Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I am surprised you did not cite the NZ example of tipping locos into rivers to strengthen embankments.

 

Maybe not many rivers banks to strengthen around the Atacama Desert!

Tom

 

I have followed this thread, and have been reluctant to comment due to it’s toxicity.

I can see the potential advantages in relocating to Blackmoor Gate and Rowley Farm. I don’t think there is a precedent for this in the railway preservation movement for a particular railway per se.

Woody Bay being then perhaps a museum for a time?

To simply get over the substantial impasse of Parracombe and certain landowners.

The change with a longer length of track and encompassing the potential of Blackmoor Gate and Rowley is potentially obvious.

But someone ought to assess this independently like Robin Coombes?

Just my own personal opinions.

Cheers,
Julian

 

Peak rail

Why? The railway's members should be perfectly capable of looking at all the facts and making such a decision.

 

and Mid Norfolk Railway (although I believe there was a change of organisation involved there), running track was lifted at County School

 

Unfortunately, this isn’t an issue that could be solved by analysis and recommendations, but is caught up in issues of power.

Get to a point where discussion is possible about what and how, and a great deal will improve - and quickly. Until then, there will be what we see.

I will also observe that, excellent as it is, Robin Coombes’ work on WSR governance has had limited traction. Opinions will vary as to why, and this isn’t the place to discuss that, but it would be fair to observe that calm rationality has not been the overwhelming tone of discussion there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think the A, B, C and D options we were offered are a prime example of why someone independent should put proposals forward to the members, perhaps then the options wont be so loaded to what certain trustee's wanted, incidentally the trustee's preferred option had the least information available

 

If the members have a board they can trust, the trust supplies all available information and leaves the decision to the members then there shouldn't be any need to have an external consultant.
It all relies on the first part...

 

Isn't there a fundamental misunderstanding here? A charity isn't run by its members. Responsibility for achieving its charitable objects lies with the Trustees who run the Charity. That's what its constitution ( Its Articles of Association ) confirm. If the trustees handed the decision on extension to the members they could be in dereliction of their duty. The members might vote for a particular Option or give directions to the Trustees but their overriding duty is to act in the best interests of the Charity. If in their reasonable judgement they concluded that what the members vote for is not in those best interests they would be duty bound to ignore that vote. Electing different trustees doesn't change that inherent tension. Their duty would still be to pursue the charitable purpose of public education with particular reference to the L&B. If extension in any form put at risk their financial capacity to do that through existing operations at Woody Bay they would be right to say no whatever the members demand.

 

Multiple concepts are being raised here. The canard of members attempting to force a board to act against the best interests of the charity has been exploded several times, and I won't repeat myself and others regarding that idee fixe.

Going to the proposals for extension, the consultation was of a very low standard and, had it been in the public sector, would have failed all of the tests for fairness. It did not provide members with an informed view of the options, and in the recommended option C, did not begin to address the risks of that approach.

That also meant that it failed as a way of credibly uniting members around a single preferred option, because it left too many big questions wide open because not even addressed.

@ghost is then right about trust. The board are under challenge because they are hoarding information and have been caught in misdirecting members. There are many members who want to be able to support a board that will fairly and intelligently assess options for achieving extension, and then manage the resulting projects effectively. What we've seen of late is that the current board (or, more precisely, the 6 remaining members thereof who have refused to even engage with their colleagues) have not met that basic test, and are reaping what they have sown. Unfortunately, restoration of the L&B is suffering as a result.

 

If the board can unite members around a single option that would be ideal. However, the essential point is that whatever extension options might be proposed, or even sticking with what's already been achieved, it's not the members' final decision. Sure, if they don't like what the trustees decide members can vote with their feet ( and perhaps that's where the real power to influence lies) but fairly and intelligently assessing options (and ideally consulting the membership) is the trustees role and responsibility before they make the decision.

 

You immediately jump to the worst possible scenario and then add in your favourite hobby horse that the board reigns supreme and none shall question them.

What if all extension options had roughly the same pros/cons? Bearing in mind that the Trusts objective is to rebuild as much as possible then any decision must be looked at with that objective firmly in mind.

 

In your world, why would the board need to consult? You've already stated that the charity is not run by the members.

 

Two posts to answer but the first highlights why the issue has become so heated. The Trust's charitable objective is NOT to rebuild as much of the L&B as possible. You can check on the Companies House web site. It's to educate the public in the history and development of railways with particular reference to the L& B but not exclusively. No doubt the vast majority of members want to rebuild the railway but that's not the outcome against which the duty of the trustees falls to be assessed. The overriding objective has to be the financial viability of the charity.

As to the second it's not my world but the reality of being a charity trustee. They should consult and take advice , including as I suggested, taking account of member's desires and opinions, but the decision and responsibility is theirs and theirs alone.

 

Post deleted

 

It is however the board's job to lead a harmonious and effective organisation. If their acts and omissions disrupt the smooth running of that organisation, for example by their losing the confidence of members in their judgement, then the board are failing in their duties.

This consultation fell into that category. It focused on one "option" that actually consisted of multiple layers, but did not address any of the issues surrounding that option. That is because it was, at heart, an engineering assessment and stocktake - where engineering is not the issue.

As discussions about Cricket Field Lane since have demonstrated, material issues like how you avoid terminating on a 1:50 gradient and keep the trackbed clear were simply not touched on in the Gadarene rush to affirm continued focus on reconnecting Blackmoor with Killington Lane. Nor were the issues associated with being able to get permission, except for some jam tomorrow glad handing.

These are matters that I would expect good leaders to identify, describe and plan around when demonstrating how their strategy is to be achieved. One trustee did record his dissent from the paper, drawing attention to these gaps.

That process convinced this member that the trustees at the time, and as now represented by the majority, are not adequately discharging the duties you describe.

 

As stated previously, if this were a discussion about the limits of what extension is practicable, and the trustees were seeking to conserve resources, I would reluctantly agree with you while muttering "moral duties, actual vs legal purpose" under my breath.

But they are not acting in that way, but have instead as they have publicly stated on the L&B website, been far from frugal with the Trust's resources, and then far from open about the implications of their use of funds.

 

Given the "consultation" options, the lack of detail, and the clear Trustees' preference for Option C (basically, repeating much of what had failed before - there is a famous quote about madness in there somewhere), I voted for "None of the above" and suggested that the best course of action would be to do nothing straight away but to reconsider all the options (and others) comprehensively before doing anything. I don't believe I was the only one to make that point at the time. A 6-12 month hiatus would not have delayed the overall L&B Project, could have allowed some healing, and may in fact have led to an earlier completion, rather than the slavish pursuit of a single, narrow, short-term goal. In any project, stakeholder engagement is critical, and that, at the moment, is sorely lacking.

 

A couple of days ago, @Lineisclear , I politely suggested that you may wish to rethink what @35B rightly refers to your idee fixe of "Trust majority / management good, critics bad / volunteers irrelevant" throughout this discussion. In prattling on about the protection of the chairty and the charitable objectives, you keep missing the point that everyone is in favour of extending the railway, the disagreement is how to do it.

As has been repeated ad nauseum, in the last 12 months, the current majority of Trustees have:

(i) instigated or acquiesced in attempting the rig the 2023 Trustee elections (and are yet to confirm that they've reimbursed the Trust for the costs of the re-rerun occassioned by their illegitimate actions);

(ii) instigated or acquiesced in the so-called consultation that @Old Kent Biker @35B and others have rightly criticised as fundamentally flawed, whilst claiming that this a mandate for their preferred course of action;

(iii) instigated or acquiesced in misleading - and subsequently lying about - the Trust's resources available for the extension (forcing the unprecedented action of the publication of the very revealing Minority Report), still claiming that there is £700k available today for the extension;

(iv) instigated or acquiesced in the Chairman's refusal to even open a disciplinary enquiry into the conduct of a Trustee for a complaint of assault whilst abusing the disiciplinary proceedure to purse a vendetta against a member (who is now, ironically, a Trustee), including libelling that member;

(v) instigated or acquiesced in overpaying for the Old Station House Inn, putting north of £503,000 plus interest of Trust assets at risk for an unnecessary sideshow that is not required for the achievement of our Charitable objectives;

(vi) refused to work with the newly elected Trustees to the extent that I understand that there has not even been an attempt to have a Trustees' meeting since August 2023.

I could go on. Precisely which of these behaviours would you consider to be optimal examples of trustee stewardship, @Lineisclear ?

 

Perhaps now is the time for the 'minority' Trustees to exercise their right under Clause 50 of the M&AOA to call a Board meeting themselves to discuss the current situation and then see who turns up? If any of the 'majority' stay away, then it will be clear who is being 'disruptive'....