WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

Er yes,

You could have changed them you chose not to. Others haven't changed them either in this respect but you could have therefore you cannot complain about something you had the power to change.

 

I have, today, had a reply to my e-mail from the Chairman of WSRA. It acknowledges the (now known) problem of the mistake on the proxy form. It also answers a question I asked about the cost of a lease to the plc should the association become ever freeholder in quite a positive way.
I will leave others to ask the questions about how the vote will be conducted. The information from Susan, posted on the web site, is far from acceptable as a complete answer.

 

Let's not fall out about this.

A review of the M&A was begun in my time as Chairman. It reported after I had ceased to be Chairman and was brought to fruition in the following year.

Given that I stepped away from WSRA (and other Railway) committee work for the reasons already explored elsewhere, I took no close part in that process.

In fact the present M&A, with a little thought are quite workable. All you have to do is allow everyone (present at the meeting or proxy) a vote on all candidates (however many there are), count the number of positive votes cast for all, and declare those with the most votes elected.

Simples!

There are bigger fish to fry over the next few weeks. Why don't we try to put aside petty squabbles?

Kind regards

Robin White

 

We have to accept the M and A as they are now,an inquisition into past changes is counter productive.To a large extent they are workable, but the many who took part in their formulation and changes over the years could not have foreseen the extraordinary situation that exists now of eleven candidates for four places,indeed their problem was finding one or two, where open vote was adequate. To move on,the poll vote as suggested by Beancounter has many advantages- in quietness ,efficency,greater time for debate on many other issues, and above all secrecy. Many friendships have been wrecked by knowledge of who voted for who. In my workplace past,I was instructed by my supervisor to vote for a certain candidate.It was a hand vote.Me being me,that was a red rag to the bull. I voted for the opposition,and incurred his animosity for many years. There has been unsubstantiated suggestions some individuals used similar tactics on the petition. I would hope this is a myth.However, public knowledge of ones vote can influence ones decision, and this could apply to members that are employees of the Association.

 

To spare anyone hunting for the relevant info;

Companies Act 2006 (c. 46) Part 13 SECTION 321 Right to demand a poll

A provision of a company’s articles is void in so far as it would have the effect of excluding the right to demand a poll at a general meeting on any question other than—
(a) the election of the chairman of the meeting, or (b) the adjournment of the meeting.
A provision of a company’s articles is void in so far as it would have the effect of making ineffective a demand for a poll on any such question which is made—
(a) by not less than 5 members having the right to vote on the resolution; or (b) by a member or members representing not less than 10% of the total voting rights of all the members having the right to vote on the resolution

If the Association wishes to assemble five proposers from its membership to enable such a poll at the AGM, then I am prepared to be one of them.

 

Chris

It may be that the WSRA is close to arrangements which are, in effect a poll, for the election. I have been told different things from different people within the WSRA over the last 24 hours about how they are proposing to handle this, and I have heard talk of all legitimate electors being given 4 cards which they will hand in when asked for a vote on each candidate. However, I agree that a poll may be a sensible course. I think we need to first hear what is proposed about how the vote is to be handled.

It is not just the election for which the votes will need to be counted carefully. This is item 5 on the Agenda. Item 4, the receipt of the Chairman's report, is likely to be controversial as well.

kind regards

Robin White

 

Thanks for that-see what they suggest ,but it did cross my mind to endeavour to draw the remaining four proposers from the various factions-an all party request- showing some ability to work together on a common aim !

 

Good idea. Glad to see that 'fair process' is something we appear all to agree upon.

kind regards

Robin White

 

I was wondering about the fact that the draw was left off the Agenda. Does that mean that they can add it later or it remains off the meeting. I ask because in meetings past the draw is "drawn" out. Do Agenda need to be kept to?

I think if it is said now is the time for the draw and it is not on the agenda then once again the hall will not be best pleased.

Rodders

 

Rodney i think we really are in trouble if we argue over the raffle!

Ian Coleby

 

That could be covered, simply Chair to announce in opening remarks. eg 'The draw will be held at the end of formal business"Further changes to the agenda and proxy forms will further delay despatch,and it could be touch and go on getting them in time. As to my poll idea,any other member, be they trustee, WSRAMAG, or ordinary member , willing to be one of the four other proposers, if WSRA adopt the idea? Personally, I believe a card vote is still not secret-having seen it in use .

 

I whole heartily agree Ian but if it is missed off the new agenda that is coming out and it is going to be added later then either by design or "clericial error" the chairman will lose around 20 / 30 minutes of the meeting.

The election I can see going on for an hour then do the draw and voila no time at the end for the AOB.

I will almost guarantee that David Williams will not take the offer I have given to the trustees in that I have paid for the two hours after the WSRA booking so the meeting will not run out of time.

Rodders

 

Talking of "AOB", the draft minutes of last year's meeting state that "The following members' discussion session is contained in a separate minute". I don't seem to be able to find where that minute is published.

Dave

 

I didn't know I was a "faction" or part of a defined "faction"

Best leave the choice of who fills the trustee vacancies to the membership, methinks.

Steve

 

You are probably right Steve,the four should be from those not standing for election,no matter who they support, and the request for a poll was not related to the differing candidate viewpoints, and that should WSRA adopt the idea , then it could be seen to be acting on a proposal from members at large. As to "faction", later thought indicates I should have included the word independent, is that better? Mea culpa.

 

Robin mentions Item 4, Chairmans Report as 'likely to be controversial'. I guess the Treasurers Report, if there is one, would be equally controversial, with some wide eyes and open mouths maybe.

 

I can see it turning into a long afternoon,must take sandwiches and liquid.

 

Tsk tsk! You're missing a fundraising opportunity. Set up a stall selling sandwiches and liquids on behalf of your favourite WSR project.

(Don't laugh: the refreshment sales normally add a few hundred quid to the Trust coffers at our AGM ...)

Tom

 

A faction? Well, I like to think of myself as a member of 'Dauntless' but I am probably Divergent with a mixture of 'Dauntless', 'Erudite', and 'Candor'. Steve (WSW) is a mixture of 'Amity' and 'Abnegation'.

N.B. If this post makes no sense to you, you haven't read 'Divergent' by Veronica Roth or seen the film.......
The existing Trustees are about to join the factionless (also a reference to the film...)

kind regards

Robin White

 

This is totally beyond my ability to understand what thats all about and I don't intend reading the book or seeing the film.