Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

What next - an AI Chairman perhaps ?

 

I have Windows 10 but Edge has recently updated itself and now I have co-pilot which I really don't want. Is this a further attempt for Bill Gates to take over the world?

 

My daughter tells me that they use Microsoft Teams where she works which now has a AI function which works out how much you speak at a meeting and assesses what you say. Very Big Brother.

 

Only if anyone can actually make practical use of the data. For the most part I think many of these functions aren’t used. Of course the issue is that they could be, at which the point the game will change in some unexpected way.

 

Well could they do any worse?

 

When did he make a previous attempt?
I would be very surprised if Bill had anything to do with copilot, since he resigned as MS chairman in 2014 and from MS completely in 2020.
PS: you don’t have to use edge…

 

Opera browser has AI functionality too, nothing to do with MS. If anyone is trying to take over the world, it's Apple.

Firefox has no AI functionality, use that.

 

Interesting that the company gives you the option to vote 'against' any candidate but the trust does not. Members should have equal opportunity to reject any candidate as they have to endorse one. As for the six standing for four vacancies I agree with the "only vote 'for' a maximum of four" or else (!) but if members don't want some of them they should be able to reject them (or all of them if they wished) by voting 'against' without any penalty. 'Against' votes are necessary in the event of a tie - an extreme example - if all six get the same number of votes who is appointed and who loses out? Some M&A's specify that in the event of a tie those names are 'put in a hat' and the winners drawn. I believe the 'for'/'against' method gives the best result as it appoints the candidate with the best support (or least opposition!)

 

For at least the last 5 GMs, the ballot paper format/wording has changed, sometimes subtly, sometimes not. Strange, as it is largely the work of one person, and each change seems to cause confusion. One advantage of having FOR and AGAINST (and ABSTAIN) boxes is that it can help prevent voter fraud as it makes it crystal clear what the voter has chosen. In this case, any 4 from 6 is okay, but should a voter choose to vote for less than four, it would be possible for an unscrupulous individual to add the missing votes. (I'm NOT saying that has ever happened, just that it could be possible)

 

Once we get over the mess I suggest that this needs to be one of those areas than needs to be written down, possible as part of the reviewed M&A.

We should also be looking to up date the M&As with what is currently best practice as well

 

Judging by his responses to questions from the floor at the recent EGM we haven't go one that functions in AI or any other mode at the moment. Lets hope that is not allowed at the forthcoming AGMs.

 

As an amateur passenger I use only the bits I can't avoid (and stick to the key strokes that I know work) and ignore the rest - and email my Computer Wiz when I fly into a cloud and it doesn't work.

 

Is there any prohibition of someone taking a video of the meeting and posting it online for the members who could not attend? After all, like accurate minutes, it would be a full and fair record of the meeting?

 

Well maybe not. I know of churches, that that have service recordings and who advise people of the recording to sit in certain areas where the cameras do not intrude. .

 

As well as a cathedral that carefully sites it's cameras so that only clergy and choir are visible, but other churches that give a warning that anyone may be caught on camera. There's no right or wrong here, but much will depend on individual attendees' reaction to being filmed.

 

It would be helpful to many, I suspect, but although there is no expectation of privacy in public, Lynton Town Hall will be in use for private hiring, even if often publically accessible. Official recording would be permitted but only if all those present were told beforehand (if you know and turn up, or stay after you're told, that is implied consent). This would have to be for the board to agree and to arrange, even if it was only "'ere Fred, you've got an iPhone, film this."

Frankly, I can't see it happening this time around.

YouTube, TikTok etc. live feeds are common these days, and it wouldn't be impossible for somebody to attempt to do so surreptitiously. What might be more palatable would be for an audio recording to be made available after the fact - as with the ENPA Planning Committee hearing the L&B planning applications, although these are a matter of public record.

 

The AGM is for members only - so it would be inappropriate [in my view] to record it surreptitiously. Many organisation make a video feed available for members to view AGMs - this is something for the trustees to discuss for future meetings.

 

I tend to agree on recording surreptitiously, as informed consent is important. However, for General Meetings of an organisation in which the minutes tend to be very vague (so much so that there isn't even approval of the previous year's minutes on the agenda), and the tone of meetings has been as important as what was stated, I start to see the pendulum swinging in favour of disclosure and sharing even if the recording is without consent. The EGM discussions on legal advice were particularly enlightening on it's quality - Rodric Williams's evidence at the Post Office Enquiry last week was coherent by comparison.

A video feed would definitely be a positive development.

 

I'm only going on your summation, and not on the full accounts, but a very striking number is the decline in donations between the two years:

2022 - £747k
2023 - £323k

There's over £400k difference there. Is there a structural reason for that - for example a big campaign in 2022 that wasn't replicated in 2023?

(Legacies also show a marked decline, but by their nature they are far harder to predict when they may arise, so a single big legacy can tend to distort teh figures when doing a year-on-year comparison).

Tom

 

I've yet to read the accounts fully, but I'd suggest the wind going out of the sails of the extension might have some bearing. I've also heard suggestions that legacies have been repointed away from the L&BRT in response to the Trust's behaviour, but don't know how much impact that would have had in the year.