CaRT council elections

[churchward]

As I think has been mentioned earlier most associations do agree with CRT in many areas and the meetings are normally held in good spirit even if the conversations are robust. However there is still a need to ensure that the voice and needs of the boater is heard whereas the Trust is now concerned more with the partnerships and wider usage of the canal system of which boating is only a part. It's fair to say that NABO , RBOA and ACC are more concerned about some of CRTs recent plans regarding say for example 'bona Fide' navigation than IWA.

I don't expect all associations to agree. They all have a different perspective and so come at an issue from a different angle. There will be and should be some dynamic tension between them. This if done in a respectful way is creative and can often lead to a solution that none of the parties wished for at the outset but can agree is a good one.

 

The bonafide navigation issue and definition is of course a difficult one. However, many "boating" organisations and individuals over several years have urged the navigation authority (BW & CRT) to define what this means. So CRT have been listening and are doing something about it. Now whether what they have proposed suits all is another thing and hopefully in the end there will at least be a position that is clearer and fair to those CCing. I doubt it will end with a definition that everyone is happy with though as some will no longer be able to dodge around the definition to get away with what they want to do. I hope though that those that are put out by it are very much in the minority and confined to those who use the fog of the current status to cheat the system.

 

I agree that CRT are concerned with a wider usage of inland waterways. They must for the system to survive. They need to be creative and actually I think it is in all our (boaters) best interests to support that. The reason being is that without other funding sources direct and indirect the boater is going to have an unpayable bill for what we enjoy. I whole heartedly agree though that in the mix the needs of all types of boaters must be heard and taken notice of.

Edited December 28, 2014 by churchward

[Wanted]

I don't expect all associations to agree. They all have a different perspective and so come at an issue from a different angle. There will be and should be some dynamic tension between them. This if done in a respectful way is creative and can often lead to a solution that none of the parties wished for at the outset but can agree is a good one.

 

The bonafide navigation issue and definition is of course a difficult one. However, many "boating" organisations and individuals over several years have urged the navigation authority (BW & CRT) to define what this means. So CRT have been listening and are doing something about it. Now whether what they have proposed suits all is another thing and hopefully in the end there will at least be a position that is clearer and fair to those CCing. I doubt it will end with a definition that everyone is happy with though as some will no longer be able to dodge around the definition to get away with what they want to do. I hope though that those that are put out by it are very much in the minority and confined to those who use the fog of the current status to cheat the system.

 

I agree that CRT are concerned with a wider usage of inland waterways. They must for the system to survive. They need to be creative and actually I think it is in all our (boaters) best interests to support that. The reason being is that without other funding sources direct and indirect the boater is going to have an unpayable bill for what we enjoy. I whole heartedly agree though that in the mix the needs of all types of boaters must be heard and taken notice of.

Given the level of influence that seems to have fallen to the IWA, I think there is more mileage in the other groups pressuring them and not the trust at all.

 

I would heartliy condone an umbrella organisation that took the interests of the other groups and actually used it to break up the obvious love in between those that run things and those that were supposed to hold them to account.

[rrt2]

In the event of a number of members from this forum deciding to stand, lets say it is 3 people, less would be better but stay with three. Those people with a vote could vote just for those three and NO OTHER candidates, then you are increasing the chances of the people you want on the council by not giving votes to others.

 

Obviously the lesser numbers you spread you vote around means a better chance to get the person you want on council.

If there was only one candidate from this forums membership and everybody voted just for him or her then they would have a better chance of being elected.

[Wanted]

In the event of a number of members from this forum deciding to stand, lets say it is 3 people, less would be better but stay with three. Those people with a vote could vote just for those three and NO OTHER candidates, then you are increasing the chances of the people you want on the council by not giving votes to others.

 

Obviously the lesser numbers you spread you vote around means a better chance to get the person you want on council.

If there was only one candidate from this forums membership and everybody voted just for him or her then they would have a better chance of being elected.

It's good in theory Barry, but in part, the success of this forum is because of the opposing views, I doubt we would get everyone on the same page.

It's difficult with a forum instead of a club or association.

[Smelly]

Well... I for one think the assertion that IWA did not act in concert to completely overwhelm the boaters' seats on the council lacks credibility. I think they should give an undertaking that they will not do the same next time.

 

The problem here in my perception is one of funding... Someone, somewhere needs the funds to ask a Barrister about the legality of what happened last time. It's a big ask, the bill would, for someone, be 5 figures end to end but if nobody is willing to foot the bill, and I know that it would completely overwhelm nabo for instance, then all this talk is hot air.

Edited December 28, 2014 by Smelly

[Wanted]

Whip round?

[churchward]

Given the level of influence that seems to have fallen to the IWA, I think there is more mileage in the other groups pressuring them and not the trust at all.

 

I would heartliy condone an umbrella organisation that took the interests of the other groups and actually used it to break up the obvious love in between those that run things and those that were supposed to hold them to account.

I think I know what you mean but I think that adding another layer of potential bureaucracy between say NABO or RBOA and CRT or even IWA if you like may cause issues and delays. Mind you I don't think IWA has the power folk assume they have.

 

How is it that all the involved groups are going to agree on what is to be passed upwards and what are the specific priorities? Then if the umbrella group has no power and is just a messenger there may be delays when CRT need clarification on an issue or question.

 

It may work but the individual organisation could have to give up more than they are willing to do so. In my own experience adding layers of committee or bodies to work through causes issues and delays.

 

I agree that collaboration on key issues amongst boaters organisations though could be very powerful in influencing CRT when faced with a united front.

It's good in theory Barry, but in part, the success of this forum is because of the opposing views, I doubt we would get everyone on the same page.

It's difficult with a forum instead of a club or association.

or even reading the same book!

[Smelly]

I think I know what you mean but I think that adding another layer of potential bureaucracy between say NABO or RBOA and CRT or even IWA if you like may cause issues and delays. Mind you I don't think IWA has the power folk assume they have.

 

They took all 4 seats on the council...

 

How is it that all the involved groups are going to agree on what is to be passed upwards and what are the specific priorities? Then if the umbrella group has no power and is just a messenger there may be delays when CRT need clarification on an issue or question.

 

It may work but the individual organisation could have to give up more than they are willing to do so. In my own experience adding layers of committee or bodies to work through causes issues and delays.

 

I agree that collaboration on key issues amongst boaters organisations though could be very powerful in influencing CRT when faced with a united front.

 

The boater seats on the council could provide that but IWA denied that possibility last time. What will they do this?

[Paul C]

 

The problem here in my perception is one of funding... Someone, somewhere needs the funds to ask a Judge about the legality of what happened last time. It's a big ask, the bill would, for someone, be 5 figures end to end but if nobody is willing to foot the bill, and I know that it would completely overwhelm nabo for instance, then all this talk is hot air.

 

Bit late really? I think it just smacks of sour grapes.

[churchward]

 

I think I know what you mean but I think that adding another layer of potential bureaucracy between say NABO or RBOA and CRT or even IWA if you like may cause issues and delays. Mind you I don't think IWA has the power folk assume they have.

 

They took all 4 seats on the council...

 

How is it that all the involved groups are going to agree on what is to be passed upwards and what are the specific priorities? Then if the umbrella group has no power and is just a messenger there may be delays when CRT need clarification on an issue or question.

 

It may work but the individual organisation could have to give up more than they are willing to do so. In my own experience adding layers of committee or bodies to work through causes issues and delays.

 

I agree that collaboration on key issues amongst boaters organisations though could be very powerful in influencing CRT when faced with a united front.

 

The boater seats on the council could provide that but IWA denied that possibility last time. What will they do this?

 

Firstly the IWA didn't take anything they were voted in. As I said further up I don't think that was a desirable outcome but it happened because not enough people voted for others to be their preferred candidate. So if people want a different outcome they will need to vote differently (or even at all) next time.

 

I am not sure though the council works in the way you seem to be thinking it does but I don't really know how it works or what gets discussed much either.

 

Of course one possible outcome could be that each organisation gets a seat on the council by right perhaps in proportion to membership.

 

The IWA did not deny anything they just got voted in. The voters (and non voters) need to take responsibility for the outcome of the election.

 

I don't understand what you meant by "What will they do this?"

 

If you meant why did they do this then as I said. They did not the voters and voting system did it. I imagine the reason for wanting a set of candidates and hopefully elected ones was the same reason as any other organisation that put a candidate up. They wanted a presence on the council. Unlike other organisations the IWA did not get a seat on the council by right.

 

Perhaps it will be different this time as the IWA will as I understand get a seat anyway. Mind you I see nothing wrong in anyone putting themselves forward whether they are a member of any organisation including the IWA. I would be rather upset if I was denied the opportunity to stand if I wanted to just because of my affiliations as an ordinary member.

Well... I for one think the assertion that IWA did not act in concert to completely overwhelm the boaters' seats on the council lacks credibility. I think they should give an undertaking that they will not do the same next time.

 

The problem here in my perception is one of funding... Someone, somewhere needs the funds to ask a Judge about the legality of what happened last time. It's a big ask, the bill would, for someone, be 5 figures end to end but if nobody is willing to foot the bill, and I know that it would completely overwhelm nabo for instance, then all this talk is hot air.

I would like to know how you think they did that?

 

How did they rig the voting?

 

In any case all rather late now the horse has bolted and is in the next county by now. What is more important is what happens in a years time and how boaters can be motivated to vote in the process in greater numbers and a simpler candidate system.

Edited December 28, 2014 by churchward

[Smelly]

Firstly the IWA didn't take anything they were voted in. As I said further up I don't think that was a desirable outcome but it happened because not enough people voted for others to be their preferred candidate. So if people want a different outcome they will need to vote differently (or even at all) next time.

 

I am not sure though the council works in the way you seem to be thinking it does but I don't really know how it works or what gets discussed much either.

 

Of course one possible outcome could be that each organisation gets a seat on the council by right perhaps in proportion to membership.

 

The IWA did not deny anything they just got voted in. The voters (and non voters) need to take responsibility for the outcome of the election.

 

I don't understand what you meant by "What will they do this?"

 

If you meant why did they do this then as I said. They did not the voters and voting system did it. I imagine the reason for wanting a set of candidates and hopefully elected ones was the same reason as any other organisation that put a candidate up. They wanted a presence on the council. Unlike other organisations the IWA did not get a seat on the council by right.

 

Perhaps it will be different this time as the IWA will as I understand get a seat anyway. Mind you I see nothing wrong in anyone putting themselves forward whether they are a member of any organisation including the IWA. I would be rather upset if I was denied the opportunity to stand if I wanted to just because of my affiliations as an ordinary member.

I would like to know how you think they did that?

 

How did they rig the voting?

 

In any case all rather late now the horse has bolted and is in the next county by now. What is more important is what happens in a years time and how boaters can be motivated to vote in the process in greater numbers and a simpler candidate system.

I meant "what will they do this time"... Sorry I was on my phone.

 

 

It's not rather late as we are coming up to a new election and we have seen how it can go wrong; we've got an example now, it's time to make a change so as to make the council what it could be. The time frame for litigation is about this long so I propose to begin campaigning now, or soon. Hopefully IWA will see the error of their ways.

 

They didn't need to rig the voting btw; only to stage 4 members from the largest user group, no need to rig anything when they had the best infrastructure in place to ensure they result they desired. It worked. It is corrupt in my perception that they fronted 4 candidates.

 

I was chatting to people at the time and they said "why bother, the IWA have it stitched up already?" and they did. They can change that and should they not change their strategy I will call foul.

[Wanted]

Absolutely, if the IWA had more interest in the task in hand rather than the self serving boys club they have become then they would welcome a broader representation no?

[alan_fincher]

In the event of a number of members from this forum deciding to stand, lets say it is 3 people, less would be better but stay with three. Those people with a vote could vote just for those three and NO OTHER candidates, then you are increasing the chances of the people you want on the council by not giving votes to others.

 

Obviously the lesser numbers you spread you vote around means a better chance to get the person you want on council.

If there was only one candidate from this forums membership and everybody voted just for him or her then they would have a better chance of being elected.

Not actually true, Barry, but as we found last time, a lot of people don't understand how the single transferrable vote works.

 

You can never disadvantage someone you have already voted for higher up your preference list, by casting further votes for lower preferences.

 

So, if we had your 3 preferred candidates, and everybody voted for them ahead of any other preference, whether those voters stop at three preferences, or rank a further 30 candidates in no way affects the success or failure for those they ranked higher.

Edited December 28, 2014 by alan_fincher

[churchward]

I meant "what will they do this time"... Sorry I was on my phone.

 

 

It's not rather late as we are coming up to a new election and we have seen how it can go wrong; we've got an example now, it's time to make a change so as to make the council what it could be. The time frame for litigation is about this long so I propose to begin campaigning now, or soon. Hopefully IWA will see the error of their ways.

 

They didn't need to rig the voting btw; only to stage 4 members from the largest user group, no need to rig anything when they had the best infrastructure in place to ensure they result they desired. It worked. It is corrupt in my perception that they fronted 4 candidates.

 

I was chatting to people at the time and they said "why bother, the IWA have it stitched up already?" and they did. They can change that and should they not change their strategy I will call foul.

More fool them then if they didn't vote as a consequence. All they did was to make what they said a self fulfilling prophecy. All that needed to happen was that enough people voted for the other 25 candidates to stop the IWA ones getting elected. I see no corruption involved. The IWA did not force their eligible members to vote for only IWA candidates. I certainly was never asked this. In fact I can say that I only ranked one of the IWA candidates in my top 5 when I voted. I can make up my own mind about who I vote for like anyone else. I think I was not unusual in doing this. In any case there was not enough IWA members eligible to vote to guarantee the result.

 

I don't know what the intention is but I should think it will make a difference that they will have a separate official seat on the council(and I hope it does) but as I said I don't see anything wrong in an IWA member standing if they wish to. I think it would be best if it was not one of the national committee though.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I meant "what will they do this time"... Sorry I was on my phone.

 

 

It's not rather late as we are coming up to a new election and we have seen how it can go wrong; we've got an example now, it's time to make a change so as to make the council what it could be. The time frame for litigation is about this long so I propose to begin campaigning now, or soon. Hopefully IWA will see the error of their ways.

 

They didn't need to rig the voting btw; only to stage 4 members from the largest user group, no need to rig anything when they had the best infrastructure in place to ensure they result they desired. It worked. It is corrupt in my perception that they fronted 4 candidates.

 

I was chatting to people at the time and they said "why bother, the IWA have it stitched up already?" and they did. They can change that and should they not change their strategy I will call foul.

IWA promoted five trustees and about seven members for the four council positions. However, the names of the members were only on the IWA website for a day or two before being taken down.

 

The names of the five trustees fielded is here -

 

CRT Council Elections - IWA Fields Candidates

 

Three of the five Trustees were elected to council. The fourth private boating member to be elected was Ann Farrell, vice commodore of Nantwich Boat Club and an IWA member.

 

There is now an agreement between the Trust and IWA that IWA trustees will not stand for council. In return IWA will be granted one 'nominated' seat.

 

Whilst I am sure that IWA will honour the agreement, I wonder if the agreement includes not promoting IWA members and ex-trustees.

[PiRSqwared]

 

 

I don't know what the intention is but I should think it will make a difference that they will have a separate official seat on the council(and I hope it does) but as I said I don't see anything wrong in an IWA member standing if they wish to. I think it would be best if it was not one of the national committee though.

Why best if not one of the national committee. Either there is a problem, or there isn't. Why this chink of weakness in your state of denial?

[churchward]

Why best if not one of the national committee. Either there is a problem, or there isn't. Why this chink of weakness in your state of denial?

best for balance. but if you see that as weakness then I can't help that insults will not change my view. I will listen to a reasoned debate but not to such taunts.

[ditchcrawler]

I am an IWA member and have been for probably 20 years. I voted, some of you probably who I voted for, but I did not vote for the 4 people that got elected.

[Gordias]

Last year the IWA acted like a political party does (select a few candidates internally, spend some collective energy/money on promoting them). That kind of grouping is a bit undemocratic from some perspectives, but it's going to happen anyway, so they just have to be accommodated.

 

I've learned that most high-volume, high-intensity posters here aren't interested in using this site as a tool to help get things done, but it seems like a waste of potential to me.

 

Why not ask for a separate political forum (assuming it's ok with the site managers) and try to get a (limited) set of candidates together to represent the different views of CW participants, and gather some votes?

[PiRSqwared]

best for balance. but if you see that as weakness then I can't help that insults will not change my view. I will listen to a reasoned debate but not to such taunts.

Ok. Just seemed a little at odds with your "nothing to see here" posts earlier.

[sueb]

I would have voted if I had been allowed but my husband got the vote :-((

[churchward]

Ok. Just seemed a little at odds with your "nothing to see here" posts earlier.

 

If you see my posts all along in this thread I started with a view that it would have been better if the IWA had not been elected to council in the numbers that they were. I think that is consistent but I can do little about your perception of what I have posted other than try and be as clear as possible.

 

I have also been consistent about what I think about how so many IWA candidates got elected and the view of some that IWA cheated somehow or used some corrupt means to do it. I have seen no reasoned argument put forward how this was achieved.

Just how was the IWA able to incorrectly influence around 7500 people to vote 3 of their 5 candidates out of 25 others via an election conducted by someone else?

 

When I can see some evidence or reasoned argument other than emotive statements asserting something to be true I will think on it. But until then I have said what I think happened.

 

Those that want a different result next time should help to mobilise the many people who didn't vote and change the voting pattern of those that did.

Edited December 28, 2014 by churchward

[churchward]

somehow I have posted the same thing twice. So any mods watching you can delete this one.

Edited December 28, 2014 by churchward

[alan_fincher]

 

Why not ask for a separate political forum (assuming it's ok with the site managers) and try to get a (limited) set of candidates together to represent the different views of CW participants, and gather some votes?

 

No special section of the forum, but that is more or less what happened last time.

 

Two forum members stood almost directly as a suggestion being made that we should, and eventually the candidates list contained at least one more name that was a forum member, although his candidacy had not come about via the forum.

 

The forum does not have enough active boat owning members to have any chance of producing enough votes to get someone elected, even if we could all agree on a preferred candidate, (which will clearly never happen, based on the diversity of opinion we have!). And anyway, some forum members will very clearly prefer what they see as a proven track record of an IWA trustee, over just a "forum name". (I think I got called things like "Johnny come lately, when I stood last time.)

 

So to be in with any chance at all you must have ways of attracting votes far more widely than those you might pick up from the forum. Do you have suggestions as to how you can ensure that a name unknown to the vast majority electorate who is one of more than 30 candidates is the one that enough people actually pick as their highest priority choice? That, quite simply, is the challenge to an independent candidate.

Edited December 29, 2014 by alan_fincher

[Gordias]

Alan

 

I may have underestimated the proportion of boaters who use this forum, but I've gained the impression that there are a lot of CW users who don't post on "political" topics because of the "lunatic fringe", who are easily the most aggressive and least polite posters here.

 

If this is true, protecting the political discussions from "I hate CaRT" hijacking would be useful if it's possible, as it would encourage the "silent majority" to participate. I was thinking of strict moderation of a few threads (in a special "election" forum, one or two for general discussion + one per candidate), with anyone starting a pointless (in the context of a CaRT election) anti-CaRT tirade banned from that forum, but only from that forum, for three months.

 

As for getting access to potential voters:

This is the classic problem for independents of course - they don't have a mailing list and they don't have any "free momentum" from an organization.

 

My earlier suggestion was essentially to use this site to get started on the "mailing list" problem, but using modern technology. Limited, but an easy place to start (assuming the site controller(s) agree).

 

I think the other early step is to get indirect access to CaRT's mailing/SMS/email list. They may not like this, but since they're the only organization that knows who the voters are. If they won't provide some form of access, they're essentially handing the election to existing organizations (as I understand happened last year) - they can't easily ignore this argument, as long as it's accompanied with a sensible proposal that doesn't include their breaking UK privacy laws (i.e. they'll have to act as a communications intermediary).

 

There's a minimum infrastructure requirement too: CaRT aren't going to send large numbers of communications out, and "knocking on doors" is not practical, so any candidate has to make it easy for potential voters to get access to information about them, and to register an electronic address for a few "direct mail shots". A forum is good for this, and the setup would only need to to be a little more sophisticated than what I described above. The problem is getting access to a convenient technical environment. CW has most (perhaps all) of the necessary capability though.

 

Here's one scenario (assuming suitable infrastructure):

 

Cart agrees to provide a limited number of electronic communications for all candidates as a group (one to five) which provide links for information about each candidate (and perhaps 25 words about each candidate). Interested voters follow the link, and come to a well designed, easily read, easily navigated page with enough information about the candidate to capture their interest. If they like the initial message, they'll perhaps spend half an hour looking around to help them decide if this is a good candidate for them. If not, they're gone forever of course, but this way an independent at least has a chance to expand their pool of prospective voters and build a mailing list.

 

NB: That particular scenario might not be possible, but it captures the main points: each Independent has to (or at least really wants to)f ind a way to "broadcast" to potential voters, make it easy for prospects to find out what they're offering, and to register a contact address.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Gordias