AT ambassadors and advice panel

Here's the list of the ATrust under the annocments of reform they made some time ago

AMBASSADORS
Bob Nudd
Chris Yates
Keith Arthur
Martin Bowler
Danny Fairbrass
Henry Gilby
Bob Church

ADVISORY PANEL
John Wilson
Tom Pickering
Rob Hughes
Ruth Lockwood
Tim Norman
John Everard
Les Webber
Sarah Thomson
Chris Logsdon
Mick Watson
Andy Steele
Dave Lewis
John Horsey
Hywel Morgan
Seth Johnson-Marshall

Now I'm going to make some critical points in friendly member way here, which may upset some, but hey ho, I'll take the flack as it comes.

The Ambassadors I can put a face to all but one and can see the total point of them regarding promoting the Trust to the wider angling populous.

The Advisory Panel I can put a face to a third of them. Now that might be because I only coarse fish that I don't know the rest. However, I'm not clear on what they are advising on, is it membership? Is angling in general? Is it how to engage the membership in the trust? Is it something else? Then what is it?

Looking at the structure of the Trust as I see it, you have the Board of Directors, The paid team including the CEO, the Advisers and the Ambassadors, then the members.
Now given this, it appears to be a hierarchical structure to me, is there not a danger of the top echelons talking only to theirselves if we are not careful? And the members are treated in a passive way, rather than an inclusive meaningful way?

Where's the structure for the members involvement? Where's the regional structure for the members to link into if they chose? There was a discipline specific structure, but that seem to have gone when the changes were made.

For me I want to see a structural plan of how everybody will be engaged meaningfully and feel ownership of it. I want to see participatory democracy and at the moment I'm not seeing a move in that direction. Yes you've had problems and it's a young organisation, but structure is one of the first things that should be sorted when you set up an organisation.

On a positive note fish legal seems to be working well and on it's game. The updates and Mag are coming regular. Not sure about sending mags to every member, when a pdf would suffice for some, me included.
Ask the members how they'd like to receive it would be my advice. You never know you may be able to cut a few grand off the publishing bill.
The trust appears to be building its national media coverage slowly, even though they are at the hands of those who control the media.

There's my thoughts..... load the guns boys and girls!

"For me I want to see a structural plan of how everybody will be engaged meaningfully and feel ownership of it. I want to see participatory democracy and at the moment I'm not seeing a move in that direction. Yes you've had problems and it's a young organisation, but structure is one of the first things that should be sorted when you set up an organisation."

I was led to believe that area and regional consultative committees/groups were to be at the very heart of the AT; I've yet to see any evidence this is happening although I have scores of e-mails confirming this.

Yes, the FL side seems to be functioning but is it being financed at the expense of the interests some of the other component parts of the AT?
From my perspective match, sea and game (competitions) angling seem to be being 'represented' but the work and functions of the two former bodies that looked after the interests of consultatives and specialist angling, ironically the only two that were financially stable, (but didn't have paid officials) has been totally ignored.

Just my opinion of course.

Were you ever contacted Phil re: the transfer of the SAA files to the AT web site?

john m h said:

Were you ever contacted Phil re: the transfer of the SAA files to the AT web site?

Click to expand...

I wasn't.

[some extra characters to make the forum accept my post]

Have you joined yet Phil? If not, who cares what you think? Not I that's for sure....

Greg Whitehead said:

Have you joined yet Phil? If not, who cares what you think? Not I that's for sure....

Click to expand...

Very poor Greg

If the members were given more of a say in what was to happen and did any one vote these people in give voting power maybe more anglers would join

No John I wasn't, but I didn't have any involvement with the website, so I don't see a reason why they would. And from my perspective I kind of took it as read that in the merger such things would happen.

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Greg Whitehead said:

Have you joined yet Phil? If not, who cares what you think? Not I that's for sure....

Click to expand...

Predictable as ever Greg! And I joined before you mate!

Please don't drag this thread down to the level of your standard of what passes for journalism!

If all you've got is insults and person attacks, best keep you gob firmly shut for fear of making yourself look an idiot..........Again!

I don't think it matters who runs it, so long as they are engaged in supporting Angling and all that it stands for.

What in my opinion is far more important, is how it's run.

I don't particularly want a say in how it is run, as i didn't join them for that purpose, if they require me to vote on a specific topic, then i will gladly cast my vote.

Your options are relatively very simple, if you don't like what the AT are doing in the future, don't renew your membership. If they prove there worth, and i must say that personally i feel that they are getting their act together, and are making some good strides forward, then renew your membership. (Please note that when i say YOUR i am not directing it at any one person but to everyone)

I do think that, if every member was to have their say, that it would just cause more confusion, and delay things from getting done even longer.

i agree with sv it would be impossible to run the AT if every member had a say on everything that went on, it also looks top heavy to me with the amount of ambassadors and advisors that are involved

Greg Whitehead said:

Have you joined yet Phil? If not, who cares what you think? Not I that's for sure....

Click to expand...

Stealph Viper said:

I don't particularly want a say in how it is run, as i didn't join them for that purpose, if they require me to vote on a specific topic, then i will gladly cast my vote.

Your options are relatively very simple, if you don't like what the AT are doing in the future, don't renew your membership. [/COLOR][/B])

I do think that, if every member was to have their say, that it would just cause more confusion, and delay things from getting done even longer.

Click to expand...

To your first point, that what a participatory democracy is, it allows people to engage at a level they're happy with. What it isn't and doesn't do is endorse a autocracy, no matter how benign it may be. Now I'm not suggesting it is that, but voicing my concerns that it could be, unless it gets its structures right and clear to its members. And as John H has said we were told it would do.

To your second point yes one could do that. But why should I have to, to make a point? Always better to be inside fighting for change, which was promised, than on the outside. There's the old adage "better inside weeing out, than outside weeing in!"

I understand the point that you'd have gridlock if members were involved in everything the AT did and that's not what I'm asking the questions on, it's about structures and member engagement in setting policy, priorities (the big things) for the paid staff to follow, campaign on, etc.

As I stated in the first post I want to know what this advisory group is there for, and if they are going to be an advisory group as an all seeing saying eye, then the membership is only a passive membership that provides the money.
And if that's the case, then I personally have been deceived for the last 9+ years whilst the SAA pulled the AT together.

I think your point is spot on Phil.

Whilst I don't expect to have a personal audience with Mark Lloyd every time I have a gripe or a question, I do expect a mechanism whereby anything constructive I might have to add (don't laugh) can be heard.

I think it's vital that the 'upper echelons' are not too 'upper' or else The Trust will soon get the reputation as a 'clique' or 'old boys club' especially with those whom want an easy excuse as to why they haven't yet parted with 20rips, or those whom have been by-passed and are now out of the loop and weren't part of the unification process.

I'd like to see a few 'average Joe's' on that advisory panel also. Maybe a tackle shop owner or two, not just household names.

ok, then. Now that you have an idea of what or how you would like to see it function, what do you suggest they should have ?

A forum ?

A suggestion Form ?

I don't see why any of the Panels should be a concern, it might seem like a lot of people, but they also have other commitments in their lives, and if i am right, i think they are all volunteers, so perhaps their are that many of them because sometimes their other contractual commitments may coincide with their voluntary work, but some of the others may be free and available to advise on that day.

Can you not e mail the Angling Trust and ask them your questions.

Possibly a members forum, possibly advisors/ambassadors taking part in threads like this, a definitive mechanism for suggestions ie contact X, Y or Z, whatever.

In my mind the actual mechanism I don't think is that important provided it actually works, is transparent and is accessible to all. We cannot have a situation whereby your average joe feels like he doesn't matter or doesn't have a say!

Sorry for the mix up Dave/Phil, I do seem to get very easily these days.

Stealph Viper said:

ok, then. Now that you have an idea of what or how you would like to see it function, what do you suggest they should have ?

A forum ?

A suggestion Form ?

I don't see why any of the Panels should be a concern, it might seem like a lot of people, but they also have other commitments in their lives, and if i am right, i think they are all volunteers, so perhaps their are that many of them because sometimes their other contractual commitments may coincide with their voluntary work, but some of the others may be free and available to advise on that day.

Can you not e mail the Angling Trust and ask them your questions.

Click to expand...

SV I realise this might be the first national angling organisation you've been involved with, but many organisations from political parties, National single species angling groups to national campaign groups on green issues have models of structures, that with a bit of tweaking can be transplanted to suit. Some better than others! WE don't have to reinvent the wheel here!

At a minimum there should be a regional structure where members can attend meeting to air views to the Trust on issues that affect that region, as was promised. One size doesn't fit all! And it shouldn't be driven from a southerncentric view point, as I fear it's looking at the moment.
There should also be a discipline specific quarterly meeting held centrally where members who feel they don't fit in the regional structure for whatever reason can attend.
This always happened in the SAA. and it worked!
The trust continued this after the merger and then cancelled them. And its not clear whether they will reinstate them as I write this.

As for voluntary work, I spend half my week on voluntary work of one kind or another for many bodies/organisations both locally and nationally. I also have a home life, a paid work life, all be it parttime and manage to get 3 afternoon/evening session a week in fishing most weeks. So that one cuts very little ice with me.

The last thing I want is for the trust to be seen as becoming or become remote from its membership. That's why I started this debate to flag up what I see as things starting to fail or were never put in place in the first place. And as I said in my opening paragraph "critical friendly member way."
As for e-mailing them, lets just say I've been there before!

Good point ,bad one .The ambassadors are all southners are they not?.The rest I am unsure of are there any from the North west?
I take it is the regional side of this has not been thought about yet?

Contact your regional officer then, and put your ideas to him, and ask him about regional meetings at the same time.

I did only ask what you would like to see.

I agree re the regional/area committee type structure Phil, the big problem is getting people to attend..again and again.
The SAA quarterly meetings worked as did the NAFAC Nat Council system, and where they are established, the area/regional consultatives. The problem might arise in getting people to attend when there might be several different agenda items, i.e. game/match/abstraction/pike. However, food is always a great enticement

A good example can be found with the Wear coarse fish improvement committee I've posted under the Coarse Fishing threads. When the idea was first proposed on a NE web site I believe it generated two replies and 400 leaflets/feedback forms distributed through local tackle shops saw just one returned, and that was only to request a stocking of pike into the river.

As we all know anglers are the first to start shouting, especially on web forums, but when it comes down to actually doing anything that takes them away from the TV screen theres always an excuse.(says he who insists no one 'phones when Emmerdale is being shown)

As for the SACC (specialist anglers consultative committee) meeting I was really looking forward to getting to the last one, if for no other reason than to meet Ruth, then it was cancelled.

Re the AT 'advisor's' there is one from the NE :j

The Regional Officer Stealph, I assume your referring to the Angling Board Development Regional Officer. I attended the Tyne & Wear A.D.B. 'Action for Angling Group' meeting held last week at the EA Newcastle office and I suggested that the area/regional committees they were tying to establish be dove-tailed in with any AT area/regional meetings...it went down like a lead balloon, kind of wanted to distance themselves from the AT
I got the impression they are not really interested in fishing and fisheries, just busy recruiting people to become coaches, and the cash that comes with it.

I'm even more

john m h said:

The Regional Officer Stealph, I assume your referring to the Angling Board Development Regional Officer. I attended the Tyne & Wear A.D.B. 'Action for Angling Group' meeting held last week at the EA Newcastle office and I suggested that the area/regional committees they were tying to establish be dove-tailed in with any AT area/regional meetings...it went down like a lead balloon, kind of wanted to distance themselves from the AT
I got the impression they are not really interested in fishing and fisheries, just busy recruiting people to become coaches, and the cash that comes with it.

I'm even more

Click to expand...

SV John's hit the nail on the head there, their mandate is thus!
Gav your assumptions are correct.

Hey, you have your opinion, i have mine, if we were all the same, and thought the same, we'd all be stupid or clever :wh

Stealph Viper said:

if we were all the same, and thought the same, we'd all be stupid or clever

Click to expand...

Actually that's not not true - or at least hasnt got the truth it appears to have.

We can indeed be all STUPID especially if we think "independently" and avoid trying to establish cooperative structures.