It's all in the name - Cyclists' TOURING club

[gaz]

... Clearly Philip has submitted the petition as soon as possible so members can have their say as soon as possible and the organisation can they take whatever action results as soon as possible (minimising the impact). ...

Philip may have been seeking to minimise the impact on CTC but in his post he gave just one reason for seeking a quick response; a publishing deadline:

... We are seeking the poll details to be in the April/May edition of “Cycle”; so time is short. ...

In that he was mistaken. Article 11 requires that the earliest the Poll of the Whole Club can be publised is the June/July edition.

[Psamathe]

... Clearly Philip has submitted the petition as soon as possible so members can have their say as soon as possible and the organisation can they take whatever action results as soon as possible (minimising the impact). ...

Philip may have been seeking to minimise the impact on CTC but in his post he gave just one reason for seeking a quick response; a publishing deadline:

... We are seeking the poll details to be in the April/May edition of “Cycle”; so time is short. ...

In that he was mistaken. Article 11 requires that the earliest the Poll of the Whole Club can be publised is the June/July edition.

Then I guess despite Philip's attempts the rebranding will have to be put on hold for a bit whilst the poll is carried out. The club does have an Article 11, it sounds like the petition has more than met the requirements of the Article 11 so the club is obliged to follow it's own articles.

To continue with the re-brand before a vote by the membership in the knowledge that such a vote is required would be interpreted as forcing the issue as were the membership to vote against the rebrand after it had been implemented would cost much much more and cause untold embarrassment to the club - and the impact of that might influence members votes.

And this all could have been avoided had those running the club remembered that they have members who care about the club. Ignoring those members is just bad management and bad planning and people should look at those responsible and ask if they are really adequate to their roles.

Ian

[gaz]

Please refer to my response on another thread.

[TonyR]

Then I guess despite Philip's attempts the rebranding will have to be put on hold for a bit whilst the poll is carried out. The club does have an Article 11, it sounds like the petition has more than met the requirements of the Article 11 so the club is obliged to follow it's own articles.

Not necessarily. The Charity Commission has been quite clear in its advice given four years ago that Clause 11 should go as its incompatible with the clubs charitable status and the obligations of the trustees.

And this all could have been avoided had those running the club remembered that they have members who care about the club. Ignoring those members is just bad management and bad planning and people should look at those responsible and ask if they are really adequate to their roles.

Ahem. You seem to be missing the fact that Philip is one of those responsible. It was over two years ago that Council, which included PB, decided on this course of action and that decision was published in the December 2013 issue of Cycle.

[gaz]

Unlike Psamathe I am a member.

I care about the club.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
We are Cycling UK.

[TonyR]

Unlike Psamathe I am a member.

I care about the club.

Me too. And I do wonder why we let non-members use the forum to encourage members to leave.

[Bicycler]

Because the forum was never intended to be a members only area?

Far too much of this discussion has been discussing Mr Benstead. Even if he had single handedly orchestrated the whole change it still wouldn't affect the validity (how ever much you believe there to be) of the petition. There's been enough ad hominem in this debate (from both sides).

[TonyR]

Because the forum was never intended to be a members only area?

Far too much of this discussion has been discussing Mr Benstead. Even if he had single handedly orchestrated the whole change it still wouldn't affect the validity of the petition. There's been enough ad hominem in this debate (from both sides).

Mr Benstead is not just an ordinary member. He's was a member of Council until 1 January who is accountable to members for his actions as a Councillor under the Code of Conduct he signed on appointment.

Those actions include agreeing that Council should be the body that made the decision on name and logo and being party to a two year Council process to develop that new name and logo. So far his response to requests to account for those actions in the light of his recent actions since leaving Council have been
- I did complain to some mates about it
- the legal records of the Council meetings are wrong
- I've changed my mind
- several (unnamed) Councillors support me.

I think we deserve better from our Councillors and they should account for their actions

[Bicycler]

Even if everyone were to accept that view, it wouldn't detract from the legitimacy of the views and signatures of those who wish to have a poll of the club. I agree with you in calling for greater accountability of councillors.

[Psamathe]

Then I guess despite Philip's attempts the rebranding will have to be put on hold for a bit whilst the poll is carried out. The club does have an Article 11, it sounds like the petition has more than met the requirements of the Article 11 so the club is obliged to follow it's own articles.

Not necessarily. The Charity Commission has been quite clear in its advice given four years ago that Clause 11 should go as its incompatible with the clubs charitable status and the obligations of the trustees.
...

I wonder what happens then because, whilst the Charity Commission has apparently commented it should go, it hasn't and is still effective. If it were critical to the organisation being a charity I would have expected the Charity Commission to have refused charity status until the clause was removed. But as of today, the clause is still effective so, like all other clauses I'd expect the organisation to adhere to it.

And were the organisation to suddenly ignore an effective (but inconvenient) "Article" might that leave open to further criticism and action ?

Ian

[TonyR]

I wonder what happens then because, whilst the Charity Commission has apparently commented it should go, it hasn't and is still effective. If it were critical to the organisation being a charity I would have expected the Charity Commission to have refused charity status until the clause was removed. But as of today, the clause is still effective so, like all other clauses I'd expect the organisation to adhere to it.

And were the organisation to suddenly ignore an effective (but inconvenient) "Article" might that leave open to further criticism and action ?

These are the Charity Commissions recommendations to the CTC

[Psamathe]

I wonder what happens then because, whilst the Charity Commission has apparently commented it should go, it hasn't and is still effective. If it were critical to the organisation being a charity I would have expected the Charity Commission to have refused charity status until the clause was removed. But as of today, the clause is still effective so, like all other clauses I'd expect the organisation to adhere to it.

And were the organisation to suddenly ignore an effective (but inconvenient) "Article" might that leave open to further criticism and action ?

These are the Charity Commissions recommendations to the CTC

But my interpretation would be that it is still and Article and thus must be followed until such time as it is removed. And you cant really change the regs retrospectively because they become "awkward" when you want to do something (enough) members disagree with.

So I'd have thought that as it was in effect when the petition was delivered, it must be followed.

My interpretation anyway.

Ian

[Steady rider]

I think the provisions of Article 11 are probably in the best interests of the club, making it accountable to the overall membership. If trustees act against the wishes of the membership they cannot be representative of the membership on a particular issue. In the case of the CTC trustees they are acting in both the best interest of the club and charity. It is in the best interests of the charity that the club functions as a club, with much of the income coming from members. It also supports a democratic approach to deciding what is in the best interests.
The CC accepted the articles when approving of the CTC change to charitable status. The CTC change was made with membership approval on the condition that the articles were acceptable.
PB has explained his approach and having gained several hundred signatures it shows a significant number of members are concerned.

[Vorpal]

I think the provisions of Article 11 are probably in the best interests of the club, making it accountable to the overall membership. If trustees act against the wishes of the membership they cannot be representative of the membership on a particular issue. In the case of the CTC trustees they are acting in both the best interest of the club and charity. It is in the best interests of the charity that the club functions as a club, with much of the income coming from members. It also supports a democratic approach to deciding what is in the best interests.
The CC accepted the articles when approving of the CTC change to charitable status. The CTC change was made with membership approval on the condition that the articles were acceptable.
PB has explained his approach and having gained several hundred signatures it shows a significant number of members are concerned.

The problem comes in when the wishes of the membership are in conflict with the interests of the charity.

[TonyR]

But my interpretation would be that it is still and Article and thus must be followed until such time as it is removed. And you cant really change the regs retrospectively because they become "awkward" when you want to do something (enough) members disagree with.

So I'd have thought that as it was in effect when the petition was delivered, it must be followed.

My interpretation anyway.

You are probably right which is why the CC has recommended that Council take legal advice and carefully document where members have forced them to diverge from the interests of the Charity as determined by Council. In that way the legal liability for any losses is likely to be attributed to the members not Council