Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

It's good that he did stand aside, but really a PoO ought not to have been necessary - he should have understand both the strength of feeling on this matter and the need to appear scrupulously impartial and stood down without having to be 'prompted'. So who did chair the meeting after all ?

 

The result was announced by Brom Bromwich as follows:

For Against Abstentions
Resolution 1 645 555 66
Resolution 2 645 563 58
Resolution 3 596 617 51

Thus Resolutions 1 and 2 were passed dismissing two Trustees, but the replacement of the Articles was not, not having reached the 75% majority.

 

More important, the Articles were defeated outright. That is, de facto, a vote of no confidence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The two items were chaired by Mike Whiteaker. Peter Miles, entirely legitimately, took the chair back for the Articles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I thought the Boad was 6 versus 3. Therefore why was there resolutions to get rid of only 2 of the "3"?

 

What were the grounds given for the dismissals? can they be said to have been vexatious if so this should be referred to the CC asap in an official complaint against the trustees,

 

The grounds were given in the covering letter.
Winning 1 and 2 but losing 3 is a worst case scenario for the 6. There are now 2 additional vacancies on the board in addition to the retirees, and they have no way of controlling who stands. So the way is now open for lots of new, fresh blood to be elected. The voting was very close for this sort of thing, showing what a groundswell there is.
To my mind, this is a workable outcome.
Ian

 

- deleted - old news -

 

IMHO it would have been better to have tried to get the Motion nullified on the grounds of being vexatious and defamatory before the EGM, rather than try to unpick the mess afterwards. But,as they say, 'we are where we are' now....

 

So having done the maths we should have four positions up for grabs at the next AGM.

 

There are now just 7 Trustees. 1/3rd will have to retire in May, but can stand again. I would assume 1/3rd of 7 will be 2 rather than 3 (?), so presumably that will be the same two of the 'six' as previously.

 

I belive your right chris

 

In fact Trustees are elected for a term of three years - it is not one third who retire each year. Last year 4 trustees were elected - I did ask the question since [based on my experience with other organisations] I would have expected the person who had the fewest votes to only serve for two years since one of the trustees who stood down last year had two years left in their term. So there will be 4 vacancies this year. The 3 who were elected in 2021 [which included Chris Duffell] and the vacancy created by the removal of Anne Belsey.

 

Thats why i said in a previous reply that the trustees who were the subject of these motions should have lawyered up and hit the Chairman, and Secretary with law suits, and an official complaint to the CC i would now expect that there will be another complaint now against the governance of the L&B Trust raised with the Charity Commition and a concerted effort to overturn the dismissals..

 

PM'd you

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

No, that isnt what the articles say. Article 37 clearly states that one third must retire every year. If that number is not three or a multiple of three, then the number nearest one third shall retire.
It clarifies this that if there is only one trustee, then he shall retire. so the effect is that you cannot serve more than three years, but if (for example) there were only two trustees, they would serve less.

 

I deplore the dismissal of the two Trustees but having said that, IMHO, it was of fundamental importance for the future to reject the Revised Articles. To that extent it is a good outcome but new blood is needed to capitalise on this.

 

I do not recall any grounds being given for dismissals, presumably relying on those given in the papers for the meeting. Arguments on various legal points were made from the floor, including quotes from the Companies Act, amongst them the one referring to vexatious and defamatory actions, but my recollection of the meeting is that the Chairman appointed for the two dismissal Resolutions 1 and 2 - Mike Whiteaker - faced with these arguments decided that he was not a legal expert, and that as far as he was aware there was no legal expert in the room to help. He said, clearly battling with the dilema, that if we considered such arguments we would spend the whole of the meeting on them and afterwards, and get nowhere. He therefore decided to dismiss these arguments and proceed to the voting. Anne Belsey and Chris Duffell were allowed to speak with the microphone which they both did. After Peter Miles resumed the chair for dealing with Resolution 3 we proceeded to voting on the 3 resolutions and the ballots were collected from the floor including the proxy holders and the tellers retired with them to a separate room. I hope if I have misrepresented what was said, someone who was at the meeting will correct me.

 

Sounds like a fair precis, from what I've heard from others. Any idea how many members were actually in the room?

 

Good evening from Lynton. @Michael B sumarised things perfectly, thank you.

First, very many thanks to those who voted - with about 1200 votes cast, this is some sort of record turnout, and shows that the Members are engaged with their railway.

Second, commiserations to Anne and Chris. They've both said that they'll continue to contribute, for which we should all be grateful.

Third, it was a decisive rejection of the proposed M&As. Not only did they not get anywhere near the required 75%, they failed to even attract a majoirty. Given the amount of money wasted on this entirely unneccessary exercise - if it wasn't the power grab that the Members clearly understood that it was, it could've been done in seven weeks' time at the AGM - and the fact that it has been so resoundingly rejected, two things should follow:

- Those who proposed it and pushed for it to be at today's EGM should resign - their authority is shot.

- There should be a broad based working group created to revise the M&As in line with CC best practice with a remit to bring forward a draft for consultation to the Members' weekend with comments to be incorporated over the winter in time for a vote at next year's AGM. I've already repeatedly made clear that I'd be happy to help.

Because Mr Nicholson entirelly illegally refused to add any other motions to the EGM citing 'legal advice' that may or may not exist. On the basis of today's performance, any suggestion from 'the six' or Mr Nicholson that they have 'legal advice' needs to be taken with a massive pinch of salt.