West Somerset Railway - Removal of the PLC Chairman and related matters

With all due respect, this latest nonsense was publicised here by various WRSA trustees representing both sides of the argument. I am sure that the majority of us on this forum would far rather these people did not air their dirty washing in public. Quite frankly, it is a bit rich to accuse outsiders of being keyboard warriors when it is your own people that bought the whole sorry saga into the open.

 

Freight wagon restoration, no matter how worthwhile, does not raise much, if any, money for the PLC which, from reports here, badly needs it. No one has suggested volunteers leaving; what is mentioned is that the Association membership is dwindling, which, in turn, is a loss of revenue for what is supposed to be a WSR support agency.

 

Hi there, I did not accuse outsiders of being keyboard warriors I referred to all. You will also notice that the first mention came from one of the dismissed trustees and not the WSRA.

 

Thank you but I was trying to demonstrate that the one railway principal i

I was trying to show the cooperation and the one railway principal not trying to show the financial health of the business. Also please refer to post 13844, "It is a sad fact that many dedicated and capable folk, in ALL grades, have walked away in recent years". Regards

 

Hi Peter, you will note as I answered somewhere else this debate was started by one of the dismissed trustees and, quite correctly, the Chair of the WSRA responded. We have not had any statement from the PLC and that should be an end to it.

 

It is clear to me and others that the WSRA trustees had every plan to issue their statement today and have now done so on a number of outlets. In fact, a copy arrived in my inbox at 11.45pm last night. If I had been awake at that hour, and with no embargo on its release, that statement might have been published on wsr.org.uk before the Ex2's deadline of "2359". It is a shame that the actions taken have led to the debate now started but despite protestations, the debate would have happened anyway. There's more to this than some people are letting on, so it's not a case of just closing up the shop.

Steve

 

I will make one contribution.
There is a document available on the WSRA web site. It is Called The Essential Trustee. It is published by the Charity Commission.
Those who wish to indulge in debate should, at least, read this document to understand the duties and obligations of a charity trustee.
This will explain the obligations that Frank and Rodney were under as trustees, and indeed the obligations of their fellow trustees when the matter was considered at a trustee meeting.
Hope that helps, after 3 long footplate days I'm just home and now off for a bath.

 

Three of the PLC voted for the two co-ops. Two voted against.
Could we have some names?

 

3 days on the footplate, a trustees meeting and you wait till now to have a bath????

SO easy to miss read things!!!

Jeff

 

The spirit of Chris Tucker lives!

Robin

 

If you read the web site relating to the loco 4160 (if that is what you are referring to) you will note that the owners suggest there is not a pot of cash as you say and also the loco was not sold by anyone. What was sold were some shares in the company and as for depriving the loco to the WSR it could be suggested that the subsequent action of the WSRA actually caused the rift. I am sure the PLC were not happy with all of this.

 

Perhaps the "railway" should adopt the Llangollen model and make the boards largely identical? (If the conflicted directors at the Llangollen have to withdraw, they presumably can hold the meeting in a telephone box.)

 

Michael I am sure you are tired

A Trustee nominated by the WSRA to sit as a director on the PLC Board assumes
a responsibility to both Boards, and obligations enshrined within both the
relevant Companies Acts and the Charities Commission guidance. Inevitably
on occasion there will be issues of confidentiality to one or the other body.

The same must apply to a Plc director who becomes a Trustee.

From a Charities point of view "avoid putting yourself in a position where your
duty to your charity conflicts with your loyalty to another body"

I have to say, based on what I have read over the last 24 hours I cannot see
how Messrs Courtney and Greenway have "placed themselves in a position
where their duty to the WSRA has been in conflict". Surely to strive towards
a better performing PLC is very much in the WSRA's interest.

Michael Rowe

 

It really is time some common sense was shown and speculation ceased! None of us, probably for legal reasons have not heard the full story from both sides. Therefore it is pointless and unhelpful to continue speculatiing on somethinh none of us fully understand. The board of the WSRA have made a decision and we have to accept that. Unless, and until, further FACTS emerge further discussion is both pointles and damaging. For goodness sake SHUT UP!!!!

 

There's not actually been much speculation that I can see, most posts are just lamenting the fact that once again the WSR seems incapable of not having an argument, and maybe something more fundamental needs to change.

 

Please do everyone a favour by following your own advice..!!

 

I can, based solely on what has been posted on here. The operative phrases are “collective responsibility” and “trust”.

Without prejudice to the claims of any involved in this unseemly fracas, my earlier suggestions of Relate or ACAS seem ever more relevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Can someone please explain to me how Frank Courtney rejoining the WSR PLC board would be of concern to the WSRA?

Surely the more members of the trustees/board of the WSRA who are also members of the PLC board would be a good thing? Rodney already did this, and I cannot see any objection to another joining him as Frank did.

If this is a dispute about the WSRA board not being properly informed of this in advance, then this seems to me to rather petty and shortsighted.

Or was this an excuse to get rid of 2 WSRA trustees/board members so that the dispute relating to 4160 could be proceeded with without opposition at WSRA board level?

Cheers,

Julian

 

After 90 posts maybe this is what it is really all about?