Time to replace CRT is now due - what alternatives could there be?

[Laurence Hogg]

Following the disgusting turn out for the elections recently held it is more than obvious CRT has had its day. We need a cedible alternative, with solid power and run in a fair just way to replace what has become a joke.

Exclusion of people because they have no internet access, ethnic candidates disappearing from lists, the unfair licensing system, it just goes on and imho is far far worse than BW.

 

Below is Allan Richards superb summary from Narrowboatworld, the facts are true, but what do you think we need to get in place?

 

Allans piece:

 

<

No confidence in CaRT

 

 

 

Monday, 21 December 2015 10:18

LESS than 7% of eligible boaters voted in the Canal & River Trust (CaRT) Council election according to the Electoral Reform Society, writes Allan Richards.

In a show of no confidence in the Trust and its governance structure there was a drop in turnout from 27.4% at the last election (March 2012) to just 6.8% (December 2015).

Private boating

Just 1,860 (2012—7,556) out of an electorate of 27,280 (2012—28,805) voted for the eight candidates (2012—33) standing. The four private boaters returned, in the order they were elected, were Phil Prettyman,Stella Ridgeway, Andrew Phasey,Vaughan Welch.

Other constituencies

Business boating (two to elect) also had a poor turnout with 11.1% compared to 37.4% in 2012. With employees (one to elect) turnout fell from 44.0% to 25.8%. In the new constituency of ‘volunteers' (one to elect) just 14.9% voted.

In the ‘Friends' category, the only nominee to gain the five sponsors needed (and thus stand for Council unopposed) claimed she was being excluded on ethnic grounds (Ethnic ‘Friend' not allowed to stand for Council). She has now been offered a place for two years but it is not known if this will be accepted.

Appalling turnout

The truly appalling turnout, particularly from private boaters, is only to be expected. In September, narrowboatworld published some of findings of a report that CaRT had kept hidden for a year. In particular: Respect—only one in four (24%) boaters say they feel respected by the Trust ...

The warning signs were all there but not acted on!

Internet 'questions and answers' cancelled

On 4th December ‘Boaters Update' stated: ‘On the afternoon of the 18 December the boating team will be taking to the internet to answer any questions you may have'. It never happened. No explanation for cancellation was given.

Perhaps boating team ‘bottled out' thinking boaters would ignore them. On the other hand perhaps they thought that they might have to answer a few awkward questions...

One of the questions the boating team might have been asked is why the number of eligible boaters has dropped by over 1,500 between the two elections...

>

 

NOW what do we do with CRT?

Edited December 21, 2015 by Laurence Hogg

[StarUKKiwi]

I hope that is not copy and pasted as, once again, my name is misspelt.

Have you written and asked why the internet Q&A was cancelled?

The voting procedure was not communicated properly IMHO. There should have been at least a year's warning - explanations sent out with licence renewal notices from Jan 2014 to get people to register email addresses.

What would you replace it with?

[RLWP]

I hope that is not copy and pasted as, once again, my name is misspelt.

 

It is. From NBW

 

Richard

[BEngo]

Given my druthers... and accepting that:

 

The Gubbinsment won't have the waterways back except at the point of a gun (such as when CRT go broke).

There ain't anymore easy money.

 

Then:

 

CRT needs to turn into a charitable membership organisation, with the members firmly in control. A Board of Trustees composed principally of elected CRT Members and One Government appointee (because of the grant). A Chairman elected by the trustees. Board sets policies reviews and approves budgets, sets targets for membership and fund raising.

 

Chief exec accountable to the board of trustees for executing the policies they set.

 

Free membership for license and River Registration holders, a similar fee to the NT for everyone else.

 

The management of CRT needs re-organising to focus on upkeep and reducing costs. 4 Regions, 4 Regional managers responsible for delivering navigable water, moorings and other operational matters on their patch. Regional managers run the maintenace programme and contracts.

 

 

Chief exec co-ordinates enforces commonality of approach where needed.

 

An department responsible for letting engineering contracts for the Regional managers and then managing those contractors, with a goal of reducing the costs by 30% and increasing contractor output by 15%.

 

A membership department with the goal of recruiting xx,ooo members and an income stream thereby

 

A fund raising department with realistic goals for donations, and just enough people to deliver.

 

Either the right to charge local councils for the amenity value of the canal system in their area or compulsory council contributions set by Government.

The right to licence cyclists, so that they can pay for their additional use of the towpath and the detriment they cause to casual users.

 

An end to the nonsense of taking over navigations from EA. CRT will never be able to afford it (and the EA won't cough up enough money) and neither EA nor CRT will never sort out the dividing line between Navigation and Flood control nor will the resulting licencing mess be anything but a distraction.

 

An end to unnecessary volunteering- like lock-keeping.

 

Hand the management of essential volunteering to a volunteer organisation- Like say WRG.

 

N

[Arthur Marshall]

Name me one major organisation that doesn't have cock-ups, and that works efficiently for its user base. Management has been crap ever since it was decided it was a thing in itself, rather than expertise in the thing you were managing. The private sector in general is even worse than the public. Better the devil you know than having to start all over again learning about a new one...

[Machpoint005]

Name me one major organisation that doesn't have cock-ups, and that works efficiently for its user base. Management has been crap ever since it was decided it was a thing in itself, rather than expertise in the thing you were managing. The private sector in general is even worse than the public. Better the devil you know than having to start all over again learning about a new one...

 

^^ +1

[MtB]

Name me one major organisation that doesn't have cock-ups, and that works efficiently for its user base. Management has been crap ever since it was decided it was a thing in itself, rather than expertise in the thing you were managing. The private sector in general is even worse than the public. Better the devil you know than having to start all over again learning about a new one...

 

 

A most accurate and informative insight there. I notice this effect in almost all organisations but never properly realised until you said!

[Bee]

Management has been crap ever since it was decided it was a thing in itself, rather than expertise in the thing you were managing.

 

Nicely put, applies to every organisation from the government all the way down to, Ooh, I dunno, whoever failed to order the pork scratchings in the pub, my dog was a very dissatisfied customer the other night,

[Paul G2]

The management of CRT needs re-organising to focus on upkeep and reducing costs. 4 Regions, 4 Regional managers responsible for delivering navigable water, moorings and other operational matters on their patch. Regional managers run the maintenace programme and contracts.

 

 

 

In this one particular aspect, you appear to have accepted the misconception that government/CRT hiring contractors is somehow more cost effective than government/CRT hiring employees. That whole concept is a fallacy. Government workers can do a job for what it costs - labor + materials. Contractors have to add profit into the equation. By now the contractor system has been in place long enough that it is essentially now a system rigged to benefit insiders - think Halliburton and their billions of dollars worth of "no bid" contracts in Iraq.

 

Another thing is that, if CRT had paid staff doing the things that contractors and some volunteers are doing now, then CRT would actually be in the business of operating the canals, they would be in hands on control of the system. When an organization like CRT contracts out much of the actual operation of the canal system, then much of what CRT does evolves into dealing with contractors, rather than dealing with canals and boaters. There's a big difference between the two.

[George94]

The problem is that whilst contracting out seldom makes sense (unless it's a peripheral activity that can be done more efficiently by specialists - like payroll, or things that you only do occasionally) a public corporation will over time come to serve only itself. We see this all the time, whether it's the NHS, the Post Office, the utility companies before they were sold off, etc..

 

Sadly, I don't think there is a solution, unless perhaps it's to create franchises, as with the railways. This may sound heretical, but overall I think the railways serve the public better now than they did when in public ownership.

[bassplayer]

Following the disgusting turn out for the elections recently held it is more than obvious CRT has had its day. We need a cedible alternative, with solid power and run in a fair just way to replace what has become a joke.

Exclusion of people because they have no internet access, ethnic candidates disappearing from lists, the unfair licensing system, it just goes on and imho is far far worse than BW.

 

Below is Allan Richards superb summary from Narrowboatworld, the facts are true, but what do you think we need to get in place?

 

Allans piece:

 

<

No confidence in CaRT

 

 

 

Monday, 21 December 2015 10:18

LESS than 7% of eligible boaters voted in the Canal & River Trust (CaRT) Council election according to the Electoral Reform Society, writes Allan Richards.

In a show of no confidence in the Trust and its governance structure there was a drop in turnout from 27.4% at the last election (March 2012) to just 6.8% (December 2015).

Private boating

Just 1,860 (20127,556) out of an electorate of 27,280 (201228,805) voted for the eight candidates (201233) standing. The four private boaters returned, in the order they were elected, were Phil Prettyman,Stella Ridgeway, Andrew Phasey,Vaughan Welch.

Other constituencies

Business boating (two to elect) also had a poor turnout with 11.1% compared to 37.4% in 2012. With employees (one to elect) turnout fell from 44.0% to 25.8%. In the new constituency of volunteers' (one to elect) just 14.9% voted.

In the Friends' category, the only nominee to gain the five sponsors needed (and thus stand for Council unopposed) claimed she was being excluded on ethnic grounds (Ethnic Friend' not allowed to stand for Council). She has now been offered a place for two years but it is not known if this will be accepted.

Appalling turnout

The truly appalling turnout, particularly from private boaters, is only to be expected. In September, narrowboatworld published some of findings of a report that CaRT had kept hidden for a year. In particular: Respectonly one in four (24%) boaters say they feel respected by the Trust ...

The warning signs were all there but not acted on!

Internet 'questions and answers' cancelled

On 4th December Boaters Update' stated: On the afternoon of the 18 December the boating team will be taking to the internet to answer any questions you may have'. It never happened. No explanation for cancellation was given.

Perhaps boating team bottled out' thinking boaters would ignore them. On the other hand perhaps they thought that they might have to answer a few awkward questions...

One of the questions the boating team might have been asked is why the number of eligible boaters has dropped by over 1,500 between the two elections...

>

 

NOW what do we do with CRT?

Other than critical comments about the constitution of CRT and it's committees what practical boating realated criticisms do you have with CRT?

[BEngo]

While I would agree with a lot of Paul G2's post, 'in house is cheaper' is only true if there is year-round work for all the in-house staff. For some staff, CRT can find year-round work, but with major maintenance confined to the off-season more people and higher skills are only needed in the winter. Buying this in only when needed makes more sense than paying it all year round- especially if paying for high skill levels.

 

The other benefit of outsourcing is that you should be able to dispose of your overheads on people- payroll etc., and since the Contractor is a big organisation, even though you have to pay him a profit it should still be cheaper because his overheads are spread more thinly, and in the case of Pensions are often significantly less than the Public Sector.

 

All that said, CRT are being taken for a ride by their Contractors and need to get better value. They will only do that if the Waterway managers are actually responsible for their waterways

 

N

[jenlyn]

In my view, CRT has just evolved into "the middleman" between customer and contractor.

Either CRT or the contractors need to go.

I definitely believe that some of the trustees and the CEO need replacing.

[Burgiesburnin]

Most posts seem to concentrate on maintenance and put efficiency of maintenance to be all that is required.

If there is an overall increase in efficiency are canal users really ready for that?

London live aboards would be strictly monitored. Could become like a Rubic cube moving that lot round as they probably should be.

Visitor moorings may be monitored with "parking meter mentality"

Ccers and boat movements monitored "efficiently"

 

Please be assured, I am by no means an expert but firmly believe in the cliche, be careful what you wish for.

[RufusR]

While I would agree with a lot of Paul G2's post, 'in house is cheaper' is only true if there is year-round work for all the in-house staff. For some staff, CRT can find year-round work, but with major maintenance confined to the off-season more people and higher skills are only needed in the winter. Buying this in only when needed makes more sense than paying it all year round- especially if paying for high skill levels.

 

The other benefit of outsourcing is that you should be able to dispose of your overheads on people- payroll etc., and since the Contractor is a big organisation, even though you have to pay him a profit it should still be cheaper because his overheads are spread more thinly, and in the case of Pensions are often significantly less than the Public Sector.

 

All that said, CRT are being taken for a ride by their Contractors and need to get better value. They will only do that if the Waterway managers are actually responsible for their waterways

 

N

 

 

this , with more and more red tape being put on business employing people the flexibilty of contractor out sourcing is increasingly attractive . in our industry we are seeing increasing use of agency staff for the very reason you can get them in when busy and send them home when not and dont have to deal with the red tape and employee issues . The rise in zero hours contracts ( which I dont agree with BTW ) is IMO a direct result of the aforementioned red tape and people managment issue

 

If you legislate too much on business especially small to medium business ( CRT would fall under the latter with its size of £180M ) they will seek ways to be more effcient and lose the red tape . The Govt will claim they are all jobs but you end up with lots of un secure and part time emplyment rather than skilled loyal and secure workforce . too much employment legislation on SME's will drive down the quality of jobs for the worker not increase it IMO

[Sea Dog]

I think there's a key issue here that wasn't properly considered at inception. The CRT have not simply replaced BW, they've picked up all kinds of other remits too. Every engineer knows that, if you're making adjustments, you only change one thing at once. Otherwise, when it doesn't work properly, you don't know where to look first to fix it.

 

I'd offer that what should have happened here is that the responsibilities as Navigation Authority should have been taken on first. Only when the transfer of BW's former role had been successfully completed, and the waterways were being well run and maintained by CRT, should the additional roles and responsibilities have been considered. It's often referred to as learning to walk before you run.

[Arthur Marshall]

All that said, CRT are being taken for a ride by their Contractors and need to get better value. They will only do that if the Waterway managers are actually responsible for their waterways

 

No they're not. It's the contractor's job to make as much money as they can, same as it's CRT's job (if they were competent to do it) to get the work done as cheaply as they can. That's the way it works. Why on earth should a contractor sell himself for anything less than the max he can charge for a job? He's bearing all the insecurity, the risk, all the equipment cost, all the other admin liabilities. And once you start using them, the hirer loses any expertise they ever had in knowing what the actual costs are so their bargaining position goes down the tubes. Over time, contractors are always more expensive than in-house - it's just that managers don't stay anywhere long enough for it to matter to them(like politicians).

Someone gets rich - but it's not the sacked employee, not the contractor, nor the manager, (altogether now...) it's the chairman of the board...

[Cheshire cat]

Yes they are. The contractors do indeed need to maximise their opportunity and the waterways managers need to minimise it. The deal brokered has to be the best one available from both views.

 

I did once get involved in writing an Invitation to Tender for which there was only one responder. Oooer, now what do we do?

 

Everyone is so keen to get improvements from a boaters perspective. It makes me nervous. I see Pay and Display coming to a location near you very soon.

[David Mack]

CRT needs to turn into a charitable membership organisation, with the members firmly in control.

 

...

Free membership for license and River Registration holders, a similar fee to the NT for everyone else.

 

...

A membership department with the goal of recruiting xx,ooo members and an income stream thereby

 

 

 

Be very careful what you wish for. Because xx,000 non-boating members could easily outnumber the 30,000 or so licence holders, and then the "members firmly in control" might take the trust in a direction that boaters don't like...

[MtB]

Yes they are. The contractors do indeed need to maximise their opportunity and the waterways managers need to minimise it. The deal brokered has to be the best one available from both views.

 

I did once get involved in writing an Invitation to Tender for which there was only one responder. Oooer, now what do we do?

 

Everyone is so keen to get improvements from a boaters perspective. It makes me nervous. I see Pay and Display coming to a location near you very soon.

 

 

This would be most welcome. At least one would then be able to find a space.

 

Oh but hang on, ALL the visitor moorings on the Eadstern K&A seem to be Pay and Display for four months this winter, and they are ALL bloody full up!

[Thorfast]

So a very low percentage of voters means we need to get rid of CRT.....what rubbish.

It is just yet another example of voting apathy that we suffer from in this country.

I seem to recall that the turn out to vote for Police Commissioners was extremely low too...perhaps we need to get rid of the police too!

 

As for replacing CRT with a canal members organisation then boaters would be a long way behind fishermen, cyclists, walkers, bird watchers, dog walkers......please remember the canals are run for everyone not just for the benefit of Laurence Hogg and Allan Richards.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Thorfast

[dogless]

Can someone remind me what the turn out rate was at the last general election ?

I suspect the rate of participation in the C&RT elections had a lot more to do with apathy than lack of respect for the organisation.

Rog

 

typed same time as the above

Edited December 21, 2015 by dogless

[MtB]

Can someone remind me what the turn out rate was at the last general election ?

I suspect the rate of participation in the C&RT elections had a lot more to do with apathy than lack of respect for the organisation.

Rog

 

 

I disagree.

 

The low turnout was because very few boaters knew anything about the election. How were they supposed to find out?

[dogless]

I disagree.

 

The low turnout was because very few boaters knew anything about the election. How were they supposed to find out?

I received many, many e mails inviting me to participate. I assumed the majority would have received similar invitations.

Sorry, didn't realise I was in the minority.

Rog

[RLWP]

fishermen, cyclists, walkers, bird watchers, dog walkers

 

Water skiers, power boaters....

 

There are a huge range of CRT clients

 

Not all of their water is in rivers and canals

 

Richard