Cycling UK Forum

Somewhere in all the postings about the CTC, someone asked what the experience of other organisations was who had been through something similar, and someone else suggested that the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET, formerly the IEE) was a case study. Sorry I can't remember where that exchange was so I've started a new post.

I was at the IET annual dinner last night and happened to find myself sitting next to one of the IET Trustees, so asked him a bit about how it works in practice. It was very controversial at the time, partly because it involved stripping power from the Council (50+ members from memory) and giving it to the Trustees, and partly because it was perceived by members as being imposed by a clique/elite. A disgruntled section of the membership, led by some quite senior people, forced a review, which was seen at the time as quite a concession by the powers that be, and that did result in tweaks though not any radical reversal of the plans.

He left me with the impression that since the change, Council, which still exists, as the only body elected by the members, has a vastly reduced role and influence; they discuss and agree broad policy, but I get the impression the Trustees make their own minds up as to how far to be guided by the Council. The Council do still elect the President, however, who is influential.

He described a situation where the Trustees have a very clear sense of their obligations, which are to fulfil charity law and the IET's objectives as defined, whether or not that corresponds to the will of the majority of members. It does happen broadly to correspond at the moment, the members get what they want from the IET, but if there were ever a divergence, the Trustees would do what they felt obliged to do rather than what the members wanted. He gave me a specific example where charitable status forced the IET to focus a particular activity for the wider benefit of society rather than the narrow benefit of members; the membership would almost certainly endorse the idea of doing it for society, but might be uncomfortable at their own needs not being given a higher priority.

I got the impression that for IET it works quite well, because the Trustees they have are very dedicated and have a very acute sense of the obligation to run the organisation for the greater good, and are not in the pocket of the paid staff and indeed are quite prepared to challenge or reject proposals put forward by the paid staff. I'm sure the concentration of power in a smaller group rather than Council, which was too big to be effective, has brought a more efficient way of working. I think the organisation as a whole has a more dynamic feel. But I also sense that the arrangement depends on goodwill and trust - if the Trustees ever started taking the organisation in a different direction to the expectations of the membership, there would be trouble, as the membership would find itself with less power than it thought.

There are plenty of analogies here but I've tried to report what I learned relatively neutrally.

swansonj

Thanks for that, which I've found very interesting (I did post asking for examples in other organisations.)

I think professional bodies like this illustrate what may be two aims. One is the broader public good of promoting that field of knowledge endeavour - in this case perhaps best practice in engineering and technology - and the other is maintaining professional standards. These can conflict, especially if the latter turns it more towards collectively protecting members' individual interests. In this context I can see a real benefit from the charity set-up in that an organisation will be pushed towards the public rather than individual interest. I can't see something like this going down too well at, say, the Law Society, which seems to be much more directed towards the interests of individual members than advancing the law. (I suppose being lawyers they'll have had the most financially attractive system all along.)

One point about professional bodies is that they consist of the most highly-trained and experienced people in that speciality so they will not be vulnerable to being taken for a ride.

I still have doubts whether individual rank and file cyclists see it as their role to contribute financially to the broader promotion of cycling. Although I've noted before the huge amount of knowledge in dirrent fields shown on here, I'm not sure that a population defined only by an interest in cycling is likely to have the same levels of knowledge as a population defined as chartered engineers. And going for rides is something cyclists take for granted

According to BBC Countryfile magazine, March 2010 issue, the Ramblers' Association (a charity similar to CTC in history and perhaps image, but twice the size with 125,000 members) has struggled recently due to the recession.

The Chairman of the Ramblers wrote:like many charities, the Ramblers has faced severe financial difficulties during the recession. The trustees and management took painful emergency steps, including scaling down operations across England, Scotland and Wales.

A magazine reader wrote:In my opinion the Ramblers has over-reached itself. It has sought to go beyond its core activities and, encouraged by government, has involved itself in schemes to get unfit urban dwellers walking. This is a laudable aim but such peripheral activities are diluting the effectiveness of the organisation and have, I am sure, contributed to the escalating financial crisis and the unfair fate that is facing the Scottish and Welsh offices.

This suggests to me that being a Charity doesn't guarantee a nice easy source of club funds, and in fact expanding into non-core charitable work can increase financial risk quite dramatically.

My (albeit limited) experience is that I've worked as an IT employee for two of the UK's largest conservation charities.

My main observations based on both are ...

Why be a member? Most members of large charities are members largely because they want the charity to do it's charity stuff. For example the members of the RNLI (not one of the charities I worked for) want the organisation to rescue people from peril at sea and promote safe enjoyment of our waters. Personally I recently joined CTC primarily for the direct benefits to me (3rd party insurance, the magazine, this forum and info on rides, holidays etc,.). I'm glad it does some charity-type stuff but it's not what I expect it primarily to concentrate on.

Fundraising Typically both of the charities I worked for charge a membership fee annually, but if a member simply pays that fee for the year then leaves the charity actually loses money. That's right. In order to just tread water the charity has to cajole its members by one means or another to give extra money be that by buying premium products from the commercial arm or by donations, legacies etc. IMO, that's perfectly acceptable for a charity in the purest sense when its very reason for existence is to raise money to do its good works. I personally don't think it's an acceptable way for a club such as CTC (whose primary reason for existence isn't charitable) to run.

So ... I don't think the CTC is or should be a charity, and so should not attempt to run itself as such.

That's my 2p worth anyway!