WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

I would be interested to hear what the reaction is.

I am far from convinced that we are not heading for a poll vote on election already, in that there will be a proper count of votes rather than an informally counted 'show of hands'. I have been told that a system of cards has been devised to ensure that the vote is properly counted and that folks only vote for their allocated 4. I suspect that might be difficult to police, especially if folks hold, as I do, multiple proxies with different voting patterns.

It is a matter of regret that I have only heard obliquely of the plans for the election and there is not yet a clear statement from the WSRA.

I believe also that the WSRA solicitor is to be present and will act as scrutiniser, which may allay some fears. The solicitor will regard their professional position as far more important than any electoral 'jiggery-pokery'.

Plainly we need to get this sorted for any future contentious years.

I am happy to lend my support for any system which makes the vote transparent as to fairness. I also take the point as far as a 'secret ballot' having advantages. We have settled on that for our parliamentary democracy, so hard to say it is not right for the WSRA. I will be at home paper working for most of this week, so if those working on electoral fairness wish to be directly in contact, please do.

Time is very short and chaos next Saturday will assist no-one.

Kind regards

Robin White

 

I am about to perambulate to the Queens Arms at Pitminster for a well earned lunch with my family. I will leave the forum in peace for a few hours.
If we put aside all the who did what with whom with what I am sure we now have a very strong cohort of members who will be able to support Robin's motion about the Chairman's Report.
The one thing we are all agreed on is that the Trustee's behaviour towards the members and the Railway is not fit for purpose. The road to change may be long and tortuous but we will take action next Saturday.
Even the longest and hardest journey will start with one small step ...................................... Ladies and Gentlemen we are about to take that step .............. May your God speed you all. Faol

 

Had WSRA identified this problem, and publicised a solution, most members would have settled for their proposals. As it is up to today,they have reacted in the manner of the apocryphal oozlelum bird,leading to the current activity.

 

>>>".....I would be really rather careful in attacking Steve Edge with such bile..........Steve's work for the Railway over many years......has been of great importance in the digital age......."

I concur. Whatever views anyone may hold about the suitability of Steve as a candidate, some the recent comments seem to be more in the flavour of personal insults. This does not reflect well on the person making such comments, nor does such apparent 'in-fighting' help the 'common cause' of getting a reformed and better WSRA.

I can't comment on the Queens Arms at Pitminster, but we had a splendid lunch at the Benett Arms in Semley yesterday...........

 

"I have given a lot of thought to what the difficulties are. To say that they are personal is a superficially attractive analysis - plainly when there are difficulties, the expression of them is a difficulty between the individuals that make up the WSR plc 'management' and the WSRA 'management'.Robin White"

The reference to difficulties being personal was written in the context of discussing 'transfer charges' and 'transfer prices' related to Plc access and motive power fees for the QB.

It was not a comment on the relative structures and business models of the plc, WSRA and the plethora of other groups involved with the Railway.

At the risk of repetition. The WSRA has no business or strategic plan. (A position recently confirmed during the meeting between WSRAMAG representatives and a group of WSRA Trustees). One of the first actions that the WSRAMAG four (Crudge, Price, Randles and Rowe) will champion if elected as Trustees is the initiation of a formal strategic planning exercise. This will involve maximum consultation and participation and must have agreed guide lines.

It is fortunate that between the four of us we have extensive experience not only of planning processes but of successful implementation of said plans including the management of change should that be a requisite.

The strategic planning exercise should ideally be commenced with the metaphorical 'clean sheet of paper' . Whilst there is an apparently universal view that change is required thought should be given as to how the consultation will produce the best possible result for the WSR. It is not unknown for such exercises to produce solutions far removed from the considered 'obvious' at the initiation of the process.

The WSRAMAG consultation paper and responses to it constitute a tentative (we recognise there is much information that we do not have sight of) start to the process.

In parallel with the planning exercise it would be beneficial to all if relationships with other WSR organisations could be improved. (Our joint meeting with the Trustees suggested there is much to be done.

Please vote Crudge, Price, Randles, Rowe. A team with the business experience, love of the WSR and ability to pull together to find the WSRA 's rightful place within the WSR family.

Michael Rowe
,

 

I knew it was extinct in the North but perhaps not further South B^D

 

Excellent lunch .... whitebait. Now we seem to be getting a bit wordy, wordy again and are in danger of writing lots of big words and saying much and doing little.
There IMHO is a problem. That problem is between the WSRA and the Railway family. The problem needs fixing and has needed fixing for some time. The Trustees seem oblivious too the problem or just plain argumentative and refuse to talk openly to its members. So lets change some Trustees. Simples.
When we have changed some trustees you can have as many consultation groups and papers as you like as long as you quickly re-establish good relationships with the Railway family.
I well recall a man called Dick Hampton (no coarse jokes please) started with a barrow and 2 ladders and eventually owned the biggest civil engineering company in the UK. He built most of the M5 through Somerset. It was well known that Dick could not read or write. He was interviewed by a television company who had discovered he had applied to a city council to become a toilet attendant. The television interviewer said, "Just think, Mr Hampton, what could have happened if you could have been able to read and write". Dicks's quick reply was, "Yes I would have been a toilet attendant".
The moral of that story is you do not have to be a brilliant tactician at business to run a large business. You need dedication, heart, a methodical way of sorting problems and, above all, a real desire to do what is right by your members.
We will get there but united we stand ......................

 

A WSRA member who has been reading this thread has asked me to put a question to the WSRAMAG candidates, and in particular Mike Rowe and Brian Crudge.

He has the perception that FoWSR is a rival organisation to the WSRA as a 'whole line' supporters group and he is suspicious of candidates whom he thinks would have a 'conflict of interest' were they to serve on both committees. He is given to understand that the membership of FoWSR is still less than 100 and it has negligible assets relative to the WSRA which has membership in 4 figures and considerable assets.

He asks why, if ME and BC believe that being trusted to sort out the affairs of the WSRA why the could not give (indeed have not given) an assurance that they, if elected, would step down from any committee position with FoWSR? He says that he would regard this as a simple means of demonstrating a commitment to positive rather than negative change.

In this, I am only the messenger but it does illustrate the 'perception' I spoke of earlier.

Kind regards

Robin White

 

A question for the WSRAMAG candidates : - If they were elected and the remit of the WSRA could be entended to cover projects funded by the FoWSR, there would apppear to be no need for it(FoWSR) and would they be prepared to close it down ?
Note : - I am not a member of either organisation.

 

What a hectic afternoon ! The four extra signatures and membership numbers obtained, poll request then copied, and certified received by WSRA ... Thanks all for your support, we await developments

 

I'd agree that smaller groups like station friends groups or groups looking after a loco or some rolling stock is a good idea, but both organisations are to my eye whole railway charitable organisations. the reasoning behind the FoWSR is rather vague, with such hazy terms regarding more funding, without actually explaining it properly. Why can they get more funds, and why can't the WSRA do that themselves?

 

As someone else has observed on this forum the various Friends groups have evolved to raise funds for various station projects and this has been necessary as the WSRA has reduced its grants to stations significantly. The various station friends groups have actually been very successful, one has raised well into £ six figures.

FoWSR was established to raise funds for projects that were across the Railway rather than within a station boundary. It is not membership numbers it will be judged a success by but by the funds it generates. The various Friends groups are not charities, they lose out on tax advantages but are free to spend without restriction. FoWSR is not in competition with WSRA anymore than the Friends of Minehead Station or the Friends of Crowcombe station are in competition with the Association

There are almost certainly situations when the WSRA and Friends Groups can work together for the benefit of the WSR. If the WSRA returned to its supporting role of the past the need for Friends Groups, and the funds they raise might lessen. Indeed perhaps the WSRA could assume an overall fund raising role for the Railway. This could only happen if it was trusted, unfortunately the current Trustees do not have this trust. The reasons why have been well rehearsed on the NP WSR Developments post, the WSR UF forum etc.

Far from stepping down from FoWSR, Brian and myself believe that being a Trustee and on the Committee of FoWSR is a benefit. We both have sufficient experience of committees, boards etc to know if a conflict of interest occurs we do not take part in any vote. (I have previously on the NP WSR Developments thread briefly summarised my business experience). Similarly if a member of a station Friends group becomes a WSRA Trustee one would not expect them to cease their station support. That would appear to be detrimental to the overall well being of the WSR.

Robin, I am afraid I find your concern over the 'perception' of others re FoWSR disingenuous. You have consistently opposed FoWSR and have posted accordingly repeatedly. You even sent me an intemperate personal email in which amongst other things you said "When are you going to shut down FoWSR". I have tried many times to explain that FoWSR is not in competition with anybody, it is simply trying to raise funds. Over the last twelve months, with the uncertainty engendered by the Freehold issue FoWSR has deliberately assumed a very low profile.

The issue at stake is the future of the WSRA. Vote for Crudge, Price, Randles, Rowe. Four Trustees who could set about revitalising the Association.

Michael Rowe.

 

If I may be so bold to add to Michael's note on FoWSR. There are jobs that the WSRA as a Charity would not be able to do. If the WSR decided to install a flat bottom point to cater for commercial train servicing at Bishops Lydeard then the WSRA simply could nor fund it as it would be against their charity principals and would be assisting a commercial company. FoWSR could simply raise money and assist.
There always was and always will be room for for both. Oddly the Steam Trust is more closely in line with the WSRA, both being Charities and both in the Heritage 'business. In fact Robin was Chair of the WSRA and a Committee Member of the WSSRT some years ago but nobody shouted then. FoWSR is a small but dedicated group doing a good job. When FoWSR announced its Water, water project the WSRA simply stated that they could have easily delivered the project. At the time I was chair of FoWSR and asked them to carry on as getting extra water cranes installed was very important. These extra water cranes are conspicuous by there absence but FoWSR is getting there.
Please stop setting hares running. It has no bearing on the task of replacing some WSRA trustees. Please stick to the task and we might just prevail.

 

I suspect the reason that the FoWSR/WSRA perceived competition keeps getting returned to is that, from a very unscientific and largely unintentional poll I took of a few WSRA members (almost certainly not West Somerset working members), this was an issue which was instantly raised as a cause of "annoyance with the PLC". I raise it not as a criticism or to take sides but to try and assist all seeking office in seeing how those less well informed than working members will be as to the "goings on" of the past few months but who actually form the bulk of the potential electorate for next Saturday may well, and in some cases, definitely do, see things.

It is a view that I, as an outsider, can understand arising, based on what appeared in the national preservation press when the F0WSR was launched. Having followed discussions here and had off-board discussions with some of those involved, I now appreciate that the F0WSR is the equivalent of the NYMR's Foundation and NELPG Patron Schemes, but that was not the initial impression which no-one seemed at the time to do much to correct.

I know the above is repeating myself but I do feel appreciating this may be the case is vital for a way forward for the WSRA - it is another barrier to overcome to allow change and people working together with the WSRplc and across the West Somerset Railway. This and the other thread prove that "bygones won't be bygones" without a few portions of humble pie all round and it costs nothing to say "I understand why you may have been upset by that, but actually the problem was a misunderstanding and this was why it was done". Please don't Michael or anyone from WSRAMAG take this as "go" at them - it is intended to be helpful!

I would also refer people back to the recent discussion on the wording of a Charity's Aims and interpreting what they mean in practice. On the NYMR, we use flat-bottom rail between stations where it is less visible (but aim to maintain bullhead within station limits) because our objectives cover operation and preservation. As it happens, a post unhappy with this and other outbreaks of modernity was made on our own Unofficial Forum right in the midst of the debate about Charitable Objectives on here, and the thoughts the debate on here promoted enabled me to post a reply which has lead to one senior official contacting me and saying they found some of the matters I raised (prompted by this thread) most interesting and worthy of wider debate!

I relay that as a hope that the process of making people think about what an organisation is and what it can do can be a positive force for constructive change and improvement. Let us hope that proves possible on the West Somerset.

Steven

 

Welcome back Jeff and Michael, I can only attribute your silence to being dumbstruck by Robins sudden conversion from opposing MAGs earlier call for trustees to stand down, to one of planning just that at the AGM ! I welcome Robins statement to work alongside others to revitalise WSRA. The position of chair is one for the new trusteeship to resolve amicably,lets get there first by the vote at the AGM, and uniting on the general consensus reached in the past week or so as the primary objective. The mutual relationship/ possible symbosi of the Friends of groups to WSRA could well be established post AGM in the later open membership discussion/ consultation on the way forward for the Association. At the moment this is a side issue detracting from the main objective. That is change.

 

>>>"One of the things that concerns me about this is that the current trustees will benefit from what will be seen as infighting amongst those standing . You have to demonstrate that are have a much better offering than the incumbents , since if it more of the same then why will you be voted into office . This is your chance to really push for change . Another twelve months and the freehold debacle will be drifting into the memory and a successful vote for those in charge will only strengthen their resolve and powerbase. You need to unite around some common ground..."

IMHO a very succinct and pertinent observation from Sidmouth.

It may well be the case that there will be many at the AGM who either (a) do not see there to be any problem with the current WSRA set-up and/or (b) having noted at least of the recent exchanges will take the view "better the devil you know....". No doubt the 'WSRAMAG 4' will promote their credentials, quite legitimately, as a unified group with a common approach, but they are not the only candidates (even discounting those currently Trustees and standing for re-election). I would suggest that this is a situation perhaps where you try to form a coalition before the election, rather than afterwards! There may well be the EGM route as a fall-back, but that could be even more problematic in trying to rally the WSRA majority to your cause.

Despite, or perhaps in part even as a result of, Michael Rowe's latest post, I still remain very confused and 'unhappy' about the FoWSR. I have no problem with 'Friends' groups for individual stations (after all, I belong to FoBAS <g>) or other similar 'special interest' bodies (being also a member of the 'Powderham' group, and you probably can't get more 'niche' than that on the WSR!), but I simply fail to see the need for one for the whole railway given that there is already a long-established Association. I hear all the arguments about not being in competition, raising funds for projects where the WSRA can't etc etc, but I am simply not convinced that it is not a recipe for confusion and dilution of effort and support. Indeed, if the WSRA were to become 'reformed', then I would expect it to be done in a way which negates the need for the FoWSR at all - and that is not meant to be a critique of the personnel involved.

>>>There are almost certainly situations when the WSRA and Friends Groups can work together for the benefit of the WSR. If the WSRA returned to its supporting role of the past the need for Friends Groups, and the funds they raise might lessen. Indeed perhaps the WSRA could assume an overall fund raising role for the Railway......

Quite

 

Mike

My concerns are not 'disingenuous'. I have them as an actual concern and many other have them as a perceived concern. I raise them with you because they are a potential barrier to the consensus that might bring change. Do take account of the views expressed on this subject by other independent commentators.

I have put aside our differences to set out a meeting strategy that might bring the change that we need.

I ask you to do the same, to stop using expressions such as 'disingenuous' and 'intemperate' when referring to others who have legitimate views developed over many years of commitment and firmly join the consensus.

Actually, the position we find ourself in may be a considerable opportunity. I was bought lunch today by a very grateful client who had significant difficulties at work and whose 'exit' terms I helped negotiate. Whilst she would never have chosen to leave her previous employment, doing so has proved a real success as she is now in new, better paid and far more enjoyable employment - real success.

Perhaps we now have that opportunity (perhaps arising once in a generation) to sort out the WSR 'family' for the future.

Let's work together on that. No one knows my faults better than I. We all have positives and negatives. This is far too much of an opportunity to waste.

Kind regards

Robin White

 

Post No 424:

Post no 425 (talking about a specific person):

Well that lasted a long time!

The "gang of four" (what were their names again? I don't think they've been mentioned...) did an excellent job raising awareness about the failures within the current WSRA leadership, and in particular exposing the way negotiations about the freehold were conducted.

However ... since then, the combination of near-silence by the candidates, while their most vocal supporters (and spokesman) have gone in for a number of very personal attacks, seems to my eyes distinctly counterproductive. With a maximum of four trustees out of ten changing, consensus and bridge-building are going to be the order of the day. The WSRAMAG candidates do not fill me with confidence that they either appreciate that, or would be able to deliver it.

Tom