West Somerset Railway General Discussion

"When I co-opt a new director onto the board, that's normal business, but when he uses the prescribed channels to get a new trustee elected to the board, that's a power grab."

 

It must be another one of those irregular verbs, I co-opt, you stir things up, he/she/it power grabs...

 

It's a commonly held view.

 

Isn't it a bu99er when the spell check changes your words...

 

I was a member of the parish council for 10 years. The youngest member by about 40 years. When I joined we were 5 council members plus the clerk. At some point, it was deemed best to increase to 7 council members, although finding 5 muppets was already proving difficult, anyway the vote democratically went against my opinion, we went to a 7 member council, and the search for new people was on. Nearly all the existing councillors were trying to co-opt "their guy"- more or less "this is my friend Tom. Co-opt him, he is another me".
Clearly no-one is going to co-opt someone who will be opposed to them, but simply co-opting an echo and second vote is a ticket to dictatorship.
Co-option is anti-democratic, and should be permitted only in the most extra-ordinary circumstances, such as a board member dying in office.

 

The power to co opt is normally enshrined in a company's articles of association. Doing so requires a Board decision not just one Directors personal whim. Don't forget anyone co opted during the year has to stand for re -election by shareholders at the next AGM.

 

I think you need to be slightly careful what you wish for, and don't design rules just to prevent what might be a specific situation. One of the criticisms of the current board (certainly in my eyes) is that - leaving personalities out of it - it is too small and therefore each member is spread too thinly relative to the size and complexity of the business. In that circumstance, strengthening the board would be desirable, and you wouldn't necessarily want to have to wait what could be a year to do so. As an example, currently the board has no director with a remit for the main engineering functions; replacement of that expertise would seem to be a priority and not something that should wait until an AGM were a suitable candidate to become apparent.

Of course, any co-optees must be validated by vote of the shareholders at the first opportunity, which is one place where the shareholder oversight is critical - including how both of the major shareholders act, or course.

Tom

 

The questions you refer to are not the same ones that I mentioned in my post.
I do not see it as odd, as you put it, I am simply describing things as they are, rather than how many here would like them to be.
Fortunately none of us are at the WSR bargaining table: a good thing with all the various viewpoints in the thread.
I am sure the PLC do have plans - maybe some contingency ones, it would be unusual if they did not. Of course there is the possibility we may not like them.

 

Hmm, I too disagree with this. I have no problem with co-option as long as it is part of a process where you're looking for candidates with specific skills to fulfil a specific role. Say you have a vacancy for a safety director. You wouldn't just want to make any old director who happened to be elected responsible for that. You'd want to make sure you had candidates with appropriate experience applying, you'd want to hold interviews, and you wouldn't want to wait until the next AGM for them to be appointed. At that point they'd come recommended by the board and get in on proxy votes anyway, so there's no difference between co-option and waiting for the election other than the several months you'd be without a safety director.

 

Let me posit to you two scenarios:
In the first a director is co-opted on to the board of elected directors. There are then several more co-options by the directors, together with several resignations. Within a short period of time, all the remaining directors are ones that have been co-opted and benefited from incumbency and recommendation by the board at the previous AGM.
In the second, a group of candidates put themselves forward at an AGM. They are not connected to the directors and have not been recommended to the shareholders. At the AGM, some of them are elected as directors.
Which looks more like a "power grab"?

 

Oh I agree, the former by miles. I'm certainly not in favour of mass co-option, it should only be used where necessary to get people with specific relevant experience onto a board. I defend co-option in principle because I think virtually all of the directors of the GWSR were co-opted, over many years, because they all applied to fulfil specific roles. That to me seems a sensible use of the co-option process, thus it is not the process of co-opting itself that is bad. It is simply something that is open to abuse,but then so is so much else if you really want to.

 

You need to have a board, and membership, who question why someone should be co-opted. I don't feel that it's the same as having someone stand independently for election, as there's an additional element of trust which isn't present when someone puts themselves forward on their own two feet.

I have been a member of an organization where people were co-opted onto the board because they were mates/clones of the chairman. The rest of the board were too indifferent/afraid to question it, and the membership blindly voted for what was basically presented to them as a fait accompli. But this is probably more a question of culture than the co-option process itself.

 

Thanks to the marvel of modern communications I got this in my in box today.(Scroll down to the bottom half of the page...)

I cannot believe that any Chairman would a) Go running off to another organisation for help rather than trying to resolve matters internally. and b) Then have their dirty washing splashed all over the local press in what appears to be... Well, I'll let you decide

I started to read it but I'm afraid the standard is no better than the last Plc 'effort'.

Bringing the organisation into disrepute?
Opening the organisation to public censure?

Both were serious disciplinary matters wherever I was working.

 

The whole discussion over co option is based on a vital misconception - that the plc board is in some way a representative body. It’s not, and the appointment of directors in any company will be for many reasons, few if any of which will be to do with the democratic opinion of shareholders.

This debate was highly germane to the X6, and their approach to the WSRA, but is misplaced for the plc as it is today.

Of course, that does not mean that there should not be significant change in how the WSR is governed, and that the manner, timing and approval of board appointments should not be a significant part of that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I puzzled at first about the relevance of the Watchet sea defences until I read further down.....

I did not notice anywhere a comment from the paper to the effect that a spokesperson for the '14' had been asked for comment. So, one side of the story only again :-(

 

Yes, sorry. I was so...... reading it that I didn't think to crop it. Still, now you know that at least the sea wall is being prepared for the future...

 

...but I wonder what happened to the 700 tons of stone which apparently was tipped in and then promptly washed away? Did they recover it all, or will it perhaps get thrown back up one day?

 

Shssssh, Don't tell anyone - but have you seen the size of the last lot of ballast delivered for cleaning ..?