North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

It does have implications for the submitting of motions.

 

Perhaps there’s a good reason for this and you might just have suggested it.

 

It all looks, to a reluctant conspiracy theorist like myself to minimise the effect and value of an AGM - but typical of the recent and present management, but they seem so set in position now that they are almost impossible to dislodge the it's hard to see the spiral into self-destruction ending. The CEO has already said, I have heard reported, that even if a vote of no confidence could be mounted and won she would take no notice of it. A song was written about events that caused the banking crash in the USA and onwards, AIG. Those were the initials of the American International Group, but were translated in the song as "Arrogance, Ignorance and Greed". I find comparisons quite compelling!

 

A vote of no confidence whether it relates to an individual or collectively to a board is purely symbolic. However large the vote in favour it creates no obligations.

As has been rehearsed on here before the ability of the members to give directions to the Trustees and directors is limited. That’s a function of charity and company law and the Trust’s Articles which are deemed to create a contract binding on the Trust and members alike.

 

..... and everything you have mentioned shows resoundingly what is wrong with the NYMR is it is now governed, and - I'm deeply, deeply sorry to say - is why its days are now numbered, probably in terms of months rather than years. The hole enterprise is being frittered away to massage the egos and wallets of a few who are giving little back in practice.

 

Except that the restrictions on the ability of members to give directions to the board have been in place since the NYMR became an incorporated charity in 1973. In the respect nothing has changed with how it’s governed.

 

TBH, I’m struggling to connect your first para with reality. It may well be legally correct that such a resolution (with a large vote) would not create what you term obligations, but surely it would strike at the very heart of the authority of the recipient(s)? How could individuals carry on with any credibility in such circumstances? Or is there something I am missing?

 

The NYMR was a a very different organisation back then. I was at the AGM when Brian Horner was deposed as Trust Chairman, because he sought a better funded organisation with more professional management. As it turned out, the Trust, guided by volunteers Roger Heath and Stephen Hogg, among others led it to a position of pre-eminence, but since they all stepped down, and the professional management expanded when you were chairman , and the constitution and the AoAs were changed under your regime. The Trust Board has been shrunk in terms of both numbers and influence, and really doesn't represent the volunteer input that keeps the railway alive. A lot of the long term experience has evaporated with the volunteers that have been lost, and there is no insprational input now, particularly from the "professional" management - is it any wonMaybe I'm just completely blindder why there are few volunteers now? Things have gone downhill, success has eluded the NYMR and, increasingly, passengers seem to have avoided it - and the "professional" management don't seem to be in any way capable of turning things around. What good is there to see in any of this sorry tale? By all means efend it all if you can! It should be simple enough, but - cynic that I am -I can hear the excuses coming already.

 

The credibility and confidence that the railway relies on is not primarily that of members but of the organisations on which it depends such as its lending bank , regulators and grant funders. Their confidence in its leadership and management is critical. A member vote of no confidence might indicate that members are unhappy but those other entities may well not share the same views indeed they might well be spooked if it appeared the direction of the charity was being unduly influenced its members.

.

 

I suggest you have that relationship the wrong way round; without the confidence of the support base, the lenders, regulators and grant funders are likely to be concerned about the viability of the model and, especially, whether the organisation's potential is being maximised or even whether it is sustainable. Setting them up as an either/or is a dangerous place to go and it is far from clear on results from the last few years that the strategy chosen is correct

 

Thank you. I must emphasise that I have no direct interest in NYMR matters and that it was the general principle I was addressing. I suspect your words may resonate for some time! I also suspect that whilst the bodies to which you refer will make up their own minds, it would be surprising if they paid scant regard to such a vote of no confidence. But again, I may be missing something. Whatever: I wish the NYMR well.

 

The hard financial facts suggest otherwise. The net financial benefit from member subscriptions is around 0.6% of the annual cost of keeping the railway running. It’s true that they also provide valuable support of appeals but around 50% of contributions to those comes from non members. It may be an unwelcome truth to grasp but sustainability of the railway depends primarily on the confidence and support of other entities.

 

Those figures are but one part of the wider whole, and if members' direct subscriptions are all that is being assessed in this equation, it is to not see the wood for the trees. I am well aware that staying afloat relies upon that support from other entities; my view is that their willingness to maintain their support relies on a range of factors - one of which is the ability of the organisation to put its shoulder behind the wheel as a body. And a key part of that will be the ability of the management to maintain the confidence of their supporters.

 

Are you saying the other 50% of contributions to appeals does come from members then?

 

Yes thank goodness and it’s a great indicator of member support. However appeals for projects such as bridge 42 are very different from generating the funds to keep the railway operating day to day. Like it or not the contributions of organisations like Arts Council England underpin the charity’s viability so retaining their confidence in its leadership and management is essential.

 

Isn't someone here forgetting the financial saving of having volunteers doing some of the labouring. I asume to.be a volunteer you need to be a member if you had to replace them all by paid staff that would be a big hole to fill


Sent from my SM-A556B using Tapatalk

 

Yes I'm sure they'd all be very disturbed to see solid communication and mutual respect between management and members.

 

The NYMR welcomes volunteers without requiring them to become members.