cycling in Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and beyond…..

CUK Trustee Election

Home Forum Discussions CUK Trustee Election

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Chris Jeggo 11 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #17443

    Chris Jeggo
    Participant

    A couple of days ago I received an email from a W Surrey CTC member asking the following question.

    “Do you have any suggestions, please, about whom to vote for in the Cycling UK trustee elections? I don’t know any of the names on the ballot paper that came with the magazine but I am surprised at how many are not actual members.”

    I replied as follows.

    I do not know any of the candidates either, so I am not in a position to make suggestions as you ask, but I have plenty to say about the election.

    The ballot paper reveals that Cycling UK management’s disregard for the membership has become blatant.

    Firstly, as you observed, half the candidates proposed are not CUK members, in defiance of Resolution 6 (… that candidates must have been fully paid-up members for at least a year …), which was opposed by the Council but passed by the members at the May CTC AGM.

    Secondly, the AGM also passed the Council resolution regarding governance changes. Here (in its entirety) is what the Governance Working Party recommended regarding the election of members to the board of trustees.

    Process for ensuring members wishing to stand for election to a trustee role on the CTC board meet the agreed person specification

    The Nomination Committee shall recommend a Job Description, Person Specification, board skills mix and diversity analysis to the Board. The board is responsible for final approval. All members wishing to stand for election as a trustee shall be invited to submit an application to the Nominations Committee to demonstrate how they meet the person specification.

    If the Nominations Committee feel they need further assurance around a candidate’s suitability they may choose to invite the candidate to take part in an interview, either face to face, telephone or visual electronic media.

    The Nominations will provide a statement on each individual candidate stating whether:
    • The candidate meets the person specification, is fully competent to carry out the trustee role and would complement the skill mix on the Board
    • The candidate meets the person specification and is fully competent to carry out the trustee role
    • The committee has no recommendation to make on the candidate
    • The candidate does not meet the person specification and is not recommended for election.

    All candidates shall be entitled to stand for election should they wish following receipt of their statement. The election material will note what statement has been applied to each candidate.

    Note that last paragraph. I know of a person who applied to be a trustee and who tried hard to insist that his name be included on the ballot paper. It is not there. One cannot help but think of Russia and China, where they have “free elections”, except that if you are not a well-behaved Party member you do not get on to the ballot paper.

    The whole thing stinks. Democracy has gone out of the window.

    I have heard a rumour that West Surrey CTC at its forthcoming AGM will formally consider ceasing being a CUK member group and converting to a stand-alone cycling club, albeit affiliated to CUK. West Surrey CTC is a club, and it’s about touring. The CTC used to be the same, but it is now, as CUK, no longer either. What, now, is the point of belonging to it. There are far cheaper ways of getting third party insurance.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.