West Somerset Railway General Discussion

They're too busy rehearsing for the panto season - looking at the last few pages of this thread it appears to be going well.

 

Local charity begins rehearsals for its new Christmas Panto "Santa Claws and the Seven Trustees"

Oh, sorry, .....14 Trustees...err, no, make that 20 Trustees....err,,,,,oh s*d it, I'm going to my company's bash instead "Cinderella won't go to the Ball"

 

Hence my question regarding the proposed use for carriage restoration. It suggests what we all knew i.e. that it was absolute moonshine.

 

on the first day of Christmas the membership elected , ???

 

I think the whole point is that, in all these examples, there should be no need to resort to the precise interpretation of various pieces of legislation. All three of the organisations you allude to are membership based and, as such, the fundamental responsibility is to the members. Trustees are elected by the members to act on their behalf and to take care of the day to day transactions; anything involving major changes in operation or policy should be referred to the members for discussion and ratification. Withholding information, preventing discussion or, worse still, distributing misinformation or threatening members, should result in those responsible being immediately dismissed from office. Members really need to step up and take responsibility for the people they elect to office.

 

Splendid pic, great auto. But would you require a Land Rover type snorkel to actually drive through this raging torrent?

 

This is the famous Gallox Bridge at Dunster. The Ford is never very deep, and in high summer any vehicle could make it across. A ‘snorkel’ Landy would rarely be required. There are cottages on the far side and a stylised version was used for a GWR poster in the 1930’s.

I have been looking for a copy of the poster for many years but have, so far, failed to find one in good condition.

Robin

 

A lovely spot, one of my last shots on film was taken of those cottages, before my ancient Canon AE-1 expired

 

Alas Robin, the poster that you have shewn is of Allerford ford, not Packhorse Bridge ford Dunster!
Regards Bish.

 

This mistaken view of the role and responsibility of Company Directors and Charity Trustees is at the heart of the angst that is so evident in West Somerset.
The duties of Company Directors are prescribed by company law. Those of Charity Trustees by charity law. Not unreasonably members of heritage railways expect their elected people to make decisions in the members interests. Each body has a duty to act in the best interests of their organisation and to further its best interests, which must involve keeping members, and especially volunteers "on side". However if it comes to a conflict between what the members want and the Directors/Trustees statutory duties the latter must always prevail. For charities the Trustees primary duty is to achieve the public benefit purposes of the charity and in that they are accountable to the Charity Commission. So if members of a charity voted for something that was not in keeping with the public benefit objects of the charity the elected Trustees, whoever they are, would be duty bound to ignore the vote. It's the price you pay for having the tax and fundraising benefits of being a charity rather than a members' preservation society.

 

I disagree with this assessment of the root cause of the angst.

What you state is absolutely correct in terms of law. However, it is incumbent upon directors and Trustees to maintain the trust of their stakeholders. Thus there should never be a situation where the need to act in a particular way is at odds with the stakeholders. They may not like the decision or direction that is required, but they are either able to see and understand why it is required or have sufficient trust in the directors/trustees that they "go with it".

It is the lack of trust that is the root of the angst. It matters not how that was created, but it matters a great deal that a plan is created to re-establish the trust. It matters not only for the WSR, but for the rest of the Heritage Railway movement too.

Trust seems to continue to be an issue around the WSR because steps are repeatedly taken to frustrate attempts to increase the dialogue between stakeholders and boards. A repeating theme is the appearance of people in positions of director or trustee trying all they can to maintain status quo rather than engaging in discussions. I say appearance because it is not always clear that this is what is really happening, but the perception is created very often. Break this cycle (which is largely about communication) and the situation will improve.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

 

I don't think that point is seriously in debate, even in West Somerset.

On the other hand, there is an interesting dynamic afoot around WSSRT where the current board are trying to prevent that discussion amongst their membership, but challengers seeking a change of control are committing publicly to involving the membership in the outcome of any decision.

 

Surely I can't be the only one who is sick to the back teeth of continual legal talk to try and justify the complete lack of a moral compass in most cases. It really, really boils my p*ss.....

 

Which is all well and good, but so far there hasn't been a vote on the membership's wishes... Do you think the trustees should actively prevent a vote of the membership if they think the result might mean they have to ignore it? (or find a way to change the charitable objuctives?)

 

For a group of candidates promoting conciliation, this is a very strange way of going about.

Their increasingly narky tone and verbal finger-pointing makes them sound no better that other people on this thread.

I am a total outsider to all this, but it's beginning to sound like a primary school playground again.

 

To be fair, I'd be pretty pissed off if my address was illegally published, and someone was trying to make out like it proved I wasn't open and willing to engage rather than it was illegal.

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

 

I agree with this. I also think that trying to force 14 new trustees on an existing group of 7 is bullyboy tactics and shows little regard for conciliation. Indeed, a strange way of going about things.
Ian C

 

Most of the turmoil seems to be legally driven, that's the issue. The legal eagles seem to have done reasonably well from various parts of the WSR in recent years. Just another example of 'no change'.
The part that most on NP do not get to hear about is what the majority of WSR staff and volunteers think. Most folk keep their heads below the parapet and just get on with what they are there to do. It appears that many turned out for the open day, others are manning shops and cafeteria and while many of us jested about those that got on their hands and knees with weeding all suggests a degree of harmony outside the various ruling boards. I suspect most accept the status quo of the PLC as they believe, rightly or wrongly, it is them or no WSR - and they want their WSR.
We often hear what people are, or are not, saying but anyone who regularly has to ask questions will know that many say what they think you want to hear. The vituperates are usually in the minority.

 

there you go again! To describe the offering of 14 candidates for democratic election as forcing them upon the existing group of 7 is gross misrepresentation. If yhis is your view of the democratic process then you really are not fit to hold an elected position.