Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
john6767

CRT Election

Featured Posts

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Cheshire cat
Missing words
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.