Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

@DaveE - and here is precisely the problem of the current Trust leadership's approach. It's virtually that they're driven by two nostrums:

"We are going to do the absolute legal minimum and do everything we can to shut out the Members views and avoid anything that looks like accountability."

"You Members are here to provide money for us to spend. We will tell you what is good for you, and you will be grateful and quiescent. We will purge anyone who disagrees with us as we're infalliable. Any setbacks are always someone else's fault. "

Well, that's working out well, isn't it.

I'm struck by how much better things are going since thousands were spent to purge Ann and Chris (in external HR costs and in an extraordinary GM five weeks before the actual AGM), for the unforgivable sin of telling the truth in the Minority Report, which looks more accurate and prescient by the day.

What a f**king shambles. And the Trustees wonder why they're hemorrhaging support?

 

Thank you, that is helpful.

 

Quite the opposite is true. An AGM is held to conduct specific business... Electing trustees etc and voting on resolutions. New business that had not been notified in advance to the members cannot be brought up..otherwise non-attending members are disenfranchised. What should happen is that the formal AGM business is transacted and the AGM closed, then an informal session is held.. Thats where AOB items can be raised.

 

When the L&B company was dissolved, its rights and obligations presumably transferred to the L&SW. Then, when the Grouping took effect, those rights and obligations transferred to the Southern, in particular the obligation to operate the L&B in perpetuity. The Southern of course did continue to operate the L&B for some years. It seems very plausible that, when they eventually decided to close it, they either overlooked the "perpetuity" bit or chose to ignore that and hope for the best. If the obligation was not removed by an Act of Parliament then presumably it remained in force even though not being carried out. In due course it would have transferred to BR, then to BRB (Residuary) Limited, and then to one of the organisations that inherited BRB (Residuary)'s obligations, probably Network Rail. Thus notionally NR could be responsible for re-instating and operating the L&B.

N.B. I do not present this as a plausible outcome. If it were ever seriously proposed, presumably a retrospective formal abandonment would be arranged, by Act of Parliament if necessary.

 

hang on, I’m on a PCC, a couple of other Trust committees, and a Masonic lodge and that’s just not my experience at all - you have a AOB on the agenda, you politely ask that anything under AOB is notified to the hon sec in advance (though IME that doesn’t always happen…) and you close the meeting after AOB. I’ve never been in an AGM (or regular meeting) that closed before AOB, unless every organisation I’m involved in is doing it wrong?*

what you *can’t* do, under AOB is force binding resolutions (for precisely the disenfranchisement point of the wider membership you raise) but you can bring stuff up and get it on the record.

*which, tbh, I’m more than happy to consider as a possibility, but also a hell of a coincidence therefore!

 

those of a certain vintage (ie born late 70s/early 80s) will recognise this as essentially the plot/denouement of Come Midnight Monday.

formative viewing

 

I think L&BRT Members get fixated on the AGM as it is one of the very few times in the year when questions can be raised to the Trustees. There is no regular forum for discussing the line's prospects, and how we as ordinary members can help with the future. Instead, it's very one-directional with the Trustees refusing to engage - especially with the financial exposure to LBBC / OSHI.

This refusal to provide the facts, together with the overt contempt for the Membership that Trust displays that is so disheartening. I recall the infamous incident when Ian Cowling (then a Trustee, and still on LBBC Board) was heard on a microphone swearing at a Member and then storming out of the AGM, whereupon Mr Miles decided that there was no need for Cowling to apologise.

It's behaviour like this, combined with continued failure to extend the line that have brought us to this place.

 

And that is where confusion arises - I've often seen the boundary between "AOB", as a formal part of the meeting, and an "informal" Q&A after the closure of the formal meeting, blurred. The key thing, which you are absolutely correct on, is that AOB cannot be used in a General Meeting to force binding resolutions which, because of how they're raised, leave those present unable to consider them properly, and those not present completely disenfranchised.

 

Exactly! It is not mandatory to include AOB in an AGM, but it IS possible—many would say preferable. Not allowing it is tantamount to suppressing the people's voice.

I can almost envision chants around Lynton Town Hall of:

"What do we want?"
"AOB"
"When do we want it?"
"NOW!"

​

 

Just on the point, it would be interesting to see what the precise wording of the legislation was in this area - if the requirement was to stop services, the absence of services would by definition void the requirement to stop them.

 

@ikcdab may recall an incident some years ago at a WSRA GM when a Trustee stood up, ranted a bit and raised his fists at a speaker from the floor who had the temerity to question the behaviour of the Board. The Chairman never bothered to apologise. IIRC that may have been the same occasion when said Trustee invited a member out into the car-park.....

 

Did not the WSRA AGMs use to have AoB as a specific Agenda item, separate from any possible subsequent unofficial Q&A session? Your memory on this may be better than mine

 

agree, though personally I think the ‘blurred’ line is actually quite beneficial, in a properly chaired meeting full of people of goodwill, in terms of ‘creative uncertainty’

IME some of the most important stuff has been a question from the floor that leads to ‘oh God, let’s go away and think about it and we’ll get back to you’ (which, obviously, is when the AOB stuff comes up without prior warning)

that is not a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of good people (slightly ambushed, which is no bad thing, I do some of my best thinking when on the spot) taking xyz on board and dealing with it.

 

Right, learned gentlemen, your opinion please on the following


Now, correct me if I am wrong here, but if let's say one or two Trustees who are standing to be reappointed have a greater number of votes against them than for, would it or could it be that the membership at the meeting could call for a resolution to permanently remove those trustees from standing again since the M&A say you only need three Trustees to remain or would it be a case that such a vote would not be binding dew to the fact that not every member had a change to have a vote?

what do you all think?

 

Amen. And transparently missing from the Trust's approach for many years.

 

I think it comes down to common sense (like ‘common law’)

I’m wary of pronouncing on one clause (when I suspect there are others that cover this), but in my time in the forces there was such a concept as the ‘mess Webley and a bottle of whisky’

thankfully we’re not living in Victorian England where those were real rather than conceptual, but ideally if you were presented with fistfuls of rejections you’d do ‘the decent thing’ and walk away.

in fact, the properly smart thing to do is walk away if you think you’re going to get fistfuls of rejections, before it gets to a vote.

so I wouldn’t be totally surprised if the relevant clauses rely on/assume people doing the decent thing

 

My view is that such a motion could not be binding, because it would not have met the notice requirements for a General Meeting.

If we were going to discuss Articles, it might be worth considering a provision that would "defeat" any candidate receiving more "no" votes than "yes" votes - but the drafting would require care to avoid unintended consequences. I am with @Tobbes on this, in thinking that the issue is culture rather than rules.

 

Hmmm.....interesting....
My immediate reaction is to think no such Motion could be put to the vote because it had not been on the Agenda and therefore those voting by proxy did not have the opportunity to participate unless they gave their proxy specific authority to vote as they saw fit in such cases.

But then Clause 31 mentions resolutions put to the meeting to not fill the vacancy or not to re-appoint the same person, so how would such resolutions be put and decided despite not having been on the Agenda?

 

Yes. I see your point. However, when you are dealing with someone who does not want to see the culture in front of them, and also does not play by the rules, then what can you Do?

 

You play by the rules, and retain the moral high ground. The moment you go low, you get dragged into the same mess.

It is why, though I dislike what is on the table, I admire Zelensky for doing as he is doing and offering to meet Putin. In doing so, he is demonstrating his focus to all who watch, and changing the power dynamic in the process.