Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I was thinking of ENPA.

 

In another example of questionable admin, I chose not to renew my membership last year (for various reasons, explained to the membership secretary when he asked why I hadn't renewed).
However, I have just received the AGM documentation and ballot papers through the post!

Hopefully the membership list on the door will be more accurate than the AGM mailing list.

 

Out of interest - did you receive any of the other member mailings [Magazine, Newsletters etc.] during the year.

 

I had a situation some years ago when I ceased to be a member of another Trust, yet for some years thereafter they kept sending me raffle tickets to sell! It turned out that the raffle organiser had his own copy of the membership list for that purpose, but it had not been kept up-to-date in line with the main list managed by the membership secretary.

 

I suspect that that was a GDPR data breach.

 

I don't recall seeing anything else, which was why I was surprised to see it drop through my letterbox.

 

Easily done, and there’s a society I left that sent me a magazine out of nowhere. It’s poor, but it’s easily done and not the end of the world.

 

With the 3 Trustees coming up for re-election due to reappointed again due to lack of anyone apart from the rejected candidate putting themselves forward, is there anything that can be done at the AGM to achieve this change of mindset ?

 

I do not know of anything unless it is in either company or financial law to say otherwise.

 

Not directly.

indirectly you can still just vote against the reelection of individuals to make it nice and embarrassing (if enough people do it)…

 

Fwiw I have different views on the different candidates for (re)election, but a reasonable person might find a candidate to vote against.

 

The proxies will have it, I'm afraid. On the bright(er)? side in the USA the've got 4 years, here only 3.

 

A couple of things. My understanding is that the additional candidate's nomination was rejected due to a techicality. The nomination form requires you to be a current member, to be nominated by a member and supported by 5 other members. So was the 'technicality' that the 'rejected' candidate did not have enough supporters? I don't see anything sinister.

The mindset which needs to be changed is within the membership. All that could be done at the AGM is to express disappointment that there were not additional candidates.

I am surprised that non of last year's unsucessful candidates did not put themselves forward again.

 

Wait on ! Where was I suggesting there was anything sinister ? I was just reporting the facts. As regards the mindset, I was merely commenting on @lynbarn's suggestion that the determination to go for CFL (or to have a terminus at Parracombe) needs to change because at this point in time it is a lost cause for reasons which have been adequately aired on this forum. Can it be wondered at that only one candidate put themselves forward in the current state of play.

 

Sorry - I didn't mean that you were suggesting anything sinister. I read your comment about the change of mindset to refer to the lack of candidates. We will have to see how the planning application works out.

 

Due diligence works both ways. Perhaps prospective candidates have done theirs?