Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I know of two possibly 3 very suitable candidates that are prepared to stand, two for definite have lodged their applications so fingers crossed the other will join them and they will all be successful

 

It will of course be interesting to see if two more are co-opted in the meantime

 

I did not count them precisely, though I did look as the meeting started, and there were 9 or 10 rows with an average of roughly 10 in each row, so I would guess about 100, plus, of course the top table.

 

Would these two be Chris Duffell and Anne Belsey perhaps?

 

Is there a board meeting between now and the AGM in which that could happen? Anyone co-opted would, in any case, need to stand for formal election at the next AGM.

One assumes that the “6” are fully aware that if they won their motions they would have vacancies and need suitable candidates to replace those removed - so all in all, you’d have to assume there will be a big field of candidates at the AGM.

• Three retiring by longevity and putting themselves forward for reelection
• Two candidates favourable to the “6” to fill the two vacancies created by the EGM
• Five candidates favourable to the “reform” side to fill five positions

So potentially ten candidates at the next AGM. I tend to agree with @ikcdab above - this is a risky moment for the incumbent board, since they have opened up the board to a lot of new candidates without having the formal control over selection they desired. If I understand correctly, a majority of the board (5 out of 9) needs to be elected at the next AGM. Certainly if the aim of their actions was to shut the calls for reform up, it looks likely it will achieve the complete opposite. Lynton’s popcorn sellers won’t be shutting up shop just yet, I’d wager.

Tom

 

One of the candidates retiring by longevity would have been Chris Duffell - so there are four vacancies. There would be no point in the 'reform party' putting up any more than 4 candidates.

 

Lynton should indeed be ready for more popcorn sales.

However, there was an interesting undercurrent of frustration with the board from people identifying as supporters. A number of people, clearly not supporting Anne and Chris, called for co-operation between those of different views.

Forces are in motion that have been released by the appalling behaviour of the board. Some of that will be regulatory - assertions were made yesterday that raise issues about Trust compliance with both charity and data protection law.

But I think a more important factor will be that the Trust chair and those close to him have lost the aura of invincibility, and alongside that the ability to convince the membership that theirs is the single voice defining the railway’s future.

The performance of the majority yesterday was poor. They didn’t have answers to predictable questions, and clearly believed that bluster and assertion would be enough. It wasn’t.

I sat near a couple of armchair members who’d turned up wondering what this was all about, why the board was divided, and how they could reasonably vote against the board. Before the meeting, @Tobbes and I gave them our précis of the key issues. After the meeting, both said something to the effect of “I see what you mean”, having voted against all three motions at meetings’ end.

There is now a real question of confidence in the board given their failure to carry even a bare majority of votes on their flagship policy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Is that correct? He is now no longer a trustee so can't retire by longevity - so you need 1/3 of the current board to stand down (which is 2 out of 6, leaving 4). On a board of 9, that leaves 5 vacancies.

Happy to be corrected if I have got the numbers wrong.

Tom

 

There are currenly 7 members of the board - only 2 were removed.

 

There are 7 left, the '6' and 1 of the '3', Mike Whiteaker, being not conflicted did take the chair for the first two resolutions and considering he was 'put on the spot' with a few legal questions did an excellent job in my opinion and would make an excellent 'future' chairman, hopefully he will not be bullied off the board anytime soon

 

Humorous, no doubt but I hope nobody tries to pursue this. After yesterday, I hope all sides will be reflecting on the way forward. “The Two” have gone but I suggest that some of the old hands at the top table also need to be thinking about whether their position now remains tenable. It is my belief that new, younger people with a fresh approach are essential.

 

The meeting has concluded and results declared. We must accept the result - this includes the board who must accept that the M and As were not adopted. What is needed now is a period of stability.

 

So doesn't that mean that 3 now need to retire by rotation? (What's the provision if 1/3 of the board is not a whole number?)

Tom

 

I agree, however it’s obvious that the earliest possible date for that period to start would be after the AGM election.

 

I rather hope that we will be able to make our mind up based on the candidates statements sent out with the voting papers rather than further mud-slinging on this and other forums. Any who put themselves forward must work in a constructive manner with the existing trustees. Change is needed but there are ways of achieving this which do not involve public disagreements.

 

Let me guess...the M&As don't cover such a scenario?

 

I think that the existing trustees must make their minds up to work constructively with whoever is elected.

 

Article 37…the number nearest to one third.

7 trustees 1/3 is 2.33 so 2 retire by rotation

 

Indeed. As @21B says, though, much depends on the chair and those who put these M&As up for discussion; in particular, whether they will dig in further or respond properly.

Meanwhile, the open challenge has been important. It has drawn attention to the problems with the trust, and allowed both light and oxygen into the problems. A key feature of what’s gone awry is that the board have avoided scrutiny and this has impaired their effectiveness. That was very evident in the poverty of answers yesterday to not especially difficult or unforeseeable questions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Article 44 states that the trust can Co-opt additional trustees to fill a vacancy, but these must stand for election at the next AGM and do not count in respect of retirement by rotation. In other words, there are 7 trustees as of yesterday, and there will be 4 vacancies at the AGM.