RNLI 2013 accounts : highlights
- Thread starter Sybarite
- Start date
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Tranona
Well-Known Member
You really should try and understand the context within which the RNLI operates. As I have said many times, rather like the Irishman giving directions to Dublin - "Well I would not start from here...". If one were setting up a rescue service for the UK and Irish waters from scratch you probably would not end up with the model that currently exists. If it were taxpayer funded it would be based on a minimum level of service and be subject to a time and resource constrained contract. That may or may not result in a lower cost solution - but would certainly result in a constant battle with politicians to maintain it.
However, we are not in that situation. To avoid government interference, or probably more accurately because of government apathy, the community developed its own rescue service funded by contributions from interested parties - one of the original "Big Society" ideas so beloved of the current PM. So we end up with a self funding system that responds to the needs of users as best it can within the resources it has available. It is a sign of how valued the service is that individuals are prepared to finance it voluntarily and there is no recourse to taxpayers funds.
This is not going to change unless the organisation becomes unable to finance the service. So the people responsible for managing it have a duty to secure the long term survival and to meet the day to day running costs. It is against these requirements that they should be judged, not some spurious comparison with some other organisation, although learning from others is part of that process.
There is always pressure to increase operational efficiency to get optimum use out of resources and it is just ridiculous to suggest that the RNLI does not do this. If it was not good at its fund raising activities it would not get the income. If it was not good at building and operating boats it would not be able to provide its service. To try and make a distinction between the crews (they are great!) and the management (they are parasites!) as you do is an insult. They are the same people - which you would soon find out if you worked with them.
You really should come over to Poole and look at what they do and the facilities they have built together with the technical capability for the design and construction of boats and you might begin to understand why some of us object to your sniping from afar. To achieve what they have done requires people of high calibre and to get those people they have to compete with many other major employers in the area - not least Sunseeker with its vast production facility and research centre and in a more general sense with major international organisations like JP Morgan who employ 4000 people locally. The salaries they pay are in line with local rates for similar jobs - and why should people not be paid the going rate and provided with pension schemes?
I wish more of the local employers I have worked with over the last 30 years were as successful at doing what they plan to do - not perfect, no organisation is - but a good example of a focused and successful organisation.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
As I called you a book-keeper, I'll respond and tell you that if you come across as one that's what people will say.
I'll also add that, if you want to get prissy about it, then don't go around throwing the insults yourself. If I took your comments seriously I would get huffy about being called 'brainless" by you. I no longer bother about your efforts at abuse; it's just par for the course and highlights the hypocrisy between what you preach and what you practice. But if you object to being on the receiving end, perhaps you should consider why you are?
I'll put it in book-keeping terms; for every credit there is a debit.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
I believe I do understand the context. But we are living in economically dangerous times and when that happens it makes sense to reduce where possible your fixed overhead costs and not get tied in to a structure where you cannot react to change.
The life savers enjoy a wonderful level of support from the public. However, if people realized that the major part of their donations were going into investments or into staff pensions they might not be so generous. It is a question of perception, no matter how hard one might argue that the organisation requires it.
I do not believe this to be true. I know they build great boats - we had the discussion about the Shannon last year but when organisations start trying to do everything in-house is often where things start to go wrong. How often do you hear of organisations shedding activities in difficult times to concentrate on their core skills? The time to reorganize is when things are going well, not when there's a knife at your throat.
SimonFa
Well-Known Member
I haven't seen anyone say that constructive criticism is a bad thing. Most of the flack that's been given is because of the selective way the OP presented the accounts.
The section on Governance and especially the Board of Trustees is worth a read (P18):
"The RNLI is controlled by a Trustee Board.
The Trustees are a body of volunteers with distinguished
careers in a wide variety of fields. They come from all parts of
the UK and RoI and many have had a lifelong interest in the sea.
Trustees are appointed from within and by the Council, which in
turn provides broad advice and support to the Trustees. Members
of Council may be proposed to the Membership Nomination
Committee by the Trustees or a Governor. This Committee,
which comprises the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, the Deputy
Chairmen, the Chairman of the Resources Committee and the
Chief Executive, reviews the names proposed and submits its
recommendations to the Annual General Meeting for election by
the Governors. Trustee Board Members serve a 3-year term, but
may be re-elected for succeeding terms."
It is their job to provide the checks and balances and anyone with real concerns should work to get on to the Board or raise them to the Board.
The danger there is is becomes the best person available to do the job for free rather than the best person for the job. There is no reason why, when the position is being filled, applicants couldn't apply for the job saying they will do it for free, but given the size of the organisation and money involved that small saving shouldn't be taken in to account unless the best two applicants have exactly the same skills, experience and ability.
Don't get me started. That's all a sign of bad Governance and is explained in Public Choice Theory that public servants aren't some form of special breed but are like the rest of us and guided chiefly by their own self interests.
Agreed but it is the same if you are in a private company, vested interests will always try to shout down criticism, which is why it has to be constructive and well made and not seen as a dig as part of a personal crusade. Any criticism should set out what should be done instead and, more importantly, why it would be better. That way the debate can be around the proposed change and not around the motive for the criticism.
The level of transparency provided by the annual accounts, Board of Trustees and Charity Commission allows us all to test that argument. If you think it should be done differently, how? I get the impression that a lot of the criticism on here is based on "I wouldn't do it that way", which is fair enough but making the case in a forum is one thing, if you really believe it get out there, join the organisation, make the case and work for that change.
If the Kiwis are prepared to live with second best that's their choice, I want the RNLI to have the absolute best from the latest technology because (a) it improves the protection of those risking their lives as volunteers (note it would be the same if they were paid) and (b) increases their chance of a successful rescue.
viva
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone was suggesting that the RNLI should have anything but the best equipment. The suggestion was that there may be a more cost-effective or even better way of achieving it. As an example the fire service don't design their own fire engines and the NHS don't design their own medical equipment. Of course they have valuable input into the design.
dogleg
Well-Known Member
It is also interesting to note that many ex RNLI lifeboats regarded as obsolete go on to another life in other countries such as New Zealand where the conditions in which they are required to operate are considerably more severe than many areas of the UK.
these boats are Waveney Arun and Tyne class boats all 25 years +in age and with top speed of 18knots if lucky:
the new boats Severns. Trents, Tamars and Shannon are superior in speed and equipment are expected to have a life of at least 35 years and from personal experience I can vouch for that;
I have frequently gone to sea on an ex RNLI Watson class lifeboat 8 knots downhill which is perfectly seaworthy, serviceable and in excellent condition but as a lifeboat it is long past its sell by date as operational lifeboat
SimonFa
Well-Known Member
We can all argue with weightings in CBAs when they are subjective and it is fair to point them out. It is also reasonable to suspect that some of those involved in the drawing up of those involved in drawing up will have been influenced by their own biases and personal circumstances, but it is the job of the Trustees to ensure that they don't influence the final decision.
I don't know enough about the industry to know whether or not that is he case. What I want to know is was the decision made objectively following a full cost benefit analysis. Looking at the Governance structure I suspect it was. If yuo have evidence tat it wasn't then lets have a debate.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
You have made an excellent case for the RNLI to carry on with its present policies. Neither the Fire service nor the NHS have particularly good records for either efficiency or purchasing.
All organisations do things in house. All buy in. To say that buying in is always going to be better/more efficient/cheaper is simply dogma.
dogleg
Well-Known Member
[QUOTE=Rigger Mortice;4772312]You have made an excellent case for the RNLI to carry on with its present policies. Neither the Fire service nor the NHS have particularly good records for either efficiency or purchasing.
All organisations do things in house. All buy in. To say that buying in is always going to be better/more efficient/cheaper is simply dogma.[/QUOTE]
When the prototype Severn visited our station and many others in 1992/3 coxswains and crews tested it and made many suggestions about improvements/alterations etc, which were implemented.
this was the same for Trents Tamars and now the Shannon. All stations receiving a Tamar were invited to trial the prototype and make suggestions on a questionnaire, the result was a vastly different production boat to the trials one, the same is happening with the Shannon : For the Shannon commercial hulls were trialled, indeed the first prototype was a commercial hull but found wanting after a very intensive trials programme. The best judge of a lifeboat are the crews who man them
All organisations do things in house. All buy in. To say that buying in is always going to be better/more efficient/cheaper is simply dogma.[/QUOTE]
When the prototype Severn visited our station and many others in 1992/3 coxswains and crews tested it and made many suggestions about improvements/alterations etc, which were implemented.
this was the same for Trents Tamars and now the Shannon. All stations receiving a Tamar were invited to trial the prototype and make suggestions on a questionnaire, the result was a vastly different production boat to the trials one, the same is happening with the Shannon : For the Shannon commercial hulls were trialled, indeed the first prototype was a commercial hull but found wanting after a very intensive trials programme. The best judge of a lifeboat are the crews who man them
Tranona
Well-Known Member
You really don't get it, do you? Where is there any evidence that these are "economically dangerous times" for the RNLI. In one breath you accuse them of wasting money and in another of building an organisation and finances robust enough to deal with the future. There is no sign that income is likely to fall. Donors know what they are giving to and the way the money is spent is transparent for all to see.
Why do you fail to listen to the people who know about these things and continue to insist that they should not build their own boats as it is not their area of expertise. The decision to go down this route was taken because that expertise no longer exists in the commercial world in the UK and they would prefer to have that expertise under their own control as the biggest users. This blind belief that "buying in" is the best way is just ludicrous - like all things to do with management, sometimes it is a good idea, sometimes it is not. Indeed there is a well established trend now in some industries to reduce dependence on contracting out and bring essential work back in house.
You rely too much on prescriptive, simplistic remedies that may or may not work elsewhere rather than understanding the specific organisation and the environment that it operates in. Management thought has moved on from the "recipe" school that you seem to inhabit.
Your last paragraph sums up why you are so wrong. They are reorganising - just not in the backward way that you advocate. They are building the core skills to secure their future. There is no survival crisis that necessitates dismantling the infrastructure such has often resulted in the decimation of other industries when the slash and burn folks get control.
Joker
Well-Known Member
You think that retired RNLI employees shouldn't get a pension??
dom
Well-Known Member
Good point. "Understanding the context" is widely accepted by scientists, business investors and top managers as a good launch pad into a four step approach to solving complex questions. It might look like this for the RNLI:
1. Mind the history / Follow the flow
The RNLI like many businesses and charities started life in a different, simpler world. It took time to evolve into the complex organisation we see today. Understanding this history to provide us with perspective on how it might best prepare itself for its future life.
2. Deeply understand the essence of the organisation
Personal bias and pre-conceived notions must be ditched and one must be completely honest about what one doesn't know. Next, one would probably want to clear away the clutter of the accounts, current fixed asset programmes, pension liabilities, etc. The objective would be to extract and deeply understand the factors truly critical to the RNLI fulfilling its future goals.
3. Raise questions
Constantly clarify one’s understanding and keep asking questions: Is there more to “Reserves” than meets the eye? What are the pros and cons of outsourcing? What is the optimal level of funding from investments? How much risk should these investments take? Are legacies likely to fall? Will our new Shannon vessels really be fit for purpose in 30 years time? Last, but not least, where have mistakes been made?
4. Be prepared to change
Change is a constant in everything and the RNLI is no different. But the necessary changes may only be rationally determined by those who have MASTERED the preceding three stages. The RNLI Trustees, whilst not perfect, has made a pretty good bash at this.
In my judgement , and I don’t wish to be mean spirited, the OP possesses neither the knowledge of trust law, modern accounting practices, lifesaving activities, nor indeed the openness of mind to successfully complete stages 1 – 3. Indeed, the signs are there that he knows this himself; those who are unsure of their position often attempt to speak from authority, the “do you know who I am thing?”
What he produces therefore is something inferior to knowledge, Plato calls it opinion. If the OP doesn't like the RNLI, fair enough, but why keep trying to dress it up as knowledge, which it just ain’t?
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Well said. Having spent half a lifetime trying to help managers learn how to think before taking action, it hurts to see there are still people around who think the way forward is to pick a recipe out of an historic cookbook.
The OP's attitude that his recipe works elsewhere therefore it will work at the RNLI is just bizarre.
Rigger Mortice
N/A
It's bizarre. He objects to staff at RNLI getting a fair deal yet, elsewhere on this forum, he is suggesting that MP's should be paid more. I happen to agree with that, but OP is simply being inconsistent to argue the reverse for RNLI. It's very strange.
jordanbasset
Well-Known Member
I am confused as to what the issue is now, have the RNLI aquired too many reserves which they have invested or do they have insufficient reserves to meet demands/changes in the future
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Searush
Well-Known Member
Tranona
Well-Known Member
No. He just seems to think that the job can be done for 25% (or something like that) of the cost as he claims it is done in France!
If only life were that simple. It is not which is why his arguments come across as inconsistent and incoherent.