Jump to content

CRT Advertising for Regional Advisory Board Chairs


howardang

Featured Posts

We recently had  a thread about the CRT Partnerships, and I see that this morning Narrowboat World are drawing attention to a recent advertisement in the Sunday Times for 4 Regional Advisory Board Chairs - 4 unpaid positions which seems like the first step in the restructuring/elimination of the  Waterway Partnerships and this certainly seems to be the case. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and how this will affect any ongoing projects initiated by the existing Partnerships and what cost implications will be involved in setting up these Advisory Boards.

http://appointments.thesundaytimes.co.uk/job/455192/regional-advisory-board-chairs/

Regards

Howard

Edited by howardang
To add link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, howardang said:

We recently had  a thread about the CRT Partnerships, and I see that this morning Narrowboat World are drawing attention to a recent advertisement in the Sunday Times for 4 Regional Advisory Board Chairs - 4 unpaid positions which seems like the first step in the restructuring/elimination of the  Waterway Partnerships and this certainly seems to be the case. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and how this will affect any ongoing projects initiated by the existing Partnerships and what cost implications will be involved in setting up these Advisory Boards.

http://appointments.thesundaytimes.co.uk/job/455192/regional-advisory-board-chairs/

Regards

Howard

 

At last week's Partnership meeting we had an update on the restructuring.   Firstly the Partnerships are to continue - there is no question of elimination. No-one knew where this idea came from!   The Partnerships are to be reduced in number to align with the new waterway regions (six).  Four regional boundaries have been all but decided, hence the adverts for chairs for these boards.  The other two regions are still having their areas discussed;  once agreed the chairs will be sought.  Existing chairs were all approaching the the end of their term and could not be re-appointed.  Existing board members may continue to serve (if they wish).   The board name is to be changed to 'advisory' to better reflect the role - which has never had executive powers.   The emphasis is (and always has been) in part to reach out and engage with local communities and their leaders - whether voluntary, council officers, councillors/MPs, or whatever, and it's hoped to attract more local leaders on to the boards.  

As to costs these should be modest.  All posts are voluntary; reasonable expenses e.g. travel can be claimed (some claim, some don't, some claim part), and a simple sandwich lunch is provided if the meetings go over lunchtime.  There will be a cost to the annual meeting if it's held in a venue outside Trust premises, and a simple catering offer is usually provided as a 'thank you' to those who take the trouble to attend and show interest and support.  

I don't see why current Partnership projects should be affected by these very modest changes. 

Hope that helps.

Regards

David L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, it does seem they are jumping the gun a bit. We are told that internal consultation has not yet been concluded, hence the uncertainty about two areas, and there has been no official external consultation amongst those involved in canals outside of CRT. It is not really the best way to act when you are supposedly trying to be inclusive if decisions are being made before consultation ends. I feel that CRT management are still in thrall to government, and haven't really understood that they are supposed to be independent. Is it that government is pressurising management to make decisions irrespective of consultation - I mean, who would expect governments to do that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the all party parliamentary group reviewing the role of the partnerships

 

“In addition, the Partnerships need to be clear of their financial role within CRT and understand that they need to develop their own revenue schemes to fund themselves and provide income for CRT. Ensuring that the Waterway Partnerships will be able to cover their operating costs will be a crucial aspect of their success. The APPG is pleased to see that Partnerships have already begun looking into funding and believes that they should aim to be completely self funded by the end of 2014.”

 

worth a read if you are looking at WP's and their role - https://www.waterways.org.uk/pdf/appg_crt_report  talks about the expectation of partnerships raising funds considerably in excess of their costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sorry but I have only just found this thread. The article to which Howard refers was 'lifted' from my article in The Floater dated 18 January -

https://www.thefloater.org/the-floater-january-2018/regional-advisory-boards-replace-waterway-partnerships

With regard to partnerships financial role in raising funds, (see Tuscans post), I emailed David chair -

http

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

Sorry but I have only just found this thread. The article to which Howard refers was 'lifted' from my article in The Floater dated 18 January -

https://www.thefloater.org/the-floater-january-2018/regional-advisory-boards-replace-waterway-partnerships

With regard to partnerships financial role in raising funds, (see Tuscans post) -

https://www.thefloater.org/the-floater-january-2018/crt-is-busy-recycling-old-promises

It is rather obvious that partnerships have failed in respect in funding projects that they initiate or are involved in. This, despite trustees being told some years back that partnerships had been told they must develop ten year strategic plans and shorter three year action plans showing how much they needed for individual projects and potential funders (C&RT gave themselves the option of match funding).

 The failure is part of C&RT's general failure to develop new income streams available to it as a charity.

 

**** Sorry about leaving this post half completed yesterday - a domestic emergency now resolved.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/19/2018 at 08:57, Pluto said:

David, it does seem they are jumping the gun a bit. We are told that internal consultation has not yet been concluded, hence the uncertainty about two areas, and there has been no official external consultation amongst those involved in canals outside of CRT. It is not really the best way to act when you are supposedly trying to be inclusive if decisions are being made before consultation ends. I feel that CRT management are still in thrall to government, and haven't really understood that they are supposed to be independent. Is it that government is pressurising management to make decisions irrespective of consultation - I mean, who would expect governments to do that!

Henry VIII

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/01/2018 at 08:57, Pluto said:

David, it does seem they are jumping the gun a bit. We are told that internal consultation has not yet been concluded, hence the uncertainty about two areas, and there has been no official external consultation amongst those involved in canals outside of CRT. It is not really the best way to act when you are supposedly trying to be inclusive if decisions are being made before consultation ends. I feel that CRT management are still in thrall to government, and haven't really understood that they are supposed to be independent. Is it that government is pressurising management to make decisions irrespective of consultation - I mean, who would expect governments to do that!

I would have thought it probable that C&RT had already decided on the boundaries for the six new regions and regional directors before consultation started. As to only advertising for four rather six partnership chairs, my money would be on them already having names for the other two positions.

The internal consultation is probably just aimed at who goes and who stays.

As to being in thrall to government, I guess they need to be. Government holds the purse strings and also controls them to the extent that can  replace them with another organisation if they wish

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I would have thought it probable that C&RT had already decided on the boundaries for the six new regions and regional directors before consultation started. As to only advertising for four rather six partnership chairs, my money would be on them already having names for the other two positions.

The internal consultation is probably just aimed at who goes and who stays.

As to being in thrall to government, I guess they need to be. Government holds the purse strings and also controls them to the extent that can  replace them with another organisation if they wish

Are you sure about the last paragraph; they are a charity, so how they are organised should be controlled by the Charity Commission rather than by government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Pluto said:

Are you sure about the last paragraph; they are a charity, so how they are organised should be controlled by the Charity Commission rather than by government.

I did say 'guess'. It is known that Defra invited themselves to have at C&RT's finances this year. The grant agreement is a matter of public record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.