NABO

[canaldrifter]

 

 

My purpose is not to sneer and pointlessly denigrate but ask questions, in a (thus far) vain attempt to receive the answers that would inspire me to join.

 

Carl, you seem to think that any post that disagrees with or criticises your point of view is a personal attack on you. It isn't. Well... not from me anyway.

 

I would be most interested if you could state the criteria for a boaters' campaigning representative organisation that WOULD inspire you to join,.... with a projection of how that criteria might be achieved.

 

Tone

[Chris Pink]

Unfair.

 

I am an active member, and volunteer, of several organisations and would love to join an effective, campaigning organisation, representing all boaters, but it doesn't exist.

 

 

 

I usually agree with a lot of what you say and the points you raise but on this one you have dug yourself into a corner. Of course NABO doesn't represent you, how can it, you're not a member. You seem to be expecting Sue and Tony to provide this for you when it is obvious to me that you need to form, with others, the organisation that you ask for.

 

We have heard and seen that NABO is currently unfocussed and the leadership silent in this debate at least. So I would suggest you join, stand for council or chair, where you can make a difference rather than criticise one rather inarticulate member and another who has yet to get to grips with the task of making NABO a wider voice. a job he is doing as a volunteer and without the sort of team required to do this job to industry standard.

 

Neither of these two can be said to truly represent NABO and any discussion is likely more a debate than a true attempt at change . You'll probably win simply because you are good at debating rather than the merits of the issue. I have suggested directly that NABO council would do well to engage with this forum but unfortunately they don't see it as an important place to put out their stall

Edited March 7, 2011 by Chris Pink

[carlt]

I usually agree with a lot of what you say and the points you raise but on this one you have dug yourself into a corner. Of course NABO doesn't represent you, how can it, you're not a member. You seem to be expecting Sue and Tony to provide this for you when it is obvious to me that you need to form, with others, the organisation that you ask for.

 

I'm not asking them to provide me with anything, other than a convincing argument as to how they would represent me, as a member, but if, as you say, they only represent their members and not boat owners as a whole, why do they say...

 

The National Association of Boat Owners is dedicated to promoting the interests of private boaters on Britain's canals, rivers and lakes, so that their voice can be heard when decisions are being made which might affect their boating.

 

...with no "members only" proviso?

 

I join an organisation because I agree with its ideals, and the way it promotes those ideals, not because it says "come and join us and we may change into what you want.".

 

I wouldn't buy Marmite, if the manufacturers said "buy it and we might change the recipe to suit your taste buds." but I may give it a go if they said "We have changed the flavour, to your liking, will you buy it now?"

 

I haven't dug myself into a corner because, as a boater, NABO has failed to sell itself to me and, as far as I am aware, I am entitled to criticise.

 

Some may disagree with that criticism, many appear to agree, but as yet, nobody has successfully changed my mind.

 

Also, as a matter of fact, if I thought Tony was a good representation of the NABO, then I would probably join.

 

Unfortunately, in my experience, its stance appears to tend towards the inarticulate narrow mindedness of others, who may leap to its defence.

Edited March 7, 2011 by carlt

[Mac of Cygnet]

I've been a member of NABO for the past five years, and have seen quite a change in that time, not least in personnel. The new chairman David Fletcher, being a 'gamekeeper turned poacher', has turned around the atti tude of the organisation, and (present website glitches apart), given it a more serious approach. I urge anyone, including Carl, to give it another look.

 

As to the title, carping about the 'National' bit is pointless: many unions had 'National' in their title, but by no means all workers in a particular industry were members. Neither did they support or represent non-members, but I'm fairly confident that if any boater, even a non-member, approached NABO with a genuine problem, they would advise and help (although naturally they would prefer someone to join). It is in this way that I think they do represent all boatowners, not in any nebulous 'representing the interests' way.

 

Mac

[deletedaccount]

I can only disagree with this, except for the first sentence. The NT is a by and large a middle-class organisation run by middle-class people for their peers, judging by the visitors and volunteers I have seen. The income stream is because these are the people with the money (so far!).

 

Those who dump rubbish, shoot up, and let their dogs crap are equally unlikely to care about the NT and its aims, and are less visible on NT territory simply because they don't go there. They are not involved and are unlikely to be. Canals are just more accessible. There is no evidence that the public are not prepared to donate to the waterways - we just need to get some momentum going, and it can be done quite quickly if the example of the U-turn in Goverment policy on the Forestry Commision is anything to go by.

 

How many times, on mentioning to someone that you have a boat on the inland waterways, have they said: "Oh, I'd love to do that!", or "I saw a very interesting programme on television about that" (Sorry, but I've never seen any of these!). The interest is certainly there, and needs tapping. My only fear is that this is a very bad time to be doing this - all charities are going to be struggling in the present and coming economic climate.

 

Mac

 

Edited to correct a few stray letters.

 

You're missing the central point here.

 

People give the national trust money because they get something in return - access to things like car parks

and tourist attractions.

 

People liking things does not translate into cash.

[Mac of Cygnet]

You're missing the central point here.

 

People give the national trust money because they get something in return - access to things like car parks

and tourist attractions.

 

People liking things does not translate into cash.

 

In this case I agree only with the last sentence! A major input to the NT is not cash flow, but time, in the form of volunteers to supplement the paid staff, just as proposed for a waterways charity. Entrance fees, which you are presumably talking about, nowhere near cover the running costs of properties. The shortfall is made up of invested legacies, and endowments when a property is donated. A large proportion of NT properties are free to enter anyway, but still require upkeep, just like the waterways.

 

In the case of the waterways, the donation/endowment aspect involves the Government, not private owners. Another reason why this has come at a bad time! But I still think the telly-viewing public could be brought onside, if the documentary-makers could be persuaded to include a "but all this is going downhill and could disappear" in their programmes.

 

Mac

[Chris Pink]

I'm not asking them to provide me with anything, other than a convincing argument as to how they would represent me, as a member, but if, as you say, they only represent their members and not boat owners as a whole, why do they say...

 

 

 

...with no "members only" proviso?

 

I join an organisation because I agree with its ideals, and the way it promotes those ideals, not because it says "come and join us and we may change into what you want.".

 

I wouldn't buy Marmite, if the manufacturers said "buy it and we might change the recipe to suit your taste buds." but I may give it a go if they said "We have changed the flavour, to your liking, will you buy it now?"

 

I haven't dug myself into a corner because, as a boater, NABO has failed to sell itself to me and, as far as I am aware, I am entitled to criticise.

 

Some may disagree with that criticism, many appear to agree, but as yet, nobody has successfully changed my mind.

 

Also, as a matter of fact, if I thought Tony was a good representation of the NABO, then I would probably join.

 

Unfortunately, in my experience, its stance appears to tend towards the inarticulate narrow mindedness of others, who may leap to its defence.

 

 

Well the mission statement is just that, a mission statement, they are, in effect saying "we aspire to represent all boaters" ie it's their stated aim. They can't do this if they don't have input from all boaters. In fact, of their existing membership, only those with views strong enough to be voiced will be aired.

 

NABO isn't marmite, it's an amalgam of its members. If it had one member it would have 100% that member's view, if it has 3,000 members then it has the distillation of their views, if it had all boaters....etc.

 

By this logic it will never represent you if you are not a member. if you become a member it will, in some subtle but real way, change slightly to draw in your views. If you become an active member then that influence is that much greater.

 

There will always be those that formulate policy and those that follow. You appear to want to be both.

[David Schweizer]

Chris, there is a lot of sense in what you are saying although I might differ with you regarding the hole you suggest Carl has dug for himself.

 

However, my main concern with NABO, which I expressed several times in the earlier thread, is the lack of democracy in both NABO's structure and representation. There is no structural facility for Regional Representatives to be nominated or appointed, and no structure through which they can seek to views of memebers before alledgedly representing their Region in National debates. These concerns could be resolved quite easily, but my observations, at the time, were either misinterpreted or not understood, and were dismissed by the two vociferous NABO voices on this forum as uneccessary.

 

There are other NABO Council members who belong to this forum, and two have written to me privately inviting me to discuss my concerns with them. I have not replied yet, but will be doing so in due course.

[Chris Pink]

Chris, there is a lot of sense in what you are saying although I might differ with you regarding the hole you suggest Carl has dug for himself.

 

However, my main concern with NABO, which I expressed several times in the earlier thread, is the lack of democracy in both NABO's structure and representation. There is no structural facility for Regional Representatives to be nominated or appointed, and no structure through which they can seek to views of memebers before alledgedly representing their Region in National debates. These concerns could be resolved quite easily, but my observations, at the time, were either misinterpreted or not understood, and were dismissed by the two vociferous NABO voices on this forum as uneccessary.

 

There are other NABO Council members who belong to this forum, and two have written to me privately inviting me to discuss my concerns with them. I have not replied yet, but will be doing so in due course.

 

I have spoken to a couple of council members about their voice on this forum and how, in my opinion, it would be a good place to recruit and convince. Why they don't is not really up to me. I do the artwork for the magazine but I'm not a member - for no particularly good reason other than i don't do much joining. I think their representatives on this forum do them no favours at all and that there are far more sensible and articulate members who should do this.

 

I would urge people to persist with the website to the extent of downloading the magazine as I think this is far more representative of NABO then these voices or the website.

 

I agree with you about regional representation, i think the reality is that finding people to do the job is hard. Maybe if, like the K and A trust there was more local structure it could facilitate this.

[koukouvagia]

I suspect it's pretty difficult to persuade people to stand for the NABO Council. When the annual elections take place there is usually no choice between candidates who might hold different views on, say cc-ers, or whether the organisation should take a combative or conciliatory stance vis-a-vis BW. As a result the ordinary member is not presented with a choice of policies to vote for, as in a political election. He/she simply hopes for the best that the Council will take sensible decisions and that it will seek the members' views before committing the organisation to anything radical and that the the influence of a clique with its own agenda does not prevail.

I joined NABO years ago because I knew and respected the then chairman and thoroughly approved of his policy of tenaciously holding BW to account on every occasion. I'm still a member of NABO despite often disagreeing with the Council's decisions because I think, on the whole, it does a good job.

Just as I do not think you can run a country holding referenda every five minutes, so too you have to allow the council of a voluntary organisation freedom to take executive decisions. However, it must be held accountable and, if necessary, removed at the next election. This rarely happens because there is simply no one else willing to stand.

I am, however, surprised at the small membership, around 3000. I seem to recall in the early days, NABO claimed a membership five times that number. When NABO was first formed it was a campaigning organisation representing the ordinary boater against the might of BW. It was seen as a radical alternative to the IWA who were perceived to have gone soft. In the early days it was a powerful voice listened to by government. It had a few well chosen targets and aimed its shots well. If I were asked by a would-be member what NABO stood for today I genuinely wouldn't be able to say.

[carlt]

 

There will always be those that formulate policy and those that follow. You appear to want to be both.

Actually I want to be neither.

 

I am merely exercising my right to criticise and ask questions.

 

 

I am, however, surprised at the small membership, around 3000. I seem to recall in the early days, NABO claimed a membership five times that number.

Back then I thought it natural, as a boat owner, to be a member (in the same way that, when I bought a lifeboat it was natural to join the Lifeboat Enthusiasts Society and Historic Lifeboat Owners Association).

 

After a while it became evident that it did not represent this particular boat owner and I stopped paying my subs.

 

I may well have been amongst the four fifths of its membership that fell by the wayside.

[Chris Pink]

Then you are doomed to remain in the role of critic.

 

to achieve this;

 

 

 

I ... would love to join an effective, campaigning organisation, representing all boaters, but it doesn't exist.

 

My purpose is .. to receive the answers that would inspire me to join.

 

 

 

 

you would need to be more proactive.

 

 

I would like to see you answer Tony's question; What would you like to see in NABO mission statement that would make you want to join?

 

Because I am sure you voice the concerns of many.

 

But maybe you voice criticism of the view of NABO given on this forum rather than the reality.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Chris Pink

[carlt]

 

 

But maybe you voice criticism of the view of NABO given on this forum rather than the reality.

No I voice criticism of my view of NABO as an ex member who hasn't witnessed any change, based on how it portrays itself and how its members and prospective members still describe it.

 

Perhaps I will remain a critic. From what I see there seems little prospect of me becoming a consumer.

[Chris Pink]

No I voice criticism of my view of NABO as an ex member who hasn't witnessed any change, based on how it portrays itself and how its members and prospective members still describe it.

 

 

Have you read a recent NABO News?

 

http://nabo.org.uk/files/nabo-news/nn-2011/1.pdf

 

(Yes, it is difficult to find)

 

ps I notice I'm in trouble on the website!

Edited March 7, 2011 by Chris Pink

[Innkeeper]

Just thought that those that have been reading this thread might like to know that the webmaster for NABO has taken a well deserved few days off to celebrate a rather special birthday. Sods law that the site has had a problem on the membership form and a couple of other links - something to do with the software we use and the contact needed to update and amend. As I receive all applications for new members that chose to join on line I can confirm that this is only a problem in the last few days and will be put right.

 

In defence of the webmaster I would also ask that those who seem intent on picking out faults stand back a little as only six months ago the site was no more than a dozen pages, with hardly anything available, even to members. The task of putting quite vast amounts of archive material onto the site for members has nearly been done - another labour of volunteering love.

 

We should have had our constitution available to all and we slipped up on this - thank you for those that wanted it - its now there.

 

Some of the other comments I have read here have been fair and we will address them - not on here I am afraid - but where they should be discussed - at our Council meetings. We are very aware that we need to present ourselves better and to a wider audience but again must run out the old mantra - there are just not enough of us with the time to do everything - we don't have any staff like the IWA who employ a full time Press Manager for example. So its all down to the ten to fifteen people who attend meetings, handle countless consultations, seek members views and report back to them - all on a voluntary basis. We will do our best in the coming months to perhaps tell the story of what what we have achieved over the years - it was enough to persuade me to join a few years back.

 

As somebody said earlier in this thread its pretty easy these days, and of course everyones right, to comment and say what they want, thats free speech. However some of these comments are pretty hurtful if for no other reason they seem to be uninformed much of the time, or just a bit of mischief perhaps?

 

We will be discussing the feedback we have had from this forum at our Council meeting on Saturday and review how we go about things in terms of communication - this will include the possible appointment of a member to ensure any views or policies are better communicated. However, frankly its impossible to have the time to spend on here or the other forums and carry out the tasks we assume when joining Council so I am sorry if some contributors (Chris Pink nags me all the time!) don't feel we are responding - would love to have some banter but other things to do!

 

Oh, and just to clear something up. As I am currently the custodian of all our records going back to 1991 when NABO was formed I am in a position to inform those that might be interested that The Constitution had a small makeover in 1993 but is largely unchanged since the original. Its not a Club -as someone seemed to suggest - its an Association that tries to represent boat owners on inland waterways which are National. The present membership number including its associates is very slightly less than at the turn of the century but has never been huge (as again someone has intimated in this thread)and despite efforts year after year at promotion remains around the same.

 

The feedback we do get seems to indicate that those that join are pretty happy with the efforts we make, we are resigned to the fact that the vast majority of boat owners are not very active on "the issues" and in the main will number all those we see in marinas who perhaps only cruise for a few weeks at best every year. I have only ever received correspondence from a couple of members leaving while commenting that they don't agree with policy, the majority of leavers tend to be people who have left boating either due to age or due to the ever rising costs. (There are some who just don't communicate of course without telling us why but we do seem to have kept at a pretty even level over the past few years).

 

So thats a load of words for some of you to pick to pieces as thats the nature of forums it seems but hopefully readers who don't comment much will hopefully see we are a hard working bunch who have been prepared to try and do a bit as honestly as we can.

 

Oh and just so everyone knows I am the present (3 years) General Secretary and like pretty much everyone else had to be arm twisted into taking the role. Fortunately we get a lot of good will and thanks for what we are trying to do - but try explaining that to the missus!

[carlt]

Thank you!

 

That is the sort of response that I was looking for, though I don't see much mischief making, in the criticisms.

[sociable_hermit]

Communication is everything.

 

I have stated in this thread that I tried before Christmas to join NABO via the website. It was impossible to view the application form and also impossible to contact the webmaster to report the fault.

 

Ignoring this information and saying that the fault was a recent one implies that I am a liar, and I do not take kindly to this. There has been a problem with the site, for some time, that has been impossible to report due to a secondary fault with the reporting process. Going into denial really isn't helpful.

 

Saying that you're "too busy" to talk to people is also revealing. Talking to people should be your no.1 priority - there's no point in doing anything else if you don't know what people want.

 

Any wonder the membership hasn't increased?

[fuzzyduck]

Maybe we should start The Real NABO

[canaldrifter]

Communication is everything.

 

I have stated in this thread that I tried before Christmas to join NABO via the website. It was impossible to view the application form and also impossible to contact the webmaster to report the fault.

 

I have done this.

 

Ignoring this information and saying that the fault was a recent one implies that I am a liar, and I do not take kindly to this. There has been a problem with the site, for some time, that has been impossible to report due to a secondary fault with the reporting process. Going into denial really isn't helpful.

 

Nobody is going into denial. Nobody is calling anybody a liar.

 

 

Saying that you're "too busy" to talk to people is also revealing. Talking to people should be your no.1 priority - there's no point in doing anything else if you don't know what people want.

 

The fact that Nabo members are taking the trouble to talk to people here rather answers that accusation.

 

Nabo council do, of course, talk to Nabo members all the while.

 

Tone

[sociable_hermit]

As I receive all applications for new members that chose to join on line I can confirm that this is only a problem in the last few days and will be put right.

This implies that the problem I experienced 3 months ago never happened.

 

Well sorry, but it did.

[canaldrifter]

This implies that the problem I experienced 3 months ago never happened.

 

Well sorry, but it did.

 

Look... I'm sorry if you had trouble joining Nabo three months ago.

 

I'm sorry if you feel aggrieved about it.

 

Yes, the system has been problematical, but the current team are doing their best to sort it out, OK?

 

Why not reapply online as soon as the website is sorted out, or ask for an application form by phone, an option that has always been open.

 

Tone

[David Schweizer]

Nabo council do, of course, talk to Nabo members all the while.

 

Tone

Unfortunately that is not my experience, very often the first I heard of anything was when a Council decision was reproted in NABO News.

 

Look... I'm sorry if you had trouble joining Nabo three months ago.

 

I'm sorry if you feel aggrieved about it.

 

Yes, the system has been problematical, but the current team are doing their best to sort it out, OK?

 

Tone

Adopting a less confrontational approach would stand a much greater chance of producing more enthusiasm for the recruitment of potential members.

[Mick and Maggie]

In this time of significant change in the funding/management/ethos of the Inland Waterways. Maybe we could take a lead from the current coalition government. Should/could the various boating clubs/associations/organisations form a "Big Society" of our own?

 

Mick and Mags

[David Schweizer]

In this time of significant change in the funding/management/ethos of the Inland Waterways. Maybe we could take a lead from the current coalition government. Should/could the various boating clubs/associations/organisations form a "Big Society" of our own?

 

Mick and Mags

Now that suggestion really could start an arguement.

[sociable_hermit]

Look... I'm sorry if you had trouble joining Nabo three months ago.

 

I'm sorry if you feel aggrieved about it.

 

Yes, the system has been problematical, but the current team are doing their best to sort it out, OK?

 

Why not reapply online as soon as the website is sorted out, or ask for an application form by phone, an option that has always been open.

 

Tone

Tone -

 

I don't feel aggrieved about the problems with the website. Ok so I wasted half an hour of my life messing about with it trying to make it work, but that's ok. In fact I'm pretty sure I had another try in January too, with similar results.

 

I'm more concerned about the NABO Gen Sec posting something on here which contradicts and belittles what I've said. In my experience that website has not been working properly for at least 3 months. I have flagged it up here (because I couldn't report it at the time) to do NABO a favour - you are now aware of the fault and can go and do something about improving your frontline sales window to the online world. That warrants a "thanks very much" rather than a load of waffling denial followed by a minor strop.

 

I know how difficult it is to manage voluntary groups, I work for three of them. It's one of the reasons why I'm so concerned about BW at the moment - I really don't think they understand how volunteers need to be managed, or what is involved. But having said that, the groups I work for are smart enough to realise that public perception is important. So, for example, if the website is under development they won't release stuff until it's ready, and then they'll check it twice over before it goes live. Oh, and the work is shared out between numerous contributors so not all the responsibility rests on the shoulders of one poor sod!

 

With voluntary groups you're far more likely to get a lot of people giving a little bit of time each, rather than a small number of full-time volunteers. So break the work up and allow people to communicate and contribute easily. That requires organisational transparency and simplicity and a real focus on effective communication - being able to get involved easily, understand what is required, talk to the people that matter, and make comments and suggestions knowing that they will be heard. It appears from this debate that NABO are not willing or able to work like that, and have been unable to expand. I think the two things are most likely directly related.

 

The thread title says a lot: "NABO - a defence". If NABO is struggling then the last thing it should be doing is defending a position that must, by definition, be flawed. "NABO - suggestions please!" might be a bit more constructive.

Edited March 8, 2011 by sociable_hermit