CTC Charitable status - Ding Ding !! Round 2

[hatler]

This appears in Cycle Clips today.

Converting CTC to a charity - it's your vote that counts

'Cycle' magazine is landing on your doorstep about now. Don't throw out the bright yellow address sheet - it has details of an important vote for the future of CTC. Voting is easy: the form is pre-printed, comes with a Freepost envelope and you could win brilliant cycling prizes from the CTC Shop.

The vote is on whether to confirm the proposal already passed at our 2010 AGM that the original CTC - Cyclists' Touring Club - should convert to a charity and merge fully with our current charitable arm - CTC Charitable Trust. So we can have a really clear decision, Council wants every CTC member to vote, and all returned forms will also be entered into the free prize draw to win a Gore jacket,Ortlieb pannier and Lifeline toolkit.

They really are desperate aren't they ?

[vorsprung]

Can you still win the jacket with a No vote?

Persumably the one sided view presented on the website and in the email will be a balanced one on the voting slip.....although "stop pissing about with charitable status and make the membership the #1 priority" won't be a option that you are allowed to tick

[Regulator]

This appears in Cycle Clips today.

Converting CTC to a charity - it's your vote that counts

'Cycle' magazine is landing on your doorstep about now. Don't throw out the bright yellow address sheet - it has details of an important vote for the future of CTC. Voting is easy: the form is pre-printed, comes with a Freepost envelope and you could win brilliant cycling prizes from the CTC Shop.

The vote is on whether to confirm the proposal already passed at our 2010 AGM that the original CTC - Cyclists' Touring Club - should convert to a charity and merge fully with our current charitable arm - CTC Charitable Trust. So we can have a really clear decision, Council wants every CTC member to vote, and all returned forms will also be entered into the free prize draw to win a Gore jacket,Ortlieb pannier and Lifeline toolkit.

They really are desperate aren't they ?

That is bang out of order. 

I am f*cking livid... 

[perpetual dan]

I just read that in my mail too. Sounds a bit different to the understanding I had of why another vote was needed.

[Adam]

"Voting is easy: the form is pre-printed, comes with a Freepost envelope and you could win brilliant cycling prizes from the CTC Shop."


Does the prize depend upon how I vote?

[Julian]

I think the prize is an attempt to get the apathetic and the mildly-in-favour to vote at all.  People who don't feel strongly won't otherwise bother, and the only people who feel strongly are agin it.

[Feline]

I wasn't feeling all that strongly but this tactic will be sure to give me the motivation to post in a big fat 'no' vote.

[Adrian]

This appears in Cycle Clips today.

Converting CTC to a charity - it's your vote that counts

'Cycle' magazine is landing on your doorstep about now. Don't throw out the bright yellow address sheet - it has details of an important vote for the future of CTC. Voting is easy: the form is pre-printed, comes with a Freepost envelope and you could win brilliant cycling prizes from the CTC Shop.

The vote is on whether to confirm the proposal already passed at our 2010 AGM that the original CTC - Cyclists' Touring Club - should convert to a charity and merge fully with our current charitable arm - CTC Charitable Trust. So we can have a really clear decision, Council wants every CTC member to vote, and all returned forms will also be entered into the free prize draw to win a Gore jacket,Ortlieb pannier and Lifeline toolkit.

They really are desperate aren't they ?

That is bang out of order. 

I am f*cking livid... 

Why? Surely a large turnout with a positive message on the issue would be best. Now you just need to sell the benefits of voting against the proposition.

[Mike J]

This appears in Cycle Clips today.

Converting CTC to a charity - it's your vote that counts

'Cycle' magazine is landing on your doorstep about now. Don't throw out the bright yellow address sheet - it has details of an important vote for the future of CTC. Voting is easy: the form is pre-printed, comes with a Freepost envelope and you could win brilliant cycling prizes from the CTC Shop.

The vote is on whether to confirm the proposal already passed at our 2010 AGM that the original CTC - Cyclists' Touring Club - should convert to a charity and merge fully with our current charitable arm - CTC Charitable Trust. So we can have a really clear decision, Council wants every CTC member to vote, and all returned forms will also be entered into the free prize draw to win a Gore jacket,Ortlieb pannier and Lifeline toolkit.

They really are desperate aren't they ?

That is bang out of order. 

I am f*cking livid... 

Why? Surely a large turnout with a positive message on the issue would be best. Now you just need to sell the benefits of voting against the proposition.

I don't get why it's out of order either - it doesn't say entry is dependant on a positive vote.

[Feline]

I find it out of order because it appears to trying to trick members who know very little about the issue (and especially about what the negative effects could be) into believing that the vote is simply a formality to complete something that has already been decided on, and possibly win a prize in the process.

It appears to be biased towards the 'yes' vote without quite saying it outright which would presumably be in some way illegal or unethical of something or other.

[perpetual dan]

The vote is on whether to confirm the proposal already passed at our 2010 AGM that the original CTC - Cyclists' Touring Club - should convert to a charity and merge fully with our current charitable arm - CTC Charitable Trust. So we can have a really clear decision, Council wants
...

Rather like Feline, I thought the out of order bits were:
1) the proposal wasn't passed - it may have had a majority (I forget), but not a large enough one to make the change. Other proposals, to lay the ground work, were passed.
2) "council wants" rather suggests that they could go ahead, but would like everyone to agree first and feel included, again not how I understood it.
3) I don't feel like any of the problems raised by the "not yet" camp have really been answered, that I've noticed.
The prize draw isn't the problem, although it doesn't lend a fairly big decision much credibility.

... would the charity be able to allow / afford the members benefit of a prize draw? 

[hatler]

Do you think it would be safe to assume that the yellow sheet has a good and clear balanced view of the issues, from both sides ?

If not, then I can't see how the vote could in any way be construed as fair, or dare I say it, even legal.

[Regulator]

Do you think it would be safe to assume that the yellow sheet has a good and clear balanced view of the issues, from both sides ?

If not, then I can't see how the vote could in any way be construed as fair, or dare I say it, even legal.

The yellow sheet should only have motion 8 on it and  for and against boxes.

What is bang out of order is that the when the matter was discussed at Council, it was agreed that Council would not try to persuade people to vote for.  'Cycle' was simply supposed to carry balanced articles on both sides of the argument.

'Cycle Clips' links to a CTC web-page which gives all the supposed positive sides of the proposals whilst saying nothing about the very real negatives, except carry a link (another layer down) to the Save the CTC web-site).

Council and National Office have shown once again that they cannot be trusted.  Their behaviour reminds me of the Al Franken book...

[gordon taylor]

Council and National Office have shown once again that they cannot be trusted. 

Well, I trust them - and will be voting "get on with it" as before.

[tonycollinet]

The irony is - I would probably have been happy to vote yes, if the campaign had not been so obviously biased last time (and now apparently this time)

[Regulator]

Council and National Office have shown once again that they cannot be trusted.  

Well, I trust them - and will be voting "get on with it" as before.

All I'd say is have a look at the accounts before you do.

The CTC Trust has overstretched itself and a lot (about 3/4s) of its funding will disappear this year.  It has no reserves (whereas the Club has good reserves) but it has huge numbers of staff to pay.  Members will be asked to give it at least £750,000 this year to balance its book - it could be a lot more, anything up to £1.5million.

Basically, the Trust is bust and expecting members to prop it up.  No wonder the Trust is keen to combine with the Club.

And all the work the Club and Trust promised at the AGM to do to put it accounting systems in order, increase transparency and re-engage with members has hardly begun.

The facts of the matter are that certain members of Council got bounced into the idea of a charity by National Office.  They didn't take advice on things like the tax implications (which show that the proposals are not to the benefits of members) until just before the AGM.  By then it was too late.  Not wanting to lose face they've ploughed ahead.

Fortunately, more and more members of Council are seeing sense.  Whereas before the AGM there were four or five councillors raising concerns over the proposals, now about half are now expressing concerns.  As the economy has got worse and the Comprehensive Spending Review has bitten, what we were warning about before the AGM is beginning to happen and the elaborate falsehood that is the CTC accounts is beginning to crumble.

[Adrian]

Do you think it would be safe to assume that the yellow sheet has a good and clear balanced view of the issues, from both sides ?

If not, then I can't see how the vote could in any way be construed as fair, or dare I say it, even legal.

The yellow sheet should only have motion 8 on it and  for and against boxes.

What is bang out of order is that the when the matter was discussed at Council, it was agreed that Council would not try to persuade people to vote for.  'Cycle' was simply supposed to carry balanced articles on both sides of the argument.

'Cycle Clips' links to a CTC web-page which gives all the supposed positive sides of the proposals whilst saying nothing about the very real negatives, except carry a link (another layer down) to the Save the CTC web-site).

Council and National Office have shown once again that they cannot be trusted.  Their behaviour reminds me of the Al Franken book...

Reg don't loose sight of the fact that the people you are disagreeing with are most probably not bad people acting with bad intent. They may be wrong, and the positions so entrenched that no one can change their mind about anything but that doesn't make them evil.

[Adrian]

The facts of the matter are that certain members of Council got bounced into the idea of a charity by National Office.  They didn't take advice on things like the tax implications (which show that the proposals are not to the benefits of members)

A key issue of any charity, that it should not exist to benefit its members.

[Regulator]

Do you think it would be safe to assume that the yellow sheet has a good and clear balanced view of the issues, from both sides ?

If not, then I can't see how the vote could in any way be construed as fair, or dare I say it, even legal.

The yellow sheet should only have motion 8 on it and  for and against boxes.

What is bang out of order is that the when the matter was discussed at Council, it was agreed that Council would not try to persuade people to vote for.  'Cycle' was simply supposed to carry balanced articles on both sides of the argument.

'Cycle Clips' links to a CTC web-page which gives all the supposed positive sides of the proposals whilst saying nothing about the very real negatives, except carry a link (another layer down) to the Save the CTC web-site).

Council and National Office have shown once again that they cannot be trusted.  Their behaviour reminds me of the Al Franken book...

Reg don't loose sight of the fact that the people you are disagreeing with are most probably not bad people acting with bad intent. They may be wrong, and the positions so entrenched that no one can change their mind about anything but that doesn't make them evil.

There are one or two who I would class as 'bad people'.  The others just don't seem interested.

Luckily, more and more councillors are now asking questions and expressing doubts about the proposals.  Some of the newer were flabbergasted that proper financial advice on the proposals wasn't taken until just before the AGM.

What is worrying though is that a number of member groups (including several large ones) are talking of disaffilliating...

[Regulator]

The facts of the matter are that certain members of Council got bounced into the idea of a charity by National Office.  They didn't take advice on things like the tax implications (which show that the proposals are not to the benefits of members)

A key issue of any charity, that it should not exist to benefit its members.

You know that - I know that.  Yet National Office and Council are telling members that it won't make any difference to the benefits they get, despite the 25% rule.  

Members are being told that everything will be the same.  When clearly it won't.

[Tewdric]

FWIW I haven't renewed this year because of all this.

[Adrian]

FWIW I haven't renewed this year because of all this.

Yes, I have a membership of the London Cycling Campaign which gives the 3rd party insurance similarly to my membership of the CTC. In consequence I do occasionally find myself pondering the issue.

[tonycollinet]

I've just read the page linked to in cycle clips - not one reference to the no campaign.
 
Right: When is the voting deadline - I don't want to miss it this time, and I'll be voting NO.

[Regulator]

I've just read the page linked to in cycle clips - not one reference to the no campaign.
 
Right: When is the voting deadline - I don't want to miss it this time, and I'll be voting NO.

To be fair, if you go to the bottom of that page, click on the link 'Links and Discussion' (though how anyone with sight problems is going to be able to read those links I don't know) and then go to the bottom of that page, you find a rather dismissive reference to the members who disagree with the proposals and a link to the Save the CTC web-site.

That's the CTC version of balanced coverage of the differing views.

[rogerzilla]

I e-mailed them and said I would renew my membership at such time as they stopped trying to gerrymander the vote.  Obviously they don't want my £38 or whatever it is.