Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Yes, but you rapidly get into nuances, and as I am sure you realise, nuances in IT requirements drive cost!

Specifically, looking at the L&B Trust website, there are various membership categories:

• Individual
• Joint
• Family
• Junior
• Corporate
• Life
• Life joint

So there’s some tricky issues there about online access: (Do joint members and family members have one login or one per person? How does a corporate membership work - shared credentials? What process do you have for expiring a life membership online access when the life member - ahem - expires? Are there particular concerns (such as safeguarding) around junior access?

So doing it properly and accounting for those use cases - and also accepting that any system needs to adapt to the membership tiers that exist, rather than force the tiers to conform to a system - is non-trivial. At which point, I question the value - or at least understand why in many societies, member-only information still ends up being easiest and cheapest to distribute in hard copy!

Tom

 

I don't disagree - which comes back to the question of whether it is desirable to put information like this behind lock and key.

 

100 times this.

 

Yes and no! Print to PDF doesn't work perfectly even on some apparently normal web pages. Some online documents that I have seen can only be viewed one page at a time. So yes, you could screen grab or copy-and-paste one page at a time, but would anyone go to that much trouble only so they can pass it on to a non-member?

 

As importantly, why would it be worth keeping this material so tightly controlled. When I've worked with genuinely confidential material, it's tended to be marked "Uncontrolled if printed" precisely because there's very little certainty about either security or version control.

 

Each membership (single, joint, family etc.) has a unique reference code. As previously used on the L&B archive site, it would be a simple matter to apply to join, providing name, email address and membership no. There is a simple admin task (prompted by an email) for somebody to confirm that detail, and grant access to the members-only pages. Those pages could include links to published members-only documents, including on-line voting etc. Members can also choose which categories (Newsletters, Magazines, voting papers, etc.) of communication they want to receive by post or via the site, and if they want email notification. Every time a distribution is being planned, a simple report will provide lists of all those who wish to receive that category by post, and all who would want an email notification. et voila! Once a year (perhaps a month after renewals) it is a not too onerous task to go through the list of signed-up online members and delete their online membership. Job done. It needen't be that onerous a task or a great expense and could save £000s a year. I personally would still want to receive my Magazine by post, but the rest will be fine online. Also, if members wish to share their publications with others, whether by post or online, there is nothing to stop them, nor should there be any reason to.

 

We're talking about a heritage railway for God's sake, not MI5!

I accept that there will always be some board-level items that are commercially sensitive and can't be widely disclosed. (Work related to filming, for example, is often very tightly embargoed at the request of the client). But in the main, communication should be presumed to be open. If you start from that premise, and also from the premise than an online members' -only portal is technically complex to arrange in a rigorous way, then my view is just make comms as open as possible - and if a few non-members read a newsletter before some members do, it is hardly the end of the world.

(Staff / volunteer communication for operational and safety-critical stuff is slightly different, and I think should be more tightly controlled: there is no legitimate interest in widely publishing your operational notices, for example. But systems such as HOPS provide a reasonably cost-effective way to manage that, and many of the problems of maintaining a member-only portal with complex tiers of membership don't apply to volunteers: the annual confirmation that a volunteer is still active being a fairly small burden to bear).

NatPres has documented quite a number of instances of political unrest at various heritage railways over the last decade or more; and there are probably other less high-profile examples, I'd bet a dime a dozen that an underlying cause in all those examples has been a presumption of secrecy about information flow. The root cause may be some other issue, but the secrecy causes a small issue to balloon into a large one. Secrecy also inevitably means you don't get a plurality of views on decision making, which increases the risk that you get blindsided late by what in hindsight is a very obvious problem.

You'll be aware in software development of the concept of "fail fast" - which doesn't mean you should deliberately aim to fail, but rather if an idea is going to fail, it is better that that happens early before significant resource has been spent. The easiest way to achieve that is to be open with information flow and decision making.

Tom

 

Which is precisely why I'd favour a more open approach, not the current restrictive approach. This is about member communications, not operations - for which I believe the L&B uses HOPS.

It can be done - @Old Kent Biker gives a view on how - but the more important question is how much need there is for it to be done - the BLS website is also used for sales and for sharing resources (e.g. track diagrams) with members which, if not restricted, might undermine the willingness of non-members to join. We know from last year that a mailshot to all members costs about £3k; that gives quite a good indication for any cost/benefit analysis of how investment might or might not be repaid.

I'll go further. A while back @DaveE shared how some members are resolutely offline, and how things like the newsletter distribution are focused on meeting their needs. While I understand why that might be, I think that's the wrong approach, as it focuses on appealing to existing supporters over potential supporters. Bluebell Times, which is openly available, demonstrates how a communication targeted at existing supporters can go to a wider audience, at no cost, and open up discussion about the railway. That approach to communications includes rather than excludes, and builds support rather than constricts it.

 

And so we get back to the model where past issues are online. A couple of charities I am a member of send hard copy newsletters. When a new one is issued the previous goes online. This seems to work well, members always have the latest news, but older issues can be read by anyone at a later date.
There is also one charity who issue hard copy newsletters and non members can purchase a copy for a fee.
Both ways preserve exclusivity for those who have paid for a membership with incentives but allow for a wider audience to read at a later date.

 

It is deeply saddening. There are some pathetic behaviours as well, but it is not the whole of the heritage railway world, nor is it all people within that world.
My own view for what that is worth, is that heritage railway governance is long overdue for improvement. Unfortunately the nature and tempo of the changes needed are not well understood by those who seek to make them and are frequently poorly executed as a result. Even if recommended practices (with their many shortcomings) are followed a strong sense of keeping the volunteers and members at the centre of the organisation will and does alleviate/avoid trouble.
The Land B is led by a group (the majority) who wouldn’t understand basic good governance practices if they stood up and poked them in the eye. There are many instances that demonstrate that.
In other places good governance is understood, but the communication flows requires are not established first.
Most railways though avoid both traps most of the time.

 

Yes, the L&B does use HOPS, which is by all accounts working well for the operational management of the railway.

Exmoor Associates contacts most Shareholders by email, including Newsletters etc. Those without email (or who perhaps express a preference) are communicated with by post at the same time, except for any postal delivery delays, which seems to work well for everybody. I believe this was a major factor in the success of the recent votes on constitutional changes, with multiple paths for shareholders to take part in the process. EA also publish older versions of their Newsletters on the website for all to access. Again, it seems to work well.

 

I'm on the L&BR HOPS (as well as for elsewhere) and it works fine for me. It's just a shame that the Trust seems to cater less well for the 'rest of the membership'.

Equally, as an EA shareholder I'm happy to get their stuff electronically and their overall management of 'modern forms of communications' merely emphasis how much the Trust is lagging behind :-(

 

What an odd comment ! I can't say I've ever considered a society members' newsletter as a "perk/benefit/inticement of being a member" . I've produced/edited a few and received many but their primary function is to keep the membership informed of the activities of the organization concerned, in particular executive/managerial decisions, policy, and progress with projects, thus enabling the member to be able to take an informed part in any discussion about future direction and the consequent actions. There is seldom any reason to restrict the information as it is of little interest to the public at large, but it certainly does not need to be "exclusive" !
In fact most people join a society of this nature to help progress its purposes with money, labour or both. They are not concerned with "exclusivety" (what is so special about Rail Preservation, after all ?") but are concerned with the good management of their organization and their assets.

We should be concerned that, with a need to accrue funds to build the railway, nothing is spent unnecessarily. The production and postage costs of newsletters and magazines are considerable and could be noticeably reduced by using email. Even if, say, 20% of the members still wanted papers by "snail-mail" the savings on the other 80% would run into many thousands of pounds.

And, by the way, having reports out in the open, particularly on the internet, helps to attract interest and supporters. Just look at the "Broadway" threads of the GWSR or the "Bridging the Gap" postings of the GCR : both have raised millions for well planned and publicised projects. And these are only two examples out of many.

Time to modernize !

 

As has been said here before, other organisations post their board minutes on their open websites (presumably after acceptance by the following meeting). It would seem that at the L&B, they're not even posted to all the trustees

 

Pardon? If the Trustees aren't getting the minutes of their own meetings, what on earth is going on?

 

I am not clear on whether the full board is even meeting, or are they still refusing to include the three newer members, which would make any decisions or actions taken since the AGM illegal ?

 

Maybe odd to you but I am not a member of just "Rail Preservation" organisations. I have other interests too and some do e-newsletters, some don't and still do postal.

The newsletter we have is a membership newsletter, it's is part of the bundle you get when you join, therefore you need to make it feel exclusive to keep old and attract new members.

I do though see a possibility of electronically publishing older back copies some time later.

There are fors and against for all ways that newsletters are distributed.

 

All the secrecy involved with the activities of the L&BR Trustees suggests the workings of a private club. The L&BR Trust is not a private club nor are its Trustees an elite, entitled minority. This is the simple message which must somehow be transmitted to all 'ordinary' members... And soon!

 

Please re-read my original comment. What I considered odd was your statement that a newsletter was a "perk/benefit/inticement of being a member" whereas I argue that it is an essential tool for informing and including the membership.

And, sorry, but I don't get this "exclusive" idea that you promote. I can't see how that will "keep old and attract new members" as you put it.
@Biermeister sums it up above : "The L&BR Trust is not a private club nor are its Trustees an elite, entitled minority."

Finally, do tell us why you think the considerable savings to be made by using email are not worthwhile, particularly when the Trust is very short of money ?

 

If you market your membership bundle as having a magazine, access to a members area and receiving the latest news via a newsletter, those items should feel exclusive, or a perk of being a member, not something that is widely free anyway. Yes, publish back copies on a website, but the current newsletter, if part of the bundle, should be exclusive while it's current.

I actually enjoy receiving my newsletter by post rather than email which could get buried in all the rest of the electronic junk I receive each day. Direct mail shots have a more personal feel, more memorable and are known to have a better response than emails (I've looked around and it's anywhere between 10-30% better response over an email campaign), which with the barrage of electronic crap we get now are likely to be scan read rather than read properly, ignored (either by accident or not or go to spam/junk) or flagged to read later and never actually are.

Many have specific email addresses for newsletters and commercial email correspondence, I have one, and tbh I rarely look at it because by the time I have waded through the emails from supplier mail, adverts, promotions and sales emails I am losing the will to live.

So it isn't just about private clubs or elite trusts, there is a load of things to consider.

It should also be remembered that quite a number of our members are not PC literate, or even have a smart phone, they are not of the tech age.

As for cost I think that was covered in a post above where the more electronic comms and systems you use so does your IT costs rise.

I dare say there may be a break point somewhere where one becomes cheaper than the other depending on membership numbers, I don't have the info, membership demographics, costings or formula to work that out and I'm not interested in doing so either.

My main point is, the L&B is not unique and alone in having a newsletter which is for members only or part of a membership bundle nor are they unique in it being postal, a postal newsletter which may actually gain a better response than electronic.