Converting to a charity - review

[Psamathe]

I think that people starting/learning to ride would be a different issue and could maybe be addressed by a different form of membership. Maybe a "Starters Membership" that allowed rides, 3rd party insurance but no magazine, etc. and could only be taken out for 1 year after which full membership of leave.

...
I would suggest,though, that it is free to join and also offers additional benefits like cycle training.
...

Sorry, drifting off-topic again, but I think free would inspire no commitment from the "starters". A nominal membership fee would not discourage people but would give them a sense of being a true member of something and maybe motivate them to attend more frequently (i.e. "I've paid for it so I'm going to get the most of my membership fee"). Give it for free and people will take it and then decide later if they can be bothered ...

The challenge then becomes getting the "Starter Fee" price set at the level; not so low people feel they are not just turning up for free training yet not too high to discourage people.

If the CTC to provide free training to everybody, then I would have reservations about my membership money being used to pay for free training for those who can easily afford to pay for such things. Maybe offer it for free to those e.g. registered unemployed, on benefits, disabled, retired, etc. (I'm unsure of a sensible criteria but basically those who are not on significant incomes).

Ian

[TonyR]

I would suggest,though, that it is free to join and also offers additional benefits like cycle training.

Do you mean set up something nationwide to compete with Bikeability? Why?

[mjr]

Because Bikeability is a confusing mess?

At least it is to me. Each time someone asks me about cycle training, I won't recommend the county council with its dangerous handbook, but I don't find other options. There's a website http://bikeability.dft.gov.uk but it doesn't work on mobile phones (which I'm usually using) and I think it gives a list of websites that mostly aren't clear what training they offer... yes, I could call each listed entry and ask but why isn't this basic information available? It raises the bar too high if it's an hour of phoning round just to see what the options are... if there are any.

CTC isn't much better on this. I think the last time I looked, the website listed training in Leicester and Reading and nowhere nearer.

[Si]

I would suggest,though, that it is free to join and also offers additional benefits like cycle training.

Do you mean set up something nationwide to compete with Bikeability? Why?

No. You do realise that bikeability isn't a delivery organisation don't you - it's a set of national standards and a delivery method (which the CTC has input into, for instance it trains bikeability instructors and comments upon the national standards when they are reviewed). Thus, the CTC, at a local level, can deliver national standards 'bikeability' training, using qualified bikeability instructors. And in some areas it can even get LSTF funding for this. My MG has at least two NSIQs and four NSIA/Ps in it.

[mjr]

No. You do realise that bikeability isn't a delivery organisation don't you

Why should anyone other than the trainers care about that? Is there anywhere we should suggest new riders look to get training? Because the Bikeability and CTC websites aren't it.

[Si]

No. You do realise that bikeability isn't a delivery organisation don't you

Why should anyone other than the trainers care about that? Is there anywhere we should suggest new riders look to get training? Because the Bikeability and CTC websites aren't it.

Why should anyone care: perhaps because it's nice to have some idea what you are talking about before you start telling people how things should be. But in the case of the reply I was making, it was because Tony seemed to think that I was suggesting that the CTC should work against a bikeability organisation rather than within the bikeability framework.

As for getting training, the CTC website holds a list of CTC trainers who offer freelance training. If you specifically want to use a CTC instructor I would think that the best solution would be to look and see if there is one near you and if there is you can get in touch to see if they cater for your needs. Alternatively you could also ask your local council cycling officer if you have one. And if you can't make head nor tail of the bikeability website then try emailing them and asking for whatever it is you want to know.

But I'm not quite sure how this avenue that you are taking the thread down relates to the charity conversion? Unless, of course, you are trying to agree with what I said about the CTC, which now should be working for the good of cycling, making bikeability instruction more accessible?

[thirdcrank]

Graham

I can't imagine that you will get many useful answers on here to most of your questions. Only time will tell if the allegations made during the pre-conversion campaigning were correct (eg finances in a mess over the sale of Coey Hoey .) I doubt if you'll see anything more than glowing reports from the new leadership and trustees. Re your last bullet point, the effects on members, I found this interesting, because it shows that the CTC is operating as a charity, which is how it should be now:

... I believe the CTC has a major problem with the way it views it's membership and I'm thinking that relates to the fact that it views itself as "The National Cycling Charity". As such it is more focused on it's charitable works rather than its membership. Members are viewed as a source of charitable donations allowing it to undertake its charitable works.

Nobody seems to have dealt with this bit:

If there were a vote now to switch back to a "Club" I would support such a change. It might help the organisation focus more on the membership.

Psamathe

It emerged during the prolonged debates we had about conversion that there's no going back. If the CTC were to stop being a charity, then any £££ held at that point would have to go to another charity with similar objects. It would be possible, of course, to start a new national cycling "club" from scratch, but that seems rather academic.

[gaz]

Presumably it is only when that step is completed (and many more?) that Gift Aid will be discussed with HMRC.

Council Minutes January 2014, Item13.

...Councillors raised their disappointment on the news from HMRC regarding Gift Aid. Carol confirmed she had received advice from ‘Buzzacotts’ and circulated their memo response. Negotiations are still ongoing on a technical issue on how the membership cost is applied. Councillors were asked to treat this memo as confidential...

Edit: July 2014 Council Minutes - Gift Aid cash cow still refuses to go "Moo" .

A ‘Gift Aid’ update was given – We had received a negative response so far from HMRC, a meeting will be arranged with CTC’s Tax advisors once we have received a response with a view to then meeting with HMRC.

[Graham]

Thanks for the link to the AGM minutes Gaz.

It's a right rivittin' read.

I particularly like item 20. Oh, yes !!

20 Operations Committee – CLOSED SESSION – Content removed.

[gaz]

I felt item 14 was rather interesting as well but that's a matter for another thread.

[Philip Benstead]

Graham

I can't imagine that you will get many useful answers on here to most of your questions. Only time will tell if the allegations made during the pre-conversion campaigning were correct (eg finances in a mess over the sale of Coey Hoey .) I doubt if you'll see anything more than glowing reports from the new leadership and trustees. Re your last bullet point, the effects on members, I found this interesting, because it shows that the CTC is operating as a charity, which is how it should be now:

... I believe the CTC has a major problem with the way it views it's membership and I'm thinking that relates to the fact that it views itself as "The National Cycling Charity". As such it is more focused on it's charitable works rather than its membership. Members are viewed as a source of charitable donations allowing it to undertake its charitable works.

Nobody seems to have dealt with this bit:

If there were a vote now to switch back to a "Club" I would support such a change. It might help the organisation focus more on the membership.

Psamathe

It emerged during the prolonged debates we had about conversion that there's no going back. If the CTC were to stop being a charity, then any £££ held at that point would have to go to another charity with similar objects. It would be possible, of course, to start a new national cycling "club" from scratch, but that seems rather academic.

How or what do we do to focus on our membership?

[Psamathe]

Graham

I can't imagine that you will get many useful answers on here to most of your questions. Only time will tell if the allegations made during the pre-conversion campaigning were correct (eg finances in a mess over the sale of Coey Hoey .) I doubt if you'll see anything more than glowing reports from the new leadership and trustees. Re your last bullet point, the effects on members, I found this interesting, because it shows that the CTC is operating as a charity, which is how it should be now:

... I believe the CTC has a major problem with the way it views it's membership and I'm thinking that relates to the fact that it views itself as "The National Cycling Charity". As such it is more focused on it's charitable works rather than its membership. Members are viewed as a source of charitable donations allowing it to undertake its charitable works.

Nobody seems to have dealt with this bit:

If there were a vote now to switch back to a "Club" I would support such a change. It might help the organisation focus more on the membership.

Psamathe

It emerged during the prolonged debates we had about conversion that there's no going back. If the CTC were to stop being a charity, then any £££ held at that point would have to go to another charity with similar objects. It would be possible, of course, to start a new national cycling "club" from scratch, but that seems rather academic.

How or what do we do to focus on our membership?

There is another thread running which is discussing the same thing so it would be difficult to duplicate those answers here.

Ian

[CJ]

You do realise that bikeability isn't a delivery organisation don't you - it's a set of national standards and a delivery method (which the CTC has input into, for instance it trains bikeability instructors and comments upon the national standards when they are reviewed).

And you do realise don't you, that the Bikeability syllabus was written by CTC in the first place, and for a while CTC kept the register of Bikeability training providers and it was all going very well, everyone knew who to call... until Government cut the funding and left it to local authorities to mess up.

It's like Cycling Proficiency all over again, also invented by CTC, then given to RoSPA to water down into irrelevance.

[thirdcrank]

If anybody does realise these things, they are either an insider or somebody who keeps their ear to the ground / reads between the lines etc. From where I'm observing, the CTC rarely, if ever, seems to publicise this type of thing. (It came close to it with the Highway Code.)

[Si]

Yes CJ I did realise that, that is why I made a point of mentioning the CTC's input . However, the point is that it is a N.O. interest and not officially backed grass roots interest.

As to what the general populous think....well it's not too difficult to work out how bikeability/NS works if you do a bit of searching around. For instance the CTC has a whole section of its website devoted to all of the different types of training that it offers. Whether or not it should detail the history and development of bikeability/NS is a different matter.....would it benefit the CTC to do so? I believe that the public that I come into contact with just want to know that they have an accredited instructor who is teaching them to a national standard....who wrote that standard and how it came about isn't something I've ever been asked.

Although touching upon the subject of maintaining the standard.....mmmm, dare one suggest that it is getting a bit London-centric