K&A Trust v Narrowboatworld

[David Schweizer]

 

 

 

Nabo is run by its council. It conducts polls to get members views and it asks for members views.

I don't see how Nabo can be more democratic. It has no regional hierarchy, there is no barrier between members and the council. Members are welcome to come to any council meeting(the dates are published). Any member can stand for council. We would love a list of volunteers to pick reps from, it just doesn't happen

Sue

You have either not read, or read and failed to understand what have said Sue. By your own admission NABO is Top lead, and organizations which adopt this approach cannot, by definition, be democratic.

 

I have spent most of my Professional Career working with Voluntary Organizations, not all of them were representative bodies, but those which claim to be representative must have a power base with the Rank and File membership in order to fulfil that stated aim. Until NABO accepts that basic principal it will remain an organizatuion which only a small minority of all Boat Owners will join.

 

As far as I am aware not one of the Council members that I have known have any experience or training in the management of a Voluntary representative organization, yet they struggle on, refusing to even consider the suggestions of those who do have that experience. One has to wonder why.

[Neil TNC]

Different Chairmen have different styles Nabo are lucky to have a good one. Love to see you come to a meeting.

Sue

 

I think you know my thoughts on getting involved with any waterways organisation again.

[ditchcrawler]

You have either not read, or read and failed to understand what have said Sue. By your own admission NABO is Top lead, and organizations which adopt this approach cannot, by definition, be democratic.

 

 

Aren't they all

[sueb]

You have either not read, or read and failed to understand what have said Sue. By your own admission NABO is Top lead, and organizations which adopt this approach cannot, by definition, be democratic.

 

I have spent most of my Professional Career working with Voluntary Organizations, not all of them were representative bodies, but those which claim to be representative must have a power base with the Rank and File membership in order to fulfil that stated aim. Until NABO accepts that basic principal it will remain an organizatuion which only a small minority of all Boat Owners will join.

 

As far as I am aware not one of the Council members that I have known have any experience or training in the management of a Voluntary representative organization, yet they struggle on, refusing to even consider the suggestions of those who do have that experience. One has to wonder why.

I have failed to understand. Please come to a meeting and explain. We can then have a discussion on what we do and why we don't do things.

Sue

[carlt]

Please come to a meeting and explain. We can then have a discussion on what we do and why we don't do things.

 

Isn't that how the Moonies worked?

 

Don't say anything about the way the organisation works but, once they've got someone to a meeting, they've got them for good!

Edited February 2, 2011 by carlt

[magpie patrick]

Right, as a chairman of a canal society, and also wearing many other hats, I feel a need to wade in.

 

Point one, undemocratic: well become a member and stand against me then! I was asked to stand for chairman because I could "lead the society forward" from where they were. If I felt the membership were deeply unhappy I would ask for a mandate to carry on. The SCCS is in a transition phase, from historical interest society to restoration society, it needs a guiding hand.

 

Two, has no one noticed that the same names crop up all the time, I know Ivor Caplan and Vaughan Welch in about four different guises. It applies to me as well. the SCCS is bound by it's articles to work only for the Coal Canal (although we sneak in support for K&A cruiseway and the Dorset and Somerset Canal), but I and two others also do other things, for the IWA freight group (me) and for the K&A, D&S, Avon and wilts IWA etc.

 

The sad fact is there is very limited national interest in canals, and I oppose the agenda of the few who think solely in terms of national integration, because it is only for their own benefit, and they tend to be narrow minded narrow boaters. The only reason I favour a national organisation is to ensure that busy but cheap to maintain canals help support quieter but costly ones. EA Rivers are a different animal, and need different treatment

[David Schweizer]

Right, as a chairman of a canal society, and also wearing many other hats, I feel a need to wade in.

 

Point one, undemocratic: well become a member and stand against me then! I was asked to stand for chairman because I could "lead the society forward" from where they were. If I felt the membership were deeply unhappy I would ask for a mandate to carry on. The SCCS is in a transition phase, from historical interest society to restoration society, it needs a guiding hand.

 

Two, has no one noticed that the same names crop up all the time, I know Ivor Caplan and Vaughan Welch in about four different guises. It applies to me as well. the SCCS is bound by it's articles to work only for the Coal Canal (although we sneak in support for K&A cruiseway and the Dorset and Somerset Canal), but I and two others also do other things, for the IWA freight group (me) and for the K&A, D&S, Avon and wilts IWA etc.

 

The sad fact is there is very limited national interest in canals, and I oppose the agenda of the few who think solely in terms of national integration, because it is only for their own benefit, and they tend to be narrow minded narrow boaters. The only reason I favour a national organisation is to ensure that busy but cheap to maintain canals help support quieter but costly ones. EA Riverare a different animal, and need different treatment

I have failed to understand. Please come to a meeting and explain. We can then have a discussion on what we do and why we don't do things.

Sue

 

I have clearly failed to make myself clear, there are many models for Voluntary Organizations, some which do not require a representative organizational structure, and some that do.

 

I have no issue with organizations like the Somerset Coal Canal Society, and if I had sufficient interest in that particular canal would probably join. I am a member of a presumably similary stuctured organization, the Tools and Trades History Society, because I have an interest in the Collection, Restoration and History of Woodworking Tools. The Society holds a library of references works which are available to members for research, issues quarterly Journals covering areas of interest, organizes an annual study event and puts people with similar interests in contact with each other. It does not claim or attempt to represent either myself or any other members in any other arena, and therefore there is no implicit requirement for it to have a rank and file membership representaion structure.

 

When I was working, I was a member (and elected Officer) of a Professional Trades Union, who's principal aims were the maintenance of standards within the Profession, and the support and representation of members interests within their employment. In order to ensure that the representation accurately reflected the interests and needs of the membership, a democratic structure existed where every member had a free vote to appoint those elected to make that representation, and regular meetings were held where elected officers were mandated to represent the views of the membership.

 

NABO is far more closely allied to the second example because does claim to, and seek to represent it's members interests in other arenas. In order to carry out tghat objective, it is my view that it should, therefore, have democratic process by which those interests are collated and fed to the Council, as well as a proceedure of nomination from and by the rank and file membership, to ensure that those appointed to make the representation carry the authority of the membership.

 

I had hoped that people would understand what I was trying to say, but clearly I have not explained my self. I hope that the illustrations given above help to demonstrate the views that I have previously expressed.

Edited February 3, 2011 by David Schweizer

[the grinch]

as a member of the K&A trust for a number of years i did my bit, worked the shop at devizes, skippered Charlotte dundas II and did lots of background stuff to get the canal restored, having achieved the aims i moved on and now do a lot on the Wey & Arun.

 

having joined the trust in 1981 i spent a few years restoring the locks / bridges before i headed up to Norfolk there i was instrumental in getting the EAWA/NW&DC trust in to the group it is now. spent many weekends taking out trees and generally promoting the North Walsham & Dilham Canal as a viable project

 

then i came south again rejoining the W&A i was saddened by the lack of maintenance to our restored sections so instead of sitting on my butt moaning. I spoke with the powers that be and before long was asked "well what can you do to help" by no less than the chairwoman.

 

at about the same tme members of the trust was becoming concerned about our operational section and the lack of maintenance. the manager at the time was very ill (sadly he passed away a few weeks ago)so it was an ideal opportunity for me to step in and take over the day to day running of the section

 

to date i have identified several things that needed immediate attention, attention and finally a wish list of things that would improve both safety and the public perception. a repaint of the lock gates kept me busy through the summer and now we are undertaking a renovation at Baldwin's Knob lock (restored in 1993) with new paddlegear and gate planking. i may not be the best guy in the trust but i will do my best

 

so instead of saying you don't like something, get involved and if you speak up eventually you will be heard and even be respected if you get things back on track.

 

finally i hope that the K&A trust gets back on its feet and continues to bang the southern drum!!

Edited February 2, 2011 by hamsterfan

[Tony Brooks]

Point taken David maybe you could start the ball rolling by identifying some GROSS inaccuracies to us and we can debate them individually. I'd appreciate it if filis wasn't cited as I thought that had died a death long ago! PS thanks Chrisp Ink for putting an informed comment on about NBW who aren't professionals and in the mainstream rely heavily on third parties for their editorial comment!

 

 

By all means use third parties to get informed but do not regurgitate third party "information" without checking its veracity and acceptance across a range of informed sources.

 

I quoted a GROSS NBW inaccuracy in the thread on here about dyed EN590 DERV (bio-content. My reading of the LAW has since been confirmed as correct so the NBW correspondent was inaccurate. What I find [particularly galling about this rather technical issue is that I provided NBW with my commentary on the subject many weeks ago and they published it so the correspondence had every reason to either question me or her "other source". They certainly did not bother to question me.

 

I read and contribute to the NBW forum but in view of what I consider technical inaccuracies over the years I am forced to conclude it may be a good read but is hardly a reliable resource for information. The problem as I see it is that many boaters and soon to be boaters think it is, but then I suppose that is the same for newspapers.

 

Alan's articles dealing with BW management are excluded for these comments because his work seems to check out.

[Neil TNC]

By all means use third parties to get informed but do not regurgitate third party "information" without checking its veracity and acceptance across a range of informed sources.

 

I quoted a GROSS NBW inaccuracy in the thread on here about dyed EN590 DERV (bio-content. My reading of the LAW has since been confirmed as correct so the NBW correspondent was inaccurate. What I find [particularly galling about this rather technical issue is that I provided NBW with my commentary on the subject many weeks ago and they published it so the correspondence had every reason to either question me or her "other source". They certainly did not bother to question me.

 

I read and contribute to the NBW forum but in view of what I consider technical inaccuracies over the years I am forced to conclude it may be a good read but is hardly a reliable resource for information. The problem as I see it is that many boaters and soon to be boaters think it is, but then I suppose that is the same for newspapers.

 

Alan's articles dealing with BW management are excluded for these comments because his work seems to check out.

 

NBW...a kinda Wikipedia and Wikileaks for the waterways?

[mayalld]

The joys of volunteers. I don't know which editor you refer to but I will apologise

 

Stuart Sampson.

 

I posted my views on the way NABO was going in uk.rec.waterways. Tony Hayes copied them and passed them to Stuart, who republished them without permission, and devoted half a page to a personal attack on me for daring to challenge the lack of accountability within NABO.

 

In the following issue, he published two personal attacks from other members, yet curiously included none of the letters that he had been sent defending my position (and yes, I do know that at least 3 such letters were sent, because the writers contacted me to say that they had sent them.

 

 

Nabo is run by its council. It conducts polls to get members views and it asks for members views.

I don't see how Nabo can be more democratic. It has no regional hierarchy, there is no barrier between members and the council. Members are welcome to come to any council meeting(the dates are published). Any member can stand for council. We would love a list of volunteers to pick reps from, it just doesn't happen

 

NABO sometimes conducts polls to get the membership to rubber stamp what the council has decided, but by and large the council pursues its own personal hobby horses.

 

Then again, it may well have become self fulfilling, as the majority of boaters choose not to belong to NABO, because they know it represents views that are not theirs.

[dor]

Well my tuppence-worth:

 

I'm a member of a local canal society, and I have yet to experience the failings that some here say apply to all societies. I have found the Council to be open and welcoming, been invited to submit articles to the magazine and generally find them very approachable.

 

My experience of NABO is more limited, but one of their recruiters (I don't know what his official position is, but his boat was decked out in lots of NABO banners exhorting people to join and support NABO). He was moored on the towpath nearby for several months except for a little light bridge-hopping. On enquiring what NABO's views were on "continuous moorers" I was subjected to a string of mild abuse. The feeling I get here is that this may well be representitive of NABO as it seems to be the attitude of "we do things our way and don't question it"

[deletedaccount]

NABO sounds like it's organised like the SWP and sueb sounds suspiciously like a swappie

[carlt]

You cannot espouse the virtues of an organisation, that claims to represent the interests of all boat owners, then alienate a huge proportion of them by making remarks such as:

 

If you want to be hooked up to electricity have you considered a mobile home park?

[David Schweizer]

Stuart Sampson.

 

I posted my views on the way NABO was going in uk.rec.waterways. Tony Hayes copied them and passed them to Stuart, who republished them without permission, and devoted half a page to a personal attack on me for daring to challenge the lack of accountability within NABO.

 

In the following issue, he published two personal attacks from other members, yet curiously included none of the letters that he had been sent defending my position (and yes, I do know that at least 3 such letters were sent, because the writers contacted me to say that they had sent them.

 

 

 

NABO sometimes conducts polls to get the membership to rubber stamp what the council has decided, but by and large the council pursues its own personal hobby horses.

 

Then again, it may well have become self fulfilling, as the majority of boaters choose not to belong to NABO, because they know it represents views that are not theirs.

As far as I am aware Stuart Sampson is no longer involved with the running of NABO, some will say that is a good thing and some will say it as a bad thing. I personally am on the fence.

 

The problem was that whilst Stuart was an excellent committee negotiator and much respected by BW etc. He only persued his own views, which was OK if they concurred with one's own views. I liked his presentational style, but he was almost non communicative when one met him, which makes on wonder whether he really cared about anyone elses opinion.

 

However Stuart's main fault was that he would rather get on with the job himself than try and delegate anyone else to do the job, consequently between himself and his wife Carole, they held the three most influential positons the Council and appeared to make no meaningful attempt to bring on others to fill their shoes for when they finally decided to depart.

 

Truly democratic Voluntary organizations structure their Excecutive in a way which almost guarantees a smooth transition of Officers. This constitutional mechanism is one which seems to have escaped NABO's attention. Consequently when Stuart and Carole resigned their posts, they left a void into which people with little experience or training (or I understand enthusiasm) were shoehorned.

 

I am not suggesting that the present Officers are incompetent or incapable, but the manner in which a vociforous minority on the Council have managed to push their own interests to the top of the Agenda demonstrates a lack of political experience. I object to my subscription being used to persue a minority issue for which I have very little enthusiasm, and which was not the subject of any consultation with the membership. Attempts to secure an explanation as to why NABO was persuing an issue which was rightly the concern of another Boating Organization, I received no convincing answers. It was at that point that I decided to discontinue my membership.

Edited February 3, 2011 by David Schweizer

[mayalld]

As far as I am aware Stuart Sampson is no longer involved with the running of NABO, some will say that is a good thing and some will say it as a bad thing. I personally am on the fence.

 

The problem was that whilst Stuart was an excellent committee negotiator and much respected by BW etc. He only persued his own views, which was OK if they concurred with one's own views. I liked his presentational style, but he was almost non communicative when one met him, which makes on wonder whether he really cared about anyone elses opinion.

 

However Stuart's main fault was that he would rather get on with the job himself than try and delegate anyone else to do the job, consequently between himself and his wife Carole, they held the three most influential positons the Council and appeared to make no meaningful attempt to bring on others to fill their shoes for when they finally decided to depart.

 

Truly democratic Voluntary organizations structure their Excecutive in a way which almost guarantees a smooth transition of Officers. This constitutional mechanism is one which seems to have escaped NABO's attention. Consequently when Stuart and Carole resigned their posts, they left a void into which people with little experience or training (or I understand enthusiasm) were shoehorned.

 

I am not suggesting that the present oOfficers are incompetent or incapable, but the manner in which a vociforous minority on the Council have managed to push their own interests to the top of the Agenda demonstrates a lack of political experience. I object to my subscription being used to persue a minority issue for which I have very little enthusiasm, and which was not the subject of any consultation with the membership. Attempts to secure an explanation as to why NABO was persuing an issue which was rightly the concern of another Boating Organization, I received no convincing answers. It was at that point that I decided to discontinue my membership.

 

That sounds like a very fair summary of what the situation is at NABO

 

I note that they are persisting in their attempts to prove that BW have no rights to regulate moorings whatsoever, seemingly incapable of spotting that the lawyers they have engaged (with the members money) are milking them.

 

My first thought was to say that such a move cannot be in the best interests of the majority of members, but on reflection I suspect that a long history of people on the council sympathetic to CMers and overstayers have resulted in many boaters who play by the rules leaving the organisation.

 

NABO is increasingly becoming a vehicle for those who don't want to play by the rules.

[deletedaccount]

See? Now mayllad has come along and sold it better than sue ever has

 

Isn't that how the Moonies worked?

 

Don't say anything about the way the organisation works but, once they've got someone to a meeting, they've got them for good!

 

You can't get anything useful out of their website either. Is sue the only NABOid on here?

Edited February 3, 2011 by deletedaccount

[mayalld]

See? Now mayllad has come along and sold it better than sue ever has

 

 

 

You can't get anything useful out of their website either. Is sue the only NABOid on here?

 

No, Tony is apparently still a member, and Simon Robbins posts occasionally.

 

At present, I am still a member, but if they persist in the line that they are currently following, that will come to an end.

[deletedaccount]

I'm interested in finding out their stated aims and goals but finding out what they are is proving rather tricky.

 

"represent all boaters" doesn't mean a lot and whenever I've asked sueb she's dodged the question and told me to come to a meeting.

[mayalld]

I'm interested in finding out their stated aims and goals but finding out what they are is proving rather tricky.

 

"represent all boaters" doesn't mean a lot and whenever I've asked sueb she's dodged the question and told me to come to a meeting.

 

It is my considered opinion that NABO fails dismally to "represent all boaters"

[David Schweizer]

It is my considered opinion that NABO fails dismally to "represent all boaters"

 

I'm interested in finding out their stated aims and goals but finding out what they are is proving rather tricky.

 

"represent all boaters" doesn't mean a lot and whenever I've asked sueb she's dodged the question and told me to come to a meeting.

 

Despite repeated requests, I failed to ever secure a full copy of the Constitution. Consequently, I was never able to ascertain whether NABO had Charitable Status, but if it has, refusal to publish the constitution to the membership is in contravention with the conditions of that status.

Edited February 3, 2011 by David Schweizer

[carlt]

Consequently, I was never able to ascertain whether NABO had Charitable Status,

It isn't listed on the Charity Commission's website.

[deletedaccount]

I've looked through their (terrible) website and it seems to consist of them commenting on BW proposals/changes. As in "we agree with X, disagree with Y". It also seems their AGM minutes are only available to members. Which is not particuarly helpful given that's probably the only doc that's going to tell me what they're actually doing.

[David Schweizer]

It isn't listed on the Charity Commission's website.

There are two catagories for "Charities" :-

Registered Charities - Organizations which are registered with the Charity Commissioners and appear on their register.

Charitable Status - Smaller Voluntary Organizations which meet the Commissioners' citeria but are not registered.

 

There are a variety if criteria which ebnable smaller Organizations to adopt Charitable Status, the principal one being annual income. It is more than 15 years since I was involved directly in this field and asumed that the income limit would have increased. However, I have simce discovered that the income maxinmum of £5,000 appears to have remained about the same since that time. This will seriously limit the number of eligible organizations within the Charitable Status catagory.

 

I doubt that NABO would qualify, but if they continue in the way that they are at the moment, a diminishing membership may make them eligible.

Edited February 3, 2011 by David Schweizer

[canaldrifter]

Hi there, I have finally registered after just reading posts for the best part of three years!

 

I am primarily, a once a year hirer, and have been doing this since around 1988, and been all over the system.

 

This thread about narrowboatworld has struck a chord with me. There is a lot of aggressive and negative moaning on a lot of messageboards, wether it be canals, football, expats or whatever. But really, the moaning, almost constant ranting on narrowboatworld is quite outstanding. Its like going into a pub and coming across someone mouthing off at the bar while on his 8th pint, while everyone else in the pub goes about their business and ignores him (which i suspect is what a lot of people have done with NBW)

 

Theres a section on NBW reviewing certain canals "telling it like it is" which is precisely what it isnt!! Its "telling it like I think it should be told" which is something entirely different.

 

I dont want to re-tread all the moaning about BW, heavens knows that can be done about all sorts of things (and I've been hiring since 88). Just seems to me there's a lot of uncertainty, almost fear, out there from people who really dont know what's going to happen to the waterways in the future. Thats understandable, particularly if you live on the waterways, as you see funding going down year on year.

 

Nobody knows what the waterways system is going to look like in 5 years time. There are lots of remainder waterways our crowd havent done yet and I fear they wont be there in 5 years time to visit.

 

You'll never get cyclists, anglers, walkers, residents, liveaboards, owners, hirers, restorers and operators to agree all the time (much like the highways really!). What is needed is support and some plans that everyone can work towards. Mud slinging and ranting, in the end, wont do anything except turn people off. Which is precisely why I'm on here and not on NBW!!

 

What an excellent first post, SW. Welcome to the mill. Have a point.

 

Tone