North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Really? The most recent election resulted in the appointment of candidates who are all working volunteers on the railway. I thought you might have approved!

 

You have no idea how successful or otherwise, external expert directors appointed to the plc board in my time as a trust board member were, because you were not involved then at that level.

Sawdust.

 

Indeed, and my final contribution as a trustee was to give my colleagues a detailed presentation highlighting the benefits of converting the PLC to a charitable community benefit society. On that score I believe my duty was fulfilled.

 

Sorry Sawdust but that’s just not true. I may not have been a Trustee when you were but I served as both a Trustee and PLC Director when the PLC board included external appointees so I saw their contribution at first hand.

 

It really is necessary to define which of the two boards is being discussed here. Sawdust's experience was as a Trust Board member. I think it was always the case that paid employees were excluded from that Board, but these days it seems as though all -or at least most - senior staff members are Plc Board members. There is perhaps more of a case for the latter state of affairs, but I question what effect that has on personal accountability and judgement when a head of department is also the director to whom they should report. Perhaps others can rationalise it better than I can, but I know from personal experience as a founder of a tech startup that investors were unhappy about the two roles being combined.

I happen to believe that it was right for paid employees to not be allowed onto the Trust Board, which was the charitable body that employed them. At the time, although there was a management sub-committee, the Trust Board's responsibilities were wider ranging than setting policy, and whilst it wasn't engaged in micromanagement, there were times when it strayed in that direction - for example in discussing and (after much argument!) setting the fare table. In those days we tended to get it right, though - something that hasn't happened in recent years. Perhaps more Trust Board input would have been beneficial, even if the discussions were very long!

 

I do approve of more working volunteers being elected as Trust Board members, but I think that was not down to the Approval Committee's approval of their suitability; I think they managed to be allowed to stand more because the Committee couldn't find plausible reasons to exclude them!

 

There you go again, external appointees not being successful during your tenure doesn't automatically make prior appointees also unsuccessful. Maybe it was their background or the number of them at any one time during your tenure that resulted a lack of success.

Sawdust.

 

As I said, there are two separate issues. One is about paid staff being on a board, the other is about conflict of interest. Answers will vary by organisation and timing, but I think what is being lost sight of is that directors have a legal duty for the whole organisation, not just their bit. If that is not in question, then my concerns extend much deeper.

 

I think the general point I've been trying to make has been lost along the way in this discussion. If collective responsibility is the order of the day, I don't think there is much of an argument to say that the recent performance of both boards has been pretty abysmal in the post Covid era in financial terms and to me, at least, that suggests that a deeper overhaul of both entities needs to come about. Clearly, the Trust Board is fairly useless at setting realistic targets for the Plc Board to meet, and the Plc Board has been monumentally useless in getting anywhere near whatever targets it has been told to meet. That surely is the crux of the problem, and whilst various excuses about the difficulties of trading in the current economic climate will be trotted out, I do not see the same levels of sub-par performance at other heritage railways. I see other railways adapting their offerings to cope, but I really don't see the same at the NYMR but I think it is time for it to happen; I do want to see the NYMR regain its position as a premier heritage railway, I don't want it to become just a commercial people mover. The Trust Board needs to ensure the former objective, and the Plc Board needs to find a way to deliver it.

 

It did....but that was after the debacle of the previous year.

 

I wish I could give this post multiple likes.

While I agree with the first point, I don't think it's as high a priority as getting a grip on the line's overall financial situation. If both boards would be willing to throw all their preconceived ideas and positions out the window, and simply focus on tackling the line's most pressing problem(s), further tuning of the top levels of the management structure could be put off. Indeed, further tuning of the management structure is an un-affordable luxury (in time, energy, and focus) at the moment. A laser-like focus on the line's overall financial situation is the only thing that should be getting attention.

Noel

 

What you have said is true, but the NYMR needs Boards and managements to be able to work together, without egos getting in the way. That means a willingness from all parties to listen to ideas and suggestions. I don't think that is currently the case, although I have heard that the new Trust Chairman sounds promising in that respect though the one before last didn't last long when he started to show similar tendencies, which suggests that he will also need to be strong willed. I just hope that all the people involved can work together. There is no room for "my way or the highway" attitudes.

 

I presume that you mean the previous encumbent of the PLC chairman role and not the Trust chairman?

 

The honest answer is that I don't know, but in recent years at least and perhaps further back, the two positions have been filled by separate individuals. If the roles of the two boards are distinct they should each have their own chairperson, imho.