Jump to content

CRT Election


koukouvagia

Featured Posts

we received our voting pack this week.

All it contains is a voting form and a booklet of mahifestos in a that has cart on its front page. No mention of BW.

 

Using forums etc I was aware of what is happening.

 

I wonder how many people will get the pack and have no idea of what it is about.

Surely some information about what is happening and what they are voting for would make this election fairer.

 

I don't understand how the electoral Reform Society can run a fair election without informing people what they are voting for.

 

Puzzled

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice that the postal return adddress on the ballot paper is different to that of the address on the SAE accompanying for the return. I wonder how that has happened or whether it has any implications?

Edited by blodger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I understand your point but how could a vote of "all interested parties" be fairly administered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we received our voting pack this week.

All it contains is a voting form and a booklet of mahifestos in a that has cart on its front page. No mention of BW.

 

Using forums etc I was aware of what is happening.

 

I wonder how many people will get the pack and have no idea of what it is about.

Surely some information about what is happening and what they are voting for would make this election fairer.

 

I don't understand how the electoral Reform Society can run a fair election without informing people what they are voting for.

 

Puzzled

 

Dave

You should have received a letter from the ERS about six weeks ago containg an explanatory document from BW about CaRT and the election for Council Members. The envelope in which it came did not mention BW on the outside, just "Electoral Reform Services" "Contains Important Information" I know that some people have admitted throwing the envelope out as junk mail, without opening it, you weren't one of those were you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is just a weird anomaly that only one name can be written onto a BW licensing form.

 

 

I don't agree that it is a 'weird anomaly.' One person carries the responsibility for compliance with the licence conditions, regardless of how many people jointly own the boat. The alternative is a different, commercial licence.

 

Let's consider the case of shared ownership boats. Most of those we (BCBM) manage have syndicates of at least 12 families - one has 15. Should all those people have a vote? That would probably add at least another 2,500 to the electorate - possibly as many as 5,000 - all with some priorities in common. I don't really believe that single owners of private boats would be very happy if other boats with the same sort of licence had up to 30 votes.

 

In practice, shared ownership boats have one owner as the single licence holder, they operate under a private licence and only those who own the boat and their friends and family can use the boat - there is no hiring. If a boat is available for hire, it has to have a commercial licence, the safety certificate conditions are different and the insurance basis is different. In this election, hirers are not represented directly, only the hire boat operators through the 'boating business' constituency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should have received a letter from the ERS about six weeks ago containg an explanatory document from BW about CaRT and the election for Council Members. The envelope in which it came did not mention BW on the outside, just "Electoral Reform Services" "Contains Important Information" I know that some people have admitted throwing the envelope out as junk mail, without opening it, you weren't one of those were you?

Nope! Nothing like that received here! I wouldn't even have known there was a change planned to BW, let alone an election, if I hadn't found this forum!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree that it is a 'weird anomaly.' One person carries the responsibility for compliance with the licence conditions, regardless of how many people jointly own the boat. The alternative is a different, commercial licence.

 

Let's consider the case of shared ownership boats. Most of those we (BCBM) manage have syndicates of at least 12 families - one has 15. Should all those people have a vote? That would probably add at least another 2,500 to the electorate - possibly as many as 5,000 - all with some priorities in common. I don't really believe that single owners of private boats would be very happy if other boats with the same sort of licence had up to 30 votes.

 

In practice, shared ownership boats have one owner as the single licence holder, they operate under a private licence and only those who own the boat and their friends and family can use the boat - there is no hiring. If a boat is available for hire, it has to have a commercial licence, the safety certificate conditions are different and the insurance basis is different. In this election, hirers are not represented directly, only the hire boat operators through the 'boating business' constituency.

 

That may be the case for Share boats, but it clearly does not apply to boats opwned by a husband and wife. If it does, how have we managed to register our joint ownership, and why doe BW adress all correspondance to both opf us?

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Hi David

 

This is what I thought we did. I probably shouldn't jump the gun as I haven't been able to get to our PO box yet to get the pack. I just rootled around our various papers and noticed that our licence was sent c/o my name, not both. I emailed BW about this but received an ambiguous reply.

 

If there IS only one vote, we hope to agree on no 1 and take turns thereafter naming faves. I can be pragmatic, but none of this seems like rocket science and I believe it IS important, especially as we live on the system and how its meagre funds are distributed will affect us.

 

I don't agree that it is a 'weird anomaly.' One person carries the responsibility for compliance with the licence conditions, regardless of how many people jointly own the boat. ...

 

Let's consider the case of shared ownership boats. ...

 

Well, being joint owners, we both are responsible for complying with the licence conditions. This is the reality and I think the spirit of the boating licence. Contriving to force one person to take responsibility - through limiting options on an application form, for example (but see David's post above) - is simplistic and neither fair, realistic ... and probably not legal if push came to shove.

 

Your shared leisure ownership example raises a good point. That category of boater IS much more a 'minority case' compared with boats owned by couples or friends. But doesn't mean those types of owners shouldn't have a vote/representation. After all, most shared leisure owners will spend a good 4 - 6 weeks cruising each year (more than some singly owned boats) and deserving of input into how resources are spent.

Edited by Jim Batty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Any news yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any news yet?

 

 

The ERS chap I spoke to was sympathetic, but he said he'd spoken to BW who maintained the rule is one vote per licence holder. I'm arguing that the rule is one vote per licence.

BW have promised to get back to me when they have consulted.

 

So still keep watching this space.

Edited by koukouvagia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ERS chap I spoke to was sympathetic, but he said he'd spoken to BW who maintained the rule is one vote per licence holder. I'm arguing that the rule is one vote per licence.

BW have promised to get back to me when they have consulted.

 

So still keep watching this space.

I reckon there was previously an answer that it was "one per boat" on Waterscape that has now been edited off the site, (but can't prove it, as I only saved links to pages, not actual content at a point in time).

 

There have been several cases where they have changed answers during the course of events, and I rather suspect that is what has happened here.

 

In the big scheme of things, I guess not enough people own multiple private boats to make much difference to the overall election result.

 

I can understand why people with more modest boat ownership (!) feel that owning two boats should not give you two votes, but if BW are going to stick by the rule that when one boat is owned by multiple people, it is the boat that counts, it is not actually logical to take the alternate standpoint when one owner has multiple boats, (is it ???).

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reckon there was previously an answer that it was "one per boat" on Waterscape that has now been edited off the site, (but can't prove it, as I only saved links to pages, not actual content at a point in time).

 

There have been several cases where they have changed answers during the course of events, and I rather suspect that is what has happened here.

 

In the big scheme of things, I guess not enough people own multiple private boats to make much difference to the overall election result.

 

I can understand why people with more modest boat ownership (!) feel that owning two boats should not give you two votes, but if BW are going to stick by the rule that when one boat is owned by multiple people, it is the boat that counts, it is not actually logical to take the alternate standpoint when one owner has multiple boats, (is it ???).

Goalposts moving of

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

 

After a further search, in This Document, I have just noted.....

 

Q 2.2 MY BOAT LICENCE IS IN JOINT NAMES WITH MY PARTNER. CAN WE BOTH VOTE?

 

A. For fairness and practicality, the election is on the basis of one vote per licence, so please agree how

your vote is used with your partner.

 

I can't see how you could interpret that as anything other than one owner with multiple boats then gets multiple votes ?

 

Can you please direct ERS/BW at that statement to see how they can argue their way out of it ? :rolleyes:

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim,

 

After a further search, in This Document, I have just noted.....

 

 

 

I can't see how you could interpret that as anything other than one owner with multiple boats then gets multiple votes ?

 

Can you please direct ERS/BW at that statement to see how they can argue their way out of it ? :rolleyes:

 

Thanks Alan. I've quoted two such statements to BW. I'm waiting with bated breath for the reply.tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they did give a vote to every party in a shared/ joint ownership deal- What would be to stop me from getting 20- 50 of my best mates (real or imaginary) to become 'joint' licencee's with me, thereby giving me/us 20- 50 extra votes for the candidate of our choice?

 

Just a thought from the logistical point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they did give a vote to every party in a shared/ joint ownership deal- What would be to stop me from getting 20- 50 of my best mates (real or imaginary) to become 'joint' licencee's with me, thereby giving me/us 20- 50 extra votes for the candidate of our choice?

Just a thought from the logistical point of view.

 

We would certainly get an interesting response from some of your imaginary ones......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B)

 

runs and hides under a bush.....on the off side to miss the wee bush...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to say what happened about the one vote per licence question:

 

Roger Hanbury, Chairman of the C&RTphoned me yesterday to clarify the Trust's position.

 

It had always been the intention of giving one vote per customer account number. This was to stop multiple votes on shared ownership boats.

 

However, the Trust had never envisaged a case like mine where I pay for two boats, mine and my son's, on a single customer account number.

 

When I pointed out that I'd only put both boats in my name in 2007 because the BW computer system couldn't cope with a case of two customers, with separate account numbers, being paid for with one cheque, he sympathised. But basically, the message was, "hard luck."

 

He did, however, say that he'd make sure that in future elections it would be spelt out that it was "one vote per customer" and not, as the rules state at present "one vote per licence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

However, the Trust had never envisaged a case like mine where I pay for two boats, mine and my son's, on a single customer account number.

 

".

 

Doesnt inspire confidence in their ability to think outside the box in coming up with innovative solutions to the waterways current problems - does it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to say what happened about the one vote per licence question:

 

Roger Hanbury, Chairman of the C&RTphoned me yesterday to clarify the Trust's position.

 

It had always been the intention of giving one vote per customer account number. This was to stop multiple votes on shared ownership boats.

 

However, the Trust had never envisaged a case like mine where I pay for two boats, mine and my son's, on a single customer account number.

 

When I pointed out that I'd only put both boats in my name in 2007 because the BW computer system couldn't cope with a case of two customers, with separate account numbers, being paid for with one cheque, he sympathised. But basically, the message was, "hard luck."

 

He did, however, say that he'd make sure that in future elections it would be spelt out that it was "one vote per customer" and not, as the rules state at present "one vote per licence".

 

Has Roger Hanbury has replaced Tony Hales as chairman of CART? Is he a trustee? Is he employed by BW? Last I heard he was CEO of The Waterways Trust!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has Roger Hanbury has replaced Tony Hales as chairman of CART? Is he a trustee? Is he employed by BW? Last I heard he was CEO of The Waterways Trust!

 

Sorry - yes. In that case why wasn't someone from the Trust answering my query?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry - yes. In that case why wasn't someone from the Trust answering my query?

 

Some weeks ago, I asked why so few private boaters were on council and received a reply from Roger Hanbury (via Sally Ash)which basically said that the transition trustees had ratified governments response to its consultation regarding this issue.

 

When I questioned if Roger Hanbury was qualified to provide this response as he is not a trustee and not a director or employee of BW, I received no reply.

 

So why wasn't someone from the Trust answering both our queries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm honest, I don't imagine this answer makes a huge difference in the great scheme of the eventual result.

 

Probably not enough people are in the fortunate position two own to boats on BW waters each with a full 12 month licence, so the actual number of overall votes lost is, I guess, small.

 

What disappoints is that an early answer, plus various stuff that happened subsequently, did say, (or at least imply), one vote per boat, not one vote per customer. I believe some stuff that was on the net has actually been quietly withdrawn, but as I didn't save copies, can't of course prove it.

 

In our case we could easily have transferred ownership of a boat, had we known it was going to make a difference. (I'm not looking for sympathy here, but that is fact, and the truth is nobody knew it would make a difference).

 

I note that one of those standing for election realised they needed to do some shuffling of boat ownership to make themselves eligible to stand. A shame the same was not made clear on the voting side of things.

 

(Particularly in Jim's case, where his "ownership" of the butty is only because of historical issues with BW's licensing system....)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm honest, I don't imagine this answer makes a huge difference in the great scheme of the eventual result.

 

Probably not enough people are in the fortunate position two own to boats on BW waters each with a full 12 month licence, so the actual number of overall votes lost is, I guess, small.

 

What disappoints is that an early answer, plus various stuff that happened subsequently, did say, (or at least imply), one vote per boat, not one vote per customer. I believe some stuff that was on the net has actually been quietly withdrawn, but as I didn't save copies, can't of course prove it.

 

In our case we could easily have transferred ownership of a boat, had we known it was going to make a difference. (I'm not looking for sympathy here, but that is fact, and the truth is nobody knew it would make a difference).

 

I note that one of those standing for election realised they needed to do some shuffling of boat ownership to make themselves eligible to stand. A shame the same was not made clear on the voting side of things.

 

(Particularly in Jim's case, where his "ownership" of the butty is only because of historical issues with BW's licensing system....)

Or put both boats into joint ownership, which, despite several people insisting that it is not permitted, we have done, without any comeback from BW, who have always addressed correspondance to both of us. And before anyone suggests that this will compromise the "one customer" ruling, we have one customer number allocated to both of us.

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And before anyone suggests that this will compromise the "one customer" ruling, we have one customer number allocated to both of us.

I'm not sure that would work David.

 

It would still leave us with just one customer number covering two different boat index numbers, (as currently), just that customer would be "Mr & Mrs".

 

If you take the reply that Jim has received at face value, and it is a "vote per customer number", we would need two different customer numbers to achieve that, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, lets hope that is where the goal posts have stopped moving to. It does give me the impression that "they" whoever they are, are making up the rules as they go.

So before I go and buy sone more boats and get them registered in my wifes name, the dogs name and the donkeys name, what are the chances that the next election (are they annual or 5 yearly or what?) the rules will have changed again?

And anyway, who is empowered to make these rules?

Am I a pedant?

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.