WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

If the course I have suggested is adopted, there is a substantial vote against the status quo and the present Trustees do not engage with that feeling, then the case for an EGM is immeasurably strengthened over the 'freehold only' position for an E that folks have been relying on so far.

IIRC, circa 600 signatures will be needed to call the EGM.

Rodney may be right about trains, as the last one back to MD that day is at 1615. How many takers for a DMU at, say, 1900 from BL would there be?

Kind regards

Robin White

 

I read the page on complaints yesterday and the grounds for complaint are very restricted, see http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk...ut-a-charity/guidance-for-the-general-public/

Activities or decisions of the charity
If you have a concern about the way a charity is run or managed, or you disagree with a decision the trustees have made, you should raise it directly with the charity. Trustees are responsible for running their charity in a way that is fair and appropriate. Our role is to make sure charities in England and Wales comply with charity law.

Serious concerns about a charity
You should raise your concern with us if there’s a serious risk that a charity or the people a charity helps will come to harm. Serious issues include: (snip) a charity not following charity law, with damaging consequences to its reputation and the public’s trust in charities generally
Evidence
Report your concern using our online form, but you will need to send us evidence that the charity trustees haven’t carried out their legal duties to protect their charity.

More on the link

Patrick

 

I usually enjoy a good horror story from the likes of Stephen king, but I think even he would be hard struck to come up with a tale like this!

Which in all honesty is holding me (and I suspect many others) with a morbid fascination............... oh to be a fly on the wall on the 19th....... I just hope for the sake of all those involved things get resolved for the good of the railway.

 

fair enough

 

The Trustees are only now beginning to realise the scale of antipathy to actions of their own making in the past year, alienating not only those previously referred to as hotheads, but those of more moderate opinion.It is a Ceausescu moment for those that remember 1989.The current ineptitude cannot help their case with SCC to be considered suitable to hold the freehold.

 

The Company Secretary has the legal responsibility for this sort of administration. This cannot be separated from the other issues. A company secretary should have the legal knowledge to advise the trustees and if they do not perform this function then they are not a suitable person for the post. Remember that company secretary/manager is also the association's and subsidiaries' highest paid employee.

 

With a limited company an EGM is not an effective way to deal with the sort of situation that exists. For example a vote of no confidence would have no legal force. If such was passed the trustees could ignore it. In any case the number of signatures required would be very hard to collect.

 

What do you suggest instead? I think the WSRA members need to let company democracy take its course and see what they can achieve at the AGM, or an EGM if necessary, before taking legal action the outcome of which would be no more certain.

 

Every day the present situation continues, we continue to bleed. That is why we need an overwhelming vote to reject the Chairman's report at the forthcoming AGM.

Kind regards

Robin White

 

Robin, for the uninitiated like me what would be the likely outcome of the meeting when rejecting the Chairman's report please? Ken

 

It is the closest thing we have available to us in the meeting to a vote of no confidence. If I am allowed to define the debate properly at the start of consideration of receiving or rejecting it, am so supported by subsequent speakers, and there is an overwhelming rejection of the report, the present Chairman, and those Trustees closely associated with the recent wrongful actions will have lost all moral authority. If they have any personal honour, they will then stand down. If they do not, this will be very obvious publicly, and the case for a rapid EGM will be convincingly made.

kind regards

Robin

 

I wont say if the trustees are men of honour but my gut feeling is they will not do the right thing and fall on their swords sadly. However its the best plan I've seen so lets rally behind you and your plan. New slogan should:

RESIGN and lets get it RIGHT!

 

The Chairman ought to offer his resignation since rejection of the report would be essentially a vote of no confidence, by extension you would hope that the other Trustees would feel the same. However, I think it is correct to say that there is no requirement to react to the rejection of the report that way. Sadly (and I say this as an outsider only) I suspect that your current trustees and chairman may well try to "tough it out", and clearly Robin suspects this as well. That is why you need as many members as possible to be present and for the vote against the report to be overwhelming. It is only by shear force of numbers that the message can be delivered.

I don't in all honesty hold out much hope of the strategy working on the day, (in terms of the trustees resigning), but it is the only option available and will flush the trustees out fully. An EGM should then prove easier to call. To borrow a phrase lets hope that even if this isn't the end it is the beginning of the end.

 

On the evidence we have of their actions to date, your assessment is objectively correct. I am, however, an eternal optimist, and a number of strong cups of coffee and discussions with others did not throw up (appropriate phrase!) any better option from where we are. That is not criticism of those who have been trying so far - a number of the Trustees' wrongful actions have come long after any motion could have been proposed for the AGM.

My slogan would be to borrow from the island of Ireland and encourage all WSRA members to 'vote early and often'.

kind regards

Robin White

 

It is indeed quite extraordinary, and I wonder if anyone within the various factions has the ability to step outside the bullring and see how they all appear to the rest of normal society. It is of course not unique to this organisation, It can be seen and demonstrated anywhere where amateurs, enthusiasts, the untrained and non professional managers and directors predominate, but it has to be said that preserved railways are the very worse, few escaping issues such as these. It is I'm afraid a direct consequence of the need to seek finance, funding, assistance and resources from anyone and anywhere it can be obtained, regardless of the conditions, problems and baggage it contains and affects preserved railways more so because their operational and financial requirements far outstrip, by a large margin, any other enthusiast run organisation.

As a personal opinion I think its because, at the outset there is no mission statement, no shared agenda, no firm goals are set with a subsequent lack of short medium or long term strategic planning, no business conduct guidelines. There is the key, running any railway is a business, but is never treated so.

but fascinating reading this thread, non the less.

 

<mod hat off> I have no link with the WSR and am equally amazed at the goings-on.

Whilst it makes fascinating reading, I do wonder if it should all be on a public forum such as NatPres.

More generally, all the parties involved in this situation need to think of the longer-lasting impression they are leaving with everyone who is reading this. These posts will stay on the forum archive and be included in Google searches for years to come. Whatever your views on the situation, would you want to join, support, promote or help raise funds for a railway project like this, if you read the posts?

We are also aware of at least one NatPres member who is involved in local media, and has full access to all the posts on here.

That's my (personal) view on this.

<mod hat back on again ...>

Richard

 

Interesting comments, MrK, with some useful insights. The WSR Association of course does not run the railway (never has and never wants to). It is the WSR Plc's job to run the railway, and they do it well, and as a viable business - no criticism from me on that count. As a organisation that supports other WSR organisations, the Association might be expected to share forward plans with the others, especially the Plc. For a variety of reasons, not always good, the Plc and WSRA have each considered their own ambitions greater than the whole. The recently called for "stakeholders group" might help with this, but I suspect that group's terms of reference will not overarch the Plc's or WSRA's own business plan. Whilst we have separate organisations on the WSR we do need to move to a process that intertwines the future plan and ambitions of the others, in a way that supports the viability of each, and of the railway as a whole. I believe it can be done. But there needs to be a change of attitude especially at the boards of the Plc and the WSRA. If that cannot happen then we just go round in circles.

Steve

 

Where have I suggested legal action? I did not because there is little that can be done in the face of stubborn trustees who ignore the member's wishes. Even if members vote to reject the Chairman's report he can just ignore it since there is no sanction against him for doing so. In theory an EGM could be used to alter the rules to prevent the Chairman being in post for more than say two years or from holding the post of editor at the same time. My personal opinion is that the WSRA is terminally damaged. It survives only with the goodwill of the PLC who could remove much of its income at a stroke. I would not like to see this happen but it might be the only thing that would concentratethe trustees minds.

 

Like Robin, and many others, I have been engaged in running the railway's Thomas event this weekend, which certainly meant I had little time to respond to this fast moving thread. But it also demonstrates to the outside observers of this saga that whilst we may variously disagree about strategic things, we continue to be committed to giving the highest quality service we can. And it may perhaps be instructive to those outside to know that we worked amicably - and with considerable good humour - alongside some of the Trustees with whom we have the greatest disagreement. This is how we do things here, and to those in other regions and in other walks of life it may appear totally bizarre. It is of course mainly a manifestation of the electronic era. Whilst forums like this serve a very useful and positive function, they very often give a false impression of real life. It all too easy to sit down at one's desk and fire off another polemic, in response to perceived inanity from someone else - I know I've done it, though I have tried to be more careful in recent months!

I will return to the matter under discussion a little later, and will try to avoid the polemic...

Frank

 

If Robin's strategy is fulfilled, then we have to look beyond a change of trustees at the AGM into what happens thereafter e.g. into the functions of the association,means of member involvement etc- ( http://wsramag.com/consultation-paper/is a step in this direction).The trusteeship may need bringing up to strength, and a return to PLC representation on the WSRA board is essential in my view, all of which may require an EGM later in the year. Means of ensuring continuity of activities/ discussions in progress have to be anticipated and options in place if further disruption is not to ensue. I wish to see WSRA continue making its valuable contribution to the success of the railway into the future.