Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Far from it. It is a very sad state that we have come to, yet most L&BR members just want a railway to run and so do I. But at present it just feels like a one persons toy train set and that is not what the L&BR Trust was set up to promote. The trust is owned by the members and they all need to wake up to that fact and if they don't like what is going on they need to vote for people who are willing to change it so a railway can be rebuilt and they can take back control.

 

Re my highlights, maybe therein lies the conundrum? Perhaps 'most members' are happy for the Trust to be run in whatever way the Board chooses (regardless of ethics, governance etc) provided that it ends up with a 'greater L&BR'. Whether their 'acceptance' of current behaviours derives simply from ignorance thereof, or because of a willing (over)tolerance, may not become apparent for some while yet.

Meanwhile....it is now six weeks since the May 'AGM' and still no sign of any election for Trustees......:-(

 

At the AGM, many did back the incumbent trustees on the basis of “we want to build a railway”. They seemed oblivious to the ironies of this chant in support of a leadership that had failed to achieve an extension and lacked clear answers to the obvious questions about how they were going to achieve such an extension.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

That’s an interesting view that assumes the member’s desire to extend the railway should be paramount. I don’t know what the finances and costs are like but the primary duties of the Trustees are to fulfill the charitable purposes and ensure, so as possible, the financial viability of the charity. When I last checked the charitable purpose of the L&B Trust is education of the public. If extending the railway made that more achievable and improves its financial prospects then doing so would be a proper decision for them to take. Equally if they concluded that the business case for extension doesn’t stack up at the moment then sticking with the current scale of operations would be correct. I realise there’s pent up demand for restoration of more of the line on a faster timescale than the Trustees appear to be working to but it’s their responsibility to decide in the best interests of the charity not what may be popular with the members.

 

Those questions of charitable purposes did not arise; had they done, I suspect the mood in the room** would have been to direct the Trustees to revisit those purposes with a view to better making them reflect the reasons why members have signed up to the charity. However, the role of charitable purposes and the weight to be put on members' wishes as to how they are fulfilled is a different question, discussed at length on here in various threads, and not actually relevant to the events of 13th May.

Rather, the tension in the room was between those who believe that things need to be done on foundations of proper governance, and those who just want to get building an extension to the railway. Specifically, it was between (1) those (most vocally, @Tobbes but with other voices including @Meatman clearly present), who were correctly concerned that the meeting* was ultra vires due to failings in the timing of it's calling, the way in which proxies were to be completed, and the illegal exclusion of a valid candidate in the trustee elections; and (2) those supportive of the chairman and incumbent trustees whose most articulate response (collectively and individually) to discussion of these issues was "we just want to build a railway", despite the lack of any clarity as to how that board were to achieve that aim following the failure of the S.73 application. That support appeared unimpaired despite one trustee being heard on mic referring to the discussion as "this sh*t" before walking out of the meeting. There was insufficient time to get into any serious discussion of the finances.

To say the least, it was hard to see on the evidence of that evening how a situation could have arisen in which the trustees as a body would have been the ones to resist pressure from the floor for actions that exceeded the charitable purposes.

* - I refer to one meeting, as all of the points of order related to the AGM of the L&BRT. However, the event also included the AGM of the CIC, where some of the same issues were equally applicable.
** - Checking the Charities Commission website (as you will be aware, out of date and not yet updated by the Company Secretary, but the update in 2011 does no more than introduce education as a permissible objective), the objects are not "education", but as follows:

 

If the argument from the Trustees now were to be that - in the best interests of the Trust "now is not the time to be building an extension" - then my questions would be:-

1. In that case, why do you appear to be rushing headlong into Option C?
2. What has changed now since the previous (say) five years when you were spending time, effort, and Trust funds to buy track-bed and submit planning applications for Phase 2A?

It is rumoured - but I don't know the truth of the matter - that at least one land parcel purchase for Phase 2A came with a condition that the land would revert to the original owner without a refund in the event that nothing was done with it within a relatively short timescale which apparently is now not far off expiration. I wonder what explanation a future Board might give to the members if it has to pay a second time for trackbed previously 'lost' by its predecessor?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...in-moral-decline-we-have-always-behaved-badly

 

Another thing that has been forgotten is that it is not down to the trust to build or operate the railway.

We have a CIC to do that, but the actions of some of the trustees are making this impossible to do.

As I see it the Trust has no reason to be involved with anything other than land ownership, fundraising and setting out the group policies and proceedures.

It has been suggested that a seperate construction company could be set up with the single remit to plan and build the railway on behalf of the Trust.

Once built the CIC woud then operate the railway and any other funding streams that are part of a successful railway operation.

Regards

Colin

 

Setting aside any questions of specific remits - and they're important - the Trust is still the dominant shareholder in the CIC. As such, it has - and probably always will - an important role in setting the direction that the CIC follows. The issue at present is that the Trust and CIC have so much overlap in leadership that the distinctions between their roles is not clear.

 

@Lineisclear, @35B has very clearly answered this question, but I'd add one rider: the L&BRT democratically elects its Trustees, and so the Trustees will, over time, reflect the wishes of the Members. You've made your views on the importance of members' views and internal democracy perfectly (and painfully) clear over these pages, but what works for railways you're involved in simply wouldn't fly here. I note that even in the gerrymandered and abortive 2023 Trustee election, the personal statements of the candidates were uniformly in favour of extending the railway after the debacle of the expiration of the hard-won 2018 planning permissions.

The question that Members and Trustees alike face is not whether the L&B should extend, but how (and potentially where) to go about doing so. So far, the "one more heave" proposals of the Trustees fail to convince precisely because there has been no obvious reflection on why they failed last time.

I can't believe that there are no lessons to learn and which will shape future planning applications.

 

And accountability between the two organisations is virtually impossible to police.

 

To be fair Colin, only you have suggested that course of action

 

I have just seen this comment on another forum
https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/179945-oo9-turntable/?do=findComment&comment=5208105
Is this true that the L&B own the ex-Pilton TT? If so, where is it now?
Ian

 

In the carpark at Woody Bay, I believe (or at least something that looked like it was last month), @ikcdab

 

What if the members manage to elect one or two trustees who wish to run the trust in a better way (like, for instance, obeying the rules) but the incumbents ignore them and outvote them? Are the "goodies" obliged to choose between kowtowing and resigning? Or is there a mechanism by which they can force change?

 

At the moment, unless those who are not following the rules see the error of their ways and resign, the only way is to stay and fight, and to tell the Membership what is going on, @MellishR. Which, to his considerable credit, is precisely what Chris Duffell is doing.

 

Exactly - and the reasons for not doing it have been stated on this forum.

 

So as I have suggested that volunteer civil engineering professionals who know how to build a railway and have raised there heads above the parapit should be ignored? Surly if you have these types of guys willing to help out then why not get them involved?

No one can be an expert in every department and running a trust, a railway, a company, or a construction project all require different skillsets.

No one in there right mind would ask an unqualified person to come and fix there domestic boiler would they?

 

Please point out where anyone said that Colin.
What people have said is that there is absolutely no need for yet another company to be added to the L&B collection to fulfill a purpose that can easily be fulfilled by an existing L&B organisation.

 

There are two separate issues here. The experience of people who’ve volunteered their expertise and had it spurned is on record, and appalling.

The answer to that is in good manners and proper engagement of volunteers.

It doesn’t follow that this needs a separate company, not least because the existing Trust/CIC/762 mix isn’t obviously delivering better governance.

Once the relationships are sorted, then it will be time to discuss company structures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk