West Somerset Railway General Discussion

It may be worth checking your inboxes again, I have just this minute had another email apologising for the error in the first, and all now seems above board.

Very much cock-up rather than conspiracy on this occasion.

 

Hehe. Yep. Just got the apologetic email. I am a fully paid up member of the WSSRT.

 

Ditto

 

Yes, I had the same email.
The confirmation was undated, I still don't have a membership number, and should I not have received the papers for the AGM. How can we vote?

 

I don't think we're expecting the papers for the new AGM have been sent out yet, just the date that has been announced. Could be wrong. I agree no number is odd, but they have all other details to corroborate our membership which we have to fill in on voting forms.

Edit - just checked the website, all is explained in the news item from the 28th December:

"The Annual General Meeting of the West Somerset Steam Railway Trust will be held on Saturday 14 November at 14.00 by Zoom.

Details will be sent to members 21 days before the meeting."

I make that the 24th October, so we can stand down for now... I did say the chances of it remaining quiet until AGM day were slim to none!

 

Question for @Lineisclear

Ignoring Coronavirus for a moment, what I think is fairly clear is that

1. The WSRA & WSSRT between them own sufficient PLC shares to exert a significant influence on, if not de facto control of the PLC, however to date have elected not to do so, and
2. It is clear that nowhere near enough money had been spent by the PLC on the infrastructure resulting in the line being allowed to deteriorate, and
3. The eviction of the S&DRT, in particular the description of the organisation as a 'Cuckoo in the Nest' and subsequent allegations made against it which were proven to be untrue have cast doubts in the mind of many as to the judgement of the PLC board & by implication, given that neither the WSRA or WSSRT protested against the behaviour of the PLC, the judgement of those in control of those organisations.
4. In addition questions must be asked as to why the WSRA & WSSRT did not use their shareholdings to influence the PLC despite being aware of the deteriorating state of the railway.

It seems to me that the proposed new structure leaves the same people in charge while at the same time not providing proper control of the organisation by members of the supporting charity, many of whom are the most important people in this organisation, the volunteers.

It may of course be possible to compromise, and I suggest that such a compromise would involve bringing some 'Rank and File' for want of a better term into the management of the WSR family and some of those currently controlling the WSR, in particular on the PLC board to resign.

 

I've never been much of a fan in providing free legal advice in public, and as one of the participants, it is doubly inappropriate.

Robin

 

Just to say that we all had the confusing message from the WSSRT earlier today, with two attachments - both the same - both saying that membership was pending, even though in the e-mail itself it referred to a second letter saying that membership was confirmed. This, despite the fact that we had all previously had our memberships confirmed. We then had the follow-up e-mail at 20:28 saying that our memberships had in fact been confirmed. It looks as though the WSSRT could do with some help in their general levels of administrative competence. Maybe some new Trustees could help in that respect?

 

At least they remembered to Bcc this time rather than reveal other members' email addresses to each other!

 

Don’t worry about it Robin. Been sorted now. Cock up rather than conspiracy.

 

Well, I've just received my emails confirming my membership and saying it will be reviewed (Dear Mr Schroedinger .....) and asking if I would like to volunteer. Perhaps I should volunteer to help them with their email communications.

 

It's called "Democracy" and, despite all its weaknesses, it is the best system we've got. Whether you're talking national politics or a small local society it's up to the various contenders to make their points to convince people to vote for them. If they fail to engage with the voters / members and to address issues that have been raised, they cannot rely on their past record to see them re-elected.
In this particular case it seems the WSSRT constitution oddly failed to limit the number of trustees that could be elected and that cannot be altered without going through the legal procedure of amending the rules, which takes a favourable membership vote at an AGM or EGM and time to implement. Therefore the current Trustees are obliged, under their constitution, to hold an electi0n of all 16(?) candidates and accept the results as dictated by the membership. As there is no limit on the number that can be elected, the election cannot be a "vote for up to 'x' number of candidates" style but could be a "Vote yes or no to each candidate" which might help to reduce the number of "winners".
I do have some real concern that there appear to be some attempts to interfere with the constitutional process. However good the reasons may seem this can never be acceptable.

 

If there is no limit to the number of trustees, how can you hold an election?

 

A simple for/against motion against each candidate. As long as every candidate gets more fors than againsts then everyone gets in, but you can still reject candidates. It is a better system as it means you can reject as many candidates as you like if you think their unsuitable and not have to settle for the least worst, but normally there is an upper limit to the number of trustees/directors to cater for that aspect of things. Most odd that the WSSRT doesn't have this. I expect they're regretting it now!

 

As others have mentioned, by using a Yes or No vote for each candidate. More yesses than noes and you're in, vice versa and you're not.

Edit. I see I was beaten to it, but after replying, the thought struck me.

In theory, all candidates might be rejected. What happens then?

 

As I suggested: on a "yes or no" basis, i.e.votes for and against. It's an acceptable process, in fact the WSRA used it for their recent AGM. Only candidates with more votes "for" than "against" are considered elected.

 

Not quite, FS. If they are all voted "for" then they are all elected. Nobody can then decide not to accept some of them "if you think their unsuitable and not have to settle for the least worst,".
Just think: It would be overruling the voters. Who would make that decision and with what authority ?

 

History suggests they’d be another argument ...

Tom

 

Sorry, I meant in comparison to for example a ranking system where, say, you had 10 candidates for 5 positions, the top 5 would always get in, you'd have no way of expressing your dislike for all 10.