CTC - change to membership charity

[Regulator]

This topic is clearly of major interest to members.  But having read as much as appears currently to be available I am drawn to the conclusion that the voices against the change to charitable status and merger with the Trust are complaining more about the current management of the organisation (as a total) than about the immediate practical effects of the change of status.

I think that people are warning about both issues.

While both of these topics are clearly very important, I am concerned that by putting them together we may be clouding the issue.  Concerns about the management should not necessarily be used to stop a process which on the face of it would bring substantial financial benefits to the Club, but should be addressed separately.

I'm sorry - but the issues have to be addressed together.  It's no use merging and creating a new charity if the management issues aren't addressed first - otherwise you end up embedding poor practice in the new organisation.

I look forward to Regulator's further comments on why he has changed his view about the changes.

I shall take some time over Christmas and the New Year to put it all down on paper.

[JT]

Isn't an issue as important as this better discussed on the CTC forum?

[clarion]

As well?

I think there are enough members/former members/potential members on this forum that we can have a useful discussion.

[Regulator]

Isn't an issue as important as this better discussed on the CTC forum?

It is being discussed there already.

The wider the audience for this topic the better I think.

[nobby]

I've long disliked what I saw as the steady transition of the CTC from being 'for the members' to being 'for all cyclists', ie primarily a campaigning body.
But in fact of course CTC's campaigning roots go right back to the start, when it was the original model for the AA and RAC. 
But I know nothing about the accounting and politics.

I stay a CTC member because I think the fee is good value for the legal cover that I hope never to need.
Personally, I would prefer that the CTC campaign vigorously and noisily, at European and National government level, on matters that directly affect the membership. I would hope there is still a role for a cyclists touring club, although membership analysis may prove me wrong.

[JT]

Isn't an issue as important as this better discussed on the CTC forum?

It is being discussed there already.

I know.

The wider the audience for this topic the better I think.

Fair enough but there's not much point it being debated by non-members is there?

I'm not bothered really as long as you continue to post in both places.

[innesh]

Maybe it's only a matter of time before they try 're-branding' and the CTC will become 'Bike First' or 'Lime' or some other meanless name.     How many cyclists identify themselves as tourists?

I am thinking about Norwich Union changing to Aviva, Corgi to Gas Safe, and of course the Royal Mail, who changed their name to ..... as yes, the Royal Mail!   

 

[nobby]

Maybe it's only a matter of time before they try 're-branding' and the CTC will become 'Bike First' or 'Lime' or some other meanless name.     How many cyclists identify themselves as tourists?
 

I think they have done the rebranding. That's why it is CTC rather than Cyclists Touring Club.
I'd be interested to know how many CTC members identify themselves as tourists. It'd give me an indication of just out of date I am.

[clarion]

Yes.  CTC now supposedly doesn't stand for anything.   And, as for the Winged Wheel, well, it's welcomed almost as much as the Black Spot at HQ.

[Biggsy]

Isn't an issue as important as this better discussed on the CTC forum?

As a non-member, I am at least vaguely interested to read about any major changes in the CTC as I might consider signing up one day.  I don't read the CTC forum, but do read this one.

[bobb]

I got my CTC renewal letter the other day complete with a new card that will be valid once I give them some money. I'm in two minds whether to bother renewing. All I ever get is a crap magazine aimed at people who used to like riding in 1948 and a bunch of proposals I don't always agree on......

[nobby]

I got my CTC renewal letter the other day complete with a new card that will be valid once I give them some money. I'm in two minds whether to bother renewing. All I ever get is a crap magazine aimed at people who used to like riding in 1948 and a bunch of proposals I don't always agree on......

Then the CTC has a really bad image problem. I get the magazine and also think it crap, but because it doesn't have the touring articles of the 50's, 60's and 70's  I have no real memories of 1948 although I was there 

[vorsprung]

I'm not really much of a one for committees and organisations

But this is a major change to the biggest and most influential organisation for cycling

Clearly there are problems with the management at the CTC.  Like some have said, I'm sure that there always have been some problems.  However there is a specific, ongoing problem of some sort with getting subs from members and enrolling the members.  The management are not interested enough in this major issue which is odd.

At the moment the CTC has a "club" part and a "charity"( or trust ) part.  The club part runs the stuff that is directly concerning members.  The trust is more involved with campaigning and projects that do not directly concern the members.

So if I join the club as a member I would expect at the moment for the club to organise various events, cover insurance, co-ordinate local groups and arrange things like legal defenses if I have a cycling related problem.  I assume that at the moment the club bit does all this.  The trust will also do stuff that I like such as campaigning to keep the law of cycling on the road as it is.

Additionally, I understand that the trust is involved with stuff that is of marginal interest to the average member.  Stuff like these local cycling champions, whatever they are.

To me the critical question is When the CTC becomes totally a charity, will the "club" parts of the activies be less and less important?

At the moment the charity part of the CTC that is far removed from my immediate interests as a member.  Perhaps they are important.  But the #1 priority of any club has to be its members.  And if the current committee of the club isn't bothered about even collecting subs and ensuring the membership remains enrolled then I can't see that they will have their eyes on the ball with anything else much in this area.  So the implication is that when the CTC alters it's nature to become 100% charity it will become more and more like the current "trust" part.  This means that it is less and less addressing the needs of the members. In fact this could explain the current lack of care about this.

The nature of the management problems seems to indicate that the changes at the CTC will lead to a club that is less useful to me.

I am not involved with all the inner workings of the CTC or anything like Reg.  I am not opposed to the current management committee in any particular way.  I would like to disentangle the management problems and the change of charitiable status and make sense of it.

[nobby]

Would being a charity make the ctc more like sustrans?

[vorsprung]

Would being a charity make the ctc more like sustrans?

This is what some people are worried about.

The indications that this could happen is in the way that the current committee- the one that is proposing the change- seems less interested in enrolling members than in getting involved with government schemes

As far as I can see the CTC needs to get it's self sorted out with keeping it's current members sweet.  I don't see how becoming a charity will actually solve the current problems.  Any organisation has to be focussed on moving in one direction or another.  It can't do everything at once.  So if it is in "let's become a charity" mode it cannot also be in "let's sort out the membership problems" mode as well.   

It is up to the current committee to convince me that the important thing is to become a charity and this change will move the CTC forward.  I am not 100% convinced that this is the case

[nobby]

Would being a charity make the ctc more like sustrans?

This is what some people are worried about.

That would worry me so I have decided to be against 

[MacB]

I'm made most uncomfortable by the lack of transparency around the financial transactions, and employee allocation, between club and trust. I also have concerns about the lack of financial information available on the activities of the trust. I wouldn't want to make any decision prior to seeing full financial disclosure.

Ultimately the members can vote with their feet and wallets. Nothing to stop a new Cyling Tourist Club being formed by the members for the members. I consider myself a cycling tourist because I go out for rides to pastures new. 

[Regulator]

To me the critical question is When the CTC becomes totally a charity, will the "club" parts of the activies be less and less important?

At the moment the charity part of the CTC that is far removed from my immediate interests as a member.  Perhaps they are important.  But the #1 priority of any club has to be its members.  

Contrary to what is being said by the proponents of these changes, the proposed new structure will put the 'public interest' first.  The members and their benefits will be secondary.

Effectively, members will become second class citizens in their own club.  Council and National Office will be able to override the wishes of members, even where instructed by an AGM, using the 'public interest' argument.

I am currently working on a document that takes an honest and hard look at the suggested 'benefits' of the changes - and what they would mean for the membership.  It's taking some time as there are numerous and significant areas of concern.  When it is complete, I'll post it here for everyone to see.

[fruitcake]

From the looks of it then the situation hasn't changed since Simon and Karen's time.  Their assessment was the same as Regulator's: there's nothing to stop the charity bleeding the club dry.

[robgul]

From the looks of it then the situation hasn't changed since Simon and Karen's time.  Their assessment was the same as Regulator's: there's nothing to stop the charity bleeding the club dry.

.... it would seem that way, and the new status is likely to increase the chances of "project funding" (and the Gift Aid benefits) for even more money to be flushed through the same outlet ....

Seems like a mass mobilisation of the voters is worth a try ... but apathy will probably prevail and the Chairman will simple use the unspecified proxy trick at the meeting??

Rob

[Regulator]

From the looks of it then the situation hasn't changed since Simon and Karen's time.  Their assessment was the same as Regulator's: there's nothing to stop the charity bleeding the club dry.

.... it would seem that way, and the new status is likely to increase the chances of "project funding" (and the Gift Aid benefits) for even more money to be flushed through the same outlet ....

Seems like a mass mobilisation of the voters is worth a try ... but apathy will probably prevail and the Chairman will simple use the unspecified proxy trick at the meeting??

Rob

I'm trying to address that by getting the Electoral Reform Services involved in the validation and tallying of proxy votes.  I also want the actual number of votes cast (both in person and by proxy) counted and announced.

However, I think certain people on Council may not be keen on that idea...

[robgul]

From the looks of it then the situation hasn't changed since Simon and Karen's time.  Their assessment was the same as Regulator's: there's nothing to stop the charity bleeding the club dry.

.... it would seem that way, and the new status is likely to increase the chances of "project funding" (and the Gift Aid benefits) for even more money to be flushed through the same outlet ....

Seems like a mass mobilisation of the voters is worth a try ... but apathy will probably prevail and the Chairman will simple use the unspecified proxy trick at the meeting??

Rob

I'm trying to address that by getting the Electoral Reform Services involved in the validation and tallying of proxy votes.  I also want the actual number of votes cast (both in person and by proxy) counted and announced.

However, I think certain people on Council may not be keen on that idea...

Excellent - it's worth getting the thing moving through the CTC Forum with some awareness building too ... although it may be intercepted by the Mods??? - that would be an interesting and non-democratic departure.....

AND if there is the strength of feeling that seems to exist it should be possible to "encourage" the DAs/Sections/Member Groups or whatever they are called this week to circulate info/canvassing to members directly (the local groups should have/can get member listings, many of which have e-mails)

If Sustrans can mobilise cyclists with the massive vote to win the Lottery project millions I am sure it's possible to get some interest in the future of OUR CLUB

Rob

[Andrij]

It's not just folk here who are getting involved: savethectc.

[Regulator]

It's not just folk here who are getting involved: savethectc.

And here:  CTC Forum

[David Martin]

I have just made my way through all of that..

Argghhhh! My head hurts.

When do CTC council meetings happen?

..d