Cycling UK Forum

John Catt wrote:...At the end of the day I think it comes down to an issue as to whether you see the CTC as being an organisation to promote and campaign for cycling and cycle touring to the general population, or one that concentrates on providing services to its members for the lowest possible subscription rate. (That is setting out the extremes and most members probably lie near the middle of the spectrum - so they have to decide, on balance, where they lie).

I suggest that things are rather more complicated than that and I'm surprised you don't recognise it.

Although charity status is generally more tax-efficient, it comes with all sorts of strings. Campaigning is one that can be contentious, partly because it shades into the field of piper-paying and hand-biting. In your earlier posts there is an example of public funding being conditional on helmet promotion (I've not checked back for your wording.) I've never hidden my feeling that the Highway Code campaign foundered for that reason.

While no normal person wants to squander money, I don't think people are necessarily looking for economy at all costs. OTOH some people are worried about implications of cross-subsidy masked by fuzzy accounts. Gift-aid seems to me to be particularly significant here since because maximisation of the tax relief depends on minimisation of the individual benefits to private members. People are also concerned that the present calm-before-the-storm will give way to deep cuts in public spending post election and that the promotion of cycling - which has never been a high government priority - will be an easy target for savings.

Finally, charity trustees are legally required to put the charity first. If we do convert, the wishes of individual members over the destination of their subs., be they skinflints or spendthrifts will be even less effective than now. Charity status is not an end in itself; it's one arrangement among several and IMO it's not appropriate for an organisation established primarily to represent the interests of its members. (Edited to reinstate the formatting for the quote.)

meic wrote:

The idea that National Office is going out of its way to help cycle touring is pretty soon removed if you have an interest in starting doing some cycle touring. Most of the cycle touring being done seems to be despite the National Office.

Indeed. There's an uncertainty about what to do with cycle touring that's at the root of this issue. It's almost as though confessing yourself to be a 'cycle tourist' is like announcing at a dinner party full of secular professionals you're an orthodox muslim, christian or jew. A few pitying but alarmed glances and a hope you won't use the napkin as a prayer mat/chain cleaner.
The club has been pushing the benefits of political representation and cyclists' rights for so long (and much needed they are) that the old CTC with its gothic script and leathery knees has been sidelined as a bit of an embarassment, something that requires lip service but is frankly on its last legs. Useful in its day but a drain on the family budget which should have been put out to grass years ago.

I think the chair has seriously misjudged the mood on this one and wasn't prepared for the scrap to protect fundamentals as well as wanting an expansion in campaigning.

How difficult would it be to keep the CTC non-charitable wing going, even if 99% of all working is run via the Trust (as is the current plan)? Would this not enable a return towards less Charity more Club at a later date if beneficial?

.

John Catt wrote:Since a forum such as this means that it is difficult to see the wood for the trees, I also set up a blog at http://witherthectc.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... r-ctc.html to set out my thoughts.

Hi John,

I had a chance today to speak to a friend who has worked as a trustee for the IET. This has helped allieviate some fears that have been mentioned on this forum, as (for example) the IET also produce a members mag but it is not considered a members' benefit, rather a members' purchase, hence how they get around the issue. My friend did agree that becoming a charity is a big step as there is NO GOING BACK and the reason the IET have not gone 100% charity is that it means essentially "losing" all their assets. Now, if I am not mistaken the CTC has already handed over the lion share of its assets to the Trust - so stable doors spring to mind.

Personally I don't fear the CTC losing itself as a Charity, though I think it is a mistake to stop it from being a club. I am concerned that the govt will then have a very big say on how we do things, the latest charity reform has left the IET wondering whether they really can (for example) offer funds for engineering students - as this may be seen as discriminating against non-engineers (the IET should fund arts students!).