Cycling UK Forum

I have asked for this matter to be discussed as Council on Saturday 24 April.

This is an open meeting of Council and I hope as many members as possible will attend to show their displeasure at the deplorable way they have been misled by Council and staff.

Simon L6 wrote:Councillors will be judged by this, but there is something fundamentally wrong with telling staff to do something that has nothing to do with their jobs, and cuts across the democratic principle that they are impartial in going about their employment.

This is a debate very close to my heart in another place. Been here, done this. Senior management have a right to say what their staff's jobs are and what they are not, especially when trying to bring about change within their organisation. If there is disagreement a variety of mechanisms exist for this to be worked through and if agreement, ultimately, cannot be found then people have to decide whether or not they like the Queen's shilling and act accordingly. I think impartiality is a red herring - I'd argue staff in most not-for-profit organisations are employed to be entirely partial and are expected to act in ways which support the agreed policies of their employers.

The foolishness of this little tactic has been amply illustrated by the reaction of the staff, who appear to have been queueing up to leak this in what can only be seen as a cry for help.

not sure it can only be seen as a cry for help. Could be mischief making, could be cocking a snoop at Kevin, could be a whole load of motivations behind the behaviour. Not sure why anyone is surprised or shocked, indignant or offended that staff are doing what they've been asked/instructed to do by their management. If they ain't happy doing it then they need to MTFU get organised and take some action surely? (fidgets on wallet containing Unite membership card) Or is CTC HQ all a bit too genteel for that?

The execution of this 'policy' has nothing to do with the protection of the staff and Kevin should retract the suggestion that it is - it's about the suborning of staff, some resolutely opposed to the special resolution, to act politically. The only people this is designed to protect is the Councillors who don't have the guts to do the job themselves.

but having staff act 'politically' in support of organisational policy, approved by its most senior governance body, is surely how hierarchical organisations work isn't it? The CTC is neither a democracy nor a workers Co-op.

I've no objection to staff having views one way or the other, or even talking to their fellow members, but this dragooning of staff, with targets being set is very, very low. I really do wonder if there's any way back for the CTC.

Probably not, but then I suspect we knew that already. Seems to me the day the music died was probably when the old HQ was sold off and the arrangements over the new HQ ownership were bounced through at no minutes notice. I'd say the 'no campaign' has clearly got people very very rattled. Organisational skeletons have been dragged into the light and those who own the cupboards are not happy. Losing the vote is now, more than ever, about people's personal and professional credibility especially in regard to their vision for the future of the organisation. You surely didn't expect a clean fight did you, where dreams and ego's are involved?

On a side issue, have senior CTC staff ever directly contributed to any of the numerous threads moaning about member services or do they not feel the need as the people providing the miserably shoddy lackadaisical service are not CTC employees? So that's all right then.

there's a difference between most charities and the CTC, and it's one of the key ones in this discussion. The CTC is a democracy. At least in name. Management is appointed by the members through their representatives.

If I'd wanted to join a heirarchical organisation I'd have joined Sustrans.

workhard wrote:... I'd argue staff in most not-for-profit organisations are employed to be entirely partial and are expected to act in ways which support the agreed policies of their employers ...

Which agreed policy is the staff working to when they advise members which way to vote?

Some in the nay campaign have felt that with the tactics being used by those on council who are in favour of the resolution, and now by the CTC staff, plus the availability to them of contact details for so many members have meant it is inevitable that the Resolution will be passed.

I don't believe it is as inevitable as some may think. I have talked with lots of members recently who have surprised me by being firmly against the proposals. They are members who I thought might be swayed by all the stuff coming their way from the Yes people.

So all is not lost.

While you make some fair points Workhard, it's cynicism of a high order to drag employees into the argument, and I fail to see what good it'll do. The proposal has been treated as a forgone conclusion from the moment it was mooted, a swift, you-won't-feel-a-thing dose of medicine to remedy all ills and that's what's got members' backs up.
This isn't about taking a failing organisation and exposing staff to a few uncomfortable financial realities, it's about a viable, if often badly run members' club becoming something else entirely to patch up self-inflicted injuries. There's been absolutely no need for the heavy tactics, or careers put on the line, or the macho browbeating. It's all been totally voluntary and people will be judged on their readiness to go down that line.

Most of you work for CTC Charitable Trust,

I take that to mean that all the comment on here about what the CTC's staff should or should not be doing does not apply to "most" of the addressees of the skilfully crafted billet doux

Whatever excuses are given the point is that the members are voting to decide policy and until it is decided staff should be neutral. Council and management have made it clear they favour the change to charity status, they have set out their reasons in the mag, and there have been various e-mails sent to members telling them to vote for the change.

Enlisting staff in a campaigning role to lobby members is utterly wrong whatever the legalities.

Simon L6 wrote:there's a difference between most charities and the CTC, and it's one of the key ones in this discussion. The CTC is a democracy. At least in name. Management is appointed by the members through their representatives.

If I'd wanted to join a heirarchical organisation I'd have joined Sustrans.

It's a representative parliamentary style democracy. Not a genuine one. I don't get a pottery shard every time a decision has to be made. You've worked close to the centre and higher up the CTC food chain from me so I can see why you might think it was more of a democracy than I do. btw I don't think the goverance model is designed to work well with as biug a membership base as we have. Not enough or a broad enough cross section of people on council "But then council would be too big and unweildy". Yes, that is the price you pay for better representation, Look how many MPs we have to have.

Anyway the "Board of Directors/Council/Trustee" is appointed by the membership who then delegate upwards to them decisions about all but the most serious matters. The Board then delegate the day-to-day stuff to the staff who in turn tell the board what is and is not achievable/deliverable and what it weill all cost. Hardly anything is determined by the members. It is decided by their elected representatives a la Westminster. The staff are hired hands paid to do the Councils bidding NOT the bidding of the membership as a whole. If they disagree stongly with a given direction then they have choices.

Sounds like most membership charities I know.

irc wrote:Whatever excuses are given the point is that the members are voting to decide policy and until it is decided staff should be neutral. Council and management have made it clear they favour the change to charity status, they have set out their reasons in the mag, and there have been various e-mails sent to members telling them to vote for the change.

Enlisting staff in a campaigning role to lobby members is utterly wrong whatever the legalities.

But Council have decided the policy and are asking the membership to approve the change. That is a subtle but important difference imo. Clearly council feel it is appropriate to allow staff to lobby for the change or they would have stamped on it.

Having decided that they want to steer the ship in a particular direction the ships officers (council) have've now issued orders to the crew (staff) to set course for merger. The passengers (us) may not all agree with the ships destination, something or other about icebergs and the crew have been told to articulate support the Captain's decision and persuade disgruntled passengers that the officers know what is best for us. Down in the crews quarters there is talk of mutiny and they've told some of us un steerage that they ain't happy. But the ship sails on.

workhard wrote:

irc wrote:Whatever excuses are given the point is that the members are voting to decide policy and until it is decided staff should be neutral. Council and management have made it clear they favour the change to charity status, they have set out their reasons in the mag, and there have been various e-mails sent to members telling them to vote for the change.

Enlisting staff in a campaigning role to lobby members is utterly wrong whatever the legalities.

But Council have decided the policy and are asking the membership to approve the change. That is a subtle but important difference imo. Clearly council feel it is appropriate to allow staff to lobby for the change or they would have stamped on it.
...

I don't believe that the majority of Council members expected such behaviour when they agreed the Communications Plan. Despite what the Chief Executive says above, this sort of action by staff was not made explicit at the time it was discussed - because Council didn't properly discuss the Plan. The Chair shut discussion down and shuffled the Plan to the 'Way Forward Committee' for further consideration, the membership of which is dominated by charity proposal supporters.

Council is far from democratic. There is a 'shadow' Executive Committee who routinely overturn decisions taken by Council in between Council meetings, in order to make things go their way.

There is a Council meeting this Saturday in London. I would encourage as many members as possible to turn up and see just how Council is run.

There is a Council meeting this Saturday in London. I would encourage as many members as possible to turn up and see just how Council is run.

Could you supply details of the time and place so that interested parties might know where to go? Personally, I'd love to see how these things are conducted, alas I'm already double booked on Saturday.

workhard wrote:... Anyway the "Board of Directors/Council/Trustee" is appointed by the membership who then delegate upwards to them decisions about all but the most serious matters ...

That may well be a suitable model for the CTC. I'd be surprised if many members want to be bothered with the detail of what goes on at the centre. You read the mag, visit the website etc, and carry on cycling. But in this instance members are being asked whether they want to remain members of a club or to become members of a charity. A serious matter, presumably, which has yet to be decided on.

workhard wrote:... Council have decided the policy and are asking the membership to approve the change. That is a subtle but important difference imo ...

I'm not sure which policy this is. A policy to put the case for change to a charity to members via a Communications Plan? This should be done through the official channels, even if all the Councillors were unanimous on "yes", and the case should be argued by them, not staff. That's how I see it. Even more so as there does seem to be an official "opposition" to the change. It would be unheard of in Local Government to enlist employees to promote the election manifesto of a particular party.

Anyway, as an ordinary member, I'd expect to read about the issues then make up my own mind. Being asked to send a blank proxy form to someone else to use my vote as they see fit seems wrong and very undemocratic indeed.

Si wrote:

There is a Council meeting this Saturday in London. I would encourage as many members as possible to turn up and see just how Council is run.

Could you supply details of the time and place so that interested parties might know where to go? Personally, I'd love to see how these things are conducted, alas I'm already double booked on Saturday.

It's at 10.30 a.m. at the Charity Centre, 24 Stephenson Way, London NW1 2DP.

We would encourage any members who can to attend. Come and listen to how Council operates, see what weight is given to your views and interests, and hear those who purport to speak for you. You have the right to attend these meetings - (although Council and National Office likes to keep quiet about them and doesn't publicise them).

Further details (including a map) are available on the Save the CTC web-site.

A couple of points.

1. AFAIK, if the CTC Charity's trustees decide its staff should do certain things, qua trust employees, that decision is now beyond the direct democratic control of the CTC's (club) membership. I think this is at the heart of the debate of converting the entire CTC to charitable status.

2. The caucus style of operation is the norm in local govt., where councillors are elected to form policy and implement it, not to run a debating society. I've posted before that the democratically elected Chair of CTC Council has a background as a local councillor. It wasn't a secret, he made a point of it as a relevant experience on his election address. It's hardly fair to him to expect that he will now adopt a different style.

(As an aside, at some point after my earlier post, that election address was replaced on the CTC Desktop with something else which made no reference to that experience in local govt. I really do hope that it was just a coincidence that the updating took place when it did, rather than as a reaction to my post. The antics of many of our politicians at a national level from moats, duckhouses, etc., to warmongering and poodling have brought them disdain - that should not reflect on everybody in the country who puts themselves forward for election.)