Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Nothing sent out hard copy to 3000 (?) Members and their family and friends can ever be confidential. You might as well publish it in the Daily Planet.
I have already had one non-member friend show me a copy, so it's already in the public domain.

 

I suspect that the hope is that as its a paper rather than electronic copy someone will have to scan it all in before posting it.

 

Well, that won't take too long, I scanned mine to send to an overseas member while having a cup of coffee

 

It would probably take less than 2 mins to snap the pages and upload them with a mobile phone!

 

I would need to crank the handle on mine first....

 

For those few who have yet to see a copy, you haven’t missed much. The defence of the majority of the trustees position is thin, in place’s inaccurate in ways even I can spot without a lot of inside knowledge and, ignores or paints over all the issues raised by the “three”. It is poorly written and badly argued and lends credence to the idea that the authors have something to hide.

Fundamentally the board lack the capacity, capability and competence to undertake the task they have been elected to do. This letter and their massively misguided “plan C” fully demonstrates that they must go.

 

I read the first couple of pages with a sinking feeling. It has since been filed under D for drawer, until I have the time to waste for the remainder.

 

Then you need to post them off to Triple-Print to be developed!

 

I wonder why the beleaguered Six have chosen to:
* Waste Trust funds on a mail-out to members when most could have been e-mailed effectively for free?
(If they do not know who does not have access to e-mail, then why not FGS!)
* Mark the mail-out as Confidential (whatever that actually means) (since this implies that they are seeking to hide matters from public scrutiny).

I remain at a loss to understand the ineptitude of our elected six... And I know that very little can be done to remove them except by election at an AGM which they know also.
Meanwhile their actions only bring the L&BR Trust into further disrepute. Have they no shame???

 

As I have commented already on exmoor-ng, given that there has been no Board meeting since the first abortive one after the election, then this 'communication' must surely be considered as a private message from a number of individual Trustees and not an 'official' publication on behalf of the Trust duly authorised by a properly-convened Board meeting. In which case, surely they should fund it themselves rather than use Trust funds?

 

And indeed is appears to be a misuse of Trust funds (and not for the first time).

 

If the argument is correct that communications to members need the authority of a majority board decision doesn't that mean that the dissenting directors use of the company's database to distribute their minority report was improper?

 

AIUI their argument was/is that they were using the database in their role as Trustees with a duty to inform members about Trust affairs, the difference being that they did the distribution electronically and at their own expense. Whether they were correct to do so or not is not for me to judge, but certainly a different matter IMHO from the (mis)use of funds.

 

As I understand it, the minority report distribution was paid for by the minority 3 trustees.
The use of the the mailing list was to inform members of issues that they were not being told about relating to the Trust. I would say that constitutes a very good use of the mailing list.
If the stubborn six wanted to rebuff the minority report, they also could have used the mailing list, but they should have paid for the mailing themselves.

 

And when I looked to see if there was a repeat of the allegation that the Trust is only exposed to a low amount in respect of it's subsidiary LBBC when the Trust paid £253,000 for shares and loaned an unsecured £250,000 when the Company have also taken a secured loan of £580,000 from elsewhere I found the figure stated as £350,000 on page 14, so I didn't bother to read the rest. Except that I saw the word 'Malice' in passing, so that confirmed my decision. I would think there is a possibility of legal action following this 'confidential' document being distributed to 3000 plus people. Meanwhile is this a justification for a piece in 'Private Eye' ?

 

Yes I understand the argument but it assumes that such a duty exists. The question of expense is not relevant to the legitimacy of use of the member database. Members give their consent to receive electronic communications from the company. It's been asserted that needs to be pursuant to a board decision. Clearly there was no decision authorising use of the database by individual trustees.

Still look like double standards to me .

 

Equally, it looks strange to me if it were to be asserted that one group of 3 Trustees would require Board approval to send electronic communications to members at their own expense, yet another group of 6 Trustees could send paper communications to members at Trust expense without Board authorisation.

 

Precisely my concern. If there is a question of whether a subset of trustees can or should send materials outside the normal run of business to members, using the address lists held by the organisation, it must either be that this can only be done following a board decision, or that they have a wider authority to do so.

How this is paid for is then a separate matter, in which I find it hard to understand how the use of corporate funds for such exceptional expenditure can be justified without explicit board approval.

 

Surely a duty does exist to inform members of the Trust if procedures are not being followed and charity rules are potentially being broken.
How else are members supposed to find out what's going on?
Wait until the AGM and then hear a rumour which is dismissed from the top table to allow the incumbents to remain in post, only to find out later that the rumour was correct and the Trust is in big trouble?