Today, the RYA called me.......

[capnsensible]

I have emailed them to ask.

Good one. Did you see the date of the authorisation letter? Wonder if there was something before that, some precident?

Anyway it's clearly a shock for some to peek behind the curtain of assumption to discover reality......?

 

[capnsensible]

Is it significant that it does not cover dinghy and yacht cruising, for which the RYA also claims to be our overlords?

sailing

 

[NealB]

I have emailed them to ask.

Thank you!

 

[NealB]

Anyway it's clearly a shock for some to peek behind the curtain of assumption to discover reality......?

I really would be shocked if the RYA do govern my sailing in any way at all.

Hmmmmmm ........ Insurance? Licence? Mot testing? Where I can keep my boat? How many people can I take onboard?

The answer seems to be an emphatic 'no', as far as I can see.

In fact, I'm wondering if the clear shock might be on the other foot, so to speak (ie they're not as powerful as some seem to believe).

 

[capnsensible]

I really would be shocked if the RYA do govern my sailing in any way at all.

Hmmmmmm ........ Insurance? Licence? Mot testing? Where I can keep my boat? How many people can I take onboard?

The answer seems to be an emphatic 'no', as far as I can see.

In fact, I'm wondering if the clear shock might be on the other foot, so to speak (ie they're not as powerful as some seem to believe).

If you are looking for someone to argue that case, then you will need someone else. I just think that some are totally over reacting to the 'governing body' thing. Often the case with the whole 'free to do what I want on my boat' thing........
Of course it may well be a simple misunderstanding of the wording. Far more likely.

 

[mainsail1]

I fear that the RYA has merely become an Agency of Government.
How dare they say that they "govern sailing". As a lifelong sailor they did not ask me for my permission.

 

[JumbleDuck]

sailing

Sailing is generally the name for the competitive sport, isn't it? Though it was called "yachting" at the Olympics till 2000, says wikipedia.

 

[RobbieW]

Sailing is generally the name for the competitive sport, isn't it? Though it was called "yachting" at the Olympics till 2000, says wikipedia.

What do you call what you do in your boat ?

 

[JumbleDuck]

What do you call what you do in your boat ?

Irrelevant. Context is all. Sailing has need of a governing body, yachting doesn't.

 

[RobbieW]

Irrelevant. Context is all. Sailing has need of a governing body, yachting doesn't.

Do you wear red trews for your yachting ? Me, I go sailing & haven't raced for at least 10 years

I'd go further and say that the RYA dont govern my sailing, thats done through the IMO and thier IRPCS. Courses designed by the RYA taught me some of what I know of those regulations.

 

[NealB]

Sailing is generally the name for the competitive sport, isn't it? Though it was called "yachting" at the Olympics till 2000, says wikipedia.

To me, 'sailing' has always just meant the pure activity of moving a boat by wind power.

It doesn't imply competitive sailing, which I call 'racing'.

And, cor blimey Guv'nor, I've never been rich enough, posh enough, or pretentious enough, to go 'yachting' (I leave that to the upper classes, like wot that bloke Bru is).

 

[Lucy52]

There I was thinking it was a membership organisation with all the rights and duties of that, How can it be both?

 

[Bru]

There I was thinking it was a membership organisation with all the rights and duties of that, How can it be both?

Very easily

I personally, in principal, do not like a body which represents users of a facility also being involved in the management of such facilities (for example, I was not in favour of the IWA taking over the management of the Chelmer & Blackwater Navigation)

It smacks of poacher turned gamekeeper

However, sometimes, and despite the obvious potential for conflicts of interest, said user body is either the best, or maybe the least worst, option

(In the case of the C&BW, it really was a case of IWA or bust. If IWA hadn't stepped in to run it, the navigation would have ceased to exist as such)

Would you really prefer some Quango governing the sport side of sailing?

Would it be better if sailing certifications and training schools were administered by some commercial company who'd undercut the opposition bidding for a government contract?

Be careful what you wish for!

With the present setup, voting members at least have *some* influence (albeit, as ever, not a lot individually but collectively the membership serves to keep such an organisation at least vaguely on point) and the RYA board of directors has a majority elected by the membership (4 to 3)

Indeed, if you can sufficiently impress enough members to get nominated and elected, you could yourself be a director of the RYA. It is how I became a Trustee and Council Member of the IWA. When you reach those dizzy heights, you'll suddenly find that much that you thought simple and obvious is anything but!

 

[Lucy52]

I would have thought that there were two legal persons here.

A membership organisation is answerable to its members where a governing body is not as it has a different remit.

Their constitutions would differ as would their boards and finance.

The board of a membership organisation would be composed of members. while that of a governing body would have one which reflected its wider remit. It would include other stakeholders, experts and lay members. I believe there are requirements for this.

I have seen what goes on at board level and the way people are changed when they get there and have little wish to join them. Interest groups abound and those with the highest profile hold sway.

Good people have felt so oppressed that they leave. Fine if you have the support of an accepted group otherwise it is an lonely struggle.

It need not be a commercial player or quango, for example the GMC regulates doctors but not their union the BMA.

 

[Bru]

I would have thought that there were two legal persons here.

A membership organisation is answerable to its members where a governing body is not as it has a different remit.

Their constitutions would differ as would their boards and finance.

The board of a membership organisation would be composed of members. while that of a governing body would have one which reflected its wider remit. It would include other stakeholders, experts and lay members. I believe there are requirements for this.

I have seen what goes on at board level and the way people are changed when they get there and have little wish to join them. Interest groups abound and those with the highest profile hold sway.

Good people have felt so oppressed that they leave. Fine if you have the support of an accepted group otherwise it is an lonely struggle.

It need not be a commercial player or quango, for example the GMC regulates doctors but not their union the BMA.

And the GMC is run by a council with a majority of elected members!

The relationship between the GMC and the BMA could be likened to that between the RYA and the CA

There are, in fact, very few large "membership" organisations these days that do not have appointed or co-opted members on their board of trustees / directors / council (gets called lots of things, all much of a muchness), its routine practice but there must always be a simple majority of elected members (and the appointed members, if trustees of a registered charity, cannot be paid for their time spent on trustee work although they can be employed in another capacity within the organisation. Mind you, that tends to make the Charity Commissioners sit up and take notice!

Non-commercial governing bodies of all types are almost always (in the UK at least) run by their members for the collective good. They almost invariably grew out of a "club" of like minded people, only later acquiring the mantle of a governing body. And they almost invariably represent their members interests alongside governing their activities.

As I stated earlier, I'm not a fan of this duality but it's a well entrenched fact of third sector and sporting life in this country

Oh and yes, I've been there and watched on as one or two dominant personalities ruled the roost over the rest of a board (be it company directors or charity trustees, I'm not telling!). It used to happen a lot with the old fashioned very large boards of trustees (IWA had 40! What a talking shop that was!). If you were smart, you could usually find ways to work around them and get things done.

These days, much influenced by a modernising attitude at the Charity Commissioners, the trend is very much towards smaller more effective boards of seven to nine people with the big talking shop sidelined into an advisory role if not scrapped altogether

It is, perversely, much harder to dominate a smaller group than a large one. Yes, you'll think otherwise intuitively but believe me, it's true.

On a committee of half a dozen people, you can make your voice heard and have an impact even flying against the wishes of the dominant member, if there is one. You only have to persuade a handful of people around to your argument.

In a large group of thirty or forty, more than half will never, ever, buck the trend and go against the dominant leadership of the group.

My usual tactic was to bore the Council to death or blind them with technical details until they delegated the matter to the Finance & General Purposes Committee where I had a fighting chance of getting a result Its politics and you've got to play the game to win

 

[Bru]

Damn, I said I wasn't going to tell and then I rather think I did! Oops

I have watched on, by the way, as a newly elected trustee who hadn't come through the ranks, as it were (directly elected by a faction of the membership without having any previous involvement at lower levels of the organisation) and didn't know how to play the game completely failed to have any impact whatsoever

Their putative reforming zeal fell on stone deaf ears, unsurprisingly, and their stint on Council left them disgruntled, dissatisfied and disaffected (even more so than before)

As a complete outsider, they needed to gain the trust and respect of the incumbent trustees, many of whom had been working actively for the charity for decades. They failed utterly to do so (other relative newcomers did put in the hard yards after election and eventually made some progress). Without that trust and respect, their constant radical reform proposals got nowhere

Please forgive me for being slightly smug when I say that almost all of the reforms and changes I wanted to see (and I had fairly radical ideas myself, I just kept my powder dry) have come to pass in the two decades since I "retired" as trustee. I like to think, with, I believe, some justification, that I started some balls rolling and gave others a judicious shove

Large organisations have momentum in spades. Change almost always happens incrementally, over years, rather than radically overnight. That lone voice in the wilderness on a board today might just be the catalyst for positive change later.

 

[Lucy52]

You relate many of my observations.

For many years I was on the Regional cCommittee of what is now the Royal College of Podiatry, a tier down from the Council. I went along as an observer to see how our business went.

Much work takes place in committees, working groups and horse trading in private discussions not in open debate. That's politics.

The thirty members bun fight was reduced to just twelve members which is much more efficient.

They have governance but regulation is external through the HCPC, I think a much better arrangement.

I think that the MCA is the regulator and the RYA get their remit from devolved powers, at least as far as yacht racing is concerned.

It is said if you rock the boat you will fall out, to change the direction you have to make small changes in course to get to where you want.

 

[Tomahawk]

Right up at the top of their website

Welcome to the RYA Supporting your passion for boating

If they support my passion for boating, they should kick back against the selfish behaviour of bug huggers and other so called environmental hobbyists.

 

[Bru]

Right up at the top of their website

Welcome to the RYA Supporting your passion for boating

If they support my passion for boating, they should kick back against the selfish behaviour of bug huggers and other so called environmental hobbyists.

They do! Follow the links already posted and see for yourself

Just don't expect miracles. They're fighting a VERY powerful lobby group who are currently flavour of the month and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future

Frankly, it's not a battle we can realistically hope to win outright. It's more a case of not losing too badly

 

[Pye_End]

If they support my passion for boating, they should kick back against the selfish behaviour of bug huggers and other so called environmental hobbyists.

Caring for the environment around us is not selfish. Even if you have no care for nature, if we don't look after it a species we are in for a very bumpy ride. Good decision need to be made based on as good as an understanding of nature as we have reached, and that is the job of the decision makers.

Selfish - (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for other people; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. Environmentalists could argue that it is the boaters (for example) who a selfish, as the environment is for everybody and everything, but boating is a minority.....

RYA are not decision makers in these matters - all they can do is keep in top of the information, offer alternative view points, and question accuracy.