Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The Trustee in question is also an active volunteer at East Group and every single week gets his hands dirty along with the rest of us at the workshop.
He has been, as part of East Group, been the main person assigned by the group committee for acquisition of the metal work needed for the carriages and has done so for many years.

 

I did not intend to take anything away from anyone’s efforts. But it isn’t what trustees should be doing. One of the biggest challenges I think which tends to prevent good governance and good management on heritage railways is that so often trustees also wear another hat, often a managerial one. It can be hard both for them and everyone else to tell which hat is being worn!

 

Excellent. And again nothing taken away from anyone’s efforts. I was reacting not to whoever this individual is and their actions, but to you saying that the offer to donate new lamp pots had had to be referred to the trustees, nothing more.

 

It's a lucky railway that has so many volunteers that they can just do one job each. Particularly with trustees, which are hard to find. Surely it is better for them to be actively involved and getting their hands dirty?

 

No, it wasn't referred to the Trustees, it was referred to the person in OUR group and at the workshop who is responsible for the acquisition of the metal work for the carriages.

 

That’s not what I was saying. Yes railways frequently require people prepared to do more than one job. Yes it is desirable to have at least some trustees who get their hands dirty doing something that puts them in contact with the members and volunteers. That doesn’t prevent good management structures and policies being put in place nor excuse them not being put in place.

 

You described him as a trustee. Which rather makes my point about it being desirable to be clear about what hat people are wearing.

 

He is a Trustee, and in our group we know which hat he wears at any one time, whether as a Trustee or as a member of our group and one of the workshop team.

For metal work aquisition for our purposes in East Group, he wears that hat.

 

I am very pleased that it is clear for you. And now it is clearer for me also. You keep making it personal though, which it was not. I was making a rather more general point about the role of trustee. A point which I would not have made had you not described the person as trustee. They are a trustee, but as it turns out you’re now saying it was not in that role they made this decision. As it happens my general point is still valid, but the example is not.

 

Blimey! Are Trustees wasting more money on acquiring sets of hats?
Come to think of it, it's perhaps not such a bad idea. The Trustees could adopt Edward de Bono's 'Six Thinking Hats' idea! Just a thought.

 

I would have to say that the trustee in question really doesn't need to be a trustee to oversee the building of the replica carriages, he has done great work in what we see and the carriages have been his passion for many years but at the end of the day he only has to be a 'project manager' who reports to the trust thus freeing up that trustee position for someone with the experience to help push the project forward, lets be honest without a significant forthcoming extension how many carriages does a railway need to service 0.9 miles of track, after 10 years of numbers 7 and 17 returning to service and the others slowly following suit it is only now that planning is going to be applied for to build some sort of shed that will accommodate 4 and that will only happen if planning is granted, number 17 now by all accounts needs significant work over the winter, with 2 more in the pipeline plus the very long awaited return of van 23 one has to wonder where all of these vehicles are going to be stored and what exactly is wrong with not taking up @Michael B on his offer of correct lamp tops so that they can be seen on the next carriage, the ones in store can go on another

 

Maybe I should make myself a "Proud to be an Armchair Nutter" badge to wear at my PC ?

As regards any 'action' against me, if that were to be the case then I would regard it as their loss and my gain in terms of more time to devote to other interests/groups where my input is welcome.

 

The reason for my irritation was that I gave copies of detailed full-size drawings and photographs of lamps to Charles 14 months ago (based on two battered originals I borrowed 40 years ago) to correct the lamps needed in Coach 9 then at the planning stage. When an offer has been made to pay the full cost of replacements why retain the inaccurate old ones ? The lamps are prominent items on the coach and it is important not to replicate previous inaccuracy in a situation where so much effort has been made to get the rest right. It may be intended that new lamps will be used on the next coach to be started on, but over a year ago I was interested in getting it right with the present coach. It sounds to me that the squashed lamp found at Landkey used to base the lamps created in the past was nothing to do with the L & B.

 

It was good to read about the efforts of many volunteers who had a work week on the various L & B sites (Snapper, Chelfham, Woody Bay etc) A lot of work was done and the efforts really paid off in improvements throughout the route! Well Done to all concerned.

 

Where/when did you read that please?

 

Without being involved in the railway and not knowing anything other than on here I found it interesting that when the whole Sam Alton open AI thing kicked off and with the staff wanting the board to quit the first thought that entered my head was this railway.
I guess that must say something about dis-functionality at both organisations.

 

It was a couple of Facebook postings from Stuart Nelhams regarding the first of the volunteer work weekend and Simon Ellery who posted some more pictures.

 

...ah, I thought perhaps I'd missed some 'News' on the website, but could not find any.

 

They may not have to meet in person but any meeting should still be properly called. (Unless the requirements of the companies act have been amended in the Articles) In many instances if the 'meeting' was incorrectly called by not officially and properly notifying all directors/trustees of the when / where / how the meeting would take place then no business at that meeting is valid.(As the ex6 found out at the WSR)

 

If the required number of members do call for an EGM then the trustees must do so within the Articles/Co Law specified time frame. That is, of course, if you have decent trustees who take any notice of minor nuisances like the Articles or Company Law.
Previous experience with the Charity Commission appears to show that unless you are dealing with multi million pound problems and there is a strong possibility of positive press reports for the CC action they are not interested. Other than that they tend to say (much like linesclear) that it is up to the management and/or members to sort things out, carefully turning a blind eye to the fact that if it is the management that is at the root of the problem the members can't do anything anyway.