Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

For some years I belonged to a Trust where various members carried out various roles. Some roles were done by people who just happened to be Trustees, others by ordinary members who simply volunteered to do those jobs (eg Membership Secretary, magazine editor etc).

Because one key function of the Trust was to run a Museum, the Constitution made the Curator a key Trust Officer. No problem for many years, until the long-time Curator retired and no-one could be found who was willing to stand for that role. The Trust then found itself in the possible situation of being invalid as a key Officer role remained empty year after year, so eventually a resolution was proposed and passed to eliminate that Officer role from the Constitution. After that, if the curator role remained vacant at any time it did not matter constitutionally.

I do agree with the general assertion that Trustees essentially should be just that - Trustees. If they volunteer to take on ex-officio roles, all well and good.

 

If you're the only group out of hundreds doing something in a particular way, then maybe you're doing it wrong!
I would argue that a loco or carriage superintendent does not need to sit on the board to do his/her job. They can request resources from the board and the board can request the person to supply reports, or appear before them to report on progress/projects, but I fail to see what someone in that kind of role would bring to the table by being a trustee.

 

I think we will have to agree to disagree here

Ditto any other role.

 

I would agree.

However...I had the experience once in a Trust where my 'Head of Department' (if you might call him that) reported to a specific Trustee. The Board, through that Trustee, gave the HoD a 'prime directive'. The HoD, not having time to spare for everything, essentially treated that as his only directive. Whenever I raised anything else with the HoD for a decision, he declined to make a decision without guidance from the Board via the nominated Trustee, but failed to put the matter to that Trustee in the first place as it did not relate to his 'prime directive'. Direct approaches to the Trustee were simply referred back to the HoD for him to 'bring forward in the usual manner' for consideration. In the end I just gave up.

So IMHO you do need to have the right people in the right places with the right mind-set.

 

I'd agree about the role being on the board. My point is that there is a tendency to take coaching stock for granted, and that if there must be dedicated trustees, then it is a welcome deviation.

 

You are mixing up the role of the Trust (which is strategy) and the operating company (which is about implementation).

So in the case of carriages - the Trust should have a formal carriage strategy, which - broadly - would encompass how many it thinks it needs, to what designs and what mix of types (brakes / non- brakes, 1st / 3rd etc). That strategy would need to balance the heritage / education objectives as a charity with the operational requirements (now and in the future) of the railway, including what is a viable number to maintain. So it is a strategic decision whether you need 4 or 40 carriages; and that will be at least partly based on whether you think in a realistic timeframe you will be a 1 mile line or a 20 mile line.

The role of the carriage group is then to deliver carriages to meet that strategy. Largely they can work autonomously, but the Trustees (collectively, but probably one with a lead role) monitor their delivery against the strategy to ensure that they are working on the right things and not working on the wrong things.

It's not essential either that (1) one of the trustees is a dedicated C&W trustee or (2) that the workshop function is actively managed by a trustee. Of course, there is nothing to say that Trustees can't have additional volunteer roles, but they need to be seen as separate. In other words, Mr Summers should be engaged in carriage construction because it is something he wishes to do, not as a formal result of being a Trustee running. department.

It is also worth pointing out that Trustees have to collectively oversee the entire strategy. So while it is likely that individual trustees will have individual areas of strength (and may have a lead role in specific areas for bringing forward board reports), it is important that where difficult decisions of priorities have to be made, they are made in the best interest of the whole railway. There is always a danger that if a Trustee is seen as leading a particular department, rather than overseeing it, they may overplay that role. An example might be in a budget prioritisation between, say, track maintenance and new carriages - the railway's ongoing interest may mean that the maintenance is more important than the new construction, but that is hard for a trustee to demonstrate impartiality and objectivity in that decision making process if in effect they are explicitly in charge of a particular function from a management standpoint.

Tom

 

So what do you think, @DaveE ?

 

^^^^ times 10 - thanks @Jamessquared

 

This is what I was trying to get across earlier - thanks Tom!

 

Again, this can be said for any role a trustee takes up outside of the trust, whether it's carriages, land management, buildings, TWAO or otherwise. Yet we see roles delegated to the trustees of which carriages is assigned to Charles, TWAO was to Chris, and so on.

The board decides the roles and designates those roles. Being as both Charles and Chris were and had already been involved in those two projects it makes sense to assign those projects to them.

 

Indeed, but it means that being responsible for carriages has no bearing on whether or nor Charles is a Trustee or not.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

And so, in any board of trustees, and especially ones who volunteer their time, you may have an array of trustees. Some may be professional and paid and is seen often where trusts cannot find new trustees, so they advertise for professional trustees.

You can have corporate trustees, trustees from local authorities, specialised trustees, and ordinary trustees.

Some trustees maybe assigned extra duties and some may not.

You need trustees who are not prone to being overbearing or throwing tantrums, trustees who have people skills, can work as a team and be team builders, and always have a quiet one who may not say much, but when they do you take note as you can bet it's important.

You need trustees who understand boardroom principles and expected behaviour, who understand the majority vote and boardroom privilege.

But the important thing to remember is every one of our trustees is a volunteer, the time they give up to be those trustees is tremendous, and sometimes I think the expectations on them are far too high especially when some of the challenges take years to resolve, even in a professional corporate situation.

I personally think this election is quite interesting.

We shall see where it leads.

 

DaveE wrote:

"You need trustees who are not prone to being overbearing or throwing tantrums, trustees who have people skills, can work as a team and be team builders"

Well that seems to rule out all 6 of the current Trustees then.

 

Hmmm......

 

Yes and no, we have seen a trust in dispute with a selection this last year or so who just couldn't work together, personality clashes, arguments, accusations, pulled in different directions, and I think for a variety of reasons it just wasn't going to work no matter what, each perhaps has some portion of blame.

This year feels different, we need to give it a chance.

 

Well...

Companies generally move quickly. Time is money.

I don't buy the confidentiality concept in toto. Some things must be confidential, but I tend towards openness.

We've seen exactly the sort of behaviours you describe Dave. Cowling storming out of an AGM. A chairman who behaves as if he was majority shareholder. A secretary who doesn’t seem to have any grasp of company law. A fish rots from the head, so do companies. An over-dominant chairman & a majority of passive acolytes leads to lack of essential challenge & scrutiny. This leads to poor management.

What we've had is people willing to be whistle blowers about the above, who have then been libelled to secure their ejection. Fortunately the genie is now out of the bottle.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

All of which is true, yet the important thing is that trustees, like directors, are accountable in law for the whole of their organisation, not just specific functions.

In the meantime, they may find that they have more time in which to be effective if there is less centralisation, and more delegation.

 

Not quite 'all' - just 6 out of the current 7

 

Forgive me labouring the point, @DaveE , but the TWAO and planning is essential to extending the railway and are the big strategic questions that the Trust Board should be focused on. This is why we have a CIC to run the operational railway, even if apparently some are confused about who does what (e.g., the mad notion that the SMS should sit with the Trust rather than the CIC which actually operates the railway...)

Carriage construction - whilst important - is not in the same strategic set of issues. Instead, as @Jamessquared has rightly noted above, the Trust Board's role is to determine how many and what sort of carriages are required - turning it over to the project leader to deliver the requirement.

You're always ready to acquit 'the six' of everything @DaveE , which is disappointing and does your credibility as an impartial observer no good at all, I'm afriad. Let's recap:

- Who refused to work with Chris, Anne and Mike?
- Who tried to illegally keep Anne off the ballot?
- Who lied about the finances to the extent that the 'Minority Report' was necessary (and then almost completely confirmed)?
- Who pushed for the M&As to grab power for themselves in perpetuity?
- Who wasted several thousand pounds in holding the EGM to have the power grab?

I think you need to look more closely at who has been doing what. And your Mr Summers was part and parcel of every one of these decisions.

 

Fed up with being misquoted.

each perhaps has some portion of blame.

Which is the only time I believe I've actually pointed the finger of blame at anyone.

Not interested in discussing it anymore as its just going round and round and round and to be honest we will still be here in 2 years time at this rate.

I'm looking forward to the elections and for what it's worth, I think we could see progress not too far in the future.