Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Noted Tobbes.
The desperate resort to nasty personal attacks speaks volumes.

 

Indeed it does. The 6 trustees have been virulently unpleasant to anyone who does not conform to their viewpoint for too long.

 

@Lineisclear - none from me, unless you'd like to show where I've attacked anyone rather simply restating facts.

 

As I said above @Lineisclear frequently gets his facts wrong. For clarity, two of the three Trustees (Anne Belsey and Chris Duffell) are facing removal motions. I do wish @Lineisclear would check his facts before telling us how to run the L&B.

Strawman alert! @Lineisclear is asserting that the claimed justification is to "an assumed primary duty to the members" - but why does his presume this? Where is his evidence? Has he interviewed Anne, Chris and Mike to determine their motivations? If they had more than one motivation, has @Lineisclear established the hierarchy between them?

Which has been done. Except that @Lineisclear apparently didn't know this before droning on on NatPres.... thereby making himself look even more uninformed about the situaiton.

Except that this isn't what happened, and the 'Minority Report' which detailed the misdirection and lies by 'the six' was subsequently confirmed by 'the six' to be correct in almost all of its conclusions. According to @Lineisclear , presumably Anne, Chris and Mike should have stayed silent and complict with the lies and misdirection of 'the six' becuase of... I dunno, some reasons best know to himself.

What a load of condescending codswallop! On the contrary my dear @Lineisclear , this is called "courage" and "leadership".

 

One final thought from me. If we all agree that the CC is something of a paper tiger, and that it wants organisations to sort internal matters out for themselves whenever possible, then it must be right that a trustee when faced with evidence of wrongdoing by other trustees and who is unable to persuade them to change tack, should consider themselves duty bound to bring that to the attention of the members of that charity. For it is only by drawing attention to the problem that the organisation can even attempt to address the problem absent of the CC getting involved directly. The members also represent the wider community interest, being part of said community and being arguably the most engaged and interested section of the community. It is a nonsense to claim that trustees do not have a duty to the members of the charity, even if that duty is no more than that towards the rest of the public, the members have the right and responsibility to exercise their vote, and whilst this is not explicit in law, they pretty clearly exercise that right effectively on behalf of the whole public.

I think that what makes this situation poisonous is that those calling out the wrongdoing are in a minority. If they weren’t the wrongdoers could already have been booted out. The tools available to the community, the members and the minority trustees are few and far between. If the proposed new articles go through, there will be none.

 

I’ve probably read all those seven hundred pages as they’ve been written. On the face of it things are not good on the L&B; I don’t think there’s any doubt about that and I am not doubting what you say. However, as I’ve said, I think you are clutching at straws to expect the white charger to come along in the shape of the Charity Commissioners. They are few in number and have much bigger fish to catch.
If I’m proved wrong you’ll be happy and that’s all well and good. Time will tell. The complaint’s have been in their in-tray for a long time, now. 2022 wasn’t it, although I’m open to correction on that.

 

@Steve thanks - I'm afraid you're probably right, so I'm certainly in the 'hoping but not counting on the CC' camp. We'll have a much clearer idea of the future in a fortnight's time, and in the meanwhile, lots of positive conversations are going on.

The L&B has much goodwill when we can get the governance sorted out, and it's a cracking project - I look forward to welcoming you - and the rest of NatPres to an extended railway before too long.

 

I think folk are probably placing more hope on the fact that this is something the 6 trustees can be categorically proved relatively easily to have lied to their membership. And if you can show members a fairly black and white issue like that, it makes it easier to come to a view on who's likely to be right and who's wrong on the slightly more complex issues.

 

I have also read the CC website. They give examples where they have stepped in, and one of those is in a charity whet the trustees were divided so that no decisions could be taken - a significantly worse situation than here.

Their point is not that “it’s all up to the (sitting) trustees”, but that the governance needs to support effective management and decision making.

Whether I or anyone else like or dislike the “3” or the “6” is irrelevant. What matters is the substance of the governance, and the trustees’ ability to be effective. Faced with a choice between a majority who have misrepresented the Trust’s resources while playing fast and loose with the law, or an abrasive minority who are campaigning for members to retain their (already very) limited rights to influence the board, I’ll go with abrasive every time.

The alternative is to turn a public interest charity into no more than the chairman’s private club.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Quick General question which may apply to this railway and many others. I know the directors of my own railway put themselves up for re election every few years as their term of office expires, ie stand down at the AGM and ask to be voted back into post by the membership for another term. Does this happen on the L&B or are the trustees employees of the railway company.
No axe to grind to either side of this argument as a neutral but just think that this type of re election process if followed allows members of any railway around the country a say while keeping the board fresh.

 

Yes. There is retirement by rotation. There is no limit on the number terms of office that can be served though.

 

The Articles of Association require that 1/3rd of the Trustees stand down each year by rota. They may stand again for re-election if they so choose.

The railway 'company' - the L&BR CIC - is a separate subsidiary body altogether. No Trustee of the L&BR Trust is an employee of either the Trust or the CIC.

What has happened in the past is that every year 3 Trustees have stood down, stood for election again and been elected again, without any other candidates coming forward from the wider membership. In the last few years that circle has been broken when 'new' candidates have been elected in place of 'old' ones, thus interrupting the 'cosy chums club' which until now has ruled the Trust Board without challenge.

 

Didnt another well qualified candidate stand - unsuccessfully a few years ago?

Now wouldnt it have been nice if one of the Trustees had said '........There hasnt been a new member of the board for some time. Under the circumstances I am going to stand down in order that we can benefit from a new face and new ideas'

 

Is there a queue of would be Trustees waiting in the wings? Many questions have been posed here, but I don't think this one has been answered.

 

Excuse me, but I must dash outside and photograph the flight of pigs passing overhead en route to North Devon...

 

This surely is the critical issue - some new candidates with acceptable provenance being nominated at the AGM in May, otherwise there is a real likelihood of the present situation continuing. Always assuming those nominations won't be nobbled, as happened with Anne Belsey's last year. The resolution to change the articles coupled with what happened with her seems to indicate in a crystal clear way the desire of 'the six' that the Trust be controlled by a self-perpetuating group of people ad finitum. Democracy was created in this country was set up on the basis that on the whole people are democratic. Unfortunately that was before a significant proportion of the population grew up without morals and we are stuck with a system without protection from abuse.

 

@Greenway - yes, there are several well qualified Members that I know who are actively looking at standing. The L&B is blessed with a deep bench, which is great.

 

And this is exactly the problem - and why I appeal to all Members whatever their views on Anne and Chris, to vote NO on the M&As, (Motion 3).

 

IIRC Mike Whiteaker - elected last year - was an unsuccessful candidate the year before.

 

In other news: in the recent elections in Iran, reformist candidates were disqualified by the Guardian Council. So no change there either.

I agree 100% with your appeal.