Cycling UK Forum

wasn't going to renew at the end of May if 8 9 & 10 passed.

With 10 failing I'm sticking around, voting against again is worth £37 of my money. I'd only spend it on beer and cycling magazines anyway!

I was pleased that 10 was lost and I disagree that it should have been passed because 54% voted for 8 and 60% for 9. Everybody has always known that 75% is needed to get the charity vote through and it always will be. Until they can get that it can't happen.

workhard wrote:wasn't going to renew at the end of May if 8 9 & 10 passed.

With 10 failing I'm sticking around, voting against again is worth £37 of my money. I'd only spend it on beer and cycling magazines anyway!

That'll be £36.00 not £37.00. Subs increase from 1st October.

Yorkshireman wrote:Hm! If members do hold copyright re the badges, perhaps I don't need to lose any sleep over this sort of thing

(not that I do anyway )

I buy these as they are well made and available.
John
Item number 390179275587 on Ebay. Nick Tythcott.

Karen Sutton wrote:

workhard wrote:wasn't going to renew at the end of May if 8 9 & 10 passed.

With 10 failing I'm sticking around, voting against again is worth £37 of my money. I'd only spend it on beer and cycling magazines anyway!

That'll be £36.00 not £37.00. Subs increase from 1st October.

I'll pay the extra pound just to be a nuisance...

2 points

1) No-one seems to have raised this, but why did a greater percentage vote for a change in the constitution than vote for charity status? It strikes me as odd that you'd vote no to becoming a charity and yes to the mechanism that's needed to properly implement it? It wasn't by a small percentage either so errors in spoilt papers etc wouldn't come into play here. I noticed that the papers were to be read electronically, I read with horror that having used ticks instead of crosses may have meant that a computer couldn't read my ballet paper properly, could this explain this discrepancy?

2) Much play is made of the low percentage of people voting.
Many that I talked too had no idea that the vote was occuring or the significance of it.
However surely it is better to have a low percentage of informed opinion voting rather than these votes being diluted by block voting.

Looking at the BA/union debacle though it appears to me that if you have the money and a clever barrister a decision can be overuled if you put your mind to it.

Neil

In my opinion, getting lawyers involved would be worse than being a charity.
Especially as any irregularities did not possibly alter the way that the vote went.
Also we end up paying the lawyers' fees whoever wins as we ARE the CTC that the action is being taken against.
Such a petty act would almost certainly make sure that the result of the next vote is a resounding YES in reaction to any such wastage of CTC funds.

Neil Wheadon wrote:2 points

1) No-one seems to have raised this, but why did a greater percentage vote for a change in the constitution than vote for charity status?

It was the polite thing to do, as if the vote for went ahead it would be a bit annoying to say the least not to be able to implement it.

Neil Wheadon wrote: ... Many that I talked too had no idea that the vote was occuring or the significance of it. ...

It's true that the media didn't latch onto this so we were spared the frenzy of endless interviews, speculation etc., no swingometer, no opinion polls, there were no covert recordings, and the Dimbleby Bros were spared another sleepless night making bricks without straw for a second weekend in a row, BUT it's hard to see what more could have been done to alert the membership that the votes would be taken at the AGM. It's been in the mag, on the CTC website, in the weekly newsletter, and councillors emailed the on-line members. In addition, there has been the 'Save the CTC' website and plenty said on here. I suppose any habitually solo riders, in it 'just for the insurance,' who bin the mag unread etc., may not have known, but presumably, they'd not have been interested even if somebody had come round canvassing.

Neil Wheadon wrote:2 points

1) No-one seems to have raised this, but why did a greater percentage vote for a change in the constitution than vote for charity status? It strikes me as odd that you'd vote no to becoming a charity and yes to the mechanism that's needed to properly implement it? It wasn't by a small percentage either so errors in spoilt papers etc wouldn't come into play here. I noticed that the papers were to be read electronically, I read with horror that having used ticks instead of crosses may have meant that a computer couldn't read my ballet paper properly, could this explain this discrepancy?

2) Much play is made of the low percentage of people voting.
Many that I talked too had no idea that the vote was occuring or the significance of it.
However surely it is better to have a low percentage of informed opinion voting rather than these votes being diluted by block voting.

Looking at the BA/union debacle though it appears to me that if you have the money and a clever barrister a decision can be overuled if you put your mind to it.

Neil

Exactly so Neil. Those who voted by actually stating their preferences (instead of leaving their vote to someone to do with it what they wish) are the people who care about what happens (whichever way they vote). So even if there are a low number of actual Yes or No votes, those are the ones which should be counted. If that had happened then I don't think Motions 8 or 9 would have passed.

Quite so. From my viewpoint, the fact that the vote was so close on 8 and 9 is a damning indictment of the "pro" lobby. They had the full machinery of the CTC (facilities, money, contacts and cajoled staff) yet couldn't persuade members to support them. Whether it's legal or not, I think it's a farce that 400 people who couldn't be bothered to read the information and decide for themselves (like grown-up sentient beings) swung the vote for 8 & 9 to a "yes".

If those responsible try and spin this as any kind of victory for the pro camp, with the loss of 10 as a mere technical hitch to be overcome at a later date, then they will sink even lower in my (already very low) estimation. I hope there is some serious soul-searching, followed by resignations. The instigators of this whole mess have shown appalling lack of judgement matched only by their downright incompetence of even failing to force through their stated aims.

corshamjim wrote:...what I will do if the proposal to increase the subs gets a 'yes' vote? I already pay subs to my local cycling club, and frankly wonder why CTC is asking for even more money at a time when most people including me are tightening our belts.

Why do they want more of your money? That's an easy one - to give it to the Trust, of course!

I don't think they'll be getting any more of mine.

toontra

Your post say it all for me, but I think you have to consider why 8 and 9 were on the agenda. I think it was in anticipation of the safeguards built into our constitution in the 75% rule making 10 problematic and I think this bit of your post was an accurate prophesy:

toontra wrote:...If those responsible try and spin this as any kind of victory for the pro camp, with the loss of 10 as a mere technical hitch to be overcome at a later date ...

I think the later date will come a lot sooner than you think. Like this Friday afternoon.

toontra wrote:Quite so. From my viewpoint, the fact that the vote was so close on 8 and 9 is a damning indictment of the "pro" lobby. They had the full machinery of the CTC (facilities, money, contacts and cajoled staff) yet couldn't persuade members to support them. Whether it's legal or not, I think it's a farce that 400 people who couldn't be bothered to read the information and decide for themselves (like grown-up sentient beings) swung the vote for 8 & 9 to a "yes".

If those responsible try and spin this as any kind of victory for the pro camp, with the loss of 10 as a mere technical hitch to be overcome at a later date, then they will sink even lower in my (already very low) estimation. I hope there is some serious soul-searching, followed by resignations. The instigators of this whole mess have shown appalling lack of judgement matched only by their downright incompetence of even failing to force through their stated aims.

Best you don't look at the press release, as posted on the CTC Facebook page, then.

workhard wrote:Best you don't look at the press release, as posted on the CTC Facebook page, then.

Thanks for the warning - it's a lovely day and I don't want to spoil it