West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Under normal circumstances I suggest that someone resigning from an organisation like the WSRA might make a 'one liner' as to the reasons which doesnt necessarily have to give anything away but makes it clear that they havnt an issue with the organisation 'personal reasons, family matters, no longer have enough time to do the job properly' etc etc

If you say that then the organisation is covered and no real information is released about the resigning trustee

Eg John Of Wessex has resigned from the board of the Twatlington Tramway due to other commitments, he hopes that whoever replaces him on the board finds it as worthwhile and rewarding a role as he did and wishes the organisation all the best for the future'

Doesnt say anything about me but is positive about the organisation.

John of Wessex has resigned but doesnt want it to be made public why is a bit more like whoops! Not only that but three have gone which might make it worthwhile for the WSRA to say something that might put as positive a spin as possible on it

 

Mostly, I work with a technique called cross-examination, which consists of asking relevant questions and drawing conclusions from the answer.

English, being a language with a wide vocabulary and considerable nuance, can tell you a lot by what answer is given and what, therefore, rejected.

often the most powerful is no answer at all to a relevant question, as here, from which conclusions can be drawn.

 

Perhaps someone on here who is a member of WSRA (but not a past officer with a history) could write to an appropriate person (Board Secretary?) "I note that three of the Association's trustees have resigned in rapid succession for reasons that remain undisclosed. To forestall inappropriate speculation, could members please be told whether all three resignations were for personal reasons that happened to arise at the same time, or whether they resulted from issues within the Association?"

 

'To lose one trustee is unfortunate, but to lose two is an act of sheer carelessness', to paraphrase Oscar Wilde.

But three resign at once? Come on !

 

Perhaps they are taking a leaf out of contemporary politics and moving across to WSRA Reform? I still have the badge somewhere....

 

I have a bag of them somewhere, I ordered a significant amount from the manufacturer.

Perhaps I can flog them on E-Bay for a tenner each

 

Robin has given a far more nuanced answer but to me having dealt with the legal profession in my work life there is much use of assumptions. Facts of course are seen differently depending on the side of a dispute you are on.
For example my employers lawyers said it was fact they could use a surplus from one scheme to plug a pension hole in another. The schemes lawyers said it was fact they could not. The High Court decided the schemes lawyers were right.

 

On the WSRA website you can see the WSRA Trustee meeting reports for November and December, which might have relevance to this discussion (bearing in mind the posts here a few weeks ago suggesting differences of opinion whether certain items'd be lawful charitable expenditure).

The November report includes:
"Supporting WSR PLC capital projects and winter works
The Trustees agreed to support the following projects:

1. BL Loco compound shed roof reinstatement
2. Tribble bridge – reinstatement and upgrading work by contractors.
3. Station platforms – work to deal with trip hazards at WN and BA
4. Tamper hire for 10 days

The support offered is up to £183,000 and subject to agreed terms."

The December report includes:
"WSRA Trustees – Trustees were disappointed and concerned to hear that Andrew Horner, Will Foster and Ian Harrison had resigned as Trustees."

 

Um............

 

Quite right. @6960 Raveningham Hall does not understand the process : the lawyers present their interpretation of events/law and the court (judge and/or jury) decide the facts.

 

But they are also detached from the subject and the individuals concerned, which isn't the case here. There are lots of posts in this thread which are based on heart-felt disappointment or worse, which can lead to any evidence being made to fit the person's particular grumbles. In fact, it gets to the point where the posts seem more about trying to undermine the railway, scoring points or gaining personal support from other forum members, rather than focusing on the actual issues.

 

I disagree. How do members address "the actual issues" if they cannot make other members aware of them ? If the company or association refuse to answer reasonable questions, either publicly or privately, then they leave themselves open to misinterpretation and misinformation. Potential supporters will take this lack of openness into consideration when reviewing their donations.

 

The difficulty is though that while your perception is quite human it may not be the intent of the person posting, and even if it were, it doesn’t mean that they are wrong.

 

So, here is my speculation about what is going on with the WSRA.

The WSRA has been maneuvered or suborned by the WSR plc into making grants to it for items that are highly questionable in terms of charitable objects - the worst example being tamper hire. (IMHO that is clearly unlawful revenue support). This has been done without legal advice being taken.

3 honourable Trustees disagreed with the approach taken and have resigned. (The others are putting their personal assets at risk.)

This is important because the WSR plc does not have a workable financial plan (losses of £8,000 per week) and the effect (e.g. defective platforms) would be to gradually curtail operations towards close if the revenue support was not forthcoming.

I'd be very surprised if those who gave the funds concerned expeceted them to be used to prop up the vile regime running the WSR today, rather than moving to a sustainable and good governance regime all folks apart from one recognise to be the only way forward.

Does anything we know gainsay this analysis? And does it explain the inexplicable silence? Yep.

 

That analysis is interesting, because I looked at the list of 4 items and saw all of them as support for investment in the railway infrastructure. From my recollection of the WSRA Articles, all of those are within a broad interpretation of the purposes, and they do not at first sight appear to be "revenue support". As any student of railway history will tell you, the boundary between "maintenance" and "investment" is extremely grey, and heavily dependent on interpretation - and modern accounting also leaves significant room for judgement (e.g. whether repairing platforms in this way is routine maintenance or, because it is a once in x decades activity, capital investment).

The other side is I think more interesting - why WSR plc needed to seek assistance, and how WSRA came to be in a position where the assistance was required. If, for example, routine maintenance had not taken place, and WSRA were being asked to make good that deficiency, my questions are less about revenue support (for the reasons above), but more in the area of moral hazard (think Danegeld).

 

The charitable articles are tightly drawn to permit assistance to voluntary work on infrastructure - the then WSRA volunteer P.Way gang. I somehow doubt the tamper driver was a volunteer.

Your Danegeld point is a good one, as the WSSRT are finding out at Washford, I understand.

 

I presume you refer to "3. Encouraging recreation, well-being or other leisure-time occupation connected with the railway, including voluntary work on the restoration and maintenance of the railway from Taunton to Minehead and enabling opportunities for social cohesion and inclusion". I'd suggest, not knowing the specific context of the drafting, that this lends itself to some interpretation.

 

Robin is absolutely correct that charities are constrained in what they can fund by the boundaries of their charitable purposes. That raises questions of interpretation and context. Without the WSR the WSRA would become pretty pointless. Its ability to fulfill its charitable purposes depends on the WSR continuing to exist. I suggest that means that narrow interpretation of the specific objects is not in the best interests of the charity. If that helped bring about the demise of the WSR the charity would be shooting itself in the foot The underlying gripe seems to be objection to WSRA funds being used to sustain what Robin refers to as a vile regime. I wonder if the departing trustees would have remained had WSRA financial support been proposed for the sustainable good governance regime advocated?

 

Checking the articles, the best interests of the charity as defined by those articles do not explicitly require the existence of a working railway - this is at most implied.

As someone who supports taking a broad interpretation, I confess to some surprise in reading the above, from someone who has in other circumstances taken a very narrow view of legal obligations. I am delighted to see this, and shall cling close to Luke 15:7 in my reaction.

 

I think the WSRA is sailing pretty close to the wind. That list of items supported is neither immediately disallowance nor allowable (in my personal view). It strikes me that we could construct compelling arguments either way and it all rather depends on the longer term for the WSR. As Robin says, the trustees are required to take a view on the future financial viability of the entity to which they are making a grant, since giving money to something which fails before it delivers the outcomes supported is not in the interests of the charity. If trustees have resigned because they feel this (a big if) then I think I could certainly see myself in the same camp.