Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

That’s superb!

I liked this bit:

A railway needing:

• an oversight board,
• an oversight advisory panel,
• an oversight appeals panel,
• stakeholder-majority voting thresholds,
• and episcopal arbitration

…before it can decide whether someone remains a trustee is probably not laying much track that month.

Tom

 

....plus probably a referal to the Galactic Planning Board on Centauri 5 and a personal endorsement (subject to constant change) from World President and Supreme Leader DJT

 

On reflection, whilst I'll definitely go to the B&YVRT agm, I think I may spend the evening in the bar of the Fox and Goose instead.
Whatever I hear there will be far more informative, even if its nothing to do with the railway.

 

As I have said before (based on experience elsewhere), IMHO all that such a thing will do - if it were to succeed - would be to give those who voted in favour a 'warm feeling'. In practice such things are not binding and do not require the Board to do anything other than 'note' the result'. Any change thereafter (including potential resignations) would depend upon the integrity of those affected.

 

Maybe this is what they have in mind

https://www.charityexcellence.co.uk/charity-trustee-code-of-conduct-template/

 

The only institution that Maggie was unable to steamroller was Oxford University - the governance was too byzantine...

 

More Vogons needed

 

Its the concept of the 'Great and the Good' of Exmoor that has me in stitches

 

Time to play at full power, Floyd's the wall outside of Lynton Town Hall then

 

I've had cause to look at this again. (Too much idle time on my hands? If only....)

From my experience of corporate situations, a 'Vision' statement is usually something along the lines of a one-line short, snappy objective. In which case, IMHO the L&BR example is far too verbose and the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are more in keeping with what one would might in an organisation's statement of its 'Values'.

For a Vision, then might I suggest something on the lines of "An authentic recreation of the Lynton and Barnstaple Railway built and operated in line with traditional practices" . What more really needs to be said?

As for the rest, well is that not really just 'common sense' and the sort of things that one would expect the Railway to be doing anyway? It seems to be a full of the latest 'on trend' buzz-words about sustainability, respect, inclusiveness etc - all it misses is something about diversity and it would have the full set

Meanwhile....whilst I notice some comments about the failed attempt to get to CFL, nothing about the Option to re-try getting to PE again? All seems to have gone ominously quiet.....

 

[QUOTE="RailWest, post: 2979321, member: 14581".....

Meanwhile....whilst I notice some comments about the failed attempt to get to CFL, nothing about the Option to re-try getting to PE again? All seems to have gone ominously quiet.....[/QUOTE]

Having said which, I now see that there was an item in the website News section on 25th April about the consultation process with the local community being extended until 11th May, with an update to members promised for the AGM.

Clearly I've overlooked that, but I would suggestthat - with both a News page and a Railway Blog page and at least 3 different FB groups all posting about the L&BR - there is an increasing risk of topical news being 'diluted' and lost.

 

Re-reading the Governance Review Document, it looks to me like there is a lot of work they want to do, but what is more concerning is what isn't mentioned but is also required to be done, improved, or even put in place for the first time.

So much so for green shoots; it looks like they want to go back to killing off democracy by deciding who can and who can't be Trustees. I do appreciate the fact that you need to be mindful of who can serve as a trustee, and I don't have a problem with carrying out the required checks and balances, but the wording is clumsy, and it has been seen as a red rag to a bull by some already.

 

Would this be Mr Bailey’s influence perhaps?
The NYMR thread should serve as a massive red flag, with alarm bells, sirens, and flashing lights to any group thinking of going down this route.

 

I've not yet seen the papers, so can't comment on the details.

As a serving trustee elsewhere, I've sympathy for boards trying to balance a number of challenges. You need a board small enough to be effective, but the members need to cover a range of skills, and they also need to hold the confidence of their supporters. All this, while relying on volunteers to not just stand for election, but also do the work to deliver the plans developed by the board.

Where I serve*, this is dealt with by distinguishing between elected and appointed members**. The elected roles are open to anyone eligible under the charity's constitution, have specific periods of office (currently, 2 3 year terms of office), and are competitively elected***. The appointed roles are on the recommendation of the search and nominations committee, and recruited based on their specific skills and experience, to provide expertise to the board.

I was repeatedly surprised by how @Lineisclear presented guidance as holy writ, and was blind to the wider implications for a charity of getting this wrong and then being unable to fix things internally without major ructions. However, in fairness to him, the failings at NYMR are not fundamentally about the governance structure but the choices made and being made by those in managerial roles. Those same mistakes could be made within a culture of open elections. Indeed, some might suggest that they were under the previous chair, and that the antics of 2023-24 (in particular) were about he and those close to him trying to avoid accountability for their mistakes.

* - It is larger than most heritage railways, and has the advantage that trustees are supported by a dedicated body of paid staff.
** - There are also ex-officio trustees, but they're specific to that other body and not relevant to railways.
*** - When I say "are competitively elected", the words "in theory" need adding - it is rare for the elections to be competed.

 

Talking of Boards....

In one respect, it is very good news that relations between the Trust and the CIC have reached the stage that they feel able to hold joint Board meetings in future. At the same time, they seem to have the view that Board meetings are becoming over-crowded with far too many Directors.

One has to ask therefore - if all Board meetings are going to be joint in future, why bother with two Boards anyway, why not just have one? But that, of course, pre-supposes that the CIC and Trust will merge into one body which (a) may not be the best approach anyway and (b) rather negates the purpose of asking members to vote on Options for a new governance structure.

What happens also if those Directors from one body want to do something which fundamentally conflicts with the intent of the other body? Is there not then a conflict of interest between those who are Directors of one body being party to such discussions when in a joint meeting with the other body (and vice versa)?

Are we getting into a 'cart before the horse' situation perhaps?

 

Be careful going down this road. The shareholders/members will be disenfranchised, and you will end up with a board that is stuck in a rut, and won't allow anyone else to join that doesn't think like they do. While you stand on the sidelines.

 

I think the question that needs considering is why the Trust and CIC need separate boards, and could have conflicting interests in the first place.

More generally, I'd be asking what needs to be a board level decision, and how the roles of board and management overlap.

 

Since the Trust, according to Companies House, controls 75% or more of the CIC voting shares then if there is potential conflict the Trust’s interests (or votes if it came to it) must ultimately prevail.

 

Indeed. Given that in the Governance paperwork the Trust is clearly identified as the body responsible for strategy, then it could be argued that their Board makes the decisions as to what is required and the CIC Board confines its decision-making efforts to deciding how to implement the Trust's requirements, if necessary feeding back to the latter what resources in turn may be required from them.

 

Whilst I agree with your points, my reference to the NYMR was more about members not being able to remove or replace trust/board members who are obviously failing in their duties.
@Breva ‘s warning above is spot on.