Cycling UK Forum

You may be right Si, but the issue is rather fundamental. I can't think of another issue likely to split the club so deeply.



Except perhaps a move to support compulsory helmet use.





Ooops! Did I really mention h*lm*ts?

Simon L6 wrote:absolutely. I think the suggestion that Kevin should resign is entirely misplaced, and unwelcome. Councillors make the decisions. Kevin does his best to carry them through.

And talk of resignations of any kind is misplaced. Whatever way the vote goes we're all going to have to take a deep breath and work out a way forward. If (and it's a very big if) the special resolutions are defeated, those of us who have been running the 'nay' campaign have a responsibility to find as much common ground as possible with the majority of Councillors who support the special resolutions.

Hear, hear! I agree entirely. Let's not personalise this issue (as some in the other camp have sought to do).

If (or should I say 'when' ) the motion is defeated, everyone will work together to ensure that the necessary measures to ensure that the current structure works properly are put in place.

Because of their campaign of misinformation and suppression of facts, I think it would be untenable for some council members to remain in office.

It is certainly counter productive to name any employee of the CTC in this. Simon and Regulator have both shown by their remarks that at least one side of this debate can be conducted with respect and dignity. Congratulations to you both.
Si I think you made the correct decision not to pull the plug even leaving the personal part.
One thought would be a change of title.

As Backpacker has said some of the Council might find themselves being questioned for some of their comments and claims. I do wonder who would stand against them as in some of the last elections councilors were elected unopposed.

So maybe the next round of elections will see some of the more vocal and critical members of the CTC standing for election.

If you really feel that strongly about the future direction of the whole organisation maybe now is the time to throw your hat in the ring and say you will stand.
The above 2 lines are not directed at Simon Regulator and a few others.

My own fear is that the future of the CTC is now predicated on the assumption that it will convert to charitable status. I fear that the effects of charitable status were originally misunderstood at least by some - the avoidance of tax on the sale of Cotterell House seems to have been a milestone - and then the project has gathered a momentum of its own. In other circumstances, the change might have gone through on-the-nod. I fear that if the conversion is rejected, then things will go wrong in the sense that it will be impossible to stop that momentum. If the CTC is then in any sort of financial difficulty, the problems will be blamed on retaining what's left of the status quo.

bikepacker wrote:Because of their campaign of misinformation and suppression of facts, I think it would be untenable for some council members to remain in office.

I find this difficult. It is clear to me, who has not yet decided how to vote, that the two sides see things very differently. (I don't need to be a genius to see that...)

However, for me, the least convincing aspect of the nay camp's argument is that the yes camp is acting from anything but good intentions. The importance of giving this credit to your opponents should be blindingly obvious to the nay camp, given the complaints that their own arguments are not being addressed properly.

If you seem unable to see that anyone could have an honest disagreement with you, it makes me question whether your judgement of the issues themselves is clear either - undermining your arguments. I'm sorry if this seems unfair, and obviously I know that people do act from poor motives on many occasions. However, my experience of volunteers is that they want to do something worthwhile. Doesn't mean that they can't be misguided, or blind to the truth, but actual suppression of facts and misinformation is a serious charge.

Fortunately the leaders of the nay camp have a rather more convincing position regarding their opponents, as demonstrated above.

You are probably (hopefully) mistaken in believing the nay camp has leaders. (or even exists)
Most people I know have come to the decision through their own thinking.

It is probably also a mistake to assume it is an organised campaign like the yes vote is, I for one havent seen a communications plan for the opposition vote.

You could prove that Simon L6 is actually Osama bin Ladan and it wouldn't change my views on the issue.

We are not electing representatives here but determining whether or not the club is replaced by a charity.
That will remain long after the individuals have gone. (I am sure I have subconciously nicked that last phrase of some famous historical character.)

Fair points, except that I find the complaint about the organisation of the yes camp rather counts in their favour.

If someone puts a case to me, I want them to believe it. If they believe it, I expect them to use legitimate means to advance it. If someone said to me that they wanted me to support them, but they didn't feel it right to tell me what their arguments were, I'd take the view that they didn't believe in their own case, so neither should I.

I kind of get the feeling that I have been here before with this argument...

meic wrote:You could prove that Simon L6 is actually Osama bin Ladan and it wouldn't change my views on the issue.

rumbled!

Here's the deal. The 'nay' campaign is four individuals, including two current councillors, and two former councillors, writing stuff, and a whole bunch of people, perhaps in to three figures, passing stuff around and bringing stuff to light - usually people who've contributed some kind of volunteer effort to the CTC, often for a considerable length of time.

The 'pro' campaign is, effectively, five councillors, two of whom do the writing, with a bunch of other councillors going along with it, and next to no active grass roots support, using the resources of National Office, and the full time staff around the country.

The reach is approximately 2,000 v 28,000. Given that the vote will be quite small that's not neccessarily a complete disaster, especially since DA secretaries are sending our stuff on to their active members, but occasionally it feels a bit like trying to stop a tank with a peashooter, and occasionally we get a bit cheesed off because we're so out-gunned. I think that's understandable.

I think we've examined the evidence and come to conclusions based on the evidence. I certainly started looking at this with an open mind, indeed I was broadly sympathetic to the idea that the Charity could be brought under democratic control. People are entitled to disagree with our conclusions, and, In the end the vote is the vote is the vote, and if we lose, which, given the disparity in reach, is quite likely, we'll just have to take a breath and wait to see what happens. As I said earlier today, if we win we're going to have to find common ground with the majority on Council. Either way I expect I'll still be riding to the coast...........

thirdcrank wrote:My own fear is that the future of the CTC is now predicated on the assumption that it will convert to charitable status.

I don't see it that way. The 'nay' campaign is effectively a vote for the status quo, although there's clearly an undercurrent of opinion that seeks a re-invigoration of the voluntary side of the CTC. There's nothing that is being done now that depends on the passing of the Special Resolution, and there's no structural impediment that prevents us carrying on with the present structure.

"especially since DA secretaries are sending our stuff on to their active members,"

and why are the DA secretaries doing such a thing?

Not because they are paid up members of any camp but because they saw the proposed conversion and did not like what they saw. Or at least didnt like the way it was being pushed.

meic wrote:"especially since DA secretaries are sending our stuff on to their active members,"

and why are the DA secretaries doing such a thing?

Not because they are paid up members of any camp but because they saw the proposed conversion and did not like what they saw. Or at least didnt like the way it was being pushed.

well, quite. They're also organising meetings up and down the country, to which, surprisingly, the 'pro' camp don't turn up when invited.

The sense I get is that local groups (I still call them DAs) feel that they're self-sustaining clubs. You can see their point. Local groups get letters or e-mails from National Office once in a while, updating them on procedures and membership, and a smallish cheque. DA committees do battle with the membership system (and it is a battle), try and communicate with the 50% of members who they have e-mail addresses for, and organise fundraising.

.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... _5O1RURbfA

gaz

If you can hear the nee-naws, it's because they are already on your case

.