Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

If I recall correctly the 2nd issued voting form for the last election and forms over previous years have not always had 'against' boxes to cross, a standardised form needs to be issued but not only that it seems over the last few years whoever is in charge of the voting has shown a severe lack of competence to the cost of approx £9k and as such it's about time a specialist company should be engaged to take on the annual elections

 

I'm not sure that any outside company ought to be necessary, let alone the cost involved.

In essence the process should be straightforward, provided that (a) there is an agreed - and accurate - pre-defined proxy vote pro-forma and (b) a clearly defined process on how they are to be handled. Then whoever is tasked to admin the AGM can follow the procedure on a flow-chart 'tick box' basis and have it double-checked by a colleague before any commitment to printing/postage costs are incurred.

In general there should be little need to change the form from one year to another, other than (a) amending the names of nominees for Trustees and (b) including any other Motions on which votes may be required. Clearly, even with the best will in the world, mistakes will happen from time to time, but simply throwing money at an external company is no guarantee of success (remember that report on a Ms 'Belsey' ? ) .

 

I agree - any Company Secretary or qualified Accountant could be asked to do it on a voluntary basis. After all the main work apart from servicing meetings of the Board only requires a few weeks around AGM time. On the accounts, we're obliged to have a professional auditor for the Trust I suspect, although why the management doesn't have the CIC accounts audited bothers me. At present a firm of local Accountants puts the accounts together, but a volunteer familiar with charity accounting could save on the fees. I used to prepare the accounts of a Railway Heritage Group until I retired from it, and, many years ago, a railway museum. He or she could usefully provide management accounts during the year for the edification and decision-making of Trustees at Board meetings, and provide projections (estimates) against which to compare them.

 

Their incompetence and arrogance over the last 3 year's has cost ten grand,, the trust secretary at the AGM even suggested if we wanted a professional secretary it would cost and perhaps @Tobbes would foot the bill, yet if they did pay for a secretary or a company to run elections would it cost what they have unecessarily wasted of late

 

There is part of me that thinks, sure lets have a fully paid Trust Secretary, but then under the current set up just how long would they stay?

A good Secretray would want to suggest to the trustee that they need to go in a certain and legal direction, but if you have trustees that don't want to do that. I am sure that the secretray will feel they are wasting thier time and will leave.

It is up to the Trustees to set the standards by which the whole organisation operates, if they fail then the whole organisation fails along with them. That is not what I want. What I do want is a successful group that can deliver a great restoration project.

Is that just to much to ask of the current trustee? All I ask is for you all to put your egos away and get on with rebuilding this railway, if you simply can't do that that then it is time for you to hand the batton on to those that can and will deliver this project. Nuff said.

 

Whilst one might sympathise with the plight of volunteers, aligning the proxy/voting form with the articles & Companies Acts is a fairly straightforward & one-off exercise. It is understood that prior to the AGM it had been pointed out to the trustees that the form was incorrect. Frankly, it's hard to see a substantial legal cost in producing a compliant form, certainly not more than re-running the vote.


Furthermore, amongst the membership & indeed on this thread are those who are trustees of vastly larger charities, experienced directors of significant companies & several lawyers. A little piece of pro bono work would set things straight.


Given that most if not all heritage railways have similar challenges, does the HRA not provide suitable guidance to its members as a part of its governance activities?

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Isn't one of the benefits of the HRA that they can provide guidance and model documents to members precisely so they don't need to go down an expensive consultancy route for something as simple as the proper wording for an election form? And, once you have got it right once, provide your articles don't change, most of it is is simply boiler plate each year with just the candidate names etc. changed from year to year.

Edit: @Isambard! said substantially similar.

Tom

 

The member needs to avail itself of the guidance the HRA can offer but that is not a substitute for legal advice. As a trade association the HRA does not have the professional indemnity insurance that would protect both its volunteers giving that advice and the member acting on it.

The documentation may differ from one railway to another depending on their corporate form and the detail of their Articles of other constitutional documents. Getting it right may not be as simple as suggested.

As an aside the railway I'm most involved with has traditionally relied on volunteers to organise its AGM's, invitations for people to stand for election, distribution of the Report and Accounts and Notice of Meeting and voting (which is done by post or electronically). This year we outsourced the task to a professional company. Not only did we receive numerous plaudits about the clarity of the documentation and ease of voting but the cost was roughly half what it used to be. ( Basically because the professional service provider benefits from a specially negotiated lower rate of postage). Everyone's happy, not least the volunteers who have been able to concentrate on other things.

 

What benefit would a paid position offer over a volunteer ? I have already mentioned on this site (with evidence) the tendency of the Accountancy firm that compiles the accounts to only comply with the legislation for minimum disclosure, rather than what the members ought to have explained to them for a true understanding of the figures. Especially as a volunteer would be likely to be motivated by a desire for the Trust to be run effectively, would be likely to be familiar with the railway and the personalities and be prepared spend time to mug up on any legal/procedural aspects beyond his/her expertise. My career as an Accountant suggests it is not rocket science, just a question of getting to grips with the legislation and guidelines and taking professional advice where necessary. My training largely taught me where to look things up.

 

That’s interesting and good to hear. My own scepticism about paid officials is that their ability to deliver depends on the instructions that they are given. In this instance, the juxtaposition of errors and the interests of incumbents is enough to leave significant room for doubt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Should there also be an "Abstain" box? An abstain vote is valid and offered at well-run General Meetings. They can be sued to signify "don't know", "don't understand", "don't care" etc.

 

It is a huge difference between voting against (I do not want...) and not voting either way (I don't care)
If there are three positions and only three standing (with one of the candidates being the worst possible person to ever hold a position of authority) then all will be elected unless that bad one has more votes against than for. In other words they have been rejected by the members despite there being a vacancy.
Not having the chance to vote against a candidate is what has allowed several not so nice people to be elected to boards by default as they have been one of only a few standing.

 

So it would be possible to have three boxes:-

1 vote for
2 vote against
3 vote withheld

 

3- Thats something I would like to see in parliamentary elections. Far more informative than a spoilt ballot, anyway!

 

Those of you who are HRA members should be able to login and access documents at https://www.hra.uk.com/documents

 

In a post on Exmoor-NG, Peter Miles has today confirmed the location of the L&BRT November Members Forum. He says:

 

...but as yet no detail about the actual start time of the meeting.

 

The 'acrimonious split on the board' has now reached this month's Narrow Gauge World in a one and a third page detailed description. So the reputation of the Trust is on its way to being trashed after all the hard work of previous Trustees. With it will go the likelihood of significant future donations. This is incredibly sad, for which I dont blame the minority Trustees - they have drawn the attention of members to what has gone on as they should in the absence of authoratitive information from elsewhere. The one thing the NGW article doesn't mention is the allegation that the majority refuse to work with the minority which, if true, is surely contrary to Charity Law. I would be interested in views on whether it would be appropriate for someone to report on here what is said at the November forum.

 

From the L&BR Website, Members Trust Notices:

Members' Forum, Saturday 11th November 2023.
The members' forum will be held as usual in the Music Room at Woolhanger Manor on Saturday 11 November. Doors open at 11.05 am following the two-minute silence for Remembrance Day and proceedings will begin at 11.30.

It could be interesting...

 

I personally would like to think that what is said at the members forum is not confidential, at the last few i have attended its never been said that they are, there usually is a lot of 'waffle' and it does tend to go on for quite a few hours, maybe even Moreso this year but why shouldn't highlights be made available to comment on, as @RailWest has said previously why shouldn't minutes or a report of the forum be made available to members who cannot attend