Can C&RT really ever have members?

[Ian Mac]

Some posts in the very very long discussion - CRT No Longer Wish To Meet With Boaters write about membership. This I think is C&RT's biggest problem. Many people cited the National Trust (of which I am a member) as being the model. I do not believe this to be the case, I belong to the NT because it is cheaper for me to be a member than pay each time I visit one of there cafes and park in there car park, and sometimes trek around a house &/or garden, I also do hope they are helping to look after things I value, but this last bit alone would not justify my membership. I do not have to be a member to roam over the vast tracks of moorland and countryside they own, which I really enjoy, and regularly access, these are the poor relations of the NT they are run down and ignored, they are not bricks and mortar they don't raise revenue.

For those of you who may have forgotten or where not here, remember the Lower Stratford Canal, when it was owned and managed by the NT.

You did not have to be a member to use the Lower Stratford Canal (LSC), you paid your money in the office, and off you slowly chugged. And what a nightmare that could be. The manager tried his best with very limited resources, but he got far less money to maintain the canal than Packwood house got. It was a mess, large groups of volunteers, an very few employees, held it nearly together, with bits of string and barrow loads of clay. Oh and very few of those volunteers had boats and indeed have boats now.

Could you image the pasting the NT would be receiving from this forum if it still owned and ran the LSC as it use too. It would make the comments about C&RT seem like a sunday school sermon.

There is no reason why I should be a member of C&RT I get no return, I can visit all the places I wish to access for free, I can volunteer for free. The membership model does not work. This applies to nearly everybody, it just does not stack up. There is nothing they can offer, other than a magazine.

I can see why I now have to consider if I leave C&RT money in my will, like I may have chosen to leave the NT or the RNLI or the cats home, but that is a different discussion, and is my chose, which I think they should be talking about.

As a boater I buy a service off C&RT which I expect to be of a certain standard. As a boater I would like to be represented by like minded people. I need a method to be able to select these people, not as part of some other organisation but directly. I need meaningful feedback, about problems, be it dredging of the canal or the fact that if you arrive at some places after 2pm there is nowhere sensible to moor.

The IWA (also a member) is not the body to represent me as a boater, they have a wider remit (i hope). It was very good that people from this forum were attempting to make things more accessible, given this modern technology. We need to help and encourage these people at the bleeding edge to carry on, on both sides. It is not an easy task, and there may only be rewards in heaven.

 

So that C&RT can negotiate with other bodies including the government, we also need to find a way of being able to allow the C&RT management to claim it has a lot of active members from the whole cross section of its users, how can this be achieved? What is the value proposition? I for one need more than a glossy mag and a silver badge. What does the family having a picnic to watch the boats go by get extra for becoming a member. There is no shop, no cafe, no stately home, and the gardens are carp! ( or have the Poles eaten them all). Its a really hard sell, I'm amazed the chuggers are getting any members at all.

This is not an easy model but there are some very clever people on here so please get thinking. We need to help C&RT survive because it was a one way trip, politically.

--

Cheers Ian Mac

[cotswoldsman]

A very interesting post shame you had to spoil it with your snipe at Poles but I will try very hard to ignore that. I do have some thoughts and it is also something I have spent quite a bit of time discussing with CRT

Let me firstly give my opinion on membership. The problem with a membership is that at some stage people will want to belong and be able to vote on whatever issues they think is important as happens with The NT. Now I am a member of the NT and have been long before I started boating. As a member of The NT like most other members my interests are Heritage Buildings and there restoration and upkeep so you could say as members the majority sing off the same song sheet. The problem that CRT have is there are so many different interest groups.(Boaters, Anglers, dog walkers, leisure walkers, ramblers etc.) to most people one canal looks much the same as the next canal so IMO most people that visit are local that live close to a canal. Now back to the voting thing the problem with in theory the majority would rule and here I think CRT have not gone down the membership route mainly to defend the interest of boaters. Just imagine if the majority of members were walkers and cyclists and at the AGM CRT decided to spend on for example £50 m on Locks, Dredging, new Visitor Mooring etc and then the cyclists and walkers voted this down as they wanted £30 m of that spent on tarmacking and improving the towpaths, or the Anglers became the majority and they decided that boats should not move on the canals on a Sunday so Anglers could have one day a week where they could fish with no boats disturbing them.

Attracting people to donate to CRT is difficult and I think Ruth at Fundraising is doing a great job under very difficult circumstances.

I do think that CRT could make more of what they have and offer that free to "Friends" ok they have the museums that they can charge for but little else. Maybe they could find someway of charging all those people that visit places like Bingley Five, Foxton, Ponty, etc along side the Chugger Tent they could have volunteers with collection boxes.

The PR dept are doing a good job of making people aware of the fact that CRT is a charity (and I use that word very loosely) but the majority of people I talk to on the towpath do not know and actually do not care, if the canal was not there it would not bother them they would simply find somewhere else to walk or cycle.

Now to the fact that CRT sells itself as a charity, yes it is a charity but also a Trust, but charitable donates will never be its main income stream. I asked Robin Evans at the last NUF how come if CRT as a charity it has 7 advisory groups all doing important work withing there areas but does not have an advisory group on fundraising? most large Charities make Fundraising the centre of it's activities, that is how they survive. I think an advisory group on Fundraising is urgently required and have said so many times to people within CRT but it seems of little interest. Maybe an Advisory Group on Fundraising might actually answer some of your questions and help find new ways of raising money. At times I do still feel that CRT have not embraced being in the Third Sector and I for one have always said I would be happy to help in this process but still wait to be asked, and yes I do have quite a bit of experience in Charity Fundraising.

Edited August 18, 2013 by cotswoldsman

[davidc]

I think there is many ways that membership be achieved it just depends which type works for CRT, I believe a form none voting Associate membership, where you voice is heard on region/canal region who then report to CRT.

 

There is many ways that CRT can grow money streams, There big reservoirs/ pounds which do not total dry up can be stocked with trout, up in Northumberland the reservoirs charge between 20 pound and 50 pound a day to fish a bag size of between 8 and 2 fish.

 

Where there have wide area of land why not a fast lane for bikes charged, bearing in mind rush hour.

 

Have nice picnic areas with built bar-b-q and a tea room

 

There is many ways CRT can do things Charity boat shop selling everything that’s donated

 

I think CRT has to stop think lick B/W and more like NT and other charities, I know CRT is difference but there nothing wrong whit cherry picking to fit you own need.

Edited August 18, 2013 by davidc

[Mick and Maggie]

Some posts in the very very long discussion - CRT No Longer Wish To Meet With Boaters write about membership. This I think is C&RT's biggest problem. Many people cited the National Trust (of which I am a member) as being the model. I do not believe this to be the case, I belong to the NT because it is cheaper for me to be a member than pay each time I visit one of there cafes and park in there car park, and sometimes trek around a house &/or garden, I also do hope they are helping to look after things I value, but this last bit alone would not justify my membership. I do not have to be a member to roam over the vast tracks of moorland and countryside they own, which I really enjoy, and regularly access, these are the poor relations of the NT they are run down and ignored, they are not bricks and mortar they don't raise revenue.

 

Comparisons are of little value unless you are comparing like for like. There are a few fundamental differences between the NT and CaRT. In some cases people have expressed a common wish for a subscription membership, but the view is held for a number of different reasons. One I believe is, the hope that a membership gives some ownership of the problems the waterways face. That membership would encourage transparency and that the membership could also influence direction.

 

Every disgruntled and marginalised boater is a bad advocate for a charity. Being a boater requires a large financial outlay and a real long term commitment to the waterways. One thing's for sure, until boaters feel themselves to be valued and respected. The war of words and deeds will descend even further into the mire. We lose because of our commitment and the directors will walk away on a good pension. Only then will the level of their commitment to the waterways become apparent. For boaters it is often a lifestyle choice and for some its a job.

 

I still believe that a subscription membership and what that entails is the way forward. It is a single rallying point that can draw together the many disparate opinions. It will be opposed by the Directors and trustees because they will see it as taking away part of their powerbase. That I feel would be a good position because at this time its a very one sided event.

[cotswoldsman]

I think there is many ways that membership be achieved it just depends which type works for CRT, I believe a form none voting Associate membership, where you voice is heard on region/canal region who then report to CRT.

 

There is many ways that CRT can grow money streams, There big reservoirs/ pounds which do not total dry up can be stocked with trout, up in Northumberland the reservoirs charge between 20 pound and 50 pound a day to fish a bag size of between 8 and 2 fish.

 

Where there have wide area of land why not a fast lane for bikes charged, bearing in mind rush hour.

 

Have nice picnic areas with built bar-b-q and a tea room

 

There is many ways CRT can do things Charity boat shop selling everything that’s donated

 

I think CRT has to stop think lick B/W and more like NT and other charities, I know CRT is difference but there nothing wrong whit cherry picking to fit you own need.

Charity shop boat sounds like a good idea certainly a better way of selling unwanted stuff than Ebay. Your post is just another example of why CRT need to engage with boaters more. I still worry about the name "Member" as it implies you have certain rights.

[lexicon]

I think there are a lot of extra ways CRT could increase membership and fees.

If all license renewals included a option to add friends status with a donation that was ring fenced for maintanence.

Roving permits (ducks for incoming) to create extra revenue when not currently receiving any.

And here's a idea from left field.

How about a friends of cart mooring permit that would let holders use unused (read unsold due to high prices or other factors) long term moorings with spaces, (they would need to be signposted)

And stays of 14 days max.

Or ultimate return to the old charging system.

[blodger]

 

Comparisons are of little value unless you are comparing like for like. There are a few fundamental differences between the NT and CaRT. In some cases people have expressed a common wish for a subscription membership, but the view is held for a number of different reasons. One I believe is, the hope that a membership gives some ownership of the problems the waterways face. That membership would encourage transparency and that the membership could also influence direction.

 

Every disgruntled and marginalised boater is a bad advocate for a charity. Being a boater requires a large financial outlay and a real long term commitment to the waterways. One thing's for sure, until boaters feel themselves to be valued and respected. The war of words and deeds will descend even further into the mire. We lose because of our commitment and the directors will walk away on a good pension. Only then will the level of their commitment to the waterways become apparent. For boaters it is often a lifestyle choice and for some its a job.

 

I still believe that a subscription membership and what that entails is the way forward. It is a single rallying point that can draw together the many disparate opinions. It will be opposed by the Directors and trustees because they will see it as taking away part of their powerbase. That I feel would be a good position because at this time its a very one sided event.

 

I too see merit in a subscription membership but only if the membership elected the trustees of the charity from its membership with the trustees employing the management. If that means the canals become a linear nature reserve rather than a navigation so be it. That is democracy. Maintaining the navigation could however be the primary constitutional aim and objective. Regardless. changing to a membership base would mean virtually starting again as changing your constitution is not easy with the charity commission.

[Mick and Maggie]

I still worry about the name "Member" as it implies you have certain rights.

 

The question therefore is should we have implicit rights.

 

I purchased a boat and in doing so gave a significant financial commitment to the waterways for the foreseeable future. I pay a boat licence fee, I think that bestows some sense of having a right. I pay a mooring fee, I also think that bestows some concept of rights. I have committed to continue to pay those charges for however long I own a boat that must be worth something. I also as a boater pay for bank side services that contribute to CaRT's income stream. Even if it is only for a pump out or when I contribute to the electrical supply I consume from a bollard. I am a tax payer, I think that should also bring with its some notion of rights.

 

Cyclists no longer pay for a permit to use the towpath but as taxpayers they contribute. Walkers, ramblers and dog latrine users as taxpayers they also contribute. Fishermen pay the EA for a licence, but they contribute as tax payers. Also a day or season permit holders. You can apply for a disability concession rod licence if you have a Blue Badge parking concession or receive Disability Living Allowance. There are as far as I am aware no concession licences for leisure moored boats. Or any state benefits for leisured moored boats.

 

There are many various interests that will want to have a say in the dispersal of funding. Many of those interests will only have a minimal per capita payment. I wonder what the actual contribution figure is per year, for each person in the country. It would be interesting to have such a figure as a bench mark for allocating rights.

 

But there is one caveat, as a taxpayer my commitment is time limited. Because one day in the future, I shall no longer be paying a due. As we all know, the Canal and River Trust will have secured a good financial status by then. I'm sure that Ruth Rudderham could assure us of the financial future. Maybe one day we will see licences abandoned because the cash flow is so good. Free moorings in marinas because the cash flow is going to be so good. I can live in hope! Otherwise the directors will walk away, marking the end of their commitment. Their reward will either be OBE or some other way of marking their passage. Like a good pension, now that is a given!

 

 

The question is, does my commitment to the inland waterways as a boater confer more rights. Well I for one think so. Should those rights be recognised or ignored.

[cotswoldsman]

I am on phone so will keep it short. I agree 100% boaters should have some rights for our £30 million but it would appear that is not going to happen not even a right to meet with CRT under our terms to me it is simple "you can have your say in regional meetings where CRT are in control"

[Pluto]

I would be a little wary of membership schemes. What would happen if the natural environmentalists became the majority? Would all canals end up like the Montgomery as glorified nature reserves? Should canals be conserved to reflect their built heritage and their original reason for being built, or should the natural environment, which has encroached, be considered the most important?

 

A further problem is to identify what membership would give back to its members. I did write to Robin Evans seven years ago, when BW were selling off the local lock cottage, that he did not know whether it would be a useful asset in the future. Such lock cottages could have been used as holiday lets for those who became members of the charity, and given an incentive for people to join. The money raised by the sale was not really significant in terms of canal income overall.

 

There has to be a clear reason for the large majority of non-boatowners to join CRT, otherwise a membership scheme will be a failure. Unfortunately, such a reason is very difficult to identify.

[Jerra]

From my personal point of view there has to be membership. There are a number of reasons for this.

 

1. Being a friend doesn't for me give me the feeling of belonging it makes me feel I am on the outside looking in. Being a member makes you seem to have a much more vested interest in the success of the charity.

 

2. I don't accept you need (or should need) to gain financially/materially from membership but there are some cost effective perks which could apply. for example say an extra day a month allowed on these new restricted moorings provided your licence (which would show you were a member) was displayed prominently in a window. It could even be a set window like car tax has to be displayed at a set point.

 

3. Membership could be in sections e.g.a cyclists section, angler section etc. I admit I can't think of a perk for these groups but then I am not one so don' tknow what they would need or want. Voting could then be related to the section you belonged to so what each group of users wanted would become clearer.

 

3. I am convinced the amount of money raised by membership would be more (probably considerably more) than that raised by a friends system.

 

4. The CRT would have a ready made way of consulting and listening to the worries hopes desires etc of each type of canal environment user.

 

5. I think publicity for being a say cycling member would be easier targeted and understood by "the man on the Clapham omnibus" (Oh hang on a cyclist wouldn't be on a bus but you know what I mean - I hope)

 

6. Members would feel that they were getting the chance to influence the thinking of CRT about their particular use of the canals.

 

I am sure there are more advantages but those will do for a start.

[Mick and Maggie]

I would be a little wary of membership schemes. What would happen if the natural environmentalists became the majority? Would all canals end up like the Montgomery as glorified nature reserves? Should canals be conserved to reflect their built heritage and their original reason for being built, or should the natural environment, which has encroached, be considered the most important?

 

A further problem is to identify what membership would give back to its members. I did write to Robin Evans seven years ago, when BW were selling off the local lock cottage, that he did not know whether it would be a useful asset in the future. Such lock cottages could have been used as holiday lets for those who became members of the charity, and given an incentive for people to join. The money raised by the sale was not really significant in terms of canal income overall.

 

There has to be a clear reason for the large majority of non-boatowners to join CRT, otherwise a membership scheme will be a failure. Unfortunately, such a reason is very difficult to identify.

I think what you are searching for is the existing non member known to CaRT as 'a friend'

[FadeToScarlet]

I would be a little wary of membership schemes. What would happen if the natural environmentalists became the majority? Would all canals end up like the Montgomery as glorified nature reserves? Should canals be conserved to reflect their built heritage and their original reason for being built, or should the natural environment, which has encroached, be considered the most important?

 

A further problem is to identify what membership would give back to its members. I did write to Robin Evans seven years ago, when BW were selling off the local lock cottage, that he did not know whether it would be a useful asset in the future. Such lock cottages could have been used as holiday lets for those who became members of the charity, and given an incentive for people to join. The money raised by the sale was not really significant in terms of canal income overall.

 

There has to be a clear reason for the large majority of non-boatowners to join CRT, otherwise a membership scheme will be a failure. Unfortunately, such a reason is very difficult to identify.

From having a look at the CRT site just now, at http://support.canalrivertrust.org.uk/donate-now/monthly/, and how they're advertising 'friendship' (not, crucially, membership) it's written in the normal 'Just £3 a month can.... £5 a month can....' Style of charities. All the incentives given- booklets, walking guides, window stickers, pin badges- are unsurprisingly not aimed at boaters, and all the possible outcomes of donating are couched in terms of wildlife- make otter holts, 'give a vole a home', or trimming towpath hedges.

 

There are a couple of reasons to join, but as you say, there's no one clear overarching reason or incentive to join, unlike say the National Trust or English Heritage, where you have reduced price entrance and other benefits.

[Mick and Maggie]

I am on phone so will keep it short. I agree 100% boaters should have some rights for our £30 million but it would appear that is not going to happen not even a right to meet with CRT under our terms to me it is simple "you can have your say in regional meetings where CRT are in control"

 

Have a single remit such as a membership of CaRT that confers rights upon anyone who wants to be a member. Open up the whole remit to walkers, dog walkers, ramblers, anglers, boaters, tax payers.The weight of public opinion can bring about change.Using a petition on 38 degrees and the publicity that would bring to the debate would be a start. I know that some newspapers would run the story which they would pick up from 38 degrees.

 

John, as the saying goes, you may have lost one battle, but its the first round in a bigger conflict. I have seen a comment on a charitable forum questioning if charities such as the trust deserve public donations that could be given to cancer research. However, I expect when it comes down to the bottom line. There is not the wherewithal or willingness to meet such a challenge. So it will be left to a few individuals, to chip away at the edifice. There will be lots of rhetoric but little actual commitment from the usual suspects.

 

The IWA usurped the independent boaters positions. I wonder if this going to be another such walkover?

[johnthebridge]

I've no wish to be cynical, but I'm afraid all the ideas you've mooted cost money.

 

 

BBQ area? Cost of installation. Cost of collection of fees. Cash handling. Cost of maintaining such. Potential vandal attraction.

Charity boat? Where do you start? Cost of vessel. H&S implications and third party insurance. Maintenance, Crew. Access. Location. Cash handling. Vandalism.

Bicycle "fast lane"? Who will collect the fees? Maintenance. H&S and insurance.

Selling off the old properties-someone suggested holiday lets instead-fine in principle, but who the hell runs it? Who services and cleans it? Insurance, advertising, booking, etc etc.

Where exactly does the money to pay for these things come from? It's akin to the question of licence "enforcement"--£2.2 million in set-up and running costs, to get back -what?

The CART manager paid a large salary, ostensibly to raise money-to raise how much exactly?

Some people here have been noble enough to attempt some form of communication with various middle-ranking members of CART. All power to them. Unfortunately, those middle rankers have little or no say in overall CART policy. That is formulated at a far more exalted level to which the common herd will never have access. The future has been decided upon.

To my gainsayers, regretfully I have to tell you I have no helpful answers to any of this.

Again, I've no wish to be cynical, but please-face the reality! We're in a.new era. This country's facing far greater problems than the question of the future of the waterways and, I'll say it again-you're very much in the minority. Others here have tried to explain this but, inevitably get shouted down.

You may find this amazing, but there is a far greater number of boaters outside this cosy little circle who have never heard of you, or who have no wish to join you. Just for once, stop navel-gazing and try and see it from an outsider's point of view! Just imagine someone from CART reading the stuff that gets posted here. What do they read? Many and varied opinions, some mad, some bad, some even sensible. Lots of people saying, "Something must be done". But, what happens? Nearly every subject degenerates into personal abuse, refusal to allow another's view, or ribald remarks. Told not to read it if they don't like it.

Comical? It's better than the Beano!

Edited August 18, 2013 by johnthebridge

[Tuscan]

If I chose not to be a member of the National Trust it costs me money each time I visit one of their properties or park in their car parks. If I chose not to be a member/friend of CRT it makes no difference to my enjoyment of the canals I don't think we are preparing like with like. The problem is a hard one as its a charity which many (outside those that already choose to contribute via their licenses) do not see as a charity. Maybe we need to greatly expand the WRG concept.

[Wassat]

The National Trust style membership already exists. The members are the boaters. They pay and get what few benefits there are - tow path mooring, locks held together by yellow tape and akros, etc. Everything a boater does, not just licence fees, supports the canals. When we buy fuel, get repairs, it all supports the canals. The suppliers pay C@RT for the privilege of doing business with boaters. The peripheral users who don't pay licence fees are the walkers, cyclists and fishermen.

 

In a way it is like fleas on a dog's back (the boaters being the dog). Yes, there might well be thousands of fleas and only one dog. But eventually the burden is too great and the dog either gets de-flead or dies.

 

Without the dog's blood supply and warmth the fleas are dead.

 

If the boaters are driven abroad (Yes, we and several others are already considering it) or just leave the canals because of cost and bureaucracy then how are the walkers, fishermen and cyclists going to support the continued upkeep of the canals?

 

The fishermen pay a licence, but they can and will go wherever it is either cheaper or more productive to fish. There are already angling clubs for those with the money and inclination to join. What can the canals offer over and above what already exists? Nothing.

 

The cyclists and ramblers? They expect everything free, just as they do from the National Trust. They are getting a service over and above that which everyone else pays for in their general taxes but which most rarely use, although it should also be remembered that if too many people use an area it suffers badly. Some paths have been worn away and walkers asked to go elsewhere.

The idea of different membership sections for each user group is a good one. But, and this is a big BUT! The competing sections must never be allowed to kill the dog and must be made to understand that their use is peripheral to the reason for existence of the canals.

 

Eventually the only viable option will be turnstiles where cyclists and walkers pay to use the tow-path or use a swipe card (keys are too easily copied) that comes as part of their membership fee.

 

Income from government sources is inevitably going to decrease or cease altogether. Charities that gain all or large proportions of their funding from the public purse are under fire,

http://fakecharities.org/

and you only have to look in the media to see charities have become fair game - and who can blame those who see their income shrinking or their jobs at risk for objecting to high salaries and tax money going to organisations that they might not choose to support willingly?

 

CART is either a charity which exists on freely given donations and offers the donors no services other than a feel good factor, or they are a business that charges for it's services and should charge ALL users for those services. Either way they should listen to the people who donate or pay to make sure that they are given value for their money.

Edited August 18, 2013 by Wassat

[LoneWolf]

Can C&RT really ever have members?

I think something as integral to the governance of the organisation as that would require a fundamental change to the governing documents which would, in effect, cause it to become a completely new separate organisation.

so, the answer is 'no'

 

but carry on debating...

 

Hey, If it were an organisation with members who could vote on matters i wonder if the number of boaters would be more or less than the numbers of anglers who would vote to ban boats from moving on match days ...just something to think about