West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I can't help wondering just where you think the people to run this proposed new charity might be recruited from.
Clearly anyone already connected with any existing WSR organisation will come with the baggage that you so clearly want to avoid. So, presumably you would prefer a bunch of complete outsiders to form your proposed new charity.
In the unlikely event that a bunch of people can be found, do you really think that a bunch of outsiders would be able to gain the support of the current WSR people? Or that they can achieve anything worthwhile without such support?

 

I thought that was the tricky step! (Depending on which browser and machine type one is using, there are many different ways to copy the URL of a page which one is viewing, so that one can paste it into the reply window - which is why I didn't try and gives details. Making a clickable link in a reply, given a URL, is easy, there's only one way to do that, which I'll give.)

Given a URL 'https://some.url' which one wishes to insert, with visible tag 'this link'; one types '{url=https://some.url}this link{/url}' (replace the '{'s with '[', and the '}'s likewise - had I typed exactly what one has to type, all you'd see is this link). Done. If one just wants to experiment, or make sure that one has it correct, use the 'Preview' button (you may have to click on the 'More Options' button first to get that.)

Noel

 

If you click on the post number, you get this dialog box:



Copy the "BB Code Link Snippet" and paste it into your reply; you can change the wording (circled above) into something more meaningful if desired. Just be careful not to delete any of the square brackets.

Tom

 

Why assume that everybody currently connected with the WSR has "baggage" as you put it?
There are plenty of folk whose only interest is the secure future of this premier line.
And a note to the regular trolls on here please don't expect replies to any reaction to this!

 

You raise a very interesting point. It might seem that some in the current WSRA see themselves in any new roles within any new charity formed for the WSR. As you also mention the historical baggage - acrimony and vested interest - sadly this is what they would bring with them and that would be unacceptable, I believe, in certain quarters.. Whoever is brave enough to take on the challenge it must be new faces and viewpoints. Whether they would get support is a debatable question but it has to happen at some future time otherwise the present maelstrom will continue.

 

A carpenters solution, not a computer persons: There's 20 posts per page, so remove last digit, divide by 2.... 25079 suggests page 1253. Actually the post is on 1254*, but it puts you in roughly the DZ.
*I think this might be because a number of posts in this thread have been removed
Edit: Oh gawd, I've just worked it out

 

Because it will save time

 

I agree that the prospect of recruiting new trustees who have not previously been trustees or directors of any of the organisations and are willing to take on the task and will be at least tolerated by most of the interested parties (former trustees/directors, volunteers, and outside supporters) is slim. On the other hand all the present incumbents claim that they have the good of the WSR at heart, even if they have seriously conflicting notions of how that can best be achieved. That extends even to the present PLC Board, who claimed to be in favour of the Bailey proposals, subject to shareholder agreement, although they then argued unconvincingly that the reorganisation would be best deferred until the railway is back in normal business. With a new charity in place or at least in waiting, the new (or designate) trustees thereof can declare their plans, and all other parties can then sign up to those plans or leave. That would superficially resemble the PLC's stance on rebels, but the plans in question would have been arrived at by at least some degree of consensus (defined as the absence of sustained opposition) among the stakeholders, rather than unilaterally.

Anyone have a better idea?

 

It's not specific to WSR, but a truism that those with the knowledge and experience to take on leadership roles within an organisation rarely come without previous relationships, whether for good or ill. When posts on this thread, by insiders, demonstrate the existence of personal differences (putting it as a minimum), it seems entirely plausible to this outsider that "baggage" exists.

 

Sadly not, though I would personally prefer a vision that involves appealing to people rather than having the element of "or else" to it.

 

Tbh, my suggestion would be to look forward not back. Rather than looking for 'older heads', the line would be better looking towards a younger generation that is untainted by the last decade.

One of the things that I think is good about the 15 is that there were people from the younger generation who could play a role leading the line not just in the short term but also the long term. It was very sad to see that a number of these dropped out and if it is because of the reports harassment then those who have done that need to hang their heads in shame at the fact that they have caused the future of the line from dropping out from helping the line now.

You mean like the baggage of an attitude that assumes that anyone who disagrees with you or is critical must be a troll?

 

If a new charity were to be started up, those who truly have the interests of the railway at heart would be happy not to put themselves forward as trustees, whilst being supportive of those who did. All those who opposed the new charity, tried to put themselves forward for a trustee position despite carrying a platform trolley-load of baggage, sniped from the sidelines or subjected the candidates for the new trustee positions to the same treatment as was given to the "14", would thereby show that, to them, their position in the governance of the railway is more important than the good of the railway itself and I would hope, thereby disqualify themselves from their candidacy in the eyes of those responsible for selecting the trustees. Otherwise it would just be a case of "rinse and repeat".

You don't need people with experience of being in positions of control of the WSR to control the WSR. Experience and knowledge pf the railway is required in managerial, not board positions.

 

OMG, where to start, there is no one size fits all, I would say stage 1 has to be to change the old guard with in the WSRSST , And see what the members want, those who give their time and money to the railway, that has to be the least, people in ivory towers don't often hear the thoughts of those below them,
If the members agree to merging the charities implement it,

Then either work with the PLC, To implement a re opening plan, that includes opening in sections, as the pw work progresses, Or if that's not possible, the personnel of the board who are blocking progress have to go, with both shareholdings acting in unison, the power shifts to the membership organisations,

Set up a committee to draw up a new policies agreement for governance, and grievances etc,
Re instate all members who have been kicked out, and adopt an openness of discussion, so people can air their views, without fear of suspension, and that its only when rules are broken do bans get issued, and only then after due process.

Those three steps are in my view whats necessary to settle most of the underlying issues, No one person can be more important than the railway, even the chairman, ,or plc directors, and when people realise that, things can move forward.

 

Hmm, yes but. The one thing the younger generation lack to hold positions such as heads of department or board is time. We have lots of energy, new ideas, no preconceptions, and a can do attitude, and I've enjoyed the little I've done to get more involved in my railway beyond turning up on the day and doing what needs doing or a rostered turn. But I'm close enough to our various HoDs and board members to get the impression that there is so much involved that I simply don't think I'd have the time to adequately fulfil the more senior roles within the railway. Now you may get a handful who can, but I think it unlikely that you'd get a whole Plc board and a whole charity board's worth. I'd posit that the Plc board roles would be especially tricky as I'd suspect they'd require more time, and greater skill.

Hmm, not sure I agree with that either. I think you'd have difficulty maintaining the confidence of the volunteers if the board didn't understand about the railway, and you'd probably see that lack of understanding in decisions they'd make. You can't set strategy if you don't know what the railway is capable of doing, and you can't know that unless you know how it works (at a high level).

 

This is an age old problem of any social organisation from political parties to garden societies. At the point in time when people are ready to take on more roles, they are time poor (family, work etc).

This is where good management comes in and specifically workload management and splitting tasks so that no one person has more work than they can manage. It i think requires a rethink about how things are managed.

This is why you do need 15 and not 7 these days.

 

I don't have experience in the railway context, but do elsewhere. There has to be a level of experience and knowledge to support the authority of a post, and with the increasing demand of statutory regulation on boards, I'd say that is more rather than less necessary for trustees nowadays.

The reality is, for just about any established environment, a "new" leader will need to have something about them that will carry people with them. Coming in cold, without experience of that place, and without specific knowledge of any of the disciplines that make up the whole is to be on a hiding to nothing.

The challenge, especially pointed at but not unique to the WSR, is for such a person to transcend the history of relationships and friendship groups in a way that avoids getting dragged into the history of personal disagreements that palpably does exist around the WSR.

 

I'd debate that too in the context of a board. I'd suggest that too many at trustee/director level is as much of a problem as too few, and that the real challenge is to find good senior people at the next level down. They may be specialists within a department, or former trustees stepping back, or the next generation (or two) of trustees, but it's that cadre who are needed if the trustees/directors entrusted with the strategic direction of the organisation are not to be dragged too far down into the mire of detail.

 

I'm with @35B on this too, too many on the board makes for a messy board, but in my experience "management committees" for each individual department makes the role of Hod considerably less onerous, and it is easier to persuade people who might not have been a part of railway management before into a position like that than one with much scarier legal responsibilities at board level.

 

I don't think we are in disagreement. I think that part of moving forward and responding to the post covid environment is going to involve thinking about how things are managed from a dept to board level. Splitting and breaking down roles might make them more attractive and viable for younger volunteers.

However, i will leave this to the management consultants among us to recommend what should be done.

 

Just as a random thought, I recall Tyseley set up a youth board a couple of years ago. I don't know what they do or how they fit in with the overall structure, but something like that might be worth exploring?