Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

This is for the EGM - the AGM will come later in May

 

The distinction is important (noting the wise words of @Jamessquared about what it implies if ordinary members are discussing the details of governance).

Where the Articles themselves are concerned, I am reserving final judgment until I have been able to read them. However, if they provide the widely and credibly rumoured powers, I am unable to understand why (a) such powers are necessary or (b) why it is so urgent that they be adopted.

It is unclear what problems exist with the current Articles that are so critical that they require immediate approval, at significant cost. The document being sent out, which was not in my post today, has not gone through a review process outside the Trust board, and has not had the chance to benefit from wider review and input. Aside from anything else, the nature of an EGM means that the resolution cannot be amended - meaning that if a fatal defect were to be found, it would have to be rejected.

We then have the fact that the L&B is subject to internal factional politics, where the Trust board 6:3 split reflects the differences in views. If the rumours of content are correct, then the appearance is of a factional attempt to entrench the power of the current dominant faction.

 

Oops - will edit my post.

 

@H Cloutt the reason that the legal advice should be published (if indeed it actually exists) is that what Mr Miles and Mr Nicholson are claiming is not what a straightforward reading of the Companies Act 2006 would suggest.

The apparent fact that this 'legal advice' hasn't been shared with all of the Trustees is appalling, and only adds to scepticism over its contents.

 

Which suggests that you know more about the nature of the legal advice than the rest of us. How do you know that it hasn't been shared with all the trustees?

 

Well, for a start, Anne Belsey has already stated (over on exmoor-ng) that it has not, and not only that but that the decision on the M&AoA was taken also with the minority Trustees being refused sight of the legal advice received on that as well.

How on earth can the Chairman - in all honesty - run a Board where vital information is not shared amongst all the Trustees?

Years ago, back in the days of the WSRA saga, I wrote to the then Chairman and said that - as a member and volunteer from the earliest days long before he came on the scene, I now felt ashamed to a member of an Association that was being run in the manner that he was doing it. Needless to say, I never got a reply. I've got to the stage now where I'm minded to do the same in respect of the L&BRT, but I suspect it would prove equally futile.

 

This sounds suspiciously like our old friend “legal advice, innit” which is supposed to suppress all questions and criticisms. Are there any lawyers on here who might comment?

 

Simply, @H Cloutt , as @RailWest describes above. If Anne is wrong, then 'the six' will say so - but despite plenty of opportunity they have not.

This advice - if it indeed exists - is not commercially confidential: it is about proceedure in running an EGM. If it exists, and you are playing by the rules, why wouldn't you release it?

 

I would suggest that for any lawyer to be able to comment, they would have to be in possession of at least an outline of the contents, and for that matter wether this "legal advice" actually exists in any form beyond a vague, 2-word phrase.

 

OK but it has been suggested that three Board members were refused sight of alleged “legal advice”.

 

Quite. Which does suggest to my cynical mind that this invisible "legal advice" is perhaps a paper tiger.

 

What options are there? that the membership can take and not damage the very thing they support, The project has to be bigger than peoples ego's, I think that if the 6 won't step down, then you have to make them, and that means calling your own EGM, with a vote of no confidence in the 6, then co-opting others onto the board to make it legal,
the only other option is to withdraw your support for the charity, stop financial support, to stave it of funds, and start another, without the toxic personalities, but you risk, bringing everything crashing down, and might have to rebuild trust, from a low point, but that might be what needs to happen, or you give up, and put your energies into something else,

 

That seems likely but, if not, treating Board members unequally seems unacceptable surely?

 

Before things get to those extremes surely the thing to do is get these proposals voted down. I don’t know what the correct legal terminology is but I don’t like anything that even looks like an attempt to rig the game.

 

But of course. It is iniquitous, and the Six are behaving in an increasingly scurrilous manner.
We live in an increasingly totalitarian world. Even our bl**dy hobby is infected by it

 

I think we need to read the revised articles before deciding to 'vote them down'. We have been saying on this forum that the articles need revision for ages so we should at least read what is proposed to see if they address our concerns. They are not automatically wrong. Until we read them we don't know that they are an attempt to 'rig the game'.

 

Yes, you are of course correct about the Articles. . I had in mind the alleged specific change which would gift the selection of candidates to the existing Trustees.

On the defenestration of two Trustees, I think the matter is already clear cut.

 

@martin1656 things aren't great, but they're also not that bad.

The only reason for holding this EGM now is to change the rules of the election in May - if this wasn't the case, then the M&As could be considered then. Why would 'the six' do this? The only credible answer is that they are afraid that they will lose the election and if three reform minded candidates are elected (Chris Duffell plus two others), then 'the six' would be four and they'd lose control of the Trust.

It's appalling that we've got to this stage - the costs of this unnecessary EGM will be several thousand pounds that could be spent on many better things, but this is the choice of 'the six': on the basis of revealed preferences, retaining power is much more important to them than carefully husbanding the Trust's resources, it would seem.

By far the best thing would be to cancel this meeting, have a broad based working group to look at where the M&As need updating, and bring the draft back to the Autumn Members' meeting, with a vote next year for implementation in 2026. There's no rush - so let's do it properly.

 

Well, the minority Trustees clearly would have read them as they were at the Board meeting at which the EGM proposal was passed, so if they have concerns then I would suggest so should the membership. And do not forget that, if at any time before or up to the vote on the day some error is found with them, it can not be corrected - once the invitation to vote has been issued then all you can vote is Yes or No, you can't propose an amendment.

It is all far too rushed, there is no obvious good reason for it to be rushed, so it is not surprising that people smell a rat....

 

The alleged specific change is just alleged - we need to read what is proposed.