Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I'm Spartacus!

(More seriously, the best thing that the Board can do now is to stop all of this nonsense and apologise to Anne. Then those who pushed this - Mr Miles and his friends - should foot the bill for the HR 'report" and the re-run election. Together, we're looking at several thousand pounds of Trust money wasted on a personal vendetta.)

 

And just for the record, this was my reply to @Tobbes on exmoor-ng:
Thank you, Toby, for putting into words what the spinning cogs in my mind have been trying to enunciate.
How far everything has sunk since 2018.

A Trust who continued to fundraise for an extension they already knew had no hope of succeeding, given crystal clear legal advice.

The cringeworthy attempt, at the AGM, to pass the blame for this failure onto ENPA and "keyboard warriors", plus the appalling conduct from the platform.

The dismal persual of Anne Belsey's "disciplinary procedure", so close on the heels of the failure of the s73 ammendments.

And now the invalidation of yet another ballot, and wasted postage costs both for the Trust, and its members.

Anne, your enthusiasm and ability will find a far more appreciated reception elsewhere in the currently dysfunctional L&B family, at least for now.
As for me, speaking as a bog- standard rank-and-file member, Messrs Miles, Cowling and Nicholson, you have lost the respect, trust, and support of both me and my wife.
So for the time being at least, this years membership will be our last.

 

Thank you @Mark Thompson that's very kind - but please don't go yet! Let's see what the election results are and what the way forward is - let's hope that both Anne and Mike are elected to work with Chris Duffell to promote some good governance, starting by cutting the stupidity out. I'm hopeful that some lessons are being learned by Mr Miles and his friends as a result of this miserable episode.

 

I hope so, too. However on past form, I can't see them backing down

 

Personally I think the election should proceed - the outcome cannot be predicted. It may be that Anne Belsey is not elected.

 

Do you agree with the way the Trust have behaved, @H Cloutt ?

 

It may. However, my question is more about what happens if she is elected, or if she is forced to stand down.

That casts a serious shadow over the validity of the results, and the status of especially whomever is 4th placed in this election. If the vote is close, the suspicion will remain that this process unfairly damaged her candidacy. If she wins enough votes to be elected, but cannot take up her post, then there will be inevitable doubt about the validity of the appointment of whomever takes her place. That will be doubly the case if that individual is one of those involved in making this deeply flawed decision.

That of course presumes, in an organisation where a Trustee does not have to be a member, that the board have the power to disqualify someone elected to the post. I cannot see any power within the M&As permitting this, but lack knowledge of the relevant charity and company law to comment on whether other rights exist under legislation.

At the AGM, I raised my hand in support of the idea of proceeding with the election process in the knowledge that there was a possibility that the disciplinary process would impact on the result. I did not imagine for a moment that the election would be left for so long, or that the promised "independent" process would result in the position we see here, where the action of voters may still be influenced (for or against) by the outcome of that process, having been adjudicated on in a process that was procedurally unfair and which gives the strong appearance of being targeted.

I now regret that decision, and wish that instead of seeking to allow a process of regularisation, I had followed my initial instinct and supported the abandonment of the ultra vires AGM.

 

Evidently the common advice to "stop digging" hasn't reached some persons. It's not even the pot calling the kettle black: the pot is black as the pit while the kettle is at worst perhaps slightly tarnished. Somehow a takeover needs to happen.

 

Slowly losing the will to live with this tbh. Reading Private Eye I wonder if there’s something instructive in the Actors Benevolent Fund saga - thinking laterally….

 

I wonder whether Private Eye might be interested in The Woody Bay Saga?

 

Please God, no...

 

That would be the worst outcome.

I once worked somewhere that got a brief mention in PE. The story was factually correct in what it reported, yet seriously misleading because of what it didn’t say (because it wasn’t clear from the source they were reporting).

15 years later, it is still a reference that can cause pain and distraction.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

agree - however I’m also aware of a project that collapsed at the point that Private Eye journos were on the scent and without actually printing any coverage. So it can help achieve things without publishing them.

for the record, I will not be telling them though.

 

It was just a thought... The latest diabolical move by the Rogue Trustees does however demand an urgent response. I just wish I knew what it might be!
@H Cloutt's wish to see the election proceed seems to me narrow minded and whether Anne Belsey is elected or not nothing will be resolved.
I imagine that the bulk of Trust Members are in the dark concerning events down in darkest north Devon so how can an election solve anything?
The Rogue Trustees are running a pirate railway and appear unstoppable. In the circumstances it would hardly be surprising if thinking Members refused to part with their hard earned and yes, EA/YVT seems the better place to park any north Devon heritage railway monies at present.

 

I’ve already voted for her, and the other new blood

 

Although IMHO there is no basis for a postal vote as opposed to the calling of a 'proper' (A)GM, I am minded to the view that this is a saga that can not be left to just run and run. The voting is now in progress - if it is nullified now by Anne standing down, that's yet more money wasted and there would have to be fresh elections (again), although no doubt the Board would argue then that only 4 candidates left for 4 vacancies would mean that no election is necessary anyway. And let's face it, on past experience the Board will do whatever they want anyway without regard to 'due process', so at least something by way of an election is better than no election at all. The 'numbers' are such that at least one of Anne or Mike are guaranteed to be elected. What remains in doubt until the votes have been counted is whether both of them might get elected. OK, so that will still leave 6 'old' Trustees in a majority over 3 'new' ones (I'm including Chris D in the latter group), but it is at least a start, with the hope them of more progress towards reform in the 2024 elections.

 

This sounds a bit like the treatment of Robin White...
'External HR consultants', eh?

 

Interesting story here about 'External HR'

https://www.theguardian.com/educati...ory-shines-light-on-unfettered-academy-powers

They basically conspired to do something that they should have known was unlawful.

In the past, explains Henderson, a school’s HR function would have been run by the local authority; in an academy such as John Kyrle, HR responsibilities are devolved to a private company, in this case Hoople Ltd. “The evidence presented to the tribunal was that the HR company was effectively asked how the school could get rid of Jo. The company never asked why the school wanted to get rid of her.” That was not their role, he says, in a way that in the past it would have been the role of the HR team at the local authority.

 

Just quickly, as I have lots to do elsewhere, careful of speculation, it will I dare say be easy to find articles out there which work both ways and fit any view point you have. That article may put external HR in a bad light but I expect others may have the alternative.
As for notification timescales for disciplinary hearings, as far as I can see on Google it can be as short as 24 hours, ideally 48, and some say 72 hours.
To be fair and taking a neutral viewpoint it has been known about for some time now a disciplinary would be held and I would have thought all parties involved would have had their notes and papers in order way before the hearing considering most has been discussed in social media for some time.
That's my tuppence worth for now for what it's worth.
Things to do!

 

What concerns me is that we appear to have an election being fiddled with, that is itself not permitted within the articles of association that, depending on you view is a process that was either instigated as a result of ultra vires AGM or is being held after an AGM, but before the next one has been called. There is a real prospect of a situation being created where no trustees are lawfully appointed.