Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I might be wrong but I was assuming that "oppression" was an autocorrect mangling of "opposition", which makes more sense.

 

But the AGM is for those on the floor? What a strange thing to say...

 

@Small Prairie , we seem to have attended different meetings.

If it was farcical, then it was only farcical becasue of the actions of the Chairman and the Company Secretary of the Trust in refusing to put Anne Belsey's valid nomination on the Trusteeship ballot, and because the Company Secretaries of both the Trust and the CIC hadn't organised things in accordance with our own rules. And that's before we get to Mr Cowling's disgraceful behaviour.

So which bit of that was the fault of "those on the floor"?

 

This is a rather odd posting for several reasons - just blame autocorrect!
Anyway when you say that "you was (sic) told clearly" are you saying that once we have been told, then we have to comply with the orders? Not me.
And it isn't "moaning", its people having legitimate questions and points.....
I don't think that there is a members only forum, so people will just post in public places like this. If the trustees don't like that, well there's not much they can do about it except to run the railway such that there is no need for people to complain about things. Just trying to shut it down will have the opposite effect....

 

I would actually argue a point here that you cannot please everyone.
So there is a danger of doing things to please a few out of fear of complaints but those things not necessarily in the best interests of whatever organisation it is.
I think for many of us once the AGM was out of the way we all enjoyed a great weekend, the weather was glorious, and it was so good to catch up with so many, and also sadly many I also didn't get time to.
Personally I think we really need to cut out the squabbling, there are a few things which need to be sorted and no doubt will be in good time.
But otherwise, we need to support all the volunteers, the staff, etc etc, right across the L&B family.
Believe me, squabbling will get us nowhere.

 

This isn't squabbling, @DaveE , it is simply asking when solemn commitments which go to the centre of the Trust's leadership and governance are going to be honoured by a Chairman and a Company Secretary who have admitted that they acted against all the rules to bar the legitimate candidacy of somoeone who simply doesn't happen to agree with them.

Given Mr Miles' and Mr Nicholson's recent conduct, the best thing they could have done was to simply lay out a schedule of when the non-gerrymandered election will take place - not too much to ask, is it?

 

I haven't had much time to go into the details to be honest since the AGM as my father has been in hospital for 5 weeks awaiting heart bypass which he finally had yesterday and is now facing a fairly lengthy recovery and healing process.
But, from what I have been able to gather, where M&As are silent, as they are I believe in our case regarding any selection process for candidates, then it defaults to the Charity Commission rules and guidelines which as far as I can work out says it is the legal duty of trustees to ensure any candidate is suitable for the role they will be required to take? (CC30/3.4).
All seems very confusing to me at the moment and with so much else going across the whole L&B family on we need to calm any upsets now and get on with the work else this will just drag on and on.

 

Firstly, I wish your father, you and the whole family all the best. That is more important than anything else.

However, the M&As do set out a process for elections. That process does not include any provision for a validly submitted candidate to have their election blocked.

The duty of trustees under charity law is a general one, and I’d have no necessary issue if it was discharged through recommendations against or (better) for individual candidates. It should also include pro-active recruitment of trustees so as to enable an appropriate breadth of skills and experience on the board.

Therefore, the decision to block a candidacy was invalid, and the decision at the AGM to restart the election process the right one. My concern is that, now, the promises made that formed the basis on which the meeting continued have not yet been honoured.

As a new member, this does nothing to enhance my confidence in the trustees.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I have no doubt that those of us who are members will recieve the documents at the appropriate time. I think we just need to be patient.

 

I'm sure, @H Cloutt - but there's no reason at all, given the committments made in Lynton, that a timetable shouldn't be published.

Otherwise, there is a risk that it could appear that the Chair and the Company Secretary are conflating the election that they've admitted to attempting to illegally gerrymander with the Anne Belsey matter, which was explicitly separated at the meeting in Lynton.

When there has been such overt bad behaviour by the Chair and the Company Secretary, patience and trust are likely to be in short supply.

 

Yes, but....

1. We are now a month past the date when there should have been - but there was not - an election for Trustees for 2023-24. Allowing for the necessary timescale to elapse between posting out 'the documents' and the actual vote taking place, for how much longer are we expected to be 'patient'?

2. There is still the thorny question of how such an election will be conducted, given that (a) the M&AoA contain no provisions for postal elections and (b) IMHO the original nominations are now null & void by virtue of the fact that (i) they were made out with the timescale that will apply for any new General Meeting and (ii) they lapsed as AGM business once the Chairman *closed* (rather than adjourned) the meeting in May.

Given the 'track record' so far, what faith can we have that whatever is presented to the membership in due course will actually be a valid and workable election process?

 

Might the Chairman and Secretary be feverishly working on how they can meet the letter of the law while still ensuring that anyone they don't like can't be elected?

 

The problem we have is that this is a perfectly reasonable question.

 

Perhaps they are waiting for the book to be delivered.

 

Are you suggesting that the election will be rigged?

 

Well one does get the impression they are trying to remove Anne from the membership first (although they made a promise at the AGM that that process would be independent which is where there seems to be an issue as they don't seem to fully understand the word 'independent') before they re-run the election and although non members can stand as prospective trustees they would, if successful be able to use that black mark against her. the impression i get is that they want Anne out at any cost, (she was forced in to a position when she was a CIC director that gave her no option other than to resign) the reasons for why are not clearly understandable especially given she has invested in OSHI (she has told me the amount and its not insignificant) she is a major investor in (Charles Wytock/ Sir George Newnes locomotive) and she volunteers at Woody Bay many times a week mainly to help keep the railway operational.

 

Well @H Cloutt , one of the most effective methods of rigging an election is blocking properly nominated candidates from appearing on the ballot in the first place, so Messers Miles & Nicholson do have some recent form on this.

Given that Mr Miles was forced to run the election properly only because of the anger in the hall last month - he conceded that he had no intention of allowing Anne Belsey to stand going into the meeting - the onus is on him and Mr Nicholson to demonstrate bona fides this time by getting a timetable for the ballot out immediately.

No one is responsible for the current mess other than Mr Miles and Mr Nicholson and those Trustees who did not oppose their appalling behaviour.

 

How could you possibly take that inference from that post?