Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

My understanding on this is you need to make sure you put on you ballot paper and sign it that you give your proxy holder the right in any other vote not on the ballot paper to use you vote at theirs's discretion

 

Au contraire. Most of us , on here at least, have full confidence that the meetings will be conducted in such a way as to maximise the manipulation of outcomes to suit the incumbent 'six' Trustees. It will require generational change to remedy wrong-headed decisions unless control can be wrested away from 'the six'.

 

That change, whether generational or not, will take more than losing the votes, I'm afraid. The AGM papers in mid-April will tell us which two Trustee posts apart from Chris Duffell's come up for renewal. Unless someone can work it out for us. The vote at the EGM in three weeks or so's time will influence how many nominations are put up for election of new Trustees in the papers for May. Also, of course, they may have to be vetted. It seems self-evident that Chris will fail that test if he is dismissed in March. But if the vote on the articles is lost there is a chance he can be voted on again.

 

Tobbes posted this on another group recently:
2024 Retiring Trustees
Chris Duffell
Ian Cowling
Charles Summers

 

There seems to be a growing trend on social media (eg some FB pages etc) for some members to say simply "stop arguing and support the Trust", as if that will be a panacea to cure everything. If only....

The problem IMHO is that they conflate "supporting the Trust" with "supporting the 'old guard' of Trustees". I am sure that most, if not all, of us want to do the former anyway, but doing the latter also may not the best way to achieve that. Sadly I feel it will be difficult, if not impossible, to persuade many of the voters to see it otherwise. Also somewhat disconcerting is the emergence of some members who clearly are simply baffled with the recent blizzard of paperwork and really have no idea what to do (if anything at all).

 

Maybe reaching the notice of as many members of possible (as a Heineken advert almost used to say). If the letter written by 'the three' has only been sent to those (over half ?) who have provided an email address to the membership list, it would be nice to be able to send it to the rest so they can read that document as well and get both sides of the argument. I would contribute towards the p+p cost if that is possible and hasn't been done.

 

Sadly, even as I write, more posts are appearing on FB from those who are of the firm belief that the two Trustees named in the Motions are the ones who are being 'disruptive' and hampering the Board from progressing the railway - it's all their fault, folks. I doubt that you will be able to persuade such people to change their mind :-(

 

The two Trustees named in the Motions have exercised their right to provide a personal statement, opposing the motion, which has been (or should be) included with the EGM documents.

 

I'm still waiting for my post...:-(

 

They were. Anne's was very short and clear on this being an abuse of process, morally and legally.

 

I've read that from an online copy now.

Sadly it seems to come down to a question of whether the Motions are valid or not, rather than whether the allegations are true or not and warrant dismissal or not (which is more the point that Chris D makes in his response). No doubt the Chairman will claim that the Motions are valid - he would look silly if he did not - so then it will all hinge on the vote.

It all seems to me to smack of "abuse of process" - or whatever the correct legal term is. The Minutes from the Board meeting at which the EGM was approved would make interested reading, perhaps someone could demand as a 'Point of Order' that they be produced in evidence? But would we believe them.....

 

That seems right. If all the Trustees were not allowed to vote on the motion to put forward the two Ordinary Resolutions to the Board, which, as I understand it is what Anne has alleged, they surely cannot be valid. Very strange as there could have been a vote of all 9; Anne and Chris would have voted against, but would have abided by the majority decision and the Resolution would have been been valid. I can only assume this is to do with the allegation that one of the Trustees has stated he will not work with one or both. It is plain by their signatures on the notice that all the other 6 voted for the resolution.

 

If Chris D is dismissed at the March GM then he then won't be counted towards the three who need to retire by rotation. The election will then be for three current in post trustees to retire by rotation and also on top of that, any vacant posts filled.
The process is:
1. a third of the currently serving trustees need to retire by rotation and may put themsleves up for re-election.
2. any trustees co-opted since the last GM are them up for election
3. any remaining vacancies are filled by election.

I have seen one charity recently try to claim that the co-opted trustees counted towards the one third - they don't.

something to watch out for at the GM in May.

 

It will of course never be possible to persuade everyone, but I think it is worth standing back and looking at the bigger picture for a moment.

The current board consists largely of people who have been in post for many years. They set themselves the task of extending the railway down through Parracombe and they failed to deliver that. In fact it is clear that there was no viable plan for either fundraising or building the line and that the conditions placed on the construction were a surprise which stopped them in their tracks.

The purchase of OSHI was rushed and probably too much was paid for it. The current plan of a short extension to CFL is pointless, poor value for money and will inflame local tensions.

Trustees who question the direction and approach of the Trust are subjected to behaviour which can only be described as bullying.

People mostly do not like “politics “ which is quite understandable, but failure to engage with it sometimes means accepting a descent into autocracy.

Leaving aside all personalities, it should pretty clear that now is the moment to halt the slide in the Land B.

 

To put it more directly, what is it that the current board has achieved that makes them the right team to drive forwards the future of the Trust?

 

Although I fully acknowledge and applaud the huge amount of “blood sweat and tears” that the current Board members have dedicated to the railway, it’s difficult to argue against the thrust of what you say. I do believe it is time for change.

As I see it there are two issues at the EGM. Firstly, do people really and truly think that the Board with a 6 to 3 majority simply cannot function until 2 members are removed from office? To me that looks like a stretch but people may well feel otherwise.

There is then secondly an attempt to weaponise this, changing the rules of the game for ever so that the current Board can become some sort of self perpetuating body. Whatever people may think of “the two” I believe this second move is even more fundamental and dangerous and in the long term divisive. I hope the membership will not support it because if they do I fear they will come to regret it.

 

Sadly if the motion about the M&As was pasted I think it would be time to wind up the L&BR Trust since it would be impossible to carry on at Woody Bay, I really can't see a away forward right now if that happens

 

In my opinion Charles Summers is the only one who has achieved anything and that's with his commitment to the carriages, i believe he puts in a lot of time and his own money to keep the push going and i really do feel for him to witness those carriages being sat outside at WB in all weathers , its coming up 11 years since no 7 & 17 returned and there's been no push to get them under cover, LYN was pushed and guided by Jon Pain, he was the driving force behind that project, everything else has just upgraded as time has gone by, a natural progression as and when the need arose and the opportunity was taken, the new tearoom , apparently paid for by a legacy ,what else is there to be honest that those trustee's have done! The next move, if it materialises will be a minimum 5 years in the making so why hang on to the trustees that are there, they have no skill in extending the railway, that's blatantly obvious, they didn't build what is there now yet members seem so hesitant or reluctant for change, 'keep the old guard' they know what they are doing....do they! its almost as if they have no drive or passion so its time for change but then is the whole thing a dead duck after the S 73 fiasco, will WB just end up as a 0.9 mile working museum of the past, the whole project needs grabbing by the neck and giving a damned good shaking , the real people behind what Woody Bay has become are its volunteers, they are the achievers, the driving force behind its success as a visitor attraction, without them the railway is nothing but without change at the top the project will stagnate, thats if it hasnt started to already

 

They have achieved several things which demonstrate very clearly that they are the wrong team, particularly squandering a lot of money and using irregular procedures to try to remove anyone who challenges them.

 

As you have said CS is only interested in the carriages but if he was to lose at the up coming AGM then this must bring into question the workshop of the East group, I think I read somewhere that these are being paid for by the Trust?