Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I update the CC on changes to rules for a Charity for which I am a trustee. The problem is you don't just upload a new set of rules - you upload a document with changes to the previous version. Makes it very difficult for anyone wishing to read the document - you start with the base version and then look through the amendments to see what has changed. I did ask the CC if we could just upload the new version - the answer was no - you have to upload the amendments.

 

I have had a similar experience of a voluntary group for which I was chairman. The committee was looking for someone to handle a number of tasks - We had someone move into the area who seemed to fit the bill, sounded plausible and we co-opted them. Within a few weeks the person had accused pretty much everyone else on the committee of doing things wrong and ever suggested that some were "on the take". They resigned fortunately. All we got was a lot of pain and grief.

The moral is that it is important that someone joining a committee [or board of Trustees] need to be able to work with the others on the committee. This is more important than what skills they bring with them in my opinion.

 

Generally true - but that relies on both sides of the equation being willing to adapt to each other.

That's fair, but change tracking is generally legible.

 

I'm sorry to hear you had a bad experience, @H Cloutt

This is fine as far as it goes, but (i) skills are important and (ii) if the existing Trustees are responsible for selecting new Trustees, you will stifle alternative viewpoints, insights and innovation. Groupthink isn't helpful, and having Trust Boards dominated by one ir two individuals is a recipe for the mess we're currently in.

 

But you acted in accordance with the articles so there was no come back against the Trustees

 

It can cause real problems for (some) people with neuro-diversity. I simply cannot read/follow it, especially when there's more than one layer of changes. To the extent that I have to write up a clean document and then copy and paste changes into the original when it's all sorted. If I try and work within a document that's tracking the changes I get into a mess very quickly. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't feel that tracked changes are particularly disability aware/accessible for some.

 

Understood - but the alternative of "in clause x.y, replace "blah blah" with "blah blah blah"" is often even harder to read.

 

I appreciate the problem (and in my day job have a reasonable amount of exposure to issues around web accessibility, so I do have some background as well) but I figure that even by NatPres standards, discussing the accessibility of software UIs around document change tracking represents quite significant thread drift!

Tom

 

That's exactly what the CC want you to do.

 

I agree that skills are important but if the person is disruptive then that is counter-productive. I don't support existing trustees having too much of a say in selection but sometimes there is difficulty finding anyone willing to serve as a trustee. In my experience people who are pushy are to be avoided.

 

Disruptive is rather pejorative and it depends on what they're disrupting: if they're disrupting group think and collective failure, then that could be essential to regeneration. And whatever else is going on at the moment, we're not short of willing, suitably qualified, candidates - that's why we're having an election.

 

Disruptive is a subjective term, and perceptions of what constitutes disruption will vary. If disruption is Scylla, then complacency is Charybdis; a good board will steer a middle way between them.

What concerns me is the emphasis on disruption as a bad thing, without reference to the cause and nature of that disruption. Someone may be disruptive and harmful in a functioning organisation, but the same charge may be used against someone who is merely trying to get an under performing organisation to the level it should be at. I have a school governor example; there was never any doubt as to their commitment, but merely issues relating to how it was channeled and engaged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Differing views on a board are healthy and should be welcomed. As already already emphasized they become disruptive and potentially damaging if, having had an informed debate, those in a minority feel unable to support publicly the majority collective decision. A good description of an effective and responsible director is that they should act as a "critical friend" being prepared to challenge where necessary. A board of uncritical "Yes" men or women is unlikely to be an effective one. The trouble is that outside the boardroom that is how collective responsibility can appear.

 

Some time ago (possibly a year or more?) the trustees appointed a committee to review the current M&As. Who (if any) outside of the board is on that committee, and what their remit is, I have no idea, but my concern is that, without external (expert) and internal (membership) involvement, any proposed changes will do little to improve governance.

 

It would seem to me that this should be done externally and that would be money well spent.

 

With out getting into details the basic plan is still a good one and basically falls into three parts:

1 Planning the fund raising effort and deciding how the scheme will work and what you want to raise the money for. It is this bit which I feel is missing from the fund raising effort currently without, parts 2 3 and 4 will not be successful.

2 The Private Appeal to those who can support the project but are not looking for public recognition.

3 The Public Appeal this is to open up the fund raising to the general public. This part is an open book as it will be up to the public how they want to support the Railway. IE some may want to organise a sponsored Walk or a Swim as two examples or if you like cakes then why not run a sponsored baking day, or if you feel brave enough, then way not do a sponsored wing walk or a sky dive, the limit will be down to your own imagination.

4 This day and age I would consider a forth section and that would be digital funding, from Facebook to website games to anything you want, the web has no limits.

 

Having suggested that the concept of re writing the M&A's is the only way forward. I have now given this some more thinking time and I guess what it is I am getting at is to review the current M&A's and update them to bring them up to date to allow for the use of electronic meetings and voting, plus any additional changes that have been introduce since it was first agreed.

The other thing which struck me was just how vague some of it can be. So the next question would be do you try to clarify each and every point in the M&As as they come up or would it be better to leave some wiggle room for the Trustees to operate in?

Finally do you think that any M&A's should now have some sort of definitions section attached to it to explain exactly what is meant.

 

And this is the bit which I can immediately see could be a problem for long term heritage projects.
With the best will in the world often things don't work out as planned with reconstruction or Heritage projects and any forecast funds requirements and timescales can be quite variable.
Take for example Bala Lake, before the National Park refusal they will have thought they knew the timescale, the support was good, and I expect they had some idea of costings. But as with any planning there is zero guarantee on outcome, and I dare say Bala Lake are now looking at additional funding required not only for any planning changes but also for the rate of inflation which is probably a fair bit higher than they forecast.
With the likes of Gt Ormand Street and similar charities where perhaps the end product is more for a service rather than a bricks and mortar project there will I should imagine be less variables as most of the costs are known and current.
At best all any heritage project can say is, "this is our end aim", and especially where the L&B is concerned where land was divided up and sold off and now has to be re-requisitioned if possible. Additionally a fair bit of the line is in a National Park where gaining planning approvals isn't as easy as say NDDC.

The idea on how to fund raise is good, but perhaps not for a little railway in North Devon, it appears to me to be more for a national charity providing a service, and that perhaps is why we have seen no heritage railway projects take up that scheme.

 

Having read this carefully I agree....However I think we will have to go through the stage of having several disjointed sections of the L & B, most of which will have no running trains, for years possibly. BUT they will gradually get joined together and, as they join, then more and more running line will be possible. Until, eventually, the gaol of a revived L &B running from (nearly) Barnstaple to (Upper) Lynton is achieved.

 

At last a statement I can agree with ! I believe you identify the problem in your last sentence : it is the dogmatic interpretation and use of "cabinet responsibility". If there is reasonable opposition amongst the membership to a particular proposal then, once the decision has been made to proceed with it, those directors who voted against it should be able to tell their supporters "sorry, we tried but were outvoted." The members then know that their concerns have been raised and considered, whereas a stony silence gives the impression that nobody has been listening to them. In most instances this will be sufficient to settle matters, at least in the meantime. or until the next AGM.