Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Now that's an obscure comment ! You know the reason is straight forward but you would have to speculate on it ? Either you know it or you don't !
Let us be clear : Under the Articles there is only one legitimate reason why a properly completed nomination can be rejected and that is for late filing. As this does not appear to be the case in this instance then members are within their rights to call for the constitution to be obeyed.

 

My problem with this is that the consultation was done rapidly, based on a very loaded paper, which dismissed some options as lacking in planning but was very thin on details for the favoured option, especially regarding the issues that caused the previous attempt to fail. What concerns me is that this is an example of precisely the rigidity you counsel against.

I then observe that there is a debate over the absence of one candidate from the voting papers. The appearance - rightly or wrongly - is that of a valid candidacy suppressed because her presence on the board is unwelcome; an impression reinforced by similar issues at a previous AGM.

I don’t know the candidate, or why she is not on the ballot. But I am concerned, like @Tobbes, that her absence from the ballot undermines the legitimacy of the election and may signal a dangerous insularity at board level.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

True, they could, but they would be very unwise to do so as it would expose them to severe personal legal censure if their option proved detrimental to the membership.
The Board is elected to carry out the wishes of the membership, provided that these fit within the M&As. This idea that a Board, once elected, can do what it wants, is quite false and can lead to some very unpleasant consequences.

 

Yes, I think it was needed to be rapidly done, standing still for too long was also not an option. We need to keep momentum going despite setbacks.

The options given were really in my view trying to get a feel of what the membership wants to do generally, again in my view they were perhaps too detailed, the detail is thrashed out at board room level. The average member is not going to be privy to many of the details nor perhaps even understand especially when it comes to engineering problems, contracts, and especially complex planning and legal issues etc.

We had 4 options, I hear the call for more, but how many is enough? If you present too many overly detailed options people will switch off. With so many people involved in the railway you could end up with dozens of options from so many different angles. The financier wants one way, the engineer wants another, the rail enthusiast want it that way, the tourist wants that, the older generations want this, the younger that. 4 options I personally think was ample, they were the options the Trust collective chose and presented to the membership.

Rigidity is a pitfall of corporate strategy, perhaps if we were in the position of the WHR were with all the track in ownership, then maybe you could have such a strategy, but with the complex issues that the L&B faces I think we need above all flexibility. Yes, I understand that can have it's own pitfalls, but out of the two I believe flexibility is the most important at the moment. This enables the railway to seize surprise opportunities which may otherwise be hobbled by a restrictive strategy. I do also worry that almost micromanaging by the membership will equally be restrictive in seizing beneficial opportunities.

Overall I think the way we have been going has achieved much that many never ever thought possible, what we have been doing, and that includes EA, has been working, slowly but surely. We have had a knock back, but the failure there in some ways is over expectation that every single thing we do will result in a 100% guaranteed success. Where planning etc is concerned, it's never 100%, and especially where we had a pandemic which no one could be expected to predict, initial conditions which were unreasonable but had it's own pitfalls in challenging them, and complex legal issues surrounding Section 73 applications especially when the statutes are in conflict with the guidance.

In my view we now have a general direction which the membership have voted for, the finer details is up to the Trust to thrash out in the board room, but I would expect them to reserve flexibility to be able to grab opportunities if any occur which may demand a response to gain that opportunity quicker than consulting the membership allows.

All my own views of course and I do acknowledge others have different.

 

Sadly, I have to disagree, having once been a Trustee of a heritage railway society.

AIUI the duty of the Board is to act in the best interests of the Trust and in accordance with its Charitable Objectives. It may well seek guidance from the membership as to their wishes - and I would suggest that it would be good practice so to do - but it would have no obligation to, and indeed have a duty not to, follow those wishes if - in the Board's opinion - they conflicted with the Board's obligations as mentioned in my previous sentence. Ultimately the Board - and hence its individual Trustees - are responsible for the decisions which it makes and the action which it does - or does not do. To say "we were merely following the wishes of the members" would be no defence if it were shown that they acted (or not) in a manner detriments to the Trust's objectives.

That's my view - other may think differently of course

 

Maybe not, but equally there will be some members with long experience in the relevant fields who will understand the nitty-gritty detail and could be getting frustrated at the lack of such information emerging from the Trust. It could always be presented as a 'management summary' for general consumption, backed up by a detailed explanation for those with a greater interest and/or depth of understanding.

 

But they haven't, and I don't think they ever would, but there are certain circumstances where it could happen, that was my point.

 

I understand, but I would argue that engineering detail is quite comprehensive especially going by the displays that have been at the galas in the past few years, it takes up most of the marquee! Lol
Most of which I believe is on the ENPA website too.

The problem I see with trying to relay other information is that you can only publicise what is free from privilege. In making available only piecemeal parts of the detail will mean things can be taken out of context or just become completely confused in isolation. To prevent misinformed gossip and rumours it is better to publicise nothing to prevent questions that cannot be answered due to that privilege in place.

 

[QUOTE="DaveE, post: 2809554, member: 30110"....
The problem I see with trying to relay other information is that you can only publicise what is free from privilege. In making available only piecemeal parts of the detail will mean things can be taken out of context or just become completely confused in isolation. To prevent misinformed gossip and rumours it is better to publicise nothing to prevent questions that cannot be answered due to that privilege in place.[/QUOTE]

But surely 'publicising nothing' is exactly the reason why rumours start and members get dissatisfied as "nothing seems to be happening" ?

 

But surely 'publicising nothing' is exactly the reason why rumours start and members get dissatisfied as "nothing seems to be happening" ?[/QUOTE]

There is your Catch 22.

Which is least damaging? Saying nothing does mean if rumours arise you can definitively say, "We haven't said anything about it".

There will be lengthy periods when perhaps the best that can be said is, "We continue to work on xyz, we will bring more news when we are able to". Perhaps this needs to be relayed more often.

 

But they have published something - there was information on the S73 application publicised - I looked at the ENPA website as well. My only criticism is that the membership should have been informed quicker.

 

The issue is trust. When what is said conflicts with other information, or presentations are made that do not address core issues while making strong play of showing the pros and cons of all options, that does not inspire confidence.

I disagree with the portrayal of the planning application as an existential crisis, but do see it as a major blow. Carrying on as before, on a prospectus of “trust me”, lacks credibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The Trust's plans are not exactly secret: we want to rebuild as much of the L&B as possible in as hisotrically accurate a manner as possible.

This means that we will want to acquire the trackbed and run trains on it.

So: this isn't about cunning corporate strategy, but it is about relationships with a range of stakeholders, and the problem with Option C 's "two railways" approach is that (quite apart from the logistics of two railways) it needs ENPA and the Parracombe community to accept an incremental approach - and a terminus somewhere in the Parracombe area - that they've consistently opposed.

This is where the 'trust us' rhetoric falls apart - where is the evidence that this is likely to succeed? Grampian conditions were imposed for a reason and where is the evidence that they won't be again? If I were an ENPA planner, I'd see every reason to do so (as their legal advice notes) and given our performance the last time we had five years' planning permission, little evidence that we wouldn't end up with a half-built railway with all of the costs to the area and none of the benefits of a functioning park and ride scheme for the National Park from Blackmoor Gate.

So, having failed once, the Trust are essentially saying "Trust us" despite providing no evidence that the new approach will meet the first hurdle, planning permission.

I don't think so. And as @35B rightly says

I'm also not carping from the sidelines without a proposal - please see attached my response to the "consultation".

 

Thank you, I will have a closer read later as I am now about to dash out.

One thing I will quickly say about the Grampian Conditions, previously we had conditions imposed, none of which I believe we're known until the day of determination. This can no longer happen as Planning Authorities now have to give notice of what conditions they are considering and their content and give 10 days for the applicant to respond. This is a big change as it does mean we can now agree (ignore), disagree, or enter negotiation. In my view many of the conditions originally imposed were unreasonable and there is much closer attention paid to the 6 tests now than before. With the new rules on Grampian Conditions brought in in late 2018, it difficult to judge whether any new application will encounter the same problems as before. I would imagine this should become clearer in any pre-application consultation.

 

Fair comment, though my memory is that the Grampian conditions imposed weren’t unexpected. But if, say, full ownership of the trackbed were to be proposed, I’m curious as to what room there would be for negotiation if the objective were to avoid part completed works on a “railway to nowhere”.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

@Tobbes wrote the above in January 2018, well before the planning application was determined - commenting on an objector calling for GrampCons. He was right.

Someone else spotted it too:

 

I thought I had already covered that by saying "The Board is elected to carry out the wishes of the membership, provided that these fit within the M&As" which, of course, spell out the Charitable Objectives. At no stage did I suggest that the Board should "act in a manner detrimental to the Trust's objectives."

 

With respect, IMHO one does not necessarily mean the other.

For example, supposing the Board polled all the membership as to whether all motive power and rolling stock should be in L&BR or SR livery. Whichever choice the membership made would be within the Charitable Objectives. However the Board might argue that, if the choice were to be 'SR', the result would be a lessening in the number of visitors and donations etc on the basis that (a) there are other SR-themed heritage railways to support and visit that could be more easily accessible and (b) it would be a loss of the 'uniqueness' and USP of the pre-1923 era. So if in the Board's view the choice of 'SR' would lead to a reduction in visitors and income, possibly eventually hastening a decline in the railway's fortunes, they might feel that it would be more in line with their responsibility for the 'wellbeing' of the Trust to ignore the members' wishes and follow the 'L&BR' option.

Possibly an extreme example, but I hope you get my gist ?

 

Following that example, I would expect the board to advise members of that risk so that the members’ votes could be appropriately informed. And, stretching the rubber band further, if the board had invested in such a poll and then overridden it in that way, it might be arguable that their conduct had been to the detriment of the charity and its ability to fulfil its objectives by undermining the confidence of current and future members in the quality and integrity of board decision making.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

As one who hopes to be able to attend the AGM, I am visualising sitting in my chair at the Town Hall at the Trust meeting with agenda in hand wondering how things might proceed. When items 1 to 3 - the introduction and the report of the Directors and the appointment of the Reporting Accountant - have been dealt with. Is it at that stage, that someone will ask for the microphone and propose a motion (or if that is not allowed without notice, a point of order) that items 4 to 7 dealing with the re-election and election of Trustees cannot be held because there is no agenda item for one of the names put forward ? Is there anything the members in the audience can legally achieve in view of the obvious scenario that it might be claimed that the voting schedule is ultra vires ?