Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

For someone who has had such a lot to say on recent events and on your expertise in such matters, I find it very telling that not only are you not standing for election as a trustee, but you're now indicating that you won't even be attending the AGM.

 

And not even that, a nomination that others could vote on. Outrageous.

 

I guess being a fully paid up life members lets me have an opinion as to what I can and can't do

 

I too am a paid-up Life Member, who has been known to express a view or two on recent events I too will not be attending the AGM, for the simple reason that I have succumbed to 'mobility issues' in the last 12 months that make it difficult - and sometimes very painful - even to get to the medical appointments which are supposed to be helping me, let alone travel all the way to North Devon with any certainty of even getting there let alone back again. Am I to be judged on that as well then?

 

No-one is being denied an opinion
Colin has expressed very fervent opinions and statements that he knows more than the current trustees about running an organisation such as the L&B, but when it comes to the crunch he has declined to put his money where his mouth is.
Of course he is entitled to do this, but I hope that moving on he will not be as dogmatic and harsh when commenting on office bearers efforts, now that he has turned down the opportunity not only to show us how the L&B should be run correctly, but even to argue his points at the AGM.

 

Maybe you should have enquired off-list to ascertain why Colin is not able to attend the AGM and why he is not putting himself forward as a trustee this time before castigating him in public for it? That's what I would have done.

 

Sorry Martyn but this is a discussion forum. I'm not going to start asking people about their circumstances before commenting on their posts.
If there's a reason why Colin couldn't stand/attend, then perhaps he should have mentioned that in his earlier posts when he was disparaging the incumbent trustees.

 

He did

 

If members are not happy about how things are being run by those they have helped put in power then they have every right to put them down, who knows what will happen in the next 3 weeks but I for one will be hoping to attend the big bun fight, that's if I can get in the town hall as it looks like it could be a busy and rowdy affair

 

You obviously have not been to an AGM in a long time if you think you are allowed to argue your points

 

Where please?

So no-one speaks to each other before/afterwards?

 

This would seem to be a bombshell, would it not?
It would suggest that the L&BR Trustees withheld information from the membership and then in the February Newsletter provided falsehoods to cover their position.
I cannot believe that in the circumstances they or the Chairman or whoever decided to manufacture and promulgate the S73 camouflage story would not resign forthwith.
The L&BR Trustees should represent the membership with factual honesty and integrity or what are they doing?
It is not good enough for them to act like Tory grandees: the membership surely requires them to act honourably and in the best interests of the membership.

 

It isn’t a bombshell it is a very helpful clarification of what actually happened. The ENPA received an opinion. The trustees continued to look for other options / confirm or deny the findings of the opinion and continued to do so until the last minute.

I can understand why some feel they should almost immediately have stopped and made the membership aware of the situation. What good would that have done versus working with their advisors to see if there was a realistic alternative.

I think the most important thing is to learn and move on. A thorough (but not long) look at lessons to learn, and the setting up of some more formalised cooperative coordination of the different entities. Then decide which direction to extend.

 

As to the “spin” of the newsletter. That I agree is very unfortunate. There may still be some truth to what the trustees said though given the overall timing. I wouldn’t have said it personally, because the railway is still in the local plan (and we want it to stay there) and the tone of that letter is of someone trying to be helpful as they can be. As an exercise in relationship building it is a poor example internally or externally. Perhaps this is where the most help is needed going forward?

 

I would argue the Members, at least those at the Members Forum, were made aware. Due to privilege, which I do think many may not understand, will mean that not every nitty gritty detail can be published as it happens, and even after care has to be taken with the records of private and confidential negotiations and communications.

It is unfortunately where the world of legal and business clashes with a membership who understandably want to know every little detail of their interest.

In isolation the post some pages back now in reality means very little in my view.

 

But, as has been pointed out many times before, the wider membership has never received any update from the Trustees about that meeting.

The Board's argument appears to have been along the lines of "if you really wanted/needed to know, then you you have made the effort to come to WB" which IMHO is neither good for internal communications nor give a good impression of how the Board perceives the wider membership. The Board had a number of options, which included:-

• ZOOM the meeting
• record the meeting and create a private YouTube recording for members to view online
• put a transcript of the basis Q&A issues on the 'members only' website
• e-mail such a transcript to those whose e-mail addresses it holds
• enclose such a transcript with the next available Newsletter.

AFAIK it did none of those. Why not? IMHO it represents yet another failure of the Board to engage in effective communication with the membership and reinforces the "them and us" attitude which is perceived to exist in some quarters.

 

I agree - it is a pity that the members forum is not updated as frequestly as it ought to be.

As I remember it - one of the Objectors mounted a legal challenge - the Trust obtained a legal opinion which resulted in them continuing with the S73 application. We have now seen what I read as a very helpful response from ENPA. Legal opinions often differ dependant to some extent on who is paying the Bill. The last thing that a local authority wants is a lengthy legal battle since this is costly to the taxpayer.

I agree that many do not understand that some negotiations need to be kept confidiential. Some of the most vocal on social media demanding information do not appear to be members. There was a series of posts on this forum on the RVR thread demanding information which came from one of the most vocal opponents of the scheme.

 

I'm not sure what other organisations do, but the Members Forum in November is more of a series of talks, a get together, with maybe updates if available.

Should it be minuted or recorded? Maybe, but it's not really a "meeting" as such.

I agree communications have been limited but is that more to do with limitations of privilege?

In the world of legal and business it could be for what seems to be lengthy periods the only update that can be given is a simple, "Negotiations are ongoing, we will bring more news when we can".

With legal objections, challenges, counter challenges and appeals, plus some parties being perhaps understandably cautious for the reasons H Cloutt outlines above in protecting their own interests, often the old "No comment as legal negotiations are ongoing" applies.

This prevents misquotes and misinformation being spread, let's the legal and professional parties get on with their negotiations without hindrance, and in the long run will mean a conclusion is reached quicker.

Unfortunately the necessary lack of information professionally will mean long periods of little or no information being relayed outwardly, and sadly then the rumours and conspiracy theories begin.

No easy solution in my view. As I said, the clash of two worlds.

 

A clash that can generally be resolved by adopting a policy of being transparent and honest, including declaring where information can't be shared and being full in it's declaration when it can be. Especially where members are widely dispersed, and many (most?) are in no way local, this would very reasonably include taking the sort of measures that @RailWest suggests.

I would regard anything said in a "members forum" or similar as public in nature; it is in reality impossible to prevent it being shared regardless of what confidentiality markings are put on it. This discussion confuses the duties of trustees with the interests of members. There are items - and discussion of legal advice on the planning application is certainly one of them - where I'd absolutely expect confidentiality to be maintained within the board and its professional advisors. Much of this discussion seems to me to confuse the two, damning the trustees for failure to disclose matters that were confidential at the time, and seeking to impose second guessing by the membership at large.

The problem that I have is where the appearance of honesty and transparency is undermined by other information. So, for example, I was willing to take the recent newsletter at face value and respond to the consultation on that basis. But where the recently disclosed information sheds a very different light on matters, it has the effect of making me doubt what else I've been told, at a time when the obligations of confidentiality no longer applied in the same way.

The effect of that is corrosive.