West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Quite.

 

Many things have been said to me and others that have never previously been disclosed because this isn't about me and I don't want the conversations to be deflected from saving the WSR for the future, but please all take this as one of many examples of the way people will behave when they don't like people with a differing opinion instead of arguing the facts and being accountable.

It was November 2019 during a 'mediation' meeting after my ID Card was removed (which I've described here before), it was with a PLC Board Member, myself and a then PLC Board Advisor (later a PLC Board Member, now gone). I made notes post the meeting and those notes were circulated to the people in the meeting (by the WSRA Chairman), the WSRA Chairman who promised to circulate those notes to the rest of his Board & the WSSRT Chairman who never responded. Nobody ever challenged my notes or their contents so none of what I have said will be a surprise to any of the 3 Boards and the current Chairmen.

I didn't progress it to the ORR as it was clearly rubbish and I didn't want to make further trouble, I wish I had done so now.

 

Um no. Co-option is a perfectly normal way of appointing trustees. Virtually every board operates that way and the trust has been advertising for new trustees since June. Any coopted trustee has to be elected at the following AGM.
Ian Coleby

 

Sorry I have corrected an error I made having just checked my notes. It was my 'name' pinned up in the ORR's office not my 'picture'. It was also the same occasion that I was offered "a roll around on the platform" with the PLC Director concerned to sort the issue out.

Sorry for the error on my part,

 

That being the case Ian then I assume you and the rest of your Board are now going to welcome the 10 WSSRT Members who are standing for the forthcoming AGM instead of calling them "a hostile take over bid" ?

 

So why not, co-opt the 15 then?

Funny how you suddenly after all this time need another three trustees. Honest guv, it's perfectly normal behaviour.

You know, when Trump makes statements, they award him Pinocchios. Maybe the same can be done for the WSR.

 

I assume just a poor choice of words there? They do not have to be elected, but they do have to stand for election if they wish to continue as Trustees. Of course, as has happened in other Trusts, they might decline to stand but be co-opted again after the AGM.....

 

A pity that the various grant making bodies appear not to have a policy of the "any more internecine strife from you and you lot won't be getting your grant" kind. There are several places who have been unable to operate services this year who could do with some of this money.

 

Of course the grant money has substantially upped the stakes. What before had overtones of "two bald men fighting over a comb", as Jorge Luis Borges so memorably described the Falklands War, with the two sides vying for control of an all but bankrupt company, now offers a serious financial prize to the old guard if they can resist the forces of democracy and maintain the current oligarchy. Lots of lovely money to spend. Expect them to fight like bastards now.

 

It's worth pointing out all these co-options took place just over a fortnight ago, they were merely noticed in Companies House yesterday.

 

It was a shame that all those troublemakers in Eastern Europe undermined the status quo and brought down the Iron Curtain. It would have been so much more peaceful if the whole area had continued to be ruled by the USSR.

 

Fair enough, but my point is still valid.

 

In echoes of Mr Benn

As if by magic...

https://www.facebook.com/TheSteamTrust/
http://www.wssrt.co.uk/2020/10/11/new-trustees-welcomed/

All of sudden the WSSRT remembers to update its website and facebook with this information.

I am a little bit puzzled by this:

Perhaps @ikcdab could explain where this power to refuse additional nominations exists?

 

There are also several who have operated, done their best and just about broken even who haven't got anything. The whole thing with the WSR absolutely stinks. The latest episode with the co-opted trustees just about sums the culture up.
Whilst not wishing anyone to fail, perhaps someone with influence should write to Boris.

 

What a coincidence!! That did make me chuckle.

As for refusing nominations, well the real reason is obvious. I'd be curious to know whether it's technically possible though. Surely the CC recommendation would just mean that the elections would be competitive, so no matter how many stood for election, only the most popular would be elected up until the limit of 29 is reached. It doesn't sound like grounds for refusing applications altogether to me.

 

Edit Added:- Strange how they have been looking for candidates for so long but never mentioned this on the AGM Calling papers. In fact they issued the list of nominations before the closing date for nominations so they can't really have been looking can they????

Yes, anyone co-opted has to have their appointment ratified by the shareholders/members voting at the next General meeting - so the three retiring by rotation and the co-opted three should all be on the proxy voting form along with the 10 new candidates.

The suggestion that any of 'their' candidates that are not elected could be co-opted after the election depends on two things :- 1. If the the new Board (with new people?) still votes to do so, or 2. If that Board wants to be seen as treating the members/shareholders with contempt and is willing to face an EGM including a vote of no confidence and a call for those board members to resign followed by a probable investigation by the Charity Commission into their behaviour...

Let's hope they get the forms right this time. On the original paperwork issued with the AGM notice they'd even completely missed off one of their own candidates... Not very impressive.

Oh and let's not forget - The voting forms must have the option for members to vote For or Against any motion. It would be a shame if that option was 'accidentally' missed off the form. And another little reminder for whoever in the WSSRT is making up those forms.... Every candidates appointment is a separate motion and has to be voted on separately. It is not permissible to 'lump' candidates together as a group. For example you cannot have one vote to appoint (or refuse), for example, "The three candidates named X, Y and Z.". Every one has to be elected (or rejected) individually.

The sad fact of the matter is, in any 'normal' club/society situation, I wouldn't even think of having to put this in writing. As has been said before, it is a matter of trust and right now I do not trust the Plc Board, The WSSRT Board or those that promulgate it's party line, one little bit.

 

We’ll have no shouting here! This is a local line for local people!

 

Perhaps the WSR got the grant because the management were "our kind of people", people who don't tolerate attempts by the employees and volunteers on the line to have a say in the management. Autocracy speaks to autocracy.

 

If the League of Gentlemen wanted to do a series set on a heritage railway line, the WSR would be perfect.