Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

A volunteer is treated the same as an employee.

 

Except at the L&B, not all volunteers are treated the same, @H Cloutt - your treatment appears to depend on whether you're friends with the Miles faction of the Board or not.

 

But Anne was neither, she was acting in her capacity as a member of the Trust communicating with other members. Improperly, perhaps, but not a matter for the application of rules relating to employment.

 

@The Dainton Banker @Biermeister - supposedly there was a disagreeement at the first Trust meeting after the election last week and rather than attempting to build consensus, it appears that Peter Miles called a vote for all of the Trustees to resign and have an EGM to elect a new Board.

This was carried by 5-3 (Martin Swainson was apparently absent), but there is no power to force Trustees to resign in the M&As if they don't want to, so it's very unclear on what the situation is. As far as I can see, if this is what actually happened, the motion was against the M&As but the only way to give effect the desire of Mr Miles and his friends to resign is to accept their resignations.

 

Thanks - not sure that that makes a difference.

 

I think that if this is true then it is unfortunate. I do think that it is a shame that all the work done by the trustees in recent years is effectively thrown away. There have been many posts about what is supposed to happen if there is disagreement. Is it that the minority won't accept that they have been outvoted. Anyway the fact that this information has come out is a clear breach of confidientality.

 

Well that's a novel approach, if true. Presumably there will be formal advice to the members shortly ?

By the way, I thought Mr Snashall had resigned along with Mr. Hunt before the last AGM. If he was brought back on to cover the period up to the re-run of the election should he not have stepped down again once that was over ? If the need was to keep the numbers up to 9 then there were five vacancies (two resignations and three re-standing) therefore all five on the ballot sheet should have been elected !

 

If I remember correctly one of the resignations was due to be 're-standing' - so the number to be elected was 4.

 

In what way do you think the work done by the Trustees in recent years will be thrown away ? I haven't seen any suggestion of that. And who is the "minority that have been outvoted", and on what? And to what "confidentiality" do you refer ?

 

It appears to me that a lot of this is all speculation.
Let's just see what happens.

 

I believe that there should be som continuity of trustees which is why we effectively elect one third of the trustees each year. When I spoke about a 'minority that have been outvoted' I was referring to an earlier post which stated how this situation should be handled not a specific event. I believe that the conduct of trustees meeting should be confidiential so someone has clearly 'leaked' what went on if Mr Fenwick has posted it.

 

Quite
The most egregious example of work being thrown away is the loss of the planning permission for the ENPA section. That represented a major loss of trust assets.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

The M&As clearly specify what needs to happen in the event of resignations, and specifically exclude the possibility of mass resignations. They do not provide for a motion to compel resignations, they define how the terms of office are to operate, and they have certain minimum requirements for the numbers of trustees. All of which mean that, had such a motion been passed, it would be ineffective in a number of ways.

I can - just - see a scenario where 1 EGM might determine that there should be a new round of elections of all trustees, and that this should take place at a second EGM, but not a lawful mechanism by which this could be crashed into a single meeting. As has already been established, Rule 69 specifically excludes the making of rules that impinge on matters regulated by the Articles.

As for the conduct of meetings being confidential, I generally agree - albeit at the very lowest level of confidentiality. If the rumours of that meeting are correct, then my own view is that confidentiality is an impediment to members taking an informed decision should the matter come to a vote of the membership.

 

Thanks for the clarification - it is reassuring.

 

I'm glad you think so, though I find it far from reassuring that the chairman of a board might propose such a measure. It worries me in terms of governance, and it worries me that it was felt necessary so soon into trustees' terms of office.

Given the split of the board between "old" and "new" guards, which is in favour of the "old guard", it is hard to see what could have justified such a split that matters could not be resolved without such extremes.

As a student of politics, I also note that "who rules" elections beg some interesting questions, which rarely favour incumbents.

 

I would generally agree @H Cloutt but as @35B rightly notes, this is a case where there is a clear and compelling Members' / public interest in knowing what is going on, hence the reason I posted this. If these rumours - consistent, and from multiple sources - are correct, then the Chairman has some pretty significant explaining to do, and I'd suggest that he do so immediately, given that the meeting was the week before last.

 

From what I hear of the situation, at least two of the 'minority' are new Trustees who barely had time to get their feet under the Boardroom table before at least some of the 'majority' made it clear that they would not work with them. Hardly an attempt by the 'old guard' at 'working together' for the benefit of the railway, is it? What would those members who voted for the new Trustees think of a Board which tried to force them to resign almost immediately under such circumstances?

 

This was your answer in response to the following question @Tobbes raised to you:
'In which case why the unethical and mendacious attempt to blacken her name to prevent her standing as a candidate for Trustee ? If she was not considered an "enemy" there was no need to interfere with the democratic process.'
It seems a reasonable question to me, and I would be most interested to hear as well.

 

They would think they were very silly and that a complete clear out was needed (just my opinion).

 

Wow! If correct that's right out of left field. I'm delighted for once to be able to agree with my regular sparring partner 35B that's its hard to see how such a resolution could be effective.
What seems to be happening is the trustees concluding that for whatever reason they cannot function as an effective board. That should be of great concern to the members.
Whatever happens, and whoever ends up in control, it may only have a marginal effect. The Trustees will still be obliged to prioritise the charity's public education purposes and its financial sustainability. Consequently a change of crew may not lead to the ship sailing on a radically different course or at a faster speed.