like to consider using "Occam's Razor" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor when reviewing some of these posts. Could I suggest that the reason that most councillors are supporting unification is because they believe it to be in the best interests of the Club.


I think that yours is a good letter John. If the other parallel letters/messages that I've seen had been in the same tone and using the same skill, then responses on these threads may have been different.

Your message doen't change my opinion or eliminate my doubts, but it doesn't accuse me of being an irrational wrongdoer for having those doubts or different opinion.

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 4 Feb 2010, 8:06am
by Simon L6
well, fair play to John Catt for coming in to bat! And, speaking purely personally, his letter is a model of decorum compared to the defamatory slop sent to members in Yorkshire (sips tea, takes deep breath, fixes gaze on far horizon, smiles the Colnago smile.........)

John - there a few specific questions about sums of money that I'd love to see your view on. They're in the thread on the Club's donation to the Trust.

You may wish to address this here, or you may want to point me toward another thread, but in a general way
- the budgets show sums against the stuff that members actually pay their money for, and, with the exception of Campaigning and RtR (and RtR is a paltry sum) they come out of the Club accounts, rather than the Trust accounts. How do you expect people to believe that there are legions of people beavering away on stuff that is for members within the Trust accounts when there is no evidence on the ground? Look at it from the point of view of a DA sec waiting months for the lists of new members.
- many, many public companies have subsidiaries in order to contain risk - what is the case for removing the one means of containing risk from the CTC structure? As things stand if one big contract goes bad in a big way (and despite the assurances from National Office, the Cyclle Training 'business' has gone bad) and the Trust goes down, the Club is protected, if ever so slightly homeless
- the loss of the Cycle Training database business to a profit making private company doesn't say a lot for the argument that charites are somehow held in preferential esteem by Government. Surely any government is simply going to ask themselves who can do it best for the least money? What makes you think the CTC has some kind of competitive advantage?
- isn't the market for contracts with government just about to get a whole lot smaller and a whole lot more competitive?

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 4 Feb 2010, 5:45pm
by thirdcrank
Bearing in mind the fact that this thread was started in response to an email from CTC Councillor Peter Hayman addressed "CTC member in Scotland" I wonder if Mr Hayman has anything to say about this http://www.steerdaviesgleave.com/press/ ... php?cid=24 which is the press announcement made in 2008 that
Transport consultancy Steer Davies Gleave has been commissioned by Cycling Scotland to undertake extensive stakeholder consultation to understand the barriers to cycling in Scotland and importantly how best to overcome them.


I'm not in Scotland but I hope that will not prevent Mr Hayman from commenting. Or perhaps a Scots member may ask him on my behalf?

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 4 Feb 2010, 6:06pm
by Regulator
"Dear CTC members in the South West

At the AGM of the CTC in May members will be making an important decision about the future of the club. The issue is whether the club should be converted into a charitable organisation and merge with the existing CTC Charitable Trust to form a single organisation with charitable status.

The National Council has carefully investigated the advantages and disadvantages of taking this step and has taken professional advice. The result is that the council has resolved, by an overwhelming majority, to recommend these changes.

We are writing to you to alert you to this important development and to urge you to consider the issues and make use of your vote. If you cannot attend the AGM you will be able to send in a proxy voting form – full details in the April/May edition of “Cycle”.

The key arguments which persuaded us to support the proposal are:

q One CTC charitable body would become a united organisation speaking for all cyclists
q Members and the council would regain full direct control of the CTC including all its assets
q All trustees would be elected by CTC members
q Tax benefits, including Gift Aid on donations
q Greater public goodwill and trust as a charity
q Reassurance through the charity regulations protecting members


I have satisfied myself that contracts won by CTC Charitable Trust have trained and encouraged youngsters and non-cyclists to ride bikes and have substantially added to funds available for traditional CTC member activities.

For all the reasons above we will be voting in favour – please use YOUR vote.



q Read the for and against discussion in the current and next editions of “Cycle”
q Read the CTC website home page and list of frequently asked questions
q If this information doesn’t answer your questions, contact the email address dedicated to the debate – members.matter@ctc.org.uk

Kind regards

Norman Hayes
CTC National Councillor for the South West"


Sorry Norman old bean... I admire you a great deal and you work hard for the Club - but some of your facts are wrong.

The Trust's activities haven't added a single penny to the funds available for the CTC traditional activities - in fact it's been the exact opposite.

The Charity Commission won't provide any greater protection for the interests of members than the current arrangements (as the members of the YHA found out to their cost).

As for the rest... :?

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 4 Feb 2010, 7:44pm
by Fonant
The key arguments which persuaded us to support the proposal are:

q One CTC charitable body would become a united organisation speaking for all cyclists


Which assumes that "the CTC" is currently not speaking as a united organisation. Apparently, as a CTC Right-to-Ride representative, I've been speaking in the name of the Trust since 2005. I don't remember being told this, so I've continued to campaign on behalf of "the CTC". I don't think local authority staff are that bothered about the legal niceties, they just want to know that I'm well informed and knowledgeable on cycling matters.

q Members and the council would regain full direct control of the CTC including all its assets


Which assumes that CTC members lost control of some parts of the CTC when the Trust was formed. :( Which parts of the CTC do members not currently have control over?

q All trustees would be elected by CTC members


The official FAQ page on this says "These Trustees of the CTC Charitable Trust are appointed and removed by CTC Council. At present there are 4 Trustees, all of whom are also Members of CTC Council.", which suggests that all the current trustees are already elected by CTC members, at least indirectly via their elected councillors, so there wouldn't be a change there.

q Tax benefits, including Gift Aid on donations


Yes, this could generate a bit of cash, so long as the membership system can handle the record keeping required. ;)

q Greater public goodwill and trust as a charity


Why would a change in legal status change the level of public goodwill and trust in the CTC?

q Reassurance through the charity regulations protecting members


In what way would members be more protected belonging to a registered charity, compared to the current organisation? Am I at risk of something because I'm a member? :?

I have satisfied myself that contracts won by CTC Charitable Trust have trained and encouraged youngsters and non-cyclists to ride bikes and have substantially added to funds available for traditional CTC member activities.


I have yet to be satisified, as there don't appear to be any financial figures to back this up. Surely the "Yes" campaign must have carefully done the maths, and can tell us exactly how much the Trust has generated for club funds? I'd be very happy to see that the Trust has been a success in generating funds as well as doing good works.

Instead we're stuck with disagreements about the money involved and some top-level Club and Trust accounts shown to the Council that contain many basic errors and inconsistencies. The biggest of which is the size of the donation from Club to Trust in 2008/2009 which appears to be either around £450,000 or £860,000 depending on who you ask. How can there be confusion and disagreement about a sum of money this large? Could the accounts be officially published before the AGM so that we can all see the numbers?

Hopefully we can answer some of these issues before we have to decide between "Yes", "No" and "don't care"...

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 9 Feb 2010, 1:26am
by John Catt
Simon L6 wrote:John - there a few specific questions about sums of money that I'd love to see your view on. They're in the thread on the Club's donation to the Trust.

I'll see what I can comment on. I'm afraid I don't have all that much time for perusing this forum, although from time to time I do find a slot.

Simon L6 wrote:You may wish to address this here, or you may want to point me toward another thread, but in a general way
- the budgets show sums against the stuff that members actually pay their money for, and, with the exception of Campaigning and RtR (and RtR is a paltry sum) they come out of the Club accounts, rather than the Trust accounts. How do you expect people to believe that there are legions of people beavering away on stuff that is for members within the Trust accounts when there is no evidence on the ground? Look at it from the point of view of a DA sec waiting months for the lists of new members.


Essentially members are paying IMHO for a National Organisation. The Groups (DAs/Sections/RtR) have almost always been pretty self sufficient as far as I can see (and in many cases justly proud of this). Indeed as far as I can see from the history of the DA in Leicestershire the group formed with its own rules and then applied for recognition by the CTC.

That said I believe we certainly need to improve the services provided to groups. However I don't think that our membership system is very good even when the data does arrive and I want to see what can be done to make the system usable at a local level. My suspicion is that many of the current recipients don't have the computer skills to be able to exploit it with any confidence.

I would suggest that this is a problem, whether or not we become a unified charity. Council will still be able to deploy more resources locally if it so chooses. That is certainly a matter for review.

Simon L6 wrote:- many, many public companies have subsidiaries in order to contain risk - what is the case for removing the one means of containing risk from the CTC structure? As things stand if one big contract goes bad in a big way (and despite the assurances from National Office, the Cyclle Training 'business' has gone bad) and the Trust goes down, the Club is protected, if ever so slightly homeless.
- the loss of the Cycle Training database business to a profit making private company doesn't say a lot for the argument that charites are somehow held in preferential esteem by Government. Surely any government is simply going to ask themselves who can do it best for the least money? What makes you think the CTC has some kind of competitive advantage?
- isn't the market for contracts with government just about to get a whole lot smaller and a whole lot more competitive?


I think you are assuming that the Trust has been set up to carry out government contracts. My understanding was that it was (and is) set up to do everything that the CTC wants to do that can be done within the Trust's charitable objectives and obtain the benefits available to charities . I've tried to explain this athttp://witherthectc.blogspot.com/2010/02/question-re-message.html. I've also had a go at explaining why the comparison made with the RYA on the savethectc website is I believe incorrect. See http://witherthectc.blogspot.com/2010/02/ctc-v-rya.html

In fact if the contracts are as risky as you suggest, we should almost certainly be setting up a trading subsidiary for them.
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/publications/cc35.asp
Where trading (other than trading in pursuit of its charitable objects) involves significant risk to a charity’s assets, it must be undertaken by a trading subsidiary. But even where it is not essential for the trading to be undertaken by a trading subsidiary, the use of trading subsidiaries may produce benefits, for example in reducing tax liabilities. In particular, trading subsidiaries may make donations to their parent charity as ’Gift Aid‘, so reducing or eliminating the profits of the subsidiary which are liable to tax.


What is a ’trading subsidiary‘, and when must a trading subsidiary be used?

The short answer :

A ’trading subsidiary‘ is a company, owned and controlled by one or more charities, set up in order to trade. The purpose of a trading subsidiary is usually to generate income for its parent charity. Trading subsidiaries must be used for non-primary purpose trades involving significant risk.


Some on here have suggested that the "Club" could get its "assets" back by effectively running down the Trust. I would suggest that we would be in trouble with the Charity Commission if we tried, since we fully control the charity and therefore the Council has a fiduciary duty in its management of the Trust.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary

IMHO if we wanted to see the Trust run down, its management would have to be totally divorced from the CTC.

While I'm on, I'm a parent governor rep. on the county council's scrutiny committee for Leicestershire and currently very concerned about Izzat (the "honour" culture in some communities that involves forced marriages and "honour" killings) see http://www.karmanirvana.org.uk/news/news-archive/it-is-not-part-of-anyones-culture-to-be-abused. Perhaps readers might like to support their petition.

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 9 Feb 2010, 7:32am
by Regulator
John Catt wrote:I think you are assuming that the Trust has been set up to carry out government contracts. My understanding was that it was (and is) set up to do everything that the CTC wants to do that can be done within the Trust's charitable objectives and obtain the benefits available to charities . I've tried to explain this athttp://witherthectc.blogspot.com/2010/02/question-re-message.html. [/url]



I'm afraid that certain councillor have let the cat out of the bag and confirmed that the Trust was established as a way of avoiding tax when selling Cotterell House and buying the present offices.

Having established the Trust CTC then had to scrabble round to find something for it to do.

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 9 Feb 2010, 10:27am
by gaz
.

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 9 Feb 2010, 11:15am
by Graham
Regulator wrote:I'm afraid that certain councillor have let the cat out of the bag and confirmed that the Trust was established as a way of avoiding tax when selling Cotterell House and buying the present offices.

Having established the Trust CTC then had to scrabble round to find something for it to do.

I think that there was a more strategic objective, rather than just "scrabbling around".
This is my (admittedly simplistic) view of the situation around that time.

    - CTC wants to promote cycling, ideally to the point where it can precipitate a cultural change in how cycling is perceived by the general population. ( Who could possibly NOT want that ? )

    - CTC (Club) Campaigning Dept. was severely restricted by it's resources, but many of its objectives are beneficial beyond the club membership.

    - It was identified that there were very significant amounts of grants & other funds available from various sources.
    [ Although I don't know whether the existence of the Charitable Trust was a condition for being able to access some/all of these funds. ]

    - There were said to be a significant tax advantage to CTC Club in operating the charitable aspects with a separate Charitable Trust.

This is a personal opinion and may be entirely wrong. From a strategic point-of-view it appears to be entirely rational.
At the time there was little scrutiny from the membership of the possible consequences of setting up of the Charitable Trust - probably because it seemed like such a remote issue that only those in-the-know could realistically evaluate. It is only now, with the benefit of hindsight, and the ability to question, challenge and speculate openly that members with an interest in the complexity and consequences of these changes in organisation and governance have the ability to make an informed decision.

Declaration : I have no bias/interest in the outcome of the situation.

Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"

Posted: 16 Feb 2010, 2:28pm
by Regulator
Another e-mail has gone out, this time to member groups, attacking those who are raising questions about the wisdom of the charity proposals:

I just wanted to write to my many friends in the member group sector and clarify my views on the Club/Charity issue. I have been on the national Council for 17 years working closely with member groups, but I am also one of the new breed – a trustee of CTC’s charity work through our Trust.

There are also other views on this question and we have carefully examined any potential drawbacks that have been drawn to our attention. While it is right that we have an open debate over such a key decision for the future of our Club and for the future development of cycling it is unfortunate that some who disagree with this key proposal to help make CTC fit for the future have plunged into such negativity and used unfounded allegations about often irrelevant matters to muddy the waters. Regrettably, allegations are being made about both the motivation and activities of our staff and the way in which the Club’s funds are being used. We wish to be quite clear that these assertions do not accord with the true position. The Club’s staff have vigorously pursued policies and business plans set by Council and delivered many success stories.

The truth is that the CTC has more members than at any time in its history, more than in the 1890s and more than in what some viewed as a golden period in the 1950s; it’s influence is increasing; thousands enjoy its activities every week and there are now cycle champions all around the Country not just at Guildford.

Changes in charity law since the separate Trust was established give us the opportunity to re-integrate CTC. Just about everything we do can be classified as charitable so we don't need the current hybrid structure and we can establish clearer accountability and democratic control of the 75% of resources/activities now run by the Trust. Remember the proposal is for the member run CTC to take back the Trust NOT vice versa, the first and most obvious misunderstanding of the “no” campaign.

There are some really significant reasons why CTC should become a full charity which have my total support.

- Making CTC fit for the future and protect the independence of the
CTC from the sort of takeover some other organisations have experienced.
- Local groups being able to say they are part of a charity.

A knocking campaign is quite easy. You can get all sorts of people who would probably not be in favour of anything to vote against anything that smacks of change, especially if you start rubbishing obvious targets like national staff or the Council.

If the inaccurate and ill-informed gossip about money or membership was not enough what I find equally unacceptable as a local group activist is the suggestion that people like me on National Council have somehow lost our focus on local groups during this period. Not least was the extraordinary contribution by former Chair of CTC Council Jill Kieran who with our staff team took on a challenge every previous generation shied away from – the revision of our 30 year old DA handbook to try and make something fit for purpose.

It isn’t perfect, not least because we bent over backwards to accommodate every kind of hybrid member group structure that any of us could think of. But it is based on what you asked for, not what a handful of people have dreamed up on a forum.

Lets have the reality – more new CTC member groups have been formed in the last two years that at any point in our history. Now that is something very special, and well worth backing.

The cycling lobby is dreadfully fragmented. The last thing we need is more division. Let us take a positive step by unifying our own organisation so its increased strength can be used to support our traditional cycling activities, campaign for an improved environment for cyclists, and introduce many more people to the joys of cycling.

I hope you will take some time to consider what is being said about this issue and talk to myself and all the CTC Councillors about the issues raised. Satisfy yourselves, I am confident what you will see is entirely positive for CTC member groups.

Maybe I'll see you on one of the Stevenage Audax rides this year.


What a pity that, yet again, a Councillor has chosen simply to belittle the concerns of fellow Councillors and many members, rather than address the very real issues that are being raised.