Eugene wrote:
> Groups were asked for their preferences as to whether the media
> attend or not prior to the last national boating meeting. I made it
> clear that offering no view would not be counted as "that's okay
> then, let the media come along", but that respondents needed to
> express a view.
>
> The consensus from those who expressed a view was "no thanks".
>
> These meetings are not 'BW's meetings', they are the groups'
> meeting. I've been very clear on this, and to emphasise it the
> agenda is largely set by the groups and any BW 'presentations' are
> limited to the end, by and large.
>
> Media attendance was also considered by BWAF. The notes, which are
> on the web, read (11 October 2005):
>
> "The Chairman also referred to approaches from two waterway magazines
> regarding attendance at BWAF meetings. It was agreed that this was not
> desirable and that instead the Chairman would speak to the waterways
> press after meetings. Press releases on BWAF matters might also be
> issued by BW on behalf of BWAF on occasions and information would be
> included in its accountability website."
>
> Openness & Accountability isn't solely within BW's control!
You know my feelings on this, but to reiterate...
I think it's sophistry to claim they (BWAF, Boating Issues, Corridor Issues)
are not BW's
meetings. They are organised by BW, on BW premises, to advise BW. If they're
not your
meetings then you don't have the right, IMHO, to use them to claim the credit
for BW being
more open and accountable. As the latest Annual Report shows ("A range of
representative
forums and accessible channels helps us meet rising stakeholder expectations"),
you do.
Given that, I do not accept that groups should be able to veto who attends.
Imagine it's
1991 and NABO has just been set up. Imagine that IWA, smarting from the
perceived slight
to its traditional role as representative of the boat-owner, vetoes NABO's
application to
join BWAF. What do you do?
As it happens I've spoken to representatives of the three biggest user groups
and none of
them have said they don't want us to be there. One of them suggested that the
decision
had been pushed in a particular direction by a certain person on BWAF who is
not a user
group official and who has some "previous" with disliking the waterway press.
The promise for the Chairman to speak to the waterway press after meetings has
not been
consistently delivered.
As has been pointed out both here and to me by private e-mail, this is a really
silly
situation, because if Martin wanted to attend as a representative of WRG I'm
sure he could.
I think Emrhys might even have done so once as a representative of the Electric
Boat
Association and I'm told that, in the past, waterway journalists have attended
nominally as
representatives of APCO and TAG. Or we could form, or join, a journalists'
association. We
already get second-hand reports from people who have attended the meetings.
All we are trying to do is be impartial in our reporting, and play it by the
book as far as our
presence goes.
We don't have this problem with regional BW meetings; nor with the EA's
equivalent,
RFERAC; heavens, even the nearest equivalent to BWAF in the railway industry
(Passenger
Focus) allows anyone to observe its board meetings. BW is out of step.
As it happens I'm sorely tempted, next time there's a BWAF meeting, to put a
big blank
space in our news pages with the little explanatory text: "This space would
have contained
a report from the British Waterways Advisory Forum, but BW has forbidden the
press from
attending". ;)
cheers
Richard
