West Somerset Railway General Discussion

>>>>>Lineisclear wrote "The fundamental problem is that there is a contingent of people who seem unable to accept that the PLC owns the railway ( or at least most of it.) ..."

Maybe it was just a bad choice of words but...surely the SCC owns the railway, the Plc merely leases and runs it? IMHO that does not necessarily mean that they are currently the best custodians of it,or that we should follow their every wish.

 

That seems to be a standard answer on the WSR - anyone you (the leadership) don't like , just throw them out.

 

IIRC the court case was specifically about the withdrawal of membership from someone already accepted onto the nominations list for Trustees, thereby impacting the democratic voting process?

The case went forward on the basis that CC law permitted action 'in an emergency', which those concerned considered to be the case because of the extremely short time left before the AGM. As I understood the judgement, it failed because the guidance available to the judge was insufficient for him to decide if the WSRA situation qualified as an emergency, so he had by default to dismiss the case. The rights & wrongs of the matter therefore were never actually tested or judged.

I would imagine that neither the 14 nor the WSSRT would wish to get themselves into such a situation.

 

I'm sorry but I have to take you to task yet again. Another example of 'my way is the only way', total support for the Plc, not even the slightest mention of the fact that there might be effective alternatives to the Plc edicts - and now this... bring the Board down and seal the fate of the railway??? Oh Woe!!!

You say nothing about the possibilities of changing the direction or makeup of the Board that could make a huge difference and would certainly not risk sealing the fate of the railway. Nor anything about how things could be changed without the interference of the current Board members.

Your continued insistence that the current board members are the only people who can 'save the railway' leads me to seriously doubt the accuracy of the rest of what you say

 

The PLC board's actions are the cause of the current problems: financial and the infighting. The fact that the organisational structure means that they are totally unaccountable for their actions means that there is nothing to stop further bad decisions or decisions that will cause further divisions among supporters of the railway.

Yet, at no point does John Bailey recognise this. Instead his solution is 'back the board and all the problems will go away.' As if somehow the Leopard is going to change his spots.

 

Or, to put it another way - That isn't the light at the end of the tunnel, it's some ********* creating more work/disruption/angst**.


*** choose your own words.

 

I think a point that many on here would make, is that any reform also needs the PLC to work with others rather than against them. This is something that they seem to have avoided doing for quite some time, some might even say they take the direct opposite position to this.

Keith

 

I always thought it was some s** with a torch bringing you more work.

 

I don't think he is saying that. I think he is saying that it is literally impossible to have a solution to this crisis that the PLC board collectively are not part of.

So far as I can see the plan announced yesterday would be the first part of a very long term plan to try to replace the current board but, as has been pointed out, there are a number of legal sticking points to this.

Getting angry at the board, however justified it may be, won't solve this crisis. I don't know enough about the WSR structures to be as confident on this point, but Mr Bailey clearly does and his concerns are worth listening to.

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

 

As i see it, the only option left assuming the attempts to change the structure fail, is to let the line die, and hope that the council will listen to a members bid to take over what can be salvaged, It will mean starting from scratch, , but such is the state of the PW, that you would effectively be starting from scratch anyway and having to rebuild from the mess the PLC board and its supporters have left behind, I will no doubt be slated for saying this, but such is the toxicity of the situation, i can see no other option that may have a longer term future.

 

Fair enough but the PLC needs to also be willing to work with others. It's currently acting like a school playground bully, who will only allow others to play football if they use the PLC's ball and to the PLC's version of the rules. That's all very well - in the real world of course the PLC does 'own' most of the WSR and in theory can do whatever it likes. But that totally overlooks the issue that heritage railways are emotive businesses. A lot of people have a lot of intangible goodwill tied up in them, which, when the going gets tough, often turns into tangible and much-needed cash, as has happened elsewhere during this pandemic. The arrogant attitude often displayed by the PLC recently simply continues to put people off and drive them and their cash away. There are plenty of other games of football going on, and many of them actually being played rather than just talked about whilst weeding the pitch. They may not have the WSR's scenic pitch but they also don't have the WSR's locker room baggage.

 

That is of course true, but it doesn't necessarily follow that "The Plc board" have to be the people who currently sit on it. The Plc isn't people, it is a legal entity. People come and go, JJP is not, or should not be, synonymous with "The Plc".

 

It is entirely possible for additional directors to be appointed up to the maximum specified in the Articles if nomination procedures in the Articles are followed and a simple majority of the shareholders vote in favour of appointment. I'm certainly not insisting that the current Directors are the only ones who can save the railway. There may well be others who can help. Under the current structure it's the Board collectively that must face up to that challenge whoever is on it. That is what I mean by backing the PLC. Currently that means accepting the existing Board but I would still say the same even if they were replaced entirely.
I will admit to s schoolboy error, (and apologies to Robin and the other 14.) On checking the position is that individual Directors of the PLC could be removed by a simple majority vote of shareholders so long as not less than 28 days notice of the motion to do so is given before the shareholders meeting. You don't need to merge the two Charities to achieve that assuming that they both agree. Depending on who replaced any directors removed the ORR confidence issue might be relevant and it would still not address the question of how the other shareholders could be forced to surrender their interests to a controlling charity

 

You are correct - I was going to state this but thought it might overly complicate my point. I would suggest though that, for the reasons Mr Bailey has stated, doing so via this route is unlikely, and even if it does happen, it will take a long time. And I don't think that the WSR has that long...

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk

 

I'm bemused to see that the WSSRT FB site is now referencing NatPres, quoting Lineisclear's comments in it support

 

Whether or not one agrees with Mr. Baileys assessments, it is clear he has cognisance of all the parties involved and their individual stances. Most of us on NP have not. He also brings with him knowledge that he has probably seen or read of it all happening before. This is not the first major spat within a heritage railway and it won't be the last.
However, he has taken the effort to spell out the obstacles that will be encountered: he does not need to do so on NP, but has chosen so.
Whatever our views of the PLC are it does seem that they hold the trump card and that is probably what will make the deciding factor.
Anyone who has followed this saga for any length of time should know that the PLC are not easily persuaded to alter course or change mind.
We saw how costly a previous litigation was to the WSRA. No one came out of that in a good light particularly what was said in court at the time.
I see no real victors in this present situation although I am sure some might claim it.

 

Thanks for that clarification, it makes everything you say seem much more reasonable! I don't think it necessarily means accepting the current board though, although I take your points about risk. However...

As you say, it depends who replaces them. But if someone who ran a bus company that had their license withdrawn can command the confidence of the ORR, it doesn't sound like a terribly onorous requirement. I know the 14 are not standing for Plc directors, but their experience is formidable and would I'm sure command the confidence of the ORR. It doesn't feel like a major worry to me.

 

Prepare for another onslaught of new accounts...

Also, hello WSSRT!

 

The PLC board clearly have to be involved, however, what is completely missing from John Bailey's analysis is an acknowledgement that the Board is:

i) to blame for almost all of the current problems and infighting that the railway faces
ii) is responsible for the negative institutional culture that poisons the WSR
iii) given its conduct and approach to dealing with dissent, there is no idea other than blind faith that the board will have a Pauline conversion in how it deals with groups on the railway.

How can reform proceed when there is a group that is so resistant to any reform that might lead to a weakening of its position or checks on its actions?

Moreover, this is a section of the railway which is, to all intents and purposes unaccountable and uncontrollable. There are few effective mechanisms to replace the board with one that is more open minded, conciliatory and fundamentally capable other than via an AGM.

Bailey consistently gives the board an easy ride. (But then I guess it isn't the done thing for one chair to criticise another chair).

The Wolf might have eaten Grandma, but Little Red Riding Hood, we can't save the cottage without it, but you'll just have to trust that it won't try an eat you.

Fundamentally, there is no future for the WSR without reform of the PLC Board. This problem and the way to resolve it is missing. This is the elephant in the room that is completely ignored by Bailey.

 

The Steam Trust was recently awarded a HLF Grant, presumably based on their achievements and projects. I doubt it envisaged supporting or merging with other Charitable organizations.