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

Discussion of the re-branding of CTC as Cycling UK.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

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

Post by mjr »

It's OK. We're not very representative. Can anyone Please explain how the CTC actions on this were checked to see whether they were representative of the will of the club?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

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

Post by Psamathe »

AlaninWales wrote:
gaz wrote:It is extremely unusual for a member of CTC staff to contribute to the forum on matters of CTC policy.

Chris Peck joined the Bedford Turbo Roundabout thread to do exactly that, explain the decision that had been made.

The CTC has around 70,000 members, the forum around 26,500 (including non-CTC members). There were certainly strongly voiced opinions on that thread but with under 40 forum members contributing I cannot conclude whether or not those opinions were representative of the views of CTC's membership.

An excellent argument; which can be brought forward to negate the input of anyone who writes to their MP (after all, only a minority do so), or otherwise attempts to initiate discussion with those in a position to impose their judgements without reference to others.

Plus, an MP can only engage with those who express their opinions. an election can only count those who vote. And organisation can only engage with those who wish to engage. So an organisation that does not engage with those who are prepared to completely fails.

Ian
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

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

Post by Psamathe »

mjr wrote:
Psamathe wrote:And whilst I don't know the full background to the Bedford Turbo R'bout, from when I did start following it I saw minimal engagement from CTC despite members expressing their disagreement of the CTC's decisions. CTC appeared quite impervious to the strong opinions of many members, instead following the path they chose despite the expressed member/cycling community outrage. And to me this illustrates the failures of the CTC in relation to their membership and the cycling community.

Ah well yeah once Turbogate became public, CTC's involvement was long over, the decision had been made about a year before. After its explanation and the lack of further funding (which was apparently part of the reason for spending all that round despite not having enough good projects), I feel CTC should have said that it got it wrong, that it shouldn't have helped micturate taxes up the wall in a time of cuts and that it is making changes to avoid repeats.

But to be fair, I don't think any other organisation involved has done that yet, so in itself, it doesn't really mean you should join a competitor instead of CTC. (Measures that I think will help will go to a CN membership meeting in 8 days but even there, I feel the CN board considers its actions imperfect rather than wrong, and they probably won't be judged wrong until there's more data.)

(A bit off-topic but) the thing that struck me was how even when I was watching the issue, as plans were changed to be significantly more to speed the throughput of motor vehicles, so those cycling organisations could have gone back and said "the plans have been modified and no longer meet the needs for use of Cycling Safety Fund money so we withdraw those funds". It's like with anything, get permission for one thing then significantly change what you are going to do and the same permission/authorisation no longer applies. Changes have to be approved by those agreeing/giving permission/authorising/etc.

Ian
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

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

Post by Philip Benstead »

Penfolds11 wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:You should contact your local CTC councillor at
Http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/fil ... list_0.pdf

Well, I clicked on that link and got a "Page not found" landing with the message "Unfortunately, we do not have the page you were looking for at this location. However, please use the search form below to find this page elsewhere on the website".



There is a link to the council on the home page at the bottom
or
Go here and look at the bottom of the page to find list
http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/ctc-national-council
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1944
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

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

Post by Philip Benstead »

Psamathe wrote:

Interesting that the Head Office only give premium rate phone numbers. I can call a standard UK landline number (01, 02, 03) for free but the 0844 numbers cost everybody. Does not "invite" communications. Add that most 0844 numbers give a "kick-back" so the CTC not only forces a caller to pay but they (should be) making money on the call as well.

I suppose in a small way that illustrates my point.

So given that 08 numbers are "phantom" and link to a real landline number, why not publish the real number (and accept you wont make money on incoming calls).

Ian


http://www.ctc.org.uk/contact-ctc
Contact CTC

CTC National Office
CTC National Office
To contact any department at CTC please see the list below.
Calls to 0844 numbers cost 4 pence per minute from a BT landline. Calls from other networks may vary and calls from mobile phones could be considerably higher.

CTC National Office:

Email: cycling@ctc.org.uk
Telephone: 0844 736 8450 or 01483 238 337 (local rate)
Fax: 0844 736 8454 or 01483 237 051 (local rate)
Philip Benstead | Life Member Former CTC Councillor/Trustee
Organizing events and representing cyclists' in southeast since 1988
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

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

Post by gaz »

Psamathe wrote:Plus, an MP can only engage with those who express their opinions. an election can only count those who vote. And organisation can only engage with those who wish to engage. So an organisation that does not engage with those who are prepared to completely fails.


The forum exists as a place for CTC members and non-members to discuss many matters (including CTC policy) amongst themselves.

On the registration page for the forum there is a notice to users, advising that it is not an official channel of communication.
Contacting CTC

The boards are not continuously monitored by CTC council or its staff.

Any exchange or enquiry on these boards cannot be recognised by CTC as a formal enquiry or commentary on CTC policy.

If you wish to comment formally on CTC policy, or make a complaint about anything relating to CTC, go to the CTC home page and follow the "About CTC" links for a range of resources. Specifically...

To make a complaint about CTC or its policies go to:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/policie ... -procedure


Perhaps those who wish to engage with an organisation about its policies rather than chat amongst themselves about them would be better advised to use an appropriate channel.

In the case of the Bedford Turbo Roundabout thread CTC took the unusual step of engaging with forum members on the thread. Some were not satisfied by that. I don't know if anybody felt strongly enough about the matter to make a formal complaint. Certainly some have voted with their feet, or should that be wheels :wink: .
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

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

Post by Psamathe »

gaz wrote:Perhaps those who wish to engage with an organisation about its policies rather than chat amongst themselves about them would be better advised to use an appropriate channel.

Everybody keeps talking about "the appropriate channel" but nobody says what it is. From my personal experience e-mails to the CTC do not get a response (just ignored) so are e-mails not "appropriate". E-mail addresses are published by the CTC without any "CTC do not monitor e-mails and ..." warnings.

And when you do not think an organisation is listening, they can say anything they want about how few people wanted something (because it is not open like a forum is).

I would have thought the CTC should be wanting to engage with members and the cycling community. So ignoring their forum of such people suggests they have no interest in engaging with such people.

Ian
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

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

Post by thirdcrank »

I think that part of the problem here is that the CTC is still in a period of transition, in that the old system of elected councillors meant that those elected were answerable to the electorate. A charity has trustees and while the CTC (AFAIK) still appears to use the old model in that the trustees are elected, they are by law answerable to charity legislation. This came up during the debate leading up to the charity votes (IIRC when the Charities Commission raised the issue and also IIRC, there were allegations of skulduggery when the CC was asked if it could all be left till after the dust had dies down, - my own words here, of course.) Perhaps it's time to go the whole hog and spell this out in big letters. It might reduce misunderstanding.

The original exchanges are there in the threads, for anybody with the energy to dig them out, but I think this is a reasonable summary.
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

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

Post by drossall »

I'm not sure I completely understand that. I may have missed some background. Do you mean that we would no longer elect the leadership now we are a charity?

There's nothing particularly unusual about trustees being elected. That's the model in my local church (registered as a charity but, obviously, small by comparison with the CTC). The meeting of the members elects the trustees, and is then bound by the constitution to hold them to account (but that holding to account is for guiding the charity according to its charitable purposes as declared in the governing document, typically the constitution).

The membership organisation for which I used to work (maybe four times bigger than the CTC) had been a charity for half a century, and also had elected trustees.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

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

Post by gaz »

gaz wrote:
Si wrote:BTW, in case anyone missed it, an announcement was made some time ago that the outcome of the rebranding exercise was that, having listened to the Membership, it was decided not to undertake a major rebranding project.


I missed that announcement :oops: . :idea: Does it mean that there will be a minor rebranding project? :twisted: :wink: :lol:


So now I've gone looking for it.

So far I've found: CTC Council Meeting January 2014, item 14.
Motion:
Agree in principle to a trading name change. Take the necessary action to register and protect the name of National Cycling Association.

To set up a new working group to carry out further work to look at the implementation and wider brand issues as well as any name change. To bring a report back to Council in April for approval.
Proposed by: Barry Flood Seconded by: Philip Benstead
...
Motion Carried


The matter gets no more than a passing mention in April's minutes, July's have yet to be published.

Also: Current Communications Manager - Job Description refers to
a new ‘CTC Brand’
.

Perhaps there's something in the Council Minutes for July or October but I can't find an announcement that re-branding has been shelved.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

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

Post by thirdcrank »

drossall wrote: - Do you mean that we would no longer elect the leadership now we are a charity? -


No. AFAIK, there's no hard-and-fast rules about how trustees are selected. I think the rest of your post is correct. However, the relationship between the electorate and those elected is different. I'm afraid that if my interpretation seems unclear, the only obvious solution is to dig out the original bit of the thread with the exchange between the CC and the CTC. IIRC, what triggered it was a comment from the CC that the new constitution did not fully reflect this difference. Alsio if IRCC, it was all couched in terms that the CC couldn't tell the CTC how to deal with it, it was just alerting them to the possibility of a challenge.

The point I'm trying to get across to Psamathe, is that it's a charity, not the membership organisation it used to be.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

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

Post by gaz »

I believe TC is referring to this thread although there will be others in the Charity Debate section that touch upon the issue of control of the club.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Image
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

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

Post by drossall »

thirdcrank wrote:AFAIK, there's no hard-and-fast rules about how trustees are selected.

I think that's true. In a membership organisation, you'd typically elect them. However, charities come in many shapes and sizes, and many are not membership organisations.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

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

Post by Psamathe »

thirdcrank wrote:The point I'm trying to get across to Psamathe, is that it's a charity, not the membership organisation it used to be.

I appreciate that now. And they way it has chosen to operate is such that I do not intend to renew my subscription.

I think there are several misleading aspects to the CTC and maybe areas where that CTC is confused about how it should behave. I think what has thrown me is that I understood the CTC to stand for Cyclists Touring Club; "Club" being particularly relevant to me and I feel somewhat misleading.

If an organisation has "members" then, whatever it's status, it should be responsive to those members. e.g. I can't see why being a charity should mean it ignores e-mails from members. What exactly does being a "member" mean when you join a Club and how is that different from being a "member" of a charity ? Does being a charity mean that "members" are no longer relevant ? (because I have the impression that is what is happening.

Ian
drossall
Posts: 6115
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 10:01pm
Location: North Hertfordshire

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

Post by drossall »

No, it's the objectives that are different.

A charity must fulfill its declared charitable purposes which, after (relatively) recent changes in the law, can include the advancement of amateur sport.

The charitable purposes come under the heading of public benefit. Sport was added, presumably, because of the benefits of a healthy populace.

The benefits must be public, i.e. capable under reasonable terms of being enjoyed by the public. There can be a membership requirement as long as membership is open, but often the membership are the engine driving services to the wider public. Public benefit can also include for example medical charities, whose benefits are open to anyone who suffers from the relevant condition, which is a reasonable interpretation, in the context, of "anyone".

Members may receive benefits, but not in excess of the subscriptions that they pay, and the level of benefit is likely to affect the degree to which subscriptions can be gift aided. Inevitably there are judgement calls; I believe that National Trust subscriptions can be gift aided, even though you can easily save their value in entrance fees over a year. But then you can gift aid entrance fees anyway to many historic venues, because you're getting the enjoyment of a visit but the venue is still getting your "donation" to help maintain the place.

Warning: IANAL.
Post Reply