WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

I have been thinking about this, reading the Companies Act, and will be watching very closely on Saturday to ensure fairness. Don't worry, I will speak up if I detect unfairness (to anyone). It would have been helpful to have the proposed system / arrangements published in advance, but as yet not (anyone listening from within the WSRA?).

It is nonsense to say that the M&A's override the relevant provision in the Act. M&A's can make better provision than in the Act, they cannot do worse. For example, the Act says that 5 voters can demand a poll, but the M&A can reduce that to two.

As I have said previously, I am not at all convinced that we were not going to be voting by 'poll' anyway which really means no more than an accurate count of the votes (fortunately without the added complexity of size of shareholding in companies limited by shares, which we are not). I do not read the 'poll' provisions of the Act as demanding that the 'poll' be taken in a particular way, e.g., by secret ballot.

Show of hands is fine in the usual circumstances where the answer is a simple 'yes' or 'no' where the vote is likely to be uncontroversial, or there will be the usual one or two 'abstainers' or 'objectors'. As long as we can be convinced that the votes being cast in person (and by proxy) are being properly counted, that should do.

I acknowledge that it may be better to have a proper ballot form and a scrutineered secret ballot in future years, but that is for the future. We haven't really been here before as Trustee elections have tended to be an exercise in trying to find someone to fill the slot. I take it a positive sense of the importance with which the WSRA is regarded that there are so many candidates wanting to make a contribution, providing the membership with such a choice. Long may that continue.

kind regards

Robin White

 

There is more if you care to search the Gazette.

 

I really can't say it better than bazza did in post 484. We need to find a common position, and I had hoped the '4' would find it in themselves to agree on some fairly obvious propositions that will be needed to 'move the mountain' on Saturday.

kind regards

Robin

 

Very interesting reading.

 

You don't need to be sorry, Michael!

I accept there has been much pain and frustration in getting to this point. But we're here. We can't go back. The issues with the current trustees have been well aired.

What I want to be sure of is that the new trustees have the determination and emotional intelligence to deal with the situation and move the WSRA forward. I don't see how I can do that if the other candidates can't - or won't - speak up for themselves.

It's all very well Frank and Rodders speaking up for the group, but they're not up for election and it's not their powers of persuasion that will be needed in trustee meetings.

Barry

 

Thanks for that Robin. If the WSRA establishment have been saying that the M&A prohibit a poll it is very regrettable. I suspect their solicitor is going to be busy on Saturday.

 

I did send Robin a copy of the e mail, to ensure she was able to give her opinion based on the specific wording used in the statement. She will confirm my post is an accurate transcription.

 

Sorry all, but I think it's a bit below the belt to dig this up, and even worse to go looking for it in the first place. Nobody has an unblemished background, and nobody is perfect.
Posting this link is not the right thing to do.
Let's get back to the issues and avoid the mudslinging.

Ian Coleby

 

All

Please see below and e-mail I sent to David Williams / Susan Kaufman this afternoon.

kind regards

Robin White

Dear David /Susan

You will be aware that there is some concern about how voting is to be handled at the forthcoming AGM, where it appears that a significant number of proxy votes are likely to held personally by attendees. This will be complex enough where simple 'for' or 'against' motions are concerned, but the complexities multiply with a 'four from eleven' a Trustee election. I have heard that you have some system in mind to cope with this. I would have hoped that this would have been made public in good time before Saturday's meeting but I see no sign of that, hence my e -mail.

You will know of my commitment to equality and fairness of process on the Railway over many years. You may not know that , as an offshoot of my professional discipline practice I have appeared, on behalf of clients (!) before the electoral disciplinary machinery of both the Conservative and Labour parties, as far as I am aware, the only barrister to do so. I can appreciate that with limited time until Saturday, you might not wish to engage in a wide public debate about your intended arrangements. You might, however, see advantages in taking ALL the candidates into your confidence at an early moment , so that (1) any comments they have might be taken into account in any necessary revisions and (2) there is the prospect of all candidates agreeing that the arrangements are fair, which might avoid difficulties at the AGM where time will be precious.

For my part I am prepared to consider those arrangements on a confidential basis and not to make any criticisms public before Saturday, to give them a chance to be solved. I would hope that other candidates would give a similar undertaking. Of course, if we continue to be kept in doubt, the prospects for chaos on Saturday increase, which will be in no -one 's interest.

I will be working at home today, Tuesday and Wednesday, but have professional commitments on Thursday and Friday.

Kind regards

Robin White

 

Totally agree with Ian's comment on events nearly thirty years ago.

 

Thank you Robin , the problem has been brought to their attention by others, including myself, which has given them more than enough time to come up with a solution and inform all via various websites.

 

It is not about mudslinging but a question of transparency. I simply asked if it was correct or not. Do you know? It is an astonishing statement that nobody has an unblemished background. A large majority do and and to suggest otherwise is not helpful. The bottom line, no pun intended, is that members are entitled to know so they can come to their own conclusions.

 

Sorry Ian I can not agree. The meeting was held in 2001 hardly 30 years ago. and only 10 years before appointment. Also ...25.22 Charities Act 1993 s72 - trustee of a charity ... An undischarged bankrupt is disqualified from being appointed as a Trustee.... If this is the same person, and I am not assuming anything, some assurances would be appropriate. Also I think many people could be upset by your remark that nobody has an unblemished past, I know plenty who do have unblemished pasts. Faol

 

Hello Barry and all
It is understood that you might wish the WSRAMAG candidates to respond to questions on Nat Pres regarding their position on this and that.
As a group you will be aware that the WSRAMAG candidates have had spokesmen to provide suitable responses and of course we are standing behind the WSRAMAG principles as published on our web site.
The individuals standing of course don't have the backup of a wider support group including spokesmen.

Some people have contacted the WSRAMAG candidates directly by e mail or phone, our details are on the WSRAMAG web site page 2014 Nominees address as follows. http://wsramag.com/wsramag2014nominees/

Additionally the WSRAMAG candidates will be in attendance outside the AGM venue from 12.00 onwards should members wish to have a chat about this or that aspect of the way forward to a revitalized WSRA and a united WSR.

Other candidates would of course be welcome to to do the same.

Please also consider the WSRAMAG consultation paper before you come, comments on the content would be welcome as well.

Looking forward an interesting AGM on Saturday and a positive result that will allow the WSR to develop in the future with a clear united vision.

See you all Saturday, Vote Crudge, Price, Randles and Rowe for a new direction for the WSRA

Jeff Price

 

I think one of the problems with forums such as this is that things can run away so quickly. i think its because of the instant nature of the thing. If we had to pause and think then many of the posts on this and other forums wouldn't have happened. Those with a signalling disposition will know that in order to change a set of facing points once the protecting signal has been cleared and put back to danger, you are forced to wait two minutes before the lever can be pulled - enough time to think about what you are about to do!

Here someone's personal background is being aired on an open forum which I think is inappropriate - without knowing all of the details.
The right thing to do here would have been to contact Peter privately and ask him about it. As it is, i imagine this has the capacity to cause personal distress to an individual which is something that should not happen and is unwarranted.

As for my comment about nobody having an unblemished record - OK i exaggerate to make a point."Glasshouses and throwing stones" is one of the relevant cliches!

Ian Coleby

 

I simply asked the question as to the connection, or not, with WSRA. I simply did not know the answer.The information published in the London Gazette is a matter of public record. Are you saying information in th public domain should be censored?

 

Does anyone here actually know what unblemished means? Of course no one has an unblemished past! It means "faultless" or "impeccable", and I'm pretty sure that everyone makes mistakes, and so no one has a faultless past...

 

Well, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc etc...
Tom

 

Long ago and far, far away............well, back at post 18 on page 1, I uploaded all the candidates' personal statements.

Presumably they might be useful in considering us all

kind regards

Robin White