Jim Riley Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 5 hours ago, Mike Todd said: That is perhaps one reason why having the Council is not such a bad (or at least ineffective) idea: Trustees have a strict legal duty to act in the best interests of the Trust. That may in turn imply looking after their customers/users but is secondary. That is not a matter for CaRT to determine. The Council members are not so constrained and can represent various partisan points of view. But they do not have to reach a consistent view - that is up to the Trustees. (as I understand the constitution) I understand this. What baffles me is that the trustees support the exec team in pushing the boundaries of the law. As a Chair of Trustees of a charity myself I would be utterly appalled if the staff behaved in such a manner, especially when they grumble whinge and whine about a few boaters pushing the boundaries of unclear ill defined rules. Two wrongs don't make a right. Can the council members hold the Trustees feet to the fire over these issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEngo Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 8 minutes ago, Jim Riley said: Can the council members hold the Trustees feet to the fire over these issues? No. Council can only sack all the Trustees en bloc. The nuclear option. The likelihood of that happening is nil, because there are too many Council appointees who would not go that way on instruction from above. Political animals don't like nuclear options. The effect would also be nil because identical but differently named Council members would rapidly be appointed to the bulk of the vacant spaces. N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Riley Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 7 minutes ago, BEngo said: No. Council can only sack all the Trustees en bloc. The nuclear option. The likelihood of that happening is nil, because there are too many Council appointees who would not go that way on instruction from above. Political animals don't like nuclear options. The effect would also be nil because identical but differently named Council members would rapidly be appointed to the bulk of the vacant spaces. N However to get such issues on the agenda and discussed would be a start. Can a council member propose an agenda item? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Todd Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 23 minutes ago, Jim Riley said: I understand this. What baffles me is that the trustees support the exec team in pushing the boundaries of the law. As a Chair of Trustees of a charity myself I would be utterly appalled if the staff behaved in such a manner, especially when they grumble whinge and whine about a few boaters pushing the boundaries of unclear ill defined rules. Two wrongs don't make a right. Can the council members hold the Trustees feet to the fire over these issues? The term 'Executive' is key here. The Trustees are not executives and can only set policy. If they are unhappy with the way in which the executives perform they can sack them (may be, depends on detail) but that is again the nuclear option. You are making the assumption that the Trustees agree with you that the executives are pushing the boundaries in an irresponsible manner. You should understand how the grammar goes: "I am using the law to be effective in my duties; you are pushing at the boundaries to achieve ends that were never intended; they are ignoring the whole principle of the laws on which we operate" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Riley Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 3 minutes ago, Mike Todd said: The term 'Executive' is key here. The Trustees are not executives and can only set policy. If they are unhappy with the way in which the executives perform they can sack them (may be, depends on detail) but that is again the nuclear option. You are making the assumption that the Trustees agree with you that the executives are pushing the boundaries in an irresponsible manner. You should understand how the grammar goes: "I am using the law to be effective in my duties; you are pushing at the boundaries to achieve ends that were never intended; they are ignoring the whole principle of the laws on which we operate" Of course I understand how people can but a spin on their actions. Doesn't make them right. What about the obviously dubious "can't have your licence without agreeing the t&cs" and the "rivers only " licence" ", both are outside the specifications of an Act of Parliament. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan(nb Albert) Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 7 hours ago, Peter Thornton said: There are a number of routes onto Council. I’ve been appointed from the Local Government Association and am looking forward to my first meeting in March. My initial interests will be: 1. The elections. It doesn’t sound as if they were well run, if what I’ve read here is correct. I’ve stood for lots of elections, some online, and never known of one where you have to cast a minimum number of votes. 2. Climate change issues. I’m not at all convinced that CRT appreciates what is heading our way in that canal boats are almost entirely dependent upon fossil fuels. Potentially a huge challenge. 3. Council tax questions along with social care and health. We’ve all seen Tim and Pru and my wife and I sometimes refer to the canal system as a linear care home. We are both pensioners by the way........ Plus issues I see coming up on this forum. I’ve been a member for a number of years. We are shareboaters on an ex ownership boat Sunseeker and spend 4-6 weeks a year cruising. I’ll keep in touch. Peter Thornton Cumbria County Council Really only two routes onto Council - 'nominated'' and 'elected'. The prefered route is 'elected' but obviously that is not possible if an electorate can not easily be identified. BTW, I remember Sunseeker very well from its Ownerships days. I can remember having my arm inside its center holding tank on more than one occassion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Thornton Posted February 22, 2020 Report Share Posted February 22, 2020 2 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said: Really only two routes onto Council - 'nominated'' and 'elected'. The prefered route is 'elected' but obviously that is not possible if an electorate can not easily be identified. BTW, I remember Sunseeker very well from its Ownerships days. I can remember having my arm inside its center holding tank on more than one occassion! Hi Allan Did you work for Ownerships, or one of the boatyards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan(nb Albert) Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 35 minutes ago, Peter Thornton said: Hi Allan Did you work for Ownerships, or one of the boatyards? I retired early and took on a number of voluntary roles some of which were waterways related. With regards to Ownerships, I managed bases at Stockton, Calcutt and Wigrams Turn. I had a share in Spring Dew for some years. From memory it was built by Pat Buckle a couple of years after Sunseeker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Ahab Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 On 21/02/2020 at 23:03, Allan(nb Albert) said: Good question. Andy/Stella - was this put before Council and did you support it? A number of changes to the Council constitution were presented by the Governance Committee, which would enlarge the size of the Council and represent more stakeholders. This raft of changes included a nominee from AWCC. Given the number of active Cruising Clubs and members, this change appeared reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheshire cat Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 (edited) 21 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said: I retired early and took on a number of voluntary roles some of which were waterways related. With regards to Ownerships, I managed bases at Stockton, Calcutt and Wigrams Turn. I had a share in Spring Dew for some years. From memory it was built by Pat Buckle a couple of years after Sunseeker. Spring Dew is currently for sale at Venetian Marina. I remember her being returned to Wrenbury on one occasion with a redesigned roof. The owner had hit a lift bridge. He very kindly left a note for the handover team asking them to fix it and went home early. Edited February 23, 2020 by Cheshire cat Missing words 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan(nb Albert) Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 28 minutes ago, Capt Ahab said: A number of changes to the Council constitution were presented by the Governance Committee, which would enlarge the size of the Council and represent more stakeholders. This raft of changes included a nominee from AWCC. Given the number of active Cruising Clubs and members, this change appeared reasonable. Never heard of the Governance Committee, Andy. Do you mean the Appointments Committee who I understand recommends such changes? That aside, is it the Board of Trustees or the Committee of Members that vote through these changes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan(nb Albert) Posted February 23, 2020 Report Share Posted February 23, 2020 12 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said: Spring Dew is currently for sale at Venetian Marina. I remember her being returned to Wrenbury on one occasion with a redesigned roof. The owner had hit a lift bridge. He very kindly left a note for the handover team asking them to fix it and went home early. Not the first time that an owner has redesigned Spring Dews rather high roofline! I remember an accident in the Harecasrle Tunnel which is hilarious in the telling but could easily have ended in tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Ahab Posted February 24, 2020 Report Share Posted February 24, 2020 12 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said: Never heard of the Governance Committee, Andy. Do you mean the Appointments Committee who I understand recommends such changes? That aside, is it the Board of Trustees or the Committee of Members that vote through these changes? Put another way - the head of governance presented the raft of changes to National Council who approved the proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Mack Posted February 24, 2020 Report Share Posted February 24, 2020 On 22/02/2020 at 14:41, alan_fincher said: You might think if you are using a third party specialising in this kind of work they might actually get it right, but, like ERS before them, CES seemed to be pretty inept. CES are ERS. From the email inviting me to vote: "Civica Election Services is a trading name of Electoral Reform Services Limited (ERS), a Civica Group company, registered in England and Wales with company number 2263092." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan(nb Albert) Posted February 24, 2020 Report Share Posted February 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, Capt Ahab said: Put another way - the head of governance presented the raft of changes to National Council who approved the proposal. Are you saying a director, Tom Deards (head of legal & governance services and company secretary), made these proposals to council and they were rubber stamped? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roggie Posted February 24, 2020 Report Share Posted February 24, 2020 Apologies for the delayed response to the previous posting about the IWA policy on cruising. The policy that was quoted is several years ago and has been updated, info at https://www.waterways.org.uk/information/policy_documents/residential_boating A couple of relevant sections are:- "2.2 For boats licensed on Canal & River Trust’s waterways a specific designation was introduced by the British Waterways Act 1995, which allows boaters to declare that they do not have a home mooring. This requires them to move at least every 14 days and the boat must be used “bona fide for navigation”. Many boaters choose to do this, traveling widely across the network in a progressive journey, while others would prefer to stay in the same location but find it difficult to obtain a residential mooring. IWA supports: · The right of boaters to cruise CRT’s waterways without being required to have a home mooring. · A single license fee for boats with or without a home mooring. Moorings enforcement is a separate issue which should be tackled separately. 4.1 IWA supports the principle of people living afloat and will promote and campaign for the provision of more affordable moorings for residential use on all waterways. " I must declare an interest being a IWA trustee for just over a year now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan de Enfield Posted February 24, 2020 Report Share Posted February 24, 2020 13 minutes ago, roggie said: Apologies for the delayed response to the previous posting about the IWA policy on cruising. The policy that was quoted is several years ago and has been updated, info at https://www.waterways.org.uk/information/policy_documents/residential_boating A couple of relevant sections are:- "2.2 For boats licensed on Canal & River Trust’s waterways a specific designation was introduced by the British Waterways Act 1995, which allows boaters to declare that they do not have a home mooring. This requires them to move at least every 14 days and the boat must be used “bona fide for navigation”. Many boaters choose to do this, traveling widely across the network in a progressive journey, while others would prefer to stay in the same location but find it difficult to obtain a residential mooring. IWA supports: · The right of boaters to cruise CRT’s waterways without being required to have a home mooring. · A single license fee for boats with or without a home mooring. Moorings enforcement is a separate issue which should be tackled separately. 4.1 IWA supports the principle of people living afloat and will promote and campaign for the provision of more affordable moorings for residential use on all waterways. " I must declare an interest being a IWA trustee for just over a year now. That could so easily have been written by Corbyn and included in the Labour manifesto to go alongside all of the other fence sitting pronouncements. Nice to know that you support something already enshrined in law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Riley Posted February 25, 2020 Report Share Posted February 25, 2020 22 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said: That could so easily have been written by Corbyn and included in the Labour manifesto to go alongside all of the other fence sitting pronouncements. Nice to know that you support something already enshrined in law. Well, Boris, oops no let's mention the greasy armed puppet master Dom, wouldn't have given a flying fig, there's no money in it. He might have supported it, to get votes, but that would be just another of the ongoing tory lies. Power at the expense of truth. Would you believe it, some daft buggers just don't see it, or agree with the tactic, which is worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now