Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I will try and find a name for this person off piste to remind me not to vote for him when his Trusteeship comes up for renewal. It convinces me there is not just one bad apple. When the voting papers are reissued lets hope there are biographies to enable us to choose 4 from 5, although I am likely to plump for the rejected lady rather than any of those seeking re-election. If she joins Chris Duffell on the Board perhaps there will be the beginnings of the signs of some normality in the way things are managed.

 

There’s a problem with that argument. Set aside the history, and the relationships - all of which were in evidence on Saturday - and there’s something more involved.

There was a very strong mood at the AGM of “we must get on and build”. But what is built, how, and where, are not simple questions - as was made very clear in the explanation for how the options paper was put together, and it’s recommendations made. I disagree with how that paper was presented, but I had a lot of respect for the way it was advocated - even if I disagree with the approach.

They’re also questions that aren’t just about engineering. They affect people, and they involve relationships. Those are strained, inside the L&B and with the outside world.

The old saying “more haste, less speed” comes to mind. People here have argued for “flexibility” and being “agile” as benefits of what’s happened. Maybe. But working with agile projects, I’m familiar with their difficulties - including the difficulty of keeping focus on the end goal.

Getting to success requires an openness to new ideas, and flexibility. What I saw and heard was not open minded but defensive; not flexible, but focused on “the plan”; not forward looking but tightly focused on what individuals had already done.

The project inspires me, but that wasn’t matched by many of those at the top table. That leaves me worried that there’s too thin a base for the future.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

As far as I am concerned (and as indicated in my signature below) Nat Pres contributions are the opinion of the individual concerned, and don't represent any other individuals, companies, or organisations. Whilst there is a right to free speech (at the moment), I do agree that there is a corresponding responsibility, which some of us, sometimes, stretch too far, but unless specified, social media posts should not be construed as official policy for any group or organisation - this is why trustees, directors and officers of the various L&B organisations seldom get involved in social media discussions, here or elsewhere.

Why should you donate to EA or YVT? I can't tell you, but I do know that they have been quietly getting on with securing - and enhancing - sections of the L&B trackbed slowly and steadily for the past twenty-one years, and will continue to put the jigsaw back together for many years to come, ready for the time when the greater L&B reopens to traffic.

 

Maybe the criticism on this open forum and other Social media has led to people being defensive.

 

If there was a clearer plan, more communication of better quality, a focus on getting the basics of good governance right and humility and willingness to listen and learn then this project would fly forwards. The multiplicity of organisations is good evidence that many believe in the vision, but not the way to get there. Get the basics right and the it may be possible to reassure most locals too. The antics of the board are not the fault of social media commentators. If the trustees are finding too challenging, there is an obvious answer, which is to stop.

 

That begs the question: 'have we perhaps, difficult as it might be for us to actually think it to be so, actually done things which, heaven forbid of course, actually warrant criticism?' I merely pose the question...

 

Maybe, but why should they need to be defensive at a closed, members-only live forum in the Town Hall?

 

I'm sure it's a factor, but it's also a convenient scapegoat. My impression was not that social media is causing people stress, but that the way that social media undermines those peoples' control of what people hear, and how they hear it.

This is a situation in which the differences of approach are matters of choice. That should leave room to try to draw people in and build more support. Yet the approach I witnessed on Saturday evening was different. It's cost significant sums of money already, will cost more, and is amplifying division.

As @Biermeister observes, perhaps the starting point is to accept that a range of views are legitimately possible, and to seek to engage with them and those who hold them.

 

One matter that has been raised on Exmoor-NG is that of L&BR Trust overseas members. Some are still waiting for their notices of the AGMs so, despite paying full rates to be members, are disenfranchised. I don't know how many of the 2500-odd memberships are overseas, but it shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to allow AGM notices to be emailed and for email/online voting to be allowed for those overseas members. It would also save quite a sum in postage, printing, etc, and even more if the option could be made available to all voting members. I'm sure the likes of the Electoral Reform Society could assist in implementing a safe, transparent, reliable, and effective solution.

 

Tbh I find when talking to various Trustees, those in the CIC, in EA etc there is very much flexibility.

Ideas are constantly being bounced around between many of us who have been involved for a while, mostly off record. I often throw an idea in which I think might work, what follows is usually a conversation when we can catch up with each other, by phone, email or maybe when we can meet up in real life, and maybe I find it's been looked at already and decided against for various reasons, sometimes the idea is good and its popped into what I would call the "pot of potential". Those ideas I give are without expectation or demand, just ideas which may be useful... Or not as the case may be due to perhaps legal, staffing or local reasons I have not foreseen.

More generally, everyone is able to do that, everyone can have ideas and forward them, some maybe good, some may have pitfalls which make them not so good.

The art in all this is how you put forward ideas, saying, "I think you are wrong, you should be doing this or that... You don't know what you are doing, you are messing everything up" is just being overly critical and throwing barbed comments, and in many ways is demoralising for those who have put so many hours in of volunteer time to make the successes we see right across the L&B Family... It's demoralising for the management, the volunteers and staff alike.

If you have an idea or suggestion, just say, "I have an idea and maybe worth a try..".

I always get a reply.

There are many I have spoken to this weekend from all sides and all are what I call friends. Those people know I may speak on something which I may think is perhaps risky and put a different view point, but there is never any animosity, it's usually over a cuppa or a glass and from a base of friendship and the overall aim of reinstating the L&B and all its heritage aspects. I always respect the decisions they make and probably likely to put further suggestions etc to maybe help in the direction they have chosen. I have reservations on the Chelfham Mill, but if they do get it I will be making suggestions on making it successful which they can use or not, and Andy, Mike, Dave et al all know that ultimately I'm only trying to be helpful in the overall scheme and with zero animosity or criticism.

Some have said they don't get replies, maybe, just maybe... It's not them, but you? If you go in all guns blazing, super critical etc, do you expect a reply?

If you take the time to listen, there is much more flexibility than at first seen in all the groups involved in rebuilding the L&B. There can be an overall plan, but the detail has a certain amount of fluidity.

Generally, be nice, be kind, be helpful where possible, don't demand, I guarantee it will get you a lot further and in fact you will perhaps come to learn and understand much more than before the whys and wherefores of all that's involved in this amazingly complex jigsaw.

 

If you want one good reason I would look at both the Trust and EA records of land purchase and ownership, if we didn't have EA we certainly wouldn't have such a large land bank for the future of the re building of the Railway, it must not be forgotten that at least 50% of the land now owned by the Trust was purchased by EA in the first place.

 

Indeed, which is why considerable concern was expressed at the EA meeting on Saturday morning when it was revealed in a letter from the Trust, signatories Messrs Cowling and Bromidge, that it had made an offer of £10,000 for the trackbed running on from Chumhill. There is (or was!) a tacit agreement between EA and the Trust that each organisation would be responsible for trackbed acquisition south and north of BG respectively. Such an arrangement makes eminent sense thus avoiding duplication of effort, confusion et al but more critically, a bidding war.

Mike Buse only discovered this when he made contact with the relevant landowner with a view to negotiating the acquisition of his stretch of trackbed. The landowner expressed surprise at Mike's approach, stating that he had already received an offer from the L&B Trust. Fortunately he was minded to provide Mike with a copy of the offer letter which was duly read out to us at the meeting.

Mike and the EA board confirmed that at no time had the Trust made the slightest attempt to alert the company to its intentions, let alone enter into a dialogue, which were a clear breach of the agreement between the two organisations.

Such dishonourable action speaks volumes for the deceitfulness of the Trust and its total disregard for the notion of "co-operation" between the various interested parties. A number of contributors to this thread have vocalised their justifiable concerns with the obvious problems that arise from such schisms, calling for greater co-operation to obviate them. Couldn't agree more, so let's start with the Trust and demand an explanation for their egregious behaviour and move on from there.

 

Good advice for all. A degree of humility is needed.

I will also observe that a membership organisation may not be the best choice of organisation (out of those within the Land B family) to lead the development. Support it certainly, set the overall vision, but the execution, perhaps we should look at RVR and WHR not learn what works and adapt the model? as many have said it can be difficult to carry out the tasks needed in the glare of publicity.

The more I think about this, the more I think a lot of discussion is needed and a review of structures BEFORE anything more is done to extend the line.

 

I would also like to add that an interesting question was put to the audience at the end of the EA meeting on Saturday.

'Just out of interest, how many of you will be attending the AGM this evening?'

Almost everyone put up their hand.

Certainly at ground level it is a united project.

 

This is a bit of a 'no-brainer' - there has got to be a way of doing this.

 

I believe it was said that those overseas could send in an electronic indication of vote by email? I am sure I saw that somewhere. Ultimately it may be the M&As are silent on electronic vote but I cannot see any problem in enabling those abroad to be able to vote and it should not cause much upset in them doing so.

 

I think a large proportion of members of the L&B are shareholders in EA and visa versa. I did attend the EA meeting but I will admit I missed a fair part as catching up with the good folk outside and some interesting chat it was too about farming and rock festivals! Lol
Plus catching up with old friends and discussions on health matters etc. As it was, time was short and had to split early as my lift awaited!

But I know I can always get up to speed on EA endeavours in other ways quite easily.

 

One thing I think could be an improvement would be to highlight these suggestion so that other members could see and may be even look at them and suggest something else or even improve the original suggestion.

I wonder how many times that the Trustee or the Directors of the CIC hear the same suggestions, yet these could be put on a members only part of the website for discussion and rollout to the membership at large it might just show that a lot more people/members are thinking in the same way.

 

Hmm, maybe, but then it might be best to just have ideas in file, and roll them out as and when it's deemed suitable and viable to do so.

The problem from a business point of view with making public a catalogue of ideas which can be discussed is you end up with hundreds of views, or support for ideas which may be popular but not ideal business wise or economically and other less popular ideas but economically sound being pushed aside.

As long as you have a "pot of potential" the management can dip into it when seeking fresh ideas if other projects at the time have stalled, which I can almost guarantee will happen in the future at some point. This also preserves strategy.

As for a membership only forum? Not sure that's even possible now in today's internet environment, even if it's a membership only forum, assume everything you post is world wide public and up in lights in Piccadilly Circus.

 

If you did not have EA. The Railway operation at

Woody bay would NEVER be in the possition its in regarding owning land outside of the Woody Bay Killington lane limit .
Most of that owned of the 19 miles of trackbed land owned by railway interest has been negotiated by EA not all but most .. apart it seems in the last few years some pieces south of Whistlandpound where the L&B have bought or leased pieces just to spite EA its clearly displayed in this action the animosity the current elected board have against EA and all those who join with EA in EA's objective .
As I said in my post last evening .. we are dealing with people who do not share anything they want all , they tried to close EA down so they could absorb control of the peoples objective !!
Until they are gone no progress will be made .. I said that in 2008 and I stand by everything I have ever written on here , to the reasons why I say so .
The Engineer