Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Might not be any need for anyone to go down in a fight.
There will be at least 3 new trustees maybe 4.
Personally I think it won't come to that, I'm quite optimistic this will resolve without further "fights".
Realistically we do need some of the existing trustees on board as well, a complete overturn is not the best way forward.

 

There's still going to be anywhere from 5 to 4 incumbents on the board, which is far from a complete overturn. And even if there was a complete overturn, I'd rather a complete overturn than what is happening now.

 

We do need existing trustees on board, as they do have important information for continuity. However, that also requires that they accept the membership's choice and work with those new members, rather than keeping them at a distance or worse.

 

I would agree about the need - or at least, desirability - for continuity of information, but even if Trustees do step down they ought really to be still available for consultation, just no longer part of the decision-making process. Of course, it may be wishful thinking to hope for that to be the case.

Equally, based on recent experience, even if at least some still remain on the Board, can we rely on them to co-operate with the newcomers?

 

All fair points. However, I wish to give the incumbent trustees the benefit of the doubt, recognising that being available for consultation is not the same as being in the room when decisions are made, and that wholesale change is generally undesirable.

 

Rapid evolution rather than revolution definitely a good aspiration.

We must wait to see how members vote. There are of course many possible interpretations whenever votes are cast unless the question being voted on is very specific, but I think we can be sure of two things:

1. we all agree that internal squabbles need to come to an end

2. It would be no bad thing for there to be new ideas and approaches to old problems, and more help should always be welcome

 

And notably Mr Summers declined to submit a longer piece, which seems odd. I've no idea whether this is because he couldn't be bothered, doesn't have any ideas that need more than 150 words and/or doesn't want to cooperate with EA.

At face value it does seem high handed, but without an explanation any - or a combination of these three things - seems most likely. If so, I trust that Members will hold it against him in due course.

 

Irrespective of who gets voted on, there has to be a big change of attitude from the existing trustees towards any new ones who openly seek reform, leopards don't change their spots and at the moment there is very little trust in the existing Trust, or at least one or two of them, if the majority still hold the upper hand it will be interesting to see how things pan out,, John Barton did lay his cards on the table at last years AGM publicly stating that if the members chose to do anything other than option C he will be nothing to do with it, finance's might dictate what can actually happen but then we still have to see if the CC takes action on all the complaints they have received

 

There's 2 assumptions there. One is that the named existing trustee would always support Mr. Miles, and the other is that none of the new candidates would support Mr. Miles. Can either of those assumptions be relied upon?

 

And perhaps you are wrong on all accounts, not good to assume.
Meanwhile I think most have moved on from the animosity and sniping and looking forward to seeing what happens at the election, I feel quite positive about it.

 

The first one probably yes, the second one depends on who is successful but probably no

 

An interesting situation, which could go either way, but I would suggest that it will depend on the issue at hand and just what has been brought up at the first meeting, it will take time, there will be some items that they agree on while there will be other items that they won't.

The other thing is of course that Mr Miles might just agree with some of the new Trustees, who knows?

 

He hasn't always agreed, but accepts the majority vote once it's taken and once the decision is made he stands by it as a collective.

 

The EA chairman spoke to him directly by telephone. Apparently, he was due to go away on holiday the following day, so didn't have time, but also didn't feel he needed more than 150 words. We'll just have to wait for the official paperwork before deciding how to vote.

 

15 months ago I joined the committee of a canal restoration society on its last legs that had become a 'gardening and tidying up club'. The Chair was protected by 4 stalwarts who had no new ideas and no desire to embark on any significant projects, plus 2 or 3 committee members who had given up on trying to make changes and went along with the Chair. Myself and 2 other 'reformers' had a 12 month slog to challenge, cajole and make modest but positive changes. Importantly we were clear on the vision to restore the canal. At our March AGM the Chair and 4 others retired or resigned. A new Chair and 2 new committee members were elected; we're now fewer in number but we're all enthusiastic and the formerly quiet ones are beginning to bloom again with positive ideas and actions. We'll shortly be creating our strategic business plan.

The L&B is not quite in the same situation but if the same types of organisational decisions keep on being made by the same types of leaders, behaving in the same kind of way, you'll never have the marketing, commercial and project management expertise to restore the railway in the National Park. Any new 'reformer' Trustees will need to stay positive, constructively challenge poor decision making and keep promoting alternative ideas / open debate. The incumbents' grip on power will reduce...

 

He most definitely is, on holiday.

 

Oink!Oink!

 

Who knows? We will all find out what will happen soon enough. To some extent it may depend on who the new Trustee Board Members elect as their chairperson.

 

ive no doubt about that and as @Lineisclear suggests that is the way it should be done....or resign, the problem is there have been two dominant trustee's for many years and that is why we are where we are now, if you look back new trustee's have resigned but when you eventually get some willing to expose what has been going on within they are labelled as trouble makers and the spin is put on to successfully kick them out, over the years they have answered to no-one and if there is change in the future there's going to be hell of a lot of digging to find out how the trust as a whole really stands, there are too many ostrich's with their heads in the sand and too many armchair members who don't really take an interest in what is going on or cant accept that there are real issues, the railway should with good management be successful but that will be down to the CIC not the trust and i think that is all a lot of people see but ultimately its what is going on within the trust itself that is of concern and its dealings with its subsidiaries, over the years too many things have been kept from the members and this has got to change, i might not go as far as saying we have been misled but i would say when the trust have told the members something especially in the news letter they have been economical with the truth

 

As an EA shareholder I received them by email but with an instruction to ignore if (like me) one is not also a Trust member.