Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The thing is that if we where to adopt a museum accreditation standard, then it has to be applied to everything across the whole L&BR Board. The Accreditation body would expect us to do no less, it would be all about transparency and bench marking good practic with in the whole L&BR family.

 

No it wouldn’t. It would be about the scope of the museum. It is one of a number of things that might well be good to do, given the right resources and priorities. But all of that depends on there being a plan and a will.

As ever, process and procedure need to follow obtaining agreement; they can’t force that agreement.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

No it wouldn't. It would apply to way the museum was managed - nothing more, nothing less.

Tom

 

If that's the case @H Cloutt, why wouldn't you say so?

 

Hi Tom I think you are missing my point, the L&BR as far as I know does not have anything in place when it comes to administration standards (I am not aware of them even having any governance standards in place), So to my way of thinking if the museum standard require you to have a system of good practice at the management level of the museum. Then surely it follows you can use those same standards as a basis to make sure the rest of the railway project meets them as well? I am pretty sure that is how it works at Buzzard.

I can see where 35B is coming from but unless there is something that can be put into place to prevent what is going on now, happening again, then what is the point of having administration standards at all in the first place?

How we deal with the current issues is one thing, making things better afterward is something else.

Of course there is the nuclear option that I hope doesn't happen and that is the OSHI goes bust and takes the whole Railway operation with it, then it will all be over, lock stock and barrel.

 

I think that the importance or otherwise of museum accreditation is over-rated. The NYMR has accredited museum status and yet any effects or benefits to either the organisation or visitor are barely visible. A lot will depend on the commitment of the organisation to implementing it.

 

... or the next but one?

 

That would mean we've got to wait until the end of September. (or even January if Martyn is right)

 

I sometimes wonder if some are secretly wishing it will with how often it's been mentioned.
If we all use it when in Devon, the locals can be assured it's still a local to them, and it becomes a must go to tourist pub, I'm sure it will be just fine.
When I went there in May it was glorious sat in the beer garden, the food was great and Mark is doing wonders. I have no worries about OSHI.

 

What is happening now has to do with a mixture of culture and law. The legal bit is to do with the Charities Commission; the cultural bit is to do with why there’s needed to be a complaint in the first place.

Good management can be reinforced by the use of standards; if Leighton Buzzard are doing that then excellent. But having standards won’t make people comply if they don’t want to, and the organisation isn’t bought into them; they may help the organisation once it’s decided how it wants to work.

Alternatively, other approaches might also work. But adopting standards or corporate structures as a fix for current problems can only follow, not lead, decisions on how to improve the operation of the Trust.

I’ve just finished my copy of the latest issue of Private Eye. There’s a story in there about PWC’s issues with their tax practice in Australia. That was a straightforward matter of professional ethics and law, yet they still didn’t comply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Ignoring all other considerations with actions like that this presupposes that there is in fact a potential replacement board who are capable and willing to take over. I very much doubt I am the only trustee who does it only because no one else comes forward.

 

A fair comment. But in this particular case, one of the issues is that a willing candidate is being prevented from putting her name forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

In the wider Charity World it is well known that there are a lack of people willing to hold a postion as a trustee, when thing go right no one bothers, but went things go wrong then there is hell to pay.

The old saying of you can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink is very true, may people are put off mainly due to the misunderstanding of what a trustee is and does, also the bad publicty that happens to a charity if the trustee board get's it wrong also puts people off.

Part of the problem is that the roll of a trustee is very rarely discussed and what adds to it is that many trusts do not always fully understand the need to diversify the trustee board either and they then tend to end up as old boys clubs, which can then be very difficult change.

The L&BR does have a sub-culture be it unwritten for now, but that culture could also be doing untold damage in the long term and there in lays the rub of the problem, the basis of the L&BR Trust are it's M&A's which we have all seen, have more than a few issues which need to be looked at.

A fresh culture will stem from this review, my hope is that the many area's of confusion can and will be removed at the right time and the M&A's shall be enhanced with suitable suggestion over the next few years.

I belive that it is good practice that such a review should take place every five years or so, just to make sure that the M&A's still comply with current charitiable law.

Some charities open this process up to all its members, in most cases a majority of the members are happy with the direction of travel, it is only now and then, that the likes of the National Trust can and do get in to bother about such things.

I can't recall what it was that upset the membership of the NT but I have a feeling they wanted to removed a major membership right and many members din't agree with it, I think the suggestion was scraped in the end.

 

I think you are right that some want it to fail but that is in no ones interest.

 

As a shareholder, it's certainly not in MY interest!

 

What a curious comment @H Cloutt!

I don't know anyone who wants OSHI to fail. But there's a world of difference between wanting it to fail and perfectly reasonable concern about the level of investment by the Trust in OSHI, and given the price reportedly paid, the risk to Trust monies. And that's before we get to the opportunity costs of the Trust's investment.

 

Who exactly are these people who would like to see the OSHI fail? Come on now, 'fess up you naysayers! (Or, is this just a 'straw man'?)
Toby's concern over 'the opportunity costs of the Trust's investment' is, however, real. There is only a limited amount of money sloshing around North Devon's narrow gauge railway, and it could well be that the Trustees' cavalier approach to management is scaring away potential new investment. This is an unfortunate effect of the shenanigans culminating in the Lynton 'AGM' debacle. But how can this be resolved? It is looking like a Gordian knot problem to me.

 

I dont think some are wishing it to fail, they are just being realistic about the pub trade in general, you have to take in to account how rural it is, im local and to go there is nearly a 60 mile round trip so its not at the top of my list to visit when i can get top quality food and beer within a 5 mile radius of home, North Devon is also one of the most deprived areas in the country so many people really are on a strict budget, it really does have to rely on the holiday trade but then i can think of a handful of pubs within that area that have a better reputation so the competition is stiff, it does however have a good reputation for a Sunday carvery but at the end of the day it has a small period within the year to have to make a lot of money, take out running costs, wages ect and then the first £36k profit as interest on a loan and you can see why some people question what risk it is. If every one of the approx 3000 members comes and uses it just once spending £25.00 that's only £75k gross
It does have to be successful because the railway is linked directly to it (even if it is a so called 'separate company') it was posted all over local news outlets that the railway had purchased it so any failure will link the two together and of course we don't know how much the trust has invested in it and at what risk, at the end of the day its down to the shareholders to make sure they know exactly how OSHI is performing and must be prepared to ask any questions on issues they feel need to be addressed

 

My post was in response to an earlier one which expressed concern about comments about the OSHI.

 

I know. I just broadened the issue of investment beyond OSHI to the L&BR 'family' (sic) at large.