Discussion about new constitution, May 2005

Meade McCloughan: points for discussion, 8th May 2005

Our existing constitution

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/about/ccc/constitution

Problems:

• has too much about objectives and activities (more than half the total document).
• is silent on our relation to LCC.
• is silent about finances (with the exception of 7.1’s mention of the Treasurer).
• officers are given as Chair, Secretary and Treasurer, whereas we have Coordinator/s (not Chair) and no Secretary.
• I’m not happy with 4.3: ‘Where necessary, membership of CCCMC may be revoked by a vote of two thirds of serving committee members’. If this has to stay in, shouldn’t such decisions be ratified subsequently by an EGM held within two months?
• should be more about the AGM, esp. its notification via London Cyclist.

LCC model

http://www.camdencyclists.org.uk/Members/meademccloughan/LCCC

is clearer and doesn’t have most of the problems I’ve identified with ours, BUT has some very unsatisfactory aspects involving the borough group’s relation to LCC, in particular the first sentence of #3: ‘[insert name of group] is a branch of the London Cycling Campaign (LCC) with a degree of autonomy in its management of campaigns and finances and inherits the objects and powers of that parent body from the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the LCC.’ And all of #9: ‘The LCC may dissolve [LCC borough group] if no AGM has been held for a period of twenty four months or for other good and just cause. On dissolution any assets will be absorbed into the funds of the LCC’ (underlining added for emphasis).

Other borough groups I have found eight other borough group constitutions, most of which appear to have been based on a model similar to the current LCC model (e.g. 7 of the 8 give the same three objectives listed in LCC’s #2). Rather than tabulate all the variations, I’ll just note the significant differences between the Lambeth constitution and the current LCC model (underlining added by me for emphasis).

#3. ‘an independent branch’ in place of ‘a branch’; ‘with a degree of autonomy in its management of campaigns and finances’ - omitted’; ‘from time to time of [name of group]’ - omitted.

#4: ‘any member of the public or organisations’ in place of just ‘any member of the public’; ‘is a member of LCC’ in place of ‘should be a member of LCC’; ‘Meetings, rides, and other events are open to members and non-members alike but membership is encouraged.’- omitted.

#5. ‘committee comprising not less than 5 members’ in place of ‘committee comprising not less than 3 members’.

#9. ‘The LCC may dissolve [LCC borough group] if no AGM has been held for a period of twenty four months or for other good and just cause. On dissolution any assets will be absorbed into the funds of the LCC.’ - omitted in its entirety

[Only Tower Hamlets and Westminster have a version of this clause. Westminster’s invites LCC to distribute any remaining assets in equal proportions to the borough group members! It also has absurd things like membership being ‘open to any person in good standing of, and of good repute in, the London Cycling Campaign who lives or works in the Borough of Westminster’!]

Recommendation - that we draw up a new constitution based on the LCC model,

relation to LCC

• with Lambeth’s revisions to #3 and either omitting LCC’s #9 or amending it, i.e. by removing ‘or for other good and just cause’.

membership

• should we restrict membership to LCC members? I think so, in which we could follow Lambeth’s versions of ##4, 6 & 7. But I quite like the existing #3.1 which stipulates residence in the LB Camden (with #3.2 allowing non-resident LCC members to be admitted as with Helen) – in which case the existing #3 should be used in its entirety. Restricting membership to LCC members has the advantage in that it obviates the need to maintain a membership list.
• organisational membership?? Doesn’t seem a good idea.

Management Committee

• minimum number – three (LCC & old CCC) or five (Lambeth)?
• co-option? (existing #4.2) constitutionally a bit dodgy, but it seems to work for us. Would have to be limited to non-office holders (implied by existing #7.1).
• roles? Secretary?
• joint holders of offices: the LCC model prevents this in respect of both the Coordinator and Treasurer posts, whereas we would only want this to apply to the Treasurer.
• general MC members? (Does everyone have to have a ‘role’? LCC model seems to think so.)
• election: do we want everyone seconded to a role (except Treasurer) to serve (as with LCC #7)? I think not. But we would need to allow for joint nominations to a post (as with our current co-coordinators).

Meetings

I suggest we revise LCC’s #8 as follows: "The MC shall meet usually not less than once a month and at least once every quarter, and all members of [group] may participate in such meetings [replacing ‘attend to take part in decisions’]. Once a year an Annual General Meeting shall be held which shall be advertised in the London Cyclist magazine and/or in material included in the LC mailing and other appropriate media. All members may attend the AGM and vote on decisions and elections of committee members."

other clauses

• do we want (as at present) a quorum clause?
• we should have one for EGMs
• one regarding the revision of the constitution
• a bit more about financial reporting (i.e. to AGM, financial year = calendar year?)
• an equal opportunities clause? Merton has one, and it might be good for fundraising.

John Chamberlain 8th May 2005

I agree with a lot of what you say, see comments interleaved below. But I'm a bit loath to drop all of sections 1 and 2 from the existing constitution. Although rather prescriptive, they do lay out what we do, and I feel that the LCC objectives are a bit vague. I suppose that the counter-argument is that the details of HOW we encourage people to cycle, improve conditions for cyclists and raise the profile of cycling should be decided year by year at the AGM. Or maybe they could form an attachment of some kind.

[John’s comments in {curly brackets}]

Our existing constitution. Problems:

• is silent on our relation to LCC. {Agree - needs fixing}
• is silent about finances (with the exception of 7.1’s mention of the Treasurer). {Ditto}
• officers are given as Chair, Secretary and Treasurer, whereas we have Coordinator/s (not Chair) and no Secretary. {Ditto}
• I’m not happy with 4.3: ‘Where necessary, membership of CCCMC may be revoked by a vote of two thirds of serving committee members’. If this has to stay in, shouldn’t such decisions be ratified subsequently by an EGM held within two months? Or restricted only to coopted committee members?

{I agree - the MC should not be able to override the wishes of the members. If necessary, call an EGM.}

• should be more about the AGM, esp. its notification via London Cyclist. {Agree}

Recommendation

• that we draw up a new constitution based on the LCC model, but amending it along the following lines:

relation to LCC

• with Lambeth’s revisions to #3 {Agree}
• and either omitting LCC’s #9 or amending it, i.e. by removing ‘or for other good and just cause’. {Remove it}

membership

• should we restrict membership to LCC members? I think so, in which we could follow Lambeth’s versions of ##4, 6 & 7. But I quite like the existing #3.1 which stipulates residence in the LB Camden (with #3.2 allowing non-resident LCC members to be admitted as with Helen) – in which case the existing #3 should be used in its entirety. Restricting membership to LCC members has the advantage in that it obviates the need to maintain a membership list. - organisational membership?? Doesn’t seem a good idea.

{Keep existing #3. No organisational membership}

Management Committee

• minimum number – three (LCC & old CCC) or five (Lambeth)? {5}
• co-option? (existing #4.2) constitutionally a bit dodgy, but it seems to work for us. Would have to be limited to non-office holders (implied by existing #7.1). {Agree - keep existing para, exclude office holders}
• roles? Secretary? {No need}
• joint holders of offices: the LCC model prevents this in respect of both the Coordinator and Treasurer posts, whereas we would only want this to apply to the Treasurer. {Agree}
• general MC members? (Does everyone have to have a ‘role’? LCC model seems to think so.) {No - we need general members}
• election: do we want everyone seconded to a role (except Treasurer) to serve (as with LCC #7)? I think not. But we would need to allow for joint nominations to a post (as with our current co-coordinators). {Agree - I don't like LCC #7. Self-proposal feels wrong, and we don't need to share posts. Probably this is a result of not allowing members-at-large}

Meetings

• I suggest we revise LCC’s #8 as follows: "The MC shall meet usually not less than once a month and at least once every quarter, and all members of [group] may participate in such meetings [replacing ‘attend to take part in decisions’]. Once a year an Annual General Meeting shall be held which shall be advertised in the London Cyclist magazine and/or in material included in the LC mailing and other appropriate media. All members may attend the AGM and vote on decisions and elections of committee members."

{Agree, but suggest remove "not less than" in first line, replace with "shall usually meet once a month . . ."}

other clauses

• do we want (as at present) a MC quorum clause?
• we should have one for EGMs
• & one regarding the revision of the constitution
• a bit more about financial reporting (i.e. to AGM, financial year = calendar year?)
• an equal opportunities clause? Merton has one, and it might be good for fundraising.

{Yes to all}

Stefano Casalotti 8th May 2005

(1) At the LCC-BG we discussed that we need to have a clause on child protection. As several of our events can involve children we may need to make a statement that any members that will have one-to-one sessions with children on behalf of CCC must be police checked. Barry from Southwark is looking into this. He feels that it will be required by many granting agencies.

(2) I agree we should have something on equal opportunity and discrimination

(3) I think we should have a secretary: i would like to nominate you for this post

(4) Having other "named" positions would help in recruiting and turn over of MC members. It is easier to bring in a new member to the MC if there is a specific task to do. Having said that not all MC members have to have specific task, and not all named position need to be filled at any one time.

James Brander 9th May 2005

I'm a great believer in constitiutions that are not too prescriptive. We don't (I presume) want to be rewriting it every time some nuance arises. I think it should include the following clauses:

1. Name of the organisation
2. General description of objectives and relation to other organisations (obviously LCC): suggest "shares objectives of LCC, adapted for local circumstances"
3. Membership, and I suggest something along the lines of "open to any cyclist or person with an interest in cycling, who will normally be a member of LCC resident in the London Borough of Camden".
4. Meeting frequency, AGM and EGM, how they should be called and announced, the scope of EGMs, and how any changes made at EGMs are subsequently ratified
5. Officers and their appointment, including members of the MC. Do we go for annual reappointment? Let's certainly keep open our joint tenureship arrangements.
6. Finance, including responsibilities of Treasurer, and mentioning possibility of raising money in our own right
7. Relevant legislation (eg equal ops), but being not too specific as we don't know how these things will evolve.
8. Disciplinary and winding up procedures.

Minutes of the CCC meeting 9th May 2005

• Meade has examined the LCC model borough group constitution and compared it to our existing constitution and those of other borough groups.

• It was agreed that we should draw up a new constitution using the LCC model as a basis but modifying it so as to accentuate our autonomy (as with other groups) and to preserve features of the existing constitution which we like.

• The present constitution has a lot in it about our aims and activities, which would be best taken out and adopted/revised as a separate document.

• Other issues: membership should be limited to LCC members; we should have a Secretary; the minimum size of the Management Committee should remain 3; we should a have a clause about child protection.

• Meade to draw up a draft constitution and invite further comments. A new constitution would have to be adopted at the next AGM, which will be nearly a year away.

Jean Dollimore 15th May 2005

I am in agreement with all of your recommendations. Regarding the committee, I don't think everyone needs to have a role. I wonder whether we should retain the concept of quorum as in CCC's 5.3.