What Has Become Of The "waterway Partnerships"

[cotswoldsman]

Just to clarify then, I am only on the Boating Sub Group of the South East Partnership - I am not involved in the full Partnership, although Cath is a member of that, (as is at least one other CWDF member).

 

You can see who attends the Boating Sub Group here, and who the main Partnership here.

 

The meeing notes from both groups are published once agreed by the relevant chairs, usually a week or two after each meeting, but finding them can be a bit obscure, as like other CRT meeting notes, they get put on the calendar pages for the relevant day. [in fact, I have just looked, and can't find any, because I can't make their calendar go back beyond current month - I will enquire where I should now be looking!]. Anyway, now I realise people seldom see these, I will try and issue notification when I'm aware a set is available.

 

What I have repeaedly said in the sub-group is that I do not consider the notes show enough detail, often to the extent that if you were not present, they give the impression that we all agreed, whereas in reality there was a "robust debate"(!) Some of the more recent ones have shown more success at getting greater detail included, but there is I feel some way to go. To be honest this is not because it is related to the Partnership - most CRT meeting notes seem to be very scant by choice, and those for other advisory groups are often less informative than those or meetings I attend.

 

 

EDIT:

 

Think I have found past meeting agendas, and notes.....

 

The way in is this page, I think.

 

My groups last meeting was in March, and this page, links to both the agenda and the meeting notes.

 

So we are not actually a "secret group" as some have suggested - just slightly hard to find!

 

Again Alan not aimed at you but I am sorry it remains fairly secret to me without as you have also stated proper minutes giving full details of discussions. Meeting notes that take 2 mins to read can not be a true reflection of a meeting unless they are just half hour meetings

Here's an example of one of the more productive partnership meetings read and weep. This was this month

 

WMWP Meeting

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/meetings/560/wmwp-meeting

Best meeting they ever had

[Dave Clinton]

Here's an example of one of the more productive partnership meetings read and weep. This was this month

 

WMWP Meeting

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/meetings/560/wmwp-meeting

How much were these people paid for this worthless empty meeting?

 

if it was a joke it would be in pretty poor taste. As reality it is simply breathtaking.

Edited June 20, 2015 by GoodGurl
uncalled for name calling

[Tuscan]

Others meeting notes have more content but in almost every case you wonder whether the same output could not have been achieved by CRT themselves using the local waterways manager to facilitate. .

[Wanted]

Bordering on misappropriation of public funding I would say, wonder what the charity commission view is on that?

[alan_fincher]

How much were these people paid for this worthless empty meeting?

 

if it was a joke it would be in pretty poor taste. As reality it is simply breathtaking.

 

Not defending the meeting, (how could I based on those notes!), but I'm sure you know that none of the actual Partnership members are paid, don't you?

 

These are volunteering positions.

 

At least this one should have had some "boater" input, as two of our IWA "boater" reps on Council are members of this partnership!

Edited June 20, 2015 by GoodGurl
edited quote

[Tuscan]

Not defending the meeting, (how could I based on those notes!), but I'm sure you know that none of the actual Partnership members are paid, don't you?

 

These are volunteering positions.

 

At least this one should have had some "boater" input, as two of our IWA "boater" reps on Council are members of this partnership!

 

Yes expenses only I assume. Some want to make a difference and some want the ego and the CV entry I guess. Meanwhile I assume CRT continues to allocate £25,000 per partnership per year.

 

How to harness some of the many skill sets available to CRT (apart from standing by locks and data logging) is something that CRT need to get to grips with. At the moment they seem spread very thinly through partnerships, sub group , NAGs etc etc. lost voices maybe.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

How much were these people paid for this worthless empty meeting?

 

if it was a joke it would be in pretty poor taste. As reality it is simply breathtaking.

I wrote about WMWP here.

 

What subsequently happened was the Partnership had a visit from a trustee and most members were then appointed for a second term of office.

 

I believe CaRT realise that they have a serious problem with regard to WP's. However, I am not sure the recent appointment of eight Development & Engagement managers (with more to come) to prop up the Partnerships will work.

 

Here are the names -

 

Liz Flutey (East Midlands)

Bashir Ahmed (West Midlands),

Gill Renshaw (Manchester & Pennine)

Ani Sutton (North Wales & Borders)

Tom Wright (North East)

Sarah Brown (South East) and

David Morgan (South Wales & Severn)

Caroline Robson (Kennet & Avon)

Edited June 20, 2015 by GoodGurl
edited quote

[Laurence Hogg]

Here's an example of one of the more productive partnership meetings read and weep. This was this month

 

WMWP Meeting

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/meetings/560/wmwp-meeting

 

Well there in black and white is part of the reason for starting this thread, what on earth will that bring to the table?

Bordering on misappropriation of public funding I would say, wonder what the charity commission view is on that?

 

Graham Fisher travels from Hay on Wye so there is a 200 mile round trip!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Yes expenses only I assume. Some want to make a difference and some want the ego and the CV entry I guess. Meanwhile I assume CRT continues to allocate £25,000 per partnership per year.

 

How to harness some of the many skill sets available to CRT (apart from standing by locks and data logging) is something that CRT need to get to grips with. At the moment they seem spread very thinly through partnerships, sub group , NAGs etc etc. lost voices maybe.

With regard to the £25,000 per Partnership that CaRT were offering, this appears to have expanded.

 

A 'small fund' has been set aside for projects promoted largely by the Waterways Partnerships according to CaRT.

 

Last year the fund was £1m. This year it will be £1.4m.

 

 

[Dave Clinton]

 

Not defending the meeting, (how could I based on those notes!), but I'm sure you know that none of the actual Partnership members are paid, don't you?

 

These are volunteering positions.

 

At least this one should have had some "boater" input, as two of our IWA "boater" reps on Council are members of this partnership!

that didn't answer my question. 'expenses' is payment. it's not difficult to see a potential for corruption.

[churchward]

Just to clarify then, I am only on the Boating Sub Group of the South East Partnership - I am not involved in the full Partnership, although Cath is a member of that, (as is at least one other CWDF member).

 

You can see who attends the Boating Sub Group here, and who the main Partnership here.

 

The meeing notes from both groups are published once agreed by the relevant chairs, usually a week or two after each meeting, but finding them can be a bit obscure, as like other CRT meeting notes, they get put on the calendar pages for the relevant day. [in fact, I have just looked, and can't find any, because I can't make their calendar go back beyond current month - I will enquire where I should now be looking!]. Anyway, now I realise people seldom see these, I will try and issue notification when I'm aware a set is available.

 

What I have repeaedly said in the sub-group is that I do not consider the notes show enough detail, often to the extent that if you were not present, they give the impression that we all agreed, whereas in reality there was a "robust debate"(!) Some of the more recent ones have shown more success at getting greater detail included, but there is I feel some way to go. To be honest this is not because it is related to the Partnership - most CRT meeting notes seem to be very scant by choice, and those for other advisory groups are often less informative than those or meetings I attend.

 

 

EDIT:

 

Think I have found past meeting agendas, and notes.....

 

The way in is this page, I think.

 

My groups last meeting was in March, and this page, links to both the agenda and the meeting notes.

 

So we are not actually a "secret group" as some have suggested - just slightly hard to find!

 

Thanks for the references but the fact that someone who attends the meetings finds it difficult to find these notes says a lot as I have never been able to find them myself. Mind you the meeting notes don't say much so I am not that much more enlightened.

 

What I would like to see in meeting notes or indeed minutes are decisions and actions and folk named to be responsible for their implementation then followed up on at the next meeting and so on. Without them folk could be forgiven for thinking a group of people got together for a pleasant chat and went home without achieving anything much. I am not having a dig at you or anyone as I am sure there people involved in these groups who are trying to get somewhere but this material isn't showing it.

Edited June 20, 2015 by churchward

[jenlyn]

What amazes me is that some of us have been attempting to draw attention to these partnerships. 2 years later, it's suddenly news.

[alan_fincher]

that didn't answer my question. 'expenses' is payment. it's not difficult to see a potential for corruption.

 

Even for those who claim them, this would assume presumably some kind of collusion with the Waterways manager that signs them off?

 

I might see if they will also pay for half a million pounds of dredging services I have not supplied.....

You may not like anything to do with the partnerships, but why should there be any greater "potential for corruption" than in any other part of CRT - I would have thought there was a great deal less potential, frankly. Which members of which partnerships do you reckon are corrupt, then?

Thanks for the references but the fact that someone who attends the meetings finds it difficult to find these notes says a lot as I have never been able to find them myself. Mind you the meeting notes don't say much so I am not that much more enlightened.

 

What I would like to see in meeting notes or indeed minutes are decisions and actions and folk named to be responsible for their implementation then followed up on at the next meeting and so on. Without them folk could be forgiven for thinking a group of people got together for a pleasant chat and went home without achieving anything much. I am not having a dig at you or anyone as I am sure there people involved in these groups who are trying to get somewhere but this material isn't showing it.

 

Perhaps if a few people not involved in these groups were to write to Richard Parry or the partnership chairs, and say they have read meeting notes, but they are not sufficiently detailed that might increase the pressure to make them more informative? As I aid, I have looked at other CRT meeting notes, and they follow the same trend - like you, it frustrates me.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Perhaps if a few people not involved in these groups were to write to Richard Parry or the partnership chairs, and say they have read meeting notes, but they are not sufficiently detailed that might increase the pressure to make them more informative? As I aid, I have looked at other CRT meeting notes, and they follow the same trend - like you, it frustrates me.

I took part in CaRT's facebook session with Richard Parry in mid December. I asked him to publish information regarding Partnerships 2014 Annual Public Meetings.

 

Still waiting ...

[churchward]

 

 

Perhaps if a few people not involved in these groups were to write to Richard Parry or the partnership chairs, and say they have read meeting notes, but they are not sufficiently detailed that might increase the pressure to make them more informative? As I aid, I have looked at other CRT meeting notes, and they follow the same trend - like you, it frustrates me.

Yes indeed. I will give it a go!

[cotswoldsman]

Some might remember the Floating Market and Boaters Reception I organised in Birmingham a couple of years ago. The Floating Market being the very first Floating Market and the reception being the first opportunity for boaters to meet Richard Parry. I was asked to involve the West Midlands Partnership so I tried. Both these events took a lot of time to organise and cost me quite a lot of money (nobody pays my expences) the only person within the Partnership who helped was Dean Davies one member of the Partnership replied to an email to Dean and made the classic miss take of hitting reply all so I received a copy. This was his opinion of me and what I was trying to do

 

Quote

 

Out of the blue I've had calls and emails from him. On the one hand I feel we should try to channel his energy to help us. On the other hand he comes across as someone with his own agenda who, if he doesn't get his way, could be a pain in the arse.

 

 

I've told him I plan to do some boating in September so I really don't want to get involved.

 

Unquote

 

Now he is right I can be a pain in the arse when I am working on a project. This was something in the heart of West Midlands Partnership Area to attract the public to the canals. Over the weekend it attracted about 4,000 people to the canal and this member of the Partnership does not want to get involved. I was supposed to go to a Partnership meeting and 4 days before was told in no uncertain terms not to attend as I was not welcome.

Edited June 21, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Some might remember the Floating Market and Boaters Reception I organised in Birmingham a couple of years ago. The Floating Market being the very first Floating Market and the reception being the first opportunity for boaters to meet Richard Parry. I was asked to involve the West Midlands Partnership so I tried. Both these events took a lot of time to organise and cost me quite a lot of money (nobody pays my expences) the only person within the Partnership who helped was Dean Davies one member of the Partnership replied to an email to Dean and made the classic miss take of hitting reply all so I received a copy. This was his opinion of me and what I was trying to do

Quote

Out of the blue I've had calls and emails from him. On the one hand I feel we should try to channel his energy to help us. On the other hand he comes across as someone with his own agenda who, if he doesn't get his way, could be a pain in the arse.

I've told him I plan to do some boating in September so I really don't want to get involved.

Unquote

Now he is right I can be a pain in the are when I am working on a project. This was something in the heart of West Midlands Partnership Area to attract the public to the canals. O'er the weekend it attracted about 4,000 people to the canal and this member of the Partnership does not want to get involved. I was supposed to go to a Partnership meeting and 4 days before was told in no uncertain terms not to attend as I was not welcome.

I had a similar experience (but without the email!) when I attempted to get this partnership involved in a youth community boat project in the middle of Birmingham. Edited June 21, 2015 by Allan(nb Albert)

[cotswoldsman]

I had a similar experience (but without the email!) when I attempted to get this partnership involved in a youth community boat project in the middle of Birmingham.

I am working on a big project for next year and have learned my lesson and am keeping clear of West Midlands Partnership but in all fairness getting a lot of support from CRT especially Tony Hales and Ruth Ruderham

Edited June 21, 2015 by cotswoldsman

[Tuscan]

I am working on a big project for next year and have learned my lesson and am keeping clear of West Midlands Partnership but in all fairness getting a lot of support from CRT especially Tony Hales and Ruth Ruderham

But are you still considered a pain in the arse - John ? Hope so

[cotswoldsman]

But are you still considered a pain in the arse - John ? Hope so

Hehe as many in CRT now avoid me and I am firmly on "the the norty step" I guess I am now considered a big pain in the arse. The shame of it is that I would be happy to still work with CRT but it would appear that unless you agree 100% with everything they do they just stop all contact. As I said before you need to be one of "the chosen few" but hey life goes on

[Laurence Hogg]

Hehe as many in CRT now avoid me and I am firmly on "the the norty step" I guess I am now considered a big pain in the arse. The shame of it is that I would be happy to still work with CRT but it would appear that unless you agree 100% with everything they do they just stop all contact. As I said before you need to be one of "the chosen few" but hey life goes on

 

John this is a classicly correct summary of CRT. Having been on the "Nortystep" many times it rings very true, touch a bad point, question them outside of the box nad silence is all you get. Earlier on in the thread the NW lot were blamed for volunteers disbanding, well in the WM look what has happened to my "Canalscape BCN" work group. Now disbanded and the boat for sale, and who is to blame? CRT.

[cotswoldsman]

Most Partnerships claim the credit for volunteer days the case in reality is people volunteer despite the Partnerships and CRT

[Laurence Hogg]

Judging from what as been aired here isn't it time to complain to the Charities Commission in regard to the general running of CRT and the fact that the system so precious to the UK is being allowed to fail? Also letters to MP's might pull some weight.

I was heavily in favour of the change and indeed promoted it before the change came but now I think it was misguided trust.

 

LHP distributed thousands of leaflets asking for people to register an interest in the new charity, when I enquired how many had been returned no one could answer the question, that was in June 2011. Even then there was no "joined up" thinking.

[PeterScott]

I (applied-interviewed-and) joined the CRT North East Partnership in 2012 in a defensive-mode - to do the best I could to give a view of our waterways from someone navigating them from t'middle: it wasn't that I had any particular network of potential funding to bring.

 

For example, the June2015 meeting was relatively quiet - and reviewing my scribbled notes here, it still had a good range of activity discussed/reported/progressed. On our particular concern - freight on NE waterways, there was lots on the new terminal, possibilities of another, analysis of traffic and 'transmodal' issues, and how to enthuse the Government's Northern Powerhouse to use money for waterways. Some frustration on agreed progress with attracting more leisure-boats to Leeds and where they should stay while there. I said my bit on what's happening on the RiverDerwent, and useful support was offered. Partnership members are closely involved in the Leeds Waterfront Festival, and there's work on funding bids on projects across the region. There had been need of a Tidal Ouse rescue, which we were keen to use to work on better conditions for future navigators ...

 

As to agendas and meeting reports, I hate writing minutes or notes-of-meetings and it always seems to take me three or four hours to write-up a two-hour meeting: our Partnership has had no volunteers to do this job, nor a volunteer to keep the Partnership webpage interesting; asking CRT-paid-people to do this would make me grumble about the other things they could be better-occupied doing. The agendas and notes are, indeed, tricky to find on the CRT website, and dull to read when located. We have had annual Public Meetings and that's our best bet at meeting those interested in what has happened.

 

As to expenses and costs: we have monthly gatherings and CRT provide a light lunch around which we can continue discussing. We're not paid of course, and for expenses, I found the bureaucracy irksome (forms, sending, authorising, all before seeing any money) so after the first few meetings, I pay for my own travelling. Using my own money (say 2x the amount collected from each CRT Friend) gives an is-it-worth-it criteria for continuing attending, and the balance imho has been positive so far. Of course, not everyone can volunteer that as well as their time.

[Laurence Hogg]

This is interesting as it as yet the only positive story to be seen in this thread albeit with a few in house problems. Our volunteer group never claimed any expenses either due to the long winded methods CRT employ.