Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

The membership can try to explain, but all you will get back is " la la we can't hear you." because they have their fingers in their ears, they won't step down, that much is clear, they are going to have to be made to stand down, either that or another supporting group established, one that everyone can get behind, and can establish its self as an professional, and honest body to carry the railway foreword, and leave the failed rump to disintegrate over time.

 

I've been away for a few days with work, but we are indebted to @Michael B for digging this out.

Ignoring Mr Swainson's apparent persecution complex, quite frankly, who on earth does he think he is to decide who should see what? These aren't exactly state secrets, and @Michael B is asking perfectly sensible questions.

Perhaps the point is that Mr Miles and his friends do not intend to personally reimburse the Trust for the costs of sending us their "Confidential Letter" which is itself riddled with inaccuracies, misdirections, personal attacks and general bile - and which, having alleged that there is some vast conspiracy against the railway improbably led by three of their colleagues, produces not an ounce of evidence to support this very damaging allegation.

 

In preservation societies of which I have been a member since way back many felt that the membership fee more or less covered the costs of the magazine and its postage.
What the society got out of it was a body of supporters, and a pool from which to recruit volunteers. I wouldn't think that the membership subscriptions were an important source of revenue.

 

For what it's worth a Trust of which we are both members gets a healthy 5 figure sum out of membership subs, larger than the also 5 figure cost of printing and posting an award winning magazine 4 times a year. There's still admin costs to take after that, but we're still a long way in the black on that front. It's not our biggest source of income, but still a useful amount. And as you say, having a body of supporters is also important.

 

Indeed. I can’t remember which thread it was on, but I recall posting figures about a Society of which I’m a member to the effect that after all costs were taken, about £72k per year was available to support the railway. I seem to remember the cost of providing four colour A4 printed magazines per year was about £5 per member per year. (A relatively large society so I guess there are some economies of scale, but even so, considerably less than the annual subscription).

Tom

 

One society I am in offers e-membership at a lower rate than conventional membership. e-membership means all comms & magazines are electronic unless the rules of the society require otherwise in particular circumstances. Clearly that offers cost savings though printing an ever smaller number of magazines raises the unit cost of those.

 

That maybe the case, but mailing and postage costs are probably more than the printing costs, so there are real cost savings.

 

A good point.

But I'm keen to have evidence that the six trustees who signed the "Confidential Letter" have in fact paid the full cost of this exercise from their own pockets, as I understand those who wrote the "Minority Report" did.

 

I think you know the answer to that. They clearly haven't paid for it themselves. It will have been charged to the trust as a "legitimate" expense. You know that is the case.

 

So, can the 'minority' Trustees now post to all the members and charge that cost as a 'legitimate expense' on the basis that they are fulfilling their obligations as Trustees to draw attention to perceived improper actions and misleading accounting etc etc ? Thought not.....

 

I certainly suspect that these six Trustees have simply decided to spend Members' money on this abysmal thing, @ikcdab - but I don't know it.

If this is what has happened, then these six gentlemen need to get their checkbooks out and reimburse the Trust before the Charity Commission makes them.

 

Shame they didn't consider all the members. Do you think they have heard of this wonderful thing called live streaming?

 

I'm reading it as a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny and accountability, @gwilialan . From what I understand there wasn't an agenda, there was no real opporunity to ask the forensic questions that were in the crowd-sourced list (thanks again to all who contributed) and as a result an opportunity was missed.

 

It's fairly standard procedure for boards to be informed before any members meeting of any difficult or awkward questions that may require some time to find the answers or resolve a complex reply into succinct text. The answers are either given at the meeting or, as in this case, if there are numerous questions, then there is no reason why a comprehensive written reply cannot be published. Saying the Q&A session was just for attendees is an insult to all of the membership. How do they know that none of those written questions had been presented for inclusion into that list by members who subsequently attended the meeting? Are they now claiming to psychic as well?

 

They were submitted in the week before the meeting, @gwilialan .

 

If notice is given to the Trust before the next AGM that at that meeting we want an itemised breakdown of 'subscription' expenditure between the cost of the Magazines/Newsletters as one figure and separate headings for anything else charged there perhaps it will become clear. And if still not clear, questions can be put to the Treasurer or Accountant at the meeting as to where any charge has been made (and how much) to make it clear before the approval of the accounts is put to a vote. There has to be a way this question is answered for those who wish to have one.

 

Agreed ! But to be fair to them perhaps include another line from the same speech : " You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... In the name of God, go!"

 

I suspect you will get a response, if indeed you do(!!), along the lines of:
Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston pie,
Ask me a riddle and I will reply,
A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly,
Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston pie.

 

@Tobbes , lets not forget the electoral cock-ups of the last 3 years made by the Chairman and Secretary totalling an estimated £9k, i think the Secretary's feeble outburst at the last AGM suggesting that you pay for a professional Secretary because one would have to be paid was a rather two faced comment considering how much his incompetence has cost the Trust in the last 3 years

 

@Michael B a very good source has suggested the budget for the magazine is somewhere in the region of £10k and that the editor has a free reign as to what he does