If you register, you can do a lot more. And become an active part of our growing community. You'll have access to hidden forums, and enjoy the ability of replying and starting conversations.

Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

Discussion in 'Narrow Gauge Railways' started by 50044 Exeter, Dec 25, 2009.

  1. Jamessquared

    Jamessquared Nat Pres stalwart

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,102
    Likes Received:
    57,421
    Location:
    LBSC 215
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    In modern usage, is there also a consideration about wheelchair access? (i.e. adapted carriages etc).

    Tom
     
  2. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    No doubt there probably is.....and if not, there ought to be.
     
  3. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    That's my understanding, too. Existing lines like the NYMR have grandfather rights but no such rights will exist on the rebuilt L & B. RSP 5 states:
    "Platforms should be long enough to accommodate the longest train booked to call at the station plus an allowance for inaccurate stopping, typically 2 m. Exceptionally, a shorter platform may be accepted provided that it is long enough to accommodate the majority of trains and special arrangements are agreed with HMRI for longer trains."
     
  4. Steve

    Steve Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    10,088
    Occupation:
    Gentleman of leisure, nowadays
    Location:
    Near Leeds
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Again, RSP 5 states:
    "Stations should be constructed with straight platforms and on the level or on a gradient not steeper than 1 in 500. Minor stations at which trains do not terminate or reverse may be constructed on steeper gradients where suitable arrangements can be made to ensure safety, subject to the agreement of HMRI."
    With regard to platform height, I doubt that the ORR would agree to passengers simply roaming around and would expect a platform of sorts to be defined, even if it is has no real height.
     
  5. RailWest

    RailWest Part of the furniture

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    3,803
    Likes Received:
    7,439
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Country
    Which is part of the problem AIUI facing the desire by the S&DRHT to create a temporary terminus north of the infilled cutting at Chilcompton. It would also appear to rule out such things as (say) an out-and-back shuttle from Blackmoor to Parracombe.
     
  6. Mark Thompson

    Mark Thompson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    3,559
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    E sussex
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Without any reference material to hand, I would reckon that peak traffic days would have been Saturdays in July and August, Saturdays being the changeover day for most boarding houses. So peak "Up" traffic in the morning, up until about 11, and "Down" peak most likely being the train which connected with the ACE, about teatime. So there would be a staggered peak, perhaps necessitating the reforming of trains at Pilton during the afternoon period. So I'm guessing that shorter/longer trains would be travelling in opposite directions at any one time during those Saturdays, making crossings feasible if the longer train were over 5 carriages in length.
    Also, the only traffic which could conceivably originate at Lynton on the revived L&B would be either residential, or visitors staying in the twin villages. Any access from outside would be virtually impossible, there being no space for car parking at the station, or even near it, (cyclists and long distance walkers excepted).
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2021
  7. Mark Thompson

    Mark Thompson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    3,559
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    E sussex
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Due to conditions in the ENPA planning approval, shuttles terminating at Parracombe are not permitted anyway.
     
  8. MellishR

    MellishR Resident of Nat Pres Friend

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    8,068
    Likes Received:
    5,164
    Vintage Trains use a very short platform at Tyseley Warwick Road.
     
  9. Pete Thornhill

    Pete Thornhill Resident of Nat Pres Staff Member Administrator Moderator Friend

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    7,498
    Likes Received:
    5,455
    Yes, but that’s been around a fair few years.
     
  10. Michael B

    Michael B Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2020
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bristol
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Under the old regime both Bratton Fleming and Woody Bay Stations were on a gradient of 1 in 330, the rest level. I'm sure someone has calculated what Woody Bay is now. The halts opened after the opening had gradients as follows: Snapper 1 in 528, Parracombe 1 in 100, 1 in 50 from about Churchtown Bridge (I've yet to find a photograph showing a gradient post there), Caffyns 1 in 50.
     
  11. Michael B

    Michael B Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2020
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bristol
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    On Whit-Monday 1921 the usual down 10.33am ran and the notice to staff said it was 'to be formed with a Brake Third and 3 Thirds; additional coaches to be attached as required. Driver and Fireman for 3rd Engine to book on at 9.40 a.m.to pilot 10.33 a.m. down if required.' It appears this train was the most likely to be double-headed during the summer.
     
  12. 30854

    30854 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,172
    Likes Received:
    11,493
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Brighton&Hove
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Does any record exist of goods arrangements, in the event of heavier passenger loadings? The one thing I never recall seeing photographic evidence for (after construction and before closure) is a goods only working.
     
  13. Michael B

    Michael B Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2020
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    1,045
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bristol
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    There seems to be no information on any goods trains in the L & B period. Maybe mixed trains could cope or maybe they were run on an ad hoc basis as the need arose. Certainly ballast trains were incorporated into schedules on special occasions, such as Whit Monday 1921 referred to in another post. I am not aware of any photographs of goods trains. In the Southern Railway period there was provision for a goods train in the working timetable from Pilton Yard (where the goods depot was) to run as required to Lynton and back from the summer of 1924 until 1927 leaving Pilton Yard at 11.13 am, returning from Lynton at 1.30pm. From 1928 it became permanent on Fridays, but only in winter. Only the northbound working was shown in the working timetable leaving at 12.5 pm. Information on the make-up of these trains is lacking, but on Saturday 31 January 1931 a composite coach was included amongst the goods vehicles. This information comes from the log of a guard based at Exeter. The regular goods train was omitted from the working timetable after the winter of 1931/32. I would have thought it was put on to deal with certain commodities like oil barrels in bogie wagons rather than designed to relieve passenger trains but that is guesswork on my part.
     
    Mark Thompson, Bluenosejohn and 30854 like this.
  14. ConRod1

    ConRod1 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2021
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    38
    I’ve just received this so I’m posting should anyone not receive their copy for any reason. In the interest of transparency of course.

    A MATTER OF TRUST
    How the L&B Trust AGM of 2021 went off the rails as related by Anne Belsey, L&BR CIC Director
    Once upon a time in the west ... well, actually, at the start of the L&B Trust AGM in Lynton Town Hall on 25th September 2021, the Trust chairman, Mr Peter Miles, announced to the assembled members that the election of candidates to hold positions as Trustees would be postponed. This announcement was immediately followed by a call for a vote of no confidence and pointed interventions from various members of the audience impugning the integrity of the Board of Trustees. What was the cause of this rancour?
    It all began on 6th August 2021, when Mr Tony Nicholson, the Trust secretary, signed off the Trust's agenda for the AGM and submitted it for printing (as you can see from page ii of your Report and Accounts for the year ending 31 December 2020). The 6th August 2021 was the 50th clear day before the start of the AGM. ('Clear day' means not including the date of the AGM itself.)
    Tony Nicholson denies that 6th August was the actual date when the agenda was submitted for printing, but this is irrelevant. The fact remains that the agenda with its list of candidates was printed and posted before the M&As permitted.
    The Trust's Memorandum and Articles of Association (known as the 'M&As' for short) is the Trust's constitution – its basic law and rules setting out what Trust members, including Trustees (especially Trustees!) must do and what they may not do. For a Trustee to transgress the M&As is a very serious offence. (To obtain your own copy of the Trust's M&As, go to the members' section of the L&B website, go to the archive section on the left-hand side and click on 'Corporate Information'.)
    Article 40 (2) of the Articles of Association (page 11) sets out the period during which submissions must be made for Trust members wishing to be elected as Trustees. This states that no nomination may be submitted less than 35 nor more than 49 clear days before the date of the AGM.
    The first date upon which anyone could have submitted nomination papers was therefore the 7th August, the day after the agenda with its list of candidates was (officially) signed off and sent for printing. Normally, this would not have been a problem, as normally nobody puts themselves forward for election except retiring Trustees who are wanting to be re-elected, so we don't really have a proper election at all. If this was a public ballot and if the number of candidates did not exceed the number of places available, such as you find quite commonly with parish council elections, no ballot papers would be issued and the candidate(s) would be 'elected unopposed'.
    However, this year someone other than a retiring Trustee did put himself forward to become a Trustee. Again in times past this might not have been too much of an issue, as the Trust's M&As allow it to have up to nine Trustees. If the Board of Trustees had had fewer than nine members, then this extra candidate could have effectively been 'elected unopposed'. Unfortunately, we already had nine Trustees, including the three retiring who were standing for re-election, so a genuine contest was in prospect.
    So who was this upstart interloper trying to get onto the Board of Trustees at this delicate time with the railway's extension plans at stake?
    The fourth candidate is Mr Christopher Duffell, a highly qualified engineer with military experience in railways who had been tasked by the Board of Trustees to manage the work required for the railway's Transport and Works Act Order and thus a key individual in our ongoing extension plans. He submitted his nomination papers on 17th August, 39 clear days before the AGM, and thus well inside the period allotted for the submission of nominations.
    An argument in defence of the Board of Trustees' actions is that Chris did not notify the Trust Secretary of his intention to stand before he did, that is to say before the M&As allowed him to.

    The reason why the Trust Secretary signed off the AGM agenda with its list of candidates before the closing date for nominations was that 'the printers were going away on holiday'.
    The Trust's M&As do not specify when the AGM agenda may be published, except that members must be given 21 clear days notice (Article of Association 5, page7). The clear implication in having a set nominations period is that the AGM agenda cannot be signed off and published until the 34th clear day before the AGM. To do otherwise would be to make the M&As nonsensical, which of course they cannot be, as they are the Trust's foundation stone.
    Aside from the lame excuses put forward above, what other reason might there be for this contravention of the Trust's M&As?
    There might have been some confusion over the dates, after all, we do not normally hold AGMs at the end of September. We normally hold them in mid-May. It might purely be a case of simple incompetence, nothing more.
    However, further consideration suggests that this practice of signing off the AGM agenda before the 34th clear day before the AGM is commonplace. In 2020, when we had a 'virtual' AGM on 17th October, the AGM agenda was signed off on 1st September, 46 clear days before the AGM. In 2018, the agenda was signed off 36 days beforehand, in 2017 it was 44 days, and in 2016 it was 39 days.
    (Incidentally, the shop at Woody Bay does provide a very useful document for calculating the number of days ahead of a particular date. It is called a calendar and copies are available for £4.99 [plus £3 p&p if bought online].)
    The explanation put forward by Tony Nicholson for the need to agree and publish the AGM agenda before the date implied by the M&As is that the time-scale allowed for by the M&As is too short. In which case it should not be beyond the wit of the Board of Trustees to ask for authority from the membership to amend the M&As to allow for adequate time for things to be done properly.
    After submitting his nomination (well within the allotted period), Chris Duffell was asked by Tony Nicholson to withdraw his nomination and perhaps re-submit it for the next AGM in 2022. Such an approach is untoward and suggests that Tony was anxious to hide his (or someone else's) mismanagement of the election. Not unreasonably, Chris declined his invitation.
    A second ballot slip, on green paper, together with new candidate profiles had to be sent out to all the Trust's members. They were sent out with L&B Magazine No.125, together with a News Briefing (not the usual Newsletter).
    Problem solved, one might suppose, but not so, as the documents sent out for the ballot in this second mailing contained a number of alterations, inconsistencies and irregularities, so that the most benign view that might be placed on the conduct of this now contested election is that incompetence with the original mail-out had been followed by further incompetence.
    Let us begin with the new (green) ballot paper itself. Firstly, evidence has come to light that not all members received these substitute green ballot papers and that many such members might have been unaware that they should have. So they might have submitted the original blue one, or maybe did not submit a ballot paper at all. After all what is the point in voting when there is no real election in prospect (as usually happens with Trust AGMs)?
    Secondly, the substitute ballot papers did not clearly state that the original blue ballot papers were void. Nor did they clearly indicate that only three out of the four candidates should be voted for and that the selection of four candidates would invalidate one's vote. A number of people told me that they were unaware that they should vote (or should have voted) for only three candidates.
    The way that the green ballot paper was set out was fundamentally misleading for it listed six items of business. The first two items covered the adoption of the Report and the appointment of an accountant. These, being quite distinct both from each other and from the following four items,

    were properly listed as separate items of business.
    The remaining four items, the re-election of three retiring Trustees and the election of a fourth candidate to the board of Trustees were not four separate items of business, for each item impinged upon the other three. The election of each candidate could not be considered in isolation. The election of three out of four candidates was properly one item of business.
    The order in which the candidates were listed was unorthodox. In normal, public elections, candidates are listed with their surnames in alphabetical order. Everyone is familiar with alphabetical ordering. It neither presumes nor indicates any superiority or preference of one individual over another to any extent other than where their surname appears in the alphabet.
    Indeed, it would appear that this normal procedure was applied to the original blue ballot paper with the three candidates listed in alphabetical order. The inclusion of Chris Duffell, however, upset this normal ordering of things, or perhaps the compiler of this second ballot paper could not remember their alphabet and did indeed suppose that 'D' came after 'S'. Chris Duffel's (sic) name was also spelt incorrectly, but that is a minor matter and although indicative of sloppiness would have been unlikely to have affected the vote.
    It should be noted that Tony Nicholson denies any involvement in, and therefore responsibility for, this second ballot paper. He gives the misspelling of Chris's surname as evidence of such a claim, and he was away on holiday at the time.
    A more serious omission was any mention as to what position Chris Duffell was to be elected. For the other candidates, it was clearly indicated that they were to be re-elected as Trustees. For Chris, no indication was made on the ballot paper that he was to be elected as a Trustee. Given that no indication of an actual contest was mentioned on the ballot paper, that each election was given as a separate item of business, that his name was not listed alphabetically with the other three candidates, and that he is playing a central role in our extension plans, one might well have supposed that Chris was not standing for election to the Board of Trustees at all, but for some other very important position.
    Along with the replacement ballot paper came two other documents that referenced the forthcoming election at the AGM. The News Briefing mentions the new voting slip after reference to 'a nomination for trustee being received after the required press date'. No mention is made of the fact that the 'required press date' itself contravened the Trust's M&As, as we have already seen. This reference to a 'required press date' might be taken as meaning that the fourth candidate's nomination papers had been received after their due date, which was not at all the case.
    The fact that these ballot papers were to be sent to Tony Nicholson, one of the candidates, should not be regarded as in any way suspicious. Sending the Trust's ballot papers to the Trust Secretary is the established way of doing things, as he is the individual responsible for the proper conduct of Trust elections, but the fact that this was now a contested election, that the Trust Secretary, Tony Nicholson, himself was a candidate and in light of all the foregoing, suspicions were bound to be aroused.
    The second accompanying document, headed 'Election of Trustees' is a much more troubling document. It does indeed state that members should vote for only three of the four candidates (the only place where this instruction is made), but that is the best thing that can be said about it. If you compare the member profiles of the three retiring Trustees in this later document with those in the Report and Accounts beneath the AGM agenda, you will see that they have been enhanced. A few extra words have been added to each of them to make their importance and usefulness to the railway seem all the more important.
    By contrast, the profile submitted by Chris Duffell has been drastically reduced. References to his time on the Longmoor Military Railway and his work on the reopening the Kosovo railway system (whilst serving as a Territorial officer with the Royal Logistics Corps) have been completely erased,

    as has his stated determination to make 'the L&B Trust an open, responsive and inclusive organisation'. His work to 'deliver' the TWAO has been changed to work merely to 'prepare' the TWAO, whilst he is not described as a 'leading' member of the Construction Design Group, but merely a member of the CDG. Chris's profile was less than the 350 words maximum as indicated on the nominations form, so should not have been reduced.
    The explanation given for enhancing the profiles of the three existing Trustees and reducing that of Chris Duffell was 'to make them of equal length to make things fair for all'. Yet the point of such profiles is to enable people to judge which candidate is the more suitable. If one candidate is more qualified and has more relevant experience, then to obscure this fact is to deny information necessary for voters to make their choice. During the AGM, Peter Miles admitted that he had made these alterations.
    In this same leaflet the three existing Trustees were each endorsed (by Peter Miles?), and it is quite in order for them to be so, and even to be described as 'invaluable' – they might well be. However, to describe one as 'irreplaceable' is either inappropriate hyperbole or, if it is factually correct, deeply worrying. If it is factually correct, when Tony Nicholson eventually steps down as a Trustee, will his absence mean that the L&B can no longer continue to function?
    These additions, redactions and undue endorsements cannot be seen as anything other than an attempt to unduly sway the vote. Lacking amongst all this additional paperwork was an envelope in which to return these new green ballot papers. Perhaps the assumption was that people would use the one accompanying the original AGM documents. Of course, some people might already have used these to post off the now invalid blue ballot papers. The lack of a return envelope would make people less likely to vote again.
    It was only when this second batch of documents dropped onto people's doormats along with the Summer edition of the L&B magazine that some people became aware that all was not well with this election and began to question its integrity.
    Amongst those who became alarmed were two CIC Directors who, whilst not being Trustees are, of course, members of the Trust and are Directors of a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Trust – the Lynton & Barnstaple Railway Community Interest Company – which is essentially responsible for operating the existing railway on a day-to-day basis whilst the Trust essentially devotes its time to the matter of extending it.
    These two, Keith Vingoe and myself, independently emailed the Trustees to alert them of the serious deficiencies in the way the Trust election was being handled and to advise them to postpone the election to a later date when it could be re-run without all the aforementioned irregularities, as did former Trust Chairman, Peter Bowes.
    The response to this alert was actually led by another CIC Director, Brom Bromidge. His plan, backed by Peter Miles, was to go ahead with the election and see how many void ballots came in. 'Void' in this case meaning original blue ballot papers instead of replacement green ones and green ballot papers whereupon all four candidates had been voted for. Only then, and depending upon the proportion of void ballots, would the decision be made whether or not to allow the election to stand.
    Such an approach did not, of course, take into account the (unknown) number of people who did not receive a green ballot paper but who did not 'get in touch to ask for one' as Peter Miles thought that they should (as he explained in response to an email from myself). Nor did it take into account those members who habitually do not vote because usually there is no point and had not become aware that a real contest was in prospect.
    So the votes came in, for both the Trust and the CIC, and were duly counted and sorted. Brom Bromidge counted the Trust's ballot papers, as he was not involved in that election and another CIC Director, Clive Robey, counted the CIC ballot as he was not a candidate in that.

    (It is perhaps worth noting that whilst the Trust election had four candidates standing for three places, with the CIC election there were three candidates standing for four places. No contest.)
    By the Thursday before the AGM, it became apparent that the Trust election could not be allowed to stand. There were more blue ballot papers than green, and amongst the green ones, a third had votes cast for all four candidates, which effectively made them void.
    So it was that immediately after opening the Trust AGM, the Chairman, Peter Miles, announced that the Trust election would not then be held. This came as no great surprise to many, as rumours had been circulating that the election process had become quite farcical and could not be upheld.
    It was then that Steve Ball rose to ask for a vote of no confidence in the Trust, which was immediately seconded. This was brushed aside with the assertion that, with so few members in attendance at the meeting, it would not be binding or democratic. A non-binding vote of no confidence was called for, to ascertain the mood of the meeting, but even this was brushed aside.
    Discussion was sidelined into whether the existing Trustees, retiring at this AGM, would remain in position as Trustees until the new election could be held. The assertion was made that they had to remain in post in order to fulfil their duties – Ian Cowling as Membership Secretary, Tony Nicholson as Company Secretary and Magazine Editor, and Charles Summers in charge of Heritage Carriages.
    Such an assertion is nonsense. For example, in 2018 Mr CJ Dadson took over as Membership Secretary, but he did not become a Trustee, and Tony Nicholson has admitted that a person does not need to be a Trustee to be the Trust's Company Secretary.
    The most spirited defence of the Board of Trustees came from CIC Director Brom Bromidge, who argued that the L&B would be lost if all the Trustees resigned from their positions. Brom is not in the best of health and the fact that he had to defend a body that seemed incapable of addressing members' concerns itself was a most unedifying spectacle.
    Watching this sparring between members of the audience with a variety of questions, complaints and assertions and a seemingly indifferent Board of Trustees was rather like watching two boxers fighting, neither of whom was able to land a punch upon the other and with one of the fighters largely ignoring the other.
    So where do we go from here? The Trust election is to be re-staged, presumably with the four candidates, with their unabridged profiles presented intact and, it is to be hoped for the sake of fairness, with no proxy votes permitted. But is that the end of the matter? What will bring closure?
    To contravene the Trust's M&As and so mishandle a simple routine event like a Trust election is surely a resigning matter. I have suggested to Tony Nicholson that he resign from the Board of Trustees. As Company Secretary, the conduct of Trust AGMs and elections is surely his responsibility - notwithstanding either printers' holidays or his own.
    I have put it to him that his resigning would be the quickest way to resolve this unfortunate affair and to enable the railway to move on, but he denies any responsibility for this whole muddle. He points to the fact if any errors were made (and he denies that they were), then they were made by Tony Nicholson the Company Secretary, not by Tony Nicholson the Trustee. He would be happy to resign as Company Secretary and leave that position's duties to another, but insists he remain a Trustee as it was not as a Trustee that he was responsible for the conduct of the election.
    So if Tony Nicholson is not responsible for this embarrassing affair, who is? Who can we trust to handle the Trust's affairs?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    ross, Old Kent Biker and weltrol like this.
  15. johnofwessex

    johnofwessex Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    Messages:
    9,185
    Likes Received:
    7,226
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Thorn in my managers side
    Location:
    72
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Oh dear

    It appears that Contagion is spreading West from Minehead

    I hope a satisfactory resolution can be reached quickly
     
    Gareth, green five, MellishR and 2 others like this.
  16. Dunfanaghy Road

    Dunfanaghy Road Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2019
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    1,566
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Alton, Hants
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    Yes I am an active volunteer
    Oh dear. And it all seemed to be going so well. :(
    Pat
     
  17. weltrol

    weltrol Part of the furniture Friend

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,784
    Likes Received:
    658
    Sounds very much like the Gauge 'O' Guild elections a couple of years ago....
     
  18. 30854

    30854 Resident of Nat Pres

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,172
    Likes Received:
    11,493
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Retired
    Location:
    Brighton&Hove
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    A few of us have noted as a gradual and worrying tendency over recent months, coincidentally along with the presence of certain names associated with issues further east, you know .... where Exmoor drops to sea level. Given no-one seems to have identified any definite endgame to the inexplicable machinations there, perhaps it's now time to be circling the wagons, just in case.
     
    andalfi1 likes this.
  19. Tobbes

    Tobbes Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    2,354
    In the "interest of transparency", perhaps @ConRod1 could use her/his own name.

    I should stress that I don't know any of the personalities; to the best of my knowledge, I don't think I've ever met any of the trustees or any of the people standing for election - and my only interests are in extending the L&B and the good governance to support this goal - a goal that I'm sure we all share.

    On the substance, I am pleased to see that the election is being re-run; this is a good governance in action. But the retiring Trustees should not, in my view, be extended - their term has expired and there are six other Trustees to fulfil their roles.

    Though rerunning the election is the right answer, it is also not cost free; if Tony Nicholson was responsible for the initial mistakes (I'll put it no stronger than that) that resulted in the cancelled election, I'd suggest that he do the decent thing and reimburse the Trust for the cost of re-running the election.
     
  20. H Cloutt

    H Cloutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Battle
    Heritage Railway Volunteer:
    No I do not currently volunteer
    Thank you for forwarding this comprehensive account of the events preceeding and at the AGM.

    I would say that it was obvious to me that I had to fill in and submit the second ballot paper and that I should only vote for three of the four candidates which is what I did after reading the candidates' statements.

    The one thing that is clear to me is that the timetable for receiving nominations and producing the documents for postage to members needs re-examining and changing if necessary. An organisation with membership scattered all over the country needs to take account of the time needed to get documents produced and sent out. Some might suggest that some means of transmitting the information electronically would be better but not everyone uses email and/or trusts an online voting system, so it is inevitable that paper copies will need to be produced and sent out.

    I think that calling for a vote of no-confidence was not really in the best interests of the trust. One thing is clean is that we need to move on from this - there are important things that the Trust needs to be doing at this time if we are to reach our goal of extending the railway. Lets not forget the positive things that have been achieved over recent months.
     

Share This Page