Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Not sure Mike, it's possibly become much more involved since you retired. With the huge changes we have seen in recent years with Brexit and the pandemic etc I would expect it's a bit of a headache at the moment along with the expanding demands of the planning, newsletters and magazines and other stuff. It maybe we don't need a company secretary full time, but they could oversee critical matters such as meetings etc on a part time basis.

 

I was simply suggesting a possible failsafe solution when a Trust/company/society isn't being wholly truthful with its' members.

The reason why the member would have to pay is to stop stupid postings costing a lot of money. You wouldnt want members sending posts out every week complaining that the shade of green paint on WB is invorrect, would you? There has to be some mechanism to kill off the frivolous posts.

Yourself and a few others on here/exmoor-ng seem very animated about making sure procedures are followed and ensuring that members know all the facts. I thought you would welcome a mechanism to inform.

 

I think we are over looking one very important fact and that is age of both Company Secretaries. At some point we will need to find suitable replacements for each role and with voluntary input starting to bite in many groups, it makes sense to go down the professional path now.

I would also consider that the role of a profession Finance director for both the Trust and the CIC should be considered in the short term for the same reasons as above the same time.

Finally I think the whole L&BR Project should come under an appointed CEO who could provide the sort of leadership that this project needs, this role would be in line with a number of larger projects, The CEO as I see it would be answerable to both the Trust and CIC Boards.

I should add that all these role for now will be part time except the CEO.

 

Where are you finding the ~£100k to pay for these positions and have you investigated whether there are qualified people who would want to work part-time and/or for a lower salary than a commercial business?
If a CEO is answerable to both Trust and CIC, how would you deal with a situation where the Trust directs him/her to do X and the CIC says forget that, do Y?

 

Layers, more layers, middle layers, more top layers to oversee those middle layers..... No, keep it simple, too many cooks.... Etc.
(Edit: removed part of post as already addressed by a previous poster.)

 

First of all I would investigate the use of agency staff or companies for both the Secretary and the Finance director roles, I would also look at asking for those who are winding down and only want a part time job, I would also be looking at asking companies who are willing to provide secondment staff for both roles.

As for the CEO role that is the problem we have now. In that nothing is very clear as to what everyone role is on the top table. The CEO job discription would need to clarifiy what would happen in such circumstances.

 

You aren’t answering the value question, just the “how”. Senior leaders become senior for a number of reasons, and assuming that they will be constrained because employed, or they’ve got specific terms of reference misses the point.

They need to be empowered to do their job, and accountable to a board who will focus on the strategic objectives. They also need to have the right attitude.

These are questions about people and mindset, not organisation charts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Sorry Colin but that makes no sense.
Do you honestly think that agency staff are going to cost less than directly employed staff? Even if they were, we are not talking about minimum wage staff here - you are looking at highly qualified staff with a salary (full or pro-rata) to match.
How would you find people who are 'winding down and only want a part time job' - that's not something that people advertise.
People on secondment would also need paid at their proper rate and again, how would you find them and from what industry? Heritage railways are very different from most other industries.

I think your idea of 'going down the professional route' is very different to most other people's idea. If you employ professionals then you have to pay professional rates and you have to find that money from somewhere. Employing professionals is not a panacea for all ills - employing these people is not a guarantee that your railway is going to run more smoothly, or get PP for an extension, or make money from a pub. It could in fact make things worse by draining money from the railway for no discernable difference in income.

 

With respect, issuing legally valid meeting papers in time for a legal deadline should not be that onerous.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Ok so I have made a suggestion, So I woud love to hear how you would go about it?

 

I have no idea,
I'm not familiar enough with company law, Devon PP rules etc to make any worthwhile suggestion. I will leave that to others who are much more qualified to comment.
What I would say is that any 'plan' needs to take account of available finances and local labour. There's no point in saying 'we'll employ lots of people to make the railway more "professional" (I'd love to know what you think that means and how it differs from how the railway is currently managed) and we'll raise £10m a year for extending', if you don't have the money to pay those people and there are no large grants available.
Realism is everything.

 

I agree. You are talking about a business with an annual turnover of about £1m per year, which is tiny. Plenty of other heritage railways of comparable size, and larger, seem to be able to find Company Secretaries who can rise to the challenge of properly conducting an annual meeting without needing to be paid for the role - so what makes the L&B different? The fact that the current Co. Sec. has made a horlicks of several meetings, at a minimum incurring unnecessary expense on the Trust to sort things out, is an issue of the competence of the person, not a symptom of being a volunteer.

(As an aside, it is unclear to me quite what the person sought in the recent advert was to do. Were they to be the "Company Secretary" in capitals, i.e. the board member with that formal role? Or were they to provide administrative and secretarial support to the company? The former would seem to be problematic, and in any case there was no indication that upon appointment, the current Co. Sec. would stand down. But if the latter - well, why not just say that you are after a paid administrator? They are very different roles).

That's financial madness. Where is the money to come from to pay for those roles? You are talking about tiny organisations, not some FTSE 100 company. That money has to come from operational income: for that level of money you propose, your options are basically "this year should we pay for the materials for the next heritage coach - or a paid Finance Director?" I know where I would rather such money went.

Again, in terms of the paid Finance Director, I'd ask a similar question as I made in respect of the Co. Sec. Are you suggesting a paid director (you seem to be?) i.e. someone with a formal company board role and who is accountable for decisions taken by the board. Or are you talking about a paid manager, i.e. someone there to ensure that on a day-to-day level, the finances are run correctly, proper accounts are kept, management accounting information is available, suppliers get paid on time etc? That's a different role; I don't know the paid staff structure of the L&B, but that just feels like a management decision to decide where they get the most value from having a paid member of staff.

Tom

 

Both positions should be fillable on a volunteer basis, so long as the roles are given to people who have the requisite skills and knowledge not because they put their hands up.

Both jobs need a certain level of skill and knowledge in the same way as an engineering director.

Unfortunately too many organisations seem to think the roles can be filled by inexperienced people and then find the cost of doing so.
If skilled volunteers cannot be found, it is better to employ a firm to provide the services , as they will be able to do so at a fraction of the cost of full time staff and should be up to speed with the requirements.

 

In looking at the whole of the current 'mess', I would ask three simple (to my mind) questions:-

1. Who is in overall charge of 'the railway' and sets the strategy and direction in which the railway is to go?
2. Where is that strategy and direction right now - I see little or no evidence of it ?
3. Who will be responsible for ensuring that the railway progresses i/a/w that strategy and direction?

IMHO once you have answers to those questions, then - and only then - you can set about building the correct organisational and management structure.

 

I do, I do, believe me But before we invent something new, can we not try to improve the use of what we have already in the form of the Magazine, the Newsletter, the members-only website area, social media groups etc etc ? If my car gets a puncture, then I get the puncture repaired, I don't go out and buy a new car (however much my dear wife would like me to!) - maybe not the best analogy, but hopefully you get my gist

 

I've said repeatedly. Focus on sorting out the basics of governance, and then start involving all those of goodwill who are interested in supporting the railway. A great deal can happen from that, without paying a penny to a lawyer, recruitment agent or whatever - just simply by ensuring competence and coherence.

 

The idea behind what I suggested was to allow members to have a way of getting info out to the membership without interference from Trustees. As they control the magazine, the newsletter, the members only website area, social media groups etc, those outlets will always reflect the boards view which may not always be the full story.
To use your analogy, no you don't replace the car, but it provides another way to contact the garage!

 

I'm not sure that you can claim that the Trust 'control' NatPres, or exmoor-ng, or at least some of the L&BR-related FB groups.

 

There's been some much discussion of politics of late that I for one have lost track of what the development plan now is. I seem to recall a mention of "Option C" being preferred one, but can't find an explanation now of what exactly it is! Can someone please give a recap of what (if anything) is going on outside the AGM wars?

 

The proposal is for a staged reconstruction of the section between Killington Lane and Wistlandpound. The first stage would be to Cricket Field Lane, after which it seems that attention would shift towards the Blackmoor Gate end.

Details are, as yet, uncertain and it is clear that significant scoping and planning work are required, even though the civil engineering plans are well advanced.

The issues relating to the “AGM wars” link back directly to questions of confidence in the ability of the current board to successfully pursue this plan in light of the failure to capitalise on the last planning approval.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk