Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I'm willing to cut a certain amount of slack here, but you raise important questions about this important role is fulfilled. I certainly found questions raised about the accounting treatment of the Return to Parracombe appeal a year ago, where I was left uncomfortable about the basis on which income was being recognised - a technical area, where important questions can be missed.

 

The description of the GDPR breach as grotesquely unfounded seems to me to be highly questionable. I assume you would agree that if the alleged misuse of the member database proves to have been a GDPR breach the motion to remove would be wholly justified? However the other serious allegation is breach of board confidentiality. In that context the contents of the Minority Report and individual postings on web sites seem to offer persuasive evidence.
I do agree with your comment about the primary duty of the chair but that assumes all board members can be trusted to observe confidentiality and accept the basic principle of collective responsibility i.e. argue like fury in board meetings but once a majority decision has been reached you back it.

 

When you change a system you are inevitably going to have a period where the old and new don't match. If I can find the time to find the article I read I'll post it here but there is a good reason that changes cannot be applied retrospectively.

In reality the M&As should be continuously reviewed and amended as needed in an ongoing process and as recommended by the CC and that will at times incure costs for EGMs.

 

And on that note I've been on here far too long tonight, especially when there is a rather spectacular volcano eruption on the Reykjanes peninsula in Iceland to watch on YouTube!

Good night all, be good

 

As the law protects use of member data for communications within an organisation, the GDPR claim falls at the first hurdle - not to mention that I’m rather concerned about the use of a consumer Gmail account by the membership secretary despite the availability of a corporate domain, for which I can’t imagine there are any organisational, technical or legal arrangements in place for protection of members data. Likewise, the requirement for collective responsibility is predicated upon fair discussion.

The minority report may be as you suggest, yet the trustees’ response suggests that it is fundamentally true. And at that point, far more serious issues are engaged than collective responsibility.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Dave Old Chap.
If I might be so bold as to suggest, here is too much rambling information to digest in one attempt. I started it but couldn't finish.
Brevity and summary should be the guide. Your last sentence encapsulates the gist of your message.
Perhaps break it down into several messages and post a link concerning what the Charity Commission has to say.
You often write of how busy you are, so I hope this helps. Very best wishes and keep up the good work of coach building.

 

Then again, with the 'dumbing-down' (i.e. lowering) of academic standards it might just be! (Or, perhaps it should be!!)

 

Then the whole process becomes hypocritical, if the special resolution is accepted we will have trustee's with a failed reputation choosing nominee's for positions they have no experience on how to choose or what is needed, also as @Lineisclear keeps suggesting this will eliminate 'members being able to vote for mr/mrs popular and instead have someone worthy of the job yet the sitting Trustee's will be only putting forward 'their' mr/mrs popular = someone who will be compliant to the board in their view so its all total bull.
The Trust majority board interpret the rules as to benefit themselves, Anne's nomination was refused at the last AGM apparently by general consensus of the board, i spoke with the CC to find out if this was allowed and it was but on the grounds that EVERY Trustee was involved and that the Chairman ONLY had the deciding vote so when this was put to the Chairman by myself and it was found that Chris Duffell had NOT been consulted it was apparent that the decision could not stand under CC rules so this really does open up the question as to how those Trustee's are interpreting the rules and as to whether they are within the guidelines, it isn't right that we as members should be chasing up with the CC to see that the Trustee's are acting correctly, in this case they weren't and as far as I'm concerned if they have been willing to do it once the chances are its happened before or will happen again

 

Got to agree with this. I rarely read long posts, however interesting they may turn out to be.

 

im having lunch before i go and taking sandwiches to see me through

 

There have been two points of legal advice being sought yet both have been refused to be shared with the'3' so the question is 'do they actually exist'

 

I think its 3 of the 6 directors refusing to work with 2 of the 3 and the chairman incapable of mediating because its his club and he is bias towards the 6

 

@DaveE I agree that the AoA's need updating but this is being rushed through for one purpose only and thats to have total control over the next and future nomination proposals, Chris Duffell is due to stand this May, i will bet my bottom dollar if the vote at the EGM to remove him is successful he will be removed as a member and if the special resolutions are accepted then he wont be able to stand again, there is absolutely no valid reason as to why this EGM has been called so close to the AGM where changes to the AoA's could have been announced, not only that but the special resolutions offer only the 'bones', once accepted will the Trustee's add the flesh, the details if you like and we will have no say over that and there's a great chance that 'flesh' will be rancid

 

I have to say the letters from the 3 were initially sent to members only whereas the letters from the 6 were posted on the L&BR website for all to read also regards GDRP how can a member sending an email that exposed many other members emails not be disciplined yet Anne who's email didn't include such an open list stand to be accused, ohh, maybe its because he openly supports the 6, come now surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander and he should have the same disciplinary action applied to his

 

The requirement to observe confidentiality and collective responsibility assumes that the board is behaving in the best interests of the organisation. What we have here is a board which by majority decision is not.

I am sure that there will those that say that the minority should simply resign. If the board were making an effort to act in the best interest of the organisation, and it were a difference of opinion or approach I would agree. However, there is enough in the public domain without the minority report, to show that the majority view has been to take decisions that are at least questionable that they refuse to then answer. Let’s not forget that the allegations made in the minority report were later admitted to by the response from the majority, but that they have not as yet either explained themselves or apologised for a mistake.

A trustees first responsibility is to the organisation. To run it in the best interest of the public for whom they hold it in trust. What we are witnessing is the grave difficulties that come about when trying to deal with a breakdown in the competence of the board. It is at this precise point that having a system that allows members to exercise a degree of backstop control becomes an essential safeguard.

Forget the personalities: we have here a board that cannot function. From the moment of their election in Anne’s case, a board that has refused to even attempt to work with some of its trustees. A board which has taken some decisions that are very questionable. It has shown itself incapable of delivering the vision it set out to deliver, and refuses to contemplate or discuss whether that vision remains the right one. It is, manifestly failing.

If members do not vote against the 3rd motion to change they will allow the current majority to embed themselves permanently. They will have the power to remove anyone who disagrees with their views, from being a trustee and from being a member. We know that there are board members who abuse the current system, they will certainly abuse the new one.

 

I would advice obtaining your own legal advise on these matters and have it in writing, then if needs be, object to the proposals and the changes, quoting the relevant law, act etc, and holding up the proper legal advise, see how they get out of that,the three trustees should make it clear to the other trustees that they will take action, on any factitious actions taken against them,

 

That misses the point. Law is rarely so one-sided that one legal opinion will answer all questions definitively. Much depends on what questions are asked.

The issue here is that, if the allegation is true, trustees were told that they were proceeding in accordance with legal advice, but some were not provided the advice upon which that assertion was based. At the very least, that is a failure to ensure that trustees were properly informed when making decisions. There was not the chance to question the advice, and test whether or how it applied to the circumstances in which it was being used.

 

I would agree that the M&AoA should be kept under regular review. However I would argue that, with a properly structured process in place, any changes could be brought forward for a vote at the next available AGM - there should be no need to rush into the expense of a EGM.

IMHO the current situation has all the hallmarks of a knee-jerk reaction to a problem of the Board's own making and quick 'stitch up' to fix it to their advantage.

 

I understand (although this is third-hand, at least) that recently, a request from a L&BRT member for information was made to the secretary.

This was refused, on the grounds that "legal advice" had been given that divulging the information was contrary to the law. No further details were proffered.

The member then provided the secretary with a letter from his own legal advisor outlining why the request was legal, referencing the specific sections of the law.

Consequently, the information requested was subsequently provided as per the original request.

This is not the first time over the past several years that the Trust has cited unspecified, uncorroborated, uncertain, unpublished "legal advice" to justify its actions or inactions, including in the planning applications.

If the trustees are investing trust (and therefore trust members') money in obtaining this "legal advice", is it not reasonable that members should be able to judge the veracity of that legal advice for themselves?

 

My apologies, I don't have the time to sit and reply to each post as it comes in, hence often one post may cover several points at once so may be longer than normal contributers.

To be honest most of my posts are usually about particular technical points about which I have read and those points are or have important detail, with the complexity of the laws and guidance and all involved it's not always easy, for me at least, to get into words as a summary. But I will try and keep posts shorter

And thank you for your mention of the carriages, we are at an extremely busy time, and also very interesting, with tons and tons of timber in various stages of making taking over the work shop for V23, Carriage 9, and 10 Yr overhaul material for Carriage 17!

It's a pity some are not able to come along and see what we are doing especially those further afield. Everyone is welcome to pop along if you can, we always have tea and biscuits in stock!