WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

Who are you voting for Tom?

 

He has already stated he is a disinterested party (not an uninterested one) as he isn't a member and so has no vote.

 

The existing trustees must be really worried if they have asked their solicitor to attend as he will not be cheap particularly on a Saturday afternoon.

 

Well, what a todo! This is descending into near farce. Who needs gerrymandering when candidates and their supporters are pressing the 'self-destruct' button? The current trustees must be rubbing their hands with glee!

I'm a WSRA member (of the 'armchair' variety) and PLC shareholder. I've been following this debate on here and the unofficial forum, and I will be at the AGM.

From my viewpoint I see this:

Current trustees who don't listen and are willing to use tactics that - to me - look underhand in order to retain power. Their rare contributions to this debate come over as aggressive. It's understandable that others might not trust them.

A 'gang of four' candidates who appear to think they're fighting a General Election. They come complete with name, 'manifesto' and 'Alistair Campbell' and 'Peter Mandleson' type figureheads. The frequent contributions to this debate from these figureheads and their supporters can be aggressive and are frequently negative. I really don't see how - if they maintain their current tactics - they will be able to improve relations between anyone.

And three 'independents', two of whom have given plenty of food for thought and one for whom I shall use the '150 words' as a basis for voting.

What I don't see much of are candidates who SOUND as though they are willing to work together with other parties to re-establish a relevant and valuable WSRA. I know everyone SAYS they will but it ain't necessarily what you say, it's how you say it!

So I'm in a real quandary. I'd love to vote in four new candidates but - at the moment - I really can't find four who I want to vote for.

If the seven hopefuls really want to attract votes, they could do better than broker peace amongst themselves. If they can't do that, how on earth do they intend to do it between the WSRA and other organisations?

Barry

 

I have had a well mannered reply from WSRA on the poll, which agrees it would be easiest if there was ballot voting, but after legal advice, under the Articles there is no provision for this, only a good show of hands is required. Similarly, a poll under the company act is not provided for under the Articles and so cannot be allowed. They have worked out a good system for a good show of hands, and multiple votes for proxy holders. I wait with bated breath on its appearance before the AGM. At least I tried, and will pass this info on to others who may be as surprised as I on the implications of this legal advice.

 

A new week - a fresh start.

This will be a crucial week for the WSR and the WSRA's place in the WSR family.
I am back home again in Somerset on a beautiful summer morning and I wonder if we might set a different tone for the new week.

I think:

(Proposition 1) We AGREE that the behaviour of the present Trustees, in particular:
(1) their inability to drop the freehold 'bone', so obstructing a refreshed relationship with the WSR plc,
(2) their electoral gerrymandering,
(3) their treatment of particular members by inexplicable and improper exclusion, and
(4) their failure to properly communicate with members;
means that fundamental change must be made in the WSRA approach.

(Proposition 2) We AGREE that we lay responsibility for that at the door of the present WSRA Chairman, and the kitchen cabinet of particular Trustees who have closely associated themselves with the above actions (which includes the current Trustees offering themselves for re-election / confirmation).

(Proposition 3) However, we AGREE that it is likely that there will be some existing Trustees who have been uncomfortable with the wrongful actions of the majority who may have felt it better to stay within theBoard of Trustees in the hope of doing good from within.

(Proposition 4) We AGREE that the AGM should be taken as an opportunity, in a dignified and appropriate way, to demonstrate to the present Trustees the unacceptability of their actions as set out above and the unacceptability of those associated with them (or unwilling to dissociate themselves with them) continuing in office.

(Proposition 5) However, we AGREE that we would be able to work in the future with those of the present Trustees willing to dissociate themselves from the actions under criticism.

(Proposition 6) we AGREE that the WSRA's future constitution, purpose and place within the WSR family needs fundamental reconsideration to produce an arrangement likely to produce harmony in the future. We AGREE that such reconsideration will require wide consultation, with the WSRA membership in particular and within the WSR generally.

(Proposition 7) We AGREE that it is important that members agreeing with the above propositions use their vote for candidates other than the re-electees / confirmee.

(Proposition 8) we ACKNOWLEDGE that ALL 7 'external' candidates have skills, abilities and experience, which may be of use to the WSRA in the future.

I invite all candidates and members to AGREE with my eight propositions.

Kind regards

Robin White

 

Barry, I am truly sorry if we (WSRAMAG) come over as aggressive and negative. Our approach may have been overtly conditioned by the approach we, and others had to take wrt ensuring the Freehold remained within SCC 's hands. (With hindsight a close run thing.)

The difficulties we, and many others have had, communicating with some of the existing WSRA Trustees (obscuration, non response, etc etc) go back two years or more. Our view, rightly or wrongly, has been that we had to make a noise, be united in our views (I am sure I do not have to rehearse the obvious ie that the best that we can achieve is four new Trustees to sit in a body of ten, but four who have spent much time considering possible futures for the WSRA together one would hope would have a chance of reaching a consensus with at least two other Trustees) and enthusiastically proselytise.

We believe there are two priorities. Restore the WSRA's openness to its Membership and to other WSR organisations, and establish asap, within the time constraints a Membership consultation would entail, an agreed WSRA strategic plan.

If you feel our approach has been flawed, apologies, but I do earnestly believe the strategy is correct and deserves support.

Michael Rowe.

 

Good Morning Robin, I Agree to you 8 propositions.

There are no weasel words, they are straight forward and to the point, as I have said several times please everyone unite around these proposals and lets try and get the job done. Ken D

 

Happy to agree with the eight propositions that Robin has expressed. I hope most members of WSRA would feel the same.

Can I just say to the armchair members - if you love the railway as much as the majority of active volunteers then please don't vote to maintain the status quo.

 

Hi Robin

I Agree to your 8 propositions
I hope everyone sticks to the fresh week fresh start approach.
I also hope as Aldfort has said above that the armchair members vote for change.

Robin F.

 

Thanks

If you agree with the 8 propositions, can I please ask that you 'like' the post in which I set them out, which is an easy way to keep track of support.

kind regards

Robin

 

As an "armchair" member I agree entirely with Robin and my votes have gone to four of the "external" candidates.

 

The legal advice i have received is that the Companies Act allow a poll regardless of what the Article or Memorandum say. Perhaps Robin would like to comment?

 

God help us if the WSRA's M & As can overrule the Company's Act, that statement beggers belief.

 

I also thought the requirements of the Companies Act overruled the Mem. and Arts. in as much as the Companies Act is law.

 

That was my understanding and advice as well.

 

I too agree with Robin's proposals. Like Ken has said, they are straight forward and to the point. I'm waiting now to see what the other candidates say

One small point tho' regarding Proposition 5....IMHO there is an implication therein, in the absence of any words to the contrary, that any newly-elected Trustees would not work with any existing Trustees who do not disassociate themselves from the actions under criticism. Whilst the former might not agree with the latter, I would suggest that they will still all have to work together in order to move matters forward.

 

After a little research I came across this item

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/52584/page/991


Is this the same Chidzey who is a WSRA trustee? I think we should be told.

 

Having checked various sources the full name checks out as one and the same person. Perhaps he would like to refute this entry in the Gazette (London).
Faol

 

I have just returned to this thread after a fairly hectic (note use of understatement!) few days with Thomas the Tank Engine on the WSR. One of the benefits of Thomas events is that for the organisers they can't think of anything else and return to this present topic with a fresh mind. I was very surprised to read the criticisms of debate and different views between the candidates which seem to emerge here: this may not be a political election, but it certainly is a competitive election. I don't need to remind people that there are eleven candidates and four vacancies. In that situation voters need to know to know what distinguishes the candidates and they then make their choice. I can't see the problem, which some seem to, with this debate being lively. I also can't see the problem, which some seem to, of some candidates working as a coherent group. After the election, of course, all the candidates will do their very best to work together with all the Trustees, supporters and members - up to a point. I say "up to a point" because the new trustees may be in a minority and I am sure all of the new trustees - whoever they are - will try to ensure there isn't simply more of the same.

The WSRAMAG group pretty much agree with the much of sentiment behind Robin's "propositions", though I'm not sure what they are intended for. We would assume that those who support her propositions do not necessarily support her candidature! We have some hesitations about apportioning blame the way she has, because we simply don't know, within the Trustees, who did what. Conjectural apportioning of blame for past actions may not be the best way of building relationships in the future.

Frank