Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

>>>I think you might have to get the AGM, stuck down as not being correctly called.....

At the moment we have not yet reached the deadline for the *formal* notification of the AGM to members, so IMHO it is not possible yet to be able to determine its validity. There is the other question of whether it is possible to have an AGM that - as a general meeting - has been called correctly BUT the Agenda in invalid by reason of some omission.

 

Which is fair - and all that most armchair members can hope to do.

The only thing that I'd add is that leadership isn't just about skills - it's also about who can best help take the Trust forward over the next three years. Point skills matter a lot, but are only part of the picture. Similarly, I'd be wary of a candidate standing on a platform of "I've been around years" as that may not be a good guide to what's needed over the next 3 years.

Edit. PS - This is very specifically not aimed at any candidate, "old" or "new". The new board faces some massive challenges in the aftermath of the withdrawal of the planning application, needing to address both the fallout (internal and external) from that, plus building the foundations for whatever comes next. Our choices for candidates need to reflect both their technical and political skills, to make the L&BRT greater than the sum of it's parts. All board members, sitting and newly elected alike, need to be part of that - and some of this process may require killing sacred cows.

 

I definitely agree we need to look into some sort of museum at some point, personally I think that's something for the medium term future, purely because it will take a fair bit of organising and setting up, time and energy which other things need first.
Besides, for now, if anyone wants to know anything, if we can get him to agree, we can just put @Michael B in a little booth somewhere and he will tell you all about it for a few coins

 

Perhaps someone might take onboard the task of itemising and cataloguing all new items (item description, where obtained from and when, where it was originally located, accession number and date of accession) so that once a museum is established in the medium term future, as you say, then it becomes less onerous than it would otherwise seem? I profess no museum skills but I would imagine help would be freely given by a local museum. (Is there one in Barnstaple? If not, then Exeter.)

 

Where is this 150 word rule promulgated? If applied, it would seem unhelpful for new faces to get their story across to the membership, particularly unfortunate in current circumstances.

 

@DaveE , the level of discontent with the situation is clear from posts like @martin1656 , and when deciding who to vote for, I'll look at what the candidates tell us about their future vision, and for those who have been Trustees, their performance in post.

For Charlie Summers, this is complicated: the carriages have rightly earned praise, but they did not - and do not - require him to be a Trustee. Set against this, I have to look at what he has done as a Trustee - and that is to be a reliable Peter Miles yes-man. There is no evidence at all the Mr Summers objected to the illegal barring of Anne Belsey's candidacy last year, no evidence that he broke with 'the six' over the misrepresentation and lies about the finances available for the reinstatement, and no evidence that he opposed the power grab in the proposed M&As that were so resoundingly rejected by the membership last month.

In fact, all of the evidence is, sadly, that Mr Summers happily went along with all of these things, and didn't object (much less resign) over any of them.

I look forward to his statement, but unless and until I can be assured that he's going to stand up for the Trust's rules and fair play, it's impossible in good conscience to vote for him.

 

My understanding is that it isn't a rule @62440 , it is simply an edict from Peter Miles - unless others can help, I can't see anything in the M&As.

So whilst Miles and 'the six' can control what is in the pack, I'm delighted that candidates are making the effort to put out manifestos of a length that allows for a serious discussion of their vision and their skills. It's frankly ridiculous and shamful that the Trust isn't facilitating this, and I'm grateful to Exmoor Associates for doing so, as @Meatman reported above.

 

I have no doubt someone could be starting something like that. Whether that's an immediate need on the board is open to debate.

With the complaints which have been heard recently the more pressing matters which need to be resolved do I think rather leave a new venture, which a museum is really, a bit further down the list of priorities.

In general I get the feeling the wider membership have no more patience for what we have seen in the past year. The trust as is do have to be more careful and any new trustees do need to ease themselves in and not go in "hot".

Any new trustees will need to get up to speed, and existing matters in hand dealt with as a matter of urgency being as the Trust has been stagnated this past year buried in dispute.

A big requisite of being a trustee, or team leader, etc is the ability to get people together, building those teams to make things happen.

One thing I will say about a Charles, his team building skills are invaluable, as has shown here in Essex with the Essex Group and the workshops we have here rebuilding the carriages etc culminating in at least two awards and a BEM.

There is a museum in Barnstaple, but it would be better I think to try and keep anything like an L&B museum curated "in house". Like many things in running this railway, the more we can keep in house, and pass those skills and knowledge onto new volunteers to take over later the better.

 

I suggest your answer is Article 69 which gives the directors power to make rules and regulations for the management of the company so long as they are not inconsistent with the other Articles.

I'd agree that 150 words is not going to tell anyone much but the minimum specified in the Articles is the information about candidates that would have to be on the company/'s register of directors which is little more than name, address and confirmation that they are not disqualified from acting as directors.

 

I tend to agree - though my reading of the rule suggests that an ad hoc requirement promulgated like this is a deficient way to implement such rules.

 

You make a lot of assumptions Toby, Charles isn't a yes man at all. I know of certain things in the past he hasn't agreed with the board and indicated as such before hand, but when it comes to a vote, once the vote has been taken and if he is overruled he accepts the result of the vote, and the motion or policy accepted, and there onwards speaks of the policy of the trust as a collective.

We have on occasion previously asked Charles to ask the board on certain matters concerning the carriages, he will have his view and will take ours too to the board, and at times the Trust has decided differently on what we have proposed, on return Charles has always said, "The board has decided..." and that's our answer from the board as a collective.

We don't know the results of board voting and we don't know how much Charles has dissented in the past on various matters but to assume he is a yes man is wrong.

As for not needing to be on the board to do the carriages, if that's the logic, no one needs to be on the board for anything, planning, TWAO, museum, none of it.

I note that you now advocate that dissenters should resign if they don't agree with the board.....

You vote for who you want, plenty to choose from this year.

 

Thank you. I quite agree that 150 words are insufficient. If this limit is applied, I hope candidates will find other ways of getting their message out there. The membership deserves nothing less.

 

What is it about the carriages project that needs a Trustee in charge of it, @DaveE ? It isn't a strategic priority in the same sense as planning and TWAO - we will not need any more carriages than we've got or are building for several years, whereas the planning and TWAO are vital to extending the railway.

We do know the Board voting for the proposed M&A power grab - it was 6-3 in favour of the power grab, and that included Mr Summers. If he opposed it, then voting for it is a pretty odd way to oppose something. Fundamentally, he is running on his record which is much wider than the coaches - it is his (in)action in opposing the power grab and the rest - and that's disqualifying unless it is explained.

 

The reality is that any candidate standing for re-election in the next 3 AGMs will be assessed, amongst other things, on their approach to the M&As and the motions to remove Ann and Chris. That's not about whether or not they are a "yes man", but the positive decision they made to be party to the two disgraceful dismissal motions and the half-baked and dishonourable M&As motion.

They did not need to resign if they opposed those; the option was entirely open to them to abstain or vote against.

This year, the candidate facing that question is Charles Summers; Ian Cowling has chosen not to stand and it obviously doesn't apply to Chris Duffell.

I will be assessing candidates based on that question in light of my broader questions in post #13122 above. Charles Summers' votes for those motions means that my starting point is to assume that I will be voting for others, and that he can only get my vote if those others do not meet my tests.

 

If that is the case, then why is there not a trustee for locos (maybe even two - one steam and one IC), another for buildings, another for PW etc etc. I very much doubt that you will find another railway that has a trustee who is on the board because of his/her role as carriages officer.

 

I am surprised that Ian Cowling chose to step down in the aftermath of this EGM saga. It was he that allegedly refused to work with Chris and/or Anne, correct?

Part of me still worries though that even if we get Charles Summers out, Peter Miles will not go down without a fight.

 

That might be considered to be more of a criticism of other railways' lack of focus!

More generally, I'm concerned at the idea that people are trustees based on a specific role, rather than as trustees of the organisation as a whole. At the heart of this is a confusion - far from unique to the L&B - between managerial responsibilities and the role of the board as a whole.

At the L&B, I am doubly uneasy at the concept of trustees having such specific responsibilities, when the operating railway is run by the CIC and the Trust owns the CIC.

 

It favours incumbents....quelle surprise!

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

I suspect the reality is more likely that the Chairman and/or Secretary thought up the 150 word limit and then, if challenged, will quote Clause 69 (1) to support it.

BUT... in that case, Clause 69(2) says "The Charity in general meetings shall have the power to alter, add to or repeal the
rules or bye laws and the trustees shall adopt such means as they think sufficient to bring to the notice of members of the Charity all such rules or bye laws, which shall be binding on all members of the Charity...."

So, if there is a new bye-law/rule about 150 words, how and when will or has it been brought to the attention of all members?

 

Indeed. The role of Trustee is essentially non-executive. Any specific responsibilities are additional to that.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk