Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Just one more example that everything to do with the Trust, whether it's issuing of General Meeting papers within legal time limits, updating Companies House (revised articles 12 years late), or it seems, supervising hedge work, or, it is alleged, making sure the people of Parracombe are not upset, is lackadaisical. Such a breath of fresh air, I found when I went to the EA meeting in the Autumn. Any Officer (or his assistant) who cannot be bothered to send a quick response to a communication, even if only to acknowledge receipt and say when the sender is likely to be answered, should not have the job. But I'm obviously old-fashioned. My wife had to email twice before she got a response.

 

This leads back to the discussion about the role of the Secretary. Putting aside the business of his interference in the trustee nomination process, I do wonder if he is actually overloaded ? In an organization of this size it would be sensible to spread the load amongst volunteers so that, for instance, we might have a Trust Secretary responsible for the regulatory requirements, a Minute Secretary to record and circulate the minutes of meetings, and a Membership Secretary to maintain the records and communicate with members. As I understand it at present Mr Nicholson performs all of these functions as well as editing the magazine. This inability to delegate is strangling the operation of the Trust and needs to be addressed urgently whatever the outcome of the EGM.

 

That feels like a very big role for one person - particularly because the three roles you describe (Trust / Minutes Secretary; Membership; and Magazine Editor) are three very different roles requiring very different skillsets to do effectively.

Often the hardest thing in life is to delegate, and to trust those that you delegate to.

Tom

 

In this case, everything points to it being more about hoarding power, @Jamessquared .

 

Two sides of a similar coin - I was being generous!

Tom

 

To be clear, the individual we're talking about refused to allow motions onto the EGM Agenda from any members other that six ordinary members who happen to be Trustees, citing 'legal advice' that he refused to share with Anne, Chris and Mike, let alone the membership. Similarly, when a member requested the Membership list as allowed for under the Companies Act, the same individual refused citing 'legal advice' and it took a letter from solicitor to force the Trust to comply with the law. And that's before we get into this individual's dreadful conduct in attempting to bar Anne's valid nomination last year, and the awful "Trackside" magazine article.

It looks like a pattern of behaviour that prioritises secrecy, reinforces the power of the existing Board majority, uses 'legal advice' that may or may not exist to refuse legal obligations, and makes it very clear that far from being a neutral servant of the Board and defender of the M&As, he is nothing more than a factional shill.

 

The problem with that interpretation is that the conflicts arise precisely because people have sought to be actively involved, and the response from the incumbents has been to repel boarders.

 

That's quite correct. It was I.

The 'legal advice' is a construct intended to obstruct & mislead, as with the EGM agenda. They tried it on with EA too.

It's very difficult dealing with people who behave in this way, and belief in the veracity of anything they utter is shattered.




Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

That is not quite the situation here - many long-standing, even founder members, and indeed those with an interest in the L&B reaching back over 50 years, are concerned at the contents of this EGM, and the possible consequences of the outcome - and that's only the few that I know of.

 

There are many parallels, but also important differences - notably in structure.

However, the important point is that this is not coming from "relative unknowns" (which label does include me) but people with long histories of volunteering around the railway - if you look at the letter sent out opposing the removal of Ann Belsey and Chris Duffell, there were a significant number of founder member signatories.

The evidence is available in plain sight; the majority of trustees are seeking to enact a governing document that would have the effect of giving them a complete monopoly of control, insulated from any question or challenge. That does not suggest to me that they are welcoming of input or discussion, except on their own narrow terms.

I turn 50 this year; I would like to see a "complete" L&B in my lifetime. Everything I know about projects tells me that, approached in it's current form, the Trust is incapable of doing so and managing the succession through generations to deliver that.

 

If one is content with a museum & demo line, then the status quo is just fine. If, however, one joined under the given impression that a longer line was on the cards, then major changes are essential.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

A Freedom of Information Act request to the ICO returned the result that no report had been made about Anne Belsey's alleged GDPR breach. So either it is fiction, or it was not reported within 72 hours as required.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

We may, though I'm more optimistic than that. But I'd accept that conclusion if I had confidence that it was being driven through effectively and in a way to maximise the outcome. The behaviours at present do not inspire that confidence, and (more importantly) seem to be wasting potential that exists.

 

Then people may have to accept that this railway just might materialise into 2 or 3 running sections, all different to each other, I for one won't accept a longer railway as a pipe dream irrespective of whether it's joined up or not

 

You may be right @Meatman, due the difficulties of waiting until you can build say Woody Bay to Wistlandpound in one go - land ownership, finance and permission. But it is not just a pipe dream, it is a realistic goal. Going further may start to challenge the idea of a realistic heritage railway length (unless we can get to Lynton). If the money can be raised for LYN I think there is a chance the money could be raised for such a project by appeal. It is becoming clear that any suggestion of a terminus at Parracombe, however temporary, is a non-starter, and in my opinion that includes Cricket Field Lane. The main problem as I see it is the landowners who currently do not want to sell. On the land front, the planned approach road to Lynton Station when the line was built is an example - landowner resistance (and what would now be called grampian restrictions requiring railings on the wall affecting the cost) prevented it in 1897/98, but the next generation of landowner supported the idea (and the road over Lyn Down) just before WW1, and Station Hill then got built around 1920/22 by Lynton Council, only delayed until after the conflict by labour shortages during it. Maybe we shall have to wait for something similar here, but it is likely to be beyond my lifetime.

 

Which will mean demonstrating to funders that they have the capacity to manage the project

Discuss (OK we already have and the answer is NO!)