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

IMHO a sad loss . A fine situation to be in when there isn't anyone prepared to step up to be counted .

 

Given the WSRA’s statement, I presume that there is at least one more scene to come in this act. The next act, based on past performance in this particular fugue, being further tension between plc and Association.

Following the musical reference, can I remind participants that a fugue is meant to resolve musically, and that the collapse through exhaustion at the end of Rite of Spring is not a good example to follow. Perhaps the final scene of Verdi’s final opera (Tu tto nel mondo è burla (All the world’s a joke), Falstaff) sets a better example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

As a former WSR volunteer and, briefly, a WSRA trustee, now moved away from the area, and ( laying my cards on the table) a friend of Ian Coleby, I despair, I really do. Some of you down there, it seems, couldn't run the proverbial p*** up in a brewery. I am glad I now volunteer elsewhere, on a line that on the face of it is well run, and more importantly makes a profit.

Sent from my Lenovo TAB 2 A10-70F using Tapatalk

 

This is sounding so familiar as to what was happening pre-2016 with the WSRA . much before then I have no knowledge .

 

Hi Roger,
Totally agree with your words and you know who is doing all this nasty behaviour. Sometimes I wish I too could be at Toddington but the family is rooted here and I helped start this Railway in 1971. I am sure I am not going to let some jumped up idiots take control of the WSR just like that. There is plenty of mileage left in this line but we have had 11 years of very poor management and almost the same time of ineffectual Boards. Now is the time for the 2 big charities to step forward and take a controlling interest so that we really do become ONE RAILWAY not only in name but also in management. That change will have my vote and support and I could even come out of semi retirement and help build it.

 

I really do hesitate to even enter the fray on this one, not least to ask the difficult and potentially (for the West Somerset Railway) dangerous question that is, I suspect, on more than my lips. Given that I well understand the difficulties of some potential answers, please feel free not to answer.

Is the root of today's events (which I am guessing the WSRA tried, unsuccessfully, to head off a couple of weeks back), and the real underlying concern for the West Somerset Railway and its future, summarised in the sentence I have put in bold above?

Steven

 

I guess a few more heads are for the chop.


I think you are right Ken, you have my backing.

 

Categorically, YES.

 

As someone who thinks he's quite good at running p*** ups in breweries, among other locations, I have absolutely no regrets that I walked away to concentrate my efforts on that very activity.

 

Power struggles and tantrums have no practical effect to deal with the risks facing Heritage Railways, they only make matters worse :-
Rising costs as infrastructure and trains continue to age
Static passenger numbers, and almost as bad; too many passengers on a few days of the year and practically empty trains on other days of the year
Reduced volunteer numbers due to changes to retirement age and ORR expecting higher standards

 

Can someone put names to the despicable creatures who have ganged up on Ian Colby and thus created this latest fiasco?

Jamie.

 

I would disagree - power struggles in their many forms are usually a serious distraction from dealing with the risks you rightly list. Perhaps particularly they distract from the varied means of funding (including Fund Raising) which need to be a major response to these 'challenges' (I learnt from a very dear friend that 'problems' are best referred to as 'challenges' and not 'disasters'!)

Steven

 

surely the county council is the biggest shareholder, can't they do something about it

 

SCC own the trackbed etc but, other than been the landlords they don't have any say on the running of the railway and I will be surprised if they will have any shares in the PLC. So no they will not be able to do anything over this.

 

SCC does hold shares in the PLC

 

As at May 2018, the WSRA held 2,037,370 shares, West Somerset Steam Railway Trust 1,911,567 shares, Somerset County Council 500,000 shares and the DEPG 184,000 shares. A few individuals have more than 100,000 shares.

See https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01010188/filing-history (Confirmation statement made on 17 May 2018)

 

When the company bought the lease of the line from the county council the council reinvested some of the money in shares. From my poor memory I thought it might have been £30,000.They said at the time they would not interfere in the running of the railway, but what that means is open to interpretation

 

This is so ludicrous one would think it's a jest, but sadly it's not (I am actually strongly reminded of the shambolic 'coup' against Gorbachev). However, it does say a lot about the thinking of those who voted for this - which is that they weren't, to leave the organization leader-less.

One would have to have a really good reason to take a step like this - some sort of major malfeasance or something - but I haven't seen anyone identify the reason why this happened (unless people are unhappy with him for reporting to Mr. Whitehouse about the request to put Mr. Courtney on the board).

That sort of formalistic approach is unlikely to produce quick results, and may well be ignored.

I think someone's earlier suggestion, that the volunteers discuss whether they wish to 'go on strike' unless every board member who voted for this travesty resigns immediately, is the way to go. I am aware that this is a very drastic step, and could, if implemented, do some harm to the railway, but it's not clear if anything less will clear this up quickly.

Noel

 

Casca, Brutus and Cassius ?

 

Surely what is necessary is for those who felt the need to remove Ian to explain why - the WSRplc Board is small, and I suspect Ian wouldn't be allowed to vote on the resolution (not sure from memory if that is correct - probably an issue for the Articles and interpretation of 'having an interest in the motion'), so for a majority, there seems a high chance that members of this forum, possibly including some who have been very quick to use its pages when faced with a not dis-similar situation themselves, were amongst those who voted for Ian's removal. They must have both had their reasons for the move and for the suddenness and 'need' to remove Ian without anyone being willing to immediately step 'into the breach'. They should be willing to explain them and be allowed. I should add that I am not saying 'they owe it to National Preservation' and 'it must be done here' - that is not the case - they ow it to the West Somerset Railway and is should be done suitable means for that group of organisations.

Similarly, although I don't believe I have ever met or spoken to Ian, he has always been considered and measured in his posts on here and is clearly well regarded amongst the volunteers and indeed other members. He clearly deserves a hearing as to why he was either unable to do what those who voted for his removal wanted, or felt the he had to do what they didn't want. (I am making some assumptions about the causes of this perhaps!)

In other words, let all concerned be willing to 'state their case' and listen to opposing cases. One would hope that there has been attempts at this before developments reached this stage. However, I can well understand real frustrations where there isn't an opportunity for explanations of actions (or inaction) or an unwillingness to hear and respect genuinely held reasons. As ever, Directors are custodians of the Company, its assets and its members interests for the time being and need to remember this 'higher loyalty' at all times, but especially when difficult situations arise.

The Shareholders (and other Stakeholders' such as non-Shareholder volunteers) may also wish to reflect upon a Constitution that allows the Board to elect the Chairman rather than the members. It is said this enables the Board to work together better but I remain unconvinced that it isn't a potential recipe for the 'Ex-6' situation with WSRA and do firmly believe that a Membership elected Chairman will retain a greater focus on 'Members' interests (even if it is only explaining to them why the Board is doing something unpopular) than one who relies on his/her potentially diverse fellow Directors to remain in post.

Steven