West Somerset Railway General Discussion

May I refer you to my earlier posting. . . .
https://www.national-preservation.c...eral-discussion.508987/page-1673#post-2611173

 

That's fair, but what is the evidence that the membership of the WSSRT have stated that they do not wish to merge? I'm very hesitant to take anyone's assertion about what groups of people think where that cannot be tracked back to events; it is all too easy for someone to say "xyz think abc" without xyz actually having the opportunity to state a view.

I also find the use of the term "coercion" very interesting, especially when placed in the context of making "the 10" and their opponents apparently equal. I'm not aware that "the 10" have coerced anyone into anything, yet the core issue emerging today is the allegation that their opponents are using their powers of employment and patronage to coerce people into joining WSSRT and voting in a particular direction. Whatever you think about "the 10" encouraging people to join WSSRT with a view towards a particular vote, I've not heard any suggestion of coercion in how they've approached potential supporters. Yet the tactics alleged of those opposed to "the 10", and never as far as I am aware actually denied by them, are tantamount to coercion.

 

I've seen nothing on here that suggests the core membership have been asked, so what do you base this statement on? the statement of the trustees?

edit - ninja'd by 35B

 

No proof, but as with many posts in this thread on something that as been posted by those who are Members of the Trust or the Trustees. I am sure it has been mentioned a few times here. Much in this thread seems to be taken at face value.

 

It has indeed been stated by trustees that "The membership don't want to merge" but they never said the membership have actually been asked. That's because they haven't, thus their statement is actually based on anything that they know.

I see no reason not to believe that the Plc are threatening people with ID card withdrawal if they don't join and vote a certain way. It is consistent with what we know they have already done, and it's a very serious allegation to make if its not true, one I really don't think the 10 would do given their professional backgrounds.

 

I have spoken to a few long standing members and they have yet to be asked for their opinion. Any official statement to the contrary would appear to be a falsehood.

 

I'm sorry but I have to pick you up on one point; "The core members of the WSSRT" of which I am one have not decided anything, because they have not been asked. It is the WSSRT Board who decided they support the PLC Plan and then in public stated that the membership support them in their decision, which may or may not be the case. Only a Members vote will reveal whether they do or not and that has yet to take place.

But of course now the situation has reached a point where even a Members vote may not be valid because a vote may or may not be open, free, fair and democratic due to recent actions by the people who control the voting process. That is what will continue to drive a divide through the WSR, not some WSSRT Members standing for election and asking for people to support them.

To the outside world this just goes from bad to worse, democracy is dead and buried on the WSR in my opinion when the people in positions of power and influence think its ok not not only do such things but to be seen to do such things openly and without any accountability.

Are we back to this as being seen by an outsider as some people don't want to lose power or allow any way other than their own and will do whatever it takes. That is what is polarising people and causing the divides, not as @Lineisclear infers in that the divides and issues are being caused by WSSRT Members standing for election, whilst skirting around the actions of an existing Board deferring an AGM because they didn't like who stood for election, stuffing the Board with supportive co-opt's just before an AGM to retain a balance of power on a new Board and enlisting a Public Limited Company to "use any means they have available" (to use the PLC's own words) in order to influence and carry a vote?

I was hoping for some debate and compromise with some people seeing they needed to stand aside for the good of the WSR. I was wrong, now I can only see a fight to the death with todays position of both Boards positions quickly becoming untenable where even the current people on those Boards who have sat quietly and not commented can't fence sit much longer whilst allegedly their colleagues use their Boards names to complete questionable actions. Even the WSRA needs to be careful because if they don't condemn a company they are a major shareholder in then again by saying nothing it could be a sign of complicity, given the WSRA have also supported the PLC plan as the only way forward.

With every increased action in this escalating war more and more people place themselves in unviable positions as they dig deeper bunkers which means there will be more people leaving the WSR in time when this explodes. None of this is going to end well !!!!

 

I have already gone south....

I have not made up my mind about who to vote for - I will wait until after 'the 10's' Q&A session.

I think that the Trustees of the WSSRT would be well advised to get independent oversight of the election so that the result will be accepted by all. The democratic process must not only be done, but must be seen to be done

Why not contact the Electoral Reform Society for advice?

 

I cannot think that it would be that difficult to appoint an independent scrutineer who would be acceptable to all those involved.

Indeed to do so, especially were the vote to go in favour of the Status Quo, would go some way towards giving it some validity

 

An independent scrutineer would not necessarily include the necessary unidentified voting that should be in place for such a contentious vote. I'd almost state that the "blind" voting is far more important, given the allegations of coercion.

 

Whatever the outcome of the voting, those connected and those unconnected with the WSR must hope for a workable and harmonious outcome.
My only concern is that given the well recorded history of the WSR is that whatever the transpires there will be those why cry 'foul'.

 

I would far rather the voting were blind - and that's where the inddependent scrutineer could come in

 

I suspect, leaving all questions of motive aside, there is a cost implication for doing this.

 

An independent scrutineer would only be able to verify that the vote was correctly counted. Perhaps what you mean is an independent ballot organisation.

 

I am really shocked by the allegations made by the candidates. So much so that i have asked around those that might be involved. I have found no evidence whatsoever that this has gone on. It seems to me to be just scaremongering tactics by the ten to sway opinion their way. If that is the case, then it is disreputable. Obviously any evidence the ten have cannot be posted here, but the ten know my personal email address and if there is any evidence, then I would gladly see it confidentially. Over to the ten. If I receive no evidence then I will assume the claim is hogwash.

To be frank, the allegation that "dozens" of people have been coerced just doesn't stand up. There just arent that many people around and the numbers joining up don't support it.
As for allegations that the WSSRT trustees won't run a fair election....that's just complete rubbish and again there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. I hereby give a personal guarantee that vote counting will be done correctly.
Ian

 

Umm....where did we say that?
Ian C

 

Are you suggesting you've never claimed the membership support your decision? Do you know if they support your decision?

 

I fully accept you integrity as far as the vote counting being done correctly is concerned. Could you also guarantee that all of the proxy voting forms will be held securely so they cannot be seen by anyone from any other organisation and that no one from the WSSRT will pass any information concerning how members may have voted onto any other organisation?

Please note: This is no reflection in your personal integrity. Unfortunately trust in the various organisations has sunk to such a level that unless completely free and fair voting can be seen to have taken place doubt will always linger over whatever the outcome. Perhaps you could use your influence with the Board to have set in place a method for the votes to be gathered and counted that could be demonstrated to be free from interference or coercion by any party?

 

The difficulty of course is that there are a number of 'allegations' surrounding the WSR that grounded in fact, this in turn gives credence to others.