WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

I think almost everyone would agree with this posting. Elsewhere on NP I have commented favourably on parts (but not all!) of the MAG's consultation paper.

The Plc are now talking about a "Partnership Development Group" which now seems to be included in the Plc's Corporate Plan (due out any day now). A few of us who responded to the Draft Corporate Plan consultation mentioned the need for such a Group so I am pleased it has been picked up as a real need for the good of the railway. I hope the PDG, if it gets off the ground, can provide the kind of function that prevents the kind of singular (and secretive) ambitions we have seen from both sides in the recent past. I know the WSRA have also suggested a similar group so the signs are looking good for this.

And for those readers who are also WSRA members, if I may, given the title of this thread, just add part of my candidature "150 words":

"The two most pressing challenges for trustees?
• the repair of the relationship between the WSRA and the Plc.
• a fundamental review of the WSRA’s purpose, structure, performance and outputs leading to a new strategy which embraces and shares the plans and visions of all WSR parties.
and as a dedicated WSR supporter, I look forward to the chance to be involved as a trustee in those challenges. "

Yes, there are immense challenges ahead. Why else would a dedicated WSR supporter choose to take the chance to return to the committee room after an absence of over 30 years? Back then we talked long into the night and worked out how to save the railway from closure which was truly likely. Thankfully closure now is not the issue but there's a lot of talking to be done, again. First, work out and agree with the Plc exactly what they expect from the WSRA; next, work out a strategy that embraces that agreement; then, pick up my second bullet point above so ensure the WSRA is capable of delivering that strategy. Piece of cake, really!

Now, where's Flash Gordon when you need him...

Steve

 

From the Articles, the Chairman is elected by the Board of Trustees, not a direct membership vote, and Article 17.6 gives the Board the right to set the frequency of election and also if they see fit revoke the appointment of the Chairman. Although we are tend to refer to "The Chairman of the..." (Trust/PLC etc.), in such circumstances, the individual is really the Chairman of the Board very literally and their main duty is to Chair Board Meetings - from a quick look at the Articles, Chairing Trustee Meetings and General Meetings are the only listed duties of the Chairman. It is normal that the Chairman takes a wider, public face role, but it is also true that many people may be better in one aspect of the Chair's role than the other (chairing meeting is not easy - I know, I'm pretty poor at it!) and hence it could even be argued a good "manager of Board business" and a good public face may be best provided by 2 different people. This is a general comment and not on the situation or individuals here - however, the point that the Articles see the Chairman as purely being charged with chairing meetings is specific to the WSRA (but not exclusive).

What is the current policy of the WSRA on frequency of elections for its Chair?

Steven

 

I consider Robin's strategy sound. I was not aware of Chris Walters co-option, but my reading of the Articles is that any such co-option lasts only until the AGM:

13.5 Subject to the number of Trustees not exceeding the prescribed maximum, the Trustees may appoint a Member of the Association as a Trustee at any time providing that any Member so appointed shall retain his or her office only until the next annual general meeting when he or she will be eligible for election by the Members.

Unfortunately I cannot make the AGM.

Paul
7 July 2014

 

Robin has suggested a DMU for transport after the extended meeting- I wonder if Minehead direction members should not get together and hire a vintage bus, with a PNB at Washford, might be a bit of walk to Stogumber from the main road for Robin though, unless she uses her undoubted powers of persuasion.

 

I wouldn't claim to be Flash Gordon - Flash maybe, but Gordon, never, even on a Thomas weekend...

I'm afraid I have some reservations about Robin's proposal, though I appear to be in a minority, given the postings here and elsewhere. Can we go back to first principles please? What I think we all agree on is that the WSRA needs some strategic change in direction if it is to be most useful in supporting the railway. In addition there needs to be a change in approach so that it becomes much more inclusive and representative. So how do we get there?

Although I am still open to be convinced, at the moment it seems to me that there are three difficulties with Robin's approach. (Some of these have been pointed out already, but they do need stressing.) First, let us assume that Robin's undoubted experience in the persuasive verbal field means that there is a very substantial rejection of the Chairman's report. And then ... nobody resigns. Robin and others indicate that should this happen it will give a much greater impetus to the demand for an EGM. And we call one and then ... nobody resigns. Second, let us assume alternatively that the whole group of Trustees resign, or even just some of them. What happens then? Who replaces them? And if all the previous Trustees have walked away, who on earth is going to commit themselves virtually full time to sorting out the aftermath. Indeed may I suggest that you might be quite foolish to do so, without knowing what commitments (of the legal trustees) are in place. (If you are that foolish you may not be the kind of Trustee we need!)

The third point is this. The only candidates who have given a clear indication of what they going to do, and how they propose do it, are (wait for it) the existing Trustees seeking re-election, and the WSRMAG candidates. The existing Trustees seeking re-election are saying you will in essence get more of the same. The WSRMAG candidates have set out their view clearly in the Consultation Paper. Given a key dimension of the WSRMAG approach is transparency and openness, the Consultation Paper is out for consultation - that's what a Consultation Paper is for! It would be the membership that had the main input into the final development strategy.

But if there are only four new Trustees this year, how can this change happen? Well there is no doubt it won't be instant. But the impact of four persuasive people in this kind of forum should not be underestimated. There are already some indications that not all the Trustees talk with a single voice, so there may well be a majority for some of the changes needed. And then in a year's time four more transformatory trustees will be added to finish the job.

To be clear, I am certainly not suggesting anyone should vote against any motion Robin is able to introduce. But realistically, I doubt if it will work to achieve what we want, though it's worth a try. My view is that by voting for four new trustees who have made clear their proposals, and intend to really listen to the membership, then the change we need can be achieved. The four WRSAMAG candidates are Crudge, Price, Randles and Rowe.

Frank

 

Just for the record despite my nom de plume I am a long time WSRA member, and a PLC shareholder so I know rather more about the workings of the railway than you may think. One fundamental problem with voluntary organisations like the WSRA is that the people who become trustees often lack sound management expertise. Over the last few years a number of trustees who have had that expertise have left because their faces did not fit. This is not a situation unique to the WSRA as I have seen it happen elsewhere in the voluntary sector. The lack of competent management has become ever more apparent with the way the proposed freehold purchase was handled. The trustees have become totally defensive with polite enquiries unanswered or the cloak of " commercially confidential" being repeatedly trotted out. In fact far from acting in a spirit of cooperation with the PLC the trustees deliberately tried an underhand approach to SCC.

Even if four new trustees were elected many of those who have brought the WSRA into disrepute over this issue would remain. Unless the existing trustees do an about face then it is hard to see any real progress being made however desirable that is. Human nature being what it is I rather doubt they will do so. Sadly IMHO the WSRA has passed the point for evolution, and revolution by whatever means is required. I would be not be pleased to see the WSRA fail but I just can' t see how it can continue as it is.

 

I have this morning been in a meeting with Paul Conibeare, and a number of plc officers on a matter entirely unrelated to the discussion on this thread. I raised with PC the possibility of a DMU running BL - MD - BL, leaving BL at about 1800 or 1830 which would both give folks from along the line the chance to come down to BL by train during the day, and also give WSRA members who have come some distance for the AGM a chance for a round trip on the line before heading home on what we might hope would be a lovely summer evening. Plainly, if a 30-minute lay-over at Minehead was included, it would also raise the possibility of obtaining Fish and Chips at Minehead for the trip back, or stopping off at Watchet or Washford for a pint. I had yesterday checked with the relevant roster clerks and operators. Despite busting the usual 6-week planning period expected, they were prepared to consider running such a trip. It seems likely that both train crew and signalmen could be found from those attending the AGM who could not otherwise do a railway turn on the day.

The difficulty is that the plc's quote, about which I make no adverse comment, and is quite properly consistent with their quotations to others, would be £500. This is partly because on the 19th the DMU diagram would be covered by a diesel loco and coaches, and so the evening trip would have to be. Whilst that could be recovered by, say, only 100 folks contributing £5, it is more of a financial risk than I feel able to take personally, unless I am overwhelmed with responses very shortly.

It does seem to me an option which the WSRA itself might wish to consider in further years if the AGM is held at a similar place and time, which would also allow the facility to be properly advertised with the AGM paperwork.

I will, therefore, take no further steps on this suggestion unless I am overwhelmed with support in the next 24 hours.......

kind regards

Robin White

 

Can I play devil's advocate for a moment please?

I spent a pleasant hour or so in a nice country pub at lunch time (well, support your local business, I say <g>), during which time I re-read very carefully the Reports issued by the WSRA for the AGM (they went down better with a half-pint of Somerset nectar). They are full almost entirely of 'good news' about increasing income, projects completed or underway, plans for the future etc etc. If I were a 'casual observer' at the AGM, I would be hard-pressed to understand the basis for a vote of 'no confidence', so I do hope that Robin's proposed strategy does not back-fire.

Then there will be the matter of the reports of the AGM which will circulate afterwards, and look at what happened last year. If the matter does not go 'according to plan' then there is a risk that a vote to approve the Reports will be seen by many as a rejection of the views expressed by the dissenters, after which a call for an EGM may be viewed as the EU answer to voting, namely just keep re-voting until you get the required result

But something has to be done, as the situation can not be allowed to drag on......for the sake of the Railway.

 

Although I agree with Frank's points, it is important that all of us
thinking along the same lines vote AGAINST the Chairman's report and dare I say it the minutes of the last AGM. It is
especially important that those filling up proxy forms remember to do this.
Otherwise there may not be any debate at all about these important matters.

Rodders

 

I see Railwests point.The report would naturally be biased and show only the positives, avoiding mention of member dissension on freehold,and other issues of concern. You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

 

You haven't. After asking my question I listed what I thought were the available options in order of preference (AGM; EGM; legal action). Your reply suggested another option - letting the WSRA wither away as its support evaporates. I agree that is what may happen if all other options fail but it would leave a dwindling number of members in control of all the WSRA's valuable assets - perhaps for a long time before it finally had to wind itself up or was evicted. Some of those assets might then be lost to the railway if a failed WSRA had to sell up in a hurry. Better that the existing members stay in there and fight to regain control of their organisation even if they don't succeed at the first try. Good luck to you all.

 

That is why I seek the indulgence (and the considerable trust) of those who have similar concerns to allow me to speak first to clearly define the terms of the concerns, and the meaning of the vote.

I should say that I have also posted my AGM 'strategy' on the internal WSR discussion group which I jointly own and moderate. It plainly has now achieved very wide circulation, and I am pleased to say that I have had over 50 unqualified expressions of support. Thanks all.

kind regards

Robin White

P.S. 'Rail West' - Pleased to have you as 'devil's advocate' as that puts me on the side of the angels for once.......

 

Very rare Robin, do you need your halo polishing?

 

If the WSRA choose to wind themselves up the assets would go to another railway preservation group. Very little would be lost. On the other hand if they became insolvent that probably would happen as far as rolling stock is concerned.

 

On our WSR internal WSR thread I have been asked how you can be sure that your proxy has been validly entered.

I would normally say 'trust the Chairman' but given recent events, I doubt many will be happy with that on this occasion. (This alone illustrates the difficulty the present Trustees have got themselves into.)

My best advice is to (1) find someone you trust to be your proxy, (2) complete and send off your proxy form as required by the rules, but keep a copy, (3) give your proxy that copy which they can take to the meeting to check that your proxy has been validly entered.

I am already doing this for several folks (not all of whom are voting for me, I would add).

kind regards

Robin White

 

As Dick Emery said: 'Ooo, you are awful, but I like you!'

kind regards

Robin White

 

For those on this forum who don’t subscribe to the unofficial forum I post this on here.


It is an Email from Peter Chidzey (who is on this forum but chose not to post it here) to show you what we at the WSRAMAG had realised a long time ago in that the current trustees were completely out of touch with the membership of the WSRA.

They have a intense hatred of the PLC and do not seem from this posting capable of understanding that to negotiate you require give and take on both sides. I leave you to draw your own conclusions but if Peter Chidzey is recommending that Steve E is elected then I respectfully suggest that if you don’t want the same to continue you don’t vote for him either but vote for Crudge, Rowe, Randles & Price who have had the foresight to see the storm coming and have been working hard all year to change the board for the good of the railway. Let’s not forget it is these 4 people along with others who set up the petition to the SCC that attracted nearly 400 signatures against the association bid. It was the WSRAMAG who instigated the Freedom of information request that turned up the revelling information about the WSRA’s representatives dealing with the council. The WSRAMAG realised that the Chairman had not booked enough time and booked the hall for afterwards so that there is plenty of time for everyone to be heard. The WSRAMAG are not Jonnie come lately to the problems of the WSRA but had the foresight to organise to change the board for nearly a year. Peter states that the candidates could buy the list. David Randles a candidate tried to buy the list but had his cheque returned and was quoted by Susan Kaufman the Data Protection act as a reason for not allowing David the list.

Rodders


Peter message follows in blue


All candidates were asked for 150 words to go into the Journal, nobody said that was all they could do. Every candidate had the opportunity to purchase the mailing list and send their own manifesto to all members. Which is what we did. There was an enquiry from another member to do so, but was never taken any further. The Journal had space reserved for an advertisement for the WSRAMAG which never appeared. Don’t blame those who made the effort to put their points of view, when others had the chance but failed to take it.

Why did we do this? Because we believe passionately in preserving the independence of the Association and are fully committed to continue the work we began two years ago to create a modern, vibrant and successful Association from the stagnant body it had become under previous chairmen. We are honourable people working hard for the Railway we love, do you really think we are all bad and everyone else all good? There has been so much misrepresentation and half-truths written and spoken about us that we have had to fight back. Read the Trustees statement again and ask some serious questions of the plc and its supporters. There is much that is confidential and cannot be commented on, but it will have to remain confidential. I shall be interested to see the reaction of any of other candidates should they be successful and find out some of these facts and realise that they also are bound by confidentiality.

The worst thing that could happen to the Railway would be for the Association to fall into the hands of the plc, which is a very real danger, as all the other groups will slowly follow. You argue that until there is a change of trustees there will be no peace on the Railway. I could argue exactly the opposite, that until there is a change in the executive of the plc there will be no peace. It is not the Association that will not talk to the plc. but the other way round. I have said many times in this forum and others, we have tried for over two years to meet with the plc (the most recent attempt being last month) and they consistently refuse to do so. The minutes of our trustees meetings show this.

Peter C

Edit: Sorry but the piece where he states vote for Steve E is on another email.

 

I don't think Rodders understands my position and ambition. Perhaps because I won't toe the WSRAMAG line? Perhaps because I am critical of the Plc? Well I'm not a sheep and I am not afraid to say something is wrong at the Plc or WSRA. Wrong is wrong and needs putting right. I stand by my "150 words" and, if elected, I will work for change as stated. Big change. First task is to try to get the Plc to talk constructively to the WSRA about exactly what the Plc want from the WSRA and how the Plc are going to help make it happen. I repeat my recent message to the unofficial WSR forum "I may be an old hippie but I bite." Unlike the candidates favoured by Rodders, I see the WSRA as a partner to the Plc rather than a servant, and vice versa. The way forward is partnership not dominance by either party.

Steve

 

It really is time to put aside differences and comments such as this. I have not supported (and do not support) the WSRA MAG position which has, essentially, been focussed on their view that it was inappropriate for the WSRA to have made a bid for the WSR freehold. What has become unconscionable, and why I now support radical change, has been the actions of the Trustees in the way they have been running the WSRA and in particular reacting to external challenges, and now sticking to the freehold bid when it is, for all sensible purposes, dead, and now just an obstacle in getting the various parts of our Railway to work together.

I am not a natural party politician and have a deep suspicion of 'slate' candidates in such an election, which can tend to, and in my view does in this case, raise the possibility of poor candidates slipping in amongst the 'slate'. No doubt all WSRA members would wish to judge the candidates on their individual merits. I will be forgiven if I vote for myself(!) but I will also be voting for Magda Davies, whose qualities are well known, who's commitment to the Railway is beyond question, and who would, in my view, be a clear asset in establishing a positive sensible position hereafter. I have not yet made my mind up about my other two votes, apart from the fact that Chris Walters (who?) is unlikely to feature and the re-electees are a long way down the field at the moment......

kind regards

Robin White

 

What a shame Mr E that you have decided to drag the whole esprit do corps back into the 'who did what to whom' question. There is a strong swell of members that wish to see change so we should all be united in that cause so that the WSRA can start to get back on track quickly. We think that radical change is needed and needed fast, lets all pull together to get the job done. There will be another day for sorting out personal grievances.