West Somerset Railway General Discussion

If you follow that line to its logical end, you essentially grant the plc a veto on who can and can't stand for election in other organisations on the railway. As I see it, anyone who meets the eligibility criteria can stand for election and can do so on any manifesto they choose (subject to that manifesto being compatible with the charitable objects of the charity). It is then simply down to the members if they elect that person or not. It has nothing to do with any other body.

Only in Somerset, it seems, could the simple act of standing for election be seen as "bringing the railway into disrepute".

Tom

 

I think he did, but in a subtle way.
Pat

 

Yet you are evidently aware of what those findings were, as you tell us that sanctions were based on them! Confidentiality here seems to have been stretched sufficiently to warrant an enquiry into the legitimacy of the process you seem to be commending to us.

 

In general, I agree - which is why I am so opposed to the process initiated by Steve Williams's complaint, believe that the plc should have refused to engage, and that Steve Williams abused his position in pursuing this given that the election was a direct challenge to him personally. However, the manifesto adopted by "the ten", which I supported, and which caused me to join the WSSRT, was explicitly targeted at changing the governance of the plc. As such, it absolutely was connected with the plc - the existence and behaviour of the plc were fundamental to the candidacies.

 

If, speaking entirely hypothetically, I were to be subject to a form of disciplinary process, I would be highly likely to respect the confidentiality of such a process until it had been completed.

What I then might choose to do would be very likely to depend on the result, the way the process had been conducted, any public interest I felt there was in those things being made public and any further action I might contemplate.

I am a firm believer in the disinfectant powers of daylight.

 

We have lawyers and "barrack room" lawyers here. It seems to me that there are too many of the latter.

 

I think that's over egging the pudding Tom.
As I understand the situation no one has suggested, or found, that the standing for election to a distinct support organisation brought the PLC into disrepute. However during that process public comments were made about the PLC and its management by PLC volunteers who were standing as candidates. Had they been made by the support charities as shareholders (with the necessary internal approvals) they would not have been actionable. Any shareholder has the right to criticize the management of the company they hold shares in.
However the comments appear to have been made by the candidates in their personal capacities.
Consequently the questions to be addressed as part of a disciplinary process are :
1) Could the comments by candidates who are PLC volunteers be said to have brought the PLC into disrepute?
2) If so, is that conduct justifying withdrawal of the opportunity to volunteer?

.

 

"Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done."

 

And if those people happened to be private shareholders in the plc? Would they not then "[have] the right to criticize the management of the company they hold shares in"?

I think the despair from looking in from outside is that it feels that the railway is being driven onto the financial and reputational rocks, yet it has neither the pan-railway organisational resilience, nor seemingly a set of trusted elder statesmen, with the ability to bang heads together and say "enough is enough".

Tom

 

Sometimes a typo says more than the correct spelling; the use of repititional strikes me as one of those times!

 

Perhaps the former are too closely involved as well?

 

deleted

 

This would be Steve Williams Acting Chair of the WSHRT, who is also a Director of the PLC, so he was in effect asking himself to carry out action against people. Just a different hat on.

Seems a bit Kangeroo Courty to me or is this perfectly normal?

 

In a way, perhaps, but only because those comments helped to publicise the harm that the PLC management was doing.

 

Rather like what the S&D were doing. A quick recap includes providing one of the most visually appealing spots on the line, lending their site for fund raising activities, paying the correct commercial rate for rent and providing the most useful loco ?

I do hope that the WSRA have a plan B and rinfenced funds should they ever find themselves in a similar position.

 

Both examples are literally incorrect if the original was intended to be 'reputational'.....

 

Or alternatively, the PLC could have prioritised the financial survival of the railway, concentrated on Seaward Way Crossing, developed coherent funding appeals. In short, for the good of the railway bury the hatchet, move on and adopt the same approach of post-Franco Spain of amnesty via amnesia.

I can't help but think that the WSR would be in a better position if it had followed this approach rather than going for unnecessary retribution which does nothing to help the railway as an organisation or to detoxify the organisational culture.

 

If any WSR organisations are looking for a theme tune, I believe the rights to the following are relatively cheaply available:

 

Local residents watch today’s excursion pass Eastcombe.

 

So you do know what the findings of the process were! Wish you had told me that when I asked rather than suggesting it would be normal for these to be confidential.

Yet, according to the quoted extract from Steve Williams' letter, the basis of the WSRHT's formal request to the WSR plc was that:

“The actions of the four individuals in relation to the impact on the Trust and Trustees was both serious and totally unwarranted and you should be under no illusion that this behaviour was absolutely unacceptable in the context of a small charity and good decent people who are trying to do the best for both the charity and the WSR as a whole.” (my emphasis added)

Not one word of any impact on the plc of comments made by WSRHT candidates. And since the comments in question are said to have been publicly expressed and thus accessible to the plc, it was for the plc to initiate any process relating to alleged disrepute brought to the railway, not for the WSRHT formally to request it.

I have no idea whether the investigation and disciplinary process in relation to comments alleged to have been made by candidates for WSRHT office would have been appropriate or proportionate if it had been initiated by the plc rather than being launched at the request of the WSRHT. But that is irrelevant because what I perceive instead is the spectacle of one organisation acting at the instigation of another in a way that brings trouble on the heads of these four individuals, and it is this that I find so repugnant.