West Somerset Railway General Discussion

True. The world doesn't owe anybody a living. Grants should never be assumed, and what did they do with the first grant - it seems quite a lot of money to my simple mind.

 

Members of the WSRHT may already have , or should shortly be receiving their notice of the AGM.
EDIT, Apologies, this is NOT the AGM it is a single issue EGM

I would advise everyone to read the proposed new articles very carefully and consider just how much power over what may or may not be done at meetings and who may or may not be acceptable as a member - all at the directors discretion.

Yes it's a lot of legalese but there are things like (in one place) a meeting may be adjourned at their discretion, followed by (in another place) anything which could have been done at the first meeting if it was not for the adjournment cannot be brought up at the reconvened meeting.

Remembering what happened last year I'm afraid I view this as and other articles as giving the directors free reign to refuse membership or cancel the membership of anyone for any reason and also to set agendas for meetings and cancel out motions they dislike by using the adjourning and reconvening rule.

I suppose it's a question of trust. After last years fiasco with the then chair dragging all and sundry into what was an internal WSRHT issue can they be trusted with these powers to do the right thing?

EDIT, Added:- It is very disappointing to note that there is no indication of what changes are being made to the existing Articles and why. Very unprofessional.

 

It's a question of power. A bit like Kim Jong Un asking for money to alleviate the consequences of his misrule, while ever increasing his power over the country. OK, less disastrous, but similar in principle.

 

Well, actually you do. If you cannot pay the mortgage, you are going to have to sell. If you are going to sell, a little paint goes a long way to making the house more saleable, and it's a job you can do yourself.

It wasn't a question of either or. Not being able to run into Minehead is a not a problem that would have been averted by spending that money elsewhere. Now that the railway has that problem, it is all the more important that the railway can offer attractive rolling stock.

 

I have a vague recollection that the ex-6 did something like that some years ago at a WSRA EGM, when the then Secretary refused to allow discussion of some item on the basis that resumed meeting was a 'new' meeting. I may be wrong on the detail, but I'm sure there are one or two on here who can soon give chapter & verse

 

You should not count your chickens before they are hatched. That seems obvious from the PLC appeal.
I get the impression that this going to be another insolvency in the making; most people don't usually board a sinking ship. Time will tell.

 

This looks very ominous, particularly in the light of previous events. I have found the clauses referred to by Gwilialan, it's true. Is it in some way perhaps discriminatory? Suppose a plc were to refuse share purchase applicants, at the discretion of the directors? That would be unheard of.

The other ominous thing is the way the new articles are presented. The explanatory email is announced by these minimal words:
Dear Member

Attached are details of a forthcoming EGM

Regards

That's all you get, and it's an Extraordinay General Meeting, so its important, and urgent. It can't wait for the AGM. You don't get the existing articles to compare, and not a word of explanation about what is changing, and why. It's arrogant.

 

Also, the letter I saw from Steve Williams to members ends with the following:

(Bolding original)

85 members will be allowed to hear the results.

Is it normal to have an EGM where there is no discussion?

 

Well, the members were offered an opportunity to make a change, and elected (quite literally) not to take it. Beds, lying down, etc.

Noel

 

Are the receivers forming an orderly queue or is that just an exodus of disillusioned members we see in the distance...... ?

 

http://www.wssrt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/EGM-Chairmans-Letter-to-Members-7-6-21.pdf

 

http://www.wssrt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/WSRHT-Articles-2021-7-6-21.pdf

 

During last year I joined all three of the S&D Trust, the WSRA and what was then the Steam Trust, all in the hope of adding my support to moves in the right direction. Given the resounding silence from the WSRA about the apparent abandonment of the Bailey proposals (or any alternative to similar purpose) and now this move to restrict the ability of Heritage Trust members to influence policy, I see no point in renewing my membership of those two.

 

I don't think that's entirely fair, @aldfort has made some unhappy noises about the state of affairs in the recent newsletter for example, but I'm not sure there's really much more the WSRA can do in the circumstances, I expect similar unhappy noises were made privately too.

 

I'm afraid you have got this totally wrong. The articles around meetings are unchanged and are standard issue articles. The WSRA and the PLC have similar clauses.
Wrt membership, these articles are now not as stringent as before. In the past, the directors had to approve all new members. This has been removed. The clauses around removing members are unchanged and describe a proper procedure. Again, it is an identical procedure to many other member organisations. There is no provision at all just to cancel anyone's membership.
Apart from the changes agreed at the last AGM, the only substantive changes are that the maximum number of directors is now 12 (previously unlimited) and you now need to be a member for at least a year before you can become a director.
This mirrors exactly the provisions in the WSRA articles.
There is nothing being sneaked through here at all.
Ian Coleby

 

Its worth pointing out that most organisations have some sort of clause which allows any application for membership to be refused.

Its much harder to cancel an existing membership as there is a legal contract between the member and the organisation.

 

Maybe you didn't read the email attachments. The accompanying letter has much more detail and outlined the changes. So no, you're wrong. That isn't all you get.
Ian Coleby