Cycling UK Forum

Hello, Now its 'post vote' what is the situation as regards to the club? Is it a charity or a cycling club for the masses?? No jargon please.

As the Mems and Arts were not changed it would seem to still be a club, as it was before the vote.

The vote suggested that the majority of those that voted were happy for it to become a charity (by a smallish margin on a very low turn out - I would think that the vast majority either don't mind either way or didn't feel confident enough in their understanding of the proposal to vote). But 75% is needed to alter the Mens and Arts, and this has not been achieved. Council are now considering what to do next, if, in fact anything further is done (actually, I think some of them are taking a short break after all of the work in the lead up to the AGM).

Si wrote:As the Mems and Arts were not changed it would seem to still be a club, as it was before the vote.

The vote suggested that the majority of those that voted were happy for it to become a charity (by a smallish margin on a very low turn out - I would think that the vast majority either don't mind either way or didn't feel confident enough in their understanding of the proposal to vote). But 75% is needed to alter the Mens and Arts, and this has not been achieved. Council are now considering what to do next, if, in fact anything further is done (actually, I think some of them are taking a short break after all of the work in the lead up to the AGM).

I think that it is important to point out that motion 8, which was the motion as to whether CTC should become a charity or not, was won only because the Chair exercised his discretionary proxy votes in favour. Prior to that the vote was clearly against the proposal.

Regulator wrote:I think that it is important to point out that motion 8, which was the motion as to whether CTC should become a charity or not, was won only because the Chair exercised his discretionary proxy votes in favour. Prior to that the vote was clearly against the proposal.

It's also important to point out that, in the same situation, each and every one of us would have done the same thing

Jimmy The Hand wrote:

Regulator wrote:I think that it is important to point out that motion 8, which was the motion as to whether CTC should become a charity or not, was won only because the Chair exercised his discretionary proxy votes in favour. Prior to that the vote was clearly against the proposal.

It's also important to point out that, in the same situation, each and every one of us would have done the same thing

Really?

I've been approached by a number of members who, in their experience, believe that the Chair should have voted to maintain the status quo, given the very clear divide. This is what would happen in many other organisations.

But then again, your view has been very clear for some time.

Also, it was somewhat irregular that the Chair did not cast his discretionary proxies at the time that the others cast there's - but once all the other results had been given. Not good form at all.

I've seen it inferred a few times that the Chair's discretionary votes shouldn't really have counted as it where, because the people that made the Chair their discretionary proxy didn't know which way he would vote (a type of Lotto voting?).

I'm not really sure that I agree with this. Those people chose to trust the judgement of the Chair in a matter that they were probably very unsure of. Let's face it, I doubt that all of the people that voted No did so because they had been through all of the data with a fine tooth comb, but rather they trusted what the SaveTheCTC told them.

Furthermore, many (that made the Chair their discretionary proxy) might have been entirely aware of which way the Chair would probably vote, and decided to make their proxy discretionary so that the Chair could alter his views faced with any unforeseen occurrence at the AGM. I was tempted to do this with my vote when I made Greg my proxy.

Thus, I don't think that any member of the CTC should be discounted just because they choose to give the Chair's judgement their vote of confidence (if you'll excuse the pun). As a humble member, there are a number of aspects of this affair that I wasn't comfortable with, but this is not one of them. And, yes, I did vote against - so have no interest in being biased in favour of the Chair.

Regulator wrote:I've been approached by a number of members who, in their experience, believe that the Chair should have voted to maintain the status quo, given the very clear divide. This is what would happen in many other organisations.

Also, it was somewhat irregular that the Chair did not cast his discretionary proxies at the time that the others cast there's - but once all the other results had been given. Not good form at all.

Absolutely Regulator - absolutely - to your first para (above).

And as to your second (above) - I didn't previously know about the timing that you reveal. Perhaps I'm totally ignorant on matters of proceedure, but shouldn't the chairman/proxy cast his discretionary vote before the count?

Analysed cooly, this was an idea and a proposal, the kind of thing that happens from time to time in all organisations - albeit not usually so earthquaking as this. What I've never understood is why the "pro's" were so desperate to get their own way. Anyone who initiates an idea/suggestion/proposal is keen to speak in it's favour and try to persuade others, it's normal, but this was desperation - and why?

Regulator wrote:
Also, it was somewhat irregular that the Chair did not cast his discretionary proxies at the time that the others cast there's - but once all the other results had been given. Not good form at all.

I hadn't heard about this - that's outrageous! Whether it affected the outcome or not is immaterial - whether it's "illegal" or not is immaterial. Do these people have no judgement whatsoever!

Do I take it then that the 'chair' cast his vote to the 'yes' camp? I read that as the 'chair' works for the CTC and had a eye on the future....This is a ordinary everyday cyclist talking here and not a activist. If this 'chair' said yes he must have gone into the meeting with this idea in his head???

I suggest that the Chairman, being a human being, will have his own ideas and opinions;he has every right to that, and every right to place his own vote in the way that he thinks fit.

However, my interpretation of what has been said above, is that the vote was known to be going to the "no" camp - by quite a margin it would appear - and then, knowing that, the Chairman used his proxy - quite constitutionally perhaps - to use the votes of others to reverse the vote.

Now, if that is the case, then I submit that the Chairman was actually morally bound to allow retention of status quo.

I wonder whether, if that is the case, the charity commissioners will be made aware of that, and what they will make of it.

Actually, although I voted "no", and am unsure of the future, I think that it is best to let it drop now and let Council get on with making their progress. For us to let this develope into a major row could do more harm to the club than those of us of the "no" lobby fear will result from the proposed change. We must be aware that we could be wrong.

I am under the impression that the chair has supported the campaign to become a charity from the start.
Thus I feel that any person who gave a proxy vote to the chair would have done so knowing that the vote would be cast for the motions.
The other option is that the proxy voters are in favour of the charity idea but do not want the articles changed.
It is now up to the powers that be to deliver a coalition of both camps that satisfies the voters and moves on from the vote into a new position of co operation on both sides.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/gift_aid/reclaim.htm

"If you are a charity or a Community Amateur Sports Club (CASC) you can claim back basic rate tax from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) on Gift Aid donations."

Could the CTC come under the Community Amateur Sports Club (CASC) for gift aid purposes? Avoiding the need to convert to a charity.

Regulator wrote:I've been approached by a number of members who, in their experience, believe that the Chair should have voted to maintain the status quo, given the very clear divide. This is what would happen in many other organisations.

How could he vote for the status quo? He wasn't using the Chairs casting vote he was using the votes given to him by members to vote for or against proposals as he saw fit, when he actually cast them is a different point.

In the event of a tied vote a Chair is not bound to use his casting vote to maintain the status quo but it is deemed good practice to do so.

Regulator wrote:But then again, your view has been very clear for some time.

As has yours, and most of the other contributors to these threads, but while I am prepared to listen to your, and other peoples points of view, you seem to prefer these little jibes to try and belittle my point of view.

Steady rider wrote:http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/gift_aid/reclaim.htm

"If you are a charity or a Community Amateur Sports Club (CASC) you can claim back basic rate tax from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) on Gift Aid donations."

Could the CTC come under the Community Amateur Sports Club (CASC) for gift aid purposes? Avoiding the need to convert to a charity.

Gift aid does not apply to membership subscriptions to CASCs. "(but remember, a CASCs membership subscriptions are not eligible as Gift Aid payments)."

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/casc/casc_guidance.htm

I've no idea whether the amount of donations the CTC receives would make it worth changing to a CASC if it was possible.

Jimmy The Hand wrote:

Regulator wrote:I've been approached by a number of members who, in their experience, believe that the Chair should have voted to maintain the status quo, given the very clear divide. This is what would happen in many other organisations.

How could he vote for the status quo? He wasn't using the Chairs casting vote he was using the votes given to him by members to vote for or against proposals as he saw fit, when he actually cast them is a different point.

In the event of a tied vote a Chair is not bound to use his casting vote to maintain the status quo but it is deemed good practice to do so.

Nobody said he was using his casting vote. As I said, people believed he should have used his discretionary votes to maintain the status quo, given the prevailing view which was against the proposal.

Regulator wrote:But then again, your view has been very clear for some time.

As has yours, and most of the other contributors to these threads, but while I am prepared to listen to your, and other peoples points of view, you seem to prefer these little jibes to try and belittle my point of view.

Nobody has belittled your view. I fail to see why you are getting so touchy...