Cycling UK Forum

belgiangoth wrote:

Regulator wrote:I may be misunderstanding your last sentence, but if you're not a member before the AGM, then you can't vote.

My membership is up for renewal - after the vote.
In a couple years' time I may get a life membership - if I'm happy with what's going on with the CTC.

Ah - right.... I understand.

In all this, I have not seen what the 'No' camp will do if they WIN the vote. All the ills that they have identified re the charity will still be there, all the failings to provide efficient services to members, etc.... Anyone care to enlighten me?

Keith

Keith wrote:In all this, I have not seen what the 'No' camp will do if they WIN the vote. All the ills that they have identified re the charity will still be there, all the failings to provide efficient services to members, etc.... Anyone care to enlighten me?

Keith

Well, once the membership has told Council to fix what it's got rather than fiddle at the edges, then we'll get on with fixing it.

First thing is to get some proper accounting in place - particularly project accounting. So that we know where the money is going.

Second thing is to get some proper governance structures in place. Proper job descriptions for senior staff and formal schemes of delegations for staff and Council committees. Training for councillors.

Third thing is to sort the governance of the trust out. More trustees, including independent trustees (as recommended by the Charity Commission). A proper protocol between the Trust and the Club.

Then we can get on with things like ensuring that staff structures are effective. Some of the present groupings simply don't work. We also need to ensure a focus on supporting our volunteers and member groups - after all, volunteers and member groups are the most effective recruitment tool we have, and they do some of the most effective work on the ground.

We'll need to look at the membership system and, if need be, bring it back in house. The costs differential is negligible. We need to start re-engaging with members rather than just treating them as cash machines. That will also help with getting fresh blood onto Council and Committees, which is sorely needed.

And that's just for starters...

I've always said that I'd do what my DA decides to do. As a club we have alternatives - we can become a BC/LCC/CTC affiliate, or even go independent given that the myth that 3rd party insurance is somehow hard to get is just that - a myth. We may stick around and see how it goes.

My personal problem is that some of the heavy handed tactics have really left me feeling that the Club is doomed if we vote 'yes'. We now know that staff have been instructed by Kevin Mayne to lobby for resolutions 8, 9 and 10, which isn't simply a disgrace in itself, but paying employees to lobby for a fundamental change in the organisation shows a complete contempt for the Club.

New poster, but long-time lurker - had to join in.

If we have a yes vote, then simply I will not rejoin as it's not what I signed up for. This means that I will no longer be able to take part in my Member Group. I provide a lot of energy and time to the group, and though I will be sad to not be part of it, I will not be blackmailed (you wanna cycle with us, you pay into the "charity") into supporting something that I do not chose to.

Over time others, maybe not lots, but certainly some, will have enough passion to stand up for their principles too, and the grass roots will start to wither as if RoundUp had been sprayed on the leaves.

The other option is to take my energy and set up a non-CTC group for the people who "just want to ride".

My over-riding feeling is to keep the cycling club and the charity separate so that individuals can support what they choose. Or is CTC "management" worried that the charity will got no support if it gives members the choice...

hazychris wrote:
If we have a yes vote, then simply I will not rejoin as it's not what I signed up for. This means that I will no longer be able to take part in my Member Group. I provide a lot of energy and time to the group, and though I will be sad to not be part of it, I will not be blackmailed (you wanna cycle with us, you pay into the "charity") into supporting something that I do not chose to.

That is a fundamental point. At present CTC members have the right to cycle with any local group, so long as they behave appropriately and don't undermine the safety of other members. The annual subs are in effect a passport to club riding for those who choose to take it up.
The new proposal will complete the on-going process of making member groups and DAs separate entities linked only by a notional title and the availability of insurance cover. You'll be subbing the charity to ride with your chosen MG.

What does bother me is is apparent lack of any desire to compromise or look for reconciliation or common ground. The impression is given that those promoting this scheme simply want to win and as long as they win, they don't care too much what damage is done in the process. If I was Kevin Mayne and I really cared about the organisation, I would be looking for ways to minimise the damage and fallout, and I don't see much sign of that. I'm afraid it does rather play into the interpretation "once they've got the single charity model they want, they don't care about members any more because members are unimportant in that future".

.

I notice that once again a posting of mine has been removed from this thread.

What are the mods and KM afraid of? The Truth.

bikepacker wrote:I notice that once again a posting of mine has been removed from this thread.

What are the mods and KM afraid of? The Truth.

Nope, the mods just don't want to see what is a very important debate be side tracked into sniping and personal criticism. The Yes-campaign have already tried this in a number of emails sent out recently (which have been roundly criticised) and we are not going to allow a similar thing to happen here if we can help it. BP, your side has the moral high-ground, I'm sure that Greg, Simon, etc wouldn't want you to chuck it away now.

Indeed, I have received an email from one prominent Yes-Campaigner complaining that they have been ill treated by the moderators on the forum - I believe that he has not ill treated and am happy to tell him where to stick his complaint. Alas, if we start up with these silly personal attacks again then I will have to agree with him. Furthermore you will notice that we have not allowed similar comments to be directed against the No-Campaigners on the forum, and have even removed one Yes-Campaigner from the forum.

Let's hope that a worthy thread about how the club can go on after the vote (whichever way it goes) can continue to be so rather than turning into another rant about moderation on the forum - please put any further complaints about moderators in the Tea Shop and we'll do the usual dance over there. I think that a quick read of the charity section of the forum will demonstrate that the posts made have been almost totally and quite strongly anti-charity proposal, so how anyone can suggest that the mods or the forum is trying to subvert the vote to the Yes side is quite amazing.

I should also point out that KM has had nothing to do with the removal of posts on this section of the forum, apart from helping us with the issue of a 'rogue' Yes campaigner.

Si wrote:

bikepacker wrote:I notice that once again a posting of mine has been removed from this thread.

What are the mods and KM afraid of? The Truth.

Nope, the mods just don't want to see what is a very important debate be side tracked into sniping and personal criticism. The Yes-campaign have already tried this in a number of emails sent out recently (which have been roundly criticised) and we are not going to allow a similar thing to happen here if we can help it. BP, your side has the moral high-ground, I'm sure that Greg, Simon, etc wouldn't want you to chuck it away now.

Indeed, I have received an email from one prominent Yes-Campaigner complaining that they have been ill treated by the moderators on the forum - I believe that he has not ill treated and am happy to tell him where to stick his complaint. Alas, if we start up with these silly personal attacks again then I will have to agree with him. Furthermore you will notice that we have not allowed similar comments to be directed against the No-Campaigners on the forum, and have even removed one Yes-Campaigner from the forum.

Gosh... if a prominent Yes-Campaigner thinks they've been ill treated on this forum, he (it will invariably be a he - and probably with a beard, I'd hazard a guess) will have a fit of the vapours if he reads the 'Save the CTC' web-site, where the pompous pronouncements and misleading messages of the 'We Know Best' Bridgade are treated with the sarcasm, disdain and contempt they deserve....

Keep an ear open for wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the direction of Humberside...

gaz wrote:I can't see how this changes if we become a charity. If we become a charity my annual sub will still be my passport to club riding. It will still pay for the CTC's national work.

Well you won't be a club member because there won't be a members' club. Every ride will be a charity ride in aid of the cycling contract initiative!

.

gaz wrote: I'm quite happy with the benefits resulting from my YHA membership and my English Heritage membership, both are charities but I certainly didn't join either to be philanthropic.

I think the YHA example, as has been said before elswhere on this MB, is helpful in illustrating some of the issues in play over the CTC. The YHA has become more upmarket, more professional, more centralised. It cares less about appealing to its traditional membership and puts its efforts into appealing to a new market who are not members but who are believed to be more commercially attractive. It makes decisions which are commercially driven and seem to many traditional supporters alien to what they think its spirit is supposed to be.

Faced with higher prices; compulsory paying for bedding; compulsory paying for breakfast in more and more hostels; the spread of en suite; smaller rooms all the time; members kitchens progressively squeezed out in favour of hostel catering; hostels without cycle sheds or proper drying rooms; individual hostellers banned in favour of school parties; and above all, the decimation of the network, indeed the abandonment of any pretence of a "network" and the concentration on larger hostels in tourist honey-pot areas and the closure of simple hostel after simple hostel: if you feel that is all good commercial sense that has produced a higher quality service, well, you'll probably be in favour of the CTC proposals. But I'll bet it's many of the same people who feel YHA has abandoned its mission and abandoned them who will be the people who have reservations about CTC.

John

swansonj wrote:

gaz wrote: I'm quite happy with the benefits resulting from my YHA membership and my English Heritage membership, both are charities but I certainly didn't join either to be philanthropic.

I think the YHA example, as has been said before elswhere on this MB, is helpful in illustrating some of the issues in play over the CTC. The YHA has become more upmarket, more professional, more centralised. It cares less about appealing to its traditional membership and puts its efforts into appealing to a new market who are not members but who are believed to be more commercially attractive. It makes decisions which are commercially driven and seem to many traditional supporters alien to what they think its spirit is supposed to be.

Faced with higher prices; compulsory paying for bedding; compulsory paying for breakfast in more and more hostels; the spread of en suite; smaller rooms all the time; members kitchens progressively squeezed out in favour of hostel catering; hostels without cycle sheds or proper drying rooms; individual hostellers banned in favour of school parties; and above all, the decimation of the network, indeed the abandonment of any pretence of a "network" and the concentration on larger hostels in tourist honey-pot areas and the closure of simple hostel after simple hostel: if you feel that is all good commercial sense that has produced a higher quality service, well, you'll probably be in favour of the CTC proposals. But I'll bet it's many of the same people who feel YHA has abandoned its mission and abandoned them who will be the people who have reservations about CTC.

John

I raised the YHA example at Council. I don't think many of my fellow Councillors were that bothered to check it out.