Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I clarified that by suggesting the dissenting Trustees could not be expected to support a board decision if it involved a breach of the Articles so no need to resign because they can't support it. Apart from a formal complaint to he Charity Commission another option, if there is sufficient support, (probably at least 5% of voting members) would be for them to require the company to hold an EGM and to circulate a motion to all members to be voted on at that meeting instructing the board to arrange a valid election of Trustees in accordance with the Articles.

 

It presumably goes without saying, @Lineisclear , that running the Trust (including the elections) 'in accordance with the Articles' is the very least that Members and the CC can expect.

Why should it take an EGM to force the Trust Chairman and the Company Secretary to follow their own rules? It strikes me that this would be a fertile area for the HRA to provide guidance, with HRA membership suspension on the table to encourage the recalcitrant to do the right thing; CC involvement is rather the nuclear option, given their powers.

 

So, in other words, the only options open to members or dissenting trustees are the nuclear ones, which will amongst other things tend to magnify the harm (conflict, reputation, cost) done due to the poor conduct.

It seems to me that effective democratic accountability through fairly conducted general meetings is a very good way to mitigate the risks associated with trustees going off piste; so much so, that I can't quite see why it would be considered problematic.

 

That's fine then - you are free to put your money into any of the other projects.

YVT also has trackbed-purchase and Bratton Fleming Goods Shed appeals as well as its general fund, see https://yvt.org.uk/donations for more details, and L&BRT also has funding appeals, although the Parracombe trackbed fund is, I believe, still currently suspended. I believe OSHI shares are also still available too.

 

I also posed the below to you, @Lineisclear - who do you think should be footing the £10,000 bill for these unnecessary elections?

 

Given that the only process for election of Trustees described in the Trust's M&AoA is one that involves a vote at a General Meeting, then IMHO it would seem rather long-winded for members to have to call an EGM to pass a resolution to instruct the Board to organise another GM just for the election - surely much better simply for the Trustees to use the powers available to them already within the M&AoA to call a GM for the election, having previously complied with the requiremens regarding inviting nominations and notifying the list of those accepted (as the existing list is now outwith the permitted timescale).

Given that the Chairman 'promised' at the 'AGM' to organise an election (apparently by post, for which no process exists) then IMHO there has been enough time elapsed already for the Board to follow an existing valid process - so why are we all still waiting to hear from them ?

 

I tried out the donations website. It seems that the maximum you can donate is £9999. Is this a legal thing or a quirk of the website?

 

I wonder if you can make multiple donations? But have you got the time/enthusiasm to do that 65 times.....

 

@ikcdab might have that money burning a hole in his wallet, but as for the rest of us...

 

You are making the assumption that the trustees cavalierly struck Anne's name from the list knowing that they were acting wrongly. You don't actually know if that is the case. They might have taken advice or unwittingly interpreted the articles in a way that was not intended. That might be the case and until it could be proven otherwise, the charity bears the cost. Sad, but that's that way it is.

 

Not really, I was just curious why there was an upper limit. I was talking to someone today who said he had donated £10k to an organisation, nothing to do with the L&B.
It looks like a simple coding error on the website. I was just curious.

 

It is a lot of money and you are quite right that it could purchase a lot of trackbed but 15 houses built on the site could also raise a lot of objections to the railway running over the Viaduct, that may or may not happen but in the bigger picture the site would ultimately be beneficial for car parking, volunteers accommodation ect, at the current rate of expansion if those houses were built they could be 10 or 20 years old before the railway gets to run over the Viaduct and and would have a damned good case for it not to be used for a railway, sometimes we have to look at the bigger picture

 

I am not sure but some sites now have a limit due to money laundering.

 

That is fair challenge, though the complete absence in the Articles of any provision supporting it doesn't support that argument.

More important, though, is rectification of the issue. The AGM was held on 13th May, and promises were made to those present as part of obtaining the agreement of the hall to proceed despite the other issues over it's validity, in particular the failure to give valid notice. As I write, it's June 10th and there is silence on how matters will be resolved.

With this combination of issues, accepting that what was done was undertaken in good faith raises uncomfortable questions about the competence with which those actions were performed. And all the while, the clock is ticking.

 

Not to mention that epayment sites are often a very expensive way to give and receive money. A BACS transfer on £10,000 would probably benefit the recipient by £250, assuming a 2.5% charge.

 

Actually, @ikcdab, we do know this - I published the correspondence earlier in this thread. It was a personal decision by Peter Miles.

 

The YVT charity bank details are included on the web page if you prefer to donate by direct transfer - or you can send your cheque to the address given. Every little helps. Alternatively, perhaps a recurring donation of £9999.99 per month would be acceptable to you?

 

Seriously for a moment if you have that sort of money to donate. Then surly you would want to have a face to face meeting with those who will spend your donation and may be, give a direction on what you would prefer they spend the money on with in the project.

 

For those of you who have not read exmoor-ng today...

According to the latest rumour to reach various members, allegedly the Chairman has left the task of organising a postal vote to the Company Secretary, but apparently the latter has said that he would only organise such a vote on instructions from the Board, which he has yet to receive. So any election seems to be 'in limbo'.

Furthermore, it would appear that the Chairman has the view that the AGM is 'not finished' until the elections have been completed, so in the meantime regards the 2022-23 Board as being still active. BUT...it has been reported previously that the Chairman CLOSED the 'AGM', in which case the 'AGM *is* 'finished and any residual business (eg the elections) becomes null & void. However if what he means - or at least meant to do - is that the 'AGM' is merely /adjourned/, then the correct process would be to choose a date/time/place for the meeting to resume and to send formal notifications to all members accompanied by updated Agenda and Trustee nominations paperwork. Then the vote can take place at the resumed 'AGM' in accordance with normal practice and there would be no need for any (possible invalid) postal vote process (other than usual proxy voting). So, either the meeting was /closed/ or it was /adjourned/ - he can't have it both ways - so what do the draft Minutes say, I wonder?

Why do I get the feeling that we are all just being 'strung along' ?

EDIT - I am advised now that the draft Minutes do indeed confirm the meeting as CLOSED.

 

That is the trouble with rumours, generally a load of rubbish