North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Whether or not they are right, there is a long held view in volunteers that there should be some democracy about the boards governing their railways. There are lots of ways of doing this of course from the Bluebell model to an advisor committee that appoints some trustees to there being specific roles that are about representation of volunteers and elected as such. Whatever way is chosen some way has to be found for representation to happen and been to happen. And that is of the political nature, but volunteers need to know that the trustees have a clear understanding of their views and know there is a way for their voice to be heard.

Most contentious though is that I think members and volunteers need to have a realistic chance of effecting change in the make up of a board. It shouldn’t cause instability, but from time to time we have seen occasions where without such a safety valve a railway might well have stopped. Squaring that with the need for a board to govern, well, that’s where taking people with you on the journey with great communication comes in I think.

 

So we've got to wait another 18months at the NYMR for such a board? I just hope it can last that long - with the present PLC Board it will be extremely lucky if it does, I fear.

 

At the railway I'm referring to, an EGM in March preceded an AGM in May, and the impacts of change (where the key issues were cultural rather than financial/commercial) have been visible through this year.

 

Let me reword what you have written above.
If someone puts themselves forward for election and they don’t have the exact skills the board is looking for, we should bar them from standing because we don’t trust the members and they might vote for someone we don’t approve of.

Maybe that person would bring new energy and ideas to the table? Maybe you should open your mind to change instead of constantly pushing to maintain the status quo of a closed shop.

To go back to an earlier point, if you genuinely believe in reform of the NC, why don’t you propose changes? Maybe then you would appreciate how difficult it is to get an amendment passed even for a board member, never mind an ordinary member.

 

Please clarify- your earlier post said none were excluded, but this post seems to be saying the opposite

 

My apologies, my mistake in my earlier post which I noticed almost immediately when said none were excluded. I then reread this post and realised my mistake, that whilst none of the 8 had been excluded following an interview with the Nominations Committee, that I understood that a further 8 hadn’t even made it to the interview ie 16 applicants of which 8 selected for interview and those 8 were subsequently put forward to the election process for 6 vacant positions on the Board.

I could have deleted / edited my original post but thought it best to produce a subsequent “clarification” post which seems to have done the opposite (and which appears a bit garbled as then Nat-Pres then decided to log me out half way through writing that post). Mea culpa!

 

Don’t forget there is an election presently going on, with 8 candidates for 6 vacancies.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

This just goes to show that the board doesn’t trust it’s own members.

 

What ever the rights or wrongs, it is the members that voted to have a Nominations Committee. However, I do believe the present election has the potential to change the dynamics of the present Board. But that all depends on how members vote in the present election.

 

Paid Vacancy - Project Accountant



Project Accountant

Based in Pickering

Competitive Salary:

Full Time or Part Time

Permanent position, Office Based

This key role will play an important part in supporting the NYMR’s diverse and challenging business environment, which includes multiple business activities and a substantial charity.

In this role, you will initially cover the Assistant Financial Controller role whilst this is vacant through maternity leave. This will provide a good grounding to understand the responsibilities of the Finance department and overall finance systems within the railway.

You will then move on to address numerous challenges across the railway with systems and effectiveness, reviewing and streamlining existing process as needed to primarily with the aim of improving the information reported to various stakeholders to result in better decision making. This includes but is not limited to (in no specific order):

• The integration between the accounting and booking/EPOS systems
• Moving the recording of fixed asset away from spreadsheet-based records to an integrated system
• Improving the budgetary control procedures and information available to department managers.
• Speeding up the monthly accounting cycle so that information on performance is made available quicker.
• Improving and developing detailed management reporting.
• Leading the implementation of various functions within the accounting software iplicit to improve effectiveness.
• Other ad hoc projects across the organisation to improve effectiveness, efficiency or reporting as required and appropriate to the position.

 

Excepting the maternity cover, one wonders what efforts have been made to source volunteer effort for these tasks.

 

That is technically true, but also very misleading. The nominations committee was part of a package of changes, presented on a take it or leave it basis, and without opportunity for amendment.

That is good to hear

 

Thank you for sharing this, and the clarity is appreciated. Were I a member, and I recognise that as a non-member my rights in this are much more limited, I would be seeking information as to the grounds on which candidates were or were not called for interview.

 

NYMR stations are not well laid out to make them 'closed' stations. Pickering isn't too bad; you could install a ticket barrier at the main entrance with a bit of effort but it would need a good deal of thinking about in terms of the existing ticket office as one opening is on the platform and the other in the entrance. The entry from the car park could have a ticket booth but it would be a bit tight in terms of people leaving and entering at the same time. Levisham is probably not worth thinking about. Goathland could become closed if you abandoned the gates at the north end of both platforms. Grosmont has so many entrances that it would be difficult to do sensibly. There isn't a ticket office accessible without going onto the platform so a new location would have to be found for that which would probably mean utilisin the existing station house. or buffet. The access from the NYM car park over the footbridge would have to be diverted. Then there is the wicket gate by the 'box on the level crossing which would have to become permanently closed, as would the entrance opposite the coop. Added to all this, you are immediately reducing of any chance of secondary spend from non-travellers as next to no-one will buy a platform ticket when much of what people would want to see is viewable without entering railway property. It would alos make things difficult for signalmen opening the gates as even more people would stand in the road by the gates.
In all this, I've not mentioned the number of staff required to implement it. I'm afraid that this is a pipe dream for people who have never really considered the logistics of doing so.

 

I don't have a problem with collective responsibility for Board members. What I do have a problem with is the apparent reluctance of those members to informally discuss the matter. The strong impression was that they disagreed with what was happening but couldn't say so and didn't want to argue the Boards side.

 

There's an interesting assumption there about ordinary members' ability to control the railway. The hard truth is that in a limited company or incorporated charity they don't. Look at the Articles of any such organisation and they will confirm categorically that the entity shall be managed by its directors. No doubt there are many who cling to the idea that the members should ultimately be in charge with the board elected to do their bidding. There are limited options for members to assert some influence but those are even more constrained where the organisation is a charity. There's an inherent conflict between such member expectations, often stemming from heritage railways origins as democratic preservations societies, and the reality of the very limited member role in their incorporated forms.

 

you are right that the Board cannot change the articles. It can, however, and should, suggest changes to the articles which it can put forward to the membership. That is a much beter approach than saying to people 'If you want to change the articles, get your 5%(?) to say so.'

 

Hmmm, an interesting view, but where I find your analysis deeply unconvincing.

First, I’m absolutely not disputing that the trustees and directors manage the organisation, and must do so within the context of the laws governing that organisation. Those are givens.

However, what I then stand by is that in a membership organisation, those trustees and directors serve at the pleasure of those who elect them. It is for that membership to decide whom they trust with the responsibility of managing the organisation, just as in a company with shareholders, it is for the shareholders to make that decision.

There used to be the language of “company servants”. It’s out of fashion, perhaps rightly, but I think conveys something really important about what matters. When I see organisations go wrong, the most frequent theme is that the individuals in charge have lost sight of their position serving the organisation, rather than the organisation serving them.

This means that, when the limits of members’ powers come into view, it is especially important that the organisations are set up in a way that honours their position.
As @21B pointed out earlier, the best way to avoid conflict is for leaders to work with their organisation’s stakeholders, especially members and volunteers, and build consensus about the direction.

 

I understand all that Steve which is why Martyn's Law has the potential to be a nightmare rather than a pipe dream. The implementation regulations will be instructive but bear in mind that if any station falls in to enhanced category (where it's possible that at any time the number of people on the entire site ( including car parks etc.) taking account of volunteers, employees, passengers and the general public could at any point be more than 800 the terrorism protection measures must include suitable adaptation of premises and must be be approved by the new Security Industry Authority.

 

Engage, create the communication that avoids conflict, or whither. The ultimate responsibility must lie with Directors, but you should never need to remind people of this, and if you do, if you get to the point where people are looking for change, then something went wrong. I will say I think that responsibility for engagement probably lies through senior management, and the organisation and support of management is an area of heritage railway governance that is worthy of much greater thought.