WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

>>>Resigning from the Association will not help. We need everybody who wants rid of the existing trustees to remain and help vote them out.

Whilst I can understand the anger of those such as Barrie, I would caution against any sort of knee-jerk reaction. Simply resigning and (perhaps) setting up a rival organisation is NOT going to change the WSRA, nor will it make it go away. Instead it will merely confuse the situation IMHO and has the potential to become yet another sort of "what is the FoWSR for?" type scenario. Despite the set-back, in the longer-term it may well prove easier to change the WSRA from the inside rather than the outside.

I would suggest also that writing to all-and-sundry to 'discredit' the WSRA may serve little purpose other than to discredit those doing the writing. And how then, if/when the WSRA is transformed, will you then win back the credit that it will need to move forward?

>>>>Worryingly, the Chairman seemed to genuinely believe that the vast majority of the membership were behind the trustees.
Well, to be frank, on the basis of the overall number of votes in favour as opposed to against, he would seem to have a point there. On the other hand, the total number of votes - both proxy and in person - is a minority of the membership as a whole, but the majority seems to be 'silent'.

I would suggest that the key element which - it would seem - the Chairman appears to have overlooked is that (if Robin's assessment is correct) most of the attendees at the AGM were actual working volunteers. If the Trustees alienate the WSRA's 'core workforce', it is difficult to see how they can continue to claim to 'support the railway' effectively.

 

>>>Agreed, though clearly knowing the exact mechanics of the election in advance is also crucial! That was sadly (and IMHO inexcusably) lacking this time round......

Err......quite by chance last night I came across an update to the WSRA's website 'News' page (at https://sites.google.com/site/westsomersetrailwayassociation/latest-news) which does indeed set out the procedure to be used for the election.

This information apparently was posted at 12:40pm on Friday 18th, on behalf of the WSRA by its webmaster Steve Edge. I'm surprised that AFAIK he did not then draw the attention of that update to either this thread or the WSRUF.

 

Did anyone spot that on Friday ? I have kept an eye on that site , and didn't see it. I can understand Barrie's feelings, but would urge him to reconsider.Firstly,withdrawal of voluntary support will affect the railway as a whole,the average customer judges the railway,not the organisations within,and such action will reflect directly on the WSR and the PLC. There may be other voluntary areas where the railway can be supported apart from those involving WSRA or WSRA(p).Secondly the reform"coalition" needs the support of all,and that means retaining membership.

 

Just a word or two to thank those folks who supported me during the recent trustee elections.

At this stage the song going round my head is "We can work it out"...

And by golly there is some work to be done. I'll keep trying from the sidelines.

Steve

 

To all WSRA Members

Some further 'next steps' will emerge in the next few days, but as an important first step, I would ask all those who attended yesterday's AGM (or who have read the account of the AGM) and feel that some part of the present Trustees (I would focus in particular Messrs Williams, Chidzey and Nichols) should step down, to write to the Trustees expressing your view.

A letter can be sent to the Association Office at Bishops Lydeard, or an e-mail can be sent via either the WSRA manager or administrator - addresses available on the WSRA website. If you do so write, please, if you can, send me an e-mail copy to robin215white(the 'at' sign)btinternet.com For anti-spam reasons, I have written my e-mail address carefully. Please replace (the 'at' sign) with @

Please be sure to identify yourselves as WSRA members, with membership number if at all possible. If you volunteer on the Railway, please say in what capacity you volunteer in your letter or e-mail.

kind regards

Robin White

 

I too thought this but following the totally shameful actions of the WSRA trustees (or at least an inner core of them) in recent weeks then I'm of the opinion that only the full glare of public scrutiny will bring them to book. I for one, as a member, will be expressing my disquiet to the charity commission unless a group letter is going to be organised? I shall also be writing to the popular press.

 

This was, I believe, in the evening of Friday last, around 8.30pm (I think the time shown on the website - which is hosted on Google Sites - is a manifestion of "GoogleTime" - I'll see if I can override it). I would also point out that brief updates about this content were also made to the WSRA's facebook page and twitter account, with the latter tweet re-tweeted to my own @WizzerTweet account. So arguably the update was quickly available to several thousand people. I guess the lesson is for folks to check other places and not rely on this forum and WSRUF! BTW My volunteer work as "minder" of the WSRA website (I detest the word "webmaster"!) is limited, through my own choice, to looking after the technical bits and posting new content upon request from WSRA officials.

Steve

 

There are several issues within the meeting I shall raise with the reform group, and await their views on the way forward. I have already said the potential for chaos was foreseeable, it was foreseen, they were notified, it was preventable, and the responsibility lies with the Association. I am of the opinion that filibustering tactics were used to run the meeting out of time,in the knowledge many would need to depart by 6pm for train or bus, particularly voting for reform candidates.i was equally surprised by the inability of the chair or secretary to display the leadership qualities of command,instead we were faced with the equivalent of a trainee teacher who had not prepared their lesson, did not know their subject, faced with a large and knowledgeable class,and lurching from one crisis to another.

 

I applaud your thoughts on the Charity Commission and have been down that road. Firstly you have to make your complaint via their website and there are dire warnings about your prosecution that you have to sign. Secondly they will want evidence and that needs submitting so on balance it would seem necessary to have many people complaining. Sadly I think you will get nowhere. Like many other quasi government departments they are totally overworked and are only interested in fraud or misuse of public funds.
I have wondered about the Electoral Reform Services and perhaps they could get involved, they have a specific charities department I understand. I suspect they charge but it would ensure a fair and legal vote next time.
My last glimmer of hope is that Messrs Williams, Nichols, Chidzey, and Holland find that they really do have a sense of morality and a conscience and having seen almost 200 members calling for their resignations will do just that. We can but hope.
To Robin and all the others forming up against the 'gang of 4' I publicly pledge my support both physically and financially. Having witnessed, in public, what I have endured in private at Trustees meetings, I will do all in my power to help dislodge these trustees.
Ken D

 

Robin I have written by email and a copy is published here:

Dear David,
I have written an email to you before suggesting that you and a number of your WSRA Trustees resign for the greater good of the WSRA and the WSR family.
The derision in which you and your trustees were held at the AGM was fully justified and I firmly believe you have stepped outside of all conceivable moral standards.
It is most definitely time for you and you colleagues, Chidzey, Holland and Nichols to do the right thing and resign.
You must now realise you are not wanted, are thoroughly disliked and above all completely untrustworthy.
Please, as a last action, resign and allow the WSRA to be saved.
Yours Sincerely

Ken Davidge
WSRA Member 12300
WSR Volunteer Funeral Assistant (retired Special Projects Manager)

 

The last three AGM's have witnessed an evolving pattern. ie increasing discontent from the audience as the Meeting has proceeded, an increasing apparent disregard by the Chairman and an evolving parallel similar disposition by his fellow Trustees and an increasing importance of proxy votes held by the Chairman.

2012, concerns from the floor were, "Why are so many Trustees resigning, why is the Membership declining, why are overheads climbing and support ( financial for the Railway) declining. Answers were characterised by adverse references to the plc.

2013 was as above but additionally "Why the clandestine nature of the WSRA approach to the SCC re the Railway Freehold". Meeting was cut short, after much time had been taken on the annual WSRA raffle prizes. Voting against most resolutions was strong (even the reelection of the Chairman as a Trustee) . One resolution, even with the Chairman casting the proxies (79 off) failed to make the required 75 % in favour (It actually received 54%, was initially called as passed and only after calls from the floor was the motion failed)

Then we have yesterday, c 230 persons at the peak, probably c. 180 of those were volunteers (please do not forget that barely 50% of volunteers are WSRA members). A sizeable majority from the floor against accepting the minutes (initially carried comfortably by the Chairman casting the proxies, c.540 off when attendance at last years AGM was c.120, after much effort from the floor this was reversed ie the proxies withdrawn )

Next was the Chairman's report. Not seen before the meeting but carried by the 500 plus proxies who hadn't even had the luxury of just hearing it. And so it went on. A personal conversation with the WSRA's solicitor (a much respected member of the steam and preservation movement) at the break was illuminating. ie he quite correctly said "we need to get this (AGM) over with as expeditiously as possible and then every one can move on to deal with the real issues " my response was, to paraphrase "we've been at this for over two years, initially the majority of the membership was of the opinion that the WSRA should be given a chance, now few feel that way . For whatever reason the WSRA has become effectively the fiefdom of a few, who are able to persistently spin a line to those members who rely on the Journal for their news." He was I feel genuinely surprised and dare I say it perhaps shocked.

We have had now three chaotic meetings (a personal rule has always been when chairing anything have the secretary sitting next to you, so when you 'screw up' a gentle word to your side tells you), badly chaired, increasingly fractious and a solution is no nearer.

"We can work it out" seems like a bad joke. Two years ago those of us who were increasingly becoming alarmed were told, "be patient, don't rock the boat "and of course " remember there are two sides to this, " and from some " it is not the WSRA you should be looking at, rather the plc. "

Since then the plc board has become far more open ie reports of board meetings, consultation to a business plan and regular information meetings for shareholders and volunteers. The WSRA appears to have gone in the other direction.

As I mentioned yesterday antipathy by many of the Trustees for the plc Board is openly stated, only a few days past at a meeting, where it was made very clear that the meeting was open for attendees to report afterwards to whom they wish a WSRA Trustee as part of a general attack on the plc proffered "as for the new Chairman, he is even worse than the previous one". What chance rapprochement one asks. Why would anybody ( even as many of us do, believe there is merit in the Freehold being held by a Charity) trust the current Trustees ?

For some time some of us have been lambasted for calling for some WSRA Trustee resignations. We appear, within the WSRA volunteering diaspora to now be part of an overwhelming majority.

NP moderators please excuse the capital letters.

WSRA TRUSTEES, ( THOSE WHO CANNOT SUPPORT THE PLC YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE) PLEASE GO !

The rest of us can then get on with our various roles on the WSR and new Trustees can get on with their challenging role.

A very personal thought. If you, the current Trustees are utterly convinced of your 'rightness' , as appears to be the situation, then perhaps you have to take the WSRA somewhere else. You appear to have lost entirely the support of the WSR staff (paid and volunteer)

Michael Rowe

 

Well said Michael. I am rarely rendered speechless (as friends and colleagues will testify). Also I have attended some very sticky meetings in my time. But I have NEVER witnessed anything like yesterday. Every aspect of the meeting was badly organised and badly run - even down to the fact that the projector was pointed at a complex wall construction rather than a plain screen. This was a textbook example of how not to run a meeting, organised by a group of pretty much self appointed, self serving individuals.

I would like to thank Robin - and various others - for their efforts and contributions. Robin in particular made a substantial and thoughtful contribution which was very well received. If between us all we cannot sort out this mess then it is probably impossible to achieve.

Whether we can do anything about this whole matter without demolishing the Association itself in my view hangs in the balance.

Frank

 

Far from cancelling membership, I'm a non-member who now intends to join, to help support the move to change WSRA management linked to this lovely railway.

There's been little comment so far on the massive increase in proxy votes held by the Chairman - usually c 90, this year 740. Is it clear how that has come about? Maybe there'd be some natural increase given that this year a true 'election' was in progress, but that is unlikely to create much additional interest from armchair members. Was there a lot of direct contact from the existing Trustees to members to drum up support? Or I wonder if a lot of new memberships were created? To create 500 new members with guaranteed proxies from family and friends would cost a maximum of £9500 (probably nearer £6000 if non-single adult categories were used). Not a high price to retain power, particularly if that power brings financial benefits with it.

It seems all the debate on Nat Pres has prompted the existing Trustees to take action to ensure their survival. Unless there's some legal route through this, you'll need careful thought as to how your own voting power can be increased in future from existing or new members - I suspect Chairman's proxies are not going to be let fall to 90 again for the foreseeable future!

 

That is something that has been bugging me!

I can only think that when the bumf for the AGM was sent out 'something' was received by those people, instructing them what to do, whilst those known to oppose the existing Trustees, and possibly by default known associates, did not................................... difficult to prove unless said 'something' comes to light!

I feel that those on here who are pushing for a change at the top, have been somewhat undone by their openness and honesty, whilst the trustee's have resorted to something akin to skullduggery.............

 

Many may share chaulenders thoughts,but short of legal action may well be impossible to verify from Association records, bearing in mind their intransigence over membership lists.However there is one chink in the fortress.- that should a trustee have to stand down,then the cooption should be drawn from the other electoral candidates, rather than the recent buddy buddy method.

 

When does the chairmans post come up for re election ? that may be one option if its in the next 12 months, to organse and vote him out, and replace him with someone who will look to heal the rift,
i am a member of a historic car club and we had a simular situation a chairman who treats it as his club, and a group of friends of his in positions of power, at an recent AGM only 8 members turned up,out of a membership of 400 and dispite votes against from the floor and a request to postpone the AGM because of the low turn out , he used proxy's to ensure there was no change, i was a committee member myself ,i resigned over it, as no member had prior notification, no accounts published and we were told that no postal votes would be allowed, because they had not been posted to the secretary in time, this dispite the fact that no notice of AGM had been posted to all members, but he then allowed votes he held to ensure members who wanted change did not get elected .using his own vote twice to ensure that the treasurer remained ,in office dispite concerns over missing club funds some 4 months on, we still have not had any accounts published , nor any communication in any form from any committee member seems to be a very simular top table to that of the WSRA

 

You are not alone in this thought. It was made clear at the meeting that the Association's solicitor had had some role in verification of the proxies, and whilst I am sure he was acting in good faith, it is conceivable - though I think unlikely - that somehow or other the wool was drawn over his eyes. Much more likely is that there was some kind of additional communication with a number of potential proxy voters, but in theory this should be easier to verify one way or another. (Are there any proxy voters readers of this thread who think they may have received additional approaches from the WSRA administration?)

It is contrary to all normal rules of democratic engagement that the number of interested non-attending eligible voters should have gone up by this amount in one year, and all supported the status quo.

Frank

 

There is the question whether the minutes and chairmans statement should have be on the proxy form at all, bearing in mind they may and do differ on the day after the proxy has voted.Elsewhere, we may find the practice is acceptance or refusal is by those present. Competitive candidatures, A and M revision, increase in membership fees are valid for proxy voting.

 

I am one of those who was unable to attend the AGM. I returned the proxy form to the WSRA, with a joint membership allowing 2 votes, voting against the last AGM minutes, against the chairmans report that had been sent out, and the trustee votes were not for any of those recommended by the trustees. What happened to these votes is now a mystery in that the candidates voted for all stood down - so were these votes reallocated by the chairman?
I did not receive any additional communication from the WSRA/trustees other than what I believe was issued to other members and no phone calls.

 

I'd say the letter from the "three re-electees" that accompanied the re-sent proxy form was an example of "additional communication" directly received by WSRA members and may well have strongly influenced proxy voting. That action was not fair to other candidates. My concerns and disappointment were immediately conveyed to the WSRA chairman. The WSRA defence that this action was "legal" and that those three apparently covered the costs of the re-sent proxy form, is inexcusable.

Steve