Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

They are not "disagreements around the boardroom table" but actions being taken by some trustees without the involvement of others. That's an extremely serious matter, and one which could lead to personal liability.

May I respectfully suggest that you read the document a little more than "quickly" before writing two posts which do nothing to address the points made.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

The accusation being made, however, is that decisions are not being taken in accordance with those CC guidelines - or, come to that, the law. If the paper is correct, decisions are not being taken by the board and minuted, but off to the side in private conversations. Not only that, but the allegation is that the decisions are not even ones that the trustees are entitled to make under law.

In an earlier post, you focussed on the four times that "it appears" is used in the newsletter. I'm more interested in the specific statements of fact made repeatedly through the newsletter, after which the phrase "it appears" is used when the authors are trying to explain the detail of what has happened.

I rather respect that claim of uncertainty, and am open to answers - to which as a Trust member I am entitled - as to why things are not as they appear. If the paper is incorrect on matters of fact, it is open to the 6 trustees who have not signed it to clarify matters and set the record straight.

I hope not to see the deployment of a "Russell Brand" defence, in which the accusations are ignored in favour of an attempt to discredit accusation and accusers that conspicuously avoids actually addressing the matters at hand.

 

In theory, I would agree - but how do you expect such 'dissenting' Trustees to minute anything if - as claimed - (a) the matter under discussion is not mentioned in the Minutes anyway and/or (b) it is never discussed at any formal Board meeting.

I know of a situation elsewhere where members of a heritage railway trust passed a Motion at a General Meeting instructing the Board to pursue a certain course of action in relation to the expansion of the railway. Somehow both this Motion and the vote failed to get a mention in the Minutes, which were then accepted by the Board. The 'official line' therefore appears to have been that, as it was not in the Minutes, it did not happen - despite the clear memories of many of those Members at that AGM.

Surely any move to get anything of importance to the future of the Trust to be (a) discussed properly at a full Board meeting and (b) correctly minuted thereafter ought to be supported?

 

But that's how it's coming across to a fair few now, regardless of what I think.

How will it be resolved now? I haven't the foggiest tbh.

Sounds like some form of mediation needed if anything.

 

My post #10766 refers to the question of appearances. As for mediation, I completely agree - but that requires the humility of all participants to recognise that they may be in the wrong.

In the meantime, a dose of simple transparency would go a very long way to restoring trust.

 

The “Minority Report” calls for a forensic audit. Surely this would be a straightforward way - uncontroversial even - to provide transparency, answer any questions and reassure the membership?

 

I don't know which railway it was but its Boards' actions may have been entirely proper . Member resolutions can only be tabled for a vote at a General Meeting if they are initiated by the percentage of members specified in the Articles ( typically 5%) and due notice of them is given to all the members in advance. It's a common misunderstanding that members' resolutions can be proposed from the floor on the day. Even if approved by a huge majority such resolutions would not be binding on directors/trustees and technically would not be part of the business of the meeting so not including them in the minutes would seem correct. However, there would be no harm in mentioning the vote as non-binding expression of the wish of those members present.

 

It would.

 

What a way to run / destroy a railway

 

Unless there is risk in such a thing to the liberty of those who move money about....

 

Quite. Or perhaps more likely a threat to their own wallet or purse in the event that things go sour.

 

Having read through the Minority Trustee Report, one thing stands out to me more than the "unknowns" over the purchase of the OSHI:-

"The actions of Messrs Miles, Cowling, Swainson and Barton, aided and abetted by Messrs Curson & Summers, have created a dysfunctional Board by making it clear at the only Board meeting we have held since the recent election that they refused to work with us. This is an insult to us, but more importantly to you, the Members who elected us."

Any newly elected trustees should have been welcomed to their first board meeting, and an "in confidence" appraisal of the current financial situation and explanation of the board's strategy for the the railway's future given. It is then up to the new trustees to decide if they can agree or not. That this seems not to have happened is quite frankly a disgrace and it really is about time the Charities Commission were brought in.
Those who object to the railway being extended must be quietly laughing up their sleeves at this farce.

 

And it seems they only managed to get to item 4 on the list before everything went wonky

 

I have to agree that a forensic audit of trust funds needs to take place, not only for the newer trustees to know exactly what they are becoming part of but also to give the members a clear view of the situation we find ourselves in, that is of course providing all details are given freely to an audit, some have said this should not have been aired in public but sorted out in the board room, the reason for this newsletter surely explains that this has been asked of with no response or completely ignored, should these 3 trustees resign because they don't like what they are seeing, absolutely not, they are whistle blowing what they see as a grave situation and quite rightly so, if they were to resign, the situation would carry on and just manifest itself with possibly dire consequences to follow, hopefully at least something can be done, id much rather see the sh one t hit the fan now and be told exactly how it is than be fed more bs for months or years to come

 

I note in the Minority Report in the Table of Funds that the purpose of the 'Return to Parracombe' restricted fund is given as "To acquire the trackbed between Killington Lane and Parracombe". But I was under the impression that by the time the RTP appeal was launched the Trust already owned all that trackbed anyway and that the actual purpose of the fund was to rebuild the railway between KL and PE.

So - is that just a 'loose form of words', or does the fund actually contain money for a purpose for which it can no longer be used as its aim has been achieved already ?

 

Mediation would be a good route if it were believed that there was a difference of opinion that could be resolved or a compromise reached by discussion. I don’t think we are witnessing a difference of opinion though.

If the chairman and all those not signing this report cannot in very swift order provide clear explanations of the flaws in this analysis then we are watching the revelation of something on a scale between rank incompetence and unlawful behaviour.

I hope, that there is nothing worse yet to come light. I cannot see any alternative to an independent audit carried out by appropriately qualified accountants who have no prior experience of the trust.

 

I've had a chance to read the 'Minority Report' in detail this evening, and I want to start by saying that this unprecedented report is a brave, principled and vital piece of work from Anne, Chris and Mike; we should all be very grateful to them for the time they took to put this together, and for their detailed and principled defence of good governance in the Trust.

Having said that, the analysis presented is devastating to Miles, Cowling and company. It is pointless for Mr Cowling to apparently assert "The draft additional newsletter contents referring to LBBC PLC are inaccurate and incomplete and indeed mostly a fabrication in the minds of 3 discontented Trustees" unless and until he can provide evidence that they are wrong. The same goes for @DaveE - it is pure assertion that there are NDAs, and in any event the data we're most interested in is what the Trustees decided to do and when, and who voted for it. The forensic audit is the critical first step in rebuilding trust in the Trust.

Unless Messers Miles, Cowling, Barton and Swainson can provide a detailed rebuttle, and soon, like in the next 72 hours - which should be easy if the Minority Report is wrong - then it is clear that they have lied to the membership and that they therefore have no alternative to resignation. The same is true for Messers Summers and Curson, who have not had the courage or fortitude to stand up for honesty and integrity when that was their job.

And all of these men, along with Messers Snaishall and Hunt who were on the Board when these deciesions were made should also be personally and jointly liable for making the Trust whole if anything goes wrong at OSHI given our exposure is apparently more than £800,000. £100,000 apiece, gentlemen?

So: the ball is firmly in Miles and Co's court, along with anyone who is an apologist for them. Provide the evidence to show that the Minority Report is wrong - it's put up or shut up time.

 

Re-read what I said please, I said "it may well be", speculative, as its been spoken about on here before. Possible reasons explored, they were not stated as fact. I also said we don't know the details. It was not an assertion, as I said, I don't get any details of the board goings on and I don't expect to but like every one else here I can discuss things I think?

 

If the Chairman and the other Trustees have lied to the Members or failed to object when the Trust did so, do you agree that they should resign, @DaveE ?

 

Not for me to say if its a resignation matter, I am not judge and jury. I don't know enough details or the evidence from all sides to say what is right or wrong, if there is wrong doing it's for the CC or similar to make that ruling, not me.