West Somerset Railway General Discussion

A nice picture to match this page number:

http://www.wsr.org.uk/cgi-bin/snap.cgi?h=Snapshot&p=2017/06/256

 

I'll see your 'Duff' and raise you a Hawksworth



[Image courtesy flickr.com .... sorry, can't be more specific]

.... now waiting for @Jamessquared to come up with the relevant SR image!

 

It would be a proper Kirtley engine, none of this western rubbish:

(On an economic point: They had the lowest per-mile coal cost and repair cost of any Southern passenger tank engines. Just noting that for a railway for which cost saving is obviously of great importance



(Via: https://railway-photography.smugmug...ley-/LCDR-William-Kirtley-R1-0-4-4T/i-7ffxzh9)

Tom

 

So in theory, it is possible for members to vote down any or all of the 16, as long as there is a majority. You have to wonder what the members think about the behaviour of the incumbents in terms of their public statements and behaviour, as well as the subterfuge with the co-options. I think members would be correct in asking themselves if people who behave this way ought to continue as trustees.

Simple maths means that rather than being a ‘for all’, it now becomes a ‘for or against’ because 10 against 10 since we can assume that the new co-opted trustees are aligned with the incumbents.

It is a shame because it makes the election more divisive. But it is very clear that this is because the incumbents have felt the need to stuff the board. That @Lineisclear supports such behaviour I think demonstrates that all the talk about a new culture in Somerset is just weasel words. It is clear that clinging onto power by any means necessary remains the culture. Moreover, I fail to see how the concentration of power in the PLC achieved by undemocratic means, by chicanery and backroom deals will result in a culture shift, in fact, the reverse this is the entrenching of the poisonous old toxic Somerset culture. That is no way forward, that going backwards.

 

That divisiveness is a real risk, and legitimate outrage at the misuse of co options to redress the balance in favour of the incumbent Trust leadership shouldn’t be allowed to cloud judgements.

I notice that two of the three co optees have specific, important, roles that are fundamental to the purposes of the Trust. I also gather from the post by @ikcdab that these follow interviews. It would, IMHO, be wrong to reject them as candidates just because of the circumstances of their appointments.

The same point cuts the other way, though. The other appointment is of someone who has a specific role within the planning of the WSR’s future structure. Regardless of the merits of the plan he’s advancing, or the basis on which it’s being brought forward, it feels wrong for the individual appointed to develop that plan to then be appointed to a leadership role in one of the organisations he is proposing to change. He would be inherently conflicted between the two roles, being both the presenter of plans and one of those considering those plans. To appoint someone as a trustee of a charity who ought to step back from any discussion of the largest single issue affecting that charity feels completely wrong, whatever the individual’s merits for either the work he’s doing or as a trustee.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Ensure you have a quorum of members who are not trustees?

 

This is now seeming to be just a cock up, which is better than a disgusting manoeuvre! Let's hope the new members do get their vote. The WSR behaves like a closed shop! I have no respect for trustees who cling to office. For what it matters, my wallet for now remains firmly closed!

 

I agree entirely. I don't see how the two roles are compatible. He can do one role but not the other.

@Sidmouth - In my opinion, there is no future in the incumbents staying in position, there has been nothing in the public announcements to suggest that there is a change in behaviour and attitude.

What concerns me, is that there is no change in the culture, and yet, the proposed organisational changes would serve to weaken the checks and balances. At the moment, there are still possibilities for volunteers (ie the people without whom the line cannot exist) to have a voice and if necessary make changes at the top. Under the proposals, this would be lost. That is why the proposals are wrong for the WSR and will not produce a peaceful Somerset.

 

Sums it up effectively.

 

Cleobury Mortimer and Ditton Priors Light Railway?

 

OK, I think this has been covered but just to be clear...
If there is no limit to the number of vacancies or there are more vacancies than candidates then you still must have an election. This is to allow the members their right to approve (vote for) or reject (vote against) each candidate. Any candidate that gets more votes for than against is considered to have been approved by the members and is in. Obviously any candidate with more votes against than for is considered to have been rejected by the members and is not elected.

Problems can arise where, for example, Board numbers are limited and you have more candidates than positions available. Every candidate is still voted for individually and if more candidates are approved than there are positions then the fun starts. If you are lucky this is covered in the organisations Articles as to how this is resolved. Sometimes the procedure used is to take those with the highest votes for to fill the positions or it could be those with the highest vote difference (votes for minus votes against - just like goal difference in footie) or there could be a second round of voting with just those who have been approved standing and then it would simply be those that get the most votes get the positions. If there is no agreed process then there is often a bun fight and much bad feeling is caused.

In a case where all the candidates are rejected... If the Board still has more than any specified minimum number of members then they just carry on... If this has left the Board with less than the minimum number then all the remaining board can do is to co-opt enough people onto the Board to make up the minimum number so that they can continue to manage. Co-opting people onto the Board who have been rejected by the membership is considered to be treating the membership with complete contempt and is a significant insult to each and every member who has followed the democratic process so it almost never happens

Disclaimer:- All the above relates to the real world - What happens in West Somerset is anyone's guess .

 

Comments regarding the standing down of all current boards, who it has been suggested have overseen or watched as supporters the line slide downwards over quite a long period of time forget that some are the same people now looking for more board positions.
It is also interesting that all the current PLC board are fairly recent appointments. The longest tenure - 2018 - being JJP, whereas other boards in the 'family' seem to be longer lived.

 

I'd consider current behaviour and attitudes to be more important than length of tenure for assessing suitability to move the WSR forward.

 

Length of tenure on it's own is rarely a good guide to whether someone is or is not suitable for an appointment; one would have to look more closely at the individual, the board in question, and the effect they've had to judge suitability.

 

The point I am making is that there seems to be some blame for the lines predicament attributable to the current PLC: they did not make it, but inherited it. There should be some recognition of past errors made by all groups on the line.
However, I accept that the PLC have gone on to make matters worse for themselves by some actions and statement in the last year or so.

 

I note that the WSSRT has announced the new date for the AGM but I have not seen anything about the demanded EGM.
In many organisations (including one that I am a trustee of) the Articles, Constitution or whatever it's called includes provisions for members to call an EGM and associated time limits; but as far as I can see the WSSRT's Articles say nothing about that.
Is it possible for the present trustees to ignore the demand?
I can also not see (unless I have missed it) any provision for members to propose motions for an AGM, either in advance or at the meeting.
Is it possible that there will be no EGM and that the AGM agenda will be just an updated version of the original one, including the additional nominations but without the proposed EGM business?
Edit: I have reminded myself that the call for an EGM is "pursuant to Companies Act 2006 s303". I am now looking at what that requires.

 

Quite possibly. I've only ever seen that spark arresting arrangement used on locos working in an ordnance setting and the RNAD depot which kept the sometime CM&DP going as late as it did certainly fits the bill.

 

I would suggest that the commitments and in particular the 'how' the proposals are to go forward in the WSSRT candidates statements suggests to me that lessons have been learnt about how things need to move forward. To me the practical 'this is what we are going to do differently' is an explicit recognition of past mistakes, without having to go for a full on confession of past errors.

It's about how you want to go forward, when I look at the PLC it is going forward in the old way, when I look at the WSSRT candidates I see going forward in a different way. I think that is recognition of past mistakes.