Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

There’s no reason why the two can’t exist in harmony with good management. It’s when the latter is used to wield a sledgehammer over the former that problems arise, as seen here and on another railway you’re familiar with.

 

Sorry Steve, that’s unjustified. The original comment 0n this thread was about the conduct of an AGM and in particular the use of a Q&A session to update members ( including on line) and to invite questions. The railway you’re referring to has done that for some years and ensured by postal and electronic voting that every member has a vote. There was an attempt to propose a motion from the floor which had not been notified in time to be sent to members. To allow a vote on it would have been fundamentally undemocratic. Explaining patiently how such a motion could be put to a members’ vote in future is hardly a sledgehammer approach!

 

Meanwhile...

 

Possibly, though I read your comments more broadly than the specific instance you’re discussing.

I was interested to read a piece in today’s Times about the internal warfare at the Royal Society of Literature. What especially caught my eye were references to a small cabal who’d taken control of, and then used procedural mechanisms to bypass anything resembling accountability.

As far as I can tell, their actions were legal. I also consider them to have been undertaken in good faith pursuit of what they believed to be the best interests of the organisation. But the effect has been largely negative, in their own terms and those of the organisation’s own interests.

The heart of that failure was in the failure of accountability to the membership rather than to a regulator.

 

It's a genuine question! As a charity trustee what do you believe being accountable to a charity's members means in practice?

 

It's a fair question, and part of my answer has to be that I know it when I see it! And more importantly, I know it's absence when I don't see it.

Firstly, this needs to be understood in terms of a broad definition of "member". If I look across here at the places where there is contention, it needs to be understood in terms of individual people who consider themselves to be supporters of the organisation. That may be paid up members (as in L&BRT), it may be people on a list (as for example with a church electoral roll), or it may (as with Tornado) be those who provide regular support to the cause.

The same breadth needs to be taken when considering the organisation - this is not just about registered charities, but any organisation with membership of the type I describe above.

Finally, I am taking as read that boards will operate within the law, and in pursuit of the organisation's stated purposes - and that they will respond appropriately to demands that they operate ultra vires.

Accountability is then through formal and informal routes. Formally, there are AGMs, annual reports, and such like. These are a minimum requirement, and required to meet the law. However necessary they are, they are rarely if ever sufficient.

There is then a wider point about engaging with "members", sharing what's going on and listening to what's being said. The effect, even where hard decisions are being taken that are contrary to the wishes of some members, should be to bring consensus to the organisation, where members at large and board have an aligned sense of common purpose. If that's not possible, then there needs to be trust that the board are taking members' views fully into account when setting goals and strategy.

You'll notice that my measures are basically qualitative. They treat members as full participants in a common enterprise, and seek to foster a sense of belonging as a fundamental part of their being.

When this is absent, trouble brews. A common theme in debates at the L&B, NYMR, A1SLT Peak Rail, SVR (both the latter two now thankfully closed off) and, dare I say it, the CofE at a national level, is a distance between leaders and led. The connections are frayed, and those away from the centre feel as though they're being kept at arms length. It is interesting that SVR are making changes that are similar to changes made elsewhere, but with few ripples. One of the key factors seems to be that those proposing the changes are trusted, both by their track records and how the process towards change has been managed. By contrast, some of the others have seen leaders take steps that detach themselves from the membership at large, and reduce or remove the ability of those members to hold them to account.

Again, I'll go back to the CofE. There are unquestionably some awkward malcontents within the organisation - just look at the comments about the unlikely alliance of Ian Paul, Robert Thompson and Marcus Walker in launching the petition that brought down Justin Welby. But a major part of it is the sense from people in the pews and upwards (including members of General Synod) that the top leadership (lay and ordained) do not listen to the church at large. This allows them to drive change, but makes the whole structure very vulnerable when it comes under challenge - think of the old analogy of an oak tree in a storm.

 

I did not mention any particular event. It was a much broader comment. @35B obviously understood my comment. However, this thread is not the place to continue the NYMR debate.

 

My view on this is quite simple; the charity trustees should endeavour to do what the members/stakeholders wish provided that it is legal and within the articles and sensible to do so or at least listen to them and give good reason why not. Where there is conflict between what the stakeholders wish and what the trustees wish, there should be some serious questions asked. I think this is broadly in line with what @35B has put in far more detail in post 13986.

 

Thank you. That’s a great response. I suggest there is an unavoidable distinction between members and stakeholders but I agree that both need to be listened to and treated with respect.

 

And there we have the heart of our difference.

There are differences in law, and they have to be acknowledged. But where we are talking about people, and their support is a fundamental part of the operation of the railway, I believe the accountability needs to apply fully whether or not they have legal status. MPs are accountable to their constituents - but they will suffer if they rely on waiting till people are voting before they engage.

I also think that the point about "respect" goes further than you possibly own. Re-reading my response, it's about engagement - which can be absent even where respect is present. My references to the CofE were deliberate - and the arrogance of rank of some is a fundamental part of the challenges there. I witnessed similar at the L&B in the EGM (both the proposals and it its conduct), have heard accounts of the AGM which suggest similar, and see mixed signals since.

 

That’s uncontentious Steve. The problem area is not where the trustees wish to do something that’s contrary to what the members want but where the articles and the trustees accountability for achievement of the charitable purposes oblige them to act in ways the members disagree with.

 

And, to repeat ad nauseam, none of the debates about management of railways raised here have involved that being a serious issue. Even @Steve's comments about running for the benefit of volunteers are entirely reconcilable with charitable objects if the volunteers are viewed as stakeholders who need to be enticed and supported to give of their time.

 

Can you give any examples where that has arisen? I don't think it's been applicable at all to the L&B troubles.

 

I think as far as the L&B is concerned I suspect that you’re right although some of the manouevring in the run up to the last AGM might have triggered the situation. There have certainly been actual and potential situations on other heritage railways where the charity trustees would not have been on the same page as the members.

 

I don't think there's any question about the board and many members being on different pages. That takes us back to the concept of accountability, and the role of trustees/directors in working with ordinary members to seek to avoid getting onto different pages.

In a membership organisation, part of the accountability of the board is about how they handle the situation where those differences exist. And, subject to the obvious caveat of being compliant with law, I tend to the view that if the two come into conflict, the board are there to serve the members rather than to determine what the members may do.

It is also a sign of failure if a board get to the point at which it becomes an either/or choice. While there may be very occasional situations in which a major decision has to come to a vote, the board should lead towards consensus before the formal decisions come to a head.

 

Double post

 

Just to reiterate what @35B said, yes plenty of examples where trustees and members have been on different pages, but any examples where the members' wishes would have been outside the law? I don't see a general reasoning of 'The trustees thought their way better, and they are bound to do the best thing for the charity' as being particularly convincing on its own - no one has a monopoly on good ideas!

 

I have a little money to invest - it certainly won't be going to this outfit!

 

Might I suggest the Yeo Valley Trust for your investment on the basis of what it has achieved in conjunction with Exmoor Associates, towards trackbed purchases and development at Chelfham Mill ? However unlikely it may seem at the moment, things will change at the Trust eventually. I just hope it will be sooner rather than later. The election of Trustees at the AGM in 4 months time could start the ball rolling.