Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

That seems a trifle harsh, I doubt any of 'the six' volunteered on the basis that they would remain in power forever, or become so entrenched. It is more likely IMHO, that part of the issue is the M&As they were elected under. If, for example, there was a maximum tenure imposed, there would have been far less chance for the group-think we feel we have witnessed over recent years. As @DaveE said, they too are volunteers and surely just wanted to serve our beloved railway in the best way they could. We the members selected them, so part of the blame must lie with us. Maybe a first action on the new board should be to embark on a proper consultative review of the M&As?

 

I'm usually open to bribery, but at the moment I'm more interested in the persuasion you have promised to undertake of Charles and the Chairman to put accurate roof lamps on the currently-being-built carriage.

 

We rediscussed your offer earlier this week Mike. Although we were looking to make a big something of it for Number 1 being as its a pretty special carriage in its own right and would have been the first with the super correct ones, we decided that we will look into if any can be made for Number 9 which I will do as soon as I can. I have some remedial work to do to Carriage 17 imminently and once that's done I will begin seeking out anyone who can recreate your lamp tops

Edit: I did contact you by private message on it earlier this week, it's in your inbox, top of the page

 

If correctly reported, he stormed out of last years AGM and was overheard to say something like ‘I can’t cope with this (sewage).’ If that is true, it would seem he has put his money where his mouth is.

 

But not necessarily requiring them to micro manage he works

 

He did. And he apparently showed a similar level of co-operation as a trustee.

Fortunately, his resignation has saved me the disagreeable necessity of having to decide how to vote with a view to preventing him getting office.

 

My original point which sparked this discussion was that Charles, being heralded as the person who instigated and ran the carriage building programme, might encourage by association the votes for his re-election at the AGM and might have a good chance of succeeding, leading to five of the six remaining on the Board. After all, how many among the circa 3000 members will have ever heard of most of the new names reported to have been put forward ? Will many have time to do more than skim the 150 words ? They are likely to have read of Charles' award of the B.E.M.

 

@DaveE - we agree on the need for progress!

 

When Chris Duffell first stood for election 350 words were allowed and his resume made full use of that, when it was published with the voting papers it had been reduced to come in line with the other 3 standing (all returning trustee's) when the board was questioned on this eventually, (and it was eventually) the chairman admitted that he had done it so that it was in similar size to the others, so not only had the secretary jumped the gun and had all the voting papers printed before the nominations window had officially closed, they were then sent out with Chris's 'doctored' resume which then because the chairman's 'interference' all had to be printed and re-issued to the membership (at a cost of £3k) which contained Chris's full resume whish was within the stated 350 word maximum, and now it seems that for this year that has been reduced to 150 words so one could question why has this number been reduced !

 

This is certainly an election where name recognition is likely to play a disproportionate role, but if Members want a fresh(er) start, they may yet conclude that this is best achieved by electing four Trustees who have not previously served.

Given that the assumption must be that Mr Summers would vote for Peter Miles to remain as Trust Chairman (as he did last summer when Chris proposed Mike Whiteaker as Chair) the reality is that a vote for Summers is a vote for Miles and a continuation of the current "management" style. This is, unavoidably, at least in part a referendum on Miles's chairmanship, whether the motion to remove him gets to the floor or not.

 

You could indeed, given that the only basis anyone has come up with, @Meatman is the M&A's general power to do things clause, which in another context was called an Enabling Act.

Unfortunate.

 

I would to a certain degree say you are right about handing on skills etc. That said however and before we charge in like a bull in a china shop with the setting up of a museum we need to think carefully about this and look into this subject and then bring together a team that can manage this project, or if not, can give us a directions we need to go in.

I would also suggest that we use the following link as a basis of this new project https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/supporting-arts-museums-and-libraries

 

If only that were true. There has been no accountability from the Chairman misrepresenting the exposure of the Trust to the Blackmoor Company or the fact that at the EGM he ignored all the comments alleging illegality from the floor, not to mention intentionally leaving Anne Belsey's nomination off the ballot last year. What can ordinary members do when the Charity Commission is told and fails to show any sign of acting ?

 

We do as we are - campaign for change while also hoping that the Commission will act.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It's not about setting up a museum Colin, the trust has in its possession many items including film, photographs and the like, where it all is exactly is unknown but it all needs to be pulled together, listed, sorted and secured as soon as possible so that we all know where it is

 

Indeed, and this need not be an onerous task because it can occur over an extended timeframe. I have suggested getting advice from a local museum, say Barnstaple, about how best to proceed with the cataloguing (and not as @DaveE seems to have suggested, outsourcing the operation). It could start with all new items received and then a systematic review of what is at each L&BR location and indeed among members. What must occur is a once-off operation which is not then overturned later so it will need support from the top (oh dear! potential hazard ahead...). The wheel does not need to be re-invented!

 

Umm, I'm not sure I suggested outsourcing at all, in fact quite the opposite...Outsourcing is not the way to go, it needs to be kept in house.

This was part of my reply to you in post #13128

There is a museum in Barnstaple, but it would be better I think to try and keep anything like an L&B museum curated "in house". Like many things in running this railway, the more we can keep in house, and pass those skills and knowledge onto new volunteers to take over later the better.

 

There is no need to go to a local museum for advice, highly experienced people are already within the membership and wiling to help but the question has never been asked, everything to do with the L&B is rare and photo's and film irreplaceable, it all needs to be brought together and kept securely but also ensuring that every member can have access to these valuable archives, not just the very few who think they are privileged

 

I’ve no idea what the right answer is. But I do know that a dogmatic insistence on keeping things in-house or putting them out will lead to the wrong answers.

Full disclosure - in my day job, I work for an outsourcer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

I would agree to that in principle, the downside is those teaching or overseeing others sometimes give the 'its my way or no way' impression