The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by Simon L6 »

Jonty - in answer to your question.

1. I've always been candid about this - the powers that be want something that we've got, and this is our opportunity to make them put their house in order. I'm exploiting the charity thing - no question about it.

2. If the two pots of money are put in to the same pot (that's probably a pot too far, but you seen what I'm getting at) then all hope of accountability is lost. We'll never, ever find out.

3. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. We knew where we were going in 2007, and the option of having a split membership fee remains. If Council doesn't have confidence in the members' enthusiasm for a sub payable to the Trust, then they can always package the two together.

TC - that's great, mate. A rare splash of colour in a field of grey. But with John Forsyth, Charlton Heston and Ricardo Montalban doing panto at the Great Theatre Beyond, who are you going to get for the lead?????
Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by Regulator »

swansonj wrote:
John Catt wrote:As I see it there are essentially 3 alternatives open to us (rather too black and white but it would take forever to analyse all the shades of grey).

1. Stay as we are.
2. Combine as a single Charity.
3. Unbundle the Club.


4. Regain the spirit of the club. Provide better member service so that the club is attractive to a yet wider membership. More of an emphasis on local engagement. Stop performing commercial services just because they boost the club's size or status. Continue to lobby on cycling issues, with a sharper focus because any possible compromises produced by commercial pressures would be reduced. Transparent financial procedures. More openness of information. No treating of members or staff with contempt. Then the organisational structure can sort itself out because it won't matter so much. But sort out all of those issues before changing the structure, because merging in the present setup just seems to cement all the problems yet further in place.


Bang on the money John...
John Catt
Posts: 113
Joined: 21 Dec 2009, 6:08pm

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by John Catt »

Hi John,

swansonj wrote: 4. Regain the spirit of the club. Provide better member service so that the club is attractive to a yet wider membership. More of an emphasis on local engagement. Stop performing commercial services just because they boost the club's size or status. Continue to lobby on cycling issues, with a sharper focus because any possible compromises produced by commercial pressures would be reduced. Transparent financial procedures. More openness of information. No treating of members or staff with contempt. Then the organisational structure can sort itself out because it won't matter so much. But sort out all of those issues before changing the structure, because merging in the present setup just seems to cement all the problems yet further in place.


I am trying to improve the "openness of information" of the CTC and many of the other issues you raise. One of the few things I have done as a Councillor is propose, and have accepted by Council in principle, that the non confidential minutes and papers of Council's and Sub-Committees should be published on the web and a paper on this will be going before Management Committee tomorrow (if we manage to make it in :-) ).

I thought I was also attempting to be "open" as a new councillor of less than a years standing, setting out my thoughts on how I see the situation and the alternatives available to us.

I did say
I hope members will forgive the length of this post but I think it might be useful if I attempt to evaluate the alternatives before us as I see them. Supporters of SavetheCTC are of course welcome to comment/criticise/correct and come up with their own scenarios as they see fit.


There appears to be a great deal of looking back in this matter. No doubt mistakes have been made in the past. All individuals and organisations make mistakes. As I think Joseph Conrad said "It is only those who do nothing that make no mistakes". I am trying to evaluate where we are now and figure out the best way forward. The CTC strategy is up for review. Surely discussing such matters is appropriate?

Many of the problems highlighted have nothing to do with the issue as to whether it would be best to be a merged charity and what would be the best form of structure. There are other issues that certainly need to be addressed, but from my perspective, I think it would be much easier to deal with these as a merged charity.
User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by Simon L6 »

John Catt wrote:I thought I was also attempting to be "open" as a new councillor of less than a years standing, setting out my thoughts on how I see the situation and the alternatives available to us.
that's fine, but don't try and set out my thoughts

John Catt wrote:There are other issues that certainly need to be addressed, but from my perspective, I think it would be much easier to deal with these as a merged charity.

you could explain why you think that.......
Jonty

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by Jonty »

Hi John
Thank you very much for taking the time to draft comprehensive answers to my questions which I've found very helpful. I have a few additional points I'd like to explore with you.
You accept that there are deficiencies in the way the CTC is currently run and you are sympathetic to the concerns which Simon and others have raised in this regard. You consider however that these deficiences would be better addressed and resolved under the new proposed structure rather than the existing one. Why do you say this?
Based on my experience working in Central Government, Local Authorities and the private sector, I've found that restructuring can often be damaging and counter-productive. When there's a perceived problem, or a perceived need to respond to new "opportunities", senior managers often tend to think that structural change is the solution, whereas in my experience any structure can be made to work if there's a will to make it work and if you have right people and the right ethos.
In fact in my experience changing strucures is often symptomatic of poor management and leadership. Rather than tackle the real issues, managers take the easy way out and change something which is relatively relatively easy to do and which shows that "they are doing something".
Surely it is much more sensible "to get your house in order" before considering changes to structure or governance? Surely adopting a new system of governance or structure without first addressing the existing "problems" will simply compound the problems and make them much more difficult to identify and resolve later?
I accept that there are opportunities to increase income from Gift Aid if the CTC becomes a unified charity. The amount of money involved may not be much as many expect given the financial climate which will exist in this country for the next 10 years and it is likely to be relatively small, as Simon has pointed out, relative to total income. But surely it makes sense to address current issues which need to be resolved before bringing about non-reversable changes with a view to chasing a limited pot of money?
My second point relates to process. The CTC has a corporate strategy which was prepared relatively recently and envisaged the present structure continuing at least up to 2010.
Can I ask, has this strategy or plan been subject to monitoring? Have annual monitoring and implementation reports been prepared on how the plan is progressing? If such annual assessments have been undertaken, have any identified the need to change the governance of the CTC? In other words has the proposal to merge been the result of a considered process linked to the approved plan and its implementation?
jonty
Jonty

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by Jonty »

Corrrection - I think the "Plan" goes up to 2012 (not 2010)
Apologies
jonty
simonconnell
Posts: 30
Joined: 23 Aug 2008, 7:31am

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by simonconnell »

Jonty wrote:You consider however that these deficiences would be better addressed and resolved under the new proposed structure rather than the existing one. Why do you say this?


Jonty wrote: in my experience any structure can be made to work if there's a will to make it work and if you have right people and the right ethos.


Hi Jonty,

I'm aware I'm not John, but I thought I'd respond to your thoughtful post.

I think many of the issues raised by Save the CTC about the organisation are a canard as far as unification is concerned; you yourself have noted the principle benefits are administrative and financial. Few if any of the 'drawbacks' cited by Save the CTC relate specifically to a change in structure, but are instead criticisms of the way CTC operates regardless of structure.

For me, the CTC is hampered by a split structure. This shows up at most levels - in Council where we have Trustees for the charity side, in National Office where we have individuals sitting alongside each other but working for two different organisations, and in the accounts where we have to publish under two presentation formats.

Therefore, my principle basis for supporting a single, unified structure is that it removes many of the dual processes and structures currently in place, and makes the organisation easier to run and easier to understand (both internally and externally). I absolutely agree that any structure can be made to work, and I think the growth (membership, income, staff) and success of the CTC in recent years attests to this. That's no reason for continuing to be hobbled by the current structure.
Jonty

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by Jonty »

simonconnell wrote:
Jonty wrote:You consider however that these deficiences would be better addressed and resolved under the new proposed structure rather than the existing one. Why do you say this?


Jonty wrote: in my experience any structure can be made to work if there's a will to make it work and if you have right people and the right ethos.


Hi Jonty,

I'm aware I'm not John, but I thought I'd respond to your thoughtful post.

I think many of the issues raised by Save the CTC about the organisation are a canard as far as unification is concerned; you yourself have noted the principle benefits are administrative and financial. Few if any of the 'drawbacks' cited by Save the CTC relate specifically to a change in structure, but are instead criticisms of the way CTC operates regardless of structure.

For me, the CTC is hampered by a split structure. This shows up at most levels - in Council where we have Trustees for the charity side, in National Office where we have individuals sitting alongside each other but working for two different organisations, and in the accounts where we have to publish under two presentation formats.

Therefore, my principle basis for supporting a single, unified structure is that it removes many of the dual processes and structures currently in place, and makes the organisation easier to run and easier to understand (both internally and externally). I absolutely agree that any structure can be made to work, and I think the growth (membership, income, staff) and success of the CTC in recent years attests to this. That's no reason for continuing to be hobbled by the current structure.


Hi Simon
Thanks very much for that. I agee it's important to look forward rather than backwards. So in your opinion implementation of the proposal could reduce duplication, reduce costs, produce a more streamlined structure, provide more opportunities to win Gift Aid and create a structure which would be more responsive to increased accountability and transparency.
Is that a fair summary?
jonty
simonconnell
Posts: 30
Joined: 23 Aug 2008, 7:31am

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by simonconnell »

Jonty wrote:reduce duplication


Yes; we have two processes in place for many activities at the momet, which would be obviated under a unified structure.

Jonty wrote:reduce costs


Personally, I wouldn't see this as too much of an issue - the resources of the organisation and its cost base remain the same, but at the margin because of the reduced process duplication we gain at least something.

Jonty wrote:produce a more streamlined structure


Absolutely - with one charitable organisation at the core we remove the need for two sets of administration on every item of accounting and legal compliance, audit, bank charges, payroll, accounts...

Jonty wrote:provide more opportunities to win Gift Aid


Yes - and the sums involved could make a real difference to the CTC's activities we call care about.

Jonty wrote:create a structure which would be more responsive to increased accountability and transparency.


Yes - the organisation has good accountability at the moment (as this debate demonstrates), but the Charity Commission will have oversight of the entire organisation. As regards transparency, much of the obfuscation currently being experienced (created?) by Save the CTC seems to arise from the fact that we file accounts in two formats for the Club and Trust, and that therefore payments made between the two organisations are misunderstood. Heck, see here http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/About_Us/Further_financial_extracts_April2010.doc for a couple of dozen pages on the matter - quite neatly demonstrating the improvements in transparency and efficiency that could be gained.

Jonty wrote:Is that a fair summary?
jonty


I think so.
User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by Simon L6 »

the problem is, Simon, that the improvements in transparency promised last January haven't happened - and there seems to be no will to have them happen. I'm relying on staffers adn ex-staffers to ring me up for information. Transparency isn't a matter of structure, it's a matter of will and honesty. Hence the lack.

I repeat. This is a once-only opportunity. The members have something that the powers that be want. If we don't lever some kind of openness out of Council and National Office now, we won't ever.

Oh - and the bridging loan? Yes/no, how much, when, why? Just asking in the hope of receiving a transparent answer...............
The Mechanic
Posts: 1922
Joined: 23 Jul 2010, 1:38pm
Location: Scotland

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by The Mechanic »

I do not have the time to read everything on this debate, as I am sure others don't either. However, the bias demonstrated by NO is manifest again in the ballot paper recently sent out with Cycle magazine. I have already sent mine back so can't quote the exact wording (perhaps someone else will) but it is along the lines "please put your cross in the right place so we can become a charity". My understanding of ballots is that there should be a clear choice on the ballot paper and not a thinly veiled direction from those issuing the paper on how we should vote. Can you imagine the uproar that would have been caused if, in the last general election, the ruling labour party had put similar words on the ballot papers; "there are other candidates but we are the government and we believe you should vote for us again". Stuff of campaigning, not ballots.

I have already voted against. Don't ask me how confident I am that my vote will count. I only have such confidence when the ERS is involved, which in this case, it isn't..
Cancer changes your outlook on life. Change yours before it changes you.
simonconnell
Posts: 30
Joined: 23 Aug 2008, 7:31am

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by simonconnell »

The Mechanic wrote:it is along the lines "please put your cross in the right place so we can become a charity". My understanding of ballots is that there should be a clear choice on the ballot paper and not a thinly veiled direction from those issuing the paper on how we should vote.


That's incorrect. The ballot paper says;

"At the CTC AGM in May, Motion 8 was carried. A petition from some members means that the members of the Club are now being asked to vote to either confirm or reverse that decision"

...

"Motion 8 Proposed by B Flood on behalf of the Council, seconded by A Spurr.

This AGM agrees that Cyclists' Touring Club should be registered as a charity and merge with CTC Charitable Trust to form a single, unified membership organisation with charitable status"


It's not a thinly-veiled direction. A majority of members voted in favour of the motion, passing it at the AGM. Members are now being asked either to accept or reject that decision, which at the moment still stands as the wish of both Council and the membership (the motion having been passed).
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by meic »

"A majority of members voted in favour of the motion,"

Even if they didnt know that they had done so!
Yma o Hyd
swansonj
Posts: 322
Joined: 18 Sep 2007, 9:53pm

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by swansonj »

simonconnell wrote: Yes - the organisation has good accountability at the moment (as this debate demonstrates)...


Simon

I'm not sure how this debate demonstrates good accountability. It demonstrates a lively interest and willingness to debate by a small fraction of the membership, an unknown but non-zero fraction of staff, and a larger fraction of councillors. But I don't see how debate automatically constitutes accountability. I think one of the issues at the heart of many people's concerns about CTC is actually closely related to accountability - it is the sense that the powers-that-be in CTC are running the organisation for the sake of the organisation (and for the prestige that goes with running a bigger organisation, handling bigger budgets, managing more staff, playing the lobbying game in a higher league) rather than being accountable to members.

(I say "the sense" because I'm fairly sure all the individuals concerned are passionately committed to cycling, I don't want to suggest that any of them are solely motivated by power and glory as I doubt that is true - but nonetheless, at an organisational level, that is the impression that emerges. And it's not exactly novel to suggest how organisations lose their way as they become bigger and more professional - see every management text from Parkinson's Law onwards)

John
simonconnell
Posts: 30
Joined: 23 Aug 2008, 7:31am

Re: The proposals, benefits, drawbacks etc.

Post by simonconnell »

swansonj wrote:I think one of the issues at the heart of many people's concerns about CTC is actually closely related to accountability - it is the sense that the powers-that-be in CTC are running the organisation for the sake of the organisation (and for the prestige that goes with running a bigger organisation, handling bigger budgets, managing more staff, playing the lobbying game in a higher league) rather than being accountable to members.


Ah, I think we're looking through different ends of the telescope. If you dive into the link below and start digging around you'll find enormous quanities of information produced by CTC staff, councillors, and independent experts on the subject of the proposed unification. It contains, in honesty, far more detail than I think most private sector organisations would disclose.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5398
Post Reply