North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Sorry but the first assertion is just nonsense. Whether the two candidates stood for election or not would make no difference to the incumbents as there were more vacancies than candidates . It also makes the makes the leap of faith that the candidates were indeed suitably qualified and experienced. Having gone through the same interview and assessment process as applies to those incumbents standing it was concluded that the two candidates were not.

 

At least the NYMR members get a vote. In the case of some large heritage railways members of the entity that provides its volunteers have no vote at all in the company that owns and controls the railway.

 

That is not a convincing line of argument; the question ought to be how to rise to the best rather than comparing against the worst

 

True but it adds a sense of proportion.

 

Your last sentence is something that I am very much in agreement with. Paid staff have to understand the ethos of the volunteer and what drives them. Wherever possible that volunteering attribute should be high on a persons CV. As I've said previously, in 2023 the NYMR appointed someone to the post of Footplate Manager who had no knowledge of railways and footplate work and, indeed, volunteering. That it was a disaster is an understatement and led to several people departing. The person concerned was a very good guy with an impressive CV who I personally had time for but many of his decisions created justified upset. I've mentioned this particular one because I was personally involved in trying to sort some of the fallout but I'm fairly sure that there are other examples that could be quoted.

 

I'm inferring from your post that my guarded statement about two people being denied the right to stand for Trust board is, in fact, true.

 

And, if their experience was as extensive and relevant as I’ve had suggested, raises questions about how they were unsuitable.

I don’t know the details, and don’t expect to get into discussions on individuals here. But this does illustrate the corrosive effect of pulling these decisions to the centre, and leaving no space for these decisions to be made by members, rather than a committee working in confidence.

 

It’s correct that two potential candidates had their applications to stand for election declined in accordance with the Articles approved by the members.

 

Remind us what the turnout was in that vote. I know the majority was high, but seem to recall that being against a low base.

We also need to recall that being “approved by the members” was for the entire package, and with very strong pushing by the board.

That brings us back to the question of trust, as the reasons for that (entirely legal) rejection are not in the public domain, and were made in circumstances that leave considerable room for doubt about the motivations for the decision.

 

I havent got the precise figures to hand but because of the voting system the NYMR uses “turn out” is way higher than would typically be the case where votes are countedcatvan A

 

Apologies,! I was trying to post that “turn out “ using the NYMR’s democratic voting system is way higher than would typically be the case with voting at an AGM. From recollection the vote was around 93% in favour. The changes to the Articles were explained. Of course the Trust board pushed for them to be adopted. It believed that they were in the best interests of the Trust and I believe still do.

 

With each post the impression of a board that has entrenched itself and withdrawn the ladder is reinforced. Hiding behind this turnout or that turnout or saying that you’re only operating the system approved at the AGM is all quite accurate and correct I am sure, but misses the point. The perception created of remoteness is probably unintentional, but with the proviso that in this specific case we are only seeing the reactions of a couple of people (though likely representative of a wider body of people - the MP rule of every letter being representative of 50 other constituents comes to mind) its very real. Mention of 75% thresholds is always going to come accross as “we don’t care your views don’t matter, we got what we wanted and you can’t now change it”. To put it a different way, you have created or are creating disenfranchisement of some of your biggest supporters.

 

I don’t think the Trustees have any choice other than to comply with the Trust’s constitution. As I ‘ve suggested earlier there are alternative structures that provide greater opportunity for member influence.

 

You created the constitution, or at least modified it to what it has become. You can’t claim to be a prisoner of the thing created, nor claim there isn’t room for flexibility and creativity in how you communicate and how you apply the constitution.

 

T

Thanks for going into detail.

 

This is the heart of the issue. The articles are, sadly, a given. They do not stop the nomination committee being given either a positive brief (we need people with experience in X) or a “let them through unless really bad” brief. The terms of reference given to the committee were a matter of choice.

Going back to “what would I do differently”, I’d acknowledge that the railway is in a bit of a hole, and then look hard at how to engage members and volunteers to restore morale. In doing that, I would positively look for leeway in the rules to permit doing things differently, and not stick rigidly to what was intended when they were drafted.

As a former senior manager in a large corporation, you’ll be familiar with employee engagement and stakeholder engagement functions, and how they can be used to build an internal sense of mission. Those are the techniques that are required, starting from the premise that the board know least.

PS - if I were on that board, I’d also pay much more positive attention to feedback, and stop trying to explain it. Experiences like those detailed by @Steve, or the views reflected by @torgormaig, are vital intelligence about where the flaws in the organisation are. These are intelligent people who wish the organisation well; it does them an injustice to see their experience treated as unimportant to the organisation. You should then be looking at how you could get long term loyalty from the likes of me (50, active volunteer but not on a railway), @Jamessquared (similar age, actives volunteer) or @flying scotsman123 (young whippersnapper with many decades volunteering in him!), bearing in mind that we are typically a time poor (aged parents, kids) and cash constrained generation. When doing so, bear in mind that we expect to replace our elders as they decide to retire, but will be heavily influenced by the tone of their retirement.

 

That sounds like an accusation of individual personal blame? The constitution was drafted with professional advice, approved by trustees and adopted by the vast majority of the members. It’s a collective decision with collective responsibility. No doubt there are those that don’t agree with it but whether they’re representative of the thousand or so volunteers or the roughly ten thousand members is genuinely open to doubt. As suggested that could be resolved by proposing changes at an AGM. In the meantime the Trustees are bound by the current constitution.

 

Does anyone have any quantitative data about the negative views of other volunteers or how many have left the NYMR?

 

The constitution was drafted by the current trustees who used their considerable influence and the resources of the organisation they control to persuade the members to back the changes. It isn’t, as you know, practical to suggest that this powerful position is actually capable of revision from outside the board, and I don’t see how it helps the board’s position to suggest that it could be. It also misses the point, again, which is that it is less about the rules and more about the implementation of them.

Anyway, I think we are now just going round in circles. To summarise, the NYMR has perhaps some discontent within, to an extent which is unquantified, but probably greater than is comfortable for the board to admit. My view is that the governance changes will not have helped perception of willingness to listen and learn, but the problems probably predate this.

Many of the issues might be mitigated by communication and a more open culture from the board and management. These are only my impressions though and whilst they seem to chime with some I’d not claim to have “worked it all out”.

If the dialogue here is any kind of guide, I’d day there is some way to go before any discontent could be addressed.