Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I do hope you've told the trustees the reasons for your withdrawal? If enough members withdraw (and explain why) then the trustees position becomes untenable (within the railway and the CC)

 

The trouble is, if I recall @gwralatea's previous posts right, that this is not just about the incumbent trustees, but the rows.

 

Tell them that as well! The rows have to start somewhere...

 

But when the incumbents are adamant that the rows are caused by others, a side effect is that they can use that to reinforce their position.

 

Just on this, and then I don't propose to say any more on the subject on this thread, yes. I started from the mushroom position of believing the Trust's line that it was all other factors (we're going back years here, not the latest flareup), then became convinced that change was needed and voted for the reform candidates at every electoral chance.

I've also said that I know that it's a difficult job to sack a board - though I have been part of a membership organisation that has managed it in the post-GDPR world.

I'm fed up with it all, frankly, and the rows are part of the problem because they are the noise above the total mess underneath. I know that they might lead to change but I've now got a headache!

I do wish the people that stay to fight well, but it's a short life and the South Devon share issue can have my money.* People on here may remember that I'm also a longstanding SVR member/shareholder/ex-volunteer. Being a member of two toxic messes has been difficult, but the emergence from the morass of one of the two over the last year has just thrown into sharp relief how mentally draining they both were at the time/one of them still is. Since the resurgence (not counting any chickens, but it's starting to look more positive) of the SVR, my mental health has improved enormously. I'm going to cut ruthlessly away the things that continue to cause me angst - though as I say I wish success to those who hang on in there (and I am an EA shareholder so not completely cutting ties).



*that's not a recommendation for anyone else, it's just an example of where my money's going to go instead.

 

I think people will need to tell not just the Trustees, but the wider membership and the public as well, as far as they are able to do so. This is one of those issues which desperately needs the "oxygen of publicity" if it is to have any beneficial and lasting effect. Message sent simply to the Board may be just go in the WPB (and/or the firebox of Lyn).

 

I suspect you're right and the 'perpetrators' will be regarded as criminals and castigated for ruining the Trust's reputation, as have the two threatened with defenestration. The trouble is the incumbents have the odds stacked in their favour, but maybe reports such as the one likely to come on 28th in Narrow Gauge World Magazine will tip the balance at the vote in general meeting. We have to hope there are alternative competent potential Trustees standing in the wings if called upon to change the direction this is going in. I cannot see any chance of an extension with the six; too much mud has stuck.

 

You have nicely encapsulated my thoughts there @35B.

In a situation where things were going swimmingly well with a highly competent board, having @Lineisclear's proposition of a closed Trustee appointment process might just be worth considering. However where there has been the type of significant failure which we have seen, it would simply reinforce that.

The charges against Chris Duffell are largely that he had the temerity to disagree. Do we really want a politburo where dissent is not tolerated? Where those who dare to do so are subjected to Stalinist purges?

If one researches the Trustees on Companies House or the Charity Commission website, there is a notable lack of the level of business or charity management experience that one might reasonably expect for those performing such roles. A strengthening of the board is overdue, not the weakening this would bring.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

I don't believe that any of us are enjoying this. Yet it must simply be done.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

The EGM is apparently set for 23 March 2024 in Lynton Town Hall from 14.30.

 

@35B is spot on here.

Fundamentally, why the rush? Some updates to the M&As are desirable - allowing for electronic voting, for instance, to enfranchise our overseas members.

I see at least two reasons that this is premature. First, the Trust remains under investigation by the Charity Commission for governance issues, and until we know the outcome of that investigation, we cannot know what, if any, changes to the M&As they will mandate. So why are we doing this now if we end up having to do it twice?

Second, the AGM will take place about 8 weeks after the EGM, and these issues could be dealt with then. So when we need all the funds we can get for extending the railway, why are we paying for another mailshot, hall hire, and asking Members to spend time and money to get to the meeting a week before Easter?

So why now? The only explanation that makes any sense is that "the six" want to control the candidates in the election at the AGM, one of whom happens to be Chris Duffell. This reeks of fear and of a power grab, as @35B suggests.

 

I don't believe anyone has for a moment suggested they are enjoying it - would you like some more straw for your man?

And you must have meant it to be a reply to what I wrote because you've quoted it.

You do you, I'll do me. I've explained why for me it's the right time to walk away. It won't be for other people but please don't misrepresent me on my way out. By all means rally the remaining troops but don't do that in reply to a post where someone has said that for them it is too much.

We can't all fight all the battles, and the one in North Devon is over for me.

And that, barring unforeseen developments, really is my final contribution to this thread.

 

You have that right, and your reasons are entirely understandable. It is unutterably sad to be in this position, and doubly so that someone like you should feel that way.

However, your mental health is the most important factor, and you should do what is right by you.

 

I'm sorry to see you go, @gwralatea, but I completely understand it. I hope you can come back in time.

 

And who will chair the meeting? After all, there must not be any suspicion of 'conflict of interest', can there ?
Hmm... sadly I suspect a day that may well go down in the annals of the L&BR as the beginning of the end...to mis-quote "never will so many have been betrayed by so few for so little" :--(

 

I’m not a member of the L&B or any of its related organisations, I’m simply a mildly interested bystander. The general consensus on here seems to be that the “6” are the bad guys and need to be removed. I assume that view isn’t shared by the wider membership however and in particular the volunteers who give up the time to operate and maintain the existing line.

Surely these are the people that can have the greatest impact in effecting change and the fact that they aren’t should tell us something? I’m thinking along the lines of football supporters venting their anger at a certain manager, when this happens, those in charge usually take notice,.

 

Why would you assume that this is the case, @jamesd? When the Members were asked in last year's election, two of the three Trustees elected were new names who have then been systematically excluded by "the six". If fear of losing power is driving the behaviour of "the six", then their actions are even more disreputable.

 

Your assumptions (highlighted) may be true in part, but certainly there are many volunteers who I know are not at all happy with the 'six'. As regards the wider membership, many of them know little more about what goes on at the L&BR than what they read in the Magazine and the Newsletter, which have become sadly the North Devon equivalent of Pravda :-(

As @Tobbes has said, one third of the Board now consists of Trustees elected by members who want change. And not just (perhaps) a change of direction, but a change away from a management style that appears to ride rough-shod over the Trust's own rules and to pursue actions which result in the waste of Trust funds but which should have been funded by the individuals themselves.

 

When an L & B book containing 50 years of my work was published by someone else without any credit to me, including copyright notices expunged, and photographs taken by me and others used without acknowledgement, I found you dont know how precious mental health is until you lose it. It took the medics 7 years to sort me out, cared for by my wife. I cannot describe how awful it is. At the end of that a publisher who was originally going to publish my book was still selling it and refused to credit me as an author or edit the '20-year labour of love' by this person. If I described the offensive actions of this publisher in public 15 months ago you would wonder why I had not taken him to Court. We live in a world of denial, I'm afraid.

 

Appalling, @Michael B - glad to hear you're on the mend.