Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I hear what you say, and I can't really comment on the Egm itself and what went on there apart from the vote results as I wasn't there.

Trouble is throughout all this we have seen accusations, people saying this is illegal, or that is illegal, that this is against that rule or this rule and I will admit, Mike W at the Egm had it absolutely right where he said none of us are actually legal people and none were present at the Egm.

We don't have definitive findings by courts, or authorities on any of what has gone on from any side dispite so many "offences" being made.

I personally only post about what I can see is a black and white definite rule or law which can be referenced in absolute.

In truth, and as per the Charity Commission advise, mediation could have been sought a long time ago, and not the railway vicars, someone completely independent and who the CC recommends, it would have perhaps shortened the disputes considerably.

My main worry now is the damage to the railway as a whole, and especially staff, volunteers and visitors at the start of the season. We all need new volunteers, at WB, EA, YVT, and here at East Group too. We need to have a positive face out to those prospective volunteers, that we are a friendly bunch really.

Although there are disagreements, we need to manage carefully the overspill into the public domain and also make sure it doesn't effect the income at Woody Bay, OSHI or donors across the board.

 

Just checked at Companies House:
BAGNALL 2819 COMPANY LIMITED

Company number 12298948

Anne is listed as the Chairman

 

If Anne Decides to instead hire the engine, she is chairman of elsewhere, who can blame her, also if she decides I want no part now on getting the railway out of a sticky hole, who can blame her, who knows, perhaps not being able to operate for a day because there's no loco available, or no staff with the correct training to be able to operate might help the penny to drop, As I see it, at least two people have held office far too long, there should be a requirement for trustees to have a break of service after 4 years , for one year, in that time, they can offer advice , but not be part of the decision making apparatus, If people don't step down, you have to ask are they doing this for personal reasons, ie EGO, because there does come a point where, they actually damage the board , not improve it.

 

Thank you for your conciliatory response. The arguements on this forum needs to stop. The EGM has taken place, the votes counted and the result declared so we need to put this behind us. We need to accept the result of the vote. Many of the comments posted recently suggest that some don't accept this democratic decision of the membership.

The AGM will take shortly and there will be a chance to elect trustees. The candidates will provide personal statements and this together with knowledge about the candidates will determine how the membership votes in the election.

 

@DaveE, I was, and it was a mess. The first question we should all ask is how much Trust money was spent on what was at its heart nothing more than a power grab? It cost at least £3000 for the mailout alone (plus the cost of the hall and the costs of everyone in getting there), for something that if 'the six' had been acting in good faith could have been done in May.

I hate to be so blunt, @DaveE , but if Mr Summers was the man you like to paint him as, he'd have refused to go along with this and spent the money on something more productive.

He did not. And I know he's your employer and you therefore presumably feel duty boud to defend him, but this is appalling behaviour - all six who supported this debacle should resign, as @Biermeister suggests.

Give it a rest, @DaveE - we don't need a Court to determine that you're not allowed to block valid nominations for a ballot, or that repeatedly lying to the Membership on the Trust's exposure to the OSHI/LBBC is wrong, or that lying to the EGM (as Mr Miles did on why the EGM had been called, and was embarrased when he was called out on it), is also wrong.

It's not complicated.

I'm not sure why you don't think that the Vicars couldn't have done a good job, @DaveE? But in any event, what did Mr Miles and 'the six' do to promote the concilation you seek? The refusal to work with those who had been elected was a disgrace.

The best way to 'manage the overspill' is not spin and papering over the cracks, but actually addressing the underlying issues, @DaveE . You've written much on the need for the Board to renew itself, and yet you appear to baulk at the most obvious route to that - those Trustees who are retiring by rotation not restanding.

If Mr Cowling and Mr Summers did not stand, then we'd have four new Trustees (as Anne and Chris have made clear that they're not restanding). This would give the Members a clear chance to choose their preferred way forwards.

 

Who is arguing, @H Cloutt ? And unless the reasons folk are concerned are addressed, the arguments won't stop.

I'm very confused by this. Either this is a classic strawman, or you're seeing demons I don't see - who is not accepting the results of the vote? Anne and Chris certainly have - and with good grace - so are you suggesting that the Board are not prepared to accept the defeat of their power grab, @H Cloutt ?

Quite so.

 

Have you read the posts? - it does seem that people are not prepared to accept the membership decision on Motions 1 and 2.

I for one am prepared to wait until the AGM to see what happens.

 

@H Cloutt - I don't like what was done to Anne and Chris - it was bullying and public character assassination. But I - and more importantly they - have accepted the vote and are (honourably) not standing again. I look forward to the AGM, too.

 

All in your opinion of course.

I've quite clearly said, as retiring trustees are allowed by the M&As to restand, then any of them, at any time, in any year, can do so. You advocate following the rules but now seem to want them bent for this year?

If any rules have been broken in the past, it doesn't mean that they should continue to be so, if anything we need to be more particular, more observant, and more careful of those rules.

Regarding the railway vicars, the CC say they can be used for religious disputes, otherwise it's an independent mediation service, I have posted that recently.

 

The listing at the Companies Office gives the following :
Appointed 2004 Summers, 2007 Cowling, Miles, Swainson. 2017 Curson. 2020 Barton. 2023 Whiteaker. The Secretary, Mr Nicholson, was a Trustee from 2007 to 2021.
All, except Mr Barton, are in their mid-to-late 70s. Mr Barton has just turned 69.
Whilst it is useful to have the young and enthusiastic tempered by the old and experienced on a Board, the current Board, being all in the latter category, lacks the energy and enthusiasm and vision required to drive the railway across the twenty of so miles available to us. Their disgraceful and continuing displays of hubris demonstrate that, if nothing else, they do not understand or recognize their responsibilities to the membership and have taken up a "bunker" mentality, which can only lead to the destruction of what they have achieved in the past.
I would hope that one or two of the longer serving Trustees would consider their position and step down before the AGM.

(And, in case anybody thinks I am being ageist, I am older than any of them ! )

 

Please desist from such accusations without evidence. Who are you accusing of not accepting the membership decision ? Names please. You know as well as the rest of us because it is self evident that a good proportion of the circa 3000 members do not read social media and only see the missives sent out by the 'majority six' Trustees. So how would a significant number see both sides of the argument in a situation where the minority were unable to reach about 40% of them ? That 40% made a decision based on their judgment on which way to vote on what they had seen, and that is why the vote for dismissals was close. - if 50 members had voted the other way the two Trustees would still be in post with the knowledge, skills and dedication they have displayed. I was assured by someone in a position to know that the proxy votes were overwhelmingly in favour of the two resolutions and those voting at the meeting overwhelmingly the other way. And one couple who had sent in proxies never-the-less attended the meeting where they changed their minds and said they saw others doing the same.

 

The proxies are a deadly weapon. I've seen that before. The room voted against; the chairman said: well, I'll just have to get out the proxies then :-(

 

Ignoring anything else there is clearly a 'succession' issue that I might hope the existing trustees can recognise.

 

@DaveE - actually, I try to restrict myself to facts, and where I've made a mistake over the last 662 pages, I've come back and corrected it. Perhaps you'd care to show where I'm wrong in this post?

You're missing the point, @DaveE.

You keep saying that the Board needs to be refreshed rather than 'the six' summarily removed. Fair enough, I don't disagree. But if you actually believe that then the only logical way you can achieve what you claim you want is to persuade those who are retiring by rotation not to restand. The fact that they can doesn't mean they need to - or that they should.

Let's be honest: the rules have been broken several times in the recent past, by people you insist on defending @DaveE - there's not any 'If' about it. And following the rules is made much easier where there are consequences for breaking them - which hasn't been consistent under Mr Miles and 'the six' because action depends on whether you're their mate or not.

Re: the Vicars - if both sides would be open to their mediating role, then there's no reason not to use them.

 

Well said, @Michael B

 

The mention of proxy votes brings another issue to mind....

AIUI the proxy votes sent in by post were counted the evening prior to the AGM. If so, then this brings another potential problem in itself. It may well be (but clearly I have no way of knowing) that (a) many of the those proxies were assigned to "the Chairman" and - more importantly - (b) at least some may have left the actual vote to their proxies discretion.

Now AIUI there were in fact two Chairmen for the AGM - Mike W for Motions 1 and 2, and Peter M for Motion 3. It does not seem to be beyond the realms of possibility that one may have exercised his 'discretion' to vote in a different way to the other. So how would that situation have been catered for, given that on the preceding evening no-one probably knew that (a) there would in fact be 2 Chairman and (b) who the 2nd one would be? Were 'discretionary' votes altered during the count at the end of the EGM where necessary?

 

@RailWest - when I commended Brom Bromidge a few pages back it was because he ensured that where the proxies were left to the Chairman of the meeting, whoever was chairing for each motion got to vote the proxies as he saw fit.

 

Sorry, but the results of the EGM ARE being accepted. I have seen nobody pushing for Anne or Chris to be reinstated, and no clamour for the AofAs to be accepted as they were possited. They were the only 3 resolutions.

 

We have 4 spaces, only 2 possibles up for re-election, as allowed by the M&As. Other than that we will have to agree to disagree.

And don't put words into my mouth, I haven't defended anyone, I've stated how the rules are, that's it.

Re: Vicars, religion is a spiritual path, not political. They can be swayed as anyone else and being in the L&B membership they would not be independent and therefore could be biased.

As I have said before, I do not go to church, I worship no God, I am pagan and a Pagan Federation member. You will have to forgive me for not recognising church authority in political issues and in this.

That said, I get along extremely well with church goers, including our very own retired vicar, with whom I have enjoyed many chats on life and different spiritual paths. I promote multi-faith services and respect other religions. But in this instance I would not agree, I wouldn't as its not of the church, or a religious or spiritual matter.

 

So you do want Cowling and Summers to remain on the Board then, @DaveE ? If so, do say so clearly, and then perhaps you'd like to explain why in light of their role in wasting time and money in a (fortunately failed) power grab which should have been spent on something more productive. As you weren't in the meeting, you wouldn't know that neither Cowling or Summers (or any of the others in 'the six') sought to correct Miles's inaccurate assertions about about why the meeting was happening in the first place: if they were fair and open minded, they would have done.

You don't need to be so bashful @DaveE , your preferences are perfectly clear. They just don't stack up with your other expressed preferences.

It's nothing to do with their God. It is more that their profession requires patience, empathy, listening skills and fairness. That's a pretty good start for any mediator, unlesss you can show that it doesn't apply in this case.