Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I have no idea what this said before it was deleted, but I do really like the idea of deletion for clarity. It should be used much more often (not merely on this forum).

 

I thank and praise @Lineisclear for his continued involvement on here despite the amount of disagreement with his views; but I am struggling to reconcile those particular two statements.
Edited for clarity (I hope).

 

I think the point is that the second statement follows on from the first: in a show-of-hands vote, each person in the room only has one vote and, therefore, the system breaks down if there are people in the room acting as proxies for multiple non-present people. At which point, if those holding proxies feel their proxy votes may swing things, you have to have a poll, i.e. an actual count of all the votes cast (in person and by proxy).

Tom

 

I always feel that when threads on this forum start studying the minutiae of AGM processes and the like, something has gone badly wrong. The L&B is not the only example - see the Teifi Valley thread, sporadically, or for many years the WSR thread.

That's not to say that governance isn't important - far from it - but rather to note that in a well-run society, it is a hygiene factor: something that only becomes a problem when it goes wrong, or is perceived to be going wrong. When things are going smoothly, things should just tick along without too much thought from ordinary members about how precisely that is achieved.

That is also not an excuse to remove scrutiny from directors - again, far from it. But an effective director will not only always work in the best interests of their organisation, but will also make it beyond reproach that that is how they are acting.

Tom

 

I agree. And it is noticeable in all three instances cited (and I can think of a couple of others) that the questions of governance have gone hand in hand with questions of power, where the impression has been that those with the power have been reluctant to accept that their way may not be the only, or even the best, way to proceed.

If I may broaden the point slightly, to where @Lineisclear and I have sparred a number of times, it is then also not just about being seen to be whiter than white, but also about how boards choose to engage with their internal stakeholders. When the discussion goes into the minutiae of what may or may not be done or, God help us, the business of Trustee duty and the role of member resolutions, it feels as if we're moving away from the basics of "here are a bunch of people who support the railway so how do we harness their energies" into something much less positive.

 

I had read @Lineisclear's first quote as expressing what does happen rather than what can happen only where the proxy has no conflicting votes.
Anyway I hope we all have a similar understanding of what should happen, and similar concerns about any possibility that it might not happen.

 

Perhaps one answer here is to ensure that at the AGM at least two members exercise their right under Clause 13(2) of the M&AoA to demand a poll before each vote is held. At last then the same method of counting will apply for each Motion.

 

Thanks Tom. Precisely! Waving the same hand for multiple proxies isn't going to work!

 

“All those in favor please wave your hands”



Tom

 

In fairness, given the papers issued, I think the conduct of a poll for each motion can be taken as read.

 

I very much agree with that sentiment which is why it's a great idea to have a Q &A / discussion session after the formal business of the meeting. It's essential to harness members' energies and enthusiasm whilst not compromising the trustees duty to ensure that they run the charity for public benefit and not primarily in the interests of its members or their priorities.

 

Sadly, as far as the L&BR and its meetings are concerned, I would take nothing 'as read' even after it's happened

 

I’m afraid our agreement is less than might be assumed. The last sentence, and especially the highlighted part, is where I think we have a fundamental disagreement. Trustees duty to act in the best interests of the charity should not be in the foreground in this way, and members should be presumed willing and able to accept that the charity is not a member’s club but subject to public duty. Their active involvement in not just formalities like elections of officers, but also policy, should then be embraced rather than feared and constrained.

There are good legal reasons for the Q&A to be unable to drive formal decisions, and some good practical ones, but constraining the role of members is emphatically not one of them.

 

There is more agreement than you assume! Making sure the members are broadly supportive of policy and the trustees' decisions is imperative. However, that is not the same as members expecting to direct a charity's policy or making decisions that might prioritise their interests

 

The quid pro quo is that members are entitled to seek that their Trustees do not lead the charity astray from its charitable aims. The alternative is to walk away.

In addition to their legal obligations Trustees of a voluntary organisation also need to keep in mind that, without members & volunteers, there will soon be no charity.

Therefore - the charity’s aims, policies & leadership need to align both with charity-law and the members’ interests.

 

That neatly identifies the core issue! "Leading the charity astray" might be interpreted as taking it in a direction that members don't approve of. The test of whether it's being led astray is ultimately adherence to its public benefit purposes. The risk that members and volunteers might walk away if they're unhappy is real but that can never justify departure from the absolute duty to prioritise the charitable purposes.