Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

A tad touchy aren't you? I also note that you do not disclose your identity, which of course, you are fully entitled to do so. Just sayin'...

 

You seem to be assuming that the meeting will happen and that it will count as an AGM. Evidence presented on here indicates that, if it does happen, it will not be valid and will need to be followed by a formal complaint to the Charity Commission.

 

There is also the option that a candidate is selected simply because he is considered better - or less worse - than the alternative candidate.

I have personal experience of this with a group that I was involved in. As a member I attended an AGM where the incumbent Chairman was seeking re-election but he was an unpopular choice. My name was proposed and seconded without my knowledge or permission from the floor and before I knew it I was the new Chairman - simply because it was felt that I couldn't be worse than the defeated chairman !

 

It is usual to ask someone if they will accept a nomination before putting their name forward.

 

I would assume that the trust are taking appropriate professional advice.

 

This seems to be an argument in semantics. There are all sorts of charities and structures have to be tailored to suit the formation and character of each organisation. There is no "one size fits all".
Looking at the make-up of the current Board I note that there are seven Trustees and the Secretary, with two vacancies. Of the seven, four have been in office since 2007 or earlier, as has the Secretary. Most are in their 70s and, in fact, the two who have stood down this year were the two youngest !
Now, I'll not suggest that any are incapable of carrying out their duties due to age. After all, I am older than all of them. But the age profile does point to a lack of succession planning and the failure to keep the Board refreshed.
With regard to the recruitment of Trustees it really falls to both the existing Board and the general membership to identify potential candidates. Given the complex nature of the Trust's business there is the obvious need for specialised knowledge but there is also a need for the various associated and subsidiary bodies (CIC, EA, etc.) to be represented to ensure as much co-operation as possible. I suspect that there is an argument for an expanded Board but that is something that can be considered later.

I have to say that I am horrified at the suggestion that anybody would tamper with the members' votes. I would hope we can rely on the Secretary to maintain their security until counting, which should be undertaken by two or more scrutineers elected from the floor. Sitting Trustees should have no hand in it !

 

If they are, I would hope that the professional advice will take account of the late issue of the AGM notice. There has at least been an excuse, albeit a lame one, for omission of one candidate's name, but surely there can be no excuse for the late issue.

 

As far as I recall the vote counting was handled by a solicitor last year in the end.

 

With regard to the omission of the candidates name - there are two sides to every story and I don't believe we have heard either.

 

I quite agree with the one size doesn't fit all notion.

This is the very reason I think adhering too strictly to the Charity Commission templates for governing documents could trip us up later on, indeed the Charity Commission themselves recognise that they will not be suitable for all charities and ultimately it is for the charities themselves to work out what is best for them.

The fact we have struggled to get candidates for trusteeship in the past, as have many other charities and organisations, is the very reason we need caution on including time limits on trustee tenure. I recall at around the time Mr Bunton passed over there was real problems in finding new trustees.

I do tend to disagree with Lynbarn's comment above that people will come out of the woodwork to be trustees, when everything is running like clockwork the opposite tends to happen.

Our membership base to draw trustees from is very limited with only 3,000 members. One estimate of active members amounts to somewhere around 10% of the total membership base, this includes volunteers, groups, etc. In our case that would mean around 300 active members, which I think is not far off. The rest are those who have joined up to help quietly by donation, some join multiple interests but not active in any, others are visitors who have joined and also many who cannot help otherwise due to distance, disabilities or home/work commitments but they all have an interest in the railway and contribute in the best way they can, being a member.

So out of a possible 300, we would be looking to consistently draw new trustees who have the time and resources to commit to being a trustee.

My own view is we may see 1% of that 300 who may consider going for trusteeship, that means 3 at the current membership level, and not all of those will perhaps be skill set suitable for the roles required, able to fulfill a trustee role due to other commitments, or may have conflicts of interest.

We must retain flexibility to ensure we have a viable trust board in the future, imposing strict limitations could have severe consequences.

 

Why would you assume that @H Cloutt - what we've uncovered to date is that the Trust "leadership" is playing fast and loose with the rules, and making things up only when caught out be evidence based enquiries.

 

Surely Anne Belsey has made her side of the story quite clear already and the Chairman has made comments which presumably are the Board's side of the story?

 

Their actions suggest otherwise. And, if they are procuring professional advice, it’s worth bearing in mind two points.

Firstly, everyone is entitled to legal representation, no matter how strong or weak their case. Second, there is a difference between receiving advice and taking it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Yes, i believe he is/was a solicitor, the only reason he was handed the job was because the attempt by those on the night was a complete shambles, after that and the previous years cock-ups its about time there was an independent secretary covering both the trust and cic, and the way proxy votes are handled should be looked into as well

 

It is well known that there is about 1 in 5 trustee vacancies in the charity world right now. I was reading that some people with the right experience are making a living from being a profession trustee.

But it is not unusual to find one or more trustees serving on more than one trust board when they reach a certain age. That said, it is important to be sure that the trustee concerned does not become compromised if serving on two boards with-in the same group at the same time.

The old saying is you can take a horse to water, but you can't make him drink is just so true, when it comes to finding Trustees, but if you want this to happen then some effort needs to be made to engage with those you want on the Board.

My personal feeling is that like it or not the L&BR Trust is going to have to change its ways to find new trustees this may even include reaching outside of the trust itself, we may want to ask a local elected council to come on board who may not be a member, but again the selection process will need to be worked out before hand as to how this may happen and just whom are we looking for and who would qualify as a result of all this.

The idea of having representatives from the other L&BR groups on the trust board does has some appeal, but it may not fly when looked into it at depth.

 

Surely the Board of Trustees should include all parties with an interest in the L&B whether it be the local council(s) as sources of grant income or local landowners whose property bounds the operating line (or its proposed extensions) or businesses likely to be affected by the operation of the railway. Their primary aim surely is not the operation of the railway per se but about protecting the assets of the railway whether it be financial, investments or the railway itself as represented by locomotives, rolling stock and infrastructure.

 

An excellent point, @Fred Kerr - the Trust has an operating subsidiary to run the railways (the CIC) and should set strategy and then empower those responsible for the other elements of the business to do their business.

 

I'm not so sure. As a trustee, your only concern is acting in the best interests of the charity. That is solely where your duty lies. Whilst it's nice to think you might have a local councillor as a trustee, in practice it doesn't work. As a councillor they owe their allegiance to the rate payers and as a trustee they would simultaneously owe allegiance to the railway.
If a trustee came forward who just also happened to be a local councillor then that's ok, the two things are separate. But someone is only a trustee because they are somehow nominated by the council doesn't work.
It's why on the WSR that we created the partnership group. This is an advisory body that does include councillors and reps from interested groups.
Ian

 

Because I am not sure that what you have discovered is the full story.

 

Errr...when the PDG last meet please?