6024 EGM

I am not sure if everybody is happy, I would describe myself as being passively resigned to the outcome but not happy. The 6024 Society had been an outstanding custodian of KE1 until the unexpected schism in its ranks the blame for which I have no informed way of apportioning.

I joined the 6024 Society 30 years ago into what was called their Club 100, contributing monthly by bankers order. A brass plaque with the names of all 100 contributors was to be "permanantly displayed on the loco for its entire life." I never new whether this ever happened.
After four years, Club 100 evolved into Club 6024 incorporating further benefits with an increased monthly payment. The first benefit, although I never claimed it was a free mainline ticket each year behind 6024. After four years of Club 6024 I received a reduced scale brass cabside numberplate of 6024 although Steve Underhill rang me to successfully ask me not to take up the promised brass nameplate of KE1 as it was a cost to the Society that would be saved. The reduced scale brass whistle due three years later never materialised!

I am unsure as yet whether to cancel my continuing monthly bankers order of £15 bearing in mind the new ownership of Mr Hosking who seems a fine chap and certainly has a few more bob than I. The first Kings Messenger magazine I received was in May 1981 and I note that Steve Underhill was the Publicity Officer at that time reflecting a lifetime of commitment to the King. One can only guess at the stress and bitterness experienced by both parties involved in this avoidable legal process. 6201 is however benefitting from Steve Underhill's experience and I think all Societies can benefit from the lesson learnt from the costly mistakes in the sorry saga with 6024.

 

The brass plaque is still displayed on the inside of the cab roof.I will continue my standing order.

 

I too was proud to put my hard earned cash into 6024, on meeting Steve Underhill and the rest of the support crew many years ago and seeing how proud and committed Steve had been to this locomotive, made me decide to help in whatever little way I could. Joining Club 6024 was my way of helping. The society had always been friendly, always had time for the public on steam tours although at many times very busy. Times have sadly changed. The libellers have actually been rewarded, they have had all the legal costs paid and are still firmly in place among the management team, however over 33 years of Steve's devotion to the locomotive has been airbrushed out of the society even though he won his case. I hope Mr Hosking is happy with his new aquisition, I feel 6024 no longer needs my money however 6201 may appreciate it.

 

I am personally upset that a lot of charitable money has fallen in the hands of lawyers thats all and in my opinion the well being of the engine was more important than a court case. Having steam in the headlines for this does not present our movement, or the charitable movement for that matter in a good light.

 

I hope you've got the facts to back up your little statement there Fentmar.?
I doubt it.

Nice to see you had a little re-think there Fentmar.
(I kept a copy of your original comments thou).

 

Ill bet you haven't got all the facts you think you have either crimson!!

 

I don't recall saying I did.? But also, I don't think I'm the one making the accusation Jim.

 

Yes, but all in all you would have to say that fentmar presents a pretty good summary of it all, would you not?

 

This is nearly as good as the Tornado thread!

Isn't Mr Corser now overseeing all of Mr Hosking's steam interests?

 

Not really, but I'm not adverse to each person having an opinion. That's their perogative.
If I was out to wind someone up though, that's how I'd write it as well.
But hey, that's my opinion (on his summary).

 

All,

Remember the nature of the beast... the reason of this thread is as a result of what was written about individuals concerned by the society which resulted in legal action.

Before you post anything here.. be sure of the facts otherwise we may all be talking about what "someone" posted on nat pres that was untrue ?

A few misplaced words published in haste in public can end you some place you never expected.

Maybe some people want to go back and edit some of their posts ?

 

One thing which hasn't been picked up, and which I think the wider movement could learn from (beyond the obvious keep it zipped lesson - which I suspect given the temperamentally volatile nature of some of those involved in preservation seems unlikely to be fully heeded) is that in the same way that you need someone properly skilled to work on the mechanics of the loco, the supporting trust need people with suitable skills to manage the charity.

The real foundation for this dispute was the work around on charity regulation which enabled Mr Underhill to be both part of the management board, and earning a living from working for the charity (via Tyseley). Whilst undoubtedly put in place to enable his skills to benefit both the board and the practical maintenance of the loco, and equally undoubtedly within the letter of the regulation as he wasn't being paid directly, nevertheless the spirit of the regulation was breached. That regulation is there precisely to prevent conflicts of interest (real or perceived) arising from persons being charged with the financial wellbeing of the charity and also concerned for their own livelihood. As a slight side issue, it is also wise these days for charities to put in place suitable insurance for trustees to protect in this sort of circumstance/error (albeit not negating the need for good practice). Once this scenario was set up (and all trustees presumably including Mr Underhill had to be party to it) it would have been extremely fortunate if it wasn't to be merely a matter of time before someone questioned something, that caused offence and the whole thing spiralled out of control as it ultimately did.

My point is that, (if it was ever the case) it is no longer a case of appointing "a few good chaps" as trustees - it is a onerous, complex role which needs people with the right skills, and it may be that consolidation into specialist owning trusts (as appears to have happened here) is a good way of coping with getting all of that sorted, and everything covered. I don't have any inside knowledge of what happened here, and no interest in pointing the finger at people who are presumably all decent people, but there is a charity governance issue that other groups need to consider. Perhaps in light of this all groups should be asking themselves 2 questions - firstly do we have at least one person who has a decent understanding of charity regulations - if not then you need to get one, and if so, that person needs to ensure that all the rest have at least a basic knowledge of principles. Secondly that all risks are properly covered in the various risk assessments including trustees liability - if insurance is not being arranged then you better be very sure you have all the ducks in a row - not just for libel but also in case accidents etc happen.

I have tried very hard to make this point without being inflamatory and without making particular accusations, in order to make a general educational point. If anyone feels I have been unfair, or unreasonable in expressing these opinions, please firstly accept my apologies, and secondly contact me via the private message facility to arrange correction.

 

AFAIK it is quite possible for a trustee of any charity to do paid work for said charity under certain circumstances. That's how we've had it explained to us anyway.

 

It is indeed possible but it is shrouded in loads of protective conditions to prevent conflicts of interests - charity commission guidance cc11 refers. I clearly stated that there was nothing legally wrong with what happened but that in going down the route that was taken, adequate protection was needed to deal with the potential conflicts which could arise - clearly that didn't work.

 

Crimson I get your point everyone should have ALL the TRUE facts. However I doubt this is the case but you however are still lucky enough to be involved with 6024 Mr Underhill has not been so lucky.

 

Sunday Telegraph 6024

Just opened paper to have a quiet read over my bowl of cornflakes and hey presto the sale of 6024 to pay libel bill has now hit the public newspaper - one would think lessons should have been learnt - facts are as I see it, it was not the society's bill - Mr Watson lost his case therefore it is his debt yet the society decided to sell the loco to pay his bill, out of some 400 members, I believe, 45 from recollection, of only 50ish who attended the meeting, voted at last EGM and decided the fate of the loco.

 

Re: Sunday Telegraph 6024

Here is the link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...team-buffs-sell-engine-to-pay-libel-bill.html

 

Re: Sunday Telegraph 6024

I have been part of societies where much the same thing happened. Most members don't turn up for a major decision on a controversial matter and the meeting effectively turns into one where only one point of view is heard. I've stopped being active in societies because of this, indeed I am a member now of only two, the BRPS and the local model railway society. I can't help but wonder whether we have heard the last controversy in the 6024 Preservation Society.

It's interesting the the Torygraphs report was Andrew Gilligan, no stranger to controversy he!

Regards

 

Agreed