Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Not necessarily resign, there is a mediation option too.

 

If the majority decision of the Trustees is that they do want to work with Anne and Chris, and those two are prepared to comply with the Charity Commission guidance (as helpfully provided in an earlier post), then it would be the minority trustees who might need to resign if they couldn't accept the majority decision.

 

Sorry, but I suggest there's a fundamental misunderstanding there. The members of the charity do NOT "own" the railway or anything on it. They are members of an incorporated entity that does but if anything happened to it the assets would not pass to the members.

 

I have stated before that I think her name should have been included on the Ballot.

 

That's simply incorrect. The members of a company limited by guarantee still own the company.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

A process in which dispute resolution is mentioned, but where the rumours suggest “old guard” trustees are seeking to force out “new guard” trustees instead of working to resolve differences. Perhaps a little more jaw jaw might become them?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Regardless of factual accuracy on ownership, I shall just observe that the key point here is to do with governance, and the seemingly closed circle that has predominated for many years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A "Kangaroo Court" is "a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice" - I don't think that this applies in this case. I don't know all the facts in the case - but from what I can gather from this forum the allegation is related to a breach of GDPR. If this is the case then the trust would have reported the data breach to the ICO and been given advice as to how to handle the matter. The Trust is responsible for security of data and a data breach could result in a hefty fine. So the trust is required to investigate this and prevent it happening again. It is a serious matter. As I understand it this was the purpose of the 'hearing'.

 

Yes, but the original assertion was that the members own "the Railway". If you check the Articles will see that, as is normal for incorporated charities, that if anything happens to the charity its assets, i.e. the railway must pass to another suitable charity which might ultimately have to be determined by the Charity Commission. That assumes that there is anything left if the event was insolvency when clearly the railway and its assets would be managed/sold in the best interests of the charity's creditors. The members own the company but they have no proprietary interest in the physical railway.

 

In which case it would be (1) interesting to hear what the ICO have said and (2) necessary to understand why this breach is so serious that it warrants this level of action yet another (I believe larger in scale) was trivial enough not to require any such disciplinary measures. In the absence of any such, my own opinion is that it is an attack on Anne for the temerity of seeking to canvas for a vote of no confidence, and thus about power - with GDPR no more than a convenient and emotive stick with which to make the charges look more serious. Others have commented more thoroughly on them upthread.

My son’s school breached GDPR a few years ago by declaring parents emails rather than blind copying them on a mail. It was reported promptly (has this breach actually been reported?) and the ICO sought no further action on the promise that the school would move towards a proper mail distribution system - which happened relatively shortly after.

In context, it’s worth noting that most schools have not just GDPR to consider, but also child protection duties where exposing the presence of a particular pupil at that school can be serious (an important factor in the restrictions on photography at school events).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

While this would be highly relevant in those circumstances, you do your former profession no favours by such rigid focus on precise wording when the intent is so clear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Investigate - yes. But AIUI the approach with Anne appears to have been to 'try' her for such an 'offence', when in fact it was the Trust and not her that were subject to the GDPR .

 

Yes, you did. But you haven't answered my question: You stated that you didn't think that anyone thinks that she is an enemy so I asked "In which case why the unethical and mendacious attempt to blacken her name to prevent her standing as a candidate for Trustee ? If she was not considered an "enemy" there was no need to interfere with the democratic process." Surely the answer to that is that someone did consider her an enemy ? Or can you think of some other reason for the action of withholding her name from the ballot ? Let alone publishing unsubstantiated accusations against her ?

 

How much clearer can it be?

To quote from the Articles:

"If the charity is wound up or dissolved and after all its debts and liabilities have been satisfied and there remains any property it shall not be paid or distributed amongst the members of the charity..........."

or, in simple terms, the members have no ownership of that property.

The Railway belongs to the charity which is owned by its members so, to that extent, I agree that there is indirect member "ownership" of the Railway prior to any of the events described above. However, that doesn't involve any direct member proprietary interest in the assets of the railway which, so far they are vested in the charity, belong to it and are managed by its trustees.

 

I don't believe there is any evidence of either of the two recent GDPR-related breaches (one of which is alleged, the other can be evidenced and I among others have specific proof of) being reported to the ICO.

 

Now you are getting pedantic and splitting hairs again. Nobody is claiming that the membership have a right to assets, if any are left after a sale and/or receivership. But, as you admit, the members own the company, which has been built using their labour and/or capital. Therefore, ethically, they have a right to have a say in the way it is operated, provided that this is within the terms of its charter.
Why do you keep falling back on the worst case scenario of insolvency, when this is an unlikely occurrence for most heritage railways in the foreseeable future ?

 

I think that perhaps could be seen in reverse too?
The talk of old guard and new guard isn't really helpful though when what is really required is a merging.
To be a trustee in the first place you must be willing to work with the existing trustees, and all within the expectations of the Charity Commission on resolutions on disagreements etc.

Tbh, I'm my view at the moment you are going to have disagreements in the Trust because there are disagreements in the wider membership. This is putting huge pressures on the trustees as a whole to be able to function properly.

When I speak of healing, it's not just within the Trust Board, it has to start with the membership, if the membership heals, the fractures in the Trust will heal.

 

You overvalue the so-called "offence" The GDPR was enacted to prevent the misuse of the personal data held by organisations, particularly by way of selling data-bases to marketing or other third parties. In the grand scheme of things the use of a small list of members provided to a member for a particular purpose but then used by that member to contact them for another purpose, but still within the same organisation, is at most about as serious as a parking ticket and should have resulted in no more than polite reminder of the rules.
To have made more of it than that is a nonsense and a complete waste of time, money and goodwill.