West Somerset Railway - Removal of the PLC Chairman and related matters

I would like to add that my extensive enquiries suggest that a number of WSR directors were involved in a scheme to sell off Odney Manor but it never got proposed to the board. What I can say is that the WSR board have treated Ian Coleby disgracefully and have not served the shareholders well. Both the WSR shareholders and the WSRA members are entitled to is a joint effort to sort out the joint mess ASAP. Telling us part of the truth is not sufficient.

 

Extremely well said Ken. Far from 'RIP WSRA', as some of the detractors would have it, Chairman Whitehouse, Vice Chairman @aldfort and the current Trustees are doing a stirling job trying to right the wrongs of the past, but it won't be quick and it won't be easy.

By the way, lest anybody claim that the WSRA has been inactive on the fundraising front, let me just remind them of this: http://www.wsr.org.uk/hpc-news-1.pdf. My understanding is that a decision is expected imminently.

 

I don’t feel there is any need to. He is well aware of what is wrong and does not need any input from me. IMHO more than capable of sorting out the WRSA.

 

Jeff... Some people can understand what's going on, and are not so blinkered as others....
Just accept it.
Robin L.

 

When this was going on you were a Director why didnt you stop it?. With the exception of Ian Colby there are none of the directors left from this time.

 

It was personal from post #1! In fact the people making it personal are still PLC Directors and I am surprised the company has not recognised an HR issue when they see one, given the massive debate we had on the other thread around Christmas time regarding social media and defamatory comments etc...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It seems to me, not being that familiar with the WSR other than as a satisfied passenger, that - and to be clear I am playing the ball not the man, the larger 'family' has a significant - for want of a better word 'behavioral' problem. Certainly many lines have had this in the past however I suspect that it may well be to do with the financial state of the line.

 

One of the challenges in many 'non-business' organisations is that senior managers need to have many of the attributes of a successful business manager to deal with Budgets, Financials, HR and other business compliance issues, yet also need to know the business. Being a good policeman, doctor, engine driver is insufficient to successfully manage the organisations in which those professions operate and that is all to often overlooked.

However, whatever the problems with the WSRA may or may not be, are the supporters of the WSRplc Board seriously trying to say that the financial and infrastructure challenges facing the WSRplc are entirely because of problems at the WSRA? I totally see that a more effective partnership between the two bodies is vital to address these problems and hence, I suppose, by implication, the lack of this in the past is one of the causes - but is that entirely the WSRA's fault or have attempts to assist being met by what can look like a 'give us your cash but and shut up' attitude from the WSRplc? If there was a partnership, Ian wouldn't need to repeat the 'One Railway' mantra as much as he clearly feels he needs to - who knows, might still be WSRplc Chairman!

(The criticism of WSRA from WSRplc Board supporters cannot help but reinforce the view that Ian's dedication to 'One Railway' is part of the problem some clearly had with him as WSRplc Chairman but perhaps that view is mistaken!)

Whilst discussing the business acumen of the Charity's Board, it might be helpful for the supporters of the WSRplc to list the business experience of the WSRplc Board. It might also be worth reflecting that running a preserved railway doesn't just involve Business skills but also very much HR, diplomacy, ability to work with volunteers, members, local authorities, grant making bodies and of course, not least, the travelling public. A wide range of skills that generally won't all be available in any one person!

It is clear that the West Somerset Railway, by its supporters own admissions, needs change and has challenges - but so far, all we seem to have achieved is lots of finger pointing as to who is to blame and what can look like diversionary tactics if potentially revealing information about root causes comes to light!

Steven

 

hi there, I did not become a director to 2016 so I am sorry but I was not there.

 

I am not clever enough to warrant a mention on Wikipedia but you are all welcome to look me up on Linked-In. I have not over-egged my profile there as many tend to do. (But hey, I'm retired, no need to brag about stuff - right?)
I would hope most members of the WSRA do this sort of basic research before electing their trustees? I certainly look up the director profiles of all the organisations I hold shares in before voting for directors.

 

Appointed 28-10-15 termanation 29-10-17 puts you firmly in the frame for the current situation. 2 years to do something but did nothing.

 

Thanks Ian. That's about the same level of cost I had in mind, though it does rather make my point about the costly nature of raising money via shares. Looking at the share register on the Companies House website, there are quite a number of individual shareholders with holdings as low as 50 shares - which I believe would mean a stake of £5. Even accepting that they were likely to have invested decades ago when £5 was worth rather more than it is today, you don't need to send out too many annual reports at £2.50 a go to wipe out a £5 investment...

I don't doubt that in many cases, those individuals have contributed far more to the railway than the shareholding would indicate; simply noting that the shareholding is an expensive way to raise funds. I also agree that the shareholder benefits (such as free travel) should be seen as beneficial, since giving that away essentially costs the PLC nothing while, as you rightly say, giving the opportunity for secondary spend, as well as helping shareholders feel valued long term.

For some individuals that might be true, but I don't think it is necessarily widespread. About a dozen years ago, the Bluebell put out a share issue in connection with the extension, and it was reasonably well subscribed. However, since then, all appeals have been focused through the Trust as donations rather than encouraging people to buy shares, and I cannot see any evidence that it has caused significant drop off in fundraising capability. Which rather suggests to me that for the vast majority of people, they are more concerned with the fact of donation (and feeling it goes to a worthy cause, and the informal warm glow it gives) than the mechanism or what it gives back to them in formal ownership.

The other point is that donation is more viable for small donors. A £10 standalone donation to a charity is worthwhile (and may be eligible for Gift Aid on top); whereas I suspect that anything less than about £100 in shares is going to get wiped out in administration over a very short period. Obviously the PLC can do anything with the proceeds of a share purchase, whereas a charity can only spend a donation in aid of the cause for which it was donated, but I think in practical terms, with more worthy projects than available funding, that difference is largely illusory: it will always be possible to find worthwhile projects that nonetheless meet a charity's objectives.

What is clear is that the PLC and Charity need to work together and have a clear, and joint, view of what the funding priorities are!

Tom

 

In my haste to finish I forgot to say that all the items listed as WSRA tasks, namely providing volunteers to all departments, running the S & T group, a PW gang, managing Bishops Lydeard station and running the RAMS (Restoration and Maintenance Service) have all been absorbed into the PLC leaving the WSRA very little to do. The WSRA then increased its salary costs and became obsessed with Restorations and the two groups, WSRA and WSR PLC moved farther apart.

 

Please explain to me what happened whilst I was a director that I could have stopped. I was a Reformer and played an active roll and when I was successfully selected I joined the plc board at the same time as Ian. The WSRA problem had been replaced and I can recall no problems with the PLC board.

 

You allowed the wagebill & overheads to grow, not the current directors who have been there less than a year.

 

Yep Larry you are dead right. I stood over each of the other 11 directors, held a gun to their heads and made them agree to ensure that wages went up. Or perhaps joining in October 2015 meant I missed the review for 2016. The salary levels were dealt with the star committee of which I was not a member. Our finance director reviewed the situation but there was no significant problem raised by him and as the Safety Audit Director I am the first to acknowledge I know about safety but don't know which end of a balance sheet to start with.
So Larry there you have it but I would like to suggest you engage in a bit of business study to ensure you know how boards work, perhaps a 6 week diploma from Harvard may help.

 

This last part is sadly very true, there are many more who are free with their comments about the failings of others than there are prepared to step forward and play a role and subject themselves to the (peer?) review we see here.

 

But Ken did you express your concern and more importantly was it entered in the Minutes?

I though my OND Business Studies would have a use one day!!