Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I see no reason to suspect that the 'new' Trustees were not willing to work with the existing Trustees, otherwise why bother to stand for election? From what I hear/read, it would appear to be the 'old' Trustees expressing unwillingness to work with the newcomers - in which case, let them 'do the decent thing' and resign.

 

I agree with the Dainton Banker. The reference to insolvency is only to prove that the members do not own the assets. Like him I hope that's not going to occur for any heritage railway. I'm also happy to agree that members have a right to influence how it is managed within the terms of its charter which, in this case, means its Articles.

On the ownership question perhaps a topical example might help. The SVR has just disposed of a long standing resident loco. Not everyone is happy about the decision including, no doubt, a fair number of the owning company's shareholders. If they had any shared ownership of the Loco its purchaser would have run a mile without a shareholder resolution authorising the sale of "their" property that, yes, their money and often volunteer support would have secured originally. The purchaser didn't need to worry as the shareholders didn't own directly the Loco any more then shareholders in BP could claim to own part of one of its oil rigs. It belonged to the company whose directors decide whether its in the best interests of the company to let it go.

The situation on the L&B is the same. Ownership of the property vested in the charity belongs to the company not to the members. It can be dealt with by the trustees in the exercise of the authority they hold pursuant to the Articles.

 

As I said, I have no argument with the specific accuracy and, if I were seeking formal legal advice, I would expect it written in those terms.

In the context of a forum, where “the railway” is a synonym for the organisation controlling that railway*, my frustration is at focusing on the individual trees rather than looking at the forest ahead.

* - I am aware that this is itself a complex topic in typical heritage railway structures. For the purposes of this conversation, in the context of the Lynton and Barnstaple, I refer to the L&BRT.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Because it suits his purposes I suspect. Dead cat deployment.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

This thread seems to be generating a bit of heat this morning.

What I see playing out here (and sadly elsewhere too) is individuals who don’t seem to be able to accept when their race is run. Throughout my career and my volunteering on heritage railways I have seen time and again the distress caused to both others and the organisation when people are convinced that they and only they have the answers. Too few times have I seen the situation where people will step aside when their ability to contribute further is at an end.

The principal sign that an individual or group has hit this point, is when they stop listening and stop engaging with others. When the voices become loud that “x” doesn’t listen and doesn’t like anything they didn’t think of.

I think it is regrettable that some of the moves towards so called better governance espoused by the Charity Commission and the HRA have if anything made it more difficult to overcome these situations. I fear in many places (though in fact maybe not the L and B yet) leverage is low. I foresee a lot of discontent.

It is time for a change of behaviour from this board. Time to start to really listen. Time to behave in accordance with the rules! After that we can worry about what best progresses the charitable objectives

 

@H Cloutt , good morning. Peter Miles promised in Lynton that there would be an independent process. His version of an independent process seems to mean that he gets to play prosecution and jury in the first instance, and it seems that he wants to decide on the appeal against the decision of a meeting which he chaired. I'd say that 'kangaroo court' is precisely apposite to the way Miles is carrying on, especially as he and his friends are attempting to impose a sanction that doesn't exist in the disciplinary proceedure, @H Cloutt - it's simply lawless power games designed to force out a critic for the "crime" of questioning the way that things are going.

Agreed, so why was an actual, clear, admitted GDPR breach not investigated like this? It surely can't be because the person responsible was a friend of the Chairman rather than a critic, can it?

 

I don't know the details, but if new trustee's come onto a board with different ideas, and expect or demand those ideas to be adopted but the majority of existing trustees may not vote to do so, then who is not working with who? It isn't really a "work with" issue. Once a matter is debated, voted on and accepted as policy with objections recorded if need be then that is the policy of the board under collective responsibility and all must abide by the decision.

 

That presumes a certain sequence of discussions and events, and that decisions were actually made. Do we know that matters followed that path at the most recent meeting?

 

You can't ride two horses here, @DaveE - either you want healing, in which case compromise is what's required, and that means consensus rather than ramming things through the Board because you have a majority - or you're in favour of a majoritarian, winner-takes-all position that @Lineisclear seems to favour, in which case you should expect to have a highly-politicised fight until one "side" wins, with the annual elections being the battleground.

Personally, I'd favour consensus and compromise, but if Miles and Co want to fight a pitched battle for "victory" - as their apparent pushing for an EGM and mass resignations suggests - then they're the ones extending the conflict you so passionately wish to avoid.

 

I have no idea.

 

But doesn't compromise start with the discussions within the board before a vote on policy? Is there compromise being given by both the new and the old?
The process for board decisions I cannot change, it's what is laid down by the CC. I am only relayng that info.

 

The honest answer is that I don't know what happened at the Board meeting last week, I wasn't there and have only heard snippets: it seems very confused, so some clarity from the Board on what happened and what happens next is urgently required.

 

Nor, bar snippets, do I. Which is why I am very cautious about presuming a sequence of events that supports a conclusion that some members are not abiding by Charity Commission guidance. If we are dealing with a situation in which proposals were made, and then voted down on a factional basis, and the defeated trustees were still campaigning actively to reverse a decision, then I might agree with you. But I'd be very interested to understand what matters took a decision to that stage - and there are no rumours of any kind about such a decision.

 

I don't have any information other than she was under investigation for an unspecified matter.

 

EGM and mass resignations ? What is all that about?

 

I did say in my original post that the trust is the body subject to GDPR. If there is a data breach then the trust need to investigate and record how they are going to prevent this in future. If it were an employee who had caused the data breach then this could result in dismissal.

 

Indeed. Which is why it's interesting that there is such a difference in the course of action against two different volunteers. Which, if it related to employees, could well have an effect were the disadvantaged one to go to tribunal.

 

All laid out in detail from posts 8390 onwards in this thread. Please, if you are going to comment, check for previous postings first.

 

None of which applied to Anne, who was neither a body subject to the GDPR nor an employee of any such body.

 

I don't believe that GDPR and it's predecessor acts was primarily to prevent selling databases. In the case of membership organisations the data must only be used for the purpose for which it was provided. The point is that we don't know exactly what has happened and how many times.

If there is a data breach then this has to be reported to the ICO who advise on the action to be taken. You are quite right that the only action often taken is 'a polite reminder of the rules' often with an apology. The fact remains is that we don't know exactly what happened so it might not be "nonsence and a waste of time".