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

This is incorrect. I never sought or expected to represent the WSRA board on the PLC Board. I was elected to the WSRA Board at the AGM by an overwhelming majority of members. After that I was invited to re-join the PLC Board by a number of Board members which I was prepared to do because the situation had radically changed since I resigned. I considered at the time - though I am less certain after this furore- that the more cross representation there was the better (in the spirit of "one railway"), but this is not the same as saying I was proposing to represent the WSRA board. Certain personalities in the organisation pay lip service to the "one railway" mantra, but when it turns up and it isn't themselves seem to take a different view!

I will not be posting frequently or responding to comments, so I need to make one other point. I recognise and strongly support the need to reduce costs in the PLC, but it is critical this is done sensitively and recognising the essential nature of the contribution of our paid staff, who together with all of our volunteers do an amazing job in running our railway, which is daily well beyond their paid obligation.

This is a personal statement.
Frank

 

What was it that had radically changed Frank?

 

Barrie
I really believe in both the PLC and the WSRA being as open as possible, but at least for the time being that is an internal PLC matter and, as I said in my first post I can't comment further. I think most of the posters on this forum have a pretty good grasp of where we need to get to, in business and development terms. The PLC Board now needs to work hard at moving in the right direction, which it is doing.
Frank

 

I am happy to accept your statement that you "never sought or expected to represent the WSRA Board" but, for IC to speak to the WSRA Chairman, it suggests that IC had been given the impression that such was the case - presumably from the person(s) who were proposing your co-option. I am aware of your commitment to the WSR and its future hence your willingness to be co-opted and your concern about the consequent furore but this episode seems to indicate that a (large) measure of parochialism still exists and the WSR - like many other heritage lines - is still riven with the twin cancers of "ego" and "politics". If such be the case I can see much effort being expounded that should be directed at the WSR and its precarious future.

 

Presumably the matter wasn't referred to at the WSR plc AGM then. As a shareholder that was unable to attend the meeting it is frustrating to have to wait until release of the following year's AGM papers to have sight of those draft minutes, particularly after the chairman of the time had promised early publication of them. I remain mystified as to why a director would resign shortly before an AGM only to be reappointed shortly after. The shareholders deserve an explanation.

 

I’m not sure that it is, though I’d be glad to be corrected. I’m aware the company doesn’t pay dividends but are there any structural safeguards against takeover bids etc.?

 

Jon Jones-Pratt is now officially recorded as a WSR plc director:

https://www.west-somerset-railway.co.uk/corporate-information

Word on the street suggests this newly updated list of directors is already out of date. What price a desperately needed period of stability in the make up of this board?

Now that WSR plc no longer announces resignations and appointments, we will have to await Companies House updates to reveal the latest change(s).

 

That is of course correct Mr Snifter but hasn't the WSRA forfeited its right to representation by its action to remove two Directors from their number as Trustees? Will they be invited to replace their Representative?

As you suggest Mr Lockness is remarkably well informed although there has been nothing said by the plc about Mr Jonathan Jones-Pratt!

 

Aha the infamous rumour mill which has done overtime since the inception of the WSR in 1971!!

 

Do you believe everything you read in press Steven?

especially the detail!!

 

The entries on the Companies House site are out of date although it is the Responsibility of the Company Secretary to update them.

This particular entry raises a few questions doesn't it? If correct which it must be to legal, what is the difference to Ian's position to that of Frank Courtney about whom so much has been written!

COLEBY, Ian Kenneth
Correspondence address
The Railway Station, Minehead, Somerset, TA24 5BG
Role Resigned
Secretary
Appointed on
1 April 2017
Resigned on
2 May 2018

 

As it is a lengthy, albeit I accept (from experience) quite probably paraphrased quote, then I believe that it is a 'take' on what has happened from an (un-named) source of sufficient credibility for Steam Railway to consider quoting their 'take' in print - and clearly, given the nature of the present situation, this should not have been a decision Steam Railway took without being convinced they could defend its publication.

As there has been no alternative quote from the WSRplc Board, and indeed a continued refusal to provide direct comment other than some minimal denials from the WSRplc Board leadership or somewhat more detail from their seeming 'spokesmen', this 'take' will clearly gain 'air time'. It also provides a potential logical explanation, given the warnings issued by Alan and Ian and the lack of visible action upon on them. Therefore, whatever the source, the comment has a credibility about it.

Clearly, as you seem so ready to challenge any criticism of the present WSRplc Board, I presume you must know otherwise? In which case, please inform us of the error in Steam Railway's reporting.

@Snifter's point had nothing to do with a WSRA acting as 'representative' on the WSRplc Board - his point was that the WSRA does have an interest and ultimately say in WSRplc matters by virtue of being the largest single shareholder (well, last we knew, anyway!) As the WSRplc Board leadership have made clear on here that they consider themselves answerable to the shareholders and the shareholders alone, then statements that the largest shareholder has no say could make the next General Meeting, shall we say, interesting!

I thought it was the WSRplc website that was quoting Mr Jones-Pratt as being a Director! (And it was @Barrie the Beer who drew attention to the fact!)

Steven

 

Err - the entry refers to the role of Company Secretary, and states Ian held this role just over a year - the appointment being before the resignation (I believe the present Company Secretary is Richard Maw, who I believe is the Finance Director). I fail to see the point you are making.

Details of changes to officers should be notified to Companies House within 14 days of the appointment being made, so, as there is only the website entry to indicate Mr Jones-Pratt's appointment, we don't know if the notification to Companies House is late or not.

Steven

 

Point made and accepted Steven my mistake!

 

Richard, I am not sure of the point you are making. I was company secretary, but handed that role over to Richard Maw. This is what the entry refers to!

Ian Coleby

 

Yes Ian I am sorry I have already owned up to that Mistake to Beancounter

 

Richard

This thread deals with serious issues about the future of our Railway and the relationship between the constituent bodies.

Can I respectfully suggest that if you have a concern about the actions of the WSRA or its officers, you, as a WSRA member, pose that concern to Mike Sherwood, the WSRA vice-Chairman, who posts on here as @aldfort BEFORE posting about in publicly. The Trustees specifically made that channel available for WSRA members in our public statement of the action the Trustees had taken recognising that might be helpful.

You might also want to consider asking the WSR plc, or the relevant individual, if you have concerns about their actions. An e-mail or a Nat Pres ‘conversation’ with Ian Coleby directly would have avoided the above instance of mistaken public scaremongering.

In either case, if you receive no answer, or an answer that does not satisfy you, then you must act as you see fit but surely it is better to ask first?

Robin

 

Robin I have already been in touch with Mike Sherwood and expressed my concerns to him directly.

I presently have no issues with the plc and believe they should now be left alone to formulate their way forward and await developments with keen interest.

I agree with you that this is not the place to conduct business but if it is posted here and I feel it necessary to comment I will. Perhaps we should all take a breather, I know I would like to do so!

On a lighter note it would appear that neither you I or Ian Coleby can sleep. Four o clock in the morning is not the best time to post I would suggest - going back to bed now!

 

Not flying Spitfires and other self publicising post then?