WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

no updates yet, so its either that the whole meeting is
A in Taunton police station charges with afray,
B down the pub,
C pushing a broken down DMU back to minehead

 

ROTFLOL! The trouble is truth is often stranger than fiction.

 

Perhaps we need to wait for the imminent appearance of white smoke from the meeting room chimney?

 

Well i did hear some thunder and lightening earlier coming from the west...

 

followed by blue lights and sirens ?

 

Given that there was a mass walk-out of the 200-odd attendees of the meeting half way through the meeting, not immediate sweetness and light. Dashing out to get some food, so will try to post a useful summary overnight.

kind regards

Robin White

 

I've never seen a meeting chaired so badly, never seen so much arrogance displayed by the top table, never seen so much disdain for the membership as I did today.

We learned that M&As can trump company law... Oh, hold on, they can't. Thank goodness the Association's solicitor was there.

We learned that all the proxies from those who hadn't heard the chairman's report approved it although most who did hear it voted against as a sign of no confidence.

Five (I think) candidates withdrew because it was obvious that the chairman's proxy votes would win the day. Sure enough they did and the four retiring trustees (including the one no-one's heard of and who was co-opted after nominations were called for) romped home with proxies.

It was shambolic and shameful.

Ladies and gentlemen, I can thoroughly recommend the WSR as a railway to visit. The views are stunning, the staff friendly and helpful and the trains are rather special.

But the West Somerset Railway Association is something to be avoided.

 

This sums the meeting up.

After the mass walkout the meeting had to be abandoned as there were no longer enough members left to form a quorum. The accounts were not accepted because of the walkout and auditors were not renewed for another year. Wonder how they are going to portray this

Rodders

 

Just before the walkout someone addressed the meeting (not a Trustee) and said the meeting could be described by 3 words: Farce, Sad, Shambles and then nearly everyone left.
In advance of Robins report here is a summary.
There were over 210 in attendance, the Chairman was all over the place and needed prompting back to the agenda from time to time. The first proposal to accept the minutes was rejected. Robin rose to speak after the Chairman's report and there were many calls to allow her to speak after the Chairman tried to stop her. During her speech, which was very precise and damning, Trustee Nichols rose and started to interject but following many shouts of "sit down" he was silenced and Robin continued. Her speech brought a loud and sustained applause.
Earlier there had been discussion about voting for the trustee election and the meeting was successful in insisting on a poll for the election. This was understood to be applicable only to the trustee election and the rejection of the minutes was taken on a simple show of hands. However when it became obvious that Robin's speech, which was hugely supported, was effectively a vote of no confidence in the Trustees, especially Chairman Williams, Trustee Nichols, Trustee Holland and Trustee Chidzey. The trustees insisted that the Chairman's report acceptance would be a poll. There was a lot of argument and a prominent lawyer even spoke in support of a show of hands vote. The Chairman's report given to the meeting was not the same as the report that had been circulated with the agenda hence the proxy voters had no idea what they were voting for. The Company Secretary noted that they had received 740 proxy votes. As there were just over 200 attendees the poll on the Chairman's report was accepted by proxy with the vast majority of attendees voting against acceptance. Interestingly the received proxies this year outnumbered the usual number received by 8 times (usually about 90 received).
We had taken over 2 hours to get to this point and the meeting took a break and a chance for a cup of refreshment. It became obvious that with such a huge number of received proxies none of the trustees standing for election or re-election would be displaced and as a result the following candidates stood down: Brian Crudge, Mike Rowe, Magda Davies, Robin White and David Randles all notifying the meeting and urging the voters to vote for Jeff Price. This left the way clear for voting to go ahead leaving only Steve Edge and Jeff Price to oppose the existing re-electees. The votes were taken as polls and eventually, following a recount for Jeff Price, the results were declared. The votes for the following were cast and remember that there were some 215 members in the hall;
Peter Chidzey votes cast in hall 21 elected by proxy vote
Nigel Bruce Roberston votes cast in the hall 28 elected by proxy vote
Richard Holland (Not in attendance) votes cast in the hall 25 elected by proxy vote
Chris Walters (Not in attendance) votes cast in the hall 101 and elected by proxy vote
Jeff Price votes cast in the hall 169 not elected.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions but Jeff Price received the largest vote of those present but did not get in.

Following there was then the speech using the Farce, Sad, Shambles and there were many calls for the trustees to, "Resign", being disgusted with the Trustees and their behaviour I left but I do not think any have resigned.

My personal opinion isn't worth mentioning but disgusted comes to mind. However the voting numbers look strange as the existing trustees managed about 10% or a little more whilst the unelected candidate received 79% of the vote present. Faol

 

I have attended many meetings,and never experienced or expected to see the utter chaos through lack of organisation I saw today.The members were remarkably restrained under trying circumstances,even after three or so hours of procrastination.

 

I'm sure the proxies will be able to cover that...

Of course, it will be summed up in the journal as a successful AGM that had a few troublemakers present. And that the meeting had to end early because the 'special' was about to leave, thus enabling the blame to be placed squarely upon the plc

 

So the farce is only yet at the end of act one.
As one of the many proxy voters (I voted for the new "fab four") & taking what we have heard of the meeting first impressions seem to suggest one of the following:
1. a full blown EGM - even greater on the day attendance if it was not in the peak holiday period?
2. en mass resignation of WSRA membership

 

Oh god.

 

Perhaps now is the time to ask the Charity Commission to read all of this thread.

 

Oh dear!

 

your best bet would be mass resignation , then approach the PLC and organise yourself into a body to reprisent the members, that way the WSRA become just irrelivent any call for an EGM would be beset with problems as you can not rely on armchair members to vote against the committee.

 

Obviously reports are still somewhat sketchy, and having to collect your thoughts after attending such a meeting will not be easy, but I would have expected the actual votes cast, including precise numbers of proxies, should have been read out, certainly if requested. I would also have thought the various candidates standing who were not existing Trustees would have a reasonable idea how many Proxies they held. As the proxy form seems to have been effectively a Postal Ballot form, there could have been further members who voted for some or all of the new candidates whilst still appointing the Chair to cast the vote.

What seems to have happened helps nobody, and, in particular, the lack of a comprehensive result being declared is both strange and unhelpful. From what has been posted, it would seem that the voting in the Hall was declared in precise numbers and the proxy result merely referred to as having its final effect. It does have to cross my mind to wonder what the practical effect of the candidates was - were the proxy votes for them would then either be wasted or available to the person named as holder of the proxy to use as they decided?

I presume the meeting will need to be reconvened to accept the accounts?

Steven

 

Just home from the AGM. All I can say is thank goodness that I spent the morning cleaning at BL as this, at least, achieved something. I am still mystified by the re-vote that happened when it looked like Price had polled more votes than Chidzey. I'm appalled that the chairman did not make clear the number of open proxies he held allowing him to vote as he wished at the start of the meeting. Clearly a split has developed between those members who work on the railway week in and week out and see the problem and those who are occasional visitors and get their information from the journal published by the WSRA chairman.

 

Actual numbers including proxies were read out. There was no breakdown of those cast by the chair or those cast by non-attending members.