Cycling Ireland Structure

Beasty

Posts relating to the structuring of CI moved from the McQuaid thread

morana wrote: »

but your point is a good one. why could we not havehad a poll on cyclingireland.is where any club member could vote. it would be easy to build in checks and balances. let's move worth the times.

That would require a change to CI's constitution which would require an EGM (or could be agreed at the AGM)!

Having said that I do think the current voting structure is archaic and I would welcome a review. However any changes would have to be agreed under the current voting structure (and would, I think, require a 75% majority)

morana

Beasty wrote: »

That would require a change to CI's constitution which would require an EGM (or could be agreed at the AGM)!

Having said that I do think the current voting structure is archaic and I would welcome a review. However any changes would have to be agreed under the current voting structure (and would, I think, require a 75% majority)

yes but i think an agm would agree to it readily.

this is the 25th anniversary of CI so I guess the memo and arts relate back to that time.

531

Mcofferon wrote: »

It's time for - don's his miners helmet - One member, One vote.

Well then, rule changes can only be decided by the members/delegates at the AGM. Will you start the ball rolling?

morana

531 wrote: »

Well then, rule changes can only be decided by the members/delegates at the AGM. Will you start the ball rolling?

I might try to get something along those lines passed at the agm.

Beasty

Mcofferon wrote: »

If you think you've been hard done by - what about those of us CI members denied a voice altogether? Individual (not affiliated to any club) CI members got no say at all.

It's time for - don's his miners helmet - One member, One vote.

Technically your avenue for representation is via the Provincial executives. The problem I have with that is they are not the most "open" of committees and working out exactly how to make representations via that avenue is difficult

CI have invited suggestions on how to restructure the Commission and Provincial structures, but it's a bit difficult to be constructive if members don't understand how they operate in the first place. As I understand it they have only received a handful of representations since the consultation was launched a few months ago (I have made some suggestions BTW)

On the question of one member one vote, I have no problem in principle, but my concern would be the practicalities - it would be almost like having a referendum on every material decision taken by CI. We currently have something more akin to a political structure with elected representatives having a direct involvement in the decision making process. I am sure there are improvements that can be made, but as I've already mentioned I think any changes would require a 75% majority in General Meeting (under the current voting rules).

There are already some anomalies in the Mem & Arts of CI, and I will be making some (hopefully non-controversial!) suggestions to the Board to address them ahead of this year's AGM. Changing the voting structure is likely to be much more challenging though

ROK ON

Is there a Leisure or Audax commission?
Given that CI membership has been boosted by a lot of leisure cyclists some of whom do not want to join a club, then this would be an obvious area that people looking to open up representation should go.

fixie fox

Individuals have to take some responsibility in relation to representation. There are a lot of demands and expectations here in relation to what 'they' and CI should do.
There is definitely some disconnect between CI volunteers who do the groundwork at club, procvincial and national level, and some members who sit at a computer and seem to have little or no understanding of the difficulties. Every voluntary organization is finding it difficult to get volunteers to do work, as opposed to talk. The current representation system is through club, provincial and national bodies. They have their flaws, but if people want to be 'represented' there are plenty of avenues. Some of the responsibility is theirs. Sure, it would be convenient if every CI member could vote on every issue with the click of a computer button. What a shambles that would end up. It's inconvenient to get off your ass some evening and go to a meeting, but those who are really interested will and it is these types who end up running things.

Donegaler

fixie fox wrote: »

Individuals have to take some responsibility in relation to representation. There are a lot of demands and expectations here in relation to what 'they' and CI should do.
There is definitely some disconnect between CI volunteers who do the groundwork at club, procvincial and national level, and some members who sit at a computer and seem to have little or no understanding of the difficulties. Every voluntary organization is finding it difficult to get volunteers to do work, as opposed to talk. The current representation system is through club, provincial and national bodies. They have their flaws, but if people want to be 'represented' there are plenty of avenues. Some of the responsibility is theirs. Sure, it would be convenient if every CI member could vote on every issue with the click of a computer button. What a shambles that would end up. It's inconvenient to get off your ass some evening and go to a meeting, but those who are really interested will and it is these types who end up running things.

Fixie, you are a lot closer to the truth than you believe yourself. Yes I agree with Rob Fowl that we must move on after yesterday's decision whatever the numbers were.The decision is made and will not be reversed.
I was in the room yesterday and what I saw was a lot of energy which could now be harnessed.
I with my small band of Donegal colleagues voted yes.I never met Pat McQuaid but I wish him well.
I voted for the board though I have had many criticisms of them over my relatively short 8 years membership of Cycling Ireland.
These include having the CI president make a point of visiting every Registered club during his 2 year term.This could be convenienced by having county boards with officer boards elected from each of the clubs in that county.
This could lead to a National Road Race League with Counties putting forward teams to race for their Province and their County.
Other ideas would be the recognition of National Age-related competition for over 50's such as was pioneered in Ulster in recent years.
However the biggest issue that I currently have with the Irish Cycling scene and this could include many in that room yesterday, Is that they leave all the donkey work to a very small number of worker volunteers who also have family and work commitments.
I spoke briefly to Rob Fowl about this issue before the vote yesterday because I know that he is not one of the non-performers.
He does his bit as do many who I met yesterday..
Lets get some others to share the load and reduce the apparent disconnect between the ordinary cycling members and those who direct the sport of cycling in Ireland.

kumate_champ07

this is also whats needed if we ever want to progress:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/other-sports/kelly-seeks-indoor-velodrome-and-carding-consideration-for-riders-223201.html

we could have a national training centre/indoor velodrome like Manchester has. there could be winter racing which could be used as training for the roadies. an Irish pursuit team, we lost the funding for that a couple of years ago.

look overseas at British Cycling, alot of their road success has come from the track, we dont have the same budget but we certainly have the talent. Im amazed we've had an Irish man as head of the UCI for so long but still no indoor velodrome

Bluefoam

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

this is also whats needed if we ever want to progress:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/other-sports/kelly-seeks-indoor-velodrome-and-carding-consideration-for-riders-223201.html

we could have a national training centre/indoor velodrome like Manchester has. there could be winter racing which could be used as training for the roadies. an Irish pursuit team, we lost the funding for that a couple of years ago.

look overseas at British Cycling, alot of their road success has come from the track, we dont have the same budget but we certainly have the talent. Im amazed we've had an Irish man as head of the UCI for so long but still no indoor velodrome

Feck a velodrome, what about some basic funding for development of junior mountain bikers? Or at least some acknowledgement that mountain biking even exists in the country... apart from just taking our membership fees...

Inquitus

Bluefoam wrote: »

Feck a velodrome, what about some basic funding for development of junior mountain bikers? Or at least some acknowledgement that mountain biking even exists in the country... apart from just taking our membership fees...

Building a Velodrome is cheaper than building a mountain?

kumate_champ07

Bluefoam wrote: »

Feck a velodrome, what about some basic funding for development of junior mountain bikers? Or at least some acknowledgement that mountain biking even exists in the country... apart from just taking our membership fees...

you guys already have mountains!

Beasty

This stuff needs a new thread. On mobile at present but I'll transfer the CI structuring stuff over later on. This seems go be just the sort of feedback they have been asking for.

morana

Beasty wrote: »

This stuff needs a new thread. On mobile at present but I'll transfer the CI structuring stuff over later on. This seems go be just the sort of feedback they have been asking for.

but they dont listen(!) here anymore!

fixie fox

Inquitus wrote: »

Building a Velodrome is cheaper than building a mountain?

We have plenty of mountains and roads. Do you know how much it would cost to heat, staff and maintain a velodrome? And who is to fund that - year in and year out. Do you think that 'they' haven't already done their best?

Beasty

morana wrote: »

but they dont listen(!) here anymore!

If we can come up with a few decent ideas I'll point some of them to this thread or forward some suggestions given they are specifically requesting feedback on the issue - who knows some of the Board may already having a peek at what's said over here;)

Beasty

One of the things I struggle with is actually understanding how the different parts of CI fit together. Anyway, I'll have a stab but please feel free to correct anything I get wrong

1. We have the Board, elected by the "membership" usually via the AGM with votes being allocated as for yesterday's EGM (ie mainly to the clubs but also to Board members, Provincial Executives and Commissions). Board members are unpaid and provide their services on a voluntary basis.

2. The Chief Executive (currently Geoff Liffey) is a full time paid employee reporting to the Board - Geoff is also Company secretary. There are a number of other full time employees of CI

3. There are 4 Provincial Executives which are sub-committees of the main Board, but are elected by clubs within each Province

4. There are a number of Commissions which are again sub-committees of the main Board, set up to administer specific sporting, coaching and leisure activities. Membership is elected by clubs at each Commission's AGM - all clubs are entitled to attend and vote. I am aware of the following Commissions currently in place:

• Road
• Off-Road
• Track
• Paracycling
• Women's
• Youth

5. There is also the College of Commissaires - I am not sure where they fit in - are they a Commission? They certainly seemed to have votes yesterday

I struggle to see what exactly the Provincial Executives do in practice, although I know there are representatives from some of them who regularly post here. It seems to me that they are the "connection" between clubs and the Board, but I wonder if sometimes they may act as more of a barrier. I note Cycling Ulster have their own website where issues specific to that province are covered. There are also a Munster Cycling and Connacht Cycling websites which I presume are "official", but there's nothing on the to say exactly who they are - Leinster seems to rely on a sub-section of the Cycling Ireland website which is not particularly easy to navigate and perhaps could be more up to date - I guess one question is should there be more communication from the Provincial Executives about what going on in their province

Taking on Board some of the comments already made, should there be a Leisure Commission? Is there some other way to reflect the interests of leisure cyclists?
How do we "enfranchise" members who are unattached?
Should MTB, BMX, Cyclocross etc be lumped in together under "off-road"?
Are there other disciplines or interest groups that should be represented (such as Audax)?

morana

Beasty wrote: »

One of the things I struggle with is actually understanding how the different parts of CI fit together. Anyway, I'll have a stab but please feel free to correct anything I get wrong

1. We have the Board, elected by the "membership" usually via the AGM with votes being allocated as for yesterday's EGM (ie mainly to the clubs but also to Board members, Provincial Executives and Commissions). Board members are unpaid and provide their services on a voluntary basis.

2. The Chief Executive (currently Geoff Liffey) is a full time paid employee reporting to the Board - Geoff is also Company secretary. There are a number of other full time employees of CI

3. There are 4 Provincial Executives which are sub-committees of the main Board, but are elected by clubs within each Province

4. There are a number of Commissions which are again sub-committees of the main Board, set up to administer specific sporting, coaching and leisure activities. Membership is elected by clubs at each Commission's AGM - all clubs are entitled to attend and vote. I am aware of the following Commissions currently in place:

• Road
• Off-Road
• Track
• Paracycling
• Women's
• Youth

5. There is also the College of Commissaires - I am not sure where they fit in - are they a Commission? They certainly seemed to have votes yesterday

I struggle to see what exactly the Provincial Executives do in practice, although I know there are representatives from some of them who regularly post here. It seems to me that they are the "connection" between clubs and the Board, but I wonder if sometimes they may act as more of a barrier. I note Cycling Ulster have their own website where issues specific to that province are covered. There are also a Munster Cycling and Connacht Cycling websites which I presume are "official", but there's nothing on the to say exactly who they are - Leinster seems to rely on a sub-section of the Cycling Ireland website which is not particularly easy to navigate and perhaps could be more up to date - I guess one question is should there be more communication from the Provincial Executives about what going on in their province

Taking on Board some of the comments already made, should there be a Leisure Commission? Is there some other way to reflect the interests of leisure cyclists?
How do we "enfranchise" members who are unattached?
Should MTB, BMX, Cyclocross etc be lumped in together under "off-road"?
Are there other disciplines or interest groups that should be represented (such as Audax)?

There are 2 co-opted board members brought in for their expertise. These currently are Vern Power and Senan Turnbull, both very capable and welcome additions to the board if I may say so.

CI tried to get a Leisure Commission in place this year but afaik it never materialised. There is talk of a specific BMX commission because of the huge rise in that area.

The college of commissaires is the commission which they use for rule enforcements, updates, courses etc. I think it is a working commission.

I have struggled in my time with the need for provincial executives and the commissions tbh. The idea behind the introduction was to give power to groups of individuals who were enthusiastic and would push their branch of the sport on. Each commission has a budget which they can use to fund those ideas.

Harrybelafonte

fixie fox wrote: »

We have plenty of mountains and roads. Do you know how much it would cost to heat, staff and maintain a velodrome? And who is to fund that - year in and year out. Do you think that 'they' haven't already done their best?

Yay, let the infighting begin!!!!!!

Despite where I spend most of my time I also do some MTBing and I think the way CI treat MTB to be ridiculous and should be one of the main issues resolved by CI. But Coillte have a major part to play in that resolution. A velodrome would assist us trackies obviously, but as kumate pointed out roadies would benefit too. Some MTBers are also roadies right? Lets not divide into different camps unnecessarily. We all have issues that need sorting.

Beasty

Financial resource is a massive issue that needs to be borne in mind. I know membership is up, but a lot of the new members take their subsidised €10 first year then don't come back the following year. Having said that the trend is definitely up meaning more subs over time. Unfortunately central funding has suffered in recent years and many projects need to stand up on their own.

Even Corkagh Park, which cost over €400k, was 75% or so funded by a Government grant.

With some of the new specialisms coming to the fore (and I know that Senan Turnbull is working on a number of BMX projects for example), it becomes even more difficult to secure adequate resources. That's where I think we then need commitment at a local level

In terms of the Commission structure questions were raised at the AGM and the consultation was subsequently launched. I guess if the feeling is it's not delivering (and the Track Commission was an example discussed at the AGM, but I understand there were problems with the Road Commission also), are there any suggestions on how these can be structured more efficiently and/or to offer a better "service"? I think it's unfair to put the onus on the Board for a lot of these issues - as I've already indicated they are volunteers and the CI staffing levels are quite low. I think we need more of the "new guard" (and despite my age I count myself among them) to step up to the plate and work with the old guard to see how we can improve things

One area I've not mentioned which again perhaps needs to be thought about is the commuter (beyond those of us who use our commutes to train!) - should they be embraced within CI and "incentivised" to sign up, or should CI actually be looking to streamline itself to avoid overstretching in areas which it does not have the resource and/or specialism to support?

Donegaler

morana wrote: »

There are 2 co-opted board members brought in for their expertise. These currently are Vern Power and Senan Turnbull, both very capable and welcome additions to the board if I may say so.

CI tried to get a Leisure Commission in place this year but afaik it never materialised. There is talk of a specific BMX commission because of the huge rise in that area.

The college of commissaires is the commission which they use for rule enforcements, updates, courses etc. I think it is a working commission.

I have struggled in my time with the need for provincial executives and the commissions tbh. The idea behind the introduction was to give power to groups of individuals who were enthusiastic and would push their branch of the sport on. Each commission has a budget which they can use to fund those ideas.

How do you feel about setting up County executives, elected from the clubs in that county.
Would that be another struggle for you?

morana

Donegaler wrote: »

How do you feel about setting up County executives, elected from the clubs in that county.
Would that be another struggle for you?

I am struggle free now thanks be to god!

I was against it when I was on the board tbh because I felt we would have another layer that would do what?

However, I would give it support ( if I was on the board) if the objectives were clear! They should not just be for racing imho and shouldnt be an extra cost for cyclists.

You do know you and others can setup the Donegal Cycling Association which can promote its own activities etc.?

morana

I was also looking to setup a vets commission for CI to mirror what the IVCA do but unfortunately it never got going. From my experience its better if the board pick people who will move things along and give them the resources to achieve specific goals.

I contacted ulster to see if they would try get an Ulster Vets Association going they felt it wouldnt work, I cant remeber exactly why but I left it at that.

wav1

I am a member of a provincial committee [youth rep] who do our best to help/aid within our own specific role on the committee.2 of us look after the interests of the youth/junior riders and to be honest it can be a thankless role but as i said we do our best.We have recently bought a car which at present is being transformed in to a safety car [lights,beacons,alarms,sirens etc]which will be a presence at events in the province.We are bringing 2 teams to the junior tour which entails using up a weeks leave for 4 adults.As i said just doing our best.AGM for the province last yr had committee members and reps from about 3 clubs.Disheartening for those doing their best is putting it mildly

I was also a member of the youth commission for 8 yrs which i feel in all my time in the sport was the most satisfying of all.This was a great committee and did great things.The present crop of juniors didn't happen by accident.Unfortunately this committee is no more as most of us resigned from it a few yrs ago due to restrictions and constraints[a lot of it financial]heaped upon us by the board.A lot of other commissions are at present non existent and that bothers me tbh.I was approached recently by our new head coach to attempt to get the youth thing up and going again and i agreed pending help from the powers above.

TiBoy

Beasty wrote: »

Should MTB, BMX, Cyclocross etc be lumped in together under "off-road"?
Are there other disciplines or interest groups that should be represented (such as Audax)?

The general off road tag does'nt give due recognition to the disciplines lumped under it.

Mountain biking is fundamentally different to BMX and within MTB, downhill riders prefer (need) different tracks to XC.

Cyclocross has different considerations again.

Each discipline needs its own focus group within the CI structure assisted by the overall lobbying strength of CI as a whole.

Track cycling requires new facilities as does downhill as does XC and BMX.

To all fellow cyclists, no need for an infight, we all love riding bikes:D (

morana

I suppose the question is what supports do people need from CI to do the best job possible?

wav1 your commitment to the cause should never be questioned.

TinyExplosions

morana wrote: »

I suppose the question is what supports do people need from CI to do the best job possible?

wav1 your commitment to the cause should never be questioned.

I think that that kind of hits the nail on the head... CI should be there tho support the members in what needs to be done, and if a certain number of them want to head up a specific commission, then apply to CI and if it works numbers wise then you should get support.

I think it's all well and good suggesting that we have separate BMX, MTB, CX commissions instead of lumping them under 'off-road', but it requires someone (or even better, a group of people) who is willing to take it on and try and make a difference (then you get the people that want to split XC and Downhill and not all be lumped into MTB, but you can't please everyone!)

IT's similar with Audax and Leisure etc -if there were people willing to take on roles within a commission and set it up, more power to em, but I don't think it should always be CI that say 'right, we need a new Leisure commission -anyone interested?'

-FWIW, I personally don't think there's need for a distinct Audax commission -Audax Ireland is doing great work to promote this aspect of the sport, and as they're essentially a country-wide club, they are doing as much (if not more) than a commission could do!

Donegaler

morana wrote: »

I am struggle free now thanks be to god!

I was against it when I was on the board tbh because I felt we would have another layer that would do what?

However, I would give it support ( if I was on the board) if the objectives were clear! They should not just be for racing imho and shouldnt be an extra cost for cyclists.

You do know you and others can setup the Donegal Cycling Association which can promote its own activities etc.?

We are well on the way to get the Donegal Cycling Board set up thanks to help from Tommy Lamb and Jack Watson who came to our 1st meeting.
At the next meeting we will elect a mamagement board.
I am disappointed that you were against the initiative so maybe you could explain.
This type of structure works well for the GAA.
Donegal had almost 50 votes which could have been used at the egm but only 6 were present at the meeting.In a county structure a Donegal delegate could have taken all the yes and no votes to the meeting without the need to spend full a day travelling for over 50 delegates.
Who knows maybe the Donegal Board could help organise the next Cycling Ireland AGM which should be in our County.It is Ulsters turn......
The last one was held in Ulster was in Cavan in 2009 when you were elected to the board beating me by 13 votes for that position.
I remember it well. Sam McArdle withdrew his nomination that morning but got in the following year when he was the only candidate.I think....

TinyExplosions

Donegaler wrote: »

I am disappointed that you were against the initiative so maybe you could explain.
This type of structure works well for the GAA.

Not wanting to put words in Morana's mouth, but if I was in a position of voting for and against such a structure I''d probably be against it too -the way I see it is that the main, grassroots work is done via the individual clubs around the country, and adding a county (or province, or any other layer) between the clubs and the main CI structure just gets in the way and is another level of bureaucracy and cost that gives little (imo) benefit.

Sure, informal meetings between chairs of clubs that are in proximity to each other would be great, but is an official structure really needed for that, and would it cause more problems for clubs who straddle provinces etc.

/speculation

Donegaler

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Not wanting to put words in Morana's mouth, but if I was in a position of voting for and against such a structure I''d probably be against it too -the way I see it is that the main, grassroots work is done via the individual clubs around the country, and adding a county (or province, or any other layer) between the clubs and the main CI structure just gets in the way and is another level of bureaucracy and cost that gives little (imo) benefit.

Sure, informal meetings between chairs of clubs that are in proximity to each other would be great, but is an official structure really needed for that, and would it cause more problems for clubs who straddle provinces etc.

/speculation

Maybe we will prove you wrong over the next few years.

morana

Donegaler wrote: »

The last one was held in Ulster was in Cavan in 2009 when you were elected to the board beating me by 13 votes for that position.
I remember it well. Sam McArdle withdrew his nomination that morning but got in the following year when he was the only candidate.I think....

God bless your memory. Orla Hendron was also elected. I know why Sam withdrew his nomination but I wont discuss it here but I can assure you it wasnt an orchestrated move on his or my behalf.

I think where the AGM is organised is a something for you to talk to CI/CU about. I just didnt see the need for it and what it would achieve?

What are the objectives of the Donegal County Board?

Any group of members can setup an association to promote whatever aspects of the sport they wish under association! You can brand it in anyway you want.

CI doesnt allow voting by proxy but as I said it should look at the voting structures and make changes in the articles to accommodate it if it is in the interests of a better more democratic system. Maybe we could try move a motion at this years AGM?

Apathy is CI's biggest problem. I would like to think that a huge number of members got a hell of a lot of information from me,wav1 by our presence on this forum. I asked all provinces to put on a bus to bring people to the EGM to defray travel costs and possibly make the journey a bit more craic from remote regions such as Donegal. I still think they should do it for AGM's it might increase the attendance, I know some of them have enough reserves to do it.

Sorry I am rambling!

TinyExplosions

Donegaler wrote: »

Maybe we will prove you wrong over the next few years.

And I'd love that to be the case!

TiBoy

TinyExplosions wrote: »

I think that that kind of hits the nail on the head... CI should be there tho support the members in what needs to be done, and if a certain number of them want to head up a specific commission, then apply to CI and if it works numbers wise then you should get support.

I think it's all well and good suggesting that we have separate BMX, MTB, CX commissions instead of lumping them under 'off-road', but it requires someone (or even better, a group of people) who is willing to take it on and try and make a difference (then you get the people that want to split XC and Downhill and not all be lumped into MTB, but you can't please everyone!)

IT's similar with Audax and Leisure etc -if there were people willing to take on roles within a commission and set it up, more power to em, but I don't think it should always be CI that say 'right, we need a new Leisure commission -anyone interested?'

-FWIW, I personally don't think there's need for a distinct Audax commission -Audax Ireland is doing great work to promote this aspect of the sport, and as they're essentially a country-wide club, they are doing as much (if not more) than a commission could do!

Agree if someone/organisation is doing a good job on something specific such as DH, XC, Audax etc then let them at it.

But all federated/ connected somehow to an overall national cycling body such as CI so as to access a single lobbying power that also works for the cycling community as a whole, would in my humble opinion, be beneficial...power in numbers and all that.

As a small aside, competitive DH is fundamentally different to competitive XC, from this riders perspective, although I can see those not involved in the disciplines may see them as similar...in my honest and humble opinion. Joined up under a single MTB type lobby under a CI umbrella isn't a a problem once the requirement for different course formats is recognised. Indeed joining together any sub group {dare I say sub culture:D) is ok once the important difference in facilities is recognised.