Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

You don't know the half of it, Harold. What is said, even "on the record", and what is actually done, are quite separate and often totally unrelated entities. I'm afraid that time will only bear out this assertion.

 

Oh dear! Harold, are you listening to what Anne has said? And others who were at the 'AGM'? Have we not heard what 'Mr' Miles has said? Do you think that Anne is lying? If so, why would she? Something is clearly wrong 'behind the woodshed'.

It appears as if there is a power imbalance which is not being adequately addressed. After all, we are talking about a small heritage railway: but one that appears to be run by a management acting like Tory grandees in parliament. Egotism can be deadly. Why, oh why can they not behave with open transparency and with due humility towards the members? Are we not all part of the project? Why is EA/YVT seen as some sort of opposition by the L&BR Trustees? it seems to me that the Trustees have lost their way: things have gone badly wrong and need correcting urgently.

 

I fear the explanation is simple. This is a group of people who have pursued a specific fulfilment of their vision for many years, investing deeply in that means of fulfilment. Due to events (arguably) beyond their control, that vision has not come about.

They are therefore scrabbling about for alternative ways to achieve that vision, but stuck fast on the rock of how they achieve it. And, following one of the standard patterns of projects with problems, they are continuing to focus intently on route 1, to the detriment of all others.

Part of that standard behaviour is to retreat into a bunker, with those offering different views - even slightly different - regarded as heretics.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

If the current cabal does not stand down or cannot be ousted, I fear we are approaching the point when other organizations involved with the line may have to consider what can be done with the trackbed they own ...

 

Please can someone help me. Why is this a crime? I really really don't understand this allegation. Aren't all the organisations supposed to be working together?
Ian

 

You would hope so, @ikcdab , but as @35B sensibly notes above, Mr Miles and Co (with the honourable exception of Chris Duffell) are deep in their bunker and alternative views - or even offers of help - are squashed or ignored.

As Anne Belsey says in her note, if it is a disciplinary offense to advocate for donations to YVT-EA if donors are not satisified with the Trust's performance or financial management, then whoever authorised the inclusion of the appeal for the DHR 'B' Class should face an even stiffer penalty as it is advocating support to an organisation which is nothing to do with the L&B!

Let's ignore the planning debacle and OSHI because we don't know the finanical impacts yet. There are serious concerns about the management of the Trust. For instance, how much is it costing the Trust - i.e,. Members' subscriptions and railway profits - that should be spent on extending the line to pay for:

• HR consultancy fees to pursue Miles's vendetta against Anne?
  
  
• Rerunning the two elections (2021 & 2023) due to the malpractice of Miles and Mr Nicholson? 2021 alone cost £6k, so it is hard to believe that the total bill won't be less than £10k
  
  
• Miles asserted in his angry speech in Lynton that the redline planning retification (where we had to correct errors which should have been spotted) cost a few thousand pounds, whereas a detailed look at the accounts suggests that the true figure was north of £100k. Mr Miles has offered no evidence for his position beyond the usual angry bluster and assertion.

Finally, I was expecting to see a ring-fenced account for the 'Return to Parracombe' appeal, with about £600k in it. It doesn't appear in the accounts, so where is the money? If it was raised for a specific purpose, then it should be held for that -- and not as a general 'everything we do is towards Parracombe so we can spend it on whatever we like'. I'd note that this latter attitude is basically the same issue that the SNP is facing in Scotland for about the same amount of money, and led to Nicola Sturgeon's arrest.

And that's before, remember, we get to the s73 stuff.

So, lots of questions that may cause people wanting to donate to help the L&B to take a breath and look at YVT-EA. And pointing them in that direction instead of outside the L&B family should be seen for what it is: a good thing to do for as long as these sorts of questions remain unanswered about the Trust.

 

This is about personalities more than organisations. For someone in Anne’s position to advocate for support of the “other” branch* of the family seems an act of apostasy which must be punished by disfellowship. A parallel bearer Taunton comes to mind.

* - In a rational world, there would not be multiple organisations in this way. At some point, a pulling together is necessary. That will require the burying of a number of hatchets and significant reconciliation, and therefore a rebuilding of trust. That will be difficult, and require many to step back from quite deeply held positions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

@35B is quite right - the point here is to rebuild the L&B. I understand why we are where we are, but building towards a common future is essential. I'd like to see a common plan for the reinstatement which all can work towards, and where specialist expertise is used wherever it is useful. For instance, EA-YVT have been very successful in land acquisition, and much of the land north of Wistlandpound - and all of the trackbed north of Woody Bay (the Dean Steep section) are down to Mike Buse and his team. So as a first step, why not ask Mike and his team to take over all of the land acquisition for the railway?

I don't pretend that this is a magic bullet that will suddenly unlock the route to Wistlandpound, but if Mr Cowling engages with landowners the way he did with Trust members in Lynton, then it's no surprise that EA have been more successful.

 

Even in the deepest depths of 2013 and 2014, I can't remember anyone on the WSR being sanctioned for encouraging supporters to donate to one of the other organisations on the railway. Let alone subject to formal disciplinary. And Anne is currently only a volunteer, not even yet a trustee.
I would be interesting to see the written rule that she is supposed to have broken.
Ian

 

She was a CIC director until March.

But I agree, the action is unconscionable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

And resigned before she was hounded out of that post earlier in this dismal saga.

100% right, @35B

 

[QUOTE="ikcdab, post: 2819432, member: 1164"
I would be interesting to see the written rule that she is supposed to have broken.
Ian[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't we all !

The M&AoA do allow the Trustees (under Clause 69(1)) to "...from time to time make such rules or bye laws as they may deem necessary or expedient or convenient for the proper conduct and management of the Charity...". BUT they are required (by Clause 69(2)) to "...adopt such means as they think sufficient to bring to the notice of members of the Charity all such rules or bye laws..." and it is questionable as to when and/or how they may (or may not) have done that.

 

She has also invested a not insignificant amount in to OSHI and in to the locomotive Charles Whytock and is helping at Woody Bay 4-5 days a week to help keep the railway operational and then gets shafted like this, maybe its because she's got the balls to tell them exactly what they don't want to hear

 

Anne deserves to top the poll in the Trusteeship election, as and when it happens.

 

I would be amazed if she didn't. Anne is certainly assured the vote of just about every female member, at the very least. The utter ineptitude and arrogance of the board have created their own nemesis - Anne Belsey is becoming a populist figure, whose credentials and integrity shine a mocking light on those who would see her brought down. If they persist with this evident persecution, all they will end up in doing, is to promote Anne as a kind of Joan of Arc figure for the railway heritage movement. And it is all of their own making.

 

And that ignores the fact that Anne is a nice person, a great volunteer and she'll have a lot to offer the L&BRT!

 

Exactly. I don't know any of the people concerned but it does seem that the Chairman and Secretary, together with most of the other Trustees, have scored an enormous "own goal". Had they taken the approach of letting the original nomination stand and voting proceed as normal, it is doubtful that Ms. Belsey would have been elected, given that she was not known to many of the out-of-town members and the Chairman would, obviously, not have used his parcel of proxy votes in her favour. By allowing themselves to be panicked into a series of actions that were either illegal or, at the very least, unethical, many more of us are now aware of Ms. Belsey and of her involvement in the Railway and, at the same time, have lost both faith and confidence in the current Board.
In my view a Secretary who deliberately tries to rig an election by a) leaving out a candidate, and b) implying by omission that proxies can only be given to the Chairman, ignoring the provisions of Section 25 of the Trust's Articles, should immediately resign. And this is without taking into account the series of errors and omissions resulting in an abandoned AGM. In addition the Chairman, who oversaw and encouraged these malpractices, should also accept his responsibility and resign.
Some of the other Trustees need to examine their consciences and consider whether they have condoned improper behaviour and whether they wish to continue in office.

 

We now know who walked out of the AGM in a fit of pique with an obscenity. This is unbelievable and is on a par with national politics at the moment. I for one will be diverting any future donations to EA/YVT until at least two Trustees are out of office. And what were the other Trustees doing allowing this to happen, although if Chris Duffell was not consulted, perhaps they weren't. Has there been a meeting since the AGM, and have they done anything about it ? Or one must assume they support what has been going on. How can we get out of this situation before the incumbent's offices come up for renewal, in maybe two years time ? As one who was forced to go to law to avoid the possibility I would be sued if I published, indirectly in connection with this railway, I know how stressful and expensive it is. And surely no-one wants to do that. As I have already mentioned, we are liable to end up with one new Trustee who we can have confidence in and three others co-opted of the Chairman's choosing for the four vacancies.

 

Could a group of members call an EGM for a vote of no confidence?

 

As has been said a number of times before, a vote of no confidence will have no practical effect - the Trustees may just 'note' it and carry on regardless.

From experience elsewhere, what would be necessary is a detailed Motion specifically to remove the relevant named Trustees from office. But first of all, you would have to collect validated signed supporting requests for such a EGM from at least 5% of the membership. After that, you may have to cope with the fact that the actual EGM process - including the setting of the date, time and place of the meeting and the distribution of the paperwork (including 'defence statements' by the named Trustees) - will be managed by the Trust and NOT those calling the meeting.