Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The best anyone can hope for is that at the next AGM, those new candidates, agree to work together, bring transparency to what's been going on, ideally if those elected are of the persuasion that change is needed, and that the Chairman, is blocking progress, the board can remove him, or ask that he decides himself to stand aside, the Treasurer hopefully will step down also, otherwise I can see an scenario where by the board sack the secretary, and suspend the Chair and launch an investigation into his time in the chair, assuming that those wanting reform do have a majority on the board

 

Place your bets whether either some of the candidates trying to stand at the AGM will have their applications "lost" or their statements going out with the AGM papers will be "edited".

 

No, @Biermeister - I understand that both have honourably decided that because the Membership had voted them out that they would not be candidates in May.

 

I wonder if (say) Tony N will 'honourably decide' that, as he failed to make the cut at a previous AGM, he will decline to be co-opted?
After all, as he appears to be struggling to perform the duties of Secretary correctly and efficiently, how will he have time to be a Trustee as well ???

 

So where do we go from here.

In truth, there were no winners yesterday, nor losers.

There are a lot of calls now for this all to be put behind us and to start working better and smarter, and that means all sides accepting the results from yesterday, and all focus on healing from this and getting some progress instead of a trust bogged down in disagreements and not even able to do the work it's supposed to be.

Perhaps now we can see a more sensible refreshing of the Trust which will be far less destructive than a complete overturn in one go as some have called for.

We will now have 4 places at the AGM, 2 vacant spaces after the vote yesterday and the trustees removed have decided not to restand and 2 existing trustees on re-election rotation (⅓ of 7).

We need candidates who are willing to work as that collective and not continue what we have seen.

Most of the membership will I expect now be looking for this as a line drawn under the disruption of the last 12 months, as many have said to me it been going on for so long now, if it isn't, we could see people walk away, not because they agree with this side or that, but purely because they are fed up with the arguments.

We must now go positively forward and stop looking negatively backwards.

I look forward to seeing who is nominated, and exercising my duty as a member to vote for those who are most suitable to enhance and to work with the trust, we have to enable some progress after the stagnation of the past year.

Time to stop driving the wedges, time to heal, time to start working together, time to get people busy (as if they already aren't) and time to stop the damage being done to the railway as a whole.

 

I agree with most of what you say. All I would say in return is that it takes two to tango!

 

Good morning everyone

Lovely morning here in Lynton.

As I understand it, there will be four vacancies in May: Ian Cowling and Charles Summers will be retiring by rotation, and the two vacancies (whether filled by cooptees or not) will also be required to stand.

I couldn't disagree more, @DaveE . Anne and Chris lost and have honourably decided not to restand in May.

However, 'the six' made yesterday happen. There was no need for them to spend several thousand pounds on their power grab, but they simply chose to, using their majortiy to ram it through. They invested all of their authority - and lots of Trust money - in trying to get their preferred M&As through.

And the Members told them to get lost - not only did they not get the 75% they needed, they couldn't even manage a majority - and this, whilst controlling all of the formal channels of Trust communication and using them ruthlessly to get what they wanted - right down to Cowling's ludicrous "Hostile Takeover" missive that still disgraces the (public) website. Their authority has been shot to pieces.

How do you suggest doing this, @DaveE ? Sensible refreshment would mean no retiring Trustees restanding - is that what you're proposing? Do you really think that Mr Cowling and Mr Summers will decline to restand?

You're missing the point here, @DaveE - it was 'the six' who refused point blank to work with 'the three', which including denying the financials they needed to see to do their jobs, "legal advice" on contentious issues that they refused to share with the former minority, and the lies to the members (over, e.g., the Trust's exposure to OSHI) which they were expected by you and @Lineisclear to go along with.

If you want a functional Board - I certainly do as there will be no extension without it - then the Chairman and his cronies need to reject their majoritarain mindset and start cooperating as they should've done no later than last summer.

I hope that they do this now.

 

Toby, line drawn under yesterday, time to look positively forward and not negatively backwards.

For the sake of the railway the blaming, accusations, and arguments need to stop.

 

Indeed. However, IMHO we can not ignore the past.

We will have to accept the possibility that, after the May AGM, the make-up of the new Board may still have a slight majority of 'old' Trustees over any 'new' ones. Whilst the 'new' ones may well recognise the need to try and avoid some of the problems of the last 12 months, they will not be doing their jobs properly IMHO if they ignore some of the more obvious governance and financial problems simply in order to 'keep the peace'. Indeed, I for one would not vote for any of them if I thought that would be their attitude.

Equally, nothing much is likely to change for the better if the remaining 'old' Trustees fail to acknowledge their own past failings and try simply to 'carry on as before' regardless. A compromise requires effort from both sides of any theoretical divide, so it will be very interesting IMHO to see what the remaining Board does over the next 7 weeks.....

 

Exactly - it's seems that some do not want to draw a line. We will have to see who is on the voting papers and what their election statements say and then decide who to support.

 

Did you and @Tobbes ever have that drink at the OSHI?

 

I would say that there were lots of losers.

That presumes that every member who voted at the EGM was fully informed. Is that a valid presumption?
Anyway it is a victory for the "six" who refused to work with them.

 

In retrospect it was inevitable that the motion would not get the 75% to be passed. However, there needs to be new articles. There have been many posts on this forum saying that the existing articles are not fit for purpose. There was a call for a nominations panel on this forum but not in the form suggested in the proposed articles.

We have to accept the members vote.

 

We didn't in the end, but I am sure at some point we will and share stories and chat.

 

I doubt that the L&B will be built much further, not as the proposals exist and some heritage railways are, in many cases in my view, past their sell by dates. There has been far too much navel searching which can only have given land owners encouragement to keep their land: they probably view the L&B as a lost cause. Exmoor Associates are sitting on land which may be of use as solar or wind farms if the L&B fails to extend as planned. Although I live in the county, I cannot see a good reason to support the line and its ideals - many others it seems, share similar views. There are more West of England lines that do not have the recriminations that the L&B does which are worth supporting.

 

And this is what we need to address as a priority, forget the governance, the politics, the arguments on social media, the accusations or who is to blame etc..... for PR generally and what's been presented to that public this last 12 months has been a disaster.

 

Forget the governance? Dave, that is precisely what landed us in this mess. Good governance is essential if good people like you “at the coal face” are to have the opportunity to build upon what is already there.

Poor governance always leads to mistrust and that leads to the sort of misery we have seen. It is not the arguments that cause the loss of credibility, it is the actions that led to the arguments that have done the damage, because poor governance led to a situation where those disagreements had to become public.

All is not lost though. It will take time to rebuild internal trust and change the external perceptions, but externally at least memories for the vast majority will be short and good actions will speak loudly. Whilst there may not be a ground swell of support right now, it is in my view quite recoverable providing sensible steps are taken and a good strategy created.

I know there are a bunch of people who want to get on with running the railway. A bunch who want to get on with extending it. The arguments have undoubtedly got in the way of that, which is to be regretted. Solid governance and a trust board functioning as a team will very quickly repair the situation and free people to focus on what they really want to be doing.

Some new faces on the board and a collaborative and welcoming approach from whoever from the current board remains is all that is required.

 

Maybe I should have worded better... "Put aside"..... Rather than "forget".

 

Put aside is no better really. The only way is to deal with the governance shortcomings head on and fix them. What I completely understand is that the members in general do not want any part of that, and mostly they are neither interested nor feel qualified to be involved.

As the current trustees (and secretary ) have led us into this corner, it seems that they too need some help to exit the situation. That’s why I think a tranche of new faces with a mix perhaps of people you’ve seen before and some you haven’t could be the answer. If all four available trustee positions were filled by people new to the trust board that would be positive. I also think that giving Tony Nicholson the opportunity to focus on his excellent magazine would probably be positive for everyone.

 

I'd gladly put aside conversations about governance, if it were being done properly - and legally - in the first place.

Forget the debate about whether Peter Miles was conflicted as chair for the dismissal motions - while I stand by my view and the point of order that I raised which helped lead to Peter Miles standing aside, I recognise that there's room for differences of opinion. I'm talking about assertions on law that were flat out wrong, and positions that can't have made sense to those saying them, let alone the audience.

Yesterday made clear that the membership, as a body, expect trustees to work together properly. Anne and Chris (wrongly IMHO, but opinions can legitimately vary) were punished for not doing so; the board had their attempt to rewrite the rulebook so that they would never need to deal with dissenting views rejected.

Two excellent, well qualified, candidates put their names forward yesterday. More would be welcome. If they are elected, it will be the duty of them and the existing trustees to work together for the benefit of the railway.

It was clear from supporters and opponents of yesterday's motions alike that the membership's tolerance for game playing is at an end.