CaRT council elections

[Higgs]

If the Boaters' group are not representative of the boaters, and the Business group have no business representation, and the goal posts were moved after the election - what can be trusted?

 

 

 

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

 

All though the arguments have been run many times; the opinion was strong, at the beginning, that there would have been a reasonable chance that boaters would have a place at the council and with a boaters point of view. Always stressing, of course, that wouldn't mean a totally self-centred approach. The fact that the likes of the IWA have an organised group doesn't make their suitability for a place in a boaters group any more appealing or appropriate.

 

I think with other notable candidates, there would have been communication and feedback.

Edited December 26, 2014 by Higgs

[churchward]

 

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

That is not true. I was a member of the Northampton branch of the IWA at the time and I can say I had no communication from the IWA locally or nationally telling me or asking me to vote for anyone. There is just not enough members to have over whelmed the vote anyway. Even if they could have done (by voting) was it not then up to everyone else to vote for their candidates? In any case do you really think that all the IWA national committee has to do is to tell its members who to vote for and they will all dutifully do so? That is nonsense. The branch system alone makes them rather independent in anyway and I can tell you that members are quite capable of making up their own minds. I certainly voted for a one of the IWA candidates but others I did not and I also voted for non IWA candidates in my top 5.

 

The election was not rigged by the IWA all that happened is that the organisation had 4 candidates put forward and a 5th member also decided to run. There are not enough IWA members to make sure they all got in anyway.

 

The truth is that the overfall electorate took too the election like a brick to water and few voted. The elections in a year or so will be better if CRT or whoever can make it interesting and straight forward enough for people to engage with. It is really sour grapes and bitterness to think it was some sinister plot and IWA somehow cheated in the election.

 

The process last time was too complicated it needs to be simplified.

 

I do think it was a pity that mainly IWA people were voted in. It would have been better to have a wider spread of representation and if CRT get the election details correct and people actually get off their backsides to vote then there will be. Although I am glad the IWA did get some representation as it is an organisation I still support and I know it does a lot of good for the waterways and indeed (shock horror for some) boating on them.

[jenlyn]

That is not true. I was a member of the Northampton branch of the IWA at the time and I can say I had no communication from the IWA locally or nationally telling me or asking me to vote for anyone. There is just not enough members to have over whelmed the vote anyway. Even if they could have done (by voting) was it not then up to everyone else to vote for their candidates? In any case do you really think that all the IWA national committee has to do is to tell its members who to vote for and they will all dutifully do so? That is nonsense. The branch system alone makes them rather independent in anyway and I can tell you that members are quite capable of making up their own minds. I certainly voted for a one of the IWA candidates but others I did not and I also voted for non IWA candidates in my top 5.

 

The election was not rigged by the IWA all that happened is that the organisation had 4 candidates put forward and a 5th member also decided to run. There are not enough IWA members to make sure they all got in anyway.

 

The truth is that the overfall electorate took too the election like a brick to water and few voted. The elections in a year or so will be better if CRT or whoever can make it interesting and straight forward enough for people to engage with. It is really sour grapes and bitterness to think it was some sinister plot and IWA somehow cheated in the election.

 

The process last time was too complicated it needs to be simplified.

 

I do think it was a pity that mainly IWA people were voted in. It would have been better to have a wider spread of representation and if CRT get the election details correct and people actually get off their backsides to vote then there will be. Although I am glad the IWA did get some representation as it is an organisation I still support and I know it does a lot of good for the waterways and indeed (shock horror for some) boating on them.

I agree with most of that, (can't pick out the points, as am using phone) and consider voter apathy a major obstacle in that particular election.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

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.....

 

 

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.

 

The comment :

 

There was discussion concerning the publication of a minimum acceptable cruising distance (reflecting the current capacity of the enforcement team).

 

Must surely be worrying - depending on where you are, and how busy the Enforcement team are will determine if Enforcement is applied or not

 

You could be CCing around Birmingham undertaking exactly the same lack of movement as someone CCing in London, one has enforcement action taken and one doesn't.

 

Or

 

Is it the capabilities of the 'lowest denominator' , maybe a very rural 'team' with only one Enforcer covering a huge area ? So all of C&RT activities evolve around the capabilities of one area ?

 

This is not going to inspire any confidence or thoughts of consistency in boaters minds.

 

Fair - who said it was fair !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[David Schweizer]

I took a lot of interest in the first round of nominations for the CaRT Council Boaterrs representative, and even signed the noination papers for two candidates, neither of whom were successful. But since then I have heard nothig of their work, have they actually acheived anything worth getting excited about, or are they just a sop to the concept of "consultation",

[DeanS]

As mentioned...the people you vote for , are not there to speak to boaters.

The "title" is misleading.

They are there as a legal requirement for running a charity, to ensure the top brass are accountable.

They are not there as a channel of communication to take boaters voices up the ladder.

 

Please someone in the know, tell me if I am incorrect, but I don't think so.

Every time someone says..."we haven't heard from them all year"....it shows a misunderstanding of their role.

[Tuscan]

I am sure you are right Dean, however my understanding is that they were meant to consult with their 'constituents' to ensure that they were able to speak from a boaters perspective, guess this has meant ,as they are all senior members of the IWA. they just to repeat IWA policy. As we have seen from the association meetings some of these policies I.e defining a required cruising distance are not shared by some of the other associations.

[alan_fincher]

The truth is that the overfall electorate took too the election like a brick to water and few voted. The elections in a year or so will be better if CRT or whoever can make it interesting and straight forward enough for people to engage with. It is really sour grapes and bitterness to think it was some sinister plot and IWA somehow cheated in the election.

 

In actual fact the number of people who cast a vote was (from memory) about 26% of those eligible to do so.

 

Whether you can call over 7,500 people "a few" is open to some debate, I would say, and the Electoral Reform Society who ran the poll for CRT in fact reported that this was a pretty good first attempt for a poll of this type, compared to things they had run for other organisations.

 

BW / CRT did not help at all by a lot of misinformation, and specifically initially making voting nigh on impossible for anybody afloat who did not have access to land based mail - a particular thing I picked up upon before it was too late, and helped broker a solution to.

 

They also badly cocked up initial information about qualification for candidacy and registering as one, (not apparently even knowing the difference between a boat index number, which is fixed, and a boat licence number, which is different on every licence you are issued).

 

I actually think 26% turn out was pretty good, and probably beyond what I expected.

 

The problem remains though, that if you are an "independent" candidate, limited to just a 150 word statement to all your potential voters, how you can you "sell" yourself to the majority of an electorate of (say) 30,000 people, most of whom will never realistically have heard of you. I don't know how you actually solve that one, and stop it being continually weighted in the favour of those who have an association promoting them.

 

EDIT: Arguably even putting "I am national chairman and trustee of the IWA" in your election statement, even if the IWA were not to otherwise promote your cause, gives an advantage over someone who just says "I have some cracking ideas on how to improve things". OK, slightly tongue in cheek, but just quoting senior office in a big association may be an obvious thing for a voter who doesn't actually know any of the candidates personally to pick up upon. I really do think it is a big conundrum, and can't see easy ways of levelling the playing field.

Edited December 26, 2014 by alan_fincher

[alan_fincher]

As mentioned...the people you vote for , are not there to speak to boaters.

The "title" is misleading.

They are there as a legal requirement for running a charity, to ensure the top brass are accountable.

They are not there as a channel of communication to take boaters voices up the ladder.

 

Please someone in the know, tell me if I am incorrect, but I don't think so.

Every time someone says..."we haven't heard from them all year"....it shows a misunderstanding of their role.

 

Curious then, as I have already said, that they initially made various attempts to make joint statements of what they were doing, both in CRT Boater's Updates, and sometimes in the house magazines of other boating Associations!

 

We could discuss the apparent redefining of the role in meetings that took place after the election until the cows come home, but basically, if you are suggesting we need not show an interest in what they are doing, (or should never ask them), then I disagree with you. "We" elected them, (well I didn't!), and they should be accountable IMO.

 

You also ignore the fact that some of them sit in on highly boater specific groups, such as both halves of the Navigation Advisory Group - if their role there isn't in the interest of boaters, why are they sitting in on such groups, in your view, please?

[jenlyn]

As mentioned...the people you vote for , are not there to speak to boaters.

The "title" is misleading.

They are there as a legal requirement for running a charity, to ensure the top brass are accountable.

They are not there as a channel of communication to take boaters voices up the ladder.

 

Please someone in the know, tell me if I am incorrect, but I don't think so.

Every time someone says..."we haven't heard from them all year"....it shows a misunderstanding of their role.

Well, let's look at it this way, the candidates made 150 word statements to entice "us" boat owners to vote for them, I can only presume to represent us?

So, to represent us in what way, and to what purpose?

[Tuscan]

It's difficult to see how these guys can be any more accountable than any of the many other partnerships, groups and sub groups that now litter CRT. Governance and consistency of approach is definately still an issue that needs resolving.

[Guest]

I know what Dean is driving at.

 

I had the initial impression that I think Dean had, and was at the same meeting where this impression was dispelled.

 

My initial take was that they would represent boaters in the same sort of way that a Union rep. would represent its members in the work place. Pressing for improved rights for workers (boaters) and to act as a voice for what workers (boaters) wanted in way of improvement in working (boating) conditions.

 

It of course transpired they were nothing of the sort and understand why it's hard for them to communicate their achievements over the last year because how do you trumpet what you have done in the role it now seems to be? Because I'm not sure how you would actually measure their success.

Edited December 26, 2014 by The Dog House

[David Schweizer]

As mentioned...the people you vote for , are not there to speak to boaters.

The "title" is misleading.

They are there as a legal requirement for running a charity, to ensure the top brass are accountable.

They are not there as a channel of communication to take boaters voices up the ladder.

 

Please someone in the know, tell me if I am incorrect, but I don't think so.

Every time someone says..."we haven't heard from them all year"....it shows a misunderstanding of their role.

 

I am not aware of any legal requirement for a Registered Charity to have a Council, I have worked with many charities in the past, and have also served as a Charity Trustee. The only structural legal requirement I am aware of is for a Charity to appoint Trustees, who have both legal and financial responsibility for the operation of the charity,

 

As I see it the CaRT Council has no managerial, financial, or organizational responsibility, however it is possible that the Giovernment placed a requirement upon them to also have a council, but if they did, that is a contractual obligation rather than a legal requirement. The Council may have a role which mandates them to monitor the performance of the organization's management, but I know of no legal provision which could endow them with any authority to enforce any of their recomendatiions, that is the role of the Trustees.

Edited December 26, 2014 by David Schweizer

[churchward]

 

In actual fact the number of people who cast a vote was (from memory) about 26% of those eligible to do so.

 

Whether you can call over 7,500 people "a few" is open to some debate, I would say, and the Electoral Reform Society who ran the poll for CRT in fact reported that this was a pretty good first attempt for a poll of this type, compared to things they had run for other organisations.

 

BW / CRT did not help at all by a lot of misinformation, and specifically initially making voting nigh on impossible for anybody afloat who did not have access to land based mail - a particular thing I picked up upon before it was too late, and helped broker a solution to.

 

They also badly cocked up initial information about qualification for candidacy and registering as one, (not apparently even knowing the difference between a boat index number, which is fixed, and a boat licence number, which is different on every licence you are issued).

 

I actually think 26% turn out was pretty good, and probably beyond what I expected.

 

The problem remains though, that if you are an "independent" candidate, limited to just a 150 word statement to all your potential voters, how you can you "sell" yourself to the majority of an electorate of (say) 30,000 people, most of whom will never realistically have heard of you. I don't know how you actually solve that one, and stop it being continually weighted in the favour of those who have an association promoting them.

 

EDIT: Arguably even putting "I am national chairman and trustee of the IWA" in your election statement, even if the IWA were not to otherwise promote your cause, gives an advantage over someone who just says "I have some cracking ideas on how to improve things". OK, slightly tongue in cheek, but just quoting senior office in a big association may be an obvious thing for a voter who doesn't actually know any of the candidates personally to pick up upon. I really do think it is a big conundrum, and can't see easy ways of levelling the playing field.

I don't think 26% was very good at all and I recall it was a similar number myself. I meant that it was too few rather than 7500 as a number is small or not but I think relatively speaking it was not . It also shows that it is unlikely that just IWA membership voted in their own. I doubt all IWA members voted in much greater numbers than any other part of the boating community. Even if it was all the possible eligible IWA members (lets say 4000) voted for IWA candidates that leaves just 3500 others who voted. Not that many and if that was the case then tough luck people should have voted if they wanted a different outcome. I don't believe it was actually like that though.

 

I agree it was and is difficult to sell yourself in a 150 word statement. However, given there was 29 candidates as I recall just reading all 29 X 150 word statements was more than enough for this voter. If they had links to other info I avoided them. I was not going to read pages of blogs/websites as well. I did not read anything about the IWA candidates either and was not directed to do so by anyone not even a suggestion of it.

 

I agree that the the label of IWA committee member or similar could catch peoples eye so may have been an advantage but that is for other candidates to overcome and is often the case for an "independent" candidate in any election. If some of the noise from people on here is anything to go by then it would have had the opposite effect.

 

You could say the same for NABO or other organisations candidates too.

 

Whether 26% was a reasonable ratio in such a vote or not it is still the case that if people want a particular outcome or they didn't like the last outcome then they need to vote and not leave it to chance.

Edited December 26, 2014 by churchward

[Tuscan]

I expect but don't know many of the independants were members of boating associations or other CRT related committees etc. It's difficult on the one hand you want someone who is a canal enthusiast on the other you want the independence of thought.

 

Perhaps to be eligible to stand you need to declare you are not A committee member of any boating organisation, partnership or existing CRT committee or sub group. But if you not involved already why would you be an member of the Council if elected.

 

Can anyone give a list of the recommendations made by the Council that these boating representatives are a member of that has made a change to existing CRT policy.?

[alan_fincher]

 

The Council may have a role which mandates them to monitor the performance of the organization's management, but I know of no legal provision which could endow them with any authority to enforce any of their recomendatiions, that is the role of the Trustees.

 

Actually the Council has the at least theoretical powers to dismiss unsatisfactory Trustees.

 

If you actually study the maths that would be necessary for this to happen, then I would admit it is only the remotest of possibilities, but it is wrong to suggest that they can only monitor, but have been given no powers. The Trustees are, from my recollection, ultimately accountable to Council.

[DaveC]

Will you be standing for election next Alan Fincher? I will take an interest although I won't be able to vote, having sold our boat.

 

Dave

[DeanS]

I know what Dean is driving at.

 

I had the initial impression that I think Dean had, and was at the same meeting where this impression was dispelled.

 

My initial take was that they would represent boaters in the same sort of way that a Union rep. would represent its members in the work place. Pressing for improved rights for workers (boaters) and to act as a voice for what workers (boaters) wanted in way of improvement in working (boating) conditions.

 

It of course transpired they were nothing of the sort and understand why it's hard for them to communicate their achievements over the last year because how do you trumpet what you have done in the role it now seems to be? Because I'm not sure how you would actually measure their success.

 

Hooray. Someone who was also at the meeting....!

[David Schweizer]

 

Actually the Council has the at least theoretical powers to dismiss unsatisfactory Trustees.

 

If you actually study the maths that would be necessary for this to happen, then I would admit it is only the remotest of possibilities, but it is wrong to suggest that they can only monitor, but have been given no powers. The Trustees are, from my recollection, ultimately accountable to Council.

 

I would be very interested to see the actual wording of such a provision, it would appear to be an uninlateral re-writing of Charity Law. The Trustees are ultimately responsible to the Charity Commissioners for the legal and financial affairs of a Charity, and will have signed a legal declaration accepting that responsibilty.

 

The powers that Trustes can delegate to any member of staff, or committee are clearly layed down in the various Charities Acts and cannot include anything that is the legal responsibility of the board of Trustees, I therfore cannot see how a Council, Committee, etc. which does not comprise exclusively of Trustees can dismiss any Trustee. It is my understanding that an individual Trustee can only be legally dismissed by the Board of Trustees, the Charity Commissioners or, under certain circumstances, a Court.

Edited December 26, 2014 by David Schweizer

[howardang]

Hooray. Someone who was also at the meeting....!

For what it's worth, I was also at the same meeting in Skipton and from my recollections Deans report was correct in what were all told about boaters reps on Council. Like others who were there, until I heard the explanation given by a Council member, I had assumed, wrongly, that the Boaters rep was a conduit to let the Council know of issues.

 

Howard

[haggis]

That is not true. I was a member of the Northampton branch of the IWA at the time and I can say I had no communication from the IWA locally or nationally telling me or asking me to vote for anyone.

Perhaps I put is a bit strongly when I said that the IWA had asked us, it's members to vote for the trustees but I as a common or garden IWA member, received a communication from them listing those standing for election (with , I think, photos and their election brief) who were IWA trustess or similar. No information was included about anyone else standing (and why should it have been?) and even if we, the members were not asked specifically to vote for those people, the inference was there. Giving their details to members could be looked on as an endorsement. Bearing in mind that there had been so little publicity from CRT about the elections that most boaters/IWA members were blissfully unaware that they were taking place the IWA communication may have been the only information they received on the subject and they may well have voted for the names on the IWA communication as at least they had heard these names.

Boaters apathy and lack of info from CRT has a lot to answer for!

 

haggis

[alan_fincher]

 

I would be very interested to see the actual wording of such a provision, it would appear to be an uninlateral re-writing of Charity Law. The Trustees are ultimately responsible to the Charity Commissioners for the legal and financial affairs of a Charity, and will have signed a legal declaration accepting that responsibilty.

 

The powers that Trustes can delegate to any member of staff, or committee are clearly layed down in the various Charities Acts and cannot include anything that is the legal responsibility of the board of Trustees, I therfore cannot see how a Council, Committee, etc. which does not comprise exclusively of Trustees can dismiss any Trustee. It is my understanding that an individual Trustee can only be legally dismissed by the Board of Trustees, the Charity Commissioners or, under certain circumstances, a Court.

 

I don't have to hand any of the legalese that goes with this, although I feel fairly certain I have seen it in the past, including the number of Council members who would need to agree the dismissal of an unsatisfactory trustee. (The reason I don't think it would ever happen, is that the Council includes large numbers of people, such as Partnership chairs, in my view highly unlikely to support such a move!).

 

The best I can do as a "quickie", is to post the original materials put out about elected places on Council.

 

I'll simply post it all verbatim, as people might be interested to see what was initially said about the elected roles, given that the debate on what the intention now is has resurfaced yet again.....

 

It is hard for me to see how you can subsequently interpret "Members of the Canal & River Trust Council will be expected to bring the experience and perspective of the constituency they represent and to provide a voice for their interest" to say that elected boater members were never intended to be elected to represent boaters! That is not how I read it when I stood for election, and is why I claim that the restating of the position by those subsequently in post sounds like a change of direction from how it started out.

 

 

The Canal & River Trust Council

 

In preparation for the Canal & River Trust taking over the duties of British Waterways in April 2012 a Council is being formed to protect the values and responsibilities of the new trust.

The council will be comprise 35 members with a wide range of interests and expertise and will include boaters, volunteers, local government representatives and other canal users. Together they will provide the experience and perspective of the constituency they represent and a voice for their interests.

The council will have the power to appoint or dismiss the 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 a sounding board for Trustees.

Later this year the Canal & River Trust Transition Appointments Committee will be inviting candidates to stand for election for six places on the Council.

• Boat licence holders – 4 members to be elected
• Boating businesses – 2 members to be elected

Further information about the application procedure and nomination forms will be available here on 12 December 2011.

Key Dates

• Nominations open on 12 December 2011 and application forms will be available here from 5pm. Entry for nominations will close on 18 January 2012
• Voting opens 8 February 2012 and closes at 12pm on 9 March 2012
• Election results will be available on 12 March 2012

The first Council will meet in late March 2012

 

 

 

 

 

Boaters needed for Canal & River Trust Council

21st Nov 2011

Boaters are being asked to stand for election for the Canal & River Trust Council and get involved in shaping the future of Britain’s waterways. The nominations for boaters’ positions on the Council open on 12 December 2011.

Seven positions on the 35-strong council are to be filled by boaters or boating businesses. Four positions are to be elected by boat licence holders and two positions elected by boating businesses. The British Canoe Union, which holds a collective licence for around 60,000 individual and club members, will be asked to nominate a person to fill a further position representing all those who use the waterways for waterborne sport and recreation without holding individual licences. A Canal & River Trust employee will also be elected by all employees at this time to serve on the Council.

The Council is the guardian of the long-term values and purposes of the Canal & River Trust. While the trustees are responsible for determining policy and strategy, the Council will have an important role in helping to shape policy, raising and debating issues, and providing guidance, perspective and a sounding board for the trustees. It will also have the power to appoint or dismiss trustees.

Voice for boaters

Members of the Canal & River Trust Council will be expected to bring the experience and perspective of the constituency they represent and to provide a voice for their interests. In exercising this role they will have to at all times act in the interests of the charitable purposes of the Trust. Members will serve for a term of four years.

Tony Hales, chair of the Canal & River Trust, said: “The boating community has a wealth of hands-on experience of the waterways, and having boaters on board is essential to the success of the Canal & River Trust. I am writing to all licence holders and I encourage them to put themselves forward and add their voices to those shaping the Canal & River Trust’s future.”

Boaters wanting to stand for election in any of these groups will need to complete a simple nomination form which will be available for download from www.canalrivertrust.org.uk/councilnomination from 12 December 2011 until 18 January 2012. To be eligible to stand for election and vote in the election, boaters must hold a 12-month boat licence on 18 January 2012. Nominations must be supported by ten sponsors who each also hold a valid 12-month boat licence on this date.

Voting will take place between 8 February and 9 March 2012 via a designated website or by SMS text. Voting by post will also be possible, but only for this first set of Council elections. The election is being managed by Electoral Reform Services.

 

[David Schweizer]

 

I don't have to hand any of the legalese that goes with this, although I feel fairly certain I have seen it in the past, including the number of Council members who would need to agree the dismissal of an unsatisfactory trustee. (The reason I don't think it would ever happen, is that the Council includes large numbers of people, such as Partnership chairs, in my view highly unlikely to support such a move!).

 

The best I can do as a "quickie", is to post the original materials put out about elected places on Council.

 

I'll simply post it all verbatim, as people might be interested to see what was initially said about the elected roles, given that the debate on what the intention now is has resurfaced yet again.....

 

It is hard for me to see how you can subsequently interpret "Members of the Canal & River Trust Council will be expected to bring the experience and perspective of the constituency they represent and to provide a voice for their interest" to say that elected boater members were never intended to be elected to represent boaters! That is not how I read it when I stood for election, and is why I claim that the restating of the position by those subsequently in post sounds like a change of direction from how it started out.

 

 

 

I note the sentence "The council will have the power to appoint or dismiss the Trustees." in the posted document, and must confess to a degree of surprise. However, I would prefer to see the Constution of the Trust to see whether that power is actually incorporated into in a legal governing document.

 

If it is in the Constitution, I can only asume that the Government managed to incorporate an exception to convention in the legislation which converted BW to CaRT.

Edited December 26, 2014 by David Schweizer

[alan_fincher]

 

I note the sentence "The council will have the power to appoint or dismiss the Trustees." in the posted document, and must confess to a degree of surprise. However, I would prefer to see the Constution of the Trust to see whether that power is actually incorporated into in a legal governing document.

 

If it is in the Constitution, I can only asume that the Government managed to incorporate an exception to convention in the legislation which converted BW to CaRT.

 

Yes, I can't find the more detailed stuff on this at the moment, though know I have managed to in the past.

 

Just as a confirmation, but not showing any more detail, the CRT page about the Council still states the same.

 

 

The Council also has the responsibility of appointing and, if necessary, dismissing Trustees.

 

 

I can find plenty of other references, (e.g. Tony Hales reiterating the point in various places), but still can't find the detail as to what would actually need to take place before Council dismissed a Trustee. (There's plenty about appointment of Trustees, and ratifying them, though).

 

As I said, I'm fairly certain the dismissal requirement would never be achieved in practice, unless a particular Trustee had blotted their copybook in a most spectacular way - the maths I saw would work against it - I seem to recall maybe 75% had to vote them out, though I may just have made that up!

 

EDIT:

 

Not quite what I was looking for, but it seems I may not have dreamt the 75%

 

From "Gov.UK - A New Era For The Waterways (DEFRA)"

 

 

3.5.1 The Council is guardian of the long term values (purposes) of the charity. It will exercise

its main power in appointing or dismissing the Trustees (dismissals would require a special

majority of 75%)

and exercise other company law member powers such as appointing

external auditors and approving annual accounts. It will be responsible, through the

joint Appointments Committee, for the appointment or dismissal of the Chairs of Local

Partnerships.

 

Edited December 26, 2014 by alan_fincher

[NBDensie]

 

It is hard for me to see how you can subsequently interpret "Members of the Canal & River Trust Council will be expected to bring the experience and perspective of the constituency they represent and to provide a voice for their interest" to say that elected boater members were never intended to be elected to represent boaters!

 

It seems to me that there is a significant difference between (a) bringing an understanding of boating to the council so that its decisions are made with a consideration of boating and (advocating a narrow sectional interest in oppostition to other interests. It is important that the council, who ultimately have responsibility for the direction of C&RT with respect to its operations as a charity, present a unified view. It isnt appropriate for it to be another battleground in duplication to what may happen elsewhere. So the boaters reps should represent boaters in the sense of being examples of boaters, not in the sense of being union reps.

Edited December 26, 2014 by NBDensie