Cycling UK Forum

http://www.ctc.org.uk/desktopdefault.aspx?tabid=5355

http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/About_U ... g_Form.pdf

Members reading about the AGM who wished to support Council can choose the Chair as a proxy even if they did not know about any issues at all, however others have to find an opposing person on a particular motion, possibly slightly more inconvenient. I am not clear that it was really a level playing field.

The CTC home page should have the AGM results posted in full by now or a link, not having people emailing for the results, providing a professional service to its members.

If you have to explain how to vote then this process is more complicated perhaps, than just choosing the Chair as a proxy.


The CTC home page stated
"CTC has the chance to become a charity

We need your vote to make it happen"

+

"This could bring around £100,000 of extra funding for the work of CTC."
+
"Motions 8, 9 and 10 are the ones critical to the decision to update CTC’s charitable status. Alternatively, many members choose to tick the box at the top of the form, authorising the chair to cast a vote on their behalf."

The last part implies the Chair will vote yes for motion 8, 9 and 10. In my view the Chair should listen to all points raised at the meeting before deciding which way to vote, it is very important in conducting a meeting. All the above info was on the CTC web page and anyone opposing did not have this sort of exposure to their view or main points they wished to raise, so I see a one sided case where the Chair is going to vote one way almost regardless of points that may have been raised at the AGM. I am still not convinced it was a level playing field.

I agree with you Steady rider, indeed some of the replies/rebuttals by the 'yes' group were a little less than 'gentlemanly' and some seemed (to me) to twist some of the points made by the 'no' group. I've no doubt that the people running/guiding the 'yes' campaign were acting in what they considered to be the best interests of CTC, but some of the 'no' voters possibly were of the opinion that a yes vote (and the required changes in order to comply with Charity rules/regs) may not have been in the best interests/benefits of/to ordinary members. I suppose that it's a matter of perception ... I voted No as I thought that as an ordinary member there was a distinct chance of the Charity/Club being limited as to services etc that could be supplied to members (I've been wrong many times in my life, and I may be wrong in my thinking here ).

I am not too sure if votes should be cast with the Chair to decide.

If people wish to vote for an issue then why not simply vote that way and equally if not supportive, vote against, where is the need to
"to tick the box at the top of the form, authorising the chair to cast a vote on their behalf"

The only advantage I can see is that the Chair can listen to all the views expressed at an AGM and then decide which way to cast a vote. Some people may even expect this and vote for the Chair where the issue is in dispute, perhaps.

I would probably scrap this idea of allowing votes to go to the chair because there is room for error between what people may wish and the way the chair may vote. Not sure if we need proxy voting at all? Does the CTC have to provide a proxy vote via the Chair?

Motion for the next AGM perhaps, scrap all proxy voting, unless it is a requirement of the companies act, any seconders?

Steady rider wrote:... any seconders?

Yes. Either people have an opinion or they don't. Seems simple to me - If they don't then they shouldn't vote, even if begged to do so by the proposers of the motion, and especially in this case where all unqualified proxies going to the chair were always going to be a de facto "yes".

Steady rider wrote:I would probably scrap this idea of allowing votes to go to the chair because there is room for error between what people may wish and the way the chair may vote. Not sure if we need proxy voting at all? Does the CTC have to provide a proxy vote via the Chair?

Motion for the next AGM perhaps, scrap all proxy voting, unless it is a requirement of the companies act, any seconders?

It is a requirement of the Companies Act that members have the right to appoint proxies.

See http://www.burness.co.uk/press/pdf/0710CompActGuarantee.pdf

.

gaz wrote:I expect any unqualified proxies going to Simon or Greg were always going to be a de fact "no". I don't know whether or not they received any to cast.

I'm pretty sure almost all those were specifically "no" votes from people who'd studied the facts and decided against, at least on 10 and probably 8 & 9. I'm talking about those who couldn't/wouldn't decide for themselves and passed the responsibility onto the chair, with the encouragement of the official CTC publicity machinery.

One good Yorkshireman is worth is weight in gold.

Thanks John Catt for the pfd link.

The CTC form states
"If your proxy is unable to attend the
meeting, your proxy reverts to the chair unless you delete the words “the chair of the meeting or”. A proxy does not need to be a member of CTC."

http://www.burness.co.uk/press/pdf/0710 ... rantee.pdf

If company law supports the CTC position is not clear.

The pdf mentions

"In certain instances, there was also a concern that if proxy
voting was allowed, a member with a particular agenda
might go round a large number of members presenting a
one-sided argument and collecting proxy votes, such that
he/she was then able to force through the resolution with a
large block vote.

As noted above, the 2006 Act states that the right to
appoint a proxy will prevail over any provisions to the
contrary in a company’s articles of association – so the
basic principle of proxy voting cannot be excluded.
Nevertheless, there may be other mechanisms (eg limiting
the number of votes that a given proxy can cast) which
might be adopted within the articles to reduce the risk of
a block vote – if indeed that is considered to be a point of
concern."

The orginal CTC home page presented the benefits and encouraged members to vote, via a proxy for the Chair. This may have been against the intentions of proxy voting according to the pdf from what I can see. Limiting the Chair's vote or any proxy vote to no more than 5% of votes cast, eg say 4000 votes in total, 5% = 200 maximum allowed for chair or any other person.
This would encourage direct voting.

I think that anybody not connected with the CTC and the current debate would say that there is a reasonable assumption that an elected leader (of whatever title) such as the Chair of the CTC Council might reasonably be expected to have at least the trust and probably the support of the majority of the organisation. Therefore, AFAIK, it's quite normal for the chair of a meeting of this type to act as proxy. In most organisations it's assumed that those entitled to vote, be they shareholders, building society members or whatever, will just move on (by selling their shares or whatever) if they don't like the way things are going. In any event, however frustrated people may feel about this, 1 vote = 1 vote no matter how it is legitimately cast.

What we are seeing is the result of a long term lack of interest in the democratic affairs of the CTC by the great majority of the membership.

Having said all that, I think the Chair really has to decide which way he's trying to present this. Either, the 75% safeguard is just a minor procedural hindrance to getting this through in a situation of almost total apathy, or he wants the genuine support of the CTC membership as a whole, in which case he's a long way to go.

.

I think the voting procedure and system has some weaknesses.

CTC decides how to present information to its members, sets the AGM agenda, CTC Chair may chair the AGM, papers presented are via the CTC. It is all very one sided and anyone opposing a CTC Council motion could have an uphill journey.

Gaz wrote "The Chair's view was spread across at least two issues of Cycle and the CTC website." Opposing views would not have this ease of getting their point of view across, so whatever the vote some may feel it was never a level playing field.

Supporting the CTC may have been easier with a cross against the chair, I gather 770 yes votes were gained this way perhaps.

Voting to oppose may have required members to take more time, if a proxy is used, or should they vote for the Chair if they knew the Chair is for the yes vote? or do they need an alternative name? Or they could have voted for the Chair and ticked the individual motions. Suppose their proxy did not turn up, then added issues arise. Opposing the motions may have seemed more complicated and many people did not vote, 94%. I think it is more probable that NO votes may not be sent in than Yes votes, because the Yes voting procedure may have been slightly easier or seemed easier.

The end result was a close one, with many voting against and with this being a cycling club and acting for all cyclists, it is probably best to follow policy that unit cyclists rather than divides them. Concerns over the money side has added to complications for members to consider. It seems it takes over a week to get a detailed result sheet, still waiting.