Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Therein lies the challenge, to which so far the Board as a whole (as opposed to some individuals) seems unwilling to rise :-( Every response gives the impression of being on the defensive with reasons why not.

 

As a former Accountant, one of the annoying aspects is the lack of clarity in the accounts that has been going on for years. I wonder, like many whether the 2023 accounts will show if the Trust has paid for the (alleged) £3,000 it would have cost to print and send the 24-page missive that members received by Royal Mail about a fortnight ago. Looking at the 2022 accounts (page 26) it might appear as a separate heading under 'General administrative costs'. But then it struck me I hadn't noticed a figure for producing and sending out the Magazines and the Newsletters. I checked a Magazine and, sure enough it is a publication of the Trust. So where is the cost of it in the accounts, I asked myself - I cannot find something that looks like it, unless I'm losing my Elgins. The only possible place seems to be the figure of £30,407 labeled 'Subscriptions' (page 16) under the heading of 'Expenditure on raising funds'. I ought to have asked at the AGM, as we are constantly reminded that the meaning of words has changed in the last half century, but I think I can hear others wondering 'how do you spend £30K in a 12-month period on subscriptions ?'. Is this another example of poor communication, or do I need to go to be re-educated ?

 

As a Director of a Ltd company. Subscriptions for us includes Trade memberships, costs associated with this (which in our case would include advertising), some of these memberships (e.g. Federal of Small Businesses) would include free advice (legal, etc.) and also other benefits. Presumably therefore for the Trust this would include membership of appropriate organisations, including personnel support (Penisular? and other such organisations), unlikely I'd have thought to have included magazine production and postage.

 

I think your Elgins are in fine fettle! The standard membership is £36. There are around 3000 members comprising around 2500 memberships (joint, family, life etc.) assuming 2500x36=90,000 is a fair approximation, we are spending 1/3 of subscriptions as an expense of subscriptions!

 

Having clearly raised a rhetorical question I am writing to the Treasurer to ask what are the main constituents of subscriptions paid, and where the cost of Magazines, Newsletters (and missives to members) are shown in the accounts. We shall then all be enlightened.

 

The Trustees must feel embattled by the volume of questions. At least I rather hope so.

I also hope that they draw the right lesson from the experience. That members want more information and if they get transparency to begin with they will be satisfied, and if satisfied likely to be even more willing to support.

I won’t be holding my breath, but I will cross my fingers.

 

The Treasurer has referred me to the Accountants, so I have sent the queries to James of Accountancy Edge.

 

That feels wrong. I mean: I'm sure the accountants will know, but it is the role of the directors - and certainly the treasurer - to understand the accounts in at least sufficient detail that they can sign them off as accurate. They should also have a solid understanding of the expenses they are (presumably) authorising throughout the year. So it feels wrong that they can't answer a basic question such as "which line item in the accounts covers production of the members' magazine?" or "how much has been spent on mailings to members?"

Tom

 

There is a fair bit about how the trust is run that seems wrong.

 

Indeed, it appears to be a cabal, with no way of bringing about any change other than via the convoluted AGM process. Even if a more open-minded and responsible group of members were ready and willing to nominate as Trust board members, and they could all get elected, it would take six years to bring about the required change in member composition. Furthermore, are all 3,000 Trust members aware of the goings-on? This could cause irreparable damage to the L&BR Trust where trust is already eroding fast. So, where to from here?

 

The problem is here that will the Cabal realise that they have messed up and it's time to stand aside, most likely not, if anything they would dig their heals in and resist further attempts to remove their hands from power, they might even take the view if I can't do it, no one can, and see the hard work over the years dissolve into nothing, rather than stand aside,

 

It is very very difficult for people to recognise when their time is up versus another challenge to overcome. The type of person who is useful to a board is unlikely to be the kind to simply “stop”.

Two other factors to take into account.

Trustees and directors will usually worry about finding a replacement. Very often their replacement will not step up until there is a gap, or an expressed need and that means it can be very challenging for the incumbent who is likely to worry about leaving the organisation in the lurch.

Many worry about “legacy “ which means they feel inhibited from leaving a mess behind, wanting to “clear up” before stepping aside, and less positive is the desire to see continuity and building on the incumbent’s achievements rather than a tearing up of the past.

At the end of the day this is all about people. An elegant exit ladder needs to be constructed addressing the above factors, as well as setting light to the board table to create an impetus and recognition/resignation/acceptance or tolerance of the need to step aside.

 

Why should it take 6 years? From posts on here it seems that the board is currently split 6-3, and that in the next elections 2 "old" and 1 "new" trustees have to stand for reelection. If there is a slate of 3 high quality "new" candidates then there surely is a chance of a 5-4 majority after the election? Of course you have to find the people willing to stand and see if they actually have popular support amongst the members for reform but if nobody is willing to try then nothing will ever happen. Or am I missing something? (Always a possibility)

 

is at least two AGM cycles before “new” is in the majority if only 1 extra “new” is elected each time and a further 4 cycles before a total clear out, in other words 6 years to effect total change unless extra people step down and or the winning power of “new” is greater. I think that was what was meant?

 

I was brief in reporting what the Treasurer said in his reply, only mentioning referring me to the Accountants, as I didn't feel it necessary to burden readers on here with unnecessary (and somewhat accusatory) detail, but reading your posting I think I should have posted all of it.

The bit I left out was:
'I provide James (Hellyer) with figures each year, as I have done since 2007, and he makes them presentable and acceptable to the Charities Commission and for Companies House.
If your enquiries are just for you, I am happy to provide you with my figures. However, I am not prepared to release them if you are part of the conspiracy to find fault in our suitability to act as Trustees'
I was then provided with a link which he said was password protected and the password is the first date that the Trust holds as to when I became a member (format dd/mo/year). I have not tried to access that, if only because I joined the Association 44 years ago when it started, and I have no way of knowing what that date was. But I wrote to James, and he replied this morning:
'The figure you are querying is the cost of generating membership subscription income (i.e. the cost of raising the funds that steam (stem ?) of income.
It therefore includes the cost of producing and distributing magazines and newsletters to members.'
All I can say is that if readers of the 2022 accounts seeing an expenditure heading 'Raising Funds' (on page 9) of £30,946, and looked up the explanatory note to it (on page 16) to see a heading 'Costs of generating voluntary income' with the analysis of the total into donations of £539 and subscriptions £30,407 they would not guess that the £30,407 includes the costs of Magazines and Newsletters and sending them out, and I suspect they would have been surprised to find that it included those costs. Surely future accounts could explain what expenditure is involved. Surely when the Trustees are asked by the Accountants to approve the accounts they ask themselves if they explain to members what they would like to know to be properly informed ? The clue, I acknowledge is that the annual fee to the Heritage Railway Association and the like (or the trade association membership mentioned by @Snail368) is unlikely to amount to £30,000 a year. Mr Hellyer did not say how much of the £30K was the Magazine/Newsletter expense, but I did not ask.
Re the Treasurer's involvement in the accounts I see (in the breakdown of legal and professional costs) that in addition to the audit fee the Trust pays each year £2,350 for Accountancy and bookkeeping, clearly the cost of putting together the figures the Treasurer says he provides, and creating the accounts in a charity accounts format. So the accounts cost the Trust £5,000 pa. As I suggested concerning the suggestion that the Company Secretary's roll should be a paid position, it is a shame we have to pay for bookkeeping. In my experience such a large expense is because the client is rarely asked how he or she could present the figures to minimise the work that has to be done by the Accountants. (Bills in a cardboard box I recall when I worked at a firm of Accountants).

I am sure readers of the Mem and Arts can quote the section(s) on which the Trust will feel able to terminate my membership as Anne Besley says they threatened her with for being part of a conspiracy. As another writer has just asked on this forum ' How does the wider membership demand information ?'

 

"However, I am not prepared to release them if you are part of the conspiracy to find fault in our suitability to act as Trustees...."

So what has he/they got to hide then that they do not wish to share the full details of the Accounts with the wider membership? If he/they have done nothing wrong, then he/they should be able quite easily to disprove any allegations about unsuitability etc. Or do he/they feel themselves to be on 'dodgy ground' ?

 

The days of netting off expenditure and only showing the net figure are long past. If I was a member of be reporting the accounts to the financial reporting aithorities.

 

“However, I am not prepared to release them if you are part of the conspiracy to find fault in our suitability to act as Trustees...."


Methinks he doth protest too much.

It perhaps not so much a conspiracy to find fault, as they seem to be able to generate examples of fault quite readily without help.

 

Suitability? Ability? I think the problem lies with this cabal of gentlemen having been in the position for so long. They could perhaps cope with a small operation but as it has grown in size and complexity so too has this outgrown their collective abilities. Somehow the membership must explain this to them. I do not think they are bad people, it's just that the task has got beyond them, leading to poor decision making which then unaccountably they have sought to cover up.

 

Message to the cabal:
Stand not upon the order of your going, but go at once.