Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I want to see an AGM done by the rules. That's it.
Whether I think anyone should re-stand, or not, is irrelevant.

And I think we will leave the religious and spiritual part there. I have put my views, yours obviously differ.

 

You talk as if anyone wants the rules bent, @DaveE - who do you have in mind? I'm sure that I know no one in that camp.

Whoever you support and why is a matter for you, @DaveE but your views would be useful for those of us without your privileged perch. The point remains, though, that if you want the Board's expertise refreshed, then the best way of doing that is for none of the retiring Trustees to restand, so that there are four new faces on the Board. If you don't want that, it would be great to know why.

It's got nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the personal qualities of the three individuals concerned. I would have no problem with three similarly qualified druids performing the same role for the same reason.

 

Lol, my perch isn't that privileged I can assure you.

If you have not noticed, I haven't accused anyone, named anyone, I have not called anyone names nor been abusive.

I have mostly pointed out what laws say, or guidance and in general, with references if possible to clarify areas which people may be unsure of.

And you really don't want to have a group of Druids to mediate lol... One maybe, but you will never get three to agree between themselves let alone on anything else and it would take ages!

 

My understanding of such matters is that the Bagnall Co would have an operational agreement with the CIC and not the Trust. So it would be down to the loco Company and the CIC to hammer out any differences between them. No body in their right mind would want to lose Sir George as it would then put the whole operation into difficulties with only LYN and AXE available to operate the summer service behind steam, I am not aware if Pilton has been used as a steam loco replacement yet, but I understand that was the whole reason for getting her in the first place.

Having also managed to annoy the owner of 'Issac' to such a point that he took his loco away and sold his house in Parracombe, to which we now have yet another problem to deal with at a later date, but speaking to a couple of other loco owners since then, the general feeling is not wanting to take their locos anywhere near North Devon appears to be growing, If the membership talk with their feet and leave and already a section of the Heritage Railway World is beginning to wonder about the L&BR project as a whole, the future does not look good right now. In a commercial company those who bring it in to disrepute normally do the honourable thing and fall on their swords. This has the smell of the Ratner 'I sell crap' comments about it all.

 

May I suggest that Mediation is a specific skill and that suggesting that it should be done by anyone other than a qualified mediator in such difficult circumstances is asking a lot of the person suggested whatever there faith.

 

Taken together, the results of all three motions are effectively a vote of ‘no confidence’ in the whole of the existing Board up to the date of the EGM. Both factions lost. The membership ejected the two members where that option was available; but also voted down the Board’s proposed constitutional changes.

By my reading everyone has accepted, with or without regret, Chris & Anne’s dismissal on Motions 1 & 2, and their honourable decisions not to stand at the AGM. What about acceptance of Motion 3?

How should the members of the rump Board honourably demonstrate their acceptance of such a resounding blow to their authority from the membership?

 

Absolutely, but I expect that it will be water off a duck's back....

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

I have heard of several largely uninvolved members who attended the EGM and had planned to vote for all three but, having witnessed the conduct of the meeting, "crossed the house" as it were, and changed their votes. Are there any examples known of members who crossed in the opposite direction?

 

I'm surprised at that comment. I'd agree that in this particular case the issues were fairly clear and that members should have been able to make up their own minds from the information provided, however those who were uncertain or felt they had not got enough to go on (and not everybody would have seen all the online correspondence) gave their proxy to somebody attending. That person was not necessarily the Chairman and, in any case, the Chair was in different hands with Mike Whiteaker overseeing the voting on the two motions against the two Trustees.
It is not that proxies in themselves are wrong; how else does a member unable to attend a meeting vote on an issue which may only be revealed in depth at that meeting? What is wrong is this habit of giving a proxy to the meeting Chairman, who may not be known to the voter, instead of to somebody whose judgement is known and trusted.

 

Which is why members of Exmoor Associates unable to attend put their proxies in the trustworthy hands of Mike Buse. And this leads us into the question of trustworthiness and honourability in general. @DaveE makes much of sticking to the rules but never mentions integrity or trustworthiness. It is because of this perceived lack that I have suggested The Six honourably step down from their Trustee positions before the forthcoming AGM. I do not want our Trustees to lack integrity, trustworthiness and honourability and I would hope that the large majority of Trust Members do not either.

 

It is fairly standard practice to give your proxy to the Chairman of the meeting. This is the case for company AGMs, Professional Bodies and Building Societies. For the election of Board Members or Trustees - Shareholders or Members generally make their minds up based on the documents provided before the meeting. A problem only arises when extra issues are raised at the meeting which needs the proxy to exercise their discression on the matter. This is why you are able to appoint someone as a proxy who you believe would reflect your views. So I don't see a problem with proxies.

 

there were many people who hung around at the EGM for the results, whilst some were disappointed that the first two resolutions were passed it was mainly the way in which this was done and how the facts from one side were presented as compared to the other side but on the whole everyone i have spoken to has accepted the results of the first two resolutions and also of the special resolution, they say actions speak louder than words so it was interesting to see that when the results were announced the only person of authority on the stage was the director of the CIC charged with overseeing the count and there wasn't a trustee who called this wasteful EGM in sight. Chris Duffell was up for re-election so there was no need whatsoever to try and remove him in this fashion before the AGM, the plain fact is that the 6 trustee's are trying to manipulate who is on the board 'by any means' so that they don't lose their majority position, as i have said in a recent post the cost over the last 3 years by the actions of some of these men totals over £13k that could have been spent elsewhere but more importantly even with Chris and Anne gone the toxicity still remains

 

What do the uninformed members have to go on, if they are not on social media, only the magazine editor, who is of course part of this cliche and of course that information is not going to be fair, it will be slanted to suit the boards point of view, very much like back in Russia, the newspapers only published the party line, so it will be more of the same. they then might believe what the magazine has to say, very much in the same way as many in Russia were made to think the west was some evil monster waiting to devour them, only later, to find the monster was in fact their own people, using the power they had to ensure they were never made to account for it.

 

A problem also arises when distant members have received a one-sided account of any issue. They are then likely either to give their proxies to the chairman or to vote explicitly in favour of whatever is proposed.

 

So where was the Chairman at that time? Regardless of the actual result of the count, unless the Chairman announces the results in a formal manner, is it actually valid? How and when then was the meeting closed?

If you compare with (say) the House of Commons, even when the tellers announce the results publicly they still have to be reiterated formally by The Speaker in order to go 'on the record'.

 

Well, I've heard a rumour that all the rules may be completely changed now.

We may no longer be holding our AGM in Lynton, but in Minehead. Much is said about seeking talent and it's been noted that often the talent needed isn't always properly looked for.

So it seems we may see a completely different way in how we choose our trustees.

As we have seen over the past few years there has been the very popular attendance of a group at Woody Bay who are hard working, smartly (and sometimes oddly) dressed and often have old fashioned values.

The AGM will begin as usual at the new venue, and then will follow a series of votes. Postal votes will be counted two weeks after the AGM, results to be announced 48 hours afterwards. The AGM will be filmed and will be available on YouTube for exactly two weeks following the AGM to enable those postal voters to make their choices and post in or indicate via email. For those still using carrier pigeons it's been decided that two weeks should be long enough, if not, then you need to retire your poor pigeon.

There will be no chairman, chairwoman, or person, the bar man will be counting though.. Drinks mostly....but won't be tolerating too many being under the chair....or table.

Categories for voting will be..

• Best tie.
• The most mis-matched socks.
• The best looking custard pie.
• The best splatting custard pie.
• The best stage fall.
• The loudest shirt.
• The biggest laugh obtained.

The hosts for the AGM will be those who attend Woody Bay often during the season, Laurel & Hardy do Devon.

As Butlins have a pre-formatted talent competition package it is proposed that this is held at Butlins in Minehead, and is also in recognition of the fact that so many have got way too serious of late and that we all need a good laugh every so often and to chill out.

Places are limited so please book your seats early to avoid disappointment (but I'm sure we can either a/ Twist the arms of the security or b/ Let a few over the back fence when said security isn't looking.

Just a rumour of course...

Have a good Bank Holiday!


(Edited: 12.07pm, April 1st, 2024.
And for those who didn't cotton on, it's April Fools day .. stress less, laugh more, makes life easier I've found! )

 

I assume that the source of that rumour is non other than Loof Lirpa - a well known journalist who seems to only work one day a year.

 

Loof is as always the most reliable source of info

 

I agree @H Cloutt, though I'd observe that the use of proxies as @Biermeister suggests is in effect a work around for the lack of formalised postal or electronic voting in the M&As. The problem occurs if the proxy holder for whatever reason cannot attend the meeting in person as the proxies will then be invalid.

As I've repeatedly said, this is one area where the M&As do need updating, albeit it wasn't in proposals that were thankfully just rejected.

 

...even more so than a Trust Newsletter ???