Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

As I have previously posted, Toby, Charity Commission guidance does exist and RS7 is THE definitive guide for membership trusts. Critically, it does not purport to override existing Trust Governance MoA&A's except in the case, as is patently obvious here, where such specific references to the procedures relating to the expulsion or suspension of members is silent. I do not believe for one moment that the Trust has sought specific advice from the Charity Commission regarding Anne's alleged 'gross misconduct' rather has it arbitrarily 'interpreted' the guidance to suit its pernicious and malign narrative

 

I'm afraid that I agree that this is precisely where the evidence points, @The Terminator though we don't have the proverbial smoking gun yet. But it is the most plausible explanation of events - not least because of the lead time for the CC to opine in writing for a Trust to rely on; if I were them, I would not want to commit to writing without a decent idea of the issues at hand.

 

Is it? Are the Trustees taking legal action?

 

Dave,
Your team at Pilton East has done some remarkably fine work and, as a result, I would think that you have a relatively close relation with several of the Trustees.
I would imagine that a level of trust has been built between you all.

What I am wondering is whether this friendly and trustworthy interaction might have lead you to believe that 'these chaps' couldn't possibly be guilty of doing anything underhand or deceptive?
It might be worth considering that no-one acts carefully and thoughtfully all the time. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why committees exist?

In the case of the Trustees we should all examine the evidence publicly available concerning the S73 fiasco, the outrageous treatment of Anne Belsey, and the illegal timing of the proposed (and, dare I say, so-called) AGM.
I do not think any of us should currently be standing behind the Trustees and their actions unless and until they can successfully defend themselves against, what appears on the face of it, to be collective, secretive (hence my use of the word cabal) decision making and written falsehoods.

(Furthermore, I have still not received my " 'AGM' voting papers".)

 

Thank you for your kind words Sir, our small group do the best we can, and it's great that so many enjoy what we recreate, that real deal Victorian/Edwardian travel experience

I will not hide the fact we do have one Trustee on our patch who attends weekly, gets his hands dirty like the rest of us, raises funds, has the important task of sourcing the brass ware and metalwork for the carriages from various sources, all made from scratch by forging, casting and cnc means and has and still is an important and invaluable voice on the Trust for the work we do. What many may not realise is the production of the carriages at vastly reduced prices on commercial prices means I estimate we now have somewhere near £1.5million+ worth of carriages at Woody Bay. Carriages of which we see so many smiling faces when they see them, and receive so many positive comments on. For the average visitor the attention to carriages compared to the engines is rather unusually high in comparison to other heritage railways and as such all the effort is so worth while.

With regard to S73s, I have done my own research into planning for other reasons which did overlap eventually for the situation we found ourselves in, this with past experience in construction and also other landowners, one in particular was the landowner at our previous workshops in Great Yeldham in attempting to achieve over many many years planning permission and progression of development for his land, at times it drove him to despair. The outcome of planning battles is never guaranteed despite the perceived favourability at any time, we know the legal issues behind planning etc are extremely complex, and we know that the L&B isn't alone in experiencing difficulties in planning (Rvr, Bluebell, Bala etc).

I won't be drawn into making comments specifically about Anne's situation, it is not my place to do so. I will just point out though that the M&As are only king in law where it specifically states the actions to be taken, if it is silent then it defaults to Charity law and also if a Company it can involve Company Law too. I should imagine the Trust would be aware of this and have been for a lot longer than than just recently.

As for the AGM issue, we don't know the details, if it was delayed that could be down to the postal service, I am still at times receiving delayed post by weeks sometimes here. A recent business letter to the workshop was delayed by nearly 4 weeks, so much so that a copy requested arrived only a couple of days after it.

As for being secretive, or transparency, in a charity setting this is difficult. It's true that perhaps some of the larger organisations needed to be more open particularly those who needed to demonstrate how much actually goes to charitable causes, the in the pound reference, but there is a danger of focusing too much on transparency, especially for smaller charities where the back office cost in recording archiving etc increases hugely. I don't think anyone would agree to a level of transparency which would or could effect the Charities ability to negotiate successfully, to achieve the necessary rapport with organisations and authorities, or be hobbled by excessive recording and the question of who does it, and whether the Charity is willing to pay for that role as I should imagine it would be a full time job.

What has to be remembered is, like many others, all the Trustees are volunteers, they do not get paid for what they do and there is no personal gain. They are entitled to holidays, days off, and down time just like anyone else. I have seen at times the demanding of an immediate response to queries which is in many ways unreasonable considering that volunteer status.

The only fault as such I can see is we do perhaps need a liaison/PR officer to relay info or perhaps even just a note to say "cannot reveal details but we are working on it", or who at least acknowledges the receipt of an email, even if the answer may come later due to unavailability of a Trustee or Director. But we have to ask then why don't we have one already, most probably because no volunteer is available or willing to do it, and the Trust knows that employing someone to do it will inevitably be met with criticism. As with many things the answer may seem simple enough, but putting into practice not so easy.

 

See my timeline above in post 8482, @DaveE - I'm afraid your generous explanation simply doesn't stack up against the known facts. If Peter Miles, Tony Nicholson and rest (minus Chris D) were relying on guidance from the CC and/or company law, then they would've cited it up front because it would've been cut and dried.

They did not.

The only credible conclusion to draw is that they made a decision to exclude Anne's valid nomination, and then looked for an excuse when they got called out on it. Again, the most charitable spin is that they were ignorant of the Trust's rules but this too is no excuse, because as Trustees it is their job to know the rules. Whilst you rightly point out that they are volunteers, no one was forcing them to perform this role - they had to actively seek it. It follows that it is reasonable to expect them to know the rules and apply them without fear or favour.

As it happens, I have seen evidence that they were told that what they were doing to Anne was against the rules and that they mustn't do it, and Miles and Nicholson did it anyway - and I'm afraid that your local Trustee, whatever his contribution to the excellent carriages, does not appear to have stood up for what is right and elemental fair play in Anne Belsey's case, and is therefore complicit.

See my post 8459: someone has done the legwork to work out the timeline by going to the company that distributed the mailings. This is not conjecture, but fact - the AGM is invalid, as the papers were sent out two days too late. Under other circumstances, I can sympathise with the position that this is unfortunate but we can live with it - but this year is different given the whole series of actions that also undermine the meeeting's legitimacy, including

- illegal exclusion of Anne Belsey's nomination,

- wrong wording of the proxy voting, which, contrary to the rules, places all proxies in the hands of Peter Miles (convenient for him, no?)

- I understand that the Trustees have not signed off the (unaudited) CIC accounts.

Any of these would make the AGM items relating to it a nullity; the fact that the paperwork was late makes the whole meeting a nullity - as the Trustees have been warned.

So why are they carrying on, dragging people to Lynton for a meeting that they know is null and void? The only answer I can see is that they hope to get away with it.

They cannot be allowed to.

 

>>>>As for the AGM issue, we don't know the details, if it was delayed that could be down to the postal service, I am still at times receiving delayed post by weeks sometimes here. A recent business letter to the workshop was delayed by nearly 4 weeks, so much so that a copy requested arrived only a couple of days after it......

The key issue here is not when members get their papers (if at all), but when the notices were "deemed to have been given" namely 48 hours after posting. So any post-posting delays by Royal Mail are irrelevant.

AIUI the printers received the proofs two days late from the Trust. I don't know the means of transmission, but if sent by post to the printers (how quaint in days of print-ready digital PDFs etc), then yes - you could blame RM for the subsequent delay in posting out the printer versions. However......IMHO the printers ought to have been advised by the Trust that, if for whatever reason they were unable to despatch papers by the deadline date, to seek advise from the Trust. The Trust could then decide whether to (a) post them anyway and be damned or (b) tear them up and re-issue a new set for a revised date. Just to run everything to the wire and hope that all will be OK smacks to me of a culpable failure to plan for possible eventualities....

 

[QUOTE="Having had cause to read the L&BRT's M&AoAs many times in the last few weeks I can find nothing in them whatsoever which specifically describes any process for the terminations of someone's membership. It is true that Clause 69(1)(i) does give the Trustees the power to make rules or bye-laws to govern such a process, but Clause 69(2) then requires them to bring such rules or bye-laws to the attention of members.

It is some years now since I joined the Trust, but I do not recall ever having my attention drawn to any rules or bye-laws which governed my continuing membership (other than the obvious need to pay my membership fee every year). If such rules or bye-laws do exist, then where are they held such that members can find them easily? If not, how can the Trustees even consider terminating someone's membership if they have not been informed of them at the time that entered in the 'contract' - as it were - of becoming a member?

Are such things perhaps buried away in this mysterious 'disciplinary code' to which Anne referred recently?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure whether this nugget has been previously posted on NP but Miles in his reply to Toby made an elliptical reference to the Trust's existing MoA&A's, particularly with regard to disciplinary processes, and that they were currently under review in accordance with the Charity Commission's (CC) guidance. As anyone who has had dealings with the CC will know only too well its pace of response can only be described as glacial. Approval, which is mandatory prior to legal enactment of the revised MoA&A's, may thus take weeks if not months. What is significant, however, is that these changes cannot be applied retrospectively under any circumstances whatsoever. Therefore, any prescriptive enforcement of the terms of reference governing the disciplining of Trust members is effective only from the date of CC approval. If the Trustees thought that they might apply them to the alleged offences committed by Anne then they need another think.

 

There are changes to the MoA&A I'd like to see - eg, electronic voting to enfranchise our members living abroad.

I hear that Mr Miles has other ideas, like giving him the power to approve all Trustee nominations, which are clearly unacceptable.

 

There are Charity Commission requirements which any Trustee needs to meet.

I have seen a request for nominations from another organisation that links to these requirements and states that persons nominated must be compliant which is perfectly correct.

 

Quite right @johnofwessex , but not relevant in Anne'scase, to the best of my knowledge.

 

Surely not? Isn’t this just speculation?

 

I'm not sure whether this nugget has been previously posted on NP but Miles in his reply to Toby made an elliptical reference to the Trust's existing MoA&A's, particularly with regard to disciplinary processes, and that they were currently under review in accordance with the Charity Commission's (CC) guidance. As anyone who has had dealings with the CC will know only too well its pace of response can only be described as glacial. Approval, which is mandatory prior to legal enactment of the revised MoA&A's, may thus take weeks if not months. What is significant, however, is that these changes cannot be applied retrospectively under any circumstances whatsoever. Therefore, any prescriptive enforcement of the terms of reference governing the disciplining of Trust members is effective only from the date of CC approval. If the Trustees thought that they might apply them to the alleged offences committed by Anne then they need another think.[/QUOTE]

Correction

Changes, such as those proposed to clarify the terms of reference regarding disciplinary measures can be enacted by the Trust without reference to the CC. However, they ARE required to present these proposed changes as a 'special resolution' at a general meeting. A signed copy of the resolution, together with the amended MoA&A's, must be submitted to both the CC AND Companies House within 15 working days of the meeting. Importantly, as I correctly state, these amendments cannot be applied retrospectively and will only take effect from the date that the latest amendment appears on the register of charities.
Apologies for the error.

 

I've been told this by two seperate people in a position to know @62440.

(Edit) I hope that it isn't true or that if it was, saner heads are going to prevail.

 

Pub test - failed.

How many heritage railways is it now where the management reeks of malfeasance?

 

Too many. But that is still very few- let’s not far the many with the brush of the few


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I have an uncomfortable feeling that the WSR, L
&B, ELR, TVR are but the tip of an iceberg. Others that have had or are having a rocky time, I can think of at least 6 in the last five years. Peak Rail was the object of a lot of discussion not so long back for examples. But, that does leave many who appear to be able to get on with the job.

I feel sadness about all this though because apart from the human costs, the organisations concerned end up being much less than they could be. The WSR faces a long road to security that would be shortened surely by them being able all to get along. The TVR, has had an appalling time and if it isn’t governed better, worse may still come. The ELR seems to have trashed its reputation. The L and B will never be extended until it gets its act together.

 

The Trust is also a company. There are requirements to be met for Company House too. in recent correspondence with them, they stated:

 

I think for now it's better to beware of hearsay until any amendments are proposed.

In general I think the selection of Trustees purely by membership nomination and vote is rather dated. It has a number of pitfalls which can hold a Trust back the main one being that a Trustee voted in can be more due to popularity rather than the ability to be a good Trustee or more importantly to bring to the board what the Charity requires.

If we go inline with the Charity Commission then there is a pre-election selection process by the existing Trustees to select appropriately skilled nominees, ensure the prospective Trustee understands the role they will play as a Trustee, what they will be expected to do (eg if a Trustee has stood down and their role was say financial, to ensure the nominee has the ability to take over that role), and of course deal with conflicts of interest and any automatic disqualifications.

I suspect the truth is more that the amendments will be to reflect the Charity Commission's laws, guidance and recommendations (remember, for a small charity) rather than allowing continued outdated or silent entries in the M&As.

 

Self-nomination followed by election by the members does indeed run the risk of installing individuals who are popular but poorly suited for the job or, even if they are perfect for the job, leaving gaps in the range of expertise. On the other hand, it is clear what can go wrong if new trustees are chosen by the incumbents. Is this a case of "I wouldn't start from here"?