Jump to content

CaRT Bashing or Time for Action?


Midnight

Featured Posts

52 minutes ago, Thomas C King said:

If I were to look at CaRT, the 'democratic' governance is very indirect, and spineless. You are correct, many organisations have elected governance but not management. But the management is more strongly decided, in some, by the elected governance. That's the change I would want to see.

But CaRT is not 'owned' by boaters, or any other category of user. They are not in the same position as shareholders of cooperatives. CaRT is a charitable trust and its governance has to be aligned to that status but also take into account the legitimate interest of government who provide much of the funding.

 

From the CaRT website: There is a Council of 50 people who are a mix of elected and appointed members. They are the legal Members of CaRT. They appoint  10 Trustees (unpaid) who are legally responsible for overseeing the work of the Trust. (Incidentally, none of the Trustees include an interest in boating in their brief big details!) As far as I can see, but it is not explicit, the Trustees appoint the Executive team. I suspect it is the work of the latter that concerns you but I cannot see any reasonable way for boaters to be involved in their appointment. However, there is an indirect link in that the Council is, in part, elected with other members nominated to ensure that specific areas of interested are represented - which might not otherwise occur if all were elected. The Council also inclused the chairs of the Regional Advisory Boards.

 

How would you want to see this structure amended?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

But CaRT is not 'owned' by boaters, or any other category of user. They are not in the same position as shareholders of cooperatives. CaRT is a charitable trust and its governance has to be aligned to that status but also take into account the legitimate interest of government who provide much of the funding.

 

From the CaRT website: There is a Council of 50 people who are a mix of elected and appointed members. They are the legal Members of CaRT. They appoint  10 Trustees (unpaid) who are legally responsible for overseeing the work of the Trust. (Incidentally, none of the Trustees include an interest in boating in their brief big details!) As far as I can see, but it is not explicit, the Trustees appoint the Executive team. I suspect it is the work of the latter that concerns you but I cannot see any reasonable way for boaters to be involved in their appointment. However, there is an indirect link in that the Council is, in part, elected with other members nominated to ensure that specific areas of interested are represented - which might not otherwise occur if all were elected. The Council also inclused the chairs of the Regional Advisory Boards.

 

How would you want to see this structure amended?

My main point really; Are the Board not concerned about the behaviour of their staff. Or not? 

 

The National Trust has no problem with its wide membership btw. That is also a large organisation working to preserve heritage for public benefit. 

 

I do understand that CRT was constituted to avoid those pesky members having any power. That doesn't excuse their behaviour though. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

The National Trust has no problem with its wide membership btw. That is also a large organisation working to preserve heritage for public benefit. 

 

I do understand that CRT was constituted to avoid those pesky members having any power. That doesn't excuse their behaviour though. 

This is to me one of the main problems with CRT.   They have no members.   I and I suspect (hope) many others are unprepared to keep giving money with no control at all over the organisation.   At least NT members can attend the AGM and vote (even by post or proxy).

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jerra said:

This is to me one of the main problems with CRT.   They have no members.   I and I suspect (hope) many others are unprepared to keep giving money with no control at all over the organisation.   At least NT members can attend the AGM and vote (even by post or proxy).

Strictly speaking I think they do have a few members, the boaters reps etc that we voted for a while back. They appoint Members of the board. They do seem toothless otherwise. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jim Riley said:

Strictly speaking I think they do have a few members, the boaters reps etc that we voted for a while back. They appoint Members of the board. They do seem toothless otherwise. 

Not the sort of member I am talking about.   I mean the sort where anybody can pay their money and become a member not rely on invitation or appointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jim Riley said:

Strictly speaking I think they do have a few members, the boaters reps etc that we voted for a while back. They appoint Members of the board. They do seem toothless otherwise. 

C&RT have 2 types of members :

 

From C&RTs 'articles of association' which explain who can do what, responsibilties etc.

Unable to post it as it is a Pdf, but you may find it online.

 

28. Classes of Member

28.1 There shall be two classes of Members, as follows:

 

28.1.1 “A Members” shall be those individuals who serve on the Council, appointed in accordance with Article 29 and the Rules, and collectively the A Members shall be known as the Council.

28.1.2 The “B Member” who shall be the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;

 

 

The B-Member has 'special powers;' and can invoke all sorts penalties (including 'giving the waterways to another charity')

 

Exercise of the Special Powers 30.4

The Special Powers are as follows:

30.4.1 the B Member may remove any or all of the Trustees of the Trust and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the Trustee Replacement Power”);

30.4.2 the B Member may remove any or all of the A Members and may make such replacement appointments as the B Member considers fit by serving notice on the Trust in writing (“the A Member Replacement Power”); and

30.4.3 the B Member may direct that the Protected Assets (subject to attendant liabilities) shall be transferred to another institution which is regarded as charitable under the law of England and Wales with objects compatible with those of the Trust or to be held upon trust for the objects of the Trust by a person or institution which has been appointed as trustee of the Waterways Infrastructure Trust on such terms as the B Member thinks fit (subject to the requirements of charity law) (“the Transfer of Assets Power”).

 

30.5 The B Member may exercise the Trustee Replacement Power at any time once the Special Powers have been brought into effect pursuant to Article 30.2. In addition the B Member may exercise either the A Member Replacement Power or the Transfer of Assets Power, but he or she shall not be permitted to exercise both the A Member Replacement Power and the Transfer of Assets Power simultaneously (as the A Member Replacement Power and the Transfer of Assets Power are intended to provide alternative options for the B Member to facilitate the ongoing application of the Protected Assets in furtherance of the objects for the public benefit).

 

30.6 For the avoidance of doubt, the exercise of the Special Powers by the B Member shall not be subject to any rights or powers or require the consent of any of the A Members, but in determining whether the B member has become entitled to exercise the Special Powers or in exercising them, the B Member must act in the way that he or she reasonably and in good faith considers to best further the objects of the Trust for public benefit.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Not the sort of member I am talking about.   I mean the sort where anybody can pay their money and become a member not rely on invitation or appointment.

The governance of the NT is not unlike CaRT (or perhaps the other way around) with a Council, Trustees and Executive - save that the Council are all elected by the membership. But the only direct influence by members is on  the membership of the Council who appoint the Trustees who appoint the Executive. I suggest that in reality the difference between the two is not as great as can sometimes be made out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

The governance of the NT is not unlike CaRT (or perhaps the other way around) with a Council, Trustees and Executive - save that the Council are all elected by the membership. But the only direct influence by members is on  the membership of the Council who appoint the Trustees who appoint the Executive. I suggest that in reality the difference between the two is not as great as can sometimes be made out.

Members can attend the AGM and vote.    When is the CRT AGM?   Can I attend?   Can I vote?

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Members can attend the AGM and vote.    When is the CRT AGM?   Can I attend?   Can I vote?

No chance mate, when I applied to go to the consultations on widebeams they were all full, Carolyn a NB owner who applied after me got in and told me the meeting was half empty! They are a morally corrupt organization who arnt fit for purpose, if they were they would not have T & Cs they would abide by the law or have another act  passed into law

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Members can attend the AGM and vote.    When is the CRT AGM?   Can I attend?   Can I vote?

It was yesterday.

 

It was virtual. The normal death by powerpoint presentations from direghtctors you could not see followed by pre arranged questions read out by the chair and answered by the chief exec. 

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/about-us/annual-report-and-accounts/annual-public-meeting-2020

Edited by Allan(nb Albert)
Thought some might like to waste 90 minutes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, peterboat said:

No chance mate, when I applied to go to the consultations on widebeams they were all full, Carolyn a NB owner who applied after me got in and told me the meeting was half empty! They are a morally corrupt organization who arnt fit for purpose, if they were they would not have T & Cs they would abide by the law or have another act  passed into law

They are now unable to promote private bills (last was the one that became the British Waterways Act 1995). However, they can pass byelaws subject to ministerial agreement.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Allan(nb Albert) said:

They are now unable to promote private bills (last was the one that became the British Waterways Act 1995). However, they can pass byelaws subject to ministerial agreement.

 

I said this to someone on here and told me I was wrong cheers Alan for proving me right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, peterboat said:

No chance mate, when I applied to go to the consultations on widebeams they were all full, Carolyn a NB owner who applied after me got in and told me the meeting was half empty! They are a morally corrupt organization who arnt fit for purpose, if they were they would not have T & Cs they would abide by the law or have another act  passed into law

I am well aware of that thanks.   I was merely drawing the posters attention to the difference between being one of the elite and and one of the hoi polloi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, peterboat said:

No chance mate, when I applied to go to the consultations on widebeams they were all full, Carolyn a NB owner who applied after me got in and told me the meeting was half empty! They are a morally corrupt organization who arnt fit for purpose, if they were they would not have T & Cs they would abide by the law or have another act  passed into law

I think that they would dearly love to have new legislation, aimed at dealing with today's context not one 200 years ago. But the chances of getting the Government to make parliamentary time are vanishingly small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I am well aware of that thanks.   I was merely drawing the posters attention to the difference between being one of the elite and and one of the hoi polloi.

Well we have the shabby not fit for purpose very expensive unelected version

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

I think that they would dearly love to have new legislation, aimed at dealing with today's context not one 200 years ago. But the chances of getting the Government to make parliamentary time are vanishingly small.

 

What about the 25 year old legislation which is the one C&RT mainly reply on ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

What about the 25 year old legislation which is the one C&RT mainly reply on ?

The world has changed a lot in 25 years as has peoples attitudes to doing what they should.

Edited by Jerra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

The world has changed a lot in 25 years as has peoples attitudes to doing what they should.

 

I know and agree, I just wondered why Mr Todd suggested they were using 200 year old legislation.

 

No one could have forecast 25 years ago the 'dumpers' or the 'City Squatters' living on boats as a cheap way of living in London.

 

As discussed in the relevant thread, C&RT have the means to reduce the problem they just seem loathe to take responsibility and use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

I think that they would dearly love to have new legislation, aimed at dealing with today's context not one 200 years ago. But the chances of getting the Government to make parliamentary time are vanishingly small.

They could have had revised legislation (i.e, revised BW Acts) in 2012 as part of the  British Waterways Transfer of Functions Order. They certainly had new draconian byelaws waiting in the wings which would have only needed ministerial approval.

However, it took almost five years to get the bill that  became the British Waterways 1995 Act through parliament because BW were unable to convince a sceptical committee that the bills draconian measures were actually needed.

 

Whilst, as Mike says, they would dearly love to have new legislation, they would hate the scrutiny that would inevitably go with it.

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

They could have had revised legislation (i.e, revised BW Acts) in 2012 as part of the  British Waterways Transfer of Functions Order. They certainly had new draconian byelaws waiting in the wings which would have only needed ministerial approval.

However, it took almost five years to get the bill that  became the British Waterways 1995 Act through parliament because BW were unable to convince a sceptical committee that the bills draconian measures were actually needed.

 

Whilst, as Mike says, they would dearly love to have new legislation, they would hate the scrutiny that would inevitably go with it.

 

I am not sure who you mean by 'they' in the first para. I suspect your comments are primarily directed to BW/CaRT but they cannot of themselves revise legislation. Parliament, especially the Government, have shown a marked reluctance to do anything on this matter having confined the changeover to CaRT with a minimum of new or changed legislation.

 

Of course, Alan, I am aware of more recent laws but much of these were directed at patching the old with as little work as possible and so the central philosophy of the legislative framework is that which obtained when the canals were first enabled, even more so for rivers with PRN. I believe that view that the law is well past its sell-by date is widely shared and, IIRC, some of the 'campaigns' in recent years have been based on the very much older parts of the law. I certainly recall that TD's arguments depend on stuff that pre-dates even the canals!

 

Most of the 1995 Act concerned clarifying the way in which BW could exercise its responsibilities in maintaining the infrastructure. About the only parts of widespread interest is the well-known definition about moorings and bona fide navigation (ie continuous cruisers) as well giving BW the power to establish standards for the construction of vessels. It repealed very little of previous legislation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jerra said:

Not the sort of member I am talking about.   I mean the sort where anybody can pay their money and become a member not rely on invitation or appointment.

I know exactly what you mean, so do CRT, which is why they went a different way. It's a power and control thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I am not sure who you mean by 'they' in the first para. I suspect your comments are primarily directed to BW/CaRT but they cannot of themselves revise legislation. Parliament, especially the Government, have shown a marked reluctance to do anything on this matter having confined the changeover to CaRT with a minimum of new or changed legislation.

 

Of course, Alan, I am aware of more recent laws but much of these were directed at patching the old with as little work as possible and so the central philosophy of the legislative framework is that which obtained when the canals were first enabled, even more so for rivers with PRN. I believe that view that the law is well past its sell-by date is widely shared and, IIRC, some of the 'campaigns' in recent years have been based on the very much older parts of the law. I certainly recall that TD's arguments depend on stuff that pre-dates even the canals!

 

Most of the 1995 Act concerned clarifying the way in which BW could exercise its responsibilities in maintaining the infrastructure. About the only parts of widespread interest is the well-known definition about moorings and bona fide navigation (ie continuous cruisers) as well giving BW the power to establish standards for the construction of vessels. It repealed very little of previous legislation. 

 

 

 

By "they", I  mean BW board, executive, transition trustees, ministers and MP's. All had a hand in the transfer order and had to agree it or it would not have happened. However, you are quite right in pointing that BW/CRT itself can not revise legislation. 

My understanding is that BW/CRT legal director, Nigel Johnson was very involved in drafting the  order. BW Acts hardly get a mention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Travels With Martin said:

Ha! Well we all have our own views on CRT

 

Indeed we do, whereabouts on the scale do you fit ?

 

Greatest thing since sliced bread, management deserve a 100% pay rise.

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 

Incompetent, could not even organise  a 'get together in a brewery'

 

 

Edit to add

 

I have just seen you are 'new', welcome aboard, pull up a chair and join in.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
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
  • 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.