Reflecting on this year as chairman, and noting a general undercurrent of malaise and negativity these past few years surrounding the ACTC, I recently called a meeting of the Officers of the ACTC to try and formulate some suggestions to put to the member clubs for discussion prior to this September AGM, to see if we as an organisation, can try and create a more positive and productive future for the ACTC.
What brought this into focus was the declining number of ACTC championship contenders, [it seems largely brought about by the dual permit and clubmans events, as overall Trials entries are not declining to any great extent] and the related situation this decline in championship contenders raises with regards the overall funding of the ACTC.
I think it is important to re-iterate that the ACTC is an organisation of Clubs, and as such does not represent individuals. It was broadly created to inform and help, where possible, organisers of Classic Trials events. To bring co-ordinated conformity to the basic rules and regs. of Classic Trials, such that individual competitors could be confident in complying on entering events on a national level.
I feel, without a doubt, that the ACTC has successfully fulfilled its role.
This then begs the question, why the undercurrent of malaise and negativity around the organisation ?
My thought is that in these times there is even more need of an organisation to represent Classic Trials nationally, be that at the MSA or via the likes of LARA at governmental level.
To this end I would like to suggest a new mission statement for the ACTC :
‘ACTC – working for the future viability of Classic Trials’
We need to raise some fundamental questions for discussion, both individually and within our member clubs regarding the structure and ability of the ACTC to fulfill this new mission statement.
Hopefully clubs can condense these discussions and bring them to the September AGM either as separate proposals or for discussion around the points raised below.
I am hoping that this will generate some new enthusiasm for people in the sport to get involved, through their clubs, in securing a positive and secure future for Classic Trials.
Two initial question to put to the member clubs :
- Is the suggested ‘mission statement’ a worthy goal for the ACTC to strive for ?
- Is the ACTC in its current format suitable to fulfilling this mission statement ?
We identified 3 main areas to put to the clubs for discussion prior to this September AGM:
A. Voting at ACTC council meetings. [currently one vote per club]
Suggested new 4 [or drop top tier for 3] tier structure, which more correctly represents
the clubs organisers and membership numbers within the ACTC.
Tier 1 = Clubs with multiple Public Highway Classic Trials = 4 votes
Tier 2 = Clubs with one Public Highway Classis Trial = 3 votes
Tier 3 = Clubs with Single Venue Classic Trial = 2 votes
Tier 4 = Clubs who do not run a Classic Trial = 1 vote
B. Financing of the ACTC.
Accounts/budget to be split into two types of income and expenditure, split between Governance costs and Championship costs.
Any Championship must be self funding such that there is no financial burden on ACTC Governance.
ACTC clubs subscriptions should be linked to the above 3 or 4 tiered voting structure.
A suggested 3 tier organisational structure.
3 x Directors – Chairman, General Secretary and Treasurer/Company Secretary.
[quorum at AGM/General meeting = 1]
6 x Electoral Officers – 3 Directors [see above] + Motorcycle organiser/representative,
Car organiser/representative and Marketing Officer
[quorum = 4, inc.1 director]
Various club representatives are asked to fulfill the other jobs within the ACTC, e.g.
Championship scorer, Restart editor, bookkeeper, ROW officer, Webmaster, etc..
No limit on numbers, jobs can be broken down into manageable sizes.
[quorum one third number of member clubs]