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

[Sabcat]

Does a mechanism exists to get rid of CRT and replace them with something else? I mean, if we all agree that the time has indeed come to replace them, then what?

[Thorfast]

Does a mechanism exists to get rid of CRT and replace them with something else? I mean, if we all agree that the time has indeed come to replace them, then what?

We dont all agree, and it is not up to us anyway.

[Dave Payne]

Lets go old school, 1789, load of guillotines... Job done!

[mango]

We dont all agree, and it is not up to us anyway.

 

That's about it. Having spoken to plenty of boaters, mainly at locks, I don't get the impression that many are concerned about the management of the waterways.

[Mac of Cygnet]

There has been a lot of hand-wringing about the low turnout, but no-one has put their hand up and said they knew about it and didn't vote, so I will.

 

With the first election, everyone thought that this was democracy in action, and the Council would actually make a difference. I even put my name down as one of the ten supporters of a candidate (he didn't get elected).

 

This time, although I had to contact ERS to get a voting code, I eventually decided it just wasn't worth it, as the Council seems to have achieved absolutely zilch. I may be mistaken, but I guess a lot of other people thought the same way.

 

Anyone else?

[Sabcat]

We dont all agree, and it is not up to us anyway.

 

Which is pretty much my point, there's no mechanism or at least no mechanism which we have access to to remove CRT even if we all agree the time has come. Or not.

[Capt Ahab]

There has been a lot of hand-wringing about the low turnout, but no-one has put their hand up and said they knew about it and didn't vote, so I will.

 

With the first election, everyone thought that this was democracy in action, and the Council would actually make a difference. I even put my name down as one of the ten supporters of a candidate (he didn't get elected).

 

This time, although I had to contact ERS to get a voting code, I eventually decided it just wasn't worth it, as the Council seems to have achieved absolutely zilch. I may be mistaken, but I guess a lot of other people thought the same way.

 

Anyone else?

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about the role of the Council.

 

First, its not an executive body which makes decisions about the day to day running of the trust. If you think that's what its for you will be very disappointed.

 

It is a key part of the governance of the charity, the body which appoints (or removes) the Trustees - who are the real activists in the organisation. There has to be a way to removing the decision making Trustees if they are heading for disaster in the eyes of all users.

 

But the Council's influence goes beyond its appointment role. It also considers the major issues of the day bringing in comment from a very broad spectrum of interested parties (which includes boaters) and has an opportunity to influence strategic directions. The snag is that this "power" is via influence rather by than power endowed within the role.

 

Maybe you can think of the Council as the anchor on your boat - a somewhat passive bit of kit which you keep handy but you will be very happy if you never have cause to deploy it in anger.

[MtB]

Maybe you can think of the Council as the anchor on your boat - a somewhat passive bit of kit which you keep handy but you will be very happy if you never have cause to deploy it in anger.

 

 

In other words, it's a piece of kit we'll have no idea if it works until the day we really need it!

But thank you for the detailed explanation all the same.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Maybe you can think of the Council as the anchor on your boat - a somewhat passive bit of kit which you keep handy but you will be very happy if you never have cause to deploy it in anger.

 

Now I am understanding - its something you keep in the locker, you take it out twice a year to make sure its still there and hasn't rusted away thru lack of use, give it a 'rub-down' with an oily rag and stick it back in the locker for another 6 months.

Does absolutely nothing in the day to day 'running, navigating or being able to moor' the boat, and relies on other things to be able to even achieve its function.

 

Alternatively - deploying an anchor is a frequent event for many people - it is not used in 'anger' it is used to 'moor', it is used whilst 'stopping for lunch'. It is there everyday, it is most useful and it becomes a friend - in an emergency it has the power you need & you know you can rely on it.

 

I know which type of 'anchor' I would vote for.

[Capt Ahab]

 

Now I am understanding - its something you keep in the locker, you take it out twice a year to make sure its still there and hasn't rusted away thru lack of use, give it a 'rub-down' with an oily rag and stick it back in the locker for another 6 months.

Does absolutely nothing in the day to day 'running, navigating or being able to moor' the boat, and relies on other things to be able to even achieve its function.

 

Alternatively - deploying an anchor is a frequent event for many people - it is not used in 'anger' it is used to 'moor', it is used whilst 'stopping for lunch'. It is there everyday, it is most useful and it becomes a friend - in an emergency it has the power you need & you know you can rely on it.

 

I know which type of 'anchor' I would vote for.

You are missing the influencing aspect which comes across very clearly in the Trust's Governance document - and the simile only works for us ditch crawlers!

[alan_fincher]

Unless things have changed enormously since last time, when I stood, although there is possibility that the Council could theoretically dismiss unsatisfactory trustees, if you actually look at the make up of council, and the number you would need to rally together to achieve that, I feel sure that except in very exceptional circumstances it would never happen.

 

For example there are numerically more Partnership chairs on Council than there are people who have got there via any electoral process.

[Tuscan]

Unless things have changed enormously since last time, when I stood, although there is possibility that the Council could theoretically dismiss unsatisfactory trustees, if you actually look at the make up of council, and the number you would need to rally together to achieve that, I feel sure that except in very exceptional circumstances it would never happen.

 

For example there are numerically more Partnership chairs on Council than there are people who have got there via any electoral process.

As CRT appoints the partnership chairs who in turn form the majority of the Council who In turn oversee the trustees. The governance structure seems in need of review or perhaps the role of the Council needs to be reviewed, however given the very low boater representation do we want the Council to have more power?

[alan_fincher]

As CRT appoints the partnership chairs who in turn form the majority of the Council who In turn oversee the trustees.

Well not actually the majority of the Council - probably just under one third of it actually.

 

But my point still stands that elected representatives alone, (even if you count all of them, not just the boaters), would need to rustle up an awful lot more allies if they wanted to try and dismiss a trustee. In all honesty it's a power that is theoretical only - it would never happen, I think.

 

I don't have any answers about how you fix things, but as Roger Hanbury said that they hoped to increase turnout in future elections, but the actual turnout in this one has been decimated, I think they need to be asking themselves some serious questions.

 

It is currently unclear to me how much of the reduced turnout is due to problems with the electoral process, and how much due to voter apathy - I suspect most of us will never find out the answer to that one.

[churchward]

In the first elections, people thought they were voting for "boaters representatives" a name which was misleading, as the folk voted for were not to represent boaters at all, but be a legal counsel to oversee the charity board.....

 

so this time round, people probably thought....why vote.......whoever gets in has no real powers to represent boaters anyway...

 

 

 

however.....

 

when CRT has organised feedback meetings, some minority parties/individuals among boaters have taken over those meetings, drowning out any form of proper dialogue...so CRT are not always to blame.

 

What's missing, is :

 

1. A bunch of proper representatives, properly elected.

2. A proper dialogue by those representatives with CRT.

3. A proper communication channel amongst boaters, their representatives, and CRT.

I don't think that is what is missing at all. Personally I doubt a small elected few representatives could hope to engage enough with all boaters and their interests and represent them with CRT effectively in the way I think you mean.

 

In think we already have many representatives in the several boating and other organisations that engage with CRT. As external groups they can represent the many aspects of boating and waterway life. So, people should pick the organisation that can most represent their likes/dislikes and lifestyle choices join up and join in.

 

It would be good if some of these organisations could co-operate on more issues and also that they probably could do with better formal channels into CRT

[alan_fincher]

In think we already have many representatives in the several boating and other organisations that engage with CRT. As external groups they can represent the many aspects of boating and waterway life. So, people should pick the organisation that can most represent their likes/dislikes and lifestyle choices join up and join in.

 

If you want to be represented as a boater, but don't CC or live aboard, you are hardly spoilt for choice, though!

 

It would be good if some of these organisations could co-operate on more issues and also that they probably could do with better formal channels into CRT

Sadly after initial claims that some of the associations had reached sufficient agreement that they could meet with CRT with a fairly united voice on certain key issues the whole thing has completely broken down it seems.

 

Sometimes more effort now seems to be expended in people from one association taking a poke at another, than in actually trying to promote the interests of the members who have signed up to those associations.

 

Or that's how it looks to me anyway. Others may still feel well represented, and be unconcerned by any perceived infighting, I guess, but it all seems pretty uncomfortable now to me, and I personally don't think the interests of boaters in general are being well served.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

If you want to be represented as a boater, but don't CC or live aboard, you are hardly spoilt for choice, though!

 

 

From looking at the various websites and the activities listed etc It looks to me as if NABO is probably the best all round supporter of boaters, liveaboard, CCer, HMers or leisure user, they appear to encompass everyone.

[Thorfast]

At the moment there are dozens of boater groups, all with different 'agendas', and by far the largest group are leisure boaters who have no membership to any group (this includes me).

If CRT listen closely to these various groups they would just hear a noise of conflicting opinions....so until boaters get organised into one national umbrella group that fairly represents a majority opinion then CRT will have a rather poor association with boaters. It is our fault not theirs.

 

Edited to add....I do not think there is any group that currently reflects my views....most groups I find too confrontational and in some cases too radical in their views.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Thorfast

[bassplayer]

Mike asked whether anyone thought there should be no enforcement. By that I presume he is talking about mooring rather than paying for a licence.

 

Maybe a good way to look at the whole issue is to ask ourselves what we think would happen if there was no enforcement.

 

My view is that there probably would be an increase in P taking on VM's at honey pot moorings and towns/cities. So all the money, effort and discussion about CC'ers etc boils down to that one problem. Is it it worth it? I don't know really.

[alan_fincher]

 

From looking at the various websites and the activities listed etc It looks to me as if NABO is probably the best all round supporter of boaters, liveaboard, CCer, HMers or leisure user, they appear to encompass everyone.

 

Yes, but as has been pointed out NABO supported a candidate in the Boater election, (Stella Ridgeway, who posts on here), but their Vice Chair, (Mark Tizard), was also posting on here and elsewhere rubbishing the idea of having these Council members in the first place!

 

I am currently a "slightly lapsed" NABO member, but some of their recent actions are inactions are causing me doubts about renewing.

Edited December 23, 2015 by alan_fincher

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Yes, but as has been pointed out NABO supported a candidate in the Boater election, (Stella Ridgeway, who posts on here), but their Vice Chair, (Mark Tizard), was also posting on here and elsewhere rubbishing the idea of having these Council members in the first place!

 

I am currently a "slightly lapsed" NABO member, but some of their recent actions are inactions are causing me doubts about renewing.

 

If you think back a few weeks, the Labour Leader - Mr Corbyn wanted certain actions taken, but, Labour party members did not all agree with the 'party line'.

We are fortunate in this country that we are still allowed to have a view on what we consider right or wrong.

Being a member of a 'club' ( even a high ranking committee member) does not mean that you are not entitled to voice your own opinion.

 

I would join a 'club' on the basis that I would not expect to fully agree with everything, but agreed with the majority of their policies.

 

As it happens ( I think I have made this clear in previous posts) I agree with Mark Tizard

[pete.i]

Well not actually the majority of the Council - probably just under one third of it actually.

 

But my point still stands that elected representatives alone, (even if you count all of them, not just the boaters), would need to rustle up an awful lot more allies if they wanted to try and dismiss a trustee. In all honesty it's a power that is theoretical only - it would never happen, I think.

 

I don't have any answers about how you fix things, but as Roger Hanbury said that they hoped to increase turnout in future elections, but the actual turnout in this one has been decimated, I think they need to be asking themselves some serious questions.

 

It is currently unclear to me how much of the reduced turnout is due to problems with the electoral process, and how much due to voter apathy - I suspect most of us will never find out the answer to that one.

To be perfectly honest I couldn't be arsed. I know I am not representative but I bet there are quite a few that felt, and feel, the same way. I have to say that the volunteering that I have done for the C&RT over the last few years has and will suffer and I have taken my boat off C&RTS waters with the intention of selling it and doing something different next year.

[Tuscan]

Yes, but as has been pointed out NABO supported a candidate in the Boater election, (Stella Ridgeway, who posts on here), but their Vice Chair, (Mark Tizard), was also posting on here and elsewhere rubbishing the idea of having these Council members in the first place!

I am currently a "slightly lapsed" NABO member, but some of their recent actions are inactions are causing me doubts about renewing.[/quote

 

 

Personally i think CRTs governance process is flawed and that the Council is ineffective from a boaters perspective based on the last 3 years. I still hold this view. Stella Ridgeway came to a NABO meeting and asked for our support she impressed me and others with her commitment and belief that she could be an influence for good from a boaters perspective. After she spoke NABO Council decided to support her candidature it was up to members to decide who to vote for.

 

I am glad that NABO has a a Council consisting of boaters from different backgrounds and cruising patterns, we often have a wide variety of viewpoints but normally get to a consensus. I imagine and hope other organisations do likewise. I have been advised previously to not post on here but will continue to do so.

[churchward]

 

If you want to be represented as a boater, but don't CC or live aboard, you are hardly spoilt for choice, though!

 

Sadly after initial claims that some of the associations had reached sufficient agreement that they could meet with CRT with a fairly united voice on certain key issues the whole thing has completely broken down it seems.

 

Sometimes more effort now seems to be expended in people from one association taking a poke at another, than in actually trying to promote the interests of the members who have signed up to those associations.

 

Or that's how it looks to me anyway. Others may still feel well represented, and be unconcerned by any perceived infighting, I guess, but it all seems pretty uncomfortable now to me, and I personally don't think the interests of boaters in general are being well served.

It's up to people to find or create the association or club that will represent them. I have not had an issue doing that and I am no CCer or liveaboard.

 

I think it would be better for the associations as I said before to get together on some common interests rather than argue who best represents who. There will always be some tension between organisations if they all agreed there would be no need for more than one. Some tensions can be good and bring about more rounded solutions when used in a positive way but also destructive if it gets to entrenched and polarised,

 

I do still think external parties whether in support or opposition of CRT is the best way to keep them honest and working in the best interests of the waterways they manage.

[Martin Megson]

Nothing wrong with CRT it's just a minority of boaters who think the rules don't apply to them who make a lot of noise. The vast majority of boaters just get on with enjoying their boating, complying with the licence conditions.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Martin Megson

[Arthur Marshall]

Nothing wrong with CRT it's just a minority of boaters who think the rules don't apply to them who make a lot of noise. The vast majority of boaters just get on with enjoying their boating, complying with the licence conditions.

Not 100% sure of that - the vast majority of boaters have home moorings and nip out for a few weeks here and there. We are never likely to come into any real contact with CRT's enforcement unless we break down too often. It's different for the minority of CCers and liveaboards, again most of whom follow the obvious guidelines, but sometimes come into collision where it all gets a bit woolly. No-one's fault really, apart from the politicians who can't draft legalities so the meanings are clear to everyone.