Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

As @Jamessquared said upthread, the point at which we have to get deeply into a governance discussion, things have gone pretty badly wrong already. In our case, what is clear is the lack of trust in the truthfulness of 'the six' and contrasting suspicions about the motives of everyone else.

But beyond not noticing governance until things go wrong, and that following the law should be pretty fundamental to all of us, @Small Prairie and @H Cloutt, I'd observe one other thing about governance. As @35B said nicely,

Not least because we are going to be asking public / quasi-public bodies (e.g., Lottery Funds, Community Ownership Fund) for a great deal of money for the reinstatement. And being able to do the simple administrative stuff properly is an absolute requirement to be taken seriously; without it, you're not even going to get a hearing.

So yes, getting the boring admin right is critical to getting on with building a railway. You've got to have the first to get the second, which we all want.

 

The wording on the website "Notice is hereby given …" suggests that whoever posted it believes that it does count as formal notice. Many of us may disagree.

 

I don't get your point here, Martyn. What is the "considerable overhead" in receiving votes as email as against receiving them postally and after allowing for the savings on sending the papers by email in the first place ?

 

Having managed the email voting process for EA last year, I do have some experience of this. The effort to receive, reformat (Voters used several different formats to return their votes - text, photos, scans, pdf's, etc.), track, record, print, and prepare stats etc. was pretty time-consuming, spread over a month for only some 400 shareholders. The effort to manage 3000 voters in a shorter timeframe would be considerably more, at a time when those involved would most likely be preparing for the GM. It's not the cost, it's the time that would be considerable if done properly.

 

Hi Martyn

I guess you could also ask members to reply on a pre set format that say you design and sent out would that make life any easier?

 

An EGM on 23 March followed by an AGM on 11 May must seem, well, extraordinary to the average Trust member. It will be interesting to see how this gets presented in the papers once they are distributed. Most posters on here will be aware that the so-called Trustees are playing fast and loose with the Trust but I am concerned as to how this might be able to be communicated to the Trust Members at large. I do hope those who live a lot nearer Lynton than I can come up with a well-constructed plan of action.

 

Trouble is that non-IT people think that this is simplier than it us - this is a classic example of 'a little knowledge is dangerous'. I have participated in online voting and this is often 'hosted' by specialist providers. Clearly there is a cost in setting this up and I would not be sure it's worth it for the L and B at this stage - I also have concerns about security. I don't remember whether I provided an email address when I joined the L and B - if I did I don't remember which one I used and whether I still have access to it.

 

There are trade offs between cost and risk. However, these also need to be considered in terms of participation.

EA opted for an approach that was low cost but high effort, but also sought and achieved a high level of participation.

In the L&B Trust case, the recourse is to old school paper mailings, which are expensive and do little to encourage turnout.

Neither of these are especially secure. Emails can be spoofed, there are no sample signatures on file to allow proper verification of paper forms, and the Trust AGM sign in procedures were hardly designed to ensure a true member only event. On the other hand, neither EA nor the Trust are particularly obvious targets for outsiders.

Secure online systems do exist, and are I am sure charged for on some kind of pay per use model - I’ve seen the same technology at work in the background for both NT and corporate AGMs. I’ve no idea how those charges would compare against the existing practices, and the enhanced security would need to be considered in comparison with the discouraging effect of authentication technologies on those who are not internet confident.

That’s before considering factors like people changing emails (though the membership form asks for it on renewal and any organisation should be regularly refresh its records as a matter of good practice, not to mention legal compliance)

Edit. Having reread @H Cloutt's comment, I will note that I work in the IT industry and have experience of how such subscription based service models can work, and of how easy/difficult it can be to make them effective. They are not a silver bullet, but IMHO have significant advantages over paper/email processes.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I pay my subscription to L and B by Direct Debit and I don't remember seeing a renewal form. Since this is due to happen shortly I will know for sure.

I am membership secretary for a local group and although most email seem to get through at the end of the renewal period I am always left with a handful of people who haven't responded [or who have responded and the email hasn't got through to me]. We were sensible enough to collect phone numbers and have some chance of contacting them. However, people change mobile numbers and an increasing number of people are giving up their landlines as they move to FTTC connections. We do have a system for members who don't have an email!

 

We did, with official voting forms as per normal, sent by post or email to everyone, but wanted to be as flexible and inclusive as possible.

 

I don't pay by DD (my wife disapproves of DD memberships because they reduce the element of choice!), so had to complete the renewal form. If the renewal doesn't involve a paper or online form to validate details, that is a concern as it would undermine the reliability of the membership database. Other organisations I'm connected with do periodic reviews of contact details to avoid that risk

 

I'm a WSRA Life Member. Despite not needing to pay, every year I get sent a form with my details and asked to reply confirming them (or amending as necessary). This year they even sent a SAE for the reply !

 

On the cost point, @H Cloutt , we've had to rerun two elections in three years because of actions of Board, and that has cost a minimum of £6,000. Given that there is no notes that I can find in the accounts for any of this being reimbursed to the Trust by those responsible for the unnecessary expenditure, I can only assume that no one has been held accountable.

Against these repeated costs, then investigating an electronic system that would have the side benefit of enfranchising our overseas members seems like a logical step.

 

The fact that it is just about as clear as mud who is the current membership secretary make me wonder just how up to date each members details are really up to date.

I know for a fact that someone from the Trust tried to ring me on my old land line number but gave up, I am not sure if there is the facility to update your own records or not with in the L&BR Group.

I am sure that there are a great deal of improvements on how to deal with members person details and security as well.

 

SNAFU!

 

The Trustees may not get everything right, but members should really be responsible for ensuring that their individual records are kept up to date. Ian Cowling is listed in the latest L&B Magazine as the Trustee responsible for Membership. His contact details are included, along with those for all the trustees, so if any member is unsure if their details are correct, I'm sure he would be pleased to hear from them to put the record straight.

 

I've just been sent a picture of the Agenda for the EGM which some have received this morning - mine is yet to arrive.

I will be writing to the Trustees today to understand how there are Ordinary Resolutions on the Agenda when there has been no opportunity for Members to propose thier own motions.

This is especially concerning given that Tony Nicholson wrote to Anne Belsey to say that there was 'legal advice' - which I understand has not been shared with the whole of the Trust Board, let alone the Members - which explicitly ruled out motions that had not been voted on by the Board at a properly constituted meeting.

Tony Nicholson needs to publish this 'legal advice' immediately, and if there are to be Ordinary Resolutions, there needs to be adequate opportunity for any Members to propose and second a Resolution, and for the Trust to then send these out to the Members ahead of the Meeting.

As it stands, 'the six', aided and abetted by Tony Nicholson, are behaving utterly disgracefully and in contravention on the most basic notions of fair play.

Toby

 

Could you please explain why the legal advice need to be published? It's normal practice when an EGM is called that it only discusses matters raised by those calling it be that the board or the appropriate number of members. If this is the case in the L and B's current articles the the legal advice might be to confirm that this is the case. Clearly you have motions in mind which you would like to put to the membership at this EGM - have you asked that these be added to the Agenda?

I think we should reserve any judgements we might have about the meeting and the new Articles until members have received the paperwork and have had a chance to read it

 

Addressing only the procedural point, a request was made to add ordinary resolutions to the agenda that was declined "on legal advice" as the EGM had been called for a specific purpose by the board. It had - for the M&As.

The issue is not the validity of the EGM, but the inclusion of some ordinary motions that were not part of that resolution, while denying others the right to be presented because they were not part of that resolution. Both statements can't be true.

 

Agreed. I must confess I had assumed that the EGM [edited from AGM] had been called by the board to consider the 2 resolutions and to adopt the Articles [there is no mention of the Memorandum on the Agenda]. No doubt this will become clear when we recieve the paperwork.