CaRT council elections

[PiRSqwared]

I know it seems a little way off, but the next election for the CaRT Council is just over a year away. Anybody here thinking of putting their name forward?

Also, I understand that the IWA (not a boating organisation) will have a nominated place on the council from 2016. Do we think that as a result the IWA (not a boating organisation) will desist from promoting IWA (not a boating organisation) members/trustees and such in the elections for the boaters' places on the council?

 

Merry Christmas BTW

[Graham Davis]

You keep saying "IWA (not a boating organisation)".

Are boaters the only people to use the canals?

By that reasoning you appear to be implying that the only people who should be on the Council are boaters.

A somewhat biased opinion.

 

Has the IWA ever said it is just a boating organisation? I thought it was supposed to cover all inland waterway users?

 

If you are so anti the IWA perhaps you can explain why?

[PiRSqwared]

What I think is that the boaters on the council should not all be proxies for the IWA.

Perhaps you could answer the question(s).

Edited December 25, 2014 by PiRSqwared

[jenlyn]

I know it seems a little way off, but the next election for the CaRT Council is just over a year away. Anybody here thinking of putting their name forward?Also, I understand that the IWA (not a boating organisation) will have a nominated place on the council from 2016. Do we think that as a result the IWA (not a boating organisation) will desist from promoting IWA (not a boating organisation) members/trustees and such in the elections for the boaters' places on the council?Merry Christmas BTW

I don't think they have changed much since the last elections, and will therefore attempt to snatch everything again.

I just wish they would learn how to behave when in public.

[Rich]

You keep saying "IWA (not a boating organisation)".

Are boaters the only people to use the canals?

By that reasoning you appear to be implying that the only people who should be on the Council are boaters.

A somewhat biased opinion.

 

Has the IWA ever said it is just a boating organisation? I thought it was supposed to cover all inland waterway users?

 

If you are so anti the IWA perhaps you can explain why?

 

Is your post a result of your strongly held beliefs or is there an element of Christmas "spirit" in it?

[NBDensie]

I don't think they have changed much since the last elections, and will therefore attempt to snatch everything again.

I just wish they would learn how to behave when in public.

 

Active boaters are far more likely to be members of IWA than any other organisation. IWA cant command its members to do anything - either to stand for elections or not to. Do you believe individuals should be banned from putting their names forward if they happen to belong to particular associations?

[Bod]

If they run on an independent ticket, fine.

If they run on an IWA ticket, then we get what happened before. (He who pays the piper, calls the tune.)

 

Bod

[MtB]

Also, I understand that the IWA (not a boating organisation) will have a nominated place on the council from 2016. Do we think that as a result the IWA (not a boating organisation) will desist from promoting IWA (not a boating organisation) members/trustees and such in the elections for the boaters' places on the council?

 

No.

 

MtB

[jenlyn]

Active boaters are far more likely to be members of IWA than any other organisation. IWA cant command its members to do anything - either to stand for elections or not to. Do you believe individuals should be banned from putting their names forward if they happen to belong to particular associations?

I suspect nbta has more active "boater members".

Given the behaviour of some IWA members at some of the meetings this year, I don't believe they should be allowed out, let alone be allowed to put their names up for council.

Given one of their vice chaird also stated at a meeting recently, "CCer's don't pay their way", I'd be inclined to ask if he should be allowed to stand for anything.

[Graham Davis]

 

Is your post a result of your strongly held beliefs or is there an element of Christmas "spirit" in it?

 

No strong beliefs at all. Many years ago I was a member but that lapsed and I have no intention of re-joining.

However I do suspect that the IWA is probably the only group that includes all users, be they boaters, walkers or anglers.

I also think that if they get an automatic place then other equally as large groups should as well, but are there any other equally sized groups?

[jenlyn]

are there any other equally sized groups?

Yes, boat owners.

[alan_fincher]

 

Active boaters are far more likely to be members of IWA than any other organisation. IWA cant command its members to do anything - either to stand for elections or not to. Do you believe individuals should be banned from putting their names forward if they happen to belong to particular associations?

In my view, there is an enormous difference between someone who happens to be a member of the IWA standing independently in these elections, and the IWA putting up a full slate of a number of people who are all IWA trustees, and senior officers, (including the national chairman, and branch chairman), and urging its membership to vote for them.

 

The latter is what happened last time, and I would dearly like to think it wasn't happen again, particularly given the totally obnoxious views later expressed by one of those who ultimately ended up getting elected, and who, in my view, is not a fit person to represent boaters, and should have resigned at the time he committed his blunder.

 

However, I have a nasty feeling that those who have held the office for the last two years will try and convince themselves they have done a good job, and will hence stand again, and probably again get the benefit of the IWA to recommend its members to vote for them.

[DeanS]

Please remember that "boaters representatives" do not have the responsibility of representing boaters. There was much misunderstanding on this point at the very first "election". The name is misleading.

 

eta....I have pasted a posting I made in Jan2013 after attending a CRT meeting....further along in this thread...to bring some clarity

Edited December 25, 2014 by DeanS

[alan_fincher]

I know it seems a little way off, but the next election for the CaRT Council is just over a year away. Anybody here thinking of putting their name forward?

 

I was a candidate last time, and managed to finish higher in the rankings than all but about one other person who I would have classed as "independent", but, of course, it was not enough.

 

In my view, it is almost impossible to see any method that prevents a whitewash by candidates promoted by the biggest association, if that is how they choose to play it.

 

I did give my feedback to Roger Hanbury on the consultation about what might be changed for the next election, although if there has ever been a paper that summarised all the feedback they received, and any planned changes, then I have never been made aware of it.

 

One of the biggest difficulties that any "independent" faced last time was probably the timing of the elections, when very few people are boating, and it is very hard to get out and canvass people on the tow-path. I do actually feel that if the elections were in the months when far more boats are in use and moving, it would be very much easier for an "independent" and their supporters to actually be out trying to spread the message that the elected people do not necessarily need to be from a list carefully prepared by a large organisation, particularly as that association's "chiefs" regularly seem to have a major downer on large sections of the boating community.

[DeanS]

Here is my post from January 2013........it clears up a few things about boaters representatives...and the misleading name.

 

 

I was at the meeting in Skipton last night, and listened to one of the "Boating Business Representatives on the Council" who were present, explain in extremely elequent understandable terms, the roles and purpose of the "boaters representatives". Their one role is to hold to account the "charity" leadership. They are there because it's a legal requirement for a charity to have a "council". We have wrongly assumed that the words "boatersrepresentative" means we can all email them or expect them to be communicating with the 30000 boaters, but this is not the case. If they were, they would have no time left to do what they are actually in place to do. This thread is an example of the miscommunication of this fact by CRT (who are now going to change the wording on their website to match what was actually said at the meeting...as this was much clearer). The misunderstanding (by the likes of us boaters) as to their purpose and role, in the wider functioning of the charity, is the cause of threads on the forum saying "how do I contact my boating representative". They arent there to answer the phone when you call, or email you back when you email them....the people they are designed to speak with, (as I understand) is mainly with each other (council meetings) and the members of the charity trustees. An example of one of their roles, is that should they have a 75% agreement (in the case of the council trustees doing something terrible), they could vote and force a change in the charitees trustees. (as required for all charities by law). Some people who commented on this thread before attending the meeting, will now probably reconfirm this....so will leave it to them

so in short...we all had the wrong end of the stick when we thought that boaters representatives meant boaters representatives ...no sarcasm intended..this is the reality of it.

[jenlyn]

I remember one of them asking 150 quid for his expenses to attend a meeting, when the train fare would have been 12 quid.

[alan_fincher]

Please remember that "boaters representatives" do not have the responsibility of representing boaters. There was much misunderstanding on this point at the very first "election". The name is misleading. I can't quite remember what they are there for , but is NOT to be people who boaters are supposed to nag.....Due to this misunderstanding, the last elected representatives got a lot of flack for not being available to meet with boaters.

 

Except that the role wasn't that clearly defined when the first elections were run, and frankly, what you refer to, was to some extent them (and CRT) rewriting the "job spec" after the current incumbents had been in situ for a while.

 

As an interested party, who put themselves up for election, I have tried to observe from outside, and see what Henderson, Welch, Caplan and Farrell have actually achieved for boaters in the 2 years they have been in role. Despite the occasional "updates" in various paper and web based publications, (like "Boaters Update"), I personally couldn't quote you one concrete thing that they say they have achieved, and that I could agree as being the case.

 

Can anybody on the forum, (including the Boaters Representative who has actually had moderators remove his name from my my posts on the forum), actually list some of their achievements, whether an IWA supporter, or not, please?

[alan_fincher]

I did give my feedback to Roger Hanbury on the consultation about what might be changed for the next election, although if there has ever been a paper that summarised all the feedback they received, and any planned changes, then I have never been made aware of it.

 

I have just checked, and I am correct that despite them ostensibly doing a consultation, they have never published any results or outcome.

 

Details of the original consultation appear on the completed consultation page, where it says.....

 

 

Council elections consultation

 

Although the Consultation is now closed, you can still review the paper. We should like to take this opportunity to thank those who contributed. We are now drawing together the responses, with recommendations going to Trustees and Council

 

The consultation (17 January 2014 - please note that paragraph 2.2 on page 2 has been revised to more accurately reflect the spread of voting preferences under the Single Transferable Vote)

 

Press release explaining the review process

 

So nearly a year on, the "drawn together responses and recommendations" have not been published as part of the "completed" consultation. Hardly a completed consultation, then, or at least not one where those who gave input can easily see what was decided.

[PiRSqwared]

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/7347.pdf

[ditchcrawler]

What I think is that the boaters on the council should not all be proxies for the IWA.

Perhaps you could answer the question(s).

The IWA only got the seats because their members, mostly boaters voted for them. What would you say if the NABO Chairman gets elected because the members vote for him.

Edit

In fact I think it was only C&RT licence holders who could take part in that vote, so boaters did vote for them.

Edited December 25, 2014 by ditchcrawler

[DeanS]

my point being that in 2013 boaters were asked to vote for people whom they believed would "represent them".

This is not what those people do.

 

I may be wrong.

[haggis]

The IWA only got the seats because their members, mostly boaters voted for them. What would you say if the NABO Chairman gets elected because the members vote for him.

Edit

 

 

I think the reason why the IWA trustees got elected was because all members got a communication from the IWA asking them to vote for their trustees. I gather that it was difficult for others who stood to "sell themselves" to voters who didn't know them and not surprisingly IWA members voted for those "recommended" to them.

 

haggis

[Tuscan]

Why would anyone want to stand? Unless it's from an ego perspective or maybe to look good on a CV there seems little point . Given the multitude of consultations national and local, surveys and social media what difference would this role make? Perhaps this will become clear.

[Graham Davis]

Yes, boat owners.

 

But unfortunately they form a disparate group, not an organised one, like the IWA or the NBTA,

[alan_fincher]

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/7347.pdf

 

Just to be clear, although the link posted above contains some interesting stuff about changes generally, it certainly does not contain specific detail on what I am referring to below.

 

There never seems to have been a report on the outcomes and recommendations from a consultation that was specifically about the elected representatives - if there ever had been, it should appear on the completed consultations page, but it doesn't.

 

 

I have just checked, and I am correct that despite them ostensibly doing a consultation, they have never published any results or outcome.

 

Details of the original consultation appear on the completed consultation page, where it says.....

 

Council elections consultation

 

Although the Consultation is now closed, you can still review the paper. We should like to take this opportunity to thank those who contributed. We are now drawing together the responses, with recommendations going to Trustees and Council

 

The consultation (17 January 2014 - please note that paragraph 2.2 on page 2 has been revised to more accurately reflect the spread of voting preferences under the Single Transferable Vote)

 

Press release explaining the review process

 

 

 

So nearly a year on, the "drawn together responses and recommendations" have not been published as part of the "completed" consultation. Hardly a completed consultation, then, or at least not one where those who gave input can easily see what was decided.