Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I have no idea how many charities are registered in this country but it is unlikely a governing body could look at all issues raised, hence the need for the impact to be large in one way or another.

 

As I understand the law a trustee appointed by a vote of the members can only be removed by a vote of the members or if the individual is in breach of the few specific restrictions (mental health, repeated non attendance etc) in the Companies Act. Trustees can, however, remove other trustees from assigned positions (such as Chairman) by a simple majority vote but they would still stay on as a 'basic' (for want of a better description) trustee

 

Some Trusts have Articles which (a) require a Trustee to be a member (and sometimes for a specified period - eg a year - prior to election) and then (b)permit a person to be removed as Trustee if they cease to be a member for any reason. Of course, that does not apply to L&BR Trustee as the L&BRT M&AoA do not require a Trustee to be a member anyway.

So, in theory, you could then have the ridiculous situation that the Board votes to remove a Trustee's membership, but can't then remove them from the Board for that reason, so that Trustee then remains jointly responsible - for example - for decisions made by the Board about confidential correspondence to be sent to Trust members, but can't actually be sent a copy themself as they are no longer a member even though they will have had to be shown a draft as part of the Board's decision-making process !

 

Summary notes of the 11/11/23 annual members' forum're now on the Trust website, written by a member who was there. It's an informative and positive account but makes no mention whatsoever of the strife between the two groups of Trustees even though all three of the 'minority' Trustees were present and spoke about other matters.

This is surprising since most members must by now be aware of both the private and public communications issued by both factions, and you'd think some'd be concerned enough to raise it at such an event.

Does this mean the forum agenda was set in advance by the Chairman and discussion of anything else not permitted? If so that's not what I'd call an 'open forum' to enable members to raise any concerns. Perhaps if it had been maybe the Chairman wouldn't have been so willing to publish an independent account
The Lynton & Barnstaple Railway - Trust Notices and information (lynton-rail.co.uk)

 

And then you can also have the problem of a non member attending an AGM as a Trustee...

 

There are just shy of 170,000 registered charities with the regulator looking at around 700 reports a month.

 

Just quickly, I did attend the Open Forum and I will say that there was a few times it was asked if there were, "Any questions?".

Rob's excellent minute taking is an accurate account of the meeting and no questions were raised other than documented in his account.

 

Thank you for clarifying this Dave - I remain surprised that no members, including the minority Trustees, wanted to raise the issue in what was a 'members only' forum. Perhaps they've reached an understanding in private and all is now well. I'd like to hope so - but that would surprise me too.

 

Perhaps it was simply the case that it was considered not to be the most suitable occasion? In the meantime, AIUI the list of some 60-odd questions submitted to the Trustees prior to the meeting remains unanswered.

 

I too attended and Robs summary is very much on the mark although what it doesn't portray is the feeling of the day and my personal opinion is that was very much subdued, any applause was almost as if it was out of courtesy to do so, even the lunch time gossip was rather downbeat, it wasn't know at the time either that the 24 page document had been sent out otherwise when the chairman asked for extra donations to help cover the hire of the venue a few objections might have been made and some questions no doubt asked, the floor was open to questions at about 14.45 but I think most people had had enough by then, quite a few did actually comment that this one was a total waste of their time travelling to

 

Thanks both for responding. I remain surprised. Although not a General Meeting this was a members-only meeting therefore a suitable opportunity to air the dirty linen in private.

 

There would appear to have been good news re the increasing visitor numbers and increased revenue. The popularity of the new Woody Bay tea room and good trading figures from the OHSI are also to be noted. So not all doom and gloom.

 

It was also said at the meeting that none of those figures have been officially confirmed, they are interim figures

 

@Meatman - did they mention whether these were gross takings or net of VAT?

 

@Tobbes , all figures were gross takings

 

One would hope not. Turnover doesn't include VAT.

 

Recent copies of EA's Trackbed Trails have been published on their website:

Trackbed Trails – Exmoor Associates (exmoor-associates.co.uk)

An update on parts in production for Yeo and Exe can be seen here (from 23:40):

 

Any of you guys have experience in the licenced trade?

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Well spotted - I haven't even posted the news item yet! The latest edition (42), along with YVT's Viaduct Views has been emailed to shareholders, postal versions will be following shortly for those not on email.