CRT Election

[koukouvagia]

Should our family receive two votes since we have two boats?

 

Originally the butty was registered in my son's name, but because the BW computer system was incapable of coping with two separately registered owners, but with a single customer number (mine, since I was paying for both licences), I decided to transfer the registration of the butty back to my name. (Incidentally, it took four years to accomplish this simple administrative task.)

 

By so doing I have deprived my son the opportunity of voting. Doesn't seem right, somehow.

 

Or have I misunderstood the voting rules?

[alan_fincher]

Jim,

 

I'm sure I have seen the answer that it is "one vote per boat owned", but I have only received one set of voting details by email.

 

(For no particular reason both boats are licensed in my name too).

 

I'll see if I can dig out where that answer was given - I just hope it was not a Sally Ash one, as her other answers have tended to need to be corrected by people who know what the correct response should have been!

[andrewcooley]

 

I'm sure I have seen the answer that it is "one vote per boat owned", but I have only received one set of voting details by email.

 

 

According to the Trust's ‘FIRST DECISIONS, EARLY THOUGHTS AND STATEMENTS OF INTENT’, Appendix B, paragraph 5.1.1 it's one vote per licence. So shared ownership boats have just the one licence holder vote, which puts them on the same footing as single owner boats.

 

If you hold two distinct licences but have only been sent one voting pack, I suggest you contact Electoral Reform Services straight away.

 

Does anyone know which organization is nominating the fifth private boater member? According to the 'STATEMENTS OF INTENT' it's "1 member nominated by an organisation that is representative of a substantial number of boaters that use waterways but who are not individual licence holders." Would these be hirers, shared ownership owners and/or canoeists - and who would represent this group without overlapping another constituency?

Edited February 9, 2012 by andrewcooley

[alan_fincher]

According to

 

C R T Council - Frequently Asked Questions (Adobe PDF document)

 

the 5th (and non elected) "boater" member will be as follows.....

 

The Private Boaters constituency includes one nominated member as representative of boaters without individual licences and the British Canoe Union will be invited to nominate such member.

[Leni]

According to

 

C R T Council - Frequently Asked Questions (Adobe PDF document)

 

the 5th (and non elected) "boater" member will be as follows.....

 

 

OK, so the canoeists get a representative. Is no-one representing Rowing Eights?

[carlt]

Surely this is the spot that the IWA should have, being the biggest general interest organisation?

[alan_fincher]

OK, so the canoeists get a representative. Is no-one representing Rowing Eights?

 

Surely this is the spot that the IWA should have, being the biggest general interest organisation?

 

I don't know about "rowing eights", but one imagines maybe 5 or 6 IWA trustees lining up arguing about which ones should be allowed in a rowing boat built for just four ?

[koukouvagia]

I've just phoned the Electoral Reform Services and asked why I haven't received two votes since I have two licensed boats. "Ah," said a very helpful chap, "we haven't been asked about that before. I'll get back to you."

 

So. Watch this space, Alan, and other multiple boat owners.

[beardshave]

A principal tenet of democracy is "One man- one vote" not "One boat-one vote"

 

Back in the 60s when people who had business premises got two votes it was thought unfair and abolished.

No matter how many boats somebody has they are still only one canal using person and that is represented by one vote. Multi-Property or multi-boat ownership should not be a means for obtaining more.

[koukouvagia]

A principal tenet of democracy is "One man- one vote" not "One boat-one vote"

 

Back in the 60s when people who had business premises got two votes it was thought unfair and abolished.

No matter how many boats somebody has they are still only one canal using person and that is represented by one vote. Multi-Property or multi-boat ownership should not be a means for obtaining more.

 

I don't want to vote twice but our son would like a vote as well. As it stands at the moment he, as a boat owner, is disenfranchised simply because I pay his licence fee.

 

 

I could easily have registered one of the boats in another family member's name, had the ridiculous BW computer system allowed me to do so.

Edited February 10, 2012 by koukouvagia

[alan_fincher]

I've just phoned the Electoral Reform Services and asked why I haven't received two votes since I have two licensed boats. "Ah," said a very helpful chap, "we haven't been asked about that before. I'll get back to you."

 

So. Watch this space, Alan, and other multiple boat owners.

Given how the process has been so far generally, why does this not surprise me ?

 

I was sure one of the Q&A documents, (or some of the DisQus discussion on Waterscape), confirmed it was a vote per boat licence, not a vote per licence holder. However I can't find that answer now, and wonder if it is another Sally Ash "duffer" that has been removed, as not being correct.

 

I'm not sure I agree with Beardshave on this...... Part of the rationale about how much representation boaters get is the large amount they contribute to the BW "pot" in terms of licence monies. Two boats means you are paying BW twice, so a vote per boat doesn't sound that unreasonable does it. It is pure chance our boats are both in my name - talking to another local couple yesterday with two boats, they happen to have one in each.......

[beardshave]

It's just the priciple Alan-I don't think that because I pay more tax than you do that I should have more votes or representation. I agree it is a bit tough on people who contribute two lots of fees but my main reason for responding was to brighten Karougia's day as his double-breasted single voted boats lie covered in snow. It certainly seems daft that because of an admin reason his son doesn't get a vote but these are anomoloies that will need sorting out when we have at least got a voice that we voted for.

[alan_fincher]

It's just the priciple Alan-I don't think that because I pay more tax than you do that I should have more votes or representation.

Yes, fair enough.........

 

I think we all agree there are lots of anomalies in this process, and most boaters would also think, I'm sure, given the huge contribution they make towards the overall budget, that just 4 elected places in a council of 35 isn't really giving "boating" as high a profile as it deserves.

 

My view is that we start with what they have allowed us, however imperfect it may seem, then try and make it better.

[Stephen Sugg]

OK, so the canoeists get a representative. Is no-one representing Rowing Eights?

Yay!

[Starcoaster]

I'm a bit confused here. If they are saying 'one vote per boat/ licence' which in effect stops both parties in any joint ownership agreements, or multiple parties in a shared ownership agreement from each voting- or perhaps more accurately only giving them a % of a vote; Then how come the same rule doesn't apply going the other way, ie, if you have two boats/licences, you don't get two?

 

This is... Illogical.

[andrewcooley]

 

If they are saying 'one vote per boat/ licence' ....

 

 

According to the Trust's ‘FIRST DECISIONS, EARLY THOUGHTS AND STATEMENTS OF INTENT’, Appendix B, paragraph 5.1.1 it's one vote per licence. So shared ownership boats each get one vote as there is only one licence. An individual with more than one licence should get as many votes as he or she has licences.

 

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Council is not the executive body and will not be directly involved in the operations of the Trust. To quote from the explanation on Waterscape, "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."

[Donald Gilchrist]

My boat is kept off BW [or new name] waters and only licenced for 6 months, do I get half a vote?

[sueb]

One of the trustees told us they have 5 boats so 5 votes? They may not all be on bw waters.

Sue

[alan_fincher]

One of the trustees told us they have 5 boats so 5 votes?

So maybe that will allow them to cast one first preference vote each for each of the five IWA trustees standing for the four boater places then ?

[Jim Batty]

 

I'm sure I have seen the answer that it is "one vote per boat owned", but I have only received one set of voting details by email.

 

 

This seems unfair to me ... a bit like an election with one vote per house owned, rather than one vote for each adult affected by the result of the electoral process.

 

My partner and I jointly own our boat, split all expenses connected with its operation (including the licence) and naturally both wish to vote for who we believe would best help preserve the waterways.

 

There is no reason whatever to believe we would want to vote for the same person ... or, indeed, number a list of candidates in order of preference in the same way.

 

Given we both live on the waterways, and will be equally affected by the results of this vote, one vote/boat seems a pretty antique procedure.

[Rebotco]

This seems unfair to me ... a bit like an election with one vote per house owned, rather than one vote for each adult affected by the result of the electoral process.

 

My partner and I jointly own our boat, split all expenses connected with its operation (including the licence) and naturally both wish to vote for who we believe would best help preserve the waterways.

 

There is no reason whatever to believe we would want to vote for the same person ... or, indeed, number a list of candidates in order of preference in the same way.

 

Given we both live on the waterways, and will be equally affected by the results of this vote, one vote/boat seems a pretty antique procedure.

 

 

You know that, but how do you think BW can possibly know it?

 

They can only go by what they have, which is the name on the licence they have issued.

 

I do think we have to be a bit reasonable with the practicalities faced by BW in conducting their first ever election.

 

OK its not perfect, but I suggest it is reasonable given the information available to them at present.

 

Its not usual for me to defend BW, but in this instance I think we should give them some credit for getting this unique

 

first election off the ground and it being perhaps 85% inclusive.

 

The next one will be the one where all these minority cases should be resolved by the new CaRT.

 

Lets be fair, it must be very hard for a dictatorship to suddenly learn how to become a democracy!

 

[Guest]

This seems unfair to me ... a bit like an election with one vote per house owned, rather than one vote for each adult affected by the result of the electoral process.

 

My partner and I jointly own our boat, split all expenses connected with its operation (including the licence) and naturally both wish to vote for who we believe would best help preserve the waterways.

 

There is no reason whatever to believe we would want to vote for the same person ... or, indeed, number a list of candidates in order of preference in the same way.

 

Given we both live on the waterways, and will be equally affected by the results of this vote, one vote/boat seems a pretty antique procedure.

 

 

an administrative and logistical nightmare to ensure everybody with a stake in each and every boat licensed on the system gets a vote, surely?

 

The only place to realisticly start is with who holds a licence - beyond that is not reasonable...

 

The comparison with a house does not stand up as registered voters are underpinned by the Electoral Register - no such similar system exists for boats. We could have a similar system for boaters but it would cost a fortune ie more in licences.....

Edited February 11, 2012 by MJG

[Jim Batty]

You know that, but how do you think BW can possibly know it?

 

They can only go by what they have, which is the name on the licence they have issued.

 

I do think we have to be a bit reasonable with the practicalities faced by BW in conducting their first ever election.

 

OK its not perfect, but I suggest it is reasonable given the information available to them at present.

 

Its not usual for me to defend BW, but in this instance I think we should give them some credit for getting this unique

 

first election off the ground and it being perhaps 85% inclusive.

 

The next one will be the one where all these minority cases should be resolved by the new CaRT.

 

Lets be fair, it must be very hard for a dictatorship to suddenly learn how to become a democracy!

 

 

 

Our bill of sale, survey report, mandatory insurance policy, RCR membership, etc. all indicate two owners of our boat. Our licence is paid for from our joint account. So joint ownership is easy to demonstrate.

 

It is just a weird anomaly that only one name can be written onto a BW licensing form. Certainly, for the future, this would be easy to amend (and made do-able online).

 

Is it really a 'minority case' that there is more than one person who has an interest in a boat?

[ditchcrawler]

Our bill of sale, survey report, mandatory insurance policy, RCR membership, etc. all indicate two owners of our boat. Our licence is paid for from our joint account. So joint ownership is easy to demonstrate.

 

It is just a weird anomaly that only one name can be written onto a BW licensing form. Certainly, for the future, this would be easy to amend (and made do-able online).

 

Is it really a 'minority case' that there is more than one person who has an interest in a boat?

So would you and your partner suggest that you have half a vote each as you only pay for half a licence each. If so why don't one of you have the first vote and the other have the second so on and so forth to number 33.

[David Schweizer]

Our bill of sale, survey report, mandatory insurance policy, RCR membership, etc. all indicate two owners of our boat. Our licence is paid for from our joint account. So joint ownership is easy to demonstrate.

 

It is just a weird anomaly that only one name can be written onto a BW licensing form. Certainly, for the future, this would be easy to amend (and made do-able online).

 

Is it really a 'minority case' that there is more than one person who has an interest in a boat?

 

When we purchased Helvetia fifteen years ago, we entered both our names on the licence application form as joint owners. Since then the records have always shown us as joint owners and all correspondance from BW has been addressed to both of us. The recently arrived Cart election papers from the ERS have also been addressed to both of us.

 

Perhaps those people who receive correspondance from BW addressed to only one person, overlooked entering the names of all the owners when first submitting their original licence application. If not, I find it difficult to understand why we have been treated differently.

Edited February 11, 2012 by David Schweizer