West Somerset Railway General Discussion

I took a look at the Articles, and can find nothing limiting the number of directors; indeed Clause 29 rather implies the opposite - " The minimum number of directors shall be four but (unless otherwise determined by ordinary resolution) shall not be subject to any maximum."

As it happens, I agree with the Trust's stated view that having 10% of members as trustees is excessive. My problem with the decision of the board is that, taken in conjunction with the co-option of these well qualified new trustees, it looks like an attempt to pack the board, not legitimate strengthening of the board. It does those new trustees no favours to be burdened with that impression.

 

Indeed, the arguments put forward ring hollow and seem to be much more about a naked power grab (ironic considering that they accused the 10 of the same).

 

Maybe the SDRT is right then to depart, even if it is a costly step, and one that will cause issues for their collection.

Noel

 

WSSRT: "With ten existing trustees and ten nominations for new trustees, the Trust is now unable to accept additional nominations this year. A potential total of 20 is in danger of breaching the Charity Commission's guidelines, and is an excessive number for a charity with just over 200 members."

So now the current WSSRT Board Members are:

1. Accepting all of the new 10 WSSRT Members who applied to stand will do so at the AGM. This was not in their gift to decide Members can stand if they wish, its simple.
2. Not allowing anybody else to stand, so in effect the existing Trustees are deciding who can and can't apply to stand. This is not in their gift to do.
3. Saying there won't be 20 Trustees and its the Charities Commissions fault not theirs (see the trend here, its always somebodies else's fault). So I assume they will put in place some mechanism to restrict further who becomes a Trustee. This is not in their gift because the Articles don't put a limit on the number of Trustees in post and the Charities Commission view is only a guideline as stated by the WSSRT themselves.

This really is a farce, whichever way you cut this the existing Trustees are deciding who can stand and who can't and its just coming across very badly and very messy with move and counter move. I do think its time for somebody to call time on the current WSSRT Board, you have to ask if they are acting in the best interests of the WSSRT.

I think the only fair thing here is for the whole Board to stand aside now so an open and democratic election of new Trustees can take place with a clean sheet. This will allow the Members to decide who and how many represent them on their Board. This really is bringing the WSSRT and onwardly the WSR as a whole into disrepute in my opinion.

Our once great railway is being made a laughing stock here, please guys stand aside now before this gets out of hand and somebody calls in the Charities Commission and/or the lawyers and this starts to get really ugly and descends into an EX6 situation again.

 

What strikes me as interesting is how weak and frightened those at the top of the WSR and their allies must feel.

For as much as @Lineisclear bangs on about 'everyone singing the same tune', they are in total fear of a group of 10 supporters. Surely, if everyone was singing the same tune then this fringe group would easily be defeated at the WSSRT level, they would be defeated in the WSRA, they would be defeated at the AGM.

And yet, they feel obliged to postpone AGMs, stuff boards via co-option, refuse new nominees, attack their opponents in the press. And in a turn of events that resembles a Trump press conference, blaming the 10 for the WSSRT stuffing their board.

It seems to me that those from above proposing this change from above, fear volunteers, supporters and donors having a voice and acting on it. The job of volunteers is to open the ticket office, crew the trains, supporters and donors need to open their wallets but not to have an opinion or a say in the way the line is run. Certainly not to challenge the status quo, not to rock the cosy coterie old boys clubs instead it should be like some kind of neo-feudal lord and serf relationship where everyone doffs their cap and is deferential to their 'betters'.

 

Too late Andy. It's what's known in technical terms as a " bag of shite " . The World's Silliest Railway.

 

'There is no upper limit of trustees you can have, but too many could become unmanageable' .......... as the man with a wooden leg said "It's a matter of a pinion".

 

JJP will be able to buy a replacement trailer now with all that money. just a thought.

 

I too am puzzled by this.

If the WSSRT wanted to set a maximum number of Trustees (say 20 for example), then fine. What it ought not to do IMHO is to limit the permitted number of nominations artificially. From past experience elsewhere, if more nominees were voted in than there were vacant posts, then the selection of who to accept and who to reject was made by 'ranking' them on the number of votes cast for each and simply accepting the top N number on the list. At least then the members got the chance to express a preference.

 

An earlier post today mentioned the idea that the Charity Commission might take an interest about certain WSSRT decisions.
I don't remember the CC being that interested in the WSRA bun fight over the ex-6, although suggestions and letters were made if I remember correctly.
Anyway the WSRA must be content with all the heat, on NP, now on the WSSRT and the PLC and not on them.

 

IIRC the key element of the CC's response to the WRSA ex-6 affair was that, in essence, such things were an internal matter for the members to sort out and so they would not intervene. No doubt the same attitude will apply to any internal WSSRT matters also.

 

Indeed, by my count there will be 16 names on it? 3 up for usual reelection, 3 co-optees to be confirmed, plus the 10 new candidates.

 

Whilst other railways are getting on with operating in an otherwise harsh environmental situation, the WSR, seems to prefer to carry on fighting its self, it certainly does not deserve the grant it has been given if its just going to continue this fight, where no body wins, I can fully understand why the PLC support an shareholding charity, because it nullifies the shareholding of a competitor charity, that are not so friendly to those currently in charge and might threaten their cosy club, if god forbid they were to combine their total shareholding spells trouble especially for those busy building empires , with aspirations of one day possibly holding a controlling interest

 

It should make it an AGM worth attending, for those that are entitled to. I wonder if it will end up like the Plc AGM I attended all those years ago, with everyone shouting at each other and (virtually) walking out.

 

The difficulty, it seems for many readers of this thread, is sorting the sheep from the goats! There are more than one set of people that appear to be empire building - or having aspirations in that direction. Equally there are more than one person who wants to be top dog, as far as I can see.

 

Anything is possible with the WSR!
And if this is 'all those years ago' that suggests nothing has changed despite shuffling of chairs and probably will not in the future.

 

Bafflingly, as a recently joined member of the, WSSRT, having joined in August before the 14/10/16 potential trustees stood forward, and having received voting papers for the aborted AGM of 19th September, I have now received an e-mail, apparently rescinding my original welcome, and I am now told that my membership will be 'considered' at the next trustees meeting.
One wonders if this is so that existing trustees can consider who should or should not be admitted to vote at any significant election of trustees of said trustees.
Quite honestly, ALL of the organisations at the WSR present themselves as an absolute shower of ****. If they had one ounce of integrity, shame, or this claimed concern for the WSR, all directors, trustees etc would resign, and only stand for election to any post of authority if nominated.

 

Elementary, my dear Watson. Your real name is available by looking at your Nat Pres Profile page, therefore they can connect the @ross who posts on here with the person who was a member of the WSSRT, unless that isn't your real name, in which case it is, as you say, baffling. Expect more of this sort of thing in the days to come. The game is afoot! I will be interested to see if I suffer likewise.

 

I had a similar email with two attachments, one saying the above, not personally addressed to me and another one also not personally addressed to me saying my membership had been accepted.

It would seem, just as I predicted and said on here a month ago, that memberships would be vetted. No great surprise....