Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

I would agree with the first point. Maybe 72 hours is too short for even that sort of response, but - given the wonders of modern communications - it ought not to take too long, I would suggest a week at most. After all, simply to say that (a) the Board recognises the Minority Report (which is not the same as saying that they agree with it) and (b) advising that a formal response will be issued in due course (they won't need to agree the actual response as yet) does not really IMHO leave them much to discuss or agree other than whether to make those statements or not.

As regards the second point, to what meeting are you referring please and when will it be ?

 

With the greatest respect - I doubt very much whether you would believe what they said if they did respond.

 

It was discussed elsewhere that there was a members meeting in November (I’m not sure of the exact details), but if correct, this seems a far more appropriate venue for discussion rather than facebook.

Likewise, I agree a week to post a holding response would seem reasonable. And don’t get me wrong, communication is certainly something that is repeatedly mentioned as an area for improvement. I wouldn’t however expect a full blown response supplying all the detail and evidence to challenge or disprove the minority trustee report in that timescale, let alone 72hrs, as requested by Tobbes.

 

Newsletter No 81 August 2023 which came with Magazine No 131 last week has (in the middle of page 3):

'The Members' forum will be held on Saturday 11th November, doors open at 11.00, Venue to be confirmed.'

I assume that is the meeting you are referring to.

On the subject of the amount alleged to have been paid for OSHI, my recollection is hearing on the grapevine that £700,000 was being asked for it. But I cannot remember how long ago I heard that, but it was before the 6-bedroom house replaced the goods shed, which doubtless has enhanced the value since then. (see the ariel picture of the site)

 

...

 

I may be wrong, but was it not the case with a similar meeting last November that the only members to get any information were those who actually attended the meeting, the Board making no attempt to disseminate the discussions to other members afterwards, apparently on the alleged basis that anyone who had any interest would (should?) have made the effort to attend ???

Anyway, we now know that the Trust has a bulk e-mailing capability, so there really is no excuse for at least a substantial number of members getting a 'private' update by that route as opposed to FB or similar.

 

A central charge of the 'Minority Report' is that there was never £700,000 in the Return to Parracombe Fund, and that even if you include General Purpose Fund monies in the £700,000, there isn't £700,000 available now, despite the continuing claims on the website as I write this.

This question is extremely easy for the Chairman and those who did not write the 'Minority Report' to disprove if it is wrong- and certainly won't take 72 hours.

And this is critical, as it goes to the fundamental honesty of non-Minority Report author Trustees. If the money was used for other things, then so be it - but Members and other stakeholders should have been told when the plan changed. As I said above, mistakes happen and things are missed, which is generally fine as long as they are corrected when spotted. As I questioned the accuracy of the £700,000 claim - privately, please note - to the Trustess back in early August, if it was an honest mistake, it would have been taken down and a corrective update issued.

What is inexcusable is to refuse to stop making claims that we have £700,000 for the extension if we do not when you know you're making them.

And if you're not telling the truth about this, the obvious question is what else are you not being straight about?

So, 72 hours to show whether the L&BRT has in fact got £700,000 in the Return to Parracombe Fund and unrestricted funds is plenty of time.

With the greatest of respect, @H Cloutt , this is unworthy of you. I'm only interested in rebuilding the L&B, and if you can't see that having a Trust leadership who can be trusted to be straight with the Members, supporters and stakeholders is a key prerequisite, then I'd gently suggest you may want to reflect on that.

 

The website does NOT claim that there is £700k in the RTP fund now.
The website says that £700k was available in January 2023. It's a news item that was (probably) correct at the time.

And the website didn't claim that there was £700k in the fund. It said that the appeal had raised that amount. It doesn't all need to be in the restricted fund, it just needs to be available for the rebuild.

Ok, so an update would be good, but you need to see the claim for what it is..a snapshot of the position in January 2023.
If you are going to bring the board to account, you need to be exactly precise.
Ian C

 

@ikcdab sorry, I don't agree. This is a public claim: someone who visits the website, possibly afteer a ride on the railway for the first time, or gawd forbid a Member or supporter, would understandably assume that the latest information is the curerect state of play - hence why it matters.

 

But

But....the Jan 2023 statement is - as far as any can tell - the most recent one to exist on the website. Therefore, in the absence of any later statements, why should anyone reading that statement today have any reason not to think that the RTP still has £700K?

 

It is good to hear that the two visiting locos have arrived in good order at Woody Bay for this weekend's Gala.



Despite the political issues oft-discussed here of late, The Gala at Woody Bay is always a delight. I hope it will give some of the contributors here - on both sides of the divide - an opportunity to enjoy the joint efforts of our labours over many years, enjoy a taste of what it is that we all love the L&B for, and maybe see things from a different perspective. I'm only sorry I won't be there myself this year.



Chelfham and Bratton Fleming stations are also well worth a visit over the weekend.
https://www.lynton-rail.co.uk/events/view/2023-autumn-gala

 

No, not really. I think anyone can see that a news item from almost a year ago won't necessarily be the same situation now.

I am not an apologist for the board. But I know that if you are going to hold the board to account, you need to be watertight on your case.
Ian

 

I cant find anything about the launch of the RTP, but i was pretty sure it was started with £450k of trust funds and clearly stated what that amount had risen to on the little green track scale thingy, in newsletter 79 it states that 'the RTP fund will now be suspended and all funds raised so far will be ring-fenced for future extension of the railway' so I guess that statement is wide open to any kind of interpretation !

 

So, from what you say is that in the absence of updates, we should therefore create our own narrative, yes?

 

To my certain knowledge the questions raised in the minority report will not have come as surprise to the rest of the trustees. They have had several weeks to know how to respond. That said I don’t entirely disagree with your view that more than a holding statement is not going to deliverable, but for me that would mostly be to allow time for the trustee’s standing accused to consult a solicitor, because there is enough smoke to suggest they may need one.

As to whether this is the right tactic or not, well I would ask what alternative avenue the report authors have when the rest of the trust have stated immediately after their election that will not work with them.

More importantly though, the minority trustees are in the position to know that decisions have been taken without being minuted and large sums of money moved about without any of the normal controls. They have a duty to bring this to the attention of the members and possibly the Charity Commission.

There is a serious reputational issue being created, but the creators of that issue are not the authors of the minority report and sadly the intransigence of the other trustees means it cannot be sorted out without being made public.

 

Tobbes, it’s a bit misleading and unfair to suggest that the website still claims there’s £700k in the RTP fund and that the trustee’s are lying to the members by not correcting this.

As others have mentioned, the last RTP update was a news update posted on the 11th Jan 2023. Planning permission lapsed on the 7th March and a following news item was posted on the 24th March, stating that the s73 had failed and that funds would be ring fenced for future extension of the railway. I’m sure there are those who will argue otherwise, but the purchase of the OSHI does still align to the vision of a extended L&B.

Are you suggesting that the trust should remove historic news items because they are no longer relevant? Or are you suggesting anyone who takes the time to skip through 6 pages of news items to find the article on Jan the 11th, will ignore the preceding 5 and a bit pages of more recent updates and assume this is still valid?

personally, if I was going to look for an update on the website for news on the extension, my first port of call would be to click on the Future Plans tab, which only states ‘Coming Soon’.

 

This smells a bit like a squirrel

 

...

 

With regard to meetings and minutes, I have always been instructed by those far more qualified than me in company law etc. that:-
"If it's not in the minutes it didn't happen"
So if any significant action, be it physical, procedural or financial, was taken but not minuted as being decided or approved that action was unauthorised. All trustees/directors should have unfettered access to the minute book in addition to the regular 'minutes of the previous meeting' and, in some instances, depending on what the Articles say, I understand that shareholders are entitled to view the minute book upon request, usually at the companies registered address...

 

I think to a certain extent that whilst the continuing claim to have £700k is misleading (I agree with @Tobbes) there are bigger issues.

I regard it as troubling that the innacuracy has been drawn to the attention of the Chairman several times over many weeks and he has declined to have the news item removed, but also not explained why it should stay.

However, really the issues are the unminuted decisions, the cavalier attitude to money and the importation of huge risks from a business that is not core to the success of the enterprise. Railways are complex and risky enough businesses. Taking on risk that has a potentially existential impact when you don’t have to is not sensible.