West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Question, and I have no idea as to what the answer is.

Do the WSSRT or WSRA Trustees have any duties in respect of their shareholdings in the PLC or can they just sit on them & ignore what happens to the PLC

 

personal animosity clearly to some is more important, than saving the railway, sit on your hands, and you will loose it, and people wonder why people like Sidmouth say the lose of the railway would be no bad thing, I suspect Rodders may well had been a factor in the present chair of the PLC having got onto the board and having the power he has, a move maybe Robin would have advised against, the enemy of my enemy is my friend etc,

 

The WSRA had a problem. There was the Combes Report. The (working) membership welcomed it and eventually there was change (if not all or fast).

The WSR Plc has a problem (or three). There is the Bailey report. In theory it has found favour with the WSRA and many supporters. Yet a proposal aimed at starting on the process of change seems to cause concern - why?

Maybe it is time to dig out those little yellow badges again !

 

At last and about time, I recognise most of the faces that are standing and can willingly support them. I hope that other volunteers get behind them. (WSRA and WSSRT member)

 

I am certainly not against change but THIS is not the way to do it! This is just someone with narccicist tendencies trying to divide and conquer and will only end up destroying the railway.

 

So how do you want change to be made then?

The charge of narcissistic tendencies... that is an interesting accusation to level.

Your post could and has been written by others about the current incumbents.

 

Look, dear heart. From your first post, you have declared your support and admiration for JJP. That is fine, nail your colours to that particular mast if you like. However, as a relative outsider, can I just point out that if this particular attempt to sort out the strife that is dragging the railway down, (if not actively destroying it) is going to turn into a bitching match about who has the bigger narcissist, the WSR is going to continue being the laughing stock of the heritage rail industry.
Tell us, what IS the way to do it?

 

Quite, its telling, isn't it, are these people are being influenced by a very clever person, who is hiding their own true agenda from them, ? it fits in with the "only one way to save the railway " , that certain people seem to parrot, and the vilification of anyone who dares to question it, I just hope they don't end up being made to look foolish , if it turns out they have been pawns in a power game.

 

I’ll pass over the breach of Nat Pres rules and just remind you that, in accordance with the Coombes recommendations, I Loyally stayed away from office for several years after the members regained control of THEIR Association. 1,627 votes, wasn’t it?

Robin

 

Thank you for your reply. I did ask you to give the reasons you (and presumably you speak for the members of the Trust) oppose this proposal, leaving aside any personality issues, and what alternative you see in order to place the Plc on a better and more representative footing ? In reply you have emphasised the personal and not suggested anything which might improve the current situation.
At the moment the railway you care so much about is in real trouble. The only way out is for all hands to haul together, but all you seem to be able to do is sit in the corner grumpily refusing to work with most of the others or even to listen to sensible and neutral advice from a competent outsider. If you have an alternative plan of action then let us hear it. If not then perhaps, as one or two others have suggested, you are part of the problem not part of the solution.

 

OK... So it's time for the WSSRT's AGM.... Now at this point in time 14 new people decide to stand for the Board as they are fully entitled to do. The same as any of you could (so long as you met the eligibility criteria) for the WSSRT, the WSRA or even the WSR Plc so there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The fact that the 14 new candidates all have a common agenda should come as no surprise to anyone, The 'WSR Saga' has been rumbling on for so long now it is no surprise that some have finally said "...enough is enough, Nothing is going to happen on it's own... things have now got to be made to change..."

I'm sure there are far more than 14 people posting here on NP who would like to see the various reports recommended actions implemented, just as there seem to be quite a few who want nothing to change or who only want 'their' brand of change to happen. Well the question the naysayers now have to answer is "So what have you done about it - apart from sitting there moaning?" Those people standing are prepared to stand up and have a go. They are prepared to put up with all the moaning and accusations and conspiracy theories while they try to do what they think is right.

Whether you believe they are right or wrong in what they are proposing, I do hope that each and every one of you will respect the fact that they are actually trying to do something instead of just moaning.

The WSSRT has stated in at least one press release that they just wish to be left alone to continue their work on coaches and heritage museums (For those of you who are not WSSRT members the AGM agenda papers even propose a change of name to "The West Somerset Railway Heritage Trust" - look it up on Companies House). The only problem with that is the fact that they have a significant shareholding in the Plc and I believe that gives them a moral duty to use their shareholding to at least call the Plc to account when contentious decisions are made - but they appear to want no involvement in the way the railway is run - so long as they are left alone to do their thing...

To the WSSRT Board I ask "How can you justify delaying the AGM simply because more people are standing as candidates for the board?" Simply saying that they disagree with you is not a valid reason for delay - perhaps that's why they are standing in the first place and perhaps it is an indication that the WSSRT (Or should I now say WSRHT?) Board proposals are not reflecting the wishes of their membership?

Again, to the WSSRT/WSRHT, I would also point out to whoever is dealing with the AGM paperwork that the voting form has significant mistakes with a missing candidate (even before the +14), missing sections 7i, 7ii and 7iii etc. I suggest you read the Notice of Meeting and compare it with the voting slip. Not very encouraging. You might also like to consider informing members of how you intend to take a vote when it is to be a video virtual meeting...

 

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that "narcissist" seems to be the slur de jour these days.
Ten years ago, no-one was a narcissist, the word was not used, like nobody knew what gluten was. Suddenly everyone who disagrees with a complainant is a narcissist. Every divorcee claims to have escaped from a narcissist. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I think there are probably more accurate diagnoses of the mental condition of some of the personalities involved. If this is just going to devolve to puerile insults there is no hope.

 

At last a breathe, breeze, blast, gale of fresh air being blown into West Somerset. Knowing or knowing of most of the "14" we commend their action and will undertake to make sure that our WSR shareholder vote is there to support them when the time comes. It is very pleasing to see one young name in the list who we have seen develop from Tracker to guard and who therefore must know the organisation inside out and has much to offer. we recognise also those contributors to this thread who have posted many "words of wisdom "Keith & Joyce

 

When the negotiations (and possible, but unlikely, legal actions) between the PLC and the S&DRT have come to a conclusion, other parties may or may not have some involvement in taking things further, but the statements about implementing the Bailey proposals clearly can apply only to those that are already public, concerning reorganisation of the WSR's structure.

I am in favour of the appointment of new trustees to allow the Steam Trust's shareholding in the PLC to be exercised for the good of the "one railway"; but I did wonder at first why that has to be through a merger with the WSRA. It would certainly be possible for the Trust to remain a separate charity but (with some new trustees) to take a more active part in setting the Railway's strategy. (And indeed that may be all that can be done before the PLC's AGM.) However, a merger loses nothing, because the new combined charity will necessarily inherit all the responsibilities of both of the old ones (unless a specific case is made to the Charity Commission to drop anything). If there is concern that something (such as the museums) might get neglected, one or more trustees could be assigned specific responsibilities.

Some comments up thread have suggested that the Bailey structure, based on that of the NYMR, isn't perfect; but almost anything will be an improvement on the present SNAFU.

Given the need for the Steam Trust to circulate revised AGM papers to all its members and for them to decide whether to vote for the new nominees, some brief delay in holding the AGM seems reasonable, but it must be brief.

The PLC has stated its wish to defer any reorganisation until the cash is flowing again, but that would be "this year / next year / some time / never", probably never. Doing it while no trains are running makes excellent sense.

 

As I see it....

• The Plc commissioned a Report.
• The Report recommended an organisational change, one option being a single charitable trust.
• The WSRA appears, from its recent statements, to accept that proposal.
• A group of WSSRT members ( I assume that they all are, in order to stand for Trustee) want the WSSRT to accept the proposal also.

Suddenly those who appear to support the current Plc management seem to be crying 'foul'....funny that, I wonder why?

 

Because, that would give real power to a unified supporters group, that may just be a threat to the small clique of board members and the chairman ( who I would bet is the real decider of power of the board) who then, might have to account for decisions made by the PLC

 

So from a brief glance at the personal statements I see 4 that actually want to assist the Trust, the other 10 want to get in purely to gain the power to execute the Bailey Report?

 

Robin, I think you should make it clear that reference to "implementing the Bailey Report" in the document put out by the 14 new trustees means "implementing parts 4 & 5". The two parts ( 1 - 3 and 4 & 5) should never have been combined in one report, but we are where we are.

 

Well, that seems to be the WSR way, never as straight forward as claimed.

 

This is the point that I was (unsuccessfully) making earlier. You cannot ask people to vote on, accept, or implement something they haven't seen!

Keith