North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Firstly, the assumption that many people attend gala events purely to watch is a red herring - it is still the case that the fare income from such an event has to more than justify the expense incurred in holding it - otherwise bit's just another millstone to add to the debt - so it should be providing positive indications in favour of heritage events.

I'm not at all against charging for platform tickets for those who only want to stand and watch (good suggestion, actually) - although I can already hear the counter arguments that it will require someone at every entrance to issue and check tickets. What do other lines do to deal with the Martyn's Law issue? Presumably the NYMR isn't the only one to have large crowds to deal with?

 

I suggest that Martyn's Law is to some extent a red herring - it doesn't come into force for a while, AFAIK the detailed regulations have not yet been published, and the issues affect the entire sector, not just NYMR.

 

More or less what I suspected - another "Chicken Little" prediction by Lineisclear? If he's right, life is we know it will more or less be decimated!

 

Not suggesting "chicken little", more just not really relevant to the issue at hand

 

Both statements are correct although it's already being suggested that those affected should plan and prepare now which includes considering how access to and egress from stations may be controlled. The point was not a doom and gloom prediction of the cost of compliance with Martyn's Law but a question of whether reinstating an historic railway feature on the back of new regulatory duties might be a worthwhile source of additional income? I'm heartened that 60044 thinks it's a good suggestion.

 

Your recollection is incorrect. Article 19.3 provides that no one can be appointed as a trustee unless they are recommended by the Nominations Committee. You are right that the Board can change the Committee's terms of reference such as the content of the skills matrix which might, for instance, give greater weight to previous volunteering experience. I suggested such a process quite a few posts back. What the Board cannot do is change the Articles. Only a vote of the members can do that. Article 19.3 requires a positive recommendation so unless the Committee recommended every candidate your suggestion could not work.

 

I think there's a wider discussion to be had on the implications of Martyn's Law for a range of voluntary organisations, while it's origins in the Manchester Arena bombing do not give confidence that it is going to be effective or proportionate. However, I stand by my view that introduction of that discussion is a distraction, notwithstanding the possibility that it might lead to a resurgence in the use of platform tickets.

 

The correction is noted, as is the acknowledgement that the committee is set up to veto candidates rather than screen them.

However, re-reading the articles, I note that the wording is recommended "in accordance with any procedures and terms of reference that are agreed by Directors from time to time". That would permit the committee to recommend all legally qualified candidates, while the Board could then make recommendations as to preferred candidates.

It would however be better to amend 19.3.

 

I think there are many of us who doubt that it's going to be effective or proportionate given the compliance burden it will place on many organistions but the opportunity to make that point has long passed.

 

Indeed; I have long since adopted the rule of thumb that any legislation named after an individual will be poorly written, ill conceived, and a devastatingly bad memorial to the person after whom it is named.

 

The point I was making some time back. It's open to the members to make such a proposal if enough of them share your view.

 

Happy that for once we are in complete agreement!

 

It is, and I would welcome such a move (as you know, I resigned following adoption of the new articles). However, it is also an option for the board to move an amendment on the basis that a) the drafting goes beyond recommended practice in the sector and b) unduly ties the hands of the Nominations Committee while c) giving the appearance of excessive control.

As a suggestion, how about the following:

No person may be appointed or reappointed a Director by the Voting Members unless the Nominations Committee has confirmed that they are eligible for election and have passed the "fit and proper test" for charity trustees. The Nomination Committee may also provide advice to Voting Members as to which candidate(s) are recommended for appointment or reappointment, such recommendation to be by reference to the needs stated by the Directors for the composition of the Board and to be communicated to the Voting Members with the issue of voting slips to Voting Members.
​

It's clear, does the important job of ensuring that the members can understand why choices are being made, but limits the veto power of the committee to the legal minimum (thus also avoiding the possibility of a candidate being elected but being found ineligible).

 

I understand the

answer this year is “zero”.

Each candidate has an unadulterated personal statement accompanying their candidacy, together with a short sentence written by the Nominations Committee on what they would bring to the Board if elected as a Trustee.

 

I know that this is correct and I have no doubt that if such a proposal were made your board would react appropriately to it, but the difficulty is one of perception.

Nominations Committees are seen by most to be a theoretically very sensible idea. Who would object to the upskilling of boards? In addition there is a general predisposition among most members to vote in favour of the board’s recommendations. Volunteers who are also members will be the most likely to be involved enough to have a different view than the board if one exists. Here is where tension can start to develop with volunteers forming a different view based on their experiences. It has happened quite often that volunteers have been excluded from standing for a board - and there can be excellent reasons in individual cases - but it is extremely easy to give rise to the impression that volunteers are being excluded.

You and I both know that it is most unlikely that a resolution proposed by the “floor” will get passed. We witness that year after year across the heritage railways. So when boards say “well you only need to ask us to change” there is an immediate power imbalance that is recognised by volunteers especially. This then compounds the tension. However you cut it the board holds the cards in the relationship. Now that is how it must be if legal duty is to be discharged, but it is incredibly important that the power imbalance is understood and mitigated through communication and by taking actions that counteract the “them and is” distrust I witness at many places. People will vote with their feet otherwise.

In this instance the board could consider amending the skills matrix and/or proposing a change to the articles itself for example.

 

For clarification, I understand that 16 members put themselves forward, of which 8 were invited for interview and those 8 wee

 

Good. Better late than never, but a welcome improvement.

 

This seems to suggest that the Nominations Committee excluded 8 candidates before even interviewing anybody. This seems most strange.

 

Apart from the reference to voting slips ( which is just a technicality as votes are now mainly cast by electronic means) I would support such an amendement if it helps dispel the idea of a power of veto. I still think the outcome will be similar if not identical because such a recommendation will be all that the vast majority of voting members have to go on. Allowing candidates to offer themselves for election but then, in effect, indicating to members that they should not be voted for seems very odd. If, despite the board witholding its recommendation, those candidates are elected is that likely to result in a cohesive and effective board?

 

A few thoughts.

First, you use "cohesive and effective" as though the two are synonymous. They are not, and a "cohesive" board can easily become ineffective, incestuous, and self-serving.

Second, a board serves at the pleasure of the members. If the members see fit to elect someone considered "unsuitable", it is for the board to accept that decision and all of the members to seek to find a way to work together effectively.

This is because, third, a trustee is only the custodian of the organisation, not its owner or controller. Their job is to enable the organisation to fulfil the purposes of the organisation, and to pass it on in better state than they received it. As Christopher Wren's memorial says of St Paul's - "if you seek his monument – look around you".

That leads to a fourth point - that accountability isn't just a matter of following process, but that process is seen to be followed in an open-handed and good hearted way.

All of these are entirely possible while also accepting that trustees and directors have duties in law, and that fulfilling those legal duties may require them to make difficult or unpopular decisions.

I'm reminded of the rows at another railway 18 months or so back, when the board attempted to both sack two directors (sadly successfully) and remove ordinary members' ability to control the railway. It was traumatic, and wounds remain. But out of their failure to achieve that larger goal, there are now starting to be shoots of growth, with that board absorbing new blood and starting to engage much more seriously with ordinary members.