Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

But not in this case (for reasons I don't wish to divulge here)

 

Often quoted in our village, "dont trouble us with the rumours, the truth can be invented" !

 

So where are the ballots then, @Red5? Or even a schedule for the ballots?

 

They’ll arrive, as always you are looking for problems rather than discussing anything factual about the railway.

There are objectors to the railway following this thread, leave out the names of people who volunteer and spend their free time working on the future of the L&B.

 

Deleted

 

The cheque is in the post. So reassuring.

 

Clearly that would be a data breach - unless they could show that the obtained the details through personal contact.

 

@Red5 - oddly enough, these are (sadly) factual accounts of what is happening about the railway.

Believe me, I'd much rather be discussing how we build a local consensus to extend the railway, and come down and get on with it. But until we sort the governance out so that the full gamut of stakeholders can have faith in the organisation, then we'll progress no further.

 

Somersetitis strikes again. Better out than in...

 

A strange comment. Is it not "factual" that the AGM was unable to proceed due to the failure of the Chairman and the Secretary to abide by the Trust's own regulations ? And how does mentioning names help the objectors ?

 

An excellent summary Paul. One cannot help but wonder how things might have (perhaps better?) proceeded if there were a more communicative leadership, able and willing to talk and listen to the membership and build firmer links with the community. Is this perhaps a role that the OSHI might be used for, especially if a new leadership team can emerge from the, ahem, train wreck of recent times? It won't be easy and it will take time but we all know that this project was never going to be easy. (We just didn't think that it would be made more difficult by a heavy-handed, high-horsed management team.)

 

Well, why don't you just donate your £9999 and then donate again any further sums that you wish?

 

A strange comment. Many posters here are looking for ways to solve the problems created by the Trustees!

And do you think that such matters are not factual despite significant evidence posted here??

We all know that there might well be objectors to the railway reading this thread. (Perhaps it gives them some light entertainment, too?) Have you also considered that there might well be objectors to the railway who are L&BR Trust Members?? And what do you think that they can do with any of this apart from rub their hands in glee? Get a grip!

 

The old Chelfham Mill School is the group of buildings below the viaduct, the site is up for sale and has outline planning for 15 houses, the L&BR CIC own the station site ,the viaduct is still owned by Highways England historic estates or whatever that is if it has changed

 

I have to make a correction here, it was the 2021 election that was re-run due to the secretary ( who has held the post since 2008 as far as i can see ) jumping the gun and sending all the voting paperwork to the printers before the closing date for nominees and before Chris Duffells application arrived within the set time frame, the cost of this was in last years accounts because the question of a £6k difference from the previous year was asked at last years AGM, you are correct though in asking who should be paying for these mistakes when those responsible have been in office for so long that you would think they would know what they are doing, its even more ironic that the trust secretary, in his little AGM outburst should suggest that you foot the bill for a professional to do his job

 

they obviously didn't take advice from the CC because the CC clearly stated every trustee must be involved in making such a decision and the chairman admitted that Chris Duffell wasn't asked, also £6k of the £10k mentioned was from the 2021 election re-run when the secretary simply jumped the gun so he did know what he was doing, took a gamble that no-one else would offer to stand and that gamble didn't pay off

 

@Meatman . Thanks for the correction on the date of the last incorrectly administered election.

Time flies by these days.

 

Perhaps what this lengthy exchange highlights is the tension created by traditional methods of electing Trustees? Many heritage railways use a simple system of nomination with anyone able to stand as long as they satisfy the conditions set out in the Articles. Such arrangements reflect those that would be fine for a members’preservatiion society. It’s increasingly evident that they’re not so well suited to heritage railway companies and especially incorporated charities.
Why? Well the discussion about collective responsibility is one reason. Someone may be elected as a popular volunteer with personal expectation and hope of their electors that they are going to shake things up and possibly change the way the railway operates or its strategic direction. If they’re in a minority on the board it can come as a shock to find that they are obliged to support the old way of doing things if that is the consensus of the board. That can be personally distressing and result in disillusion if not anger amongst supporters. Secondly there’s the increasing expectation from bodies such as the ORR and the Charity Commission that board members will have appropriate experience and competence. That creates pressure for some process of candidate competency qualification which can vary from use of tools like a skills matrix through to the use of nominations committees ( to which I know 35B takes strong exception!). As a former Chairman I welcome different ideas and opinions on a board ( what are sometimes referred to as “disruptors” ) As the Charity Commission guidance emphsizes that’s healthy and stops a board becoming stale. However I also recognise the need to ensure a cohesive board not riven by factions and division. If it’s obvious that any candidate is intent on causing board fracture it’s sensible to avoid that by any legitimate means.
Probably the most important element is that election candidates know beforehand what the strategy of the company charity is. They may intend to argue within the board for change but at least they will be prepared for having to support the existing strategy if that intention proves to be fruitless.
If there is clearly articulated and communicated strategy supported by budgets, fundraising plans and a long term capital plan candidates and members alike should find the process of electing of those charged with delivering it far less fraught than is sometimes the case.

 

This is very much something I think is important, making sure any election isn't just a popularity contest which can result in trustees being elected but do not have the skill sets really needed or even doubling up on skills leaving other areas lacking.
The only way I can see that can be done is by using a system which invites applications which then go through a pre-selection process, the resulting short list then goes to a vote to finalise the appointment.

 

That’s a conclusion that seems to be more widely shared. Board competency judged by measures such as the ORR’s RM 3 management maturity model is increasingly relevant. Not everyone’s comfortable with the trend away from popularity contests but for charities that may reflect a misunderstanding of what the board are elected to do. I’ve seen it suggested that their role is to run the railway in the interests of members or for benefit of its volunteers so they can enjoy their hobby. Of course you need to encourage member and volunteer support but the reality is often that preservation and operation of the railway is a means to a wider charitable purpose ( typically public education). Whatever election system is used it needs balance member/volunteer interests with the Trustees public benefit duties.