West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Email to members of the WSSRT.

''Dear Member,

I apologise if you are troubled with unwanted mail from the 10 candidates seeking election as trustees at our AGM on November 14. We protect your personal details as far as we can and ensure we comply with GDPR.
However, Barrie Childs, on behalf of the '10' demanded the membership list under section 116 of the Companies Act and, having taken legal advice, we have had to comply. I am sorry about this intrusion of your privacy, which we have limited by not providing your e-mail addresses, as this is not a legal requirement.
If you want to make representation about this to the '10', their e-mail address is wssrtcandidates@gmail.com, but be aware that in e-mailing them, you will also be providing them with your e-mail address!
Alternatively you can write to Barrie Childs at (address and email withheld)
In his demand, he has indicated that your personal information will be shared with his wife, at the same address, and also with:
Robin White (address and email withheld)
David Horton of (address and email withheld) in case you want to contact them as well.

With my apologies once again.

Yours sincerely,
Chris Austin OBE MA FCILT
Chairman,
WSSRT

(Moderator Note: This post has been edited to remove personal details of individuals that would otherwise contravene Forum Policy)

 

I was just typing when I saw the posts from @free2grice. I haven't read them closely, but the tone suggests a ratcheting up of tension and a determination not to compromise.

 

Julian, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about me here.
1. Personally I regret the loss of the SDRT from Washford. However, if that is going to happen, then the site might be used for historic coaches renovation.
2. Of course I don't "consider a signed agreement for a 50 year lease didn't need to comply with the formalities". That makes me sound like some kind of malevolent maverick. At the time, the lease extension was signed, it had been through numerous revisions and consultations and never was there any suggestion that it didn't comply with formalities. The SDRT had huge input to the lease and were equally very happy with it and the way it was signed.
3. I'm honoured that you mentioned the award! For the avoidance of doubt, this was the anual SDRT modelling competition. I entered my scratchbuilt 7mm 0-4-4 tank engine and as I was the only competitor, I won the cup. So nothing suspicious or underhand there then.
Ian Coleby

 

<Poirot>Oh really…?!? But what happened to all the other competitors…? What follows is a story of love and loss, and most of all passion… and one of the people in this room will be shown to be guilty…</Poirot>

Sorry, not sure what happened there…

Simon

 

As I said, someone's cosy empire is at risk, so expect foul play. clearly someone has a lot at stake here, why else has this turned so toxic? clearly I don't think we are getting the full picture from those people in charge of both the WSSRT, and PLC,

 

Thank you.

 

Noting the mention of Poirot recalls the the late Dame Agatha (Lady Mallowan) who was familiar with two railway stations now in preservation use. Cholsey and Churston. (maybe others?)
Although a prolific crime writer but I do not think she ever wrote a book entitled 'Monsters Under The Bed'. This thread, had it existed, could have been a good starting point. Certainly many search for them and many instances are regarded as red herrings. All good material!
On the subject of prize givings Dame Agatha won many prizes at local horticultural events.

 

Our of interest, was permission asked to publish yours and others addresses in those communiques? Rather ironic given the first letter read as if they were reporting a data breach under GDPR rather than replying to a perfectly proper request under the companies act.

 

Ian,

Whilst I do not agree with some of what Julian is saying, points 1 and 2 are very important.

The fact that neither the WSSRT nor WSRA (nor any of the trustees of the 2 organisations speaking as individuals) came out to publicly support the S&DJRT and condemn the eviction says everything about the trustees that we need to know. Shameful.

Keith

 

There's truth in that, sadly. However, a few years ago, some might have said similar about the WSRA. My observation would be that, once a total victory has been achieved, the question is then one of how the victors move from winning the war to winning the peace. I see in @WSSRTcandidates a vision that is inclusive once the victory is won; in the WSSRT (especially given the what can only be described as a rant that dropped into my inbox last night), yet more them and us division.

 

Absolutely not.

 

It read to me more like a whinge that the trustees couldn't load the deck against "the 10", and have to treat them fairly.

 

Thought not. @ikcdab defence? The WSSRT sounded very hot on not giving out email addresses of their members last night, but apparently not so concerned if they're not in favour.

 

The WSSRT Trustees did not ask permission to publish the personal addresses of myself (Dave Horton), Barrie and Dee Childs, and Robin White. A number of people have kindly been in touch with us via the email address wssrtcandidates@gmail.com to point this out. It has not gone unnoticed and we are taking advice on the matter - this is an obvious GDPR breach by the WSSRT Trustees. Sadly, it is not the first such breach in recent weeks.

 

A major reason why the WSRA war went on for so long was that the 6+1 had control of the information sent to remote members and were thus able to assure them that the status quo was fine and dandy. We now see the WSSRT trustees trying to do exactly the same and painting the 10's demand to be able to contact the members as foul play.

 

WEST SOMERSET STEAM RAILWAY TRUST SPECIAL AGM ISSUE 2020

The Threat to the Trust.
''Firstly, we would like to apologise for postponing the date of our AGM to the 14 November 2020. As Trustees, we have a duty to act in the best interests of the Trust and following the very real threat to the very existence of the Trust as described below, we had no alternative but to delay the AGM until we had fully assessed the situation and taken legal advice. The threat stems from a small, self-selected group whose admitted aim is to challenge the current direction of the Trust. This would involve outvoting the current Trustees and forcing a merger of the Trust with the Association before then using the combined shareholdings of both charities to pressurise the PLC into becoming a subsidiary of this combined charity by March 2021. This represents a real and, in our belief, extremely dangerous threat to the Trust, particularly since most of the group have shown little interest in its work hitherto, and it is hard to see how they could fulfil their as Trustees when the principal aim is to end the separate existence of the Trust.

The Trust fully supports the proposals in John Bailey’s report, which does not propose the merging of the Trust and the Association, but rather proposes the formation of an entirely new charity. The Association too does not never been asked to approve such a proposition. Since four of the ten seeking election to the Trust Board are also Association Trustees, they will be aware of this, yet persist in advocating a policy their members have not supported. We believe that the strength of the Trust lies in its remaining as an independent organisation, focussed on the work the Trust does in running the museums, in developing education and learning and in tackling the next stage of carriage restoration. Even after the Bailey report is implemented, we would see the Trust continuing to support the railway separately, in the same way that other groups along the line do, like the D&EPG or FOMS.

Never in the Trust’s history have as many as fourteen people applied simultaneously to become Trustees. Given the number and timing of the applications, along with the content of their statements, which spoke of structural changes to the WSR rather than the objects and work of the Trust, it would have been naïve and irresponsible of us to view their actions as anything other than a coordinated plan to overwhelm the current Board and use the Trust to further their own agenda. It was clear that the original number of new Trustees was designed to outvote the seven existing trustees and force through their proposals. As Trustees, we are shocked that those seeking to force this change on the Trust did not discuss their proposition with us before Robin White deposited fourteen nomination forms at Bishops Lydeard on 3 September. Almost immediately five out of the original fourteen subsequently withdrew their applications, three apologising for their actions. One additional nominee has since joined the remaining nine. 70% of the candidates seeking election to our board only became members recently, while only one has ever undertaken significant volunteer work with us.

All ten have been invited to be interviewed by the existing Trustees in accordance with the principles of good governance that Trust have adopted but they have declined. We were both shocked and saddened that none of the new applicants chose to discuss their proposition with us before submitting their forms. Their approach towards us since then has been characterised by allegations of lying, bullying and even a threat of legal action. As well as being deeply upsetting and personally stressful to our volunteer Trustees, their actions have cost the Trust, your Trust, heavily in both time and money. Since September, they have canvassed for members to join and support this take-over, encouraging people who have little connection with the WSR to join them and end the independent existence of the Trust. While we would normally welcome an increase in our membership, we are concerned that many of our new members may not be aware of the actual situation.

The current Trustees think the ten’s ideas are misguided and their approach is neither transparent nor beneficial. We agree with John Bailey that change must be evolutionary, not revolutionary, and believe that the Trust deserves to survive as an independent charity to carry on with the good work at which it has been so successful. We also think that a total of twenty Trustees is far too large to run a charity of this size and that such a number is inconsistent with the guidance of the Charity Commission. We need more ‘doers’ rather than more people telling us what to do. We will therefore be urging members to vote against the appointment of these ten people when the AGM papers are circulated later this month''.