North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Agreed. Directors and Trustees need to carry the members, and especially the volunteers, with them. That's because doing so so in the best interests of the railway. It's the directors'/trustees choice, not because the members' have the right to control the railway which is what was originally asserted.

 

This does look (excluding the maternity cover) a pretty full on role. Whilst it is not impossible there would be some retired person prepared to do it, in the same way after 41 years the last thing I would want to do is more contract and Procurement work, (could have stayed at work and made my pension worth even more) I very much doubt it would be high on anyone's radar.
My former finance colleague, whom I met up with at the Swanage Gala, does some finance work now he has retired but that is for things like the LHR branch of the RAS and a Canal Charity so low time involvement. He certainly would not want something as a volunteer that looks like something around 4 to 5 days a week.

 

You still misread me. The trustees serve at the pleasure of the members, whose right is to vote.

 

But perhaps some of the duties mentioned could have been performed by volunteers, meaning the employee would have more time to accomplish their own tasks.

 

The trust board used to be a lot larger and while I don't disagree with the reasons for reducing in size, it has sadly reduced the number of voices expressed in debates and many areas of knowledge are either not as well represented or are absent from the decision making process.
When choices are subjective in nature, that is when being in tune with the ethos of railway becomes important.
It was the scheme to modernise Pickering station, which would have seen the Park Street entrance bricked up behind permanently closed doors and the arch on to the platform glazed, as well as one the stone walls removed, all of which got as far as having obtained listed building consent, which highlighted just how far those in charge were out of touch with the members and volunteers. It was absolutely right that concerned individuals were able to challenge those responsible for that scheme at the AGM and equally wrong of those at the helm to try and nullify that challenge legally.
The point is those behind the scheme were absolutely convinced it was the right direction, when the truth is it would have caused chaos as loadings grew through the 90s, forcing everyone to enter the station through the car park and then through the station building lengthways before they could access the platform. Any traditional feel to the station would have been lost. If there had existed an approvals committee with a power of veto back then, then I have no doubt the challenges would have been blocked and the scheme would have gone ahead.
That is why the current process concerns people.

Sawdust.

 

That’s quite a story of which I was completely unaware . What’s the lesson you draw from it? I’m struggling to see why the existence of a Nominations Committee would have made any difference . It sounds as if a board elected by traditional popular vote still had its drawbacks .

 

Perhaps it is about the perception that a nomination committee can reduce the plurality of views, can embed a certain viewpoint and reduces the ability of the volunteers and members to hold the board to account by placing another layer between board members and “the rest”. Heritage railway volunteers are deeply distrustful of any sense of “distance” between themselves and the board. Memories are long and inform reactions to current situations.

I’m increasingly suspicious though that where these situations (mistrust in board) occur they are not always the result of the board per se. I am tending to think that the problem more often sits with the management team failing to get the communications right. Boards shouldn’t be communicating very often or extensively with “staff” because that undermines the chain of management. So if there is misunderstanding creeping into the organisation as a whole, perhaps making sure the managers can and do communicate is step one in fault diagnosis. Which is not to say that the board might not also be at fault.

 

I suspect you are deliberately missing the point here, the outcome was that there was a coup. Those behind the scheme were ousted and the scheme dustbinned.
If such a situation occurred today, the (much smaller) board would undoubtedly circle the wagons and deem the challenger candidates as unsuitable, thus denying the membership the choice.

Sawdust.

 

Oh also many don't know this but the trust chairman I referred to was elected at an AGM at which the vote for the incumbent and challenger was tied and was decided by the trust President, who was chairing the AGM, casting his deciding vote for the challenger instead of for maintaining the status quo as is normal in such circumstances.
This was told to me by Bill Carr (general manager) the day following the meeting.

Sawdust.

 

The size of the Board should not make any difference in that situation because of the effect of collective responsibility. However many directors/trustees there are they are all obliged to support majority decisions however strongly they disagree with them. It sounds like there were opposing factions on the board which is one of the frequently quoted reasons for keeping boards relatively small. Where such a seemingly daft proposal has board support it's open to the members to use their Companies Act right to call an EGM at which a motion to instruct the board to change course could be tabled. I accept that such right can be constrained by the need for at least 5% of the members to sign up to the motion beforehand and for the costs of the EGM to be lodged with the company before the meeting can be called. In connection with the current AGM the Trust Chairman confirmed that strict compliance with the Companies Act would be waived which indicates the very opposite of circling the wagons.

 

Other heritage railway corporate governance challenges have been instructive. They occur typically when a group or faction on the board cannot support the majority view but rather than resign the dissenting minority appeals to the membership for support. That ‘s a recipe for greater division and distrust across the organisation.

 

It is, but you omit to mention that sometimes the majority acts poorly.

In the example I referred to yesterday, the ability of ordinary members to challenge the board was a critical part of being able to get that board to amend its approach. It is conspicuous that the division and distrust have eased over the last 18 months as that approach has changed.

The way that the membership shifted stance when that board over-reached itself by trying to make itself immune from challenge is instructive about the limits of authority - and the importance of boards acknowledging the source of their legitimacy. They need to embrace that, not seek to remove it.

 

You’re very keen to push any changes back to the membership via an egm. Perhaps if the management was doing a proper job they would be regularly reviewing systems and processes to ensure they are working effectively and keeping everyone happy (although this would mean listening to the members which you seem to be reluctant to do).

Maybe you could take up my earlier suggestion of proposing changes to the NC and see how difficult it is for a board member, and then consider how much more difficult it would be for an ordinary member.

For a group of members to call an egm is a very difficult task, when the board controls the membership list and can effectively kill any egm attempt, claiming data protection/vexatious challenges.

See WSRA and L&B for recent examples.

 

They can’t if the members demand is properly handled. Silly mistakes like using the company’s member database for personal contact with members or issuing a minority report rather than involving the Charity Commission would be a gift to any board wanting to delay a meeting.

 

I think you might be missing a couple of points here -firstly, this seems to be cover for maternity leave, which is not unreasonable, but it's also necessary that the NYMR is on the brink of entering the closed season, at which point the pace of financial transactions should be easing off considerably, and increasing use of debit/credit cards should make life very straightforward. Its hard for a simple soul like me to see that this might be an instance where another member of staff whose workload is rather less at this time of the year couldn't be train to step into the breech. Secondly, though, the advert implies that this post may become permanent, so far from making economies in staff numbers we are witnessing an increase in this instance. Why, when visitor numbers are falling?

 

Without wishing to relitigate matters elsewhere, this view places great faith in a regulator that takes a very narrow view of its remit, discounts the role of whistleblowing, and appears to presume that the board are right unless proved wrong.

The issue comes back, as so often, to culture. Inclusive behaviour is something that goes beyond mere statements of rights, but requires actions that demonstrate the values behind those rights. Hence my strong view that limiting the ability of members to choose freely from those putting themselves forward is unwise at best.

 

Beck Hole, 29/09/25

 

Even gone to the trouble of laminating it as well.

 

Financial control is about a lot more than processing ticket revenue, in fact I had not even considered that part of the role. The JD has this as a primarily project role bringing what appears to be antiquated systems up to a modern state. Project skills and I emphasise skills are not held by many.
btw which part of "excluding the maternity cover" makes you think I had missed that point?

 

At which point, I'd be asking why the two roles are being combined like this.