Strathspey Railway

We have no detail here as to what the issues are, or why they’ve reached this pass. It is therefore impossible to assess whether the issue is caused by SRC leadership, or the staff and volunteers involved in these protests.

However, reading the news coverage, my concern is that a situation has arisen in which a petition has circulated to get over 40 signatures, and that it has been so difficult to even get discussion over the issues.

That suggests that Relate might be challenged to resolve the issue.

In a non rail context, I’m aware of a situation where volunteer members are withdrawing support for an event because they disapprove of changes to how it’s been organised. It is a salutary reminder that those protesting are not always right, and that any of managers, directors, volunteers and staff can be out of order.

However, and also relevant to the situation I’m aware of, my naval comparison still stands.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

A poor analogy I'm afraid. Had the Titanic not tried to steer away from the iceberg but hit it bow on it would almost certainly have survived, albeit with a severely crumpled forepeak. It was the evasive action that resulted in the loss of the ship.

Peter (being pedantic again, I know)

 

Your backing of a p***-poor management just encourages them to carry on. How else do you replace a discredited management ? Hope, prayer, divine intervention or perhaps luck ?

(Your analogy is false, if the crew stay in their quarters then the sea cocks remain as they are)

 

But as @35B said in post #381 we have no idea of the issues (maybe you do).
But nothing of fact has been shared on here. I asked back on Friday what were the issues, nobody has even responded.
There was a statement from the management side posted on here yesterday, although that seemed different to the one posted on wnxx.
So I for one am no clearer what the REAL issues are.

 

Hope the iceberg melts?

 

Some issues are HR matters and are thus unsuitable for the public arena.
I really think if the HRA insisted that directors on the boards of affiliated railways were properly trained in what the role of being director involves, it would prevent a lot of problems. There is guidance in the 2006 Companies Act, responsibilities with regard to insolvency law etc, and above all good practice and governance. This is nothing to do with their individual skills, but their duties and responsibilities, how they should behave towards their employees, fellow directors, shareholders, contractors, customers and the wider society.
At the moment it is just a lottery as to how a newly appointed director views his/her role. Many people just copy the ethos already in place, however bad it may be, too over awed to say anything, and thus a pattern is set and repeated

 

I wholeheartedly support director/trustee training. In a non-railway role, I’ve benefited from such training, and couldn’t meet my responsibilities without it.

However, it is not a panacea. Merely training in responsibilities will not ensure that those appointed will act appropriately. Further, imposing a regulatory requirement (and bear in mind that HRA is a trade body not a regulator) may make some potentially good candidates reluctant to come forward.

Specifically on the topic at hand, we also need to bear in mind the minor detail that Scottish law does differ from English and Welsh.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Indeed you make a very valid point. The HRA is finalising guidance on the competence expected of company directors/ trustees but final decision on suitability lies with those electing them. The classic definition is that they should function as a “critical friend” but to do that effectively may require knowledge in key areas such as operations, finance, legal etc. Election on the basis of popularity is not always a sensible basis although traditionally that is how many heritage railways have handled board appointments. Whether or not suitability should be judged by a Nominations Committee ( which has attracted much debate on here) what does seem sensible is the there should be a skills matrix against which what individual candidates can bring to the party can be seen by those electing them.

 

I really would like to see the HRA’s stance on this.

 

Hopefully you will soon.

 

That statement doesn’t exactly fill me with confidence.

 

The use of a skills matrix is key. I also support a nominations committee so long as it is (a) independent of the board and (b) is only empowered to recommend candidates.

Popularity may well be a weak way to get the right governance, but it does have the virtue of helping ensure that the board is rooted in its organisation. If recommended/advised candidates cannot get elected, that tends to be an important signal in itself, and one that should not be suppressed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Not sure I am really following the extreme positions in the ongoing debate about "popularity contests" and "selection committees".

For the body that actually has the legal role of running the railway (typically the "operating company") then it is absolutely right that you need to directors in specific roles (loco, operations, finance etc) that require specific skill sets. Inevitably that means selecting who you want in those roles, not leaving it to chance to try to fit a group of people who have applied into the closest fit role.

Equally though, if you have a membership society that acts as an overseer, the trustees in that organisation should be elected - whether you call that a popularity contest is up to you, I think most members - and certainly volunteers - are well able to know who will be effective as much as popular.

You then leave it to the elected trustees to act as the selection committee to the functional directors of the operating company - at least in a situation where the membership body has de facto control of an operating subsidiary.

It would be interesting to see the precise structures and shareholdings mapped, but my sense is that the lines where there is widespread discontent seem to map to those where the member support body does not have structural control (whether through shareholding or some other means) to exert control over the operating company, in particular over appointments.

Tom

 

I’m not convinced about that. The control you describe exists at NYMR but the nomination committee (which does determine who may stand) is in the society. At the L&B, the issues are focused within the membership society.

There is a factor in all of these about the “soul” of the organisation, where a range of tensions about purpose come into play. I’d summarise those as being about why the organisation exists (defined broadly), and whether it is being effectively led in pursuit of those purposes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don’t really know the NYMR situation. If there is a nomination committee to choose directors for the operating subsidiary, then I don’t see a problem. If it is a committee to choose the trustees of the parent membership society, then I’d suggest that that is problematic.

Tom

 

I agree up to a point. Ideally the membership body should have control over the operating company including membership of its board. When it comes to elections to the board of the controlling entity I fear that the suggestion that most members know who will be effective may be over optimistic. It's likely to be true of the volunteers who's votes may be dwarfed by a large membership ( as witness complaints on here about AGM attendees votes being overturned by members' proxy votes).
It should be about making sure you have the right skills on each board. Those needed to run/operate a heritage railway day to day may need competencies different from those who can develop medium and long term strategy for what will often be a charity. It's essential that each board understands its role with clear delegations of authority from the controlling to the operating entity. The former has to resist the temptation to second guess the decisions of the opco. ( otherwise what's it's purpose) while the opco. should be held accountable for achieving objectives set by the controlling entity especially, in the case of a charity, fulfillment of its charitable purposes.
35b and I seem to agree of the merits of a Nominations Committee which must at least be independently chaired. (total independence is unlikely to be practicable). The difference between selecting a range of candidates for members to choose from (using a skills matrix) and recommending some candidates but not others seems academic. How many of the mass of members are likely to vote for a candidate that is not recommended?
The Bluebell structure advocated by Tom has its merits but its big disadvantage is absence of the opportunity to claim Gift Aid on fares. That's a classic example of how heritage railways need to adapt including their structures. Many seem stuck with ones that used to make sense but are now sub optimal.

 

Just picking up the last sentence; we can all think of a railway where the structure is seriously sub optimal and (if I'm not mistaken) @Lineisclear himself was one of those trying to facilitate a change, but the incumbents successfully resisted any change.

 

I agree with some of that, and I certainly can see that even for the trustees of the membership body, it is useful to have a standing outline both of what the role entails (including its limits); and the skills needed. However, what I can't see is how you go from that to a position where you essentially wrest control of the membership body from its members. That is likely in the long term to lead to a collective group think (in which an existing committee selects new candidates in their own image) which could be very dangerous.

With regard the Bluebell structure - I appreciate the point about Gift Aid. However, even were our ultimate member body to convert to a charity, I can't see why that would necessarily lead to the requirement to have an appointment committee to choose trustees. I'd also note that I am not aware in our set up that, when we have had contested elections to the membership body, that the existing society committee has ever offered a formal recommendation of some candidates and not others.

You have frequently made the observation that the power of members in a membership organisation is actually rather limited. Given the truth in that, it seems very dangerous to remove the one power they do have, which is to elect a board of Trustees who are then expected to perform their duties in the best interest of the organisation. If the board proposes what they see as a necessary, but unpopular, decision, then I am far more likely to accept their viewpoint if I feel that I did have a genuine role in putting them in place in the first instance. Your prescription for how such bodies should operate seems to come from a view that members are an irritating encumbrance, not the source of legitimacy of the whole organisation.

Tom

 

I was under the impression, though I stand to be corrected, that the NYMR's nomination committee is composed of existing TB members, which is why I have concerns over its impartiality, and why I would caution any other groups following on similar lines. In the gadarene rush to "professionalise" the board, I think it has been overwhelmed by business oriented people. In one way that's fine but in another its not as it effectively removes the representation of its volunteers and supporters, whose interests are broader than financial matters . A balance needs to be struck and as far as the NYMR Trust Board stands I for one don't think it has been in the reformed structure. It sounds as though something similar has happened at Strathspey, and is providing a stark warning of the perils of marginalising the volunteer workforce.