Moorings at 3 locks

[jenlyn]

Genuinely astounded that Old Wolverton has been singled out for "additional sighting analysis". It's practically empty most of the time. No-one hangs around the moorings near Tesco's for very long, because you're under the watchful eye for loads of apartment owners who don't want you running your engine - you stop there for a shopping trip or to use the train station, and get out pretty quick and there are loads of mooring there, never seen anyone have to push on through because they can't find a space. Mooring either side of those flats is Scrotesville Tennessee and you're likely to come away with graffiti on your boat, cider cans in the bow or have your ropes untied. And the end near the Galleon pub only ever had the same two scruffy boats shunting up and down between the pub and New Bradwell. I remember talking with a bloke in the pub who works there, and him telling me how he goes out to set boats adrift at night who moor pubside if he doesn't like the owner (this is paying customers he did that to!). Oh, and the end near the trunk aqueduct isn't dredged properly so you can't get right to the bank unless you are lucky - I have in the past been the virtual boarding plank for the coal boat overnighting there for that reason.

 

For a while the handful of displaced boats that all used to congregate together at Linford headed towards Old Wolverton, but that's not enough to warrant an "additional sighting analysis" because it's simply the same few people who all live as a community - rather than something symptomatic of major problems that will result in all other boaters being penalised and having their mooring options reduced in that area too. I can't imagine there's going to be terrible visitor mooring problems around there ever.

 

It's like saying there are four rats living in Fred's basement, they don't go anywhere else, they don't do any harm, they just live there. Fred doesn't like rats: Let's lay rat poison in Fred's basement, the whole street and the whole town and people who want to walk their dogs, let their cats out, allow their kids to play outside or see any wildlife still alive will just have to put up without those things from now on - but it's okay: because Fred's four rats have gone.

 

Are CRT actually spending their time - and therefore our money - as wisely as they could be re: visitor moorings? Or are they responding to a handful of people living in those areas, or boating in those areas, who are shouting loud enough to get their attention and ignoring the rest of us and common sense?

As I have stated previously, to my mind, this is Mathew Symonds attempting to justify the need for his position. He recently had a phone conversation that I was party to, where he stated he was the visitor moorings manager. Perhaps he has been promoted from boater liason officer.

Whatever his post, I don't really believe his job is necessary, and the money paid for his post could be better spent.

I think the biggest problem he has, is his zero knowledge of boats and boating.

Something that is somewhat unbelievable frankly.

[alan_fincher]

Quote post 10

 

There will be a short trial period of monitoring at the Three Locks Pub in Stoke Hammond, with the aid of the publican. AF advised that he did not feel that this is necessary, but MS confirmed that it was only for a short trial period.

 

Another post quote

There will be a short trial period of monitoring at the Three Locks

 

 

Quote Post 304

 

There will be no volunteer mooring wardens at Three Locks we are told, so that's why they can't monitor, (as they will not exist!).

 

The main ambiguity about Three Locks relates to the alleged role (or not!) of the pub landlord and/or manager. Someone at the pub has allegedly claimed to a CWDF forum member that they are monitoring on behalf of CRT, but CRT have denied that this is the case.

 

 

the above post saying a forum member had a alleged conversation with the landlord

so where I had a conversation with Matt the landlord in the pub, Confirming that he and on behalf of CRT will be monitoring as they had a problem with overstayers, and wyvern boaters couldn't more up to use their facilities, but yes we can stay

 

May never have happened!

 

Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)

 

 

Col. Edited finding previous posts apologies

My use of words like "allegedly" is solely because I didn't myself have the conversations with anyone at the pub, even though people have already managed to wrongly report already that someone at the pub told me something directly. I am trying to stick scrupulously to facts, because so much misinformation is getting passed around.

 

One further ambiguity is that CRT seem to believe the landlord at the pub, (and hence the person Richard Parry actaully met), is called Michael. whereas you refer to Matt, who you also say is the landlord. So is there both a Michael and a Matt, and what are their respective roles, or has someone simply got a name wrong?

 

 

Minutes get signed off as accurate at the next meeting. So when is/was the next meeting?

Again for total accuracy CRT insist they have "meeting notes" rather than "minutes", although I can only guess at how the two differ in their eyes. From the notes I supplied in the above links....

 

9. Dates for future meetings: 20th October 2014

I am not confident now of ever getting the wording I want as a record of the last meeting. I would like it to actually explicitly say that new 2 day restricted moorings were being introduced where none previously existed, and that I objected to this being done with no data having been gathered that established the need. For some reason I feel there has been a marked reluctance to actually spell that out in full, but it is what it should say in my view.

Edited September 19, 2014 by alan_fincher

[jenlyn]

Perhaps this statement from within the notes make it quite clear where the sub boating group is

Terms of Reference – AD advised the group that this has been deferred, however Richard Parry does value the input that this group gives to the Canal & River Trust [unquote]

Quote post 10

There will be a short trial period of monitoring at the Three Locks Pub in Stoke Hammond, with the aid of the publican. AF advised that he did not feel that this is necessary, but MS confirmed that it was only for a short trial period.

Another post quote

There will be a short trial period of monitoring at the Three Locks

Quote Post 304

There will be no volunteer mooring wardens at Three Locks we are told, so that's why they can't monitor, (as they will not exist!).

The main ambiguity about Three Locks relates to the alleged role (or not!) of the pub landlord and/or manager. Someone at the pub has allegedly claimed to a CWDF forum member that they are monitoring on behalf of CRT, but CRT have denied that this is the case.

the above post saying a forum member had a alleged conversation with the landlord

so where I had a conversation with Matt the landlord in the pub, Confirming that he and on behalf of CRT will be monitoring as they had a problem with overstayers, and wyvern boaters couldn't more up to use their facilities, but yes we can stay

May never have happened!

Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)

Col. Edited finding previous posts apologies

I for one appreciate the effort you made at the time Colin. Thankyou very much.

[alan_fincher]

Perhaps this statement from within the notes make it quite clear where the sub boating group is

Terms of Reference – AD advised the group that this has been deferred, however Richard Parry does value the input that this group gives to the Canal & River Trust

 

Can you explain what you mean by "make it quite clear where the sub boating group is"? I think you may be misinterpreting what the notes were trying to say on this point.

 

I for one appreciate the effort you made at the time Colin. Thankyou very much.

Yes, to be clear I am very grateful for Colin's input, because it has enabled us to hit CRT with the fact that whatever CRT tell us they think is the situation at Three Locks, someone at the pub is actually telling his customers something very different.

 

This makes the case that CRT have not thought through the consequences of this very much more powerful to me.

 

If anything I have said has been interpreted otherwise by Colin, it was certainly not my intended meaning, and I apologise if what I was trying to say was in any way unclear.

[jenlyn]

Can you explain what you mean by "make it quite clear where the sub boating group is"? I think you may be misinterpreting what the notes were trying to say on this point.

I think not Alan. Given recent events, and reading that particular comment, I think there is very little to "misinterpret". Just my personal view of course.

 

The sub group is a joke, and not a very funny one. CRT have the majority members, and yes, I include Anne davies, John best and James griffin within the circle.

There is no interaction between the four boating representative's, which in itself is a joke.

I'm really sorry that I am banging on about this, but it really hacks me off when people can be so self indulgent when presented with an opportunity such as that brought about by the sub group.

[alan_fincher]

I think not Alan. Given recent events, and reading that particular comment, I think there is very little to "misinterpret". Just my personal view of course.

OK if you won't explain, I obviously can't discuss it. I wonder how many others reading your comment will have understood the point you are trying to make though.

 

There is no interaction between the four boating representative's, which in itself is a joke.

For clarity, who do you define as being "the four boating representatives"?

 

The group would be greatly improved, in my view, if successful recruitment were to take place for a continuous cruiser.

 

If anybody feels they can improve the balance of views on this sub-group, the details of the vacancies appear at the end of this page, and I would urge them to apply.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I think not Alan. Given recent events, and reading that particular comment, I think there is very little to "misinterpret". Just my personal view of course.

 

The sub group is a joke, and not a very funny one. CRT have the majority members, and yes, I include Anne davies, John best and James griffin within the circle.

There is no interaction between the four boating representative's, which in itself is a joke.

I'm really sorry that I am banging on about this, but it really hacks me off when people can be so self indulgent when presented with an opportunity such as that brought about by the sub group.

Do you mean this Ann Davies? The one that supposedly sits on the Waterways Ombudsman's committee.

 

Taken from CaRT's website.

Ann Davies, Partnership member

Ann runs her own boat hire businesses in both the UK and on the continent. Ann is a very experienced trade champion having held Chair positions on both APCO (Association of Pleasure Craft Operators) and BHCF (British Hire Cruiser Federation), she was also a past board member of British Marine Federation (BMF). Currently Ann is chair of a BMF sub-committee and an appointed member of the British Waterways’ Ombudsman’s Committee.

 

[mark99]

Minutes get signed off as accurate at the next meeting. So when is/was the next meeting?

 

I was explaining (to Big Col) re the meeting between the Landlord and BigCol. As no-one was present it makes sense to qualify any posting with "alledged". Not because the meeting did not happen - but because no-one took detailed notes.

 

I should have quoted the post to be clear I sus'spose.

Edited September 19, 2014 by mark99

[Tuscan]

Given that Roger Hanbury head of governance does not want any sub group to discuss the contents of their discussions it makes it very difficult in my view for an active boater or CC'er to join and discuss the issues with the wider boating community to get a true understanding of local views.

 

Reading minutes or discussing them now as we are after the sub group has agreed to the changes or other monitoring arrangements is useful for background information but doesn't change the decision which has already been made.

[jenlyn]

Given that Roger Hanbury head of governance does not want any sub group to discuss the contents of their discussions it makes it very difficult in my view for an active boater or CC'er to join and discuss the issues with the wider boating community to get a true understanding of local views.

Reading minutes or discussing them now as we are after the sub group has agreed to the changes or other monitoring arrangements is useful for background information but doesn't change the decision which has already been made.

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that. Louise told me at the time she found it strange that the group was being pushed as the new open look trust, yet Hanbury and Best were swearing her to secrecy.

Who needs tv soaps.....

[MtB]

Given that Roger Hanbury head of governance does not want any sub group to discuss the contents of their discussions ...<snip>

 

 

I think this might explain why there are the 'meeting notes' that Alan speaks of, rather than 'meeting minutes'.

 

Minutes are a contemporaneous record of the discussions. Meeting notes appear to me to be simply the conclusions of the (unpublished and un-minuted) discussions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutes

 

 

MtB

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about that. Louise told me at the time she found it strange that the group was being pushed as the new open look trust, yet Hanbury and Best were swearing her to secrecy.

Who needs tv soaps.....

That was exactly why I was asking about Ann Davies (if I have the right person).

 

 

[jenlyn]

I think this might explain why there are the 'meeting notes' that Alan speaks of, rather than 'meeting minutes'.

 

Minutes are a contemporaneous record of the discussions. Meeting notes appear to me to be simply the conclusions of the (unpublished and un-minuted) discussions.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minutes

 

 

MtB

If the representative's were a bit organised, one of them could take minutes. Louise did it in her short time there, but then, she was somewhat on the ball.

[alan_fincher]

Mark & Steve,

 

To be completely fair though, when you set up a meeting with CRT on any topic, are things radically different?

 

You go in with some idea of what you hope to discuss, and what you hope you might get from the meeting, and if you are lucky come out with some agreed next steps. However, from what I have observed, you don't necessarily then go away and have some kind of major consultation with whoever it is you believe you are representing, to see if there is the best possible consensus that it is the right way forward. Even if you did, the point repeatedly comes up about "affects all boaters", but if you are for example heading an organisation that is aimed specifically at CC-ers, you really are only covering a very small part of the total boater population. Even if you consulted the total ACC & NABO memberships, it is still a very small proportion of "all affected boaters".

Can you honestly say that there is some public record somewhere for every such meeting with CRT that anybody can consult to see what you have been discussing? If so where would we look for that? (OK, I know some materials have been published, though seldom actually put on line by CRT themselves, so often only available to those who try finding it on "association" web pages.)

In fact I know that both of you in conversation with me have told me in the past that there is stuff you can not divulge to me, and hence I am really struggling to see that the groups like you are now complaining about are in some way "more secretive" or "less open" than what you are both regularly involved in.

Please note though, I am most definitely not attempting to fully defend the working practices of the CRT groups - I would be a hypocrite if I did that, as I have been actively pushing for things like proper terms of reference and more detailed meeting notes. However just because something is imperfect doesn't mean it can't be improved. As far as I can see just about any way that people currently try to get boater views across falls into the category "less than perfect", and it should be the aim of us all to try and get that improved wherever we are able to exert any influence.

[jenlyn]

Mark & Steve,

 

To be completely fair though, when you set up a meeting with CRT on any topic, are things radically different?

 

You go in with some idea of what you hope to discuss, and what you hope you might get from the meeting, and if you are lucky come out with some agreed next steps. However, from what I have observed, you don't necessarily then go away and have some kind of major consultation with whoever it is you believe you are representing, to see if there is the best possible consensus that it is the right way forward. Even if you did, the point repeatedly comes up about "affects all boaters", but if you are for example heading an organisation that is aimed specifically at CC-ers, you really are only covering a very small part of the total boater population. Even if you consulted the total ACC & NABO memberships, it is still a very small proportion of "all affected boaters".

Can you honestly say that there is some public record somewhere for every such meeting with CRT that anybody can consult to see what you have been discussing? If so where would we look for that? (OK, I know some materials have been published, though seldom actually put on line by CRT themselves, so often only available to those who try finding it on "association" web pages.)

In fact I know that both of you in conversation with me have told me in the past that there is stuff you can not divulge to me, and hence I am really struggling to see that the groups like you are now complaining about are in some way "more secretive" or "less open" than what you are both regularly involved in.

Please note though, I am most definitely not attempting to fully defend the working practices of the CRT groups - I would be a hypocrite if I did that, as I have been actively pushing for things like proper terms of reference and more detailed meeting notes. However just because something is imperfect doesn't mean it can't be improved. As far as I can see just about any way that people currently try to get boater views across falls into the category "less than perfect", and it should be the aim of us all to try and get that improved wherever we are able to exert any influence.

"In fact I know that both of you in conversation with me have told me in the past that there is stuff you can not divulge to me"

 

What a load of codswallop, the only time I have offered such a remark would relate to my naming the source, and as for the acc, it's members are well informed of what's happening.

Minutes of meetings with associations and CRT are minuted, and put out publicly.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

"In fact I know that both of you in conversation with me have told me in the past that there is stuff you can not divulge to me"

 

What a load of codswallop, the only time I have offered such a remark would relate to my naming the source, and as for the acc, it's members are well informed of what's happening.

Minutes of meetings with associations and CRT are minuted, and put out publicly.

It seems that CaRT are in divulging mode at the moment -

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/meeting_on_enforcement_9th_june#incoming-563617

[jenlyn]

It seems that CaRT are in divulging mode at the moment -https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/meeting_on_enforcement_9th_june#incoming-563617

Nothing that was not made public after the meeting, so I'm struggling to see the need for an foi.

Whatever sparks her plug I suppose :-D

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Nothing that was not made public after the meeting, so I'm struggling to see the need for an foi.

Whatever sparks her plug I suppose :-D

If information requested is already available, then an authority will normally claim exemption under Section 21 of the Act - 'Information available by other means' but inform the requester how to obtain that information as required by Section 16 - 'Duty to provide advice and assistance'.

 

Put simply, if CaRT's had already published any of this information, it would have made this clear and provided a link to it rather than publishing the information again.

 

Its response makes it very clear that it has not published any of the information provided (although it says that an unnamed third party has published part of item 7).

 

...... hopefully, Steve can now understand the need for a Freedom of Information request.

e.

[jenlyn]

If information requested is already available, then an authority will normally claim exemption under Section 21 of the Act - 'Information available by other means' but inform the requester how to obtain that information as required by Section 16 - 'Duty to provide advice and assistance'.

 

 

Put simply, if CaRT's had already published any of this information, it would have made this clear and provided a link to it rather than publishing the information again.

Its response makes it very clear that it has not published any of the information provided (although it says that an unnamed third party has published part of item 7).

...... hopefully, Steve can now understand the need for a Freedom of Information request.

e.

The associations published the meeting minutes and notes. Why are you suggesting we were all talking about CrT producing them? You need to get a life mate. Your hypnotised by your own prejudice.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

The associations published the meeting minutes and notes. Why are you suggesting we were all talking about CrT producing them? You need to get a life mate. Your hypnotised by your own prejudice.

Links?

 

 

****** Edited to add I found this on the ACC website -

 

Meeting Diary

The ACC meetings page: Dates of upcoming meetings with resulting minutes

Tuesday 16th September

ACC, RBOA, NABO, AWCC and IWA meeting with Richard Parry and the TRUST

Monday 9th June 2014

Enforcement meeting with the Canal and River Trust, ACC, RBOA, NABO, AWCC and IWA

.... but no minutes or notes relating to the Enforcement Meeting on 9th June .................

Edited September 20, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[jenlyn]

Links?

 

 

****** Edited to add I found this on the ACC website -

 

 

 

Meeting Diary

 

The ACC meetings page: Dates of upcoming meetings with resulting minutes

 

 

Tuesday 16th September

 

ACC, RBOA, NABO, AWCC and IWA meeting with Richard Parry and the TRUST

 

Monday 9th June 2014

 

Enforcement meeting with the Canal and River Trust, ACC, RBOA, NABO, AWCC and IWA

 

 

.... but no minutes or notes relating to the Enforcement Meeting on 9th June .................

Exciting for you. To be honest, I wouldn't give you the time of day, you'd probably write a load of carp about it.......goodnight

[alan_fincher]

Those representing both NABO and ACC have been repeatedly critical of CRT based advisory groups like Partnerships or NAG, claiming a lack of openness, (or even secrecy), about what they are doing, or suggesting that meeting notes are hard to find. A point also being repeatedly made is that potentially all boaters are affected by what is going on, and the information needs to be freely available to all.

 

However, equally all boaters are potentially affected by the meetings that NABO, ACC and other associations are having with CRT, so it is entirely reasonable to expect the same level of openness about those meetings if they are discussing matters of interest to us all, and which may influence decisions that CRT make on those matters.

 

I have no issue at all if minutes or meeting notes are produced by someone from an association, rather than CRT, provided they are agreed and signed off by all parties. In fact I would say that the meeting notes produced by Lucy Smith were very much better than many I have seen, and might actually be used by CRT as a model for a sensible level of detail.

It does, however seem reasonable to me that, (like Partnership notes, or notes from CRT advisory groups like NAG), the notes from these meetings with associations should be placed on the CRT website in a consistent way, so any interested person can go and take a look.

I don't think it is sufficient to say they are somewhere on the association web-sites, and to expect people to hunt around multiple web-sites trying to find them. I don't know if it has improved since, but the most important note was at one stage only available on the RBOA site, and still showed as draft status some considerable time after the meeting. I think, from memory, that following a request the final version got put on the NABO site, but only when it was specifically asked for.

Is there an objection to asking CRT to actually publish a copy themselves, even if a volunteer from an association was the actual minute taker? It seems to me the most obvious way of providing the "openness" that is sometimes claimed as lacking.

[jenlyn]

Those representing both NABO and ACC have been repeatedly critical of CRT based advisory groups like Partnerships or NAG, claiming a lack of openness, (or even secrecy), about what they are doing, or suggesting that meeting notes are hard to find. A point also being repeatedly made is that potentially all boaters are affected by what is going on, and the information needs to be freely available to all.

 

However, equally all boaters are potentially affected by the meetings that NABO, ACC and other associations are having with CRT, so it is entirely reasonable to expect the same level of openness about those meetings if they are discussing matters of interest to us all, and which may influence decisions that CRT make on those matters.

 

I have no issue at all if minutes or meeting notes are produced by someone from an association, rather than CRT, provided they are agreed and signed off by all parties. In fact I would say that the meeting notes produced by Lucy Smith were very much better than many I have seen, and might actually be used by CRT as a model for a sensible level of detail.

It does, however seem reasonable to me that, (like Partnership notes, or notes from CRT advisory groups like NAG), the notes from these meetings with associations should be placed on the CRT website in a consistent way, so any interested person can go and take a look.

I don't think it is sufficient to say they are somewhere on the association web-sites, and to expect people to hunt around multiple web-sites trying to find them. I don't know if it has improved since, but the most important note was at one stage only available on the RBOA site, and still showed as draft status some considerable time after the meeting. I think, from memory, that following a request the final version got put on the NABO site, but only when it was specifically asked for.

Is there an objection to asking CRT to actually publish a copy themselves, even if a volunteer from an association was the actual minute taker? It seems to me the most obvious way of providing the "openness" that is sometimes claimed as lacking.

Have you heard the term "sort your own house before criticising someone else's"?

 

All I have seen from you so far Alan, are attempts to criticise others, I suspect to deviate from your own misdemeanour. Just my opinion.

You have constantly criticised,ridiculed and generally whinged about associations. So start one of your own. Put up or shut up.

Edited September 21, 2014 by jenlyn

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Those representing both NABO and ACC have been repeatedly critical of CRT based advisory groups like Partnerships or NAG, claiming a lack of openness, (or even secrecy), about what they are doing, or suggesting that meeting notes are hard to find. A point also being repeatedly made is that potentially all boaters are affected by what is going on, and the information needs to be freely available to all.

 

However, equally all boaters are potentially affected by the meetings that NABO, ACC and other associations are having with CRT, so it is entirely reasonable to expect the same level of openness about those meetings if they are discussing matters of interest to us all, and which may influence decisions that CRT make on those matters.

 

I have no issue at all if minutes or meeting notes are produced by someone from an association, rather than CRT, provided they are agreed and signed off by all parties. In fact I would say that the meeting notes produced by Lucy Smith were very much better than many I have seen, and might actually be used by CRT as a model for a sensible level of detail.

It does, however seem reasonable to me that, (like Partnership notes, or notes from CRT advisory groups like NAG), the notes from these meetings with associations should be placed on the CRT website in a consistent way, so any interested person can go and take a look.

I don't think it is sufficient to say they are somewhere on the association web-sites, and to expect people to hunt around multiple web-sites trying to find them. I don't know if it has improved since, but the most important note was at one stage only available on the RBOA site, and still showed as draft status some considerable time after the meeting. I think, from memory, that following a request the final version got put on the NABO site, but only when it was specifically asked for.

Is there an objection to asking CRT to actually publish a copy themselves, even if a volunteer from an association was the actual minute taker? It seems to me the most obvious way of providing the "openness" that is sometimes claimed as lacking.

CaRT have a duty under the Freedom of Information Act (and Environmental Information Regulations) to have a publication scheme.

They say they have adopted the 'model scheme' but do not say what information they will actually publish -

publication scheme

 

- the link

 

How we make decisions

 

is dead.

It should provide a link to minutes of meetings that are routinely published by the scheme, consultations etc.

 

My view is that any notes, draft minutes or associated documents relating to meetings with boating organisations should be published within 20 man days of a meeting taking place as a policy under the publication scheme.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[cotswoldsman]

Those representing both NABO and ACC have been repeatedly critical of CRT based advisory groups like Partnerships or NAG, claiming a lack of openness, (or even secrecy), about what they are doing, or suggesting that meeting notes are hard to find. A point also being repeatedly made is that potentially all boaters are affected by what is going on, and the information needs to be freely available to all.

 

However, equally all boaters are potentially affected by the meetings that NABO, ACC and other associations are having with CRT, so it is entirely reasonable to expect the same level of openness about those meetings if they are discussing matters of interest to us all, and which may influence decisions that CRT make on those matters.

 

I have no issue at all if minutes or meeting notes are produced by someone from an association, rather than CRT, provided they are agreed and signed off by all parties. In fact I would say that the meeting notes produced by Lucy Smith were very much better than many I have seen, and might actually be used by CRT as a model for a sensible level of detail.

 

It does, however seem reasonable to me that, (like Partnership notes, or notes from CRT advisory groups like NAG), the notes from these meetings with associations should be placed on the CRT website in a consistent way, so any interested person can go and take a look.

 

I don't think it is sufficient to say they are somewhere on the association web-sites, and to expect people to hunt around multiple web-sites trying to find them. I don't know if it has improved since, but the most important note was at one stage only available on the RBOA site, and still showed as draft status some considerable time after the meeting. I think, from memory, that following a request the final version got put on the NABO site, but only when it was specifically asked for.

 

Is there an objection to asking CRT to actually publish a copy themselves, even if a volunteer from an association was the actual minute taker? It seems to me the most obvious way of providing the "openness" that is sometimes claimed as lacking.

Alan I think you are confusing the role of the associations they are not a policy setting group. Associations at times will make suggestions that CRT will then take to groups like the one you are a member off or NAG for discussion. The other thins that the associations do is to try and give a good reason why policies allready agreed by groups like the one you are a member off should be reversed an example being the introduction of 48hr moorings at the Three locks. I would have thought the associations need to keep their members (who pay subscriptions and support) informed and if they choose to put this in the public domain then fine. I am amazed for example that the group you are a member of never mentioned the changes at 3 Locks until this thread started and signs had allready gone up. The associations simply reflect the views of their members