West Somerset Railway General Discussion

But David Williams did not know that the statement was on headed notepaper. A member stood up and said that he would like to make a statement on behalf of David Morgan and David Williams said he was not in the room and he wouldn't take any statements from David Morgan. You may not know it but a member asked David Williams an innocuous question on of all things where the photo of his announcement of the "Win Win" headline was taken and to the surprise and gasps of the assembled meeting he was told "Whats it got to do with you." To me that one sentence summed up what is wrong. To say that to a paid up member showed the disdain and contempt the some trustees hold the membership in.

Susan Kaufman highlighted the falling membership and that one sentence from the WSRA Chairman to me summed up why.

BUT there is hope because people who where really vocal in putting their point of view were afterwards chatting as friends as though the meeting had never happened.

Rodders

 

Yes, if your account is true then it doesn't look good. But Morgan should have been there to ask his own questions then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And yes as I've said recently on this thread, there is indeed hope that things can be sorted. If all ordinary WSR supporters can just let those trying to broker the peace get on with their work then progress can be made, for sure.

If disillusioned WSRA members could also hold fire, renew memberships and give peace a chance, that too would be most helpful.

Steve

 

If I could work out how to send a pm on this forum, I would be delighted to, but I'm not going to do so "in public".

Dave

 

click on his name, then 'start a conversation'

 

Basically I'm with Steve on this. We need to give both sides the chance to come together and repair any rift. In the meantime action by the rank and file of the WSRA or the PLC will probably be counter productive. I know many colleagues on the railway who have been WRSA members have not renewed their membership this year but frankly I don't believe this is the right thing to do at this time so I have renewed mine. However, the message to the trustee's from those who have not renewed cannot be clearer in my opinion. Let's hope with the cooling of the weather there is some cooling of tempers. In the meantime many of us who are active on the railway have a railway to run and our best bet is to get our heads down and get on with that.

 

I must confess to waivering a little before renewing my WSRA membership last month.

I am extremely relieved to hear there might, at last, be some meaningful communication between WSRA and WSR plc. Let's hope ALL involved in this initiative go into it with the right attitude and mindset. After all, this will surely be the ONLY opportunity to sort this. If they blow it there will be no second chance and even more of us will allow our staff ID cards and WSRA membership to expire.

 

I hope some common ground can be found between the two parties but I don't think so because they are so far apart and I cannot see either bending enough to satisfy the other. My opinion is we are not far off the nuclear option in which the PLC give the WSRA an amount of time to leave the railway for example 12 months. What happens should that happen then its anyone's guess but the lawyers will no doubt be called in. Most stations have friends organisations now and the FoWSR are in place with the PLC blessing. I think what Ian did was totally unforgivable and it wouldn't surprise me if the PLC went after him legally. After stating that the WSRA had no representation of the PLC board for him to do this is a kick in the teeth to the PLC they will look on it as an act of treachery. I cannot see what the WSRA could do if issued with an ultimatum to leave . Yes there would be difficulties to the company but not so many as to insurmountable. Obviously where there are leases they would have to run out but where there are areas covered by informal agreements then they will go. Dark days lie ahead. As for Barrie's comment about people leaving the railway it is happening now and that is why the PLC has to take action to either repair the rift or cut the association loose. whichever they choose they have to move soon.

A glimmer of hope to the WSRA is that I understand that they could continue because there is something about helping railways in the SW which could mean railways like the SDR & L&B could benefit.

 

"I think what Ian did was totally unforgivable"


What did he do?

 

See Morgan.pdf on page 21 message 414 for the details​

What did he do?​

Michael
Heritage Railway Supporter since 1968
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21979240@N07/sets/

 

Remember there are people in both sides who have done "unforgivable" things which have been most unhelpful over the last few years. It will take a true honest guy to own up to those bad things and set out to put things right. We have all had our say - perhaps some of us have said too much. The Plc and the WSRA, along with other groups, know full well that each party has a part to play in the success and development of the railway. Each party needs to be honest and look at what its strengths are, where the overlaps are, how each can best help each other. It may mean giving way on some activities and on some aspirations. To have "one railway" does not mean that one party dominates. It is absolutely not beyond all hope and again I ask folks to hold fire with speculation and just let the processes work through.

Steve

 

I know I've said this before, but this is so strange. You'd think nuclear warheads were at stake.
When I have an issue that needs resolving, or I need to find something out, I usually just phone or email the person rather than calling meetings and making public statements.
I don't see why it seems to be so hard and to be honest the squabbling is getting embarrassing now.

 

As a complete outsider to the situation, may I make the observation that what is needed for the good of the WSR is a compromise - a solution discussed and agreed where both parties have their concerns addressed and both may have had to give ground. What is not needed is a "victory" by either party, which would cause a permanent division and long term bad feeling.

Whilst David Morgan clearly wanted to make a statement to the AGM (and hence probably wider membership) of the WSRA, I suspect he may be horrified that his words have been published on a national basis (and indeed will now be in the hands of the preservation press) and I would suggest such publication is unhelpful. I am sadly all too aware of the tendency of the preservation movement in particular but really the country as a whole to favour public grandstanding over private debate and dealing with issues as they arise, but grandstanding often achieves little and debate and discussion is the best way forward. David's chosen forum for his statement was an appropriate for what appears to be his intended audience and purpose - a National Forum is not.

Talk of ordering the WSRA off the WSR is clearly unhelpful and provocative and I would suggest should be avoided and PLC needs to distance itself from such inflammatory language.

Steven

 

These letters were given out after the meeting to be taken away, but before posting I asked if this was alright to be put in the public domain.

 

http://www.west-somerset-railway.co...e_of_the_wsr/daf63e5ca10ed7b24511edae1df9512f

 

This is a statement made jointly by Somerset County Council and West Somerset Railway Plc and is now also available in full on the news page of www.wsr.org.uk

I'm pleased the statement deals with how the Plc and the County Council view developments around discussions over the freehold and/or extensions to the leasehold held by the Plc. Although it doesn't actually tell us much about the "future of the WSR" it clearly shows a desire to protect, and build on the success of, one of the region's major enterprises.

The mention of the WSRA's recent discussions is welcomed by me and I believe once the recent spats are history there seems to be a very good chance that the very clear enthusiasm by all parties to see a healthy railway on the Minehead Branch will prevail.

When good people get together, talk and agree, good things follow.

Steve

 

Whatever happens, don't let's get lawyers involved in any spat (hopefully the present one is not going to last) between the plc and the WSRA. Remember the 6024 group, where someone had his nose put out of joint in a society magazine article, and sued for defamation - the lawyers made a fortune, money that had been meant for the loco; and I for one certainly don't want to contribute any money to line lawyers' pockets.

Let's also remember how near the WSR came to folding in the early 1980s; that's when I bought a very modest shareholding as did many others and the line was saved. We must not let it all be thrown away.

 

A shuttle service, using a diesel multiple unit, will run on both days (3-4 August) of the Steam Fayre and Vintage Vehicle Rally between Bishops Lydeard Station and Norton Platform adjacent to the Rally. This DMU Shuttle is free for those people travelling from, or connecting at, Bishops Lydeard to the Rally site and back, providing they purchase a Rally Entry Ticket. Click here for more details.

Steve

 

The idea of telling the WSRA to leave the West Somerset Railway appears, to this outsider, extreme and quite unnecessary. Surely there's no problem with the majority of association members nor the work that they do in support of the railway? Isn't the issue with certain directors or trustees, and one or two controversial, not to say disruptive, policies? To what extent are the directors or trustees of the WSRA accountable to the Association's membership? How often do they have to be re-elected? It seems to me that if the members are unhappy with the actions of the current directors, then they should vote them off the board and replace them with people who better understand and represent the general membership. Can they do that? If enough members feel strongly about perceived misconduct, can they call an Extraordinary General Meeting to censure or replace some of the directors? Rather than resigning from the WSRA, shouldn't concerned supporters be trying to recruit new members to strengthen the internal voice questioning and criticising the current leadership?

 

Yes, you're right, but I think that it's not that easy in reality to remove directors/trustees. The points that I'm going to make are not exclusive to the WSRA and probably apply to nearly every equivalent organisation.

Replacing directors/trustees. At an AGM, you will normally get a list of people who are up for election. Either they have retired at the end of their term and are seeking re-election, or they have been co-opted onto the board during the year to replace someone who has resigned. Unless your face fits and you are well known to the existing board members, your chances of being co-opted are nil. It's also unusual for the voters to have a choice as there are normally not more candidates than posts available, and, if there were, the chances of an "outsider" being elected over an existing board member are pretty well non-existent.

The other point is proxy votes. It's all very well calling a meeting and debating the issues if the board can produce a wad of proxy votes in their favour which outnumber the number of people present at the meeting. Anyone exercising a proxy vote will not have heard the arguments and are likely not to be as well informed on the issue as those present, so are likely to vote with the board. It doesn't matter how well argued any resolution is and how much support it has at the meeting if the proxies carry or oppose it.

 

That's not universally the case. At the last Bluebell election (as an example), there were five candidates for three Trustee positions, and one of those elected was not an incumbent seeking re-election. Also, we do not allow proxy votes - only those present at the meeting can vote. That has its own problems in an organisation that draws members from as far away as New Zealand, but does mean that the board is not sitting with a big blocking majority.

As a lapsed member of the WSRA (lapsed for reasons other than the recent disputes and politicking, I hasten to add), being brutally honest, I wonder what the WSRA is for, or at least how it can provide influence over the Company if the Company doesn't want that to happen? At the Bluebell, the Society (which is the membership organisation) decides the broad brush policy which the PLC implements. The Society also maintains (by constitution) a majority shareholding of the PLC, and provides some of the directors, so can't be outvoted. Volunteers also have to be members of the Society (for insurance purposes) even though technically they are working under the direction of the PLC, who operate the railway. So in practical terms, the membership body (i.e. the Society) exerts a lot of control over the Company. It's nota perfect set-up, but does at least contain a fair number of checks and balances.

Whereas, as far as I can see, at the WSR, the Company operates the railway; the membership body doesn't have a majority shareholding, nor does it provide the volunteers. So as far as I can see, the Membership body can provide help and support, but ultimately, if the PLC wishes to refuse that help, there isn't much the membership body can do. The ultimate control rests with whoever are the PLC shareholders, not the members of the WSRA. Or have I missed something in the power relationship between the WSRA and the WSR Company?

Tom