Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I agree with you 100%.

 

I don't believe it is worse. I suspect that at the moment the trustees have got other things to do other than respond to questions.

 

The L&B website has a new post regarding the AGM:
https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/news/view/l-b-agm-2023-clarification-statement

 

That clears that up then, by my reckoning the 14th day was yesterday.

 

With respect DaveE, the length of delay is irrelevant - if the Trust fails to give the specified minimum period of notice as defined in the M&AoA then the AGM will be invalid regardless of whether the notices were posted 1 day late or 1 week late.

If we can not trust the Trustees to run the Trust i/a/w the rules, then what else are we supposed to do? Neither the Trustees nor the members can 'pick & choose' which rules are important and which are less so. Yes, it will be inconvenient to have to reschedule the AGM, yes it will cost money - both for the Trust and members with accommodation need etc - but that is the way it will have to be. They've already cocked-up a previous AGM by posting out too early (!) before all the Trustee nominations had been received, so one might have expected 'lesson to be learnt' - but apparently not.

With regard to the latest statement on the 'new 'website' which says "Notice of the meetings shall be called by at least 21 days clear notice in writing (Trust Article 5: CIC Article 40(1)). The date and place of the AGMs was notified on page 8 of Newsletter number 78 dated November 2022.", if they bothered to read Clause 5 more closely they would find that it goes on to say "The notice shall specify the time and place of the meeting and the general nature of the business to
be transacted...", neither of which appeared in Newsletter 78.

The 'notice' in the Newsletter is merely an informal 'note this in your diary' sort of statement. The formal Notification should come in the form "Notice is hereby given that..." which is what was sent out *after the deadline had passed* and therefore is invalid.

 

And your evidence for this is? At each stage in this sorry saga, @H Cloutt , I have hoped-against-hope that there was a simple, reasonable and honourable explanation for the Trust's actions.

Each time, without fail, the situation was worse that it initially appeared.

 

I am far from being a supporter of the conduct of the Trustees. However, the general nature of the business to be transacted for an AGM is quite a broad term, and I think the sort of technicality that will frustrate more than it will convince - even as it does nothing to convince me that the Trust and CIC's governance is at the level it ought to be at.

In contrast, the handling of nominations is much more worthy of focus. It is not just a technicality, but sends a clear signal that the current Trust leadership regard themselves as beyond scrutiny.

 

@35B is quite right - what we are witnessing is a great example of revealed preferences at work. It's pretty clear that the AGMs will be null and void, but it is taking a long time for the Trust to fess up and reschedule it - which is a direct slight on the Members investing time (and money) in coming to Lynton.

I therefore wrote to the Secretaries tonight, copying in the Trustees and the CIC Directors. It is self explanatory; I post it here for transparency.

Toby
___________________________

Company Secretaries, good evening cc: L&BRT Trustees

I write to you in relation to your posting on the L&BRT trust website dated 6 May 2023 entitled 'L & B AGM, 2023, clarification statement', a screenshot of which I attach to this email.
You are correct in your joint observation that there are 'questions' around the validity of the notice for the AGM, and therefore of the AGM itself. I therefore initially welcomed the clarification in the note, but I am surprised to see your reliance on the phrase
"The date and place of the AGMs was notified on page 8 of Newsletter number 78 dated November 2022"

as formal notification of this year's AGM.

As you will know, there is a required form of notice, which is indeed the one you used in the packs that (belatedly) arrived, which begins 'Notice is hereby given" etc. This is not what is said in Newsletter 78, which is (at best) a 'save the date' type note for weddings which is followed by the actual invitation.

Indeed, in relying on the 'save the date' note in Newsletter 78, you are implicitly accepting that the minimum notification times in the correct form were not met.

Therefore the 'questions' you allude to be being raised by Members can only be truthfully answered in the negative - meaning that the AGMs of the L&BRT and the CIC slated for this Saturday are null and void.

An attempt to continue with them when you know that they are can only be interpreted as further - after the ultra vires exclusion of Anne Belsey's valid nomination for the Trusteeship election - manifest bad faith on your behalf, and that of the Trustees who are allowing you to behave in this manner.

I look forward to a further email to all Members and on the website postponing the meeting until such time as you both have correctly served notice to the Membership.

As I've mentioned Anne in this note, I am copying it to her and to the L&BRT Trustees and CIC officials listed in the back of the Magazine.

Sincerely yours,

Toby
T J Fenwick, Member, L&BRT

 

I do have considerable sympathy with all this. However, I have been greatly troubled by the defenestration of Anne Belsey, which looks arbitrary to me. There are other substantive issues several people have also voiced concerns about, which I don’t need to repeat. All of this tells me that there is something fundamentally going wrong and without sorting this out appeals for unity will not work and there will not be any way forward. It gives me no pleasure to say this.

 

We should Be very very careful about allowing the Trustees to alter the MoA. In far too many instances the main effect of these changes (whether intentional or not) is to cement in place the existing trustees at the time of the change. This CC recommended approach of an appointments committee is used as a rampart too often for my liking and the defence of its use because it prevents the appointment of people’s “ mates” is nice in theory and in fact almost always the opposite occurs, because guess who runs the appointment committee!

 

And your evidence for it being worse is?

 

In fairness he didn’t say it was worse, just that each time he hoped for a decent explanation the situation seems to have got murkier.

 

As @21B says, @H Cloutt, it simply appears to have been the pattern throughout. I *really* hope I'm wrong.

 

Too true. Few of those in the audience will have read these forums, and the majority will be completely oblivious, so if someone stands up to suggest that the meeting is null and void they will be seconded, but not supported in a vote, because it has just been sprung on people expecting to nod through the Trustees' recommendations and there will be no thoughtful response. I know this from AGMs in the distant past when on successive occasions I have stood up and pointed out errors of as much as £25,000 in the accounts, obvious from comparing the consolidated accounts with those of the Trust, and a proposal that they be rejected by the meeting and reissued. There was invariably a deathly silence followed by a proposer to accept the accounts and pass them as they stood, followed by a seconder from the floor and a vote to pass the accounts. It's human nature. And the same will happen this time, however how convincing the proposer is. People are not prepared to be taken out of their comfort zone at short notice. So it will be off to the Charity Commission to sort this out in arrears.

 

I see as part of the 25th anniversary and pre AGM events a track walk has had to be changed due to flooding
https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/events/view/2023-anniversary-event
"So, the plan for the day is to take the 10.45 train from Woody Bay then walk from Killington Lane to Churchtown and back so we can return on the 12.30 departure from Killington Lane. John Barton has agreed to lead the morning walk which is around 2Km in length.

We will then head to Chelfham at 2pm for the EA walk. EA believe they will have parking available at Chelfham Mill School which is, incidentally, the subject of an appeal to purchase it for railway use, so we can use our own cars, sharing where possible."

 

That's absolutely fantastic. A celebration of the 125 years across both groups which have in reality done so well in making the impossible possible. What was once deemed never able to be done, we are in reality not doing too badly.

Anyone who goes on those walks, thoroughly enjoy them, I am sure John Barton, and whoever guides from EA will be giving a very interesting talk along the way!

 

As I have suggested on the Exmoor-NG website, there is nothing to prevent like-minded dissenters from distributing leaflets at the entrance to Lynton Town Hall to AGM attendees. The leaflets could reprise the major concerns of the dissenters and list the questions that should be put to the Board. There is nothing that the Trust can do to prevent this as the Town Hall is a public venue. It might not be much more than a token gesture but if it broadens the scope of interest in the machinations of the Board then it might, just might gain traction to support a call for change.

 

The L&BRT has about 2500-3000 members. Motions at GMs, including postal/proxies, typically (from memory) get up to around 400 votes, and the venue has a capacity of 150, so although this approach may have some effect, the majority of members will still be unaware of the alternative views expressed here.

 

I've been thinking about this issue. The Trustees will try to muscle on through... Therefore, we need perhaps a little theatrics, with some serious media attention outside, and perhaps inside (?), Lynton Town Hall.

Some time ago two football teams, Charlton Athletic and Coventry, took mass direct action against what were seen as disinterested owners. At the match, disgruntled supporters threw plastic pigs before kick-off onto the pitch. See: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/37667541

Well, what about some cheap Thomas the Tank Engine models thrown down outside the Lynton TH? Or perhaps inside at some prearranged signal; not to hurt anyone of course, merely (!) to express dissent.

Some singing perhaps? A song that the Untrustworthy Trustees should be singing to the members? Inside the TH. Might I suggest three verses of 'Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood'? Such as:

… Baby, do you understand me now
Sometimes I feel a little mad
Well, don't you know that no-one alive
Can always be an angel
When things go wrong I seem to be bad
… I'm just a soul who's intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood
… If I seem edgy, I want you to know
That I never meant to take it out on you
Life has it's problems and I've got my share
And that's one thing I never meant to do
… 'Cause I love you
Baby, don't you know I'm just human
And I've thoughts like any other man
And sometimes I find myself alone and regretting
Some foolish thing, some foolish thing I've done
… But I'm just a soul who's intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood

Significant media interest would certainly alert the members. Anyway, I'm sure you get the idea! Pity I can't be there.