Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Why would it?
Charles and the carriage team could still continue rebuilding carriages, with the trust continuing to pay for rent etc., if that is what it is currently doing.
No one needs to be a trustee to lead a project.

 

Agreed. But the L&B is far from unique in treating "management" and "trustee" as synonyms.

 

I see that 'the six' have issued a missive on the Trust website under the not-remotely-hyperbolic headline "Your Railway is under threat of hostile takeover".

My immediate reaction is one of sadness, and anger. Sadness that this is where we are, and anger that we're being lied to - AGAIN.

Firstly, the Trust *is* under investigation by the Charity Commission - the case number is C-084534, which the six signatories of this note are perfectly aware of, and they also know that the investigation is over governance failures that they are responsible for.

Second, the idea that there is a 'hostile takeover' going on is insane. What is actually happening is that having elected Trustees who have a different view to the six long-standing incumbents, 'the six' who theoretically at least could lose their majority in the May Trustee elections, have decided to waste several thouand pounds of Trust funds - our subscriptions and the profits from volunteers and their efforts at Woody Bay - in order to have a meeting that will allow 'the six' to decide who gets to stand at the election. in May This is a straight power grab, and I'm heartened to see the number of Members who are clearly uncomfortable with elections that would be most familiar in Iran.

Third, as in last summer with the Minority Report, 'the six' are using all of the Trust's resources to pump out their side of the story (and, as above, tell us demonstrable lies) whilst trying to stop Anne, Mike and Chris from putting their case forwards. This too is like Iran or North Korea, and it is appalling: if they were really convinced of their case, they'd make sure that both sides got an equal airing.

Fourth, 'the six', aided and abetted by Tony Nicholson who has been playing a very partisan role, despite the fact that his job has to be neutral and enforce the rules - see his disgraceful and inaccurate comments to "Trackside" at Christmas - refused to have any additional motions added to the EGM Agenda, which is not only unfair, but illegal.

Fifth, it's not a GDPR breach. To assert that it is just shows that 'the six' don't understand the law. All Trustees are equal, and Chris, Anne and Mike have every right to contact the Members on issues of concern.

Sixth, the railway is bigger than any of us, and individual personalities will come and go. What is required is an open and inclusive team of a range of different talents to come together to reconstruct the railway we all love. I don't see Chris, Anne and Mike launching personal attacks whilst the same cannot be said of the 'the six'.

Just my tuppenth worth.

 

Six Trustees have claimed tonight that "Neither the Trust nor the six trustees are under investigation by the Charity Commission."

This is an outright lie, as the six Trustees know full well.

Here's the proof: the letter to me from the Charity Commission two weeks ago.

 

That question was asked of him at the AGM a few years ago when Chris was standing for the first time, the question was why does he have to be a trustee to oversee the carriages ,his answer was simply 'because i can', a fair enough answer but sadly it did come across as sounding quite pompous, ironically though the 'because i can' bit is what we have at the moment, with enough support and votes you,me or anybody else if they desire can become a trustee, the very thing he has now put his name to to try and regulate

 

By "regulate" you mean "snuff out", presumably, @Meatman .....

 

Yeah that just about sums things up Toby, there's also a big difference between a hostile takeover and voting down some resolutions, it's also a good job you have that letter from the charities commission to pi55 on that lie and the 'other 3's'email was signed by 61 L&BR members apart from themselves not 13 as stated

 

Exactly. It is absolutely NOT a hostile takeover. One can look up the definition of that on line. Members have the right to choose the board. The fact that whoever wrote that needs to gaslight the membership speaks volumes about them.

Sent from my SM-T575 using Tapatalk

 

Just a few snippets:

As opposed to the fantastic job the current trustees have done with the massive extension they built...

Under the amendment, members and trustees can be dismissed with no right to appeal and at the whim of the board. The members would also no longer have the right to nominate trustees without the approval of the board.
Both of these are the very definition of disenfranchisement.

And the trustees can effectively deselect those nominations and use their power to influence members to not vote for them (if they even ended up on the ballot).

What legal responsibilities? Does this mean the L&B has been acting illegally up until now? Does this mean that every other charity without a selection committee is acting illegally?

 

I am bemused to note that the message states:-

"EGM Proxy Votes: All proxy votes should be sent to Woody Bay to arrive no later than Thursday 21st March 2024 as specified on the Ballot/Proxy form. This is a requirement of the Companies Act and the Articles of Association. This enables verification against the Membership list and recording of votes and proxies on the EGM register. This minimises the administrative burden on the day of the EGM.

If members have been misled and have already erroneously sent their proxies direct to a chosen proxy, other than the chairman, they will not be excluded on this occasion providing their forms can be verified."

Yet at the top of the actual Proxy Vote form it states quite clearly that the form can be handed in at the meeting on the day, and in order to do that of course it would have had to be sent to your proxy beforehand. So now the Trust appears to be telling us that we should not be doing that which they already said we can do !!

So, is this yet another cock-up of the Trust's own making ???

 

It is symptomatic of the very low administrative capability of the Trust.

I would read it as possibly another attempt to intimidate the membership. Or a very very crackhanded attempt to reassure the members that their votes will be counted. It is hard to tell.

 

The 'hostile takeover' email also details that 'the six' are attempting to block Chris, Anne and Mike from communicating with the Members. What are they so scared of? If I were looking in from the outside, and saw a group on the Board attempting to grab power like this, and lie about substantial and consequential issues like whether the Trust is under Charity Commission investigation, I'd be more sceptical than ever about handing such people permanent control of who gets to stand for the Board.

 

As I see it, they start off by accusing Chris & Anne & Mike of writing pretending to be 'the Trust' - when IIRC they made it quite clear that it was a personal communication - and then go on to produce something which, to all intents and purposes, looks like a pseudo-official 'Trust communication' when, as you discover when you get to the bottom, it is not but simply one from 6 individual Trustees. So why is it deemed OK for 6 Trustees to use the official website to post such communications, but complain bitterly when 3 Trustees do it by a more legitimate method?

 

It strongly suggests a belief that, as they are the majority of Trustees, there is no requirement to follow required governance protocols for acting as the Trust, rather than individuals. The use of a personal email account, especially from a provider as well known for it's interest in other peoples' personal data as Google, also raises far more interesting questions about personal and corporate adherence to GDPR, which go way beyond the allegations of data breach the same individuals have levelled at others.

 

The "six" are as entitled as anyone else to their views of how the objectives of the Trust should be pursued, but what is going on in their heads to make them believe that lying to the members is the right course of action?

 

Indeed; they are absolutely entitled to right of reply as individuals and as a group, in just the same way that the "three" are. I find it revealing of the "six" that, despite access to a mailing house for email distribution, they choose not to use it but instead use a personal email account.

 

The document accuses many of the names list of being connected with EA and YVT having self-appointed boards, which was fully declared when these organisations were set up, with protective clauses. In this case there are no protective clauses that I can see, and any thoughts about whether 'the six' might abuse the powers they seek in future are illustrated by the exclusion of Anne Belsey's perfectly valid nomination from the ballot last year. These people appear to be totally undemocratic. If I was being cynical (perish the thought !) I might think this is where the 'knowledge, skills or experience to maintain the status quo' exist which they accuse the letter writers of not having.

 

Thank you. Have the Charity Commission provided details of what they are investigating - is it specific incidents or something broader?

 

I don't have details of the full scope of the investigation, @Miff , but upon learning that there was an ongoing investigation, I highlighted:

• the illegal exclusion of Anne Belsey's nomination and vilification that she was subject to before the last AGM,
• the illegality of the last AGM;
• the dishonest misrepresentation of the funds available for the 'Return to Parracombe' fund last summer. Bizarrely, the Trust hasn't taken the offending article down, which presumably means that 'the six' stand by it.

This should meet the requirements for the removal of Trustees and their banning from holding Trusteeships in UK charities.

That 'the six' have denied the demonstrable fact that the Trust is under CC investigation tells us quite a lot about them, I'd suggest.

 

Just as a point of note, the reference number you mentioned in an earlier post isn't on that letter (well, unless I am much mistaken).
Also you should perhaps redact your personal email address; this is after all a public forum.