Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

A quick search for something similar threw up this. It isn't a perfect match, but is pretty close. Anyway you get the idea:

 

Perhaps Anne Belsey is ConRod1. Maybe ConRod1 writes on her behalf with her blessing. As things stand I have no idea who speaks for who

I'm surprised and disappointed that you think that my intention is to shoot the messenger. My hope was to hear all sides of the story in this matter.

As they say , play the ball, not the man.

 

When I surveyed Bratton Fleming Station there was a complete finial (not able to post a photograph here I dont think) and an enlarged drawing was added to the 4mm scale drawing (a transcription of my drawing) of the station building, published in the 'Measured and Drawn' book page 172. I believe Exmoor Associates were going to use my drawings and photographs to produce the replacements.

 

Micheal, I have used the information and photos that you sent supplied to me, I've been meaning to send you an update on the progress of the finials as I have had an update from the artist who is reproducing them at the beginning of this week, all I can say is without your dedication to recording everything about this railway we would be lost when it comes not only to reproducing items like this but to working out where the signals were at Chelfham ect, without your records and files and the years of research you have put in our efforts in restoring different parts of the railway would be made that much harder and I can't thank you enough for all the help and information you have provided for us all to achieve what we have so far

 

I would say that Anne's summing up of the AGM is a fair and accurate discription of events on the evening also her explanation of events that caused the issues is most informative

 

Another thought on this matter....

There were four candidates for three vacancies. It would appear that some proxy forms contained votes in favour of all four candidates. For some reason these appear to have been regarded therefore as 'void', but is that necessarily the case? Unless a member specifically wishes to vote against a particular candidate(s), then what is wrong with allowing every member to vote in favour of as many candidates as (s)he wishes, then totaling all the votes at the count and appointing the three who get the most votes?

 

Articles, basically - they lay down the procedure for voting. Ballots need to be administered in accordance or are void. The papers need to say how to vote - in your hypothetical case above, that makes sense *except* that you've disenfranchised everyone who did as they were told and only voted for three. What about all the people who liked candidate 4 but didn't think they stood a chance so didn't bother, but would have done had they known all votes for all candidates would be counted?

That's an enormous can of worms, all roads out of which lead to 'void the election.' Which in fairness is what they've done.

 

There are so many caveats to this that they shouldn't have all been voided by default, however if it is impossible to tell who the voter has voted for then yes voiding is fine, particularly as in this circumstance voiding them is materially no different to counting them (in that the particular ballot would not effect who is ultimately elected). At a standard election this would have been a decision made on a ballot by ballot basis by the returning officer in dialogue with the representative election agents

 

I'm just wondering- I used the green form, only voted for 3 candidates, abstaining for the 4th, but struck out the section above about proxy voting, as I didn't want there to be any excuse for a proxy vote to be used.
I'm just wondering if even that may have invalidated my paper...

 

Probably. I had voted for three and abstained for the 4th but then decided that I really ought to vote against.
Thinking about it I now unclear what it means to vote against a candidate. In a local/central government election you vote for the candidates you support and if the number of candidates is less than or equal to the number of vacancies then there is no election. This is different from the other motions where you are asked to adopt the accounts and appoint the reporting accountant. One wonders what would happen if the vote to appoint the accountant was lost - I suppose you would have to select another one and have another vote.
I assume that the trust will have to have an EGM to re-run the election.

 

I can't say I have ever come across an election for office in which one could vote against a candidate. It smacks of the "blackballing" procedure that used to be used in some of the Gentlemen's Clubs. Rather distasteful in my view.

 

Neither have I. I don't see it as sinister in this case.

 

Can but agree with Dainton. If as in this case there are 4 candidates and three posts. The candidate with the least votes loses..... By the same token if there had only been three nominees then there wouldn't have had to be a vote as they'd have automatically filled the positions.

 

I've got a vague recollection from the mists of time that there was a discussion about just that on the WSR thread; it was probably round about the time of the WSRA EGMs (five years ago?) when there was a lot of very minute discussion about the arcana of elections.

Again from memory, I thought the discussion had come to the conclusion that voting for / against was a requirement in company law, but I might have got that wrong.

At one level, I could see the benefit. For example, if you had 2 vacancies and 1 candidate, being able to vote against would enable the membership to block an obviously unsuitable person. If you didn't have that provision, you couldn't stop anyone getting onto the board in an uncontested election.

The flip side - and I don't recall ever seeing a solution, but presumably there is one - is how you resolve a tie. For example, if candidate A gets 50 votes for and none against; and candidate B gets 100 votes for and 50 against - who wins? The most popular, or the least unpopular

My hunch is that you need a company secretary with a sound knowledge of company law to ensure that the procedures are in accordance with said law.

Tom

 

I'd suggest that the resolution for a tie is that the chair does not vote unless there is a tie, at which point their vote becomes decisive.

More generally, I was at a meeting last night where I heard the results of elections to General Synod from Lincoln Diocese. The materials presented were both full and thorough, but most of those there struggled somewhat to understand the arithmetic of the STV system used. Given the debate sparked here, and the complexities of simple majorities, I can't help but wonder if "top x" get the job, where x is the number of vacancies, might be best and simplest. Even if negative voting under STV is best applied as a simple refusal to rank one or more candidates.

 

I have in front of me the Form of Proxy for the Severn Valley Railway Company Limited ("SVR(G)") AGM. Resolution 2 is "To elect Directors (up to three of the following)" and there are three names. Against each is a "For" and "Against" box. So despite there not being more candidates than vacancies, there is still an election, and we have the opportunity to vote against any individual.

When I was a member of the WSRA, there was a similar system in place. I don't know if there still is as I am no longer a member.

 

Thanks, Dave. It is a novel idea to me !
I wonder what happens if one of the three (for example) got more votes "against" than "for" ? Would they (could they ?) be rejected or would they still take office as there are three vacancies and three candidates ? If they are rejected would there have to be a second election to fill the vacant spot ? All very confusing as far as I can see !

 

The Middleton Railway doesn’t have for and against but does have a requirement that a candidate gets at least 50% voting for him/her. Thus, if 100 ballot papers are returned that person must get at leat 50 votes for them. That is independent of the number of people standing.so, if there are (say) 12 people for 12 posts they are still not guaranteed a seat on the board as members do not have to put 12 crosses on the ballot paper and it is quite common for them to not do so.