WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

Rodders and Everyone Else,
Please do not be fooled by this hackneyed letter from Peter Chidzey. Remember I have been a Trustee with this man and the others, I have seen them work, I understand the decisions made away from the main body of the Trustees and the same old half truths trotted out again. Now he chooses to trot out the WSRplc wants to take over the WSRA. That is a new one on me and I can't say I've ever heard of a plc owning a charity. One day these guys may be able to tell us what they really tried to do by steering the WSRA in a direction that no, fair minded, member would wish to go but for the time being all we get is distortions of the truth, half truths and outright untruths and my ex Trustee colleagues if you want to sue me for that statement please do as I still hold all my papers and emails from my time as a Trustee. So my message to Peter Chidzey and the silent others is lets now wait and see what the members say.
I'm with you Robin the preferred WSRA candidates didn't make it onto my possible 'vote for candidates' list. Faol in Hunting Mode

 

There is clearly a power struggle going on here when there should not be.
From my perspective the plc run the railway. That's it - end of story. The association keep saying that agree with this but their words don't match their actions.
The Association must be a support organisation for the railway if they are to serve any useful purpose in keeping the railway running. Every other support organisation seems to grasp this, why can't the Association? As a support organisation they need to engage with the consultation and strategic planning processes established by the plc. It seems to me that at the moment they offer meetings with the plc "on their terms" and are then critical when those meeting don't take place. They clearly have a bunker mentality and at this moment, despite how they may try to justify it, they are not playing with a straight bat in respect of the trustee elections at the AGM.

I could spend ages debating the merit of their recent decisions about loco restoration priorities and the utility of a small prairie on a day to day basis but I won't. As I've said before the answer for WSR survival, IMHO, as a tourist railway is bums on seats. This means long trains and this, in turn means locomotives capable of pulling long trains while being operated by part time volunteer crews.

 

As an interested external observer (and ex chairman of the DEPG during its early days as a WSR tenant) it appears to me that - in simple terms - the WSRA is failing to understand the meaning of "support" in that it wants to dictate to the WSR how it WILL support the WSR without actually asking how it CAN support the WSR - a simple case methinks of the tail attempting to wag the dog.

Whilst aware that the preservation bodies are often fuelled by "egos" and "politics" it appears to me that essentially the WSRA is a spent force and it needs to be humanely dispensed with and a new body created to provide the support to the WSR that I suspect many of the current WSRA members want. Sadly - and for many reasons - the current trustees are no longer "fit for purpose" and now need to bite the proverbial bullet by accepting their fate and standing aside for the better good of all.

However the biggest problem with dictators is that they fail to realise when that time has come but - in the case of the WSR trustees - that time is surely now.

 

I dont think me or anyone else will be taken in by this rubbish.

Rodders

 

Sorry Rodders no criticism etc intended just how I addressed it. I realise you and many others realise its a load of old bull..... .

 

Fred

Don't give up on the WSRA.

I agree with you that, as it is being run at the moment, the WSRA is not making the contribution it could. I also agree (contrary to my hopes some weeks ago) that the only way forward is a cleaning of the stables. (Where is Hercules when you need him?) There then needs to be some open and wide consultation about the WSRA's role within the WSR for the future. There is, for example, considerable potential tension between being a 'supporters association' and being an 'educational charity'. I can see a number of ways in which that might be resolved and what is needed is commitment to finding a settled and long term workable solution acceptable to the vast majority. That is why, although I support many of the building blocks of the WSRA MAG position, I can't swallow it whole. These stresses in the Railway relationships have been around for a while. Fortunately, in a way, matters have now been brought to a head by the present Trustees' actions, there is wide consensus on the need for change (but not what form that change will take) and so we have an opportunity to shake up the pieces and put them together in a better way for the future.

The WSRA is possessed of significant assets invested in for many years by supporters of the Railway and we need to see that they are put to good use as intended for those who come after us.

kind regards

Robin White

 

There's no personal grievances here, Ken - I didn't know I had any personal grievances! I continue to work constructively with all WSR parties as ever.

Back to the trustee elections. I 'd say the WSRAMAG candidates will simply allow the Plc to dictate what the WSRA does. The WSRA would be the Plc's puppet. WSRA members would have absolutely no say in any decisions which would be made by an unelected board. I happen to think that would be wrong for our railway. I want to see a true partnership, with shared business plans, built on trust with no master and no servant.

You say "lets all pull together" - that's great! I hope you and others can join me to pull together to sort this out. Your vote for me would be very welcome.

Steve

 

Can I give all the "rebels" just a word of advice - and I apologise that I am probably repeating myself from the other thread. It is quite possible that many, non-working members of the Association will at least partly partly share the present Trustee's view that the PLC is not blameless in the break-down of relations between PLC and Association.

Certainly, a couple of unconnected members who I have spoken to have cited different areas of concern with the PLC and its actions. I don't know how fair these were, or whether they had simply swallowed the "party line" from the magazine - but, even if that is the case, it perhaps isn't surprising and could be widespread.

The WSRAMAG needs to be aware that "the PLC is faultless in this - it is all the Association's fault" could be a very unattractive line for members informed mainly by the magazine (and annual report) - alienating even. As we are merely human, it is very likely that there have been things done by both sides which have caused resentment amongst the other - and all too often, this could be a case of innocent omissions etc, which are all the harder to correct because the "culprit" is completely unaware of how their actions have been perceived. One of the points mentioned to me was the way that the Friends was able to be portrayed (I suspect by WSRA) when formed but that was a view that was also put forward through national preservation press and hence, no matter how inaccurate, will be seen by many as a back-drop to this sorry affair. As explained on here, I now understand the thinking behind the Friends, the reasons it was formed and how it is intended to complement the WSRA by being able to appeal for funds for projects the WSRA couldn't assist with.

And that is really my point - no matter how grievous the wrong done by the WSRA in how it conducted it's Freehold bid, it is possible that it is not just the Trustees who seem to see their tactics as justified by events which had previously occurred. For a way forward, both sides will need to explain past actions, ask themselves why things were or were not done and perhaps offer apologies for some actions or allowing mis-representations to spread. I tend to feel it is another human trait that many people prefer the determined moderate - clear on what their vision is but also willing to accept past mistakes and explain what will seem past errors. Polarised viewpoints can be very off-putting, especially to those who are no totally immersed in the subject to understand all the nuances and reasonings for the stance taken. Anger needs to be tempered and directed and the more reason and "reasonable" approach is likely to win the day. The rigid stance seemingly been taken by the Trustees that they have "done no wrong" leaves an opportunity for a more reasonable "we've probably all made mistakes and it takes 2 to fall out but also needs 2 to make up" approach from the "rebels". Never be afraid to explain your position and always be willing to explain past actions, even if the explanation has to end with an apology.

Believe me, I have plenty of experience of how easy it can be for people to not understand why things are being done for those busy doing them not to take the time to explain!

Steven

 

Interesting comment! Are you able to tell us (or tell me offline) the detail of "on their terms". Given the WSRA's claim to have offered many times to meet the Plc, but have the Plc refuse, I think it would be really helpful to know what those terms were. Thanks in advance.

Steve

 

The second and third sentences sounds like bullwash, as we say in Yorkshire, to me. The "manifesto" was sent with the revised proxy forms. Since these were already being sent and the extra paperwork would not have added to the cost are we to believe that the some or all of the postage cost was met by the three candidates? If so why was this facility not offered to all candidates> Sounds like a clear case of gerrymandering to me.

 

I'm not sure Steve on what basis you say that the WSRAMAG candidates would allow the PLC to dictate what the WSRA does. This is no part of our thinking, and given you know all the WSRAMAG candidates - and other WSRAMAG supporters this is not the kind of people we are! I know we are having a parallel discussion on the "WSR Unofficial" forum, but I don't think this should stay on the record here. If you look at our Consultation Paper, which I am sure you have, we have made very clear the we see a bright and independent future for the WSRA, working with the PLC, once it has sorted out a clear agreed Strategic Plan.

Frank

 

I find it hard to understand the WSRA claims that they want to engage with the Plc, and that it is the Plc who don't want to engage with them. I have like many others attended two meetings of Plc stakeholders in the last year, one at Bishops Lydeard and the second at Minehead. These were open to all interested parties, and of course the meetings pushed the Plc line as you'd expect, but everyone had a chance to have their say if they wished.

For the meeting at BL, I am told that the WSRA Chairman sat in a side room at the hall not taking part. The WSRA Secretary was certainly in the meeting as by chance she was sat directly in front of me taking copious notes, but no other contribution to the meeting. The Minehead meeting I was not aware of any WSRA representation. Now as a relative newcomer to the WSR Family my observations and interpretations may not be as good as those with longer experience.

As for the WSRA, how many meetings, forums, etc have they organised to try and keep their members like me in the picture as to what is going on? I'm still waiting.

So in this final week of the World Cup, I would say that in communication meetings the Plc is leading the WSRA 2-0 at present. The question is how many more fouls will be committed before the final whistle. And you can interpret that how you wish.

 

There is no way that we on the WSRAMAG want the PLC to take over the association and both Robin & Steve know it to my mind they are mischief making so as to increase their own votes. I would go further in saying that whilst the PLC would survive if the WSRA was to fall apart it would definitely not be in the companies interests for it to do so.
You insult the candidates by saying they are the poodles of the PLC and I actually find that offensive. David Randles, Brian Crudge. Jeff Price & Mick Rowe have vast business experience between them and will not be pushed around by anyone. We are a group of similar minded people who are not a "formal" committee we don't have a chairman or secretary we discuss between ourselves the issues and sort them out between us. Everyone is an equal and each has his strengths and weaknesses. We a a group have been discussing the WSRA for a long time and the consultation document is the result of our labours. Not 1 person but 8 people all working together with the one aim of saving the WSRA. May I just remind the other candidates that it was the WSRAMAG who whilst keeping an eye on the WSRA website found tucked away the form for the nominations for trustees. No big news announcement on the front page no news announcement on wsr.org.uk (Steve E a candidate is both owner and webmaster of wsr.org.uk & webmaster of the official WSRA site) but tucked away so no one would look for it. Well we did look for it because we had studies the companies act and knew when it had to be out by law. without the WSRAMAG there would not be any contested elections this year. We could have kept it to ourselves if we had wanted to "take over" the association by putting them in at the last possible moment and not allowing others to know until too late. Robin would not be a candidate if not for us as there never was any information about the closing date and at the time she was full of how wonderful the WSRA was being run. WSRAMAG has shown consistently that it has the best for association uppermost at all times. Vote for Randles, Crudge,Price & Rowe they have a proven record for wanting whats best for the WSRA.

Rodders

 

OK, OK, OK. There are 11 days to go to the WSRA AGM. Lets stop the infighting and from here on lets have positive statements about where we want the Association to evolve. I think that we are in danger of making the public fed up to the back teeth.
Lets say yes to keeping the WSRA, lets say yes to change and anyone wanting to speak please give us good news about where you would like to see the WSRA in 12 months, 24 months and 60 months. Faol, not hunting at the moment

 

I didn't say WSRAMAG wanted the Plc to take over the WSRA. But I believe WSRAMAG would have the WSRA accept all the demands of the Plc.

Yes, Rodders, the Plc would survive if the WSRA fell apart. I hope the Plc can play a responsible part, on equal terms, in rebuilding the "team".

I don't put news items on the front page of wsr.org.uk and I didn't consider a normal, formal happening like a nomination form being released to be that newsworthy as those interested have the WSRA website to browse for that stuff.

As for the official WSRA website, I simply put on what the trustees and managers and administrators tell me to put on. And where. So sorry, but you are quite wrong to suggest I am involved in anything beyond that.

Well I always suspected you could read my mind, Rodders! But at least now I know you can't. I would have stood anyway.

Ah, just noticed - I see Faol has called for peace and for positive things to be posted. Not often KD and SE agree on anything but, after this posting, I'll go with that call.

Steve

 

I'd like to see the association working with the plc to understand what best helps the railway to operate. To have a programme of work agreed between the parties about who is going to do what and when and how and for the commercial entanglement of promotions and the plc to be minimised.
I'd like to see one strategic plan and one forum where all stakeholders interact to help make policy. Once we have a strategic plan I'd like to see all stakeholders following it until such time as it's changed or needs to be changed.

Steve - I'm mindful of what the mods have said so I'm not going to reply to your question.

 

OK, that kind of answers my question but I was referring to private meetings between the two. It seems the "on their terms" wasn't really the case after all. It's blooming difficult to have a discussion with someone who won't meet you! But since I've just agreed to only put positive things here, I'll leave it at that, and hope that the Plc and WSRA can work together for the common good as soon as possible.

Steve

 

I ,and doubtless the Action group,would not claim the plc is without fault in some but not all of the incidents leading to the current state of affairs. however, in some, where one has blamed the other,a few questions in the right place, revealed the origins lay with the one complaining. Half a dozen of one and half a dozen of the other! The usual trick in the playground was to take the toy ( freehold issue) away, and set the two combatants on a common task which meant working together(SCC stakeholders etc).Often it resulted in long lasting friendship.