CI AGM 2016

CramCycle

Notice is up, I know the date was leaked awhile ago but official announcement here:
http://www.cyclingireland.ie/cycling-news-item/2016-agm-first-notice/2190

and here:
http://www.cyclingireland.ie/downloads/ci_agm_first_notice_2016.pdf

Eamonnator

You have to post an asking price!

Captain Havoc

Moved from Cycling Adverts

RobFowl

Weepsie wrote: »

Do you have to be a club member and have it signed by club chair and secretary to put forward a motion?

Yes, then you have to turn up and propose it and get a seconder from the delegates to have it voted on.

morana

Weepsie wrote: »

Will anyone put forward a motion to reinstate a leisure commission giving it represents a large body of it's members or are the events, communications and education people the de facto leisure people?

to be honest if you wanted to volunteer to do it I am 100% sure CI would let you get on with it. I am not being smart but I know a LC was something they wanted to establish and couldnt find anyone to run it.

Beasty

Anything intersting to see and do in Limerick?

Was driving the getaway car on my last trp to Munster 4 yeras ago and didn't get much chance to take in the scenery.....

CramCycle

Weepsie wrote: »

I guess they want people to join clubs, and clubs want people to join them, but how can the many leisure members that are not in clubs who may have some good ideas (for the record I have none) have any input. I'm pretty sure this as cropped up here recently when the furore over the one day fee was discussed. You'd also open it up to an avalanche of motions that will never be gotten through. Cycledub would have a field day (I assume he's not in a club).

Will anyone put forward a motion to reinstate a leisure commission giving it represents a large body of it's members or are the events, communications and education people the de facto leisure people?

As Morana said, unless you have volunteers to run it, it won't happen. It has cropped up a few times but when people were asked, the people who wanted it, did n't want to volunteer.

This said, if you are not in a club, you can submit your idea to a club who could submit it on your behalf. They could then give their speaking rights on the issue over to you at the AGM as far as I know. Long way round I suppose.

CramCycle

Anyone hear or have any ideas of different proposals to put forward or being put forward for the AGM?

lennymc

I would think with the introduction of the road commission, should (as beasty has pointed out on numerous occasion, like, at least 200 billion times) suggestions for changes to road racing should go there and not the agm?

CramCycle

lennymc wrote: »

I would think with the introduction of the road commission, should (as beasty has pointed out on numerous occasion, like, at least 200 billion times) suggestions for changes to road racing should go there and not the agm?

Doesn't mean there are not proposals to be made relevant to CI operations, as well as the possibility that the road commission may not be noticed by those already with proposals in motion. I do presume any related ones at the AGM will be shunted to the road commission after being read out.

wav1

Beasty wrote: »

Anything intersting to see and do in Limerick?

Was driving the getaway car on my last trp to Munster 4 yeras ago and didn't get much chance to take in the scenery.....

That was only a recky for what was to come the following year

Mercian Pro

wav1 wrote: »

Cycling Leinster have agreed with Cycling Ireland just this week after lots of talks to finance a full time Events person[official title TBC] to oversee mostly leisure events,meet with organisers pre events,ensure all the boxes are ticked in relation to events being run as safely as possible etc etc etc.To be employed by CI and financed from Leinster.Financed by the extra e5 levy on the leisure licences agreed at last years AGM which was to go to the provinces.I know its not perfect but should help somewhat.This employee also will have ears open at all times to listen to what the bulk of leisure members expect/want going forward.Again its a start.

Weepsie wrote: »

Will anyone put forward a motion to reinstate a leisure commission giving it represents a large body of it's members or are the events, communications and education people the de facto leisure people?

Does wav1's post from another thread partly answer your question Weepsie?

Beasty

lennymc wrote: »

I would think with the introduction of the road commission, should (as beasty has pointed out on numerous occasion, like, at least 200 billion times) suggestions for changes to road racing should go there and not the agm?

One idea that may progress is to have a separate "Congress" when "non-company" matters could be discussed in a way that does not attempt to bind the "company". That would include any racing matters not referred to/dealt with by Commissions. This is a model currently in place with Swim Ireland.

The AGM really should be considering company matters, including the accounts, appointment of board members, and changes to the constitution.

Whether the current board (and indeed membership) like it or not, there are going to be significant governance changes down the line. The recent scandals/controversies involving the likes of the OCI and IABA means we can expect significant changes for any organisations getting any government money with an expectation of additional governance procedures

wav1

Beasty wrote: »

One idea that may progress is to have a separate "Congress" when "non-company" matters could be discussed in a way that does not attempt to bind the "company". That would include any racing matters not referred to/dealt with by Commissions. This is a model currently in place with Swim Ireland.

The AGM really should be considering company matters, including the accounts, appointment of board members, and changes to the constitution.

Whether the current board (and indeed membership) like it or not, there are going to be significant governance changes down the line. The recent scandals/controversies involving the likes of the OCI and IABA means we can expect significant changes for any organisations getting any government money with an expectation of additional governance procedures

Ah no..Thats me out of action for a while.Going to be rotting in a jail somewhere for touting stage end tickets for the ras.

CramCycle

lennymc wrote: »

I would think with the introduction of the road commission, should (as beasty has pointed out on numerous occasion, like, at least 200 billion times) suggestions for changes to road racing should go there and not the agm?

Beasty wrote: »

One idea that may progress is to have a separate "Congress" when "non-company" matters could be discussed in a way that does not attempt to bind the "company". That would include any racing matters not referred to/dealt with by Commissions. This is a model currently in place with Swim Ireland.

Completely agree with the above but was just wondering. If you had an issue, that spans all areas of the sport but was technically not for the AGM. Would the congress cover it or would it be a seperate congress for each area.

Lets say for example a club put forward a motion to not ignore the Irish ADA rulings but that any positive test would not only have to sit out the ban handed down by them but also a longer ban from cycling as defined by CI. This would not be road or MTB or CX or BMX or other specific. Lets say a rider gets a positive, the ADA hand down a 2 year suspension, and then the new regs voted on by members either handed down a longer sentence or even a lifetime ban. Who or where would you bring up such a suggestion at the current time.

Eg U18 is a 2 year ban minimum regardless of the ADA ruling, U24 is a 4 year ban regardless of ADA ruling and over 24 is a lifetime ban. I suppose all you would be doing is bannign them from being a member of CI, they can toddle off to another federation if they wish.

ednwireland

Any one going. Hope to be there seeing as I'm not working this weekend now.

wav1

I'm going.Purely to keep the decibel levels at the normal level.Seriously as there are no big elections or no real contentious motions I think there will be a pretty poor turnout which is a shame as I think every club should be represented regardless of whats on the agenda.Lack of a central venue this year will also be an issue I'm afraid..Hope i'm wrong.

Beasty

Alas I'm not going to be able to make it this year as I'll be supervising kids. Shame as I agree with wav1 that it would be better if all clubs could send someone, but I also agree there's probably going to be a lower attendance than in recent years.

I disagree on one point though wav - there's at least one "regular" who can significantly "out-decibel" you!!

CramCycle

I too cannot make it for family reasons.

On the motions put forward:

Youth licenses to increase from €5 to €10 - I disagree, I am very much of the opinion they should be left alone or reduced. Anything that encourages youth participation, no matter how small, is a positive.

DQ for hands off the bar for a youth: was there an incident? Is there a genuine concern here?

Harrybelafonte

CramCycle wrote: »

I too cannot make it for family reasons.

On the motions put forward:

Youth licenses to increase from €5 to €10 - I disagree, I am very much of the opinion they should be left alone or reduced. Anything that encourages youth participation, no matter how small, is a positive.

DQ for hands off the bar for a youth: was there an incident? Is there a genuine concern here?

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/was-it-fair-to-take-leinster-road-title-away-from-u16-rider/

JK.BMC

Attended the AGM this year and must say it was an interesting experience. I never knew such small detail could evoke such elongated debate and conjecture.

I was beginning to lose the will to live, like most others I suspect, as we took nearly an hour to decide whether/how we should increase the cost of a leisure licence by a tenner. The notion that cycling licence fee increase was akin to 'water charges' was the low point of the whole thing - the fact that a year-long leisure licence costs the same as a good front tyre, as the president noted, more or less sums up my attitude to it. Pay up and get on with it.

Youth riders will need to keep their hands on the handlebars from the 200m point to go, until 100m after the finish line, with the proviso that they can wave one hand in triumph if they deemed to be sufficiently 'clear' of the others at the line...

The very best of luck to all ye Commissaires in enforcing that one!

Lots of other stuff happened but I was down the back and out of harms way. Will await the official version from CI to recap.

Finally, it seemed to me that of those attending, the overwhelming number (90%?) were from a racing background. Perhaps this is the norm

Beasty

JK.BMC wrote: »

Finally, it seemed to me that of those attending, the overwhelming number (90%?) were from a racing background. Perhaps this is the norm

Pretty much so which is a big shame as it means the leisure side of things tends to get neglected at the expense of some on the racing side who often (certainly not always) have an agenda

Your experience of the AGM is pretty consistent with my own over the previous 4 years

JK.BMC

Beasty wrote: »

Pretty much so which is a big shame as it means the leisure side of things tends to get neglected at the expense of some on the racing side who often (certainly not always) have an agenda

Your experience of the AGM is pretty consistent with my own over the previous 4 years

There is a clear resolve to revive the leisure commission- this is a really good idea as it is clearly the place where leisure issues should be dealt with.
Now- I wonder how many of the 20000 leisure members come forward to help with the agenda. I hope it kicks off straight away

Beasty

I think that's the main issue. It really needs people on the leisure side to step up to the plate, make their feelings known, and be prepared to do something about it (as currently happens with the racers)

if in doubt

JK.BMC wrote: »

There is a clear resolve to revive the leisure commission- this is a really good idea as it is clearly the place where leisure issues should be dealt with.
Now- I wonder how many of the 20000 leisure members come forward to help with the agenda. I hope it kicks off straight away

Obviously actually getting people to come forward to get involved with the commission is the big issue.

The re-establishment of the road commission was brought up at last year's AGM and it didn't actually take shape until July or August this year. And even at that as was said today the people involved in it are or were already very heavily involved in other commissions and other areas - for an organisation so dependant on volunteers it's unfortunate that a lot of the time it's the same people putting themselves forward again and again - certainly not meant as a slight on those individuals, moreso how there's a lot more people coming up with ideas than there is actually looking to act on them.

As was discussed the increased leisure licence fee is going towards funding two provincial development officers who'll be focusing solely on leisure. It should be a big step forward for Leinster and Ulster.

Delegates from both the Connacht and Munster commissions said they wanted to use the money generated by the increased by putting it back into cycling in the province. They both made funds available to clubs but nobody came looking for any. Clubs can complain about not seeing the benefit of the increased fees but if they're not proactive in looking for things what do they expect?

There was a lot of promising talk around the leisure commission so hopefully they're able to move forward with it soon.

As AGM's go it was certainly one of the smoother ones I've been, never really descended into a shouting a match and there was some really interesting info put forward re the medical committee.

ednwireland

I really didn't understand the rational behind the 10 euro increase in the limited competition licence. The logic seemed to be some guys are racing 3 or 4 times a week on them and the president couldn't race that many open events a week so they should pay more I only race 6 to 8 events a year on mine.

I think I was the only person to vote against the rises.

JK.BMC

Beasty wrote: »

I think that's the main issue. It really needs people on the leisure side to step up to the plate, make their feelings known, and be prepared to do something about it (as currently happens with the racers)

I have a theory/hunch based upon various chats with people on this issue, including today over lunch.
It occurs to me the vast majority of leisure and sportive cyclists get their kicks out of just riding their bikes and generally don't think much about admin or politics; strava and cake is much more enjoyable than committee work and marshalling; and it's a valid point of view, once you then don't expect much from the National Governing Body other than insurance and some cheaper entry fees and benefits at various events. Maybe that is just the way it is.

So what is the leisure 'agenda' therefore?
Based upon today's proposals and debate, it is about cheaper membership fees and the chance to enter certain races without having a racing licence. That's about it, as I observed today.

Is it any wonder that these proposals were comprehensively defeated?

Beasty

CI gets a lot of its cash from leisure members (and to be clear I'm actually from the racing side). There was a big stink last year (certainly on Boards if not at the AGM!) about the leisure licence increase as there is a question as to what they actually get for their money. If they feel disillusioned they may simply not join up again, and anything they do "contribute" to other disciplines is then lost

I do think there is something for CI to build on for leisure riders. They do claim to represent all aspects of cycling and should do what they can to avoid a large proportion of their membership feeling disenfranchised

robyntmorton

Beasty wrote: »

I do think there is something for CI to build on for leisure riders. They do claim to represent all aspects of cycling and should do what they can to avoid a large proportion of their membership feeling disenfranchised

Im not a member of CI, but I am considering it. I am not, nor will I ever be a racer. I am a leisure cyclist, who may do more sportive cycling in the new year. My difficulty is in seeing exactly what leisure CI membership gives.

I can as a result understand why someone on the inside may be feeling disenfranchised.

JK.BMC

robyntmorton wrote: »

Im not a member of CI, but I am considering it. I am not, nor will I ever be a racer. I am a leisure cyclist, who may do more sportive cycling in the new year. My difficulty is in seeing exactly what leisure CI membership gives.

I can as a result understand why someone on the inside may be feeling disenfranchised.

The licence fee increase today is to be directed towards improving supports around leisure cycling and coaching/leadership in the provinces of Leinster and Ulster. Repeatedly, leisure cyclists have been asked 'what do you want?' for the price paid and as I mentioned above, the evidence from today is that some want a fee reduction and to be allowed into certain races. Not a lot of vision or inspiration there; maybe this 'disenfranchisement' is a false outrage; who exactly is kicking up and how many?
What do they want? I have heard those 4 words umpteen times in the last 5 years.

if in doubt

JK.BMC wrote: »

The licence fee increase today is to be directed towards improving supports around leisure cycling and coaching/leadership in the provinces of Leinster and Ulster. Repeatedly, leisure cyclists have been asked 'what do you want?' for the price paid and as I mentioned above, the evidence from today is that some want a fee reduction and to be allowed into certain races. Not a lot of vision or inspiration there; maybe this 'disenfranchisement' is a false outrage; who exactly is kicking up and how many?
What do they want? I have heard those 4 words umpteen times in the last 5 years.

There wasn't actually an increase to the leisure fee today though, there were 2 motions to reduce it back to last year's rate which were didn't go through. Assume if they did go through it would have had a direct negative affect on the two regional roles.

What do leisure members want?

Well the other 2 provinces had money available to clubs but nobody came looking for any of it apparently.

Cheaper licences? I'm sure racers would want that too.

Entry to competitive events? Then that removes the need to have a competitive licence.

ednwireland

JK.BMC wrote: »

The licence fee increase today is to be directed towards improving supports around leisure cycling and coaching/leadership in the provinces of Leinster and Ulster. Repeatedly, leisure cyclists have been asked 'what do you want?' for the price paid and as I mentioned above, the evidence from today is that some want a fee reduction and to be allowed into certain races. Not a lot of vision or inspiration there; maybe this 'disenfranchisement' is a false outrage; who exactly is kicking up and how many?
What do they want? I have heard those 4 words umpteen times in the last 5 years.

no licence fee increase for leisure riders

certainly there is talk of ensuring more consistency in sportive offerings, and possibly value for money. (funny because i think the an post events this year weren't value for money this year with the cost - in fact to the point that i dont think i will do one again i beleive they are partnered with cycling ireland)

edit: also most sportives in the country are run by cycling ireland affiliated clubs

JK.BMC

ednwireland wrote: »

no licence fee increase for leisure riders

certainly there is talk of ensuring more consistency in sportive offerings, and possibly value for money. (funny because i think the an post events this year weren't value for money this year with the cost - in fact to the point that i dont think i will do one again i beleive they are partnered with cycling ireland)

Yes; sorry, no increase. My mistake.
In fact there was so much talk about it that you would think it was the Universal Social Charge or something like it!

wav1

JK.BMC wrote: »

Yes; sorry, no increase. My mistake.
In fact there was so much talk about it that you would think it was the Universal Social Charge or something like it!

Well one speaker from the leisure sector did refer to the leisure licence fee as being akin to water charges.
From 2017 there will be a e5 levy on non licence holders at sportives.This was passed at AGM.Only right I feel that they pay more than a licence holder.So if a non licence holder intends to ride at least 9 per year they are already saving money by paying the e40 licence fee.
As suggested already and referred to at meeting there is need/plans/budget etc for a leisure commission but at the end of the day,people still have to stand up and do it from within the sector and theres where the problems start.
New non appointed board member seems to be anxious to get it going as his background is leisure..Hope it goes ahead as it is needed.

CramCycle

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/was-it-fair-to-take-leinster-road-title-away-from-u16-rider/

What a crock, guess sportsmanship is dead for some people.

JK.BMC wrote: »

Attended the AGM this year and must say it was an interesting experience. I never knew such small detail could evoke such elongated debate and conjecture.

It is alas the same with almost any AGM which is sport related. Possibly more tedious due to it being the national body over a club.

Finally, it seemed to me that of those attending, the overwhelming number (90%?) were from a racing background. Perhaps this is the norm

Yep, Moy understanding is that other disciplines don't see the point and keep their stuff to their commission.

The apathy from predominately leisure clubs arises IMO from the fact that years ago they felt that any requests to CI were ignored. Most who have been around long enough now decry the thought of asking CI for help as that view still persists. Which is a pity as it seems for the first time in a long time if leisure related items were brought up with clubs there to back them they would go through.

This said I was not there, and as such, can hardly complain.

jinkypolly

if in doubt wrote: »

Delegates from both the Connacht and Munster commissions said they wanted to use the money generated by the increased by putting it back into cycling in the province. They both made funds available to clubs but nobody came looking for any.

This isn't true. The club I'm in applied.

Beasty

There's no reason Ulster and Leinster could not do something similar with some of that incremental funding. As Treasurer of a club in Leinster I would certainly be interested in applying for something that could be put towards bikes for youth members for example (that would remain club property but could be passed on to others as kids grow out of them)

morana

let me fly this one!

In this day and age i think some form of proxy voting should be allowed. Now i would have been in the camp of if you dont turn up you dont vote. Apart from elections which i think you should be there to vote on 50% of a clubs votes should be allowed to be submitted in advance of the meeting.

Also, I think there needs to be separation of the racing/Hp from all the other cycling and it should be self sufficient.

CramCycle

morana wrote: »

let me fly this one!

In this day and age i think some form of proxy voting should be allowed. Now i would have been in the camp of if you dont turn up you dont vote. Apart from elections which i think you should be there to vote on 50% of a clubs votes should be allowed to be submitted in advance of the meeting.

Also, I think there needs to be separation of the racing/Hp from all the other cycling and it should be self sufficient.

I agree with the proxy voting although I remember the reason this got shot down before was issues with ammendments etc. There could be ways round this via alterations and a later vote of yes, no and yes without the alterations. Live casting of the event via Skype or similar could also cover this.

Something to put forward for next year.

The racing/HP should eventually separate with the formation of the road commission and eventually most of the submitted proposals would be referred to the relevant commissions as a matter of course.

wav1

jinkypolly wrote: »

This isn't true. The club I'm in applied.

h
Here lies the problem.You read about this on here and comment accordingly.
If you or your club were represented at AGM you could have taken this up on the day and bring it to the attention of the meeting.As it is you will have to wait another 364 days to address it.Hence the need for ALL clubs to make the effort to attend.

Beasty

wav1 wrote: »

h
Here lies the problem.You read about this on here and comment accordingly.
If you or your club were represented at AGM you could have taken this up on the day and bring it to the attention of the meeting.As it is you will have to wait another 364 days to address it.Hence the need for ALL clubs to make the effort to attend.

In this particular example it really should not be a CI AGM matter. The club in question can now contact their Province and sort it out at that level

guanciale

I think some people here are being a tad unfair in leisure cyclists. I would imagine that a sizeable number of leisure cyclists are not in a club and cycle by themselves (or with a small group of mates) and do perhaps leads than 10 events on the CI calendar. For these people the license is an economically questionable expenditure. I am one of these folks and the only reason that I have a license is to get an event on the CI calendar (& I have no issue with that given event insurance etc).
However it is unreasonable I feel to suggest that if they don't turn up then they should put up/shut up. Turning up requires club membership and many don't have it or want it - it might be nice but should be compulsory as cycling isn't that type of sport.
I think that an online voting system of all members should be facilitated as this is a reasonably fair way to ascertain membership needs and wants.

JK.BMC

guanciale wrote: »

I think some people here are being a tad unfair in leisure cyclists. I would imagine that a sizeable number of leisure cyclists are not in a club and cycle by themselves (or with a small group of mates) and do perhaps leads than 10 events on the CI calendar. For these people the license is an economically questionable expenditure. I am one of these folks and the only reason that I have a license is to get an event on the CI calendar (& I have no issue with that given event insurance etc).
However it is unreasonable I feel to suggest that if they don't turn up then they should put up/shut up. Turning up requires club membership and many don't have it or want it - it might be nice but should be compulsory as cycling isn't that type of sport.
I think that an online voting system of all members should be facilitated as this is a reasonably fair way to ascertain membership needs and wants.

You lost me there somewhere- who or what is unfair? It's hard to ascertain opinions/agendas of people who don't turn up/speak up etc.

JK.BMC

guanciale wrote: »

I think some people here are being a tad unfair in leisure cyclists. I would imagine that a sizeable number of leisure cyclists are not in a club and cycle by themselves (or with a small group of mates) and do perhaps leads than 10 events on the CI calendar. For these people the license is an economically questionable expenditure. I am one of these folks and the only reason that I have a license is to get an event on the CI calendar (& I have no issue with that given event insurance etc).
However it is unreasonable I feel to suggest that if they don't turn up then they should put up/shut up. Turning up requires club membership and many don't have it or want it - it might be nice but should be compulsory as cycling isn't that type of sport.
I think that an online voting system of all members should be facilitated as this is a reasonably fair way to ascertain membership needs and wants.

Am I correct?

10 events x 5euro a pop for non CI riders = 50euro

Cost of CI Leisure Licence = 40euro

????????

Eamonnator

JK.BMC wrote: »

Am I correct?

10 events x 5euro a pop for non CI riders = 50euro

Cost of CI Leisure Licence = 40euro

????????

Yes, and you also get 3rd party and personal insurance, included, with your licence.

RobFowl

JK.BMC wrote: »

You lost me there somewhere- who or what is unfair? It's hard to ascertain opinions/agendas of people who don't turn up/speak up etc.

Non club members don't have a vote at the AGM.

JK.BMC

RobFowl wrote: »

Non club members don't have a vote at the AGM.

Yes. Which is the way any organisation would run its affairs I would think.

cython

RobFowl wrote: »

Non club members don't have a vote at the AGM.

JK.BMC wrote: »

Yes. Which is the way any organisation would run its affairs I would think.

I may be misinterpreting RobFowl's post, but I think he may be suggesting that non-club riders with a CI license have no vote (i.e. unattached), as opposed to non-members of CI? If this is the case, then that's a bit ridiculous, IMHO, and after a fashion results in their license being worth less. I really hope you are not suggesting that the scenario I have described has no issues?

CramCycle

There are several clubs who would allow reasonable requests for motions on the behalf of non affiliated cyclists. This said if a few people volunteered and ran the vaunted leisure commission they could sort it out there and have them bring concerns forward in a more structured fashion.

Eamonnator

cython wrote: »

I may be misinterpreting RobFowl's post, but I think he may be suggesting that non-club riders with a CI license have no vote (i.e. unattached), as opposed to non-members of CI? If this is the case, then that's a bit ridiculous, IMHO, and after a fashion results in their license being worth less. I really hope you are not suggesting that the scenario I have described has no issues?

Members of C.I., who are not members of an affiliated club,do not have a vote at the A.G.M., nor does every member of a club. Each club can nominate a number of delegates, who have voting rights. The number of delegates is based on the size of a club.

if in doubt

cython wrote: »

I may be misinterpreting RobFowl's post, but I think he may be suggesting that non-club riders with a CI license have no vote (i.e. unattached), as opposed to non-members of CI? If this is the case, then that's a bit ridiculous, IMHO, and after a fashion results in their license being worth less. I really hope you are not suggesting that the scenario I have described has no issues?

Should CI go down the same route as Athletics Ireland and make it a requirement that members join a club?

guanciale wrote: »

I think some people here are being a tad unfair in leisure cyclists. I would imagine that a sizeable number of leisure cyclists are not in a club and cycle by themselves (or with a small group of mates) and do perhaps leads than 10 events on the CI calendar. For these people the license is an economically questionable expenditure. I am one of these folks and the only reason that I have a license is to get an event on the CI calendar (& I have no issue with that given event insurance etc).
However it is unreasonable I feel to suggest that if they don't turn up then they should put up/shut up. Turning up requires club membership and many don't have it or want it - it might be nice but should be compulsory as cycling isn't that type of sport.
I think that an online voting system of all members should be facilitated as this is a reasonably fair way to ascertain membership needs and wants.

Maybe I'm picking this up wrong but are you saying the only reason you have club membership is so the club adds an event to the calendar for you? Or that you're only a member to get the event insured and you have a club you're not a member of add it to the calendar for you?

If it's the latter then why not just join the club? Also if they're already accommodating an event for you then I'd imagine they might be open to the idea of putting forward any motion you might have at an AGM.