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

Hi Greenway, what would you like me to remove as I have no wish to offend anyone.
Ken

 

Hmmm... "it was agreed that Ian Coleby should stand down as Chairman". Well, I guess that's technically accurate - a group of directors 'agreed' to turf him.

Not a word about why this extraordinary action (which left the company without even an acting chair) was felt to be necessary. (The empty verbiage about "the Board considered that it was now important to develop a new approach to the work of the Board" doesn't count). Compare the WSRA's note about their action, which clearly explained the events, and the reasoning that resulted.

So, @Bean-counter, while I take your point about people explaining themselves, nothing has changed my sense that people who would leave the organization without a head, for no particularly good reason (e.g. significant malfeasance), have demonstrated their lack of suitability for a board role.

Noel

 

Thousands of people have worked millions of unpaid hours often in bad weather and at considerable personal expense to build a railway which we can all enjoy, meanwhile a small number of individuals seem determined to ensure that valuable resources are wasted on infighting whilst putting at serious risk the railway they profess to support. I realise many of the protagonists are perhaps entering their so called second childhood but is it really necessary to behave in such childish ways?

 

[QUOTE="Faol, post: 2232086, member: 25109"][/QUOTE]
Stout fellows.

 

Chaps, I need some help here in working out who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. It seemed so easy when considering the ex6+1, some of them just looked untrustworthy. Having volunteered for some years now and come across many of the apparent "players" in this sorry saga, and posters to this forum, I have formed some opinions on individuals, but begin to question my own judgments.

I question whether it is worth renewing my sub to the WSRA when it puts so little back into the railway. Equally I wonder about removing the bequest in my will to the railway when it seems unable, unlike Barrie, to organise a pxxx up in a brewery. I despair about the whole situation, it just seems never ending. It makes me question why I bother volunteering at all, perhaps I need to find somewhere else to devote my time to.

I can't believe I'm the only one to feel this way.

 

Thought better of getting involved so decided to take the post down.

 

I understand your concerns and given that Association Membership is falling I suspect you are not the only one to have such doubts.
All Heritage/tourist lines have need for financial help, either as shareholding or simple donation/membership - even the profitable ones. The problem that arises is how that money is spent. Is it a benefit to the railway by providing for maintenance, restorations or good old fashioned run of the mill operating expenses? If you feel it isn't then maybe you should consider your position after all you are probably astute when buying a car or other household needs.

 

"

Amongst the many speculative, some even vehement, postings in the last 24 hours this one may perhaps
identify what has brought Mr Ian Coleby's position into doubt. Their actions (apparently according to the
written material emanating from the WSRA under Mr Whitehouse's imprimatur) suggest a triumvirate
involving them and Mr Coleby acting to pressurise/remove elected WSRA Trustees and PLC directors
from office. If true, and it was without the knowledge of Plc Board Members, if Iwere such a Member I
think I would find it very difficult to support such a Chairman. However it is the future of the PLC that
matters

Other matters that have been raised in various Posts including:

Reference to junior Plc directors. There are no such titles. (indeed if it is a reference to time served
probably something we should not consider). Several posts over the last few weeks have suggested
the Railway needs new blood. One might for instance (as often happens with PLCs co-opt a new
'Chair' , a new 'non exec' with special engineering responsibilities etc. The application of the
soubriquet 'junior' I suggest would be unhelpful !

Others have suggested that the WSRA and the WSSRT 'take over' the Railway;

The WSRA ( leaving aside the Ms White/Mr Whitehouse consideration) according to its 2017
accounts consumed c.£60K of the monies (available cash after all costs) that it generated from
the Steam Fayre, Shop, sale of a Mark 1 FO on legal fees and propping up its Williton operation.
Total grants to the 'Railway' were £300. The WSRA, with falling Membership is a seriously
failing organisation. It certainly does not have the capacity at present to support the Plc in
any meaningful way.
WSSRT. A small charity ( the last numbers I saw suggested cash reserves of £20K) with a
key Heritage role on the Railway. Recently secured a comparatively small, but significant
HF funding. The charity is to be supported in every way, asking it to assume some
responsibility for the PLC is unhelpful.

The PLC itself ( and here I declare an interest as I was in a minor way involved in examining
the 2018 operating budget) has a very tight budget for 2018. It was prepared on the basis that
there would be significant cost savings enabled early in the year. This AFAIK has not
happened. The reason for the concern was simple. Over the last three years the cash reserves
(maintained to see the Plc through the Winter months. The argument that the money should
be better used ie to capital works, the winter months being covered by borrowings is irrelevant)
have fallen from >£1 million to <£250K. (The likely consequences and conclusions are obvious)

I do not know if Mr Coleby is still Plc Chair or not. I have no personal feelings. He is as somebody
has said a 'nice bloke' , he wrote a spledid history of the WSR, he was a signalman, he edits the
WSRA magazine, he has been one of the WSR faithful. We have much to thank him for.

However he inherited if not a 'poison chalice' certainly a 'holed one' when he assumed the PLC
Chair. He would be the first to admit I am sure he came to the role with little, if indeed any
relevant experience. The metaphorical 'holes' have become larger. He has unfortunately
allowed himself to be influenced by the White/Whitehouse axis. (Indeed there are
persistent rumours that he, (Ian) has used the word 'black mail' !)

One final point on this subject ie Ian's putative departure as Chair was introduced to NP by
Yorkshireman. Peter why ? Did the axis put you up to it ?

Whether Ian has gone or not, the Railway (and only the PLC can pull it out of the downward
spiral) needs help. It also needs firm leadership. It's Board need support not denigrating.
Who ever and when a new Chair emerges he need support, questioning yes, interference
from other organisations no.

Michael Rowe

ps (30 minutes later) I was not aware of the posting by 'Faol' one minute preceding
mine when I posted the above but I think some of the comments I made may be even more relevant now ![/QUOTE]
Based on what has been published and not disputed on matters of fact, I confess myself utterly unconvinced by this interpretation of events. I see an axis at work, but not the one referred to here.

I am in no position to comment on the facts of the business of the WSR, but do not dispute that significant change may be required. However, the exercise of personal vendettas can only cause harm. Please will you put those axes away before it cuts to the bone of what you profess to support.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Go to the WSR's web-site, click on "Business Plan" and the page reads "Gone off the rails. The page you requested was not found."


Rather appropriate in the circumstances?

 

The County Council is not the largest shareholder by miles. The Association is.

 

Most people who know me Michael will know that I am very much my own man. I am not in the habit of being put up to anything by anyone. My post came about after hearing from several sources of the impending shambles. I felt that if was appropriate that the membership know something of what was going on. It was a pity that the culprits lacked the courage to be open about what they were planning before hand.[/QUOTE]

 

But surely you knew that posting 'I've heard xyz' would descend the thread into speculation central 'from those who aren't involved' (your words, not mine) which ultimately does nobody - least of all the railway - any favours?

 

Whenever I see you reporting controversial news from anonymous sources I generally assume Robin has put you up to it, after that farcical affair last December when she had you leak the social media policy in order to embarrass the management into changing it. Maybe it's unfair to assume only Robin does that, but I am sure people do tell you things deliberately in order to get them into the public arena.

 

Unhelpful ? Unhelpful to whom ?

I would have thought that assistance from a significant plc shareholder would be most welcome at this time...…….. or would that bring inconvenient scrutiny ?

 

[/QUOTE]
I appreciate the difficulties of quoting, but given my own previous post on this, I'm not sure how to react to my username being placed against @Maunsell907's words!

 

The history of under the counter co-options has been particularly tragic in recent years. I trust you are not suggesting that the practice is continued.

 

So having come to this after a day away - I’ve read pages of “he said, she said” argument, but the overwhelming sense I get is that the argument has achieved primacy, rather than the issue at hand.

Presumably deep down there are competing visions of what sort of railway the WSR should be, or what the strategic priorities should be.

In his AGM presentation, and in his statement linked to from WSR.org.uk, Ian Coleby set out in fairly stark terms the financial challenge facing the railway, particularly in terms of paying for the upkeep of infrastructure and rolling stock. I can only suppose that the latest upheavals arise because there are widely divergent opinions on how to meet those challenges. But thus far there has been nothing of what those differing visions might be. It almost seems as if the process of the argument has become more important than the substance.

Tom