CaRT election

[Mukiwa]

Our voting pack arrived today. I have decided not to vote for anyone with overt ties to any organisation as it would be difficult for them not to represent the views of said organisation.As I do not know any of the others I only have their statements to go on. To help me decide I plan to consider their statements against 4 criteria:

 

1. Their professional ability or experience that will enable them to carry out the role.

2. Their experience or knowledge of the canals.

3. Their objectives or what they hope to achieve.

4. The overall impression of their statement.

 

I then plan to mark each candidate against each of the criteia out 10 to give an overall maximum of 40. I will then rank them on the ballot paper accordingly.

 

I am keen to get this right and wonder if anyone thinks there are any other criteria that should be considered.

[Dekazer]

A fairly obvious point, but perhaps you could also consider the particulars of the role itself. Personally, I've forgotten what the elected people are going to be doing - does anyone have a link to the job description handy?

 

 

Incidentally, my no. 1 vote's going to Alan, who has not only made a massive effort to make his views known widely, he has also campaigned to make the voting system more accessible to boaters, by persuading BW to email out voting packs, as well as posting. This is exactly the sort of insight and determination I would hope to see in candidates. Perhaps that's a number 5 - Evidence of insight, determination and initiative.

[Jo_]

A fairly obvious point, but perhaps you could also consider the particulars of the role itself. Personally, I've forgotten what the elected people are going to be doing - does anyone have a link to the job description handy?

 

 

Incidentally, my no. 1 vote's going to Alan, who has not only made a massive effort to make his views known widely, he has also campaigned to make the voting system more accessible to boaters, by persuading BW to email out voting packs, as well as posting. This is exactly the sort of insight and determination I would hope to see in candidates. Perhaps that's a number 5 - Evidence of insight, determination and initiative.

 

Mine did too .... because of the above and also my #6 - A willingness to listen to and consider the opinions of others

[Guest]

The chance to vote for anybody at the mo. would be good -

 

<martin - languishing at home still with no ballot papers>

[magpie patrick]

The chance to vote for anybody at the mo. would be good -

 

<martin - languishing at home still with no ballot papers>

 

 

Mine arrived today in the post... so they do exist

[Jo_]

The chance to vote for anybody at the mo. would be good -

 

<martin - languishing at home still with no ballot papers>

 

Poor Martin! We had the email version a couple of days ago and the post version arrived today. Jo

[alan_fincher]

A fairly obvious point, but perhaps you could also consider the particulars of the role itself. Personally, I've forgotten what the elected people are going to be doing - does anyone have a link to the job description handy?

 

Not sure there is a formal one, but this is a starting point.

 

Actually this may be better ?

 

From the second link.....

 

Q. WHAT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF A COUNCIL MEMBER? HOW MUCH WORK WILL IT INVOLVE?

 

A. Council is the guardian of the long-term values and spirit of the Trust. It will have the role of appointing (or rejecting) Trustees proposed to them by the Appointments Committee (a joint committee of the Council and the Trustees) and will have the power to dismiss Trustees. While Trustees are responsible for determining policy and strategy, Council will have an important role in helping to shape policy, raising and debating issues, providing guidance, perspective and be a sounding board for Trustees.

 

You must be prepared to read papers in advance of meetings, to think about their content as well as keep in touch generally with developments and issues arising within the world of waterways. You may want to spend some time between meetings gathering the views of people within your constituency to form a representative view and raise any questions. The most effective Council members will therefore be well networked as well as able and willing to devote time and effort to become well informed and be ready to present arguments within Council and Committee meetings.

[Grace and Favour]

The chance to vote for anybody at the mo. would be good -

 

<martin - languishing at home still with no ballot papers>

 

 

Mine arrived today in the post... so they do exist

 

 

Poor Martin! We had the email version a couple of days ago and the post version arrived today. Jo

 

I do hope Martin didn't forget to renew his BW Licence

[mrsmelly]

The chance to vote for anybody at the mo. would be good -

 

<martin - languishing at home still with no ballot papers>

 

Mines done by email 2 days ago...

[tree]

Mine also arrived today,so will be quite busy, sorting out who, seems to be the best person to represent the future of our beautiful heritage, now and in the future good luck to all candidates

Edited February 10, 2012 by tree

[PiRSqwared]

My thought process was one of elimination:

 

The following were eliminated:

 

Anyone on the IWA list

Anyone who mentions being overly involved with the IWA/being a commodore etc

Anyone who doesnae mention they are the chosen candidate of an organisation

Anyone heavily involved in a non private boater type organisation.

Anyone whose only Google return is their statement if it is meaningless drivel full of cliches

 

This has left me with 9 people to consider:

Alan, Andrew, Tony, Frank Kelly, David, Val Lee, Malcolm Blundell, David Gee, Stephen Rudd.

 

Probably in something like that order.

 

The rest I sha'n't rank.

Edited February 10, 2012 by PiRSqwared

[Rob Dean]

My thought process was one of elimination:

 

The following were eliminated:

 

Anyone on the IWA list

Anyone who mentions being overly involved with the IWA/being a commodore etc

Anyone who doesnae mention they are the chosen candidate of an organisation

Anyone heavily involved in a non private boater type organisation.

Anyone whose only Google return is their statement if it is meaningless drivel full of cliches

 

This has left me with 9 people to consider:

Alan, Andrew, Tony, Frank Kelly, David, Val Lee, Malcolm Blundell, David Gee, Stephen Rudd.

 

Probably in something like that order.

 

The rest I sha'n't rank.

 

 

Pi,

I can't resist asking - on which of your 5 (sensible) criteria did I fail?

Rob

[14skipper]

Your boat name and location would be a good start

 

14skipper

Edited February 10, 2012 by 14skipper

[john6767]

My postal pack arrived today as well, although I voted via the email info yesterday.

 

I did find it very hard to rank them, and in the end I actually only voted for 14, as I had spent the best part of 2 hours to get to that point. The others for me would have been too much guess work, so I thought better to support none, than risk supporting someone who I many not have wanted had all the facts been available. However I will say, that with a few notable exceptions, I would like to think that they are all committed individuals who would try to do their best for the waterways.

 

I tried to look the the candidates agenda, eg. what group they were representing, and discounted some on that basis, both for overt niche interests, and no real feel for where they were coming from. I then looked at their background, to see the type of work that had done or were doing, and how that would equip them for this type of role. Then add a bit of gut feeling!

[fuzzyduck]

Pi,

I can't resist asking - on which of your 5 (sensible) criteria did I fail?

Rob

 

Speaking for myself, you failed the " must not smell gently of wee" test

[Alan de Enfield]

Pi,

I can't resist asking - on which of your 5 (sensible) criteria did I fail?

Rob

 

For me - my top 5 actually said "I will" - " I will approach....", " I will listen to all boaters .....", " I will take a critical view ...." etc etc.

 

Whilst you say "I have the time and the energy" your statement doesnt tell me what your beliefs are or what you will do if elected.

 

Without knowing you I can only 'go on' your 150 word statement as I dont recall seeing anything else from you (I might have missed it tho')

[Rob Dean]

For me - my top 5 actually said "I will" - " I will approach....", " I will listen to all boaters .....", " I will take a critical view ...." etc etc.

 

Whilst you say "I have the time and the energy" your statement doesnt tell me what your beliefs are or what you will do if elected.

 

Without knowing you I can only 'go on' your 150 word statement as I dont recall seeing anything else from you (I might have missed it tho')

Alan,

Thank you - feedback I can understand.

 

I did post a fuller explanation of my pitch on this forum earlier in the week. But I agree, my 150 word statement wasn't active enough.

Rob

[Chertsey]

My thought process was one of elimination:

 

The following were eliminated:

 

Anyone on the IWA list

Anyone who mentions being overly involved with the IWA/being a commodore etc

Anyone who doesnae mention they are the chosen candidate of an organisation

Anyone heavily involved in a non private boater type organisation.

Anyone whose only Google return is their statement if it is meaningless drivel full of cliches

 

This has left me with 9 people to consider:

Alan, Andrew, Tony, Frank Kelly, David, Val Lee, Malcolm Blundell, David Gee, Stephen Rudd.

 

Probably in something like that order.

 

The rest I sha'n't rank.

 

Well you are missing out on an excellent candidate in ignoring Sue Cawson. Just because someone is a member of an organisation and supported by that organisation does not mean they are a bad candidate. I am supporting Alan for exactly the same reason am supporting Sue - excellent candidates, with the requisite organisational experience but more importantly decades of boating experience, a really detailed knowledge of the system, and a commitment to respecting its heritage.

 

The IWA candidatures and the backlash against them have probably done a lot of harm to really good candidates who are members of and supported by an organisation simply because they are outstanding candidates.

 

It may be a folorn hope but there is a real need to understand the difference between a representative and a delegate. Delegates are mandated to vote as decided by their sponsoring organisations; representatives go and make up their own minds on the day. Someone can be supported and even nominated by an organisation without being its delegate; i.e. they can still be independent. The fact that an organisation recognises their worth should surely not count against them?

 

I do however take issue with the IWA putting up four candidates and trying to snaffle all the boater places. No matter how good their candidates may or may not be, i hope they are not successful in sweeping the board. They should have been satisfied to promote one candidate.

[Leni]

It may be a folorn hope but there is a real need to understand the difference between a representative and a delegate. Delegates are mandated to vote as decided by their sponsoring organisations; representatives go and make up their own minds on the day. Someone can be supported and even nominated by an organisation without being its delegate; i.e. they can still be independent.

Thank you! At last! Someone who understands, and who knows how to put it succinctly! Have a greenie, that (wo)man!

 

Edited with apologies

Edited February 10, 2012 by Leni

[PiRSqwared]

 

It may be a folorn hope but there is a real need to understand the difference between a representative and a delegate. Delegates are mandated to vote as decided by their sponsoring organisations; representatives go and make up their own minds on the day. Someone can be supported and even nominated by an organisation without being its delegate; i.e. they can still be independent. The fact that an organisation recognises their worth should surely not count against them?

 

 

So are you seriously suggesting that trustees of the IWA are going to go against the policies/outlook/ethos etc of their organisation?

As for Sue Cawson, her statement is dominated by the past, with little about the future and what she will do to develop it, aside from saying there may be health and safety issues to consider. She also fails to say that she is being promoted by the HNBOC and that she will be their representative.

 

I think that candidates being sponsored by organisations goes against the ethos of the whole thing - it is supposed to be an election of private boaters, not representatives of large organisations.

Edited February 10, 2012 by PiRSqwared

[alan_fincher]

Should this not have read.......

 

I do however take issue with the IWA putting up four five candidates and trying to snaffle all the boater places. No matter how good their candidates may or may not be, i hope they are not successful in sweeping the board. They should have been satisfied to promote one candidate.

Edited February 11, 2012 by alan_fincher

[cotswoldsman]

Well you are missing out on an excellent candidate in ignoring Sue Cawson. Just because someone is a member of an organisation and supported by that organisation does not mean they are a bad candidate. I am supporting Alan for exactly the same reason am supporting Sue - excellent candidates, with the requisite organisational experience but more importantly decades of boating experience, a really detailed knowledge of the system, and a commitment to respecting its heritage.

 

 

 

Sue would have been in my top 4/5 had she not been sponsored by HNBOC she will now be somewhere around the 10 mark.

[mrsmelly]

Your boat name and location would be a good start

 

14skipper

 

Yes good point I would agree with that. An anonimous forum member who has contributed 33 posts in over 5 years is hardly showing those of us who dont know him how interested he realy is. I voted for the northern contingent cos he calls a spade a spade and contributes to the forum and shows his boating interest continuously.

[David Schweizer]

Well you are missing out on an excellent candidate in ignoring Sue Cawson. Just because someone is a member of an organisation and supported by that organisation does not mean they are a bad candidate. I am supporting Alan for exactly the same reason am supporting Sue - excellent candidates, with the requisite organisational experience but more importantly decades of boating experience, a really detailed knowledge of the system, and a commitment to respecting its heritage.

 

The IWA candidatures and the backlash against them have probably done a lot of harm to really good candidates who are members of and supported by an organisation simply because they are outstanding candidates.

 

It may be a folorn hope but there is a real need to understand the difference between a representative and a delegate. Delegates are mandated to vote as decided by their sponsoring organisations; representatives go and make up their own minds on the day. Someone can be supported and even nominated by an organisation without being its delegate; i.e. they can still be independent. The fact that an organisation recognises their worth should surely not count against them?

 

I do however take issue with the IWA putting up four candidates and trying to snaffle all the boater places. No matter how good their candidates may or may not be, i hope they are not successful in sweeping the board. They should have been satisfied to promote one candidate.

Whilst I agree with your statement that a delegate carries a mandate, I cannot agree with your assurance that a representative can make up their own mind on the day, without qualifying that statement. A representative may not cary a mandate, but will be expected to make any observations or decisions, based upon their knowledge and awareness of the policies promoted by the organization the represent, and I suggest that would be the expectation of the orgaizations sponsoring CaRT Candidates.

 

I served on many Voluntary Organization Committees as the Local Authority Representative, and whilst I rarely, if ever, carried a mandate, it was employer's expectation that any comments I made fell within the policies of the County Council. I was also the Regional Delegate to the NEC of my Trades Union where I was often delegated to vote in a certain way on Agenda items which had been preiously debated at regional level. My experience of serving in both capacities, suggests that whilst there are certainly differences in the two roles, there are also many similaritieas.

 

If the IWA or other sponsoring bodies had made it clear that they will not, under any circumstances, require their sponsored candidate to pursue any policies promoted by themselves, but were sponsoring them because they felt that they were valid candidtaes, It wouod have made the selectiion of who might secure a vote a great deal easier.

Edited February 11, 2012 by David Schweizer

[Chertsey]

Sue would have been in my top 4/5 had she not been sponsored by HNBOC she will now be somewhere around the 10 mark.

Well I'm afraid that's just ridiculous. Either she's a good candidate or she's not.