Cycling UK Forum

Here are my thoughts.

The Outcome of the Votes

Contrary to what the numbers for 8 and 9 said, Council need to realise they haven't won the argument. Without the Chair casting his discretionary proxies for the motions, they'd have been lost.

And contrary to the suggestion made by Barry Flood (and I must give him credit for the fact that he apologised for it afterwards), in respect of motion 10, even if all those in the room who cast their proxy votes against the motion had voted for it, it would still not have been carried. Council and National Office had failed to convince sufficient of the membership to support the motion - plain and simple.

Some Councillors left the AGM almost punching the air in delight, suggesting that now they could move forward with haste to make the proposals a reality. Others left the meeting less jubilant, and several of them came to talk to me later in the evening.

What is clear is that, despite winning motions 8 and 9, Council and National Office do not have an overwhelming mandate for their proposals. Despite the grand communication plan, the blatant bias in Cycle and Newsnet (or CycleClips as I suppose I must now call it) and the hundreds of thousands of emails sent by National Office to members pleading with them to vote, only about 6% of the membership voted and less than 4% of the membership supported the proposals.

Some members of Council are beginning to realise that the proposals do not have support amongst a significant proportion of the membership, many of whom are the activists and volunteers who actually make CTC tick, and that rushing ahead full steam, without considering the real implications of the votes, would be disastrous for CTC and would further disenfranchise the people who are the lifeblood of the Club. I know that several members of Council who were on the margins of the debate will be speaking to the Chairman and cautioning him on the need to address the issues that are causing concern.

I sincerely hope that the Chairman listens to the counsel that he will recived, and reins in those in National Office who want to push forward as soon as possible. The Chairman has to understand that he may have won part of a battle - but he hasn't won the war.


The Atmosphere

The behaviour of certain councillors during the AGM was only to be expected. There were the usual aspersions being cast on the integrity and motives of those who were against the proposals, as well as the usual spin and suggestion about what those who were anti were actually saying.

The classic example of this had to be the suggestion that we were suggesting that the accounting processes were too complex to understand - therefore, they said, the obvious answer was to combine the organisations so there was only one accounting system. Of course, we weren't saying that the accounting processes were too complex to understand - we were saying that the accounting processes were lacking, that what should be being done wasn't being done.

As I hope came across, what we want is for the shambles that is the governance of CTC to be cleaned up before anything further changes. Otherwise, all that will happen is that the mess will be perpetuated in the new organisation.

We had the usual hype about how much money the Trust supposedly makes for the club - all pure spin and of no substance. Once again I challenged the assertion that the Trust creates £400,000 'surplus' which is used for Club purposes - by simply pointing out that that figure didn't take account of £250,000 of unallocated overheads - and which both CTC's financial experts are at a loss to explain.

Even if the Trust makes £150,000 'surplus' from its projects each year, and this is used for Club purposes, why does it then need another £453,000 donation from the Club on top of the £417,000 paid by the Club for services to balance its books? John Meudell and I , and others have asked these and other questions multiple times and they have not been answered. Neither of CTC financial experts has bothered to respond to a number of written questions put to them.

And I will hold my hands up. I got a little frustrated by sheer lies, spin and attacks on out integrity and motives, and got slapped down by the Chair. Embarrassed I'll hold my hands up to that and I must also give credit to Barry for apologising to me for suggesting that we were trying to use 'procedural tricks' to frustrate the will of the members.


The Voting

Well, the words 'piss-up' and 'brewery' spring to mind.

Prior to the AGM, having been involved in running a number of AGMs where proxy voting was involved, I put a paper into Council suggesting that ERS be involved and how the votes could be counted on the day. This was, subject to a few minor amendments, agreed by Council.

Now, you always get a few people who have sent in proxies who turn up on the day and we were unlucky to have 25! I can't really fault the CTC staff for how things went - we should have had ERS there on the day to deal with such issues but Council didn't want to pay for them.

However, when I went up to the front and discussed with the top table how to deal with the issue, both the Honorary Solicitor and I were in agreement as to the best way forward, and the Returning Officer agreed with it. We explained it to the Chairman several times and then, when he made the announcement, he got it wrong...

Once those issues were sorted, and the voting started, I was flabbergasted at the suggestion that we wouldn't count the proxies in the room for some motions. I don't know what on earth the Chairman was thinking to suggest that - effectively, he was saying that people who had been bothered to vote were going to be disenfranchised. As was pointed out to me after the AGM, if we'd let him get away with such an absurd and undemocratic suggestion, we would have had grounds to challenge the outcomes later on... perhaps we missed a trick?

What was also indicative of the disregard CTC has for doing things properly was the fact that not all the proxies in the room were cast before the results of the postal proxies were revealed, which is what was supposed to happen. Instead, the Chairman was being allowed to cast his discretionary proxies after the postal vote results were revealed. A minor procedural issue perhaps - but it shows that CTC has form for not following proper protocols.

A number of people came up to me afterwards to say they had found the chairing of the meeting biased, shambolic and unprofessional. I'm afraid I have to agree.


Staff Issues

Prior to the meeting, I and others involved in the 'no' campaign were approached by a number of staff who were extremely unhappy with what they were being asked to do, particularly in an email that Kevin had sent to all staff. We were informed by these staff members, and others I talked to this weekend, that they were/had taken no part in the 'one tick voting' campaign. Several were fervently against the proposals as well.

We were also asked about the 'antis' views on a number of issues and it was clear that there was a lot of misinformation about what we were suggesting. Some staff had been told that the 'antis' wanted to get rid of the Trust and that they were criticising the work being done by individual members of staff in the field. This wasn't and isn't true. Some staff were also told that the 'antis' had accused certains members of staff of fraud - again this isn't true.

Understandably, some staff were upset by what they were being told (although I should note that some staff saw it as being the <inappropriate term removed> that it was). I think it is shameful that some in the 'pro' campaign have resorted to stoking up these sorts of fears and concerns in staff. It makes me angry that I (and others) have been used by some as an excuse to abuse staff.


What Now for CTC?

Council has lost the vote on amending the Memorandum and Articles. Even without the proxies in the room and the Chair's discretionary proxies, it didn't have enough votes to pass the special resolution.

If the Council has any sense, and I sincerely hope that it does and the signs are promising, it will stop and reflect on the lessons from this AGM and the campaign that it ran. Even with a grand plan and all the resources of National Office behind it, it only just scraped through on motions 8 and 9. And only a tiny minority of the membership voted.

Council needs to recognise the voting levels for what they are - an indication of how disenfranhcised and detached the membership is. Council needs to take time to consider why this is, and then to work to reenfranchise and involve the membership, before thinking about bringing the charity motion forward again.

Council should take the time to put its internal workings in order: to ensure that senior members of staff have proper job descriptions, that there are proper schemes of delegation in place, and that there is a robust system of scrutiny and oversight of staff in place.

We need to sort the accounts out. It is common for organisations to have charitable and trading arms, which is effectively what CTC has at the moment. What is not common is for the accounting to be so micturate poor that transactions cannot be properly traced, explained or linked to business plans. Our IT and accounting software is outdated and limited. It cannot be substatively upgraded - we need to bite the bullet and pay to have proper equipment, software and training for staff put in place.

We need to start project accounting - and doing so properly. We need to allocate costs and income properly. Colin Quemby made a very interesting point: at present all income is allocated to the Trust and all expenditure allocated to the Club. This clearly cannot be allowed to continue.

We need to get proper training and support in place for Councillors as well. Council needs to realise that it is not just a 'council' - it is a board of directors and that bring with it fiduciary and legal obligations.

There are other changes I would like to see - but this is not the time or place for them.


What now for Save the CTC?

Well, the fight is far from over. As I said at the beginning, Council has one part of a battle, not the war.

I willl be speaking to my fellow Save the CTC'ers and our supporters to see where we go next. What is clear is that we will need to ensure that Council and National Office are scrutinised and held to account every step of the way. We need to get members more involved in things, such as attending council mettings and asking questions of their councillors.

It is clear that a significant section of the membership is not happy with they way that CTC is now or with these proposals (and the two are intrinsically linked). We will ensure that CTC doesn't forget that.

The fact that 6% of members voted, 4% of them for the proposals, is most telling. The CTC has engaged a tiny minority of subscribers. If so few were prepared to respond with a signature and a tick in a pre-paid envelope, for or against, we can assume most really don't care. They want 'something' doing for cyclists, third party cover, a magazine and that is their limit of their involvement.

How that tallies with the idea of a national cycling club is difficult to discern, but talk of mandates either way on those numbers would shame a party politician. To use the jargon of the moment, what the people are telling the leadership is that they've completely lost them.

Just trying to get the figures clear, some report about 5% - 6% voted in total,

say 60,000 x 0.06 = 3600,
From this 54.7% voted for = 1970 approx maybe.
against 1630 say,

770 voted via Chair,
1200 actually voted directly for
1630 voted directly against

About 3.2% of CTC membership (1970/60,000) have voted for change, is one way to view the figures. Those actually directly voting for change 1200/60,000 = 2%

If Chair had voted the other way, 2400 against and 1200 for.

Are these figures roughly correct?
Precise figures would be welcome

Council needs to recognise the voting levels for what they are - an indication of how disenfranhcised and detached the membership is. Council needs to take time to consider why this is, and then to work to reenfranchise and involve the membership, before thinking about bringing the charity motion forward again.

I think it's worth mentioning that a very significant proportion of membership are supporting the "cycling union" but have no interest in Cycle Touring or any other CTC activities. It took me 3 years to go on a local CTC ride and I have a friend I recruited to the CTC who has never opened a copy of cycle. I doubt we are far from the norm.
A very low turnout is to be expected, we can only consider the AGM results as a microcosm of the interested part of the CTC, who are probably a minority (much as in most elections - e.g. in the last UK elections conservatives got 40% of a 70% turnout, so about 30% of the UK backs them).

One statement that was made by at least two councillors was; if the CTC were a charity we could better serve all cyclists. If that is the case the question bugging me was: Why then pay to be a member?

bikepacker wrote:One statement that was made by at least two councillors was; if the CTC were a charity we could better serve all cyclists. If that is the case the question bugging me was: Why then pay to be a member?

A good question. There may well be a need for a pressure group, a quango of expertise to advise government on cycling matters and fulfil contracts. It's disingenuous to link that need with cyclists' sentimental attraction to their old cycling club and empty their pockets in the process.

My strong suspicion is the club and the future vision have become so far separated as to be irreconcilable.

glueman wrote:

bikepacker wrote:One statement that was made by at least two councillors was; if the CTC were a charity we could better serve all cyclists. If that is the case the question bugging me was: Why then pay to be a member?

A good question. There may well be a need for a pressure group, a quango of expertise to advise government on cycling matters and fulfil contracts. It's disingenuous to link that need with cyclists' sentimental attraction to their old cycling club and empty their pockets in the process.

My strong suspicion is the club and the future vision have become so far separated as to be irreconcilable.

If they have become or when they do become irreconcilable, perhaps other options should be considered.

Thanks for that useful AGM summary.
I was expecting something useful on the homepage of CTC, but so far (lunchtime Monday), nothing.
I suspect that many members who voted by proxy would like to know....

belgiangoth wrote:

Council needs to recognise the voting levels for what they are - an indication of how disenfranhcised and detached the membership is. Council needs to take time to consider why this is, and then to work to reenfranchise and involve the membership, before thinking about bringing the charity motion forward again.

I think it's worth mentioning that a very significant proportion of membership are supporting the "cycling union" but have no interest in Cycle Touring or any other CTC activities. It took me 3 years to go on a local CTC ride and I have a friend I recruited to the CTC who has never opened a copy of cycle. I doubt we are far from the norm.
A very low turnout is to be expected, we can only consider the AGM results as a microcosm of the interested part of the CTC, who are probably a minority (much as in most elections - e.g. in the last UK elections conservatives got 40% of a 70% turnout, so about 30% of the UK backs them).

And then there are those who are interested in touring and MGs, etc but were equally disenfranchised with the whole thing. I let people in my MG know what happened immediately after the vote...here's a response:

Thanks for the update,but as you say all we probably want to do is ride our bikes. In the early days of this issue ,I read what each side had to say but quite frankly I didn't understand why we were in this position and I never vote unless I know what its about....................and the sun as just come out........

....and you can't really blame the person given how complex the subject is! After all, they joined the CTC so that they could ride their bikes with their friends, enjoy the cafes, banter and scenery, and to get away from the drudgery and conflicting opinions of politics rather than get further embroiled in it! National Office and the national scene is very much a different country for many.

Si wrote:

belgiangoth wrote:

Council needs to recognise the voting levels for what they are - an indication of how disenfranhcised and detached the membership is. Council needs to take time to consider why this is, and then to work to reenfranchise and involve the membership, before thinking about bringing the charity motion forward again.

I think it's worth mentioning that a very significant proportion of membership are supporting the "cycling union" but have no interest in Cycle Touring or any other CTC activities. It took me 3 years to go on a local CTC ride and I have a friend I recruited to the CTC who has never opened a copy of cycle. I doubt we are far from the norm.
A very low turnout is to be expected, we can only consider the AGM results as a microcosm of the interested part of the CTC, who are probably a minority (much as in most elections - e.g. in the last UK elections conservatives got 40% of a 70% turnout, so about 30% of the UK backs them).

And then there are those who are interested in touring and MGs, etc but were equally disenfranchised with the whole thing. I let people in my MG know what happened immediately after the vote...here's a response:

Thanks for the update,but as you say all we probably want to do is ride our bikes. In the early days of this issue ,I read what each side had to say but quite frankly I didn't understand why we were in this position and I never vote unless I know what its about....................and the sun as just come out........

....and you can't really blame the person given how complex the subject is! After all, they joined the CTC so that they could ride their bikes with their friends, enjoy the cafes, banter and scenery, and to get away from the drudgery and conflicting opinions of politics rather than get further embroiled in it! National Office and the national scene is very much a different country for many.

This is the response I get from many of our group members. I've tried to help over the years with the requirements of the CTC for the Group to comply with the various rules etc for Member Groups. We have managed to just do the bare minimum to get by, preferring to concentrate instead on the riding. There are some, however, (including myself), who don't want the Club changing into a corporate body. We can see it happening though.

There will come a point where we are so disenfranchised that we look for alternative ways for us to just be a Cycling Club, as Si says, to enjoy the riding, the cafes and the companionship. The search for this may come sooner rather than later if Management and Council continue on their current path.

If a cycling club become a charity what about all the other sporting clubs, tennis, golf, football etc why should we be special? and gain a tax or other break. Should all 'not for profit' clubs be allowed tax breaks without them trying to become charity cases? Does the CTC pay any tax anyway? or would they gain from paying less council property bills?

I think it is time we thought again about the validity of Gift Aid.
The Guardian had a thought provoking leader article on Saturday http://tinyurl.com/2vnxtvk.
Or to put it another way.. why should other taxpayers contribute funds to the CTC?
Those funds could be used to pay for my kids' education or my wife's cancer care.
Just a thought..

I couldn't attend the AGM as I was on a weekend residential course.
I did send my voting paper in though.
I voted NO!
I am surprised that it got through to be honest.

micksimm wrote:Those funds could be used to pay for my kids' education or my wife's cancer care.
Just a thought..

A friend of mine plays in a couple of local orchestras. They are both charities, and as far as he can tell are for the benefit of the orchestra members - mostly well-off middle classes (nothing wrong with that, but hardly a needy cause).

It would be better if there were two categories: voluntary (i.e., non-profit making) group and charity. Voluntary groups are often good for society, community spirit, culture, inclusion (or whatever they call it these days), and perhaps they deserve some tax concessions, but they surely shouldn't be lumped together with organisations that work selflessly for the benefit of others.

If the cycle club is a charity, and the local orchestra, then why not the Hell's Angels or a thrash metal band?

micksimm wrote:I think it is time we thought again about the validity of Gift Aid.
The Guardian had a thought provoking leader article on Saturday http://tinyurl.com/2vnxtvk.
Or to put it another way.. why should other taxpayers contribute funds to the CTC?
Those funds could be used to pay for my kids' education or my wife's cancer care.
Just a thought..

Yes, I'd support abolishing Gift Aid on three grounds.

Firstly that it is part of the vastly over complex tax and benfits system which needs simplifying.

Secondly that in the current financial position the government can't afford it. Every pound reclaimed through the scheme is another pound on to the national debt.

Thirdly there are many charities which I don't think should be getting any taxpayers money at all. For example anti smoking or anti alcohol and many other lobbying groups. Why should any organisation get money from the goverment to spend lobbying the govt.

I agree the CTC shoudn't get Gift Aid either. No doubt everyone will have different ideas about which charities are worthy and which aren't so let's keep things simple and just abolish Gift Aid altogether.