West Somerset Railway General Discussion

A lot would depend on how it's structured. For instance, lets take it to an extreme (NB This is only a discussion - not a proposal...)
WSRA, WSSRT and all the station groups combine to a single charity. All the individual groups keep their own identities, all the individual groups have their own ring fenced accounts in the overall charities accounts, maybe they even keep their existing membership structure and subscriptions, with their subs going in to 'their' account. They'd probably all have to refer to themselves as "The Whichever Group - Part of the WSR support charity" (or whatever name the charity takes)
Now you'd need the overall charity Board to acknowledge and accept that those groups are free to spend their funds as they want - each group would still have trustees to oversee and control the spend I assume. So basically the overall charity would be like "The Savings Bank of the WSR" for the groups.

I think where the big difference would be is in the chasing of donations. If the overall charity has 'experts' in filling in grant applications, lottery bids or whatever then these would be available to all,. Even the smallest station heritage wheelbarrow preservation group () would have access to these 'experts' to help with bids. Maybe (and I'm not sure if this would be acceptable to the CC) the main charity might help any group getting a small bid approved by assisting with match funding the award if it falls within the overall remit... All bids would be coordinated by this group so (hopefully) no opportunities would be missed and no double bids made.

I'm not an expert but I know the Charity Commission are always ready to help with advice. I suppose it all comes down to how willing each group is to work with another and how flexible they can be with the 'fit' that would allow the HLF and others to see a practical 'professional' overall organisation, with sub-groups that is going to ensure funds are spent correctly and the stated objectives achieved.

 

Today is a very sad day for me personally. Just received this by email as a member of the S&DRT and I trust the S&DRT don't mind me breaking this news a hour or so before it goes on their site. I would however thank the Mid-Hants for their involvement with this, good on you.

Joint Statement from the Mid-Hants Railway Limited, Mid-Hants Railway
Preservation Society Limited and the Somerset & Dorset Railway Trust Limited

The Mid-Hants Railway has offered to help house a part of the collection of
vehicles and artefacts belonging to the Somerset and Dorset Railway Trust,
which has been asked to leave the current site at Washford in Somerset,
while a permanent location for its collection is sought.

Additional information from the S&DRT

With the required movement of all items belonging to the S&DRT at Washford,
we appeal to people from the wider heritage railway movement for donations
to accomplish this move. Although the Trust has some funds to begin the huge
task of transporting some stock, it will be a very costly exercise to
complete the whole operation within the next few months. The Trust has the
largest collection of artefacts from the Somerset & Dorset Railway and this
will have to be carefully removed and possibly stored for the immediate
future.

Our membership has been extremely generous so far with over £15,000 raised
through our 'Safeguarding Our Future' Appeal of earlier this year. We have
now launched an extension to that appeal under the banner 'Progressing Our
Future' to enable our site at Washford, home of the Trust for over 40 years,
to be removed and located elsewhere.

Our membership has increased substantially over the past year and we send
out a warm welcome to anyone wishing to join us in an exciting future for
the Trust which will develop the story of, and memories of, the S&D.

Order membership and make donations via our web site www.sdrt.org.

 

Deleted

 

The news from the S&DJRT should make those who support the PLC stop gather their thoughts, is this what you support? if it is not, how do you know your organisation won't be next?

 

I think it may be a slight paraphrase of something in the Bible referring to the Israelites and all "that lot". I am ashamed to say it is years since I read a Bible but seem to remember something on these lines. I may well be wrong so if anyone knows better I am happy to stand corrected!

 

A bizarre post.

I find it hard to imagine that the observation that the shareholding gives the WSSRT leverage/security in its relations with the WSR PLC is defamatory.

I am not sure which part of my post you consider to be defamatory.

The threat of action is often used as a way to try to silence anyone questioning the decisions made and why they have made those decisions. Hmm...

 

At least the friends of the Trust with in the preservation world have not deserted the trust in their hour of need, I wonder if the chairman of Alton & Winchester Railway Co, will get a card from JPP this Christmas, if he does, the best place for it, Straight out of the office window, and into the firebox of 53808 is she sits simmering at the head of a sold out Santa special from Alresford Station.

 

It is very good news for the S&D Trust and its Members; it is also rewarding to know their Membership has increased - substantially they say.
Given the interest and support I believe they will get a good deal of donations to help with the move. I suspect some will be at the expense of the WSR.
Thank you Andy for bringing this to NP readers attention.

 

It is a shame for the WSR that it has lost a valuable part of its family after 40+ years. I am sorry for the WSR supporters who have opposed the eviction of the SDRT.

I am sad that the SDRT has been treated so appallingly. I am sad that they have been forced to expend money and energy on this. I am angry that they are compelled to leave a site they have built up from scratch over the last 40+ years.

I am appalled and disappointed that no one, especially not the HRA or their representative were able to convince the PLC Board to change course. That I think is a failure on their part. They need to hang their heads in shame.

However, I think that the SDRT is better off well away from the shitshow that is the WSR, with its toxic culture, infighting, constant crass stupidity and foot shooting.

No one is a winner here, but the biggest loser will be the WSR.

 

Wrong to like that post, I will however agree with it.

 

When you think, Someone on the PLC board, also sits on the HRA board, just how hard did they try ? or was their brief make it sound like your being constructive, " but I want them out. ?

 

As far as I can see the "...previous doubts about the legitimacy of the nominations..." have only been raised in your comments. And no questioning from you whatsoever on the legitimacy of postponing the AGM simply because the Board is not happy with the proposals???

It is a charity governed by its members. If those standing stood simply under the proposal "We feel this charity is moribund and therefore propose it be closed down and its assets dispersed" then that would be perfectly acceptable. They are stating their intentions before the election and the members have the opportunity to support or reject them. No one needs to refer to the CC. and this is possibly the worst proposal any board could face.

The current proposal is not immoral or illegal, all of the members will have the opportunity to vote on it. The reasoning is simple - Significant doubts have been cast on the Plc's current strategy regarding the saving of the railway and some members of the WSSRT wish that organisation to use it's shareholding to bring about change. End of story. Normal democracy in place. No need for the CC - it is an internal WSSRT matter. No need for any more delay. (No matter how much anyone might not like it)

I see the Proxy forms have already been revised to correct the initial errors, now all that is needed is the candidates names to be added and the candidates statement addendum to the Notice of Meeting then both can be reissued. I look forward to seeing them within the next 7 days along with the revised date of the AGM.

Please, accept what must happen. I have no wish to start complaint proceedings against the WSSRT board with the CC but I will have no hesitation to do so unless people start taking their duties seriously and stop constructing unnecessary delays.

 

Looks like a fishing expedition has brought about a result. Thanks Monkey Magic, people don't serve two masters but how and where they respond is useful.

 

I'm slightly struggling to see why you consider that there are doubts about the "legitimacy of the nominations for Trusteeship" of those who have put themselves up for election to the WSSRT. The articles of that organisations require that a candidate is formally proposed by someone who is themselves eligible to vote; and various conditions on time limits and so on. Are you suggesting that those conditions have not been met?

My hunch is that you are alluding to the fact that some of the candidates appear to have aims that might result in structural changes to the charity. While that might be true, I don't see how that in itself disqualifies anyone from standing as a candidate: it is then down to the members of the charity to decide whether they consider those candidates to be suitable. Were any of them to be elected, they would then be subject to the specific duties of being a trustee, which may or may not curtail their freedom of action. All of which is for the future: I can't see that if the nominations have been properly made, there is any alternative than to proceed with the election and let the members of the charity themselves decide.

Tom

 

Just following on from my previous post I'd like to ask you what are the specific "...doubts about the legitimacy of the nominations..." you keep alluding to ?
Or is this one of those "I know more than you do but I'm not telling you.." comments?
You suggest that the opinions of an expert on Charity Law "would be instructive". I take it this means that you are not sure of your own opinions. If this is the case I would appreciate it if you would make it explicitly clear in your comments that you are not stating fact, merely your opinion.

 

Tom , you may well be right. My point was simply that it’s a highly unusual situation, to put it mildly, where in order to effect change in another company Trustees are nominated with the express intention of manipulating the Charity for that purpose. Any prudent Chairman would check on the legality of that before holding the meeting.
Of course if the nominations are legitimate the Members should vote on them. The question then becomes, as you point out, whether it would be consistent with the Trustees duties for them to pursue that course even if it had also been approved by the Members. Despite what is often assumed limited companies and incorporated charities are not democracies. Their shareholders/ members may give whatever instructions they may like to the directors/Trustees but If they conflict with the directors/Trustees statutory duties then those take precedence.
As I understand it a merger of the two charities would require the dissolution of both and would require Charity Commission consent. The question would be how does closing down the Charity and merging it into another in order to influence the direction of the PLC further the current objects of the Charity?.
Surely it’s preferable to establish the legal position before the election the rather than go through a disruptive and contentious process which could end up being pointless.

 

Just specifically on the point in bold: I'm not sure that that is true. I am aware of two instances in which a charity was absorbed into another without a significant change to the "absorbing" charity, but with the effective dissolution of the "adsorbed".

In each case, the smaller charity owned a significant asset (a locomotive), which was of considerable value, but where the charity realised that, with an ageing set of trustees, they did not have the wherewithal to continue to maintain the locomotive. In each case, they voted to wind up the charity and absorb the asset into another charity that had complementary aims, but much greater wherewithal in funding terms. The adsorbing charity obtained the asset (a loco) and such cash as changed hands was ring-fenced to that loco. In terms of the charitable objectives of the original loco owning charities, they have been advanced, in particular the merger opened up opportunities to fund the overhaul of one of the locos which is now in service.

I don't know to what extent the CC was involved, but the significant point (in relation to yours) was that it was possible for one charity to absorb another within its original, complementary, charitable objectives, without winding up both.

Tom

 

Sadly, such hopes have been expressed - and ignored- many times already, but it would appear that no-one is listening :-(

 

Concerning where my support is going, this has confirmed my choice. The S&DRT deserves my donation, the WSR deserves nothing.