Cycling UK Forum

What will this mean in practice? Will there be a second ballot on Motion 10? If the nay's are running at 60% it will require a huge shift to reclaim an extra 15% of votes.

Will it render the other motions 'pending' indefinitely?

glueman wrote:What will this mean in practice? Will there be a second ballot on Motion 10? If the nay's are running at 60% it will require a huge shift to reclaim an extra 15% of votes.

Will it render the other motions 'pending' indefinitely?

I think that there's a minimum time lag required before a further vote can be called on the same topic (presumably by holding an EGM) ?

Given the profile that www.savethectc.org.uk has generated I would guess that CTC would keep its head below the parapet for a while ......

Rob

robgul wrote:The website at http://www.savethectc.org.uk appears to have the situation reported for the stuff that matters.

Rob

Here's a twitter linked from the CTC desktop, presumably it's an official POV, from somebody with a diploma from the Mandy Spin Academy..

CTC is a democracy and just like in the election sometimes there isn't a majority and clear answer

There may not be a sufficient majority 'for' but it looks to me like a pretty clear answer - "No."

http://twitter.com/CTC_Cyclists/statuses/14047922592

I was not at the meeting to hear both sides and the CTC mag probably gave one side more support than the other. Not sure how many from the 50k+ membership actually voted. Sounds like 20K do not really support the charity proposal. The Charity Commission may have reservations about approving the CTC with nearly half opposing the measure.

I think CTC Council can still change their minds if they wish, the CTC Constitution may allow for this.

So, it all went as Council would wish it, with the exception of resolution 10. Chantrey Vellacourt were re-appointed as auditors, and resolutions 8 and 9 passed with about 54% of the vote, courtesy of the 770 people who placed their faith in the Chair.

Resolution 10 , the amendments to the Memorandum and Articles of Association, only gathered about 59% of the vote, and, requiring 75%, failed. We have a stay of execution.
I’m gutted. It means that I’ll have to stay on and help to sort this mess out, knowing that there are shortfalls in the character of the CTC that are far beyond my abilities to remedy. I’d hoped fervently for one of two outcomes – a solid vote against, or a vote in favour, however narrow. The former would have kicked the conversion to charity in to the long grass for years to come, and the latter would have allowed me to walk away from the CTC and worry about something else. Now I’m hooked.

The good news is that the reforming spirit on CTC Council can now use the ‘nay’ campaign for its own ends. We’ll meet, and, hopefully, agree a way forward. There needs to be safeguards for the members' funds and there needs to be transparency in the way things are costed. There needs to be a means of demonstrating value to the members. I doubt that those things that I hold dear (respect for the bike trade, and a more ethical way of trading) will transpire, but it is incumbent on the ‘nay’ campaign to effect as great an improvement as is humanly possible.

The bad news is that, while we did well against considerable odds. I’m doubtful that lessons, on openness, on fairness and on the value of volunteers will be learnt. Campaigns will still be a lobbyists ghetto. Member groups may get more dough, but the service may not improve. The CTC’s relationship with independent providers of cycle training may well be as toxic as ever (I’ve spared you this – it’s not nice). Still, and all, we may be a force for the better. I’ll be guided in my future actions by my DA committee, but my thought now is that if there is good to be done, we should do it.

One thing to the advantage of the YES camp is they only need one successful meeting and the deed is done FOREVER.
On the other hand there is no limit to the number of times that the proposal can be proposed and voted down.

It could become an annual event!

The way I see it, is that Motions 8 & 9 were not passed by those members were in favour of Charity conversion, but by those who couldn't be bothered to decide, and left it up to the Chair to decide for them. So passing those motions is not actually a mandate from the members to go ahead. The only way to get a true picture is to look at the votes from those who actually decided for themselves; that is those who were at the meeting and those who actually indicated which way they wanted to vote on their proxy papers. Simon, do you or Greg have those figures? it would be interesting to see the numbers without the discretionary votes added.

I was there until the start of the debate of Motion 8. Unfortunately I had to leave at that point, so missed the actual voting on the last 3 motions.

So does this result actually mean Council can convert the Club to a Charity, but cannot merge it with the Trust?

Karen Sutton wrote:The way I see it, is that Motions 8 & 9 were not passed by those members were in favour of Charity conversion, but by those who couldn't be bothered to decide, and left it up to the Chair to decide for them. So passing those motions is not actually a mandate from the members to go ahead. The only way to get a true picture is to look at the votes from those who actually decided for themselves; that is those who were at the meeting and those who actually indicated which way they wanted to vote on their proxy papers. Simon, do you or Greg have those figures? it would be interesting to see the numbers without the discretionary votes added.

I was there until the start of the debate of Motion 8. Unfortunately I had to leave at that point, so missed the actual voting on the last 3 motions.

So does this result actually mean Council can convert the Club to a Charity, but cannot merge it with the Trust?

Karen,

I think that's a little disingenuous - the same as claiming that those who gave John Meudell, Greg Price, Simon Legg or Helen Vecht a discretionary vote also "couldn't be bothered to decide". I think it was clear which way the wind was blowing for those giving discretion to the Chair (for), or to one of the above names (against), but that it allowed more flexibility in ceding to amendments agreed on the day.

Motion 8 garnered substantive debate (I think the running tally was 16 speakers, plus right of reply from proposer and seconder). Motion 9 went through without any real comment. Motion 10 again stirred up a bit of discussion but still little compared to 8.

I think the outcome means that steps can be made toward conversion, but that the CTC only has the existing Mem & Arts to share with the Charity Commission, who would probably reject it. Therefore it'll an EGM, or 2011 AGM, before further progress can be made.

So Council can try to convert the Club to a Charity but may not succeed. The interesting part now will be to see whether a start will be made on the process before they get the vote to amend the Mems. and Arts.

simonconnell wrote:Therefore it'll an EGM, or 2011 AGM, before further progress can be made.

or 'changes' depending on your POV.

simonconnell wrote:

Karen Sutton wrote:The way I see it, is that Motions 8 & 9 were not passed by those members were in favour of Charity conversion, but by those who couldn't be bothered to decide, and left it up to the Chair to decide for them. So passing those motions is not actually a mandate from the members to go ahead. The only way to get a true picture is to look at the votes from those who actually decided for themselves; that is those who were at the meeting and those who actually indicated which way they wanted to vote on their proxy papers. Simon, do you or Greg have those figures? it would be interesting to see the numbers without the discretionary votes added.

I was there until the start of the debate of Motion 8. Unfortunately I had to leave at that point, so missed the actual voting on the last 3 motions.

So does this result actually mean Council can convert the Club to a Charity, but cannot merge it with the Trust?

Karen,

I think that's a little disingenuous - the same as claiming that those who gave John Meudell, Greg Price, Simon Legg or Helen Vecht a discretionary vote also "couldn't be bothered to decide". I think it was clear which way the wind was blowing for those giving discretion to the Chair (for), or to one of the above names (against), but that it allowed more flexibility in ceding to amendments agreed on the day.

Motion 8 garnered substantive debate (I think the running tally was 16 speakers, plus right of reply from proposer and seconder). Motion 9 went through without any real comment. Motion 10 again stirred up a bit of discussion but still little compared to 8.

I think the outcome means that steps can be made toward conversion, but that the CTC only has the existing Mem & Arts to share with the Charity Commission, who would probably reject it. Therefore it'll an EGM, or 2011 AGM, before further progress can be made.

I would suggest that it is likely that those members that gave their proxies to Greg, Simon, Helen & John did so with a specific instruction for NO rather than giving them discretion - assuming that is the case then the "majority" is perhaps further diluted.

Rob

I'm not sure that much is to be gained by a public chewing-over of the motivation of the members who took part.

A safeguard built into the CTC's rules and regulations, to ensure that any fundamental change is supported by a substantial (75% +) majority, has apparently worked.

From the few numbers* rather than %ages mentioned, it seems that participation has been in the range of 2-3% of the membership. That's hardly to be described as a strong mandate for anything.

*Only 770 proxies with the chair, presumably even fewer with the others.

Yes, TC, that is what I meant. I worded it badly. I would like to know the number of votes for and against the 3 motions without the addition of the discretionary votes. I believe those figures would give a truer picture of the wishes of the members who had made their choice themselves.
As Motions 8 & 9 were passed by such a small margin it would be qite wrong for Council to commence the change of the club to Charity status whether they are able to complete it or not.

I will be watching now to see how Council moves on this. My membership will be due for renewal in November, usefully close to our Group AGM. If Council have started to act on the result of the vote on Motions 8 & 9 I will not renew my membership, thus I will be unable to continue the voluntary work I currently do for the CTC.

simonconnell wrote:Karen,

I think that's a little disingenuous - the same as claiming that those who gave John Meudell, Greg Price, Simon Legg or Helen Vecht a discretionary vote also "couldn't be bothered to decide". I think it was clear which way the wind was blowing for those giving discretion to the Chair (for), or to one of the above names (against), but that it allowed more flexibility in ceding to amendments agreed on the day.

not really - I made an effort to contact all those who nominated me, and asked for their views. A good number responded - that's why I was insisted that abstentions be counted, because people wanted me to abstain on some resolutions. And, again, the letter from Kevin to staff members suggested that people be asked to simply sign their name and tick the box nominating the Chair, to avoid making it all too complicated....

Like Karen if council start moves to implement Motions 8 and 9 I will not renew my membership.

Can I just add my thanks to Greg Price, Simon Legg, Helen Vecht, John Meudell and others, for their work and efforts in opposing the motions. It was truly appriciated.

As I have stated in another forum (comment moved to new thread: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=37542) that I believe there are certain legal avenues that can be explored to nullify the vote. I shall be discussing this later next week with a retired barrister.

Going to the AGM was a last minute arrangement for me due to a family commitment. As someone who spent a lot of time on Committees and Boards of Directors, I was appalled at the bad organisation of the meeting. I don't know how long the exectutive had been preparing but for the first 45 minutes it could only be described as a shambles. The words p**s up and brewery came to mind.

For the next few days I shall be out of communication (that is one of the beauties of cycle touring and camping) so will reserve further comments until after. That way I may have calmed down a little.