Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

All of which takes us back round to the need to focus on what membership is there for, and good change management where a strong pre-existing culture exists that is to be changed. In the context of the L&BRT, for example, that means respecting the quasi-shareholder model that has historically existed, and the moral obligations it imposes on trustees.

My own view is that anyone who chooses to join a support organisation is, by definition, an asset to that organisation and worthy of nurture - as an aside, I find it hard to comprehend a situation in which someone would not belong to that organisation when volunteering. That means demonstrating gratitude for the financial and other support that memberships provide, even (especially?) if that contribution is to be developed further. That may be immediately demonstrable, it may be longer term - my church has recently received a legacy from someone who'd not been connected for nearly 20 years, but it's come in very handy. If we hadn't nurtured the link when the donor lived locally, that legacy would have gone elsewhere.

Language matters here. I like the term "supporters" for those who, by their money and/or activity, directly support the organisation, including commercial sponsors where present. Extending that to customers, grant givers (as distinct from sponsors) or simply government bodies and quangos devalues the label, and confuses very different types of stakeholder relationship.

At any railway that has a strong membership organisation, retaining and nurturing that is in my view the key way to demonstrate organisational strength to external funders. Letting it with because it "only" contributes a small net amount understates the value that it can provide.

 

I agree with all that you say, but whilst the person you are answering may be a lawyer I'm afraid that he seems to think mostly like an accountant, so don't get your hopes up for a more enlightened approach on his part...... It's the reason that many of us regard him as the author of the NYMR's problems and wish he'd leave it alone!

 

That doesn't make the case not worth making. But you do remind me that I need to revisit the list of residuary legatees in my will to align with my memberships. Which would be to NYMR's loss.

 

Something else about culture which I think also needs to be addressed, and not only at the L&BRT, and that is we have two, or more, types of culture all working together or not. As the case may be, they are:-

1 Experienced third sector management/volunteers who have been there, seen it, read the book and got the tee shirt, who are willing to pass on their knowledge to others.
2 Volunteers who like building stuff, ie are happy to build a railway from the ground up and given the resources to do it.
3 Volunteers who are more than happy to operate and drive steam locos day in day out, but are not so interested in building the railway.
4 Volunteers/Members who have more of an interest in the historical and heritage side of things, and possibly want a 100 per cent replica of the railway that was there before, with no exceptions.
5 Volunteers/Members who have the Business/Operational skills to run the railway and to get the best out of the volunteers and are not so worried about historical accuracy just as long as the railway can keep its head above water financially.
6 The Nepolian syndrome, ie I am in charge and what I say goes, even if I am wrong, and I don't care what the membership thinks.
7 The feeling also comes from peer pressure that you can only belong to one of the above groups and you cannot mix or match.

One area which I have not touched on, and that's the professionalism of the third sector, now while I admit not everyone can take this on board, and the main reason why people volunteer is that it should be enjoyable, and it should be something which you won't normally get to do. Working to both build and operate a railway is covered by various rules and regulations, and the HSW Act in general. But what happens sometimes is that any of the above will clash at various times and locations, leading to the feeling of not being listened to or just taken for granted or worst still, is the feeling that there is a clique involved and new members find it hard to break into the group and lose interest in the process.

Understanding and getting the balance right starts at the top of the tree, if you don't have that understanding, then the project can never develop to its full potential.

 

The lack of volunteers and the changes over the years in trends doesn't just apply to the person on the platform, the drivers, the gardeners etc, it also applies to volunteer management.

it is estimated there are currently 90,000 trustee vacancies in the UK.

 

Yes, I agree, and it is a question as old as the hills, why are there so many trustee vacancies, and just what are the various groups doing about it, it is all very well saying one thing and not doing anything about encouraging people to get involved, sometime and not all charities suffer from the Nepolian Sydrome where you get one person who thinks that the group cannot do without them at any cost. if you are too be successful, you need to be open to new ways of doing things.

 

I’d start with a simple question about why people don’t volunteer as trustees - time, energy and responsibility. There’s a lot there, and it won’t suit many.

 

There are so many trustee vacancies because of changes in people's habits and a huge increase in the number of organisations as I outlined in my previous post. It's not that organisations don't do anything about it, people just don't volunteer as much as they used to and there are thousands of more causes than there used to be, it's as simple as that.

 

That doesn’t alter the significance of @lynbarn’s question - if you have no trustees, you ultimately have no charity. If a church can’t recruit a minimum number of officers, that means closure’s on the cards. The same goes for trustees

 

I've come to estimate that the ratio of a membership who volunteers for that organisation is around 10%. Of those who may wish to become trustees, probably less than 1%.

So, let's say 2,000 members, you may get 200 volunteers, and maybe 1-2 who go on to become trustees.

 

That saddens me, at a time when it is obvious that the NYMR needs every penny it can get; my own solution has been to make my bequest to the LNERCA which ought to be to the ultimate benefit of the NYMR, but as they no longer seem to aspire to being a heritage railway I fear it may not do so as they'll probably have got rid of the teak carriages by then. I kinow I,m talking about the NYMR in an L&B thread, but there's a wider message here, along the lines of "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

 

That may be true of the L&B, but I'm a PCC member (=trustee) and we manage to sustain a PCC of 15 on a much lower "membership", and where volunteering is significantly higher.

It's a different kind of organisation so not directly comparable, but the member to volunteer ratio is directly and significantly affected by whether and how members are invited to be involved.

 

It's also that decisions have long run consequences. And, as the L&B would likely be the beneficiary, that raises the question of "which bit of the L&B" - and again, what might I wish to give long run support to

 

I knew someone once who was quite happy to be up to his elbows in muck and grease fixing bits of locomotives etc - basically anything that ran on wheels and was steam-powered - for every hour that he had available to spare. Along the way he made a huge - and widely recognised - contribution to the work of his particular heritage railway organisation.

Sadly however he saw it as a complete waste of his time, and of no interest to him whatsoever, to deal with any visitors who were not interested in his particular 'line of work'. So he never bothered to answer the telephone to enquiries, or take visitors around other parts of the station to show them non-loco stuff, or open up the shop (if it was unmanned) to sell them any books etc. So as a 'public face' of the charity he was best kept hidden away in the workshop.

 

What was his day job? What was his home life? What was his Dad like? If the telephone at work had only ever been a problem, If he found people difficult and trying to deal with, for whatever reason, you can see why he was how he was. I've known the type. Come to think of it, somedays, I am the type and would rather spend the day working with a stable, predictable, doesn't say anything lump of wood than have to deal with one of those weird, moody, unpredictable human things.
In a church, whilst some of them can be VERY political, on the whole people in a church are singing from the same book, and if they don't like it, there's another church in the next village. Or a chapel, or the Wesleyan meeting house. Somewhere where you feel part of a whole body. Imagine what it would be like if there was just one 'religion shop' and every other week you had to sing songs to Allan, or Buddy- you might feel that there were factions. Especially if one of the Allan lot got put in charge....
If you are passionate about GWR branchlines, and live in Cullompton, but for whatever reason don't want to be volunteering between Taunton and the sea... you're going to be doing a lot of driving. And driving isn't cheap or much fun any more. Couple of days at the GlosWarks, but its all different, and a feels like it might be a bit cliquey...could be easier to just quit.

 

Well, if working on the real stuff no longer floats your boat, you could always do what a lot of folk of a certain age are doing, and that is to set up your private model railway, which I am told (by a local model shop) is becoming more popular again. so you don't have to worry about talking to those pesky people wanting a cup of tea or buying some goods from the shop.

 

Just to observe the "another church in the next village" is exactly what you describe about railways - and if people leave their local church, there are good odds they won't land at another, especially if its in another village.

The answer in both cases is allowing people to give what they wish to, and to harness their skills rather than try to turn a square peg into a round hole. That means cherishing them for what they are.

 

Your figures are about right, so I ask the question: how do we suggest we improve the odds?

This report might help

https://www.ncvo.org.uk/documents/624/understanding_trustee_recruitment_and_retention_challenges.pdf

 

The report focuses on quite a narrow band of issues which in my view gives a skewed overall picture.

We are classed as a low order medium charity according to their report definitions, a charity with an income of between £100,000 and £1m. Most of the charities above that level have more paid staff and included in that will be perhaps paid business secretaries, finance and legal, etc.

Micro to medium charities are able to invest their income mostly into the objectives of the charity, eg: the local hospice, micro museum or children's nursery school and could be giving 80%+ to their cause. Compare this with large to very large charities say Cancer Research at 60%, and British Heart Foundation which is an astonishing 26% given to charitable causes.

So the L&B is sat at low order medium category, in a that transition area between an almost entirely volunteer run organisation with few overheads and the larger professionally run organisations which have far higher overheads.

What I find disappointing is the stark omission from the report on the personal and social aspects which have impacted all volunteers, and it must be remembered Trustees are almost always volunteers.

The report is written from a mostly corporate/HR point of view, and ignores the points I raised in my previous post which in my view is needed to gain a true insight into why recruitment and retention of Trustees is more difficult now.

The points raised may have some bearing, but it's not the whole story in my opinion.