Page 5 of 8
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 17 Feb 2010, 11:08am
by gaz
.
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 17 Feb 2010, 11:50am
by Regulator
Hi gaz
The savethectc web-site is down whilst it's being rejigged and transferred to a new hosting platform.
I was the person that put the comments against the e-mails sent by the pro-councillors. I don't believe that any of them 'belittled' the authors of the e-mails* - they simply clarified points that were raised. Certainly it wasn't my intent to belittle feloow councillors as I don't think we need to stoop to that in order to put our arguments across.
*OK, I'll admit the bit in response to Arthur Spurr's email, in which I say "What can we say about this but, Oh Dear..." may be borderline...
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 17 Apr 2010, 7:08am
by Regulator
Quick! Someone call Gordon Brown. The CTC Scotland committee has the cure for country's debt - their amazing magic money!
Well, we assume they must have magic money, as the supposed Gift Aid gain of becoming a charity has grown from the wildly optimistic (and latterly revised down) figure of c. £100,000 that Council first discussed - to a jaw dropping £250,000 in their latest missive to members, exhorting them to support the charity motions! Blimey - that money sure grows quickly...
Of course, their recent e-mail to members in Scotland may just be the usual hype and spin. It certainly contains the familiar snide attacks on the integrity of those involved in the 'No' campaign which we've come to expect in e-mails from the 'Pro' campaign...
Your AGM vote matters!
Please vote FOR motions 8, 9 and 10 at the CTC AGM
Why? Because making CTC a charity means our subscriptions can be gift-aided. This will bring in an estimated extra £250,000 to CTC at no cost. It's a no-brainer! (At present only money going into the CTC Charitable Trust can be gift-aided.)
Other reasons:
The merger will streamline the administration at National Office, meaning unnecessary duplication is eliminated and staff can therefore spend more time on issues that really matter.
CTC has benefited hugely from the creation of the Trust. Staff levels have risen three-fold, which has meant that we in Scotland have received far more attention from National Office than we ever had in the past. As a result, we now have the two new Bike Club full-time posts, and regular visits from National Office staff, for example at our Gatherings, and at a wide range of meetings with outside organisations.
You may have received 'Against' messages from Simon Legg and others. If you read these carefully, you'll see they have no arguments of any substance to offer - it's mostly smear and innuendo. The pernicious aspect of their argument suggests that the Trust is somehow a drain on member services. In fact, the Charity was set up initially just to save on membership money and has now grown to distinctly enhance the services which can be afforded and provided for the membership. The notion that the Club exists only to serve the interests of its members is ludicrous. CTC has always sought to reach out to a wider audience, particularly through campaigning, which benefits all cyclists (and this campaigning is highly rated by members).
The CTC Scotland committee has unanimously supported a FOR vote and agreed to circulate the membership, asking Scottish members to use their proxy forms to achieve this. All the elected National Councillors, except one from south-east England, are also in support.
If the 'antis' win Scotland will lose out - just at a time when we are starting to move forwards.
So PLEASE make sure you use your proxy form - from Cycle magazine or from the website - to vote FOR Motions 8, 9 and 10, and make sure the form is received by 15 May.
Peter Hawkins
Chair, CTC Scotland
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 17 Apr 2010, 10:41am
by irc
"(At present only money going into the CTC Charitable Trust can be gift-aided.)"
I'm prepared to be corrected here but my understanding was that gift aid can only be claimed when the donee signs the Gift Aid declaration. As the current sub does not seperate CTC and Trust donations how can Gift Aid apply. I don't recall being asked to sign a Gift Aid form by the CTC.
So either Gift Aid can't currently be claimed by the Trust and the quote above is wrong, or alternatively it can and the Trust has been missing out on potential funding.
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 17 Apr 2010, 10:54am
by JohnW
Yes - well - this is just my perception, limited though my abilities and knowledge are, and open to correction, but a "Yes" vote will destroy the CTC as we know it - eventually.
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 17 Apr 2010, 9:31pm
by Simon L6
the £388,000 question (and it was a question) came about because no Councillor could tell me why and what it was for. The CTC is a company owned by its members. I'd got my head around the idea that the Company had given away a building worth in excess of a million pounds, although I cannot see any benefit to the members. What really puzzled me was that the company had loaned a huge amount of money to the Trust, that naff-all interest was being paid on the loan, that the members had not been consulted about the loan and the auditors (in post for 25 years) had not questioned a transaction that had no benefit to the members.
And, once again, three hundred and eighty eight thousand smackers seems like a lot of money to spend of office fitouts.
Oh - and the Club pays the Trust rent of £30,000. Sweet.
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 17 Apr 2010, 9:36pm
by Simon L6
drossall wrote:I'm not going to carry this further because I am not sufficiently sure of my ground, but as far as I can see we have a current constitution under which the Councillors are directors, and may well have a duty to provide the strong leadership that you describe. It may at least be worth understanding the model that some of us would like to keep.
The email that I received did not make any allegations about people or motivations, although it did reject unspecified allegations made about the motivations of staff and the use of CTC funds.
did it also reject unspecified allegations of wife beating? And, since you mention the staff, did it point out that they were each under instruction to gather ten votes a week for the next four weeks in favour of resolutions 8, 9 and 10? Because when it comes to motivating the staff, an e-mail from your boss telling you to canvas members, to tell members to simply put a cross in the box appointing the chair as proxy to avoid complexity comes pretty high up the scale marked 'how to lose respect'.
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 12:23am
by JohnW
Simon L6 wrote:..........................since you mention the staff, did it point out that they were each under instruction to gather ten votes a week for the next four weeks in favour of resolutions 8, 9 and 10? Because when it comes to motivating the staff, an e-mail from your boss telling you to canvas members, to tell members to simply put a cross in the box appointing the chair as proxy to avoid complexity comes pretty high up the scale marked 'how to lose respect'.
Did this really happen Simon?
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 12:26am
by drossall
Simon - no. The allegations of staff involvement in gathering votes are new this week as far as I can see. My comment was about previous allegations that staff had advanced the new structure out of self interest. I have not seen anything even mildly convincing to support this. That tends to weaken other arguments in my, still undecided, view.
The staff are easy targets for anyone who doesn't like a possible new direction, irrespective of whether that direction has merits. For one thing, they can't defend themselves.
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 8:12am
by Regulator
drossall wrote:Simon - no. The allegations of staff involvement in gathering votes are new this week as far as I can see. My comment was about previous allegations that staff had advanced the new structure out of self interest. I have not seen anything even mildly convincing to support this. That tends to weaken other arguments in my, still undecided, view.
The staff are easy targets for anyone who doesn't like a possible new direction, irrespective of whether that direction has merits. For one thing, they can't defend themselves.
Staff should, like civil servants at election time, be maintaining a dignified silence and saying nothing either way in an official capacity.
Staff are being politicised and dragged into this by management. Staff, in their official capacities and on CTC time, are posting e-mails on internet forums suggesting they may resign if the vote doesn't go through or emailing members saying their jobs are at risk if the vote doesn't go through (which simply isn't the case).
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 8:24am
by drossall
I haven't seen this happening, but again it wasn't my point, which was made before these allegations arose.
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 8:45am
by Regulator
drossall wrote:I haven't seen this happening, but again it wasn't my point, which was made before these allegations arose.
I'm not sure what point you are referring to - but if it was this one...
drossall wrote:I'm not going to carry this further because I am not sufficiently sure of my ground, but as far as I can see we have a current constitution under which the Councillors are directors, and may well have a duty to provide the strong leadership that you describe. It may at least be worth understanding the model that some of us would like to keep.
The email that I received did not make any allegations about people or motivations, although it did reject unspecified allegations made about the motivations of staff and the use of CTC funds.
then I can address that easily. A number of the e-mails sent by 'pro' councillors, and a number of statements made by the Chair and Vice-Chair in
Cycle, have suggested that the 'No' campaign have made allegations of misconduct and fraud against staff.
This is simply not true - they are lying to members. I have challenged those making the suggestions to produce evidence of their claims - they haven't been able to because it hasn't happened - they're simply trying to smear those of us raising questions, rather than actually addressing the very serious points that we are putting forward. It's fairly typical 'straw man' behaviour of those who are on shaky ground...
Until the recent revelations about staff lobbying, the 'No' campaign has been careful to keep staff out of this argument.
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 3:44pm
by Simon L6
JohnW wrote:
Did this really happen Simon?
yup. I've seen the e-mail.
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 3:47pm
by Simon L6
drossall wrote:Simon - no. The allegations of staff involvement in gathering votes are new this week as far as I can see. My comment was about previous allegations that staff had advanced the new structure out of self interest. I have not seen anything even mildly convincing to support this. That tends to weaken other arguments in my, still undecided, view.
The staff are easy targets for anyone who doesn't like a possible new direction, irrespective of whether that direction has merits. For one thing, they can't defend themselves.
which were these?
Re: Email from Peter Hayman to "CTC member in Scotland"
Posted: 18 Apr 2010, 7:28pm
by drossall
Well that's kind of hard to answer, because this little sub-thread started from my comment that:
drossall on Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:13 am wrote:The email that I received did... reject unspecified allegations made about the motivations of staff and the use of CTC funds.
so the short answer is that I don't know. The obvious assumption is suggestions of empire-building and similar self-interest, but that's speculation on my part.
The actual wording that I received is similar to others quoted here.