S&D Railway Trust

It's a tale of two White Horses From Washford to its nearby White Horse is 0.8 miles and from Stogumber to its nearby White Horse is 1.1 miles so not a lot in it really. Both options seem to have its attractions. I recommend Nat Pres folks using the train and doing either or both when things get back to normal.

Steve

 

I would have agreed with MM, above "The question wasn't about publishing the minutes but asking if minutes were taken. If minutes were taken of the meetings then they should reflect what was said" but not his view of the Board Chairman, about whom I have little knowledge. This disagreement seems to revolve around discussions between the Plc Board and the S&D Trust that, it is claimed or denied, took place prior to the issue of the Notice to Vacate and are rapidly turning into a "he said, she said" squabble. As these discussions should have been recorded in the minutes of both parties, releasing the appropriate portion of the minutes to the shareholders / members would clarify the situation.

 

Surely you were able to challenge the content of the minutes before the Chairman signed them ? It is standard procedure for a meeting to approve the minutes first.

 

Do both! From the map it seems to be about 5 miles between the two pubs as the crow flies, so go by train to one of them for a late lunch and then a nice walk over the hill to the other for an early dinner

 

I would agree that would be normal practice, but sometimes it did not happen like that. It was not unknown for a Chairman to decline suggested corrections that did not accord with his view :-(

 

I strongly suspect that no minutes were taken, because no "meetings" took place - we appear to have situation that could have been designed for claim and counter-claim, where exploratory conversations are now being built up into something far more than was ever intended.

What would be interesting, however, are the formal board minutes from the WSR plc determining the plans for Washford and the corresponding need for the plc to recover the site. Because in the absence of those, it is rather hard to believe that the grounds presented by the plc (and on this I am inclined to believe @jma1009's account) reflect a settled decision on the part of the plc.

Like others, I would that the plc would step back, rescind the notice of eviction, and engage meaningfully with the S&DRT rather than engaging in press release politicking.

 

It is not up to the Chairman to make that decision. Proposed amendments should be put to the meeting, who make their own decision based on their recall of the original meeting.
Given that the Minutes are the legal record of proceedings it is imperative that they are as accurate as possible. Things can turn quite nasty, and expensive (!), if a challenge arises as a result of poor recording.

 

A Dictator, or as my late Father used to say a Spud Murphy!

 

A tin pot dictatorship? Picking fights for no reason with a heady combination of machismo and victimhood.

Spending money on therapists for the board might be a better use of money than spending it on lawyers. And it might have some more positive benefits for the line and those dealing with the PLC.

 

Just like Don Quixote tilting at imaginary windmills ......

 

surely there has to be justification for the notice to terminate the tenancy before the notice is issued, not dreamed up later?

 

Yes, however the PLC have not to the best of my knowledge produced a sensible justification

 

Yes, lawyers need to eat, preferably in a 3 star Michelin restaurant.

 

This sums it up nicely. I love the WSR but the plc is painting itself into a nasty corner as a bully.

 

Doesn't the justification have to be set out in the Notice, when it is served?

 

All the more reason why perhaps things have to get really bad before people realise they have made a mistake in their choice of Chairman, and it may well take losing the line before the scales drop from peoples eyes , I hate to sound so draconian, but JJP has ousted virtually the whole board, and the ones that are left do his bidding, its like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic, tinkering won't save anyone, the only option I can see open is to let JJP take the railway to the brink for the railway to go to the wall, then for the supporting charities to combine into one body, create a company to run the railway, and launch a save our railway fund, and see if the council will give them a lease on the line, and rebuild with a joint supporting / company board, and organise a share holding with the supporters group holding 51 per cent of any shares.

 

OR all the volunteers make clear to JJP the error of his ways ..... ?

 

do you mean they go on strike? the problem goes deeper than just who is chairman, its the inbuilt hostility at a board level I would say, a new chairman, trying to make his mark, board members who may hold a grudge against some other groups, and mis guided attempts to support a board that is making mistakes,

 

Bit tricky to go on strike at the moment, not sure anyone would notice!

 

I think that is to overstate things. The chairman has undoubtedly created a board to suit himself, but I hesitate to accuse anyone of bad faith or grudges - the evidence is simply not there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk