Multiple Australian cycling clubs have lodged formal documentation with AusCycling in an attempt to trigger a special general meeting, bringing to a head plans and discussions that have been in the works for a number of months amid evident discontent among at least some of the organisation’s member clubs.
The resolutions have come to the fore in a time of falling membership, volunteer strain, rising costs and with clubs raising concerns over the junior pathway. They call for change right to the top of the organisation, specifically the removal of the AusCycling Chair, Craig Bingham, and Chief Executive Officer, Marne Fechner.
You may like
One emanates from the Midland Cycle Club and includes the resolutions for a vote on the removal of the Chair and CEO, and there is another from Canberra Cycling Club – which includes resolutions on the election of Chloe Hosking as a director and also a members’ expression of support for the former professional cyclist to be appointed as Chair. After discussions with multiple sources close to the process, Cyclingnews understands from those driving the submissions that both requests were lodged with AusCycling in February, with more than enough clubs signing and returning the forms to cross the 5% of vote threshold that triggers a meeting under the Australian Corporations Act.
“It would be premature to provide a running commentary on timing, volume or classification prior to that assessment being completed, nor would it be appropriate to comment publicly on proposed resolutions concerning individual directors, employees or board candidacies outside the organisation’s formal governance processes,” said AusCycling.
What is behind the requests?
It has now been more than five years since AusCycling was formed, amalgamating 19 separate governing bodies across various cycling disciplines – including road, BMX and mountain biking – into one national organisation. The background to those opening years has been one of falling individual memberships – with members in 2022 sitting at 57,384 according to the annual report, falling to 52,210 by 2024 – and alterations to the way the business has been structured that have not been welcomed by all.
What to read next
The cycling organisation itself said in its 2024 annual report, released last year, while summarising the completion of the first phase of its plan ‘Horizon One – A Strong Foundation’, that “many clubs are now strongly connected with us, but there is work to be done to ensure that everyone feels the benefits of a unified approach”. Fechner also acknowledged in quotes alongside the summary that “we certainly haven’t met everyone’s expectations – including our own – but we have achieved so much to be proud of. More importantly, we now have a clear view of what’s critical in 2025 and beyond.”
Though, clearly, into 2025 and now 2026, there are those who are still not content with the path that has been taken, and, given that the involved clubs believe they have sufficient numbers to call a meeting, it is not an insignificant percentage among the club member group which, according to the AusCycling 2024 annual report, comprised of 470 affiliated clubs.
Hosking – a former professional cyclist, now lawyer and bike brand founder with husband Jack Lindsay – has discussed on multiple occasions on LinkedIn the issues surrounding brewing discussions around a Special General Meeting.
“Calls like this SGM don’t emerge in a vacuum,” said Hosking in one LinkedIn post late last year, when an early proposal emerged from New South Wales based-club Harlequin Cycling that advocated a return to the partially state-based federated model. “They surface when clubs feel distant from the decisions that affect them daily: event delivery, membership products, facilities, volunteer strain, and the policies that shape pathways and participation.”
Still now, with the question of leadership having come to the fore, Hosking’s role has expanded as she has now become one of those named in the resolutions, which go beyond removing the current players and also call for a vote on some aspects of the leadership path forward.
“This is business pragmatism,” said Club Volunteer Lindsay – who has been working on the proposal emanating from Canberra – of the calls for change. “Five years ago we consolidated into a single AusCycling entity under the current leadership. Since that time, membership has declined and concerns have been raised repeatedly about grassroots participation, national pathways, and club engagement.
“I have spoken directly with more than 200 clubs across the country. The consistent message is frustration that the strategic objectives of the merger have not translated into measurable growth or stronger participation. In any organisation, when performance trends negatively over a sustained period, it is reasonable and responsible for members to review leadership.”
The two senior leaders who are the subject of the resolutions, Fechner and Bingham, have both been in the key roles at the organisation for a number of years. Fechner, who was previously the Chief Executive Officer at Netball Australia, was appointed as the inaugural CEO from the start of 2021, while Bingham was appointed Chair in 2022.
After being asked by Cyclingnews via email if AusCycling believed that keeping the current Chair and CEO in place was in the best interests of the sport, the organisation said: “The Board’s responsibility is to ensure clear strategic focus, leadership accountability and organisational stability while reforms are being delivered.
“The Board has full confidence in the Chair and CEO, who continue to lead with professionalism and integrity. AusCycling remains committed to transparent governance, respectful engagement and the long-term health of cycling in Australia, and our focus remains on serving the interests of clubs, participants and the wider cycling community across all levels of the sport.”
The evolving path
The meeting requests didn’t just materialise in recent weeks, but rather it has been an evolving situation and AusCycling has been aware that discussion around a potential SGM has been brewing for some months.
Another proposal was up for discussion among various member clubs, but Cyclingnews understands that the focus of the formal requests from the involved member clubs, as it currently stands, is centred on seeking a vote on just the four resolutions. The first two regarding the removals initially circulating, but then that latter triggered thoughts of ‘what next?’ if the removals occurred, and that’s when – late in January – the next step was contemplated, and the proposals involving Hosking were also introduced.
The current resolutions in the proposals, according to documents obtained from the initiating clubs, call for:
The removal of Craig Bingham as a Director and Chair with immediate effectThe removal of Marne Fechner as Chief Executive Officer with immediate effect and initiation of an open, transparent recruitment process for a new CEO The election of Chloe Hosking as a Director of AusCycling with effect from the close of the meetingAn expression of support from voting members for the appointment of Chloe Hosking to the position of Chair and a call upon the Board to give due consideration to the clearly expressed will of the membership in electing the Chair of AusCycling.
The latter two resolutions came about after moves on the first two were already well in progress, as consideration of what was next if the positions were left vacant led to Canberra Cycling Club putting forward Hosking.
Hosking has a history with AusCycling beyond her role as one of Australia’s top road performers for more than a decade, as she also stood for the Board in 2023 but missed out then. In 2024, revised eligibility criteria were introduced requiring a minimum of three years governance experience as a Board Director on a State or National Board within the past three years. Hosking outlined in a LinkedIn post last week that under the revised criteria, Canberra Cycling Club’s nomination of her could not proceed to a vote.
Under the AusCycling Constitution: “The Directors may determine position or role descriptions or necessary qualifications for Director positions” and also that “The Nominations Committee has the power to determine that a nomination is unsuitable for further consideration by the Company, the Directors or the Members but only if this decision is unanimous.”
As is perhaps demonstrated by the situation above, there are a wide range of rules, regulations and mechanisms involved in a meeting and calling it even in ordinary circumstances, both under the AusCycling Constitution and Australian Corporations Act.
If after AusCycling’s consideration of the communications formally seeking to requisition a Special General Meeting, “in accordance with the appropriate legal and constitutional processes” it does in fact go ahead, there are certain timelines specified under the Australian Corporations Act. These are that the meeting must be called within 21 days after the request is given to the company, and it is not to be held more than two months after the request is given to the company.
As for who gets to vote at a meeting, the AusCycling constitution outlines that voting rights are limited to member clubs, with life and individual members entitled to attend but not vote or debate. Additionally, the votes that the clubs are entitled to vary depending on the number of members each club has – which makes calculating the 5% threshold for a meeting and a majority required to pass a resolution a more complicated matter than just counting the number of clubs in support. Votes range from one for clubs with under nine members up to 13 votes for clubs with 780 members or more.
Still, regardless of the outcome of the votes at the meeting, or whether or not it is even called, the move to pursue it has put a number of key issues in the spotlight.
When AusCycling was asked by Cyclingnews if it was concerned that the situation had got to a point where member clubs felt the need to try and compel a special meeting and request leadership change, AusCycling said: “We acknowledge that genuine pressures exist at community level, including rising costs, volunteer fatigue and event delivery challenges. Those pressures are real and are being actively addressed.
“In any national sporting organisation, differing views will arise from time to time about priorities, structure and leadership. We respect that diversity of perspective and take club feedback seriously. Club engagement continues through established forums, direct meetings and project-based consultation.”
It is unlikely that in such a broad church differing views will ever completely disappear, but the question now is whether in the months ahead the responsibility of finding the optimum path for Australian cycling amid a tangle of varied routes will rest with the current management or a new set of leaders.