West Somerset Railway General Discussion

If these figures are accurate then all the maneuvering is simply re-arranging deck chairs. It suggests there will soon be no deck for the chairs to be placed upon.
A pity there there is not seen to be the same vigour to save the line financially that there seems to be for mergers and top table seats.

 

Unfortunately, the reply to this, and to @bristolian 's post is that it appears that this is not how things are done in West Somerset. Autocracy not democracy seems to be the rule. Perhaps, if the WSR was more democratic, people wouldn't spend so much time and energy trying to become one of the autocrats.

 

The WSSRT has about 100 members, and is quite tightly focused in its activities. Therefore the ability of the trustees to interpret the intent of the membership is potentially greater.

However, I notice that there is what I can only believe to be a deliberate conflation by the Trustees between the need for advice on the implications of what is proposed by the “14”, and opposition to that proposal.

@rodders154 asks in a post about conflict of interest. To my mind the presentation of advice on the legalities of a charity merger by trustees who have already declared their view of that merger is a genuine conflict of interest, which risks misrepresenting the legal position to bolster their legitimate view that the WSSRT should remain independent.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Minute number 449 of the WSSRT (16th July 2020) discusses AGM preparation. It records that the WSSRT have permission from the Charity Commission to delay the AGM "to December 2020 if necessary". We should be clear that this Minute pre-dates the submission of our trustee nomination forms, so no ulterior motive should be ascribed to it. It was also decided, under the same Minute, to hold the AGM on 19th September.

 

Regarding your use of the word "legitimate" - are you using that word to indicate that the view is a correct interpretation of the wishes of the membership, or to indicate that the individual has the right to voice his/her opinion?

 

I am wondering whether WSSRT members should approach the Charity Commission directly complaining that the present trustees appear to be trying to frustrate a legitimate attempt to further the Trust's objectives by strengthening the WSR as a whole.

 

The latter. In the passions aroused by these discussions, it is frequently forgotten that people may disagree on something for entirely innocent reasons, and be none the worse for it.

There was an acrimonious discussion a couple of days ago in which those not supporting opposition to the plc board in general, or the Washford eviction in particular, were being alleged to be complicit with those decisions and the behaviour of the board. I can think of a number of perfectly innocent reasons why individuals may not oppose, or even support, what is happening, and I therefore do not agree with the " if you're not for us you're against us" view of matters. That I might consider those reasons misguided or erroneous does not make the person who holds them wrong, or to be derided.

 

On what basis? We may both consider merger with the WSRA to be the right decision for both the WSR as a whole and in fulfilment of the WSSRT's charitable objects, but that doesn't mean it is the only way that those objects could be pursued.

For what my opinion is worth, I believe that if the WSSRT chose to merge with the WSRA, or chose to remain independent, would be of sublime indifference to the Charity Commission. It would be a merger of two small charities with overlapping objectives, and if voted for by the membership in accordance with WSSRT rules, only a failure to structure a merger in such a way as to protect the WSSRT's objects would give rise to grounds for intervention by the CC.

That's as nothing, though, to the more important issue for the WSR family as a whole. The battle for the plc, and by extension the WSSRT, is ultimately a battle for the WSR, and especially it's heart and soul. That will not be won by interventions from higher authority, but on the ground by those close to the WSR. In all the strife around the WSR right now (and I mean "around", not "at"), what matters is how the peace will be won, not the war. The victory in that peace will be what determines whether the WSR has a future, and what kind of a future it may have.

 

There does seem to be certain similarities between the conduct of some WSRSST trustees and their friends on the PLC, and that of the x 6, in that they seem to think that they don't need to listen to their members, that they hold the power, and it's theirs to keep. So what then if the membership, many of whom, possibly are members of the WSRA also, happen to agree with combining and strengthening the voice of the members, that kind of leaves the trustees and chairman out on a limb, , but if they want to have a railway this time next year, i see no other option, but to merge, and combine the memberships into one charity, OK, the present PLC board won't like it, as it endangers their cosy little club, but they also need to be removed, or at the very least the chairman replaced, and someone appointed that can bring feuding parties back together again, and if that's not possible, then hold talks to find a way out for those who can't accept one railway, one membership.

 

One of the things that has baffled me the most about this WSSRT situation was the decision (I assume by WSSRT trustees?) to run off to the local press to publicise the 'issue'. As a group, reportedly, of only 100 ish members who could actually vote on the matter what on earth is to be gained by airing laundry in the papers? It just doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever, the only possible I can think of: Are new memberships open and welcome or are they 'vetted' upon application? it's about the only reason I can think of for seeking the publicity, to attract new members who will vote in a particular way.

Bizzare

 

This is the future if the parties in the turmoil don't sort themselves out very quickly! For supposedly grown-up adults, their behaviour and bickering is more in keeping with the baboon's enclosure at Paignton Zoo.

 

That was what I suspected however to me the word "legitimate" suggests more than a personal opinion.

Were they actually alleged to be complicit? or simply in agreement with/acceptance of a course of action others felt to be objectionable? There may indeed be various reasons for remaining neutral/ in agreement with the Plc/WSSRT trustees actions but there is inevitably going to be a certain amount of "Us v Them" with such a highly charged situation - particularly when those supporting the Plc/existing WSSRT trustees (and a few on the other side) resort to ad hominem attacks.

I do wonder if MellishR is referring to what appears to be interference with the democratic process within a charity, rather than the possibility of a merger of two charities.

 

The timeline IIRC was as follows:

Thursday 3rd September - trustee nomination forms lodged with WSSRT in correct accordance with the Articles of Association.
Friday 4th September - statement from the WSSRT, on their website, about deferring the AGM: http://www.wssrt.co.uk/2020/09/04/a-statement-by-the-trust/
Saturday 5th September - statement from 'The Directors of the WSR PLC board" - introducing the 'hostile takeover' rhetoric. This statement was later withdrawn.
Thursday 10th September - letter from WSSRT Chairman Chris Austin to WSSRT members - explaining deferral of AGM - the words, "clandestine and disruptive" were used to describe the actions of 'the 14'.
Friday 11th September - newspaper article appears in West Somerset Free Press - the words 'hostile takeover' are emblazoned in the headline.

It is interesting to note the similarity between PLC and WSSRT statements.

It is also interesting to note the presence on both the PLC Board of Directors, and as a WSSRT Trustee, of Steve Williams. He was appointed in June, having previously served as a PLC Director until 2017:
https://www.west-somerset-railway.co.uk/news/detail/director-apoointments

In the June statement, it said, "Both the PLC and the Trust were conscious of the potential for conflicts of interest and, following discussion, are satisfied with the governance arrangements".

 

Can I also suggest Railway Herald as they claim to have contacted you but had no response. (There is a discussion in their section here on the forum)

 

Thanks, we have now made contact with Railway Herald as well.

 

We are very grateful for the 23 likes we have received so far. Keep them coming! Perhaps this is a measure of the support for our objectives that we have in the wider WSR and heritage community.

 

Having read the posting and statement from the '14' (or perhaps more accurately we should now talk about the '10' ?), one minor comment....my initial reaction was that the statement was far too long and detailed as a 'opener' for those wanting to know what it was all about.

Of course there is a lot of detail to be set out for the benefit of those not yet familiar with this ever-growing saga, but my feeling is that - rather as was experienced with some commentators during the ex-6 EGMs 'media storm' - some people may just glance at it and their eyes will glaze over by about half-way through and give up. Far better IMHO would be a short, snappy precis - no more than one side of A4 max - about the key issues, with a link to a more detailed document for "those who want to know more".

Just a thought......

 

Fair point.

 

Thank you for your reply, and clarification behind your question.

Regarding complicity, I read the comments as suggesting a deepening "us and them", and putting people into boxes not because of what they did say, but because of what they didn't say. I have problems with the conduct of the current WSR leadership because it is so exclusive; it grieves me to see those disagreeing with it following suit.

 

The 'trial' of the ex was debated at length on NP. I guess the same will now be occuring for the hearts and minds of Members of the WSSRT.
The local press in West Somerset have no need for any organisation to get in touch with a WSR story; it seems there are whistleblowers who pass on the news and the papers usually take it up. I believe they see any skirmish within the WSR as as a good story.