Monday 21 July 2014

Cambridge Cycling Campaign - New Committee Member

Its been good news looking at new Cambridge Cycling Campaign committee members over the last couple of years - they've picked progressive, decent folk who really do seem to get what we need in cycling. That has slowly filtered down in to campaign policy and priorities, and while I don't support all they do they've been massively better.

So I was surprised when I saw that Cambridge Cycling Campaign had their new committee chap out on their stall for the Big Weekend it was ex-councillor Colin Rosenstiel.


He was more bizarrely involved in some kind of incident where he allegedly stood in the way of an ambulance on a 999 call, because driving an ambulance on to the grass on Jesus Green is wrong.

I need add nothing to last weeks news story (it has been extensively covered in local media) - other than that for all concerned we must all be glad that this is over. This story is related to the local Liberal Democrat party not supporting him in the recent elections - the whole sorry tale is recounted in a series of stories in the local media. Prior to apparently admitting to the charge Rosenstiel was quoted saying that he'd "strenuously defend" himself, and after losing the election following from the local Liberal Democrats withdrawal of support for him, Rosenstiel described said party behaviour behaviour as "brutal action".

On cycling issues we've got records of his views and statements in cam.transport (ye olde days of usenet haven't yet been forgottein in Cambridge). And its patchy. He's not always bad, but I wouldn't refer to him as an infrastructuralist. And while I don't for one moment accept collective responsibility for cyclists, I suspect I'm not the only one who groaned at the inevitability we'd all cop it in response to him losing his temper while with his bike on the train.

I was surprised that the Campaign (a politically non-partisan body) elected a prominent member of one of the local political parties their committee while the Liberal Democrats were waiting to see what happened with his court case. It seemed foolhardy. If I'm honest I don't get it - he brings 40 years of experience as a councillor but he's an easy target for those seeking to criticise the organisation. And I've got to ask -  if the Lib Dems were backing away from him, why is he good enough for the cycling campaign while the same legal process was ongoing?

I dunno, I don't get it, perhaps some of the Camcycle folk who turned up and voted him on to the committee at that meeting will come along and put me right - am I missing something fundamental that explains all of this.? It could be a mistake. The appointment of a prominent ex-councillor, a political figure in this city, and one who was at the time rather under a cloud seems strange, looks like a regressive step for the campaign.

EDIT: Position of Liberal Democrat party couldn't be clearer. Colin R. is no longer welcome to stand for them. 

15 comments:

  1. Agreed—this is an appointment that the Campaign will regret. Rosenstiel has always been a bullshitter and often argues for compromise with (i.e. surrender to) the Council. Many members of the Campaign object to him and there have been occasional cases where members have been unable to "take any more crap from the toerag Colin Rosenstiel" (to quote an incident from 2009). But volunteer groups depend on people turning up and volunteering, and if Rosenstiel is there and you aren't, then you know what is going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Curious. Whats this 2009 incident of which you speak?

      Delete
  2. I think "patchy" is over generous. Taking weeks to admit he didn't really know of a lane that was the recommended width is entirely fitting with his consistent defence of narrow lanes in dooring zones on the grounds he didn't understand how cycle lanes work.

    ReplyDelete
  3. He's also been repeatedly dismissive of the Campaign as unrepresentative extremists. I'm surprised to find he's a member, let alone a committee member. I suppose now he's not a councillor he'll have less pressure to follow the party line, but it still seems a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As a CCC member who could not be at the meeting and who to my shame rarely makes meetings, I think that those who elected him have severely lost the plot.

    1. This man is a liability to any organisation with a public face that he is a member of, let alone one he represents.
    2. His appointment, while not in itself political will be seen as that. We need to get him out as soon as possible even if that means calling an E.G.M.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gareth makes a good point about volunteers and turning up though. Not honouring a valid election would have been a bigger mistake. (Apologies if this is a duplicate, the previous copy vanished with no feedback when I pressed "Publish".)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I wasn't there on the night. As I understand it there were three posts for election with two people standing and in those situations the convention is that the candidates are accepted in to the post; there is no need for an election.

    Remember that the Cycling Campaign is an entirely volunteer-run organisation and like many others is happy to have the help from those willing to give time.

    Perhaps other commenters would like to stand at the AGM in October?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'None of the above' needs to be a valid stance in any campaign group. And it seems that isn't the case at the cycling campaign. And 'well you didn't stand' seems a poor criticism when it's possible for someone to sort of sneak on to the committee, which seems to be how you describe it.

      Personally I express my disagreement with committee selection by not being a member - never been convinced by the argument that I should join an organisation I disagree with in order to change it.

      Delete
  7. This could only happen in Cambridge.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I was at this meeting. As already explained there were three available posts with two volunteers. They were each seconded by an audience member. No vote as no-one running in opposition.

    To my embarrassment I didn't register him as ex-councillor Colin Rosenstiel until later in the evening. Nor could I say that I've have made the connection on the evening to the stories you've linked had I recognised him.

    In the run up to the evening I did toy with volunteering myself. Decided against it on this occasion due to family commitments. I was anticipating making an introductory spiel had I stood. So was surprised when this didn't happen. So again, with hindsight, embarrassing that I didn't make anything of this at the time. Not that we can know if it would have changed the situation.

    So yes thank you for the post. Certainly some personal lessons in there for me; Pay more attention to local media & politics. Have the courage to question proceedings. Revisit decision to stand next time round (perhaps pending progress on first two).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the things I most admire in the folk who do run Camcycle is how much time they put in to it - its stunning, really, and without question I applaud that. But I'm baffled if none of them made the connection here - I just don't want to believe that those present were, collectively, so naive. I'm left wondering if its a calculated risk but I'm left without enough information to make sense of how they calculated it.

      Delete
  9. It is more or less as others have said.

    The campaign did not fill all the committee vacancies at the last AGM. We desperately need more active volunteers and committee members. This has not been the first time I have said this, and it certainly won’t be the last: volunteer time is the limiting factor on our campaigning activity. There is no shortage of planning applications, community activities, road changes proposals and consultations to be involved with.

    The 3 committee vacancies, and the EGM to fill them, were announced with about a month’s notice, via the campaign newsletter which, whether digital or physical, is sent to every member. Come the meeting, we had only two volunteers to fill them. Both volunteers were long-standing members of the campaign. Neither had advised us in advance that they would stand, nor did they necessarily give the impression of having committed to do so in advance: there was initial silence when we asked for volunteers.

    Between AGMs the committee members are not voted upon, unless there are more volunteers than committee posts. There was a volunteer and a second for each new committee member.

    I was likewise added to the committee mid-term last year.

    At the AGM, all existing committee members are obliged to stand down, and then re-stand if they wish to continue. The AGM is November. I would welcome there being enough candidates to hold a proper election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I mentioned in a comment above, I remain unconvinced by the 'join and change us' argument. I disapprove of the direction taken by UKIP, I'm not joining them to change it. You join campaigning groups you agree with and all too often I don't agree with Camcycle. I especially won't be part of a group that sleep-walksin to Colin R. being on the committee.

      Gotta ask - looking at Colin Rs record, how can he continue as part of your committee? In the position of sharing such a committee with him I'd have to request his resignation - and if it were not forthcoming I'd resign. I don't understand how anything else is tenable in light of the news stories posted above.

      So, join and change things? No. I couldn't sit on such a committee if the presence of another member thereof would necessitate my resignation.

      Delete
  10. Just a quick note - I deleted a comment from 'anonymous' as it contained accusations vs. Colin R. that weren't backed up with any information. While the tone of comments towards Colin here is rather negative, I felt that the accusation itself crossed a line and rather needed some more information to back it up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete