Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The Yeo Valley Trust and the L&B "trust" are 2 very different animals.

 

Just see past the current issue and send us money. I think not.

 

But the Yeo Valley Trust is an entirely separate entity to the L&B Railway Trust, and fundraising for something different entirely.

John

 

In response to Mr Miles, I have just sent the following:

_______________________________

Dear Peter,

Thank-you for your email.

I am grateful for your confirmation that the Articles of Association, being "silent on this", do not confer on you, Tony Nicholson or anyone else the power to veto a valid Trustee nomination. Given that Mr Nicholson has already confirmed in writing that Anne was validly nominated, it is clear that you are acting ultra vires.

Any attempt to justify this veto on the basis of forthcoming disciplinary matters against Anne also fails a simple fairness test. If a Trustee is found through a fair and independent process to have acted in such a manner as to be unable to continue as a Trustee, then they should be removed if they will not resign. But they should be allowed to stand pending any such process - a process which you have already undermined by implying Anne's guilt on page 1 of Newsletter 80, itself probably actionable as defamation.

Given your demonstrably unscrupulous behaviour over this nomination, it is hard not to draw the conclusion that the charges are at least puffed up in order to provide a pretext for the action that you have taken. This is also toxic to the trust and confidence in your leadership of the Trust at this pivotal time.

This means that quite apart from the Secretary failing to meet the minimum notification times for the AGM rendering the whole thing null and void, any attempt to continue with the Trustee Election which will also be null and void. Were you nonetheless to attempt to continue, it could only be interpreted as a demonstration of manifest bad faith on your part as Chairman.

Sincerely,

Toby

 

>>>> On 26/04/2023 10:59, Peter Miles wrote: "......Finally, the guidance from the Charities Commission is that Trusts should ‘select and recruit’ new trustees....."

The 'recruit' bit of course can be covered simply by inviting people to stand for election as Trustees. But what are the criteria for the 'selection' ???

Note also that the CC guidance (assuming that PM has quoted it correctly) says that the selection should be done by 'Trusts' not 'Trustees' nor 'The Boards of Trusts', ie selection should be done by the body of the Trust as an organisation and its membership through the process of elections not the pre-selection of candidates by the existing Board.
So IMHO by interfering in that selection process he is actually acting contrary to CC guidance.

 

I agree with your thinking, but think you are reading too much into the language of what is guidance, not law. I have no issue with the idea of a board of Trustees selecting trustees, and have connections with organisations that work in this way. However, these are not membership bodies, and have not exercised that selection at a time where confidence in the trustee body has been lacking.

 

Gary I understand you comments and concerns, however as John has pointed out Yeo Valley has nothing to do with the L&BR Trust, but if you want to see more of the L&BR open then at present this is the only way that could happen, the more money the Yeo Valley/ Exmoor Assoc has in the bank the more trackbed can be purchased.

 

In between this washing of dirty linen in public, I note that the (presumably) e-mail addresses of several of the involved parties have now been made public on this forum. Given that one issue appears to be alleged GDPR breaches, then this really isn't a good look.

 

Sadly, from what I can see, the recent thread of correspondence from Peter Miles does nothing to address the issue of the potential invalidity of the AGM by virtue of the Notices apparently being sent out too late - indeed he seems to have ignored that issue altogether.

Surely he (or at least the Secretary) must know on what date the notices were posted, so why not just answer the question? Then it will be plain for all to see whether or not the posting was done on or before the last possible date, namely 17th April. If it was not, then the AGM has not been validly called and therefore should not take place on 13th May as planned - any issue relating to the content of the Agenda (eg Trustee nominations) is irrelevant in that context. If the posting did take place on or before the 17th April, then no doubt the Secretary will be able to provide the necessary proof at the AGM if so required for the avoidance of any further doubt.

I fail to see why it is proving apparently so hard to resolve what ought to be a straightforward issue.

 

If it weren’t for the issues associated with trusteeship, the notice period would be a distraction. As it is, it paints an unwelcome picture


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Oh, again rather dramatic

 

Not really. In my opinion, Peter Miles’s email to Anne Belsey was ill considered and, to me, appears to fly in the face of both the Trust’s own rules and natural justice. What a pity to be remembered for this rather than the more positive parts of his legacy.

 

More a combination of a Whitehall farce coupled with a Greek tragedy perhaps

 

Indeed, it is a shame, but the position of the Trustees is now clear and public, as is evidence of their ultra vires actions towards Anne Belsey, who just seems to be someone they don't like.

Abysmal.

 

Possibly. But rather than dismiss it for drama, what would you say to the substance of the comments?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Trustees email addresses are published on the back page of the Trust's magazines. So not confidential.

 

Are we to take it that that standard response is the limit of your debating skills?

 

I sure he has a wide range of different adjectives and adverbs in his vocabulary

 

I'm still unsure of whether PM is the Titanic, or the iceberg.... Or just J Bruce Ismay?

 

You are right it is.