North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

I was once told of a charitably run old people's home that had a very old company car, a resident left a bequest to buy a new car, but it was deemed to be too cheap and they had to buy a more expensive one.

Sawdust.

 

AGM email received .
Eight nominations for the board of directors received for four vacancies .
The committee of wise people have chosen which four they want so no requirement or opportunity for the general membership to have a say .

Need we say more …

 

My question is 'what exactly is getting put in the "admin" pot?' For all we know, the ticketing agents (for example) are salaried employees (I expect someone on here who's local knows the answer to this, but I don't - anyway, it's just a hypothetical example, so not important to be accurate), and their salaries are getting put into the 'admin pot'. I don't recall if the accounts went into any detail about what that category includes.

I think the NYMR went the wrong direction, quite a few years back, in having such a high overhead operation (salaries are part of it, but without examining things in more detail than I have the interest to do, I don't know what else I would classify is 'unaffordable expense'). It's too bad that the current management team, when the current management team took over, didn't instantly come to that conclusion, and take steps to change the fundamental direction the line was taking. Instead, they went 180 degrees the other way...

The problems currently extant across the heritage world (e.g. fuel costs) could not have been seen coming when they started, in 20/20 clarity, but the line would be better positioned to deal with them (and failing major bridges) if they had.

Speaking of bridges, I wonder what whichever government body bridge 42 falls into the lap of, will do to deal with it, if the line goes under? Would they just demolish it as a hazard?

Noel

 

Bridge 42 is a listed structure so liability for its repair would be binding on an administrator or liquidator if the Charity became insolvent. If ultimately there wasn’t enough money to rebuild the bridge it would become the responsibility of the Local Authority. One way or another it would almost certainly be rebuilt even if it was no longer for railway use.

 

That doesn't automatically mean it would be repaired at the taxpayers expense. Listed structures have been demolished as part of the TPR upgrade.

Sawdust.

 

I rather hope that bridge 42 if not required to carry trains wouldn’t actually need much rebuilding. If it has got to the stage where it couldnt even remain in situ without rebuild I rather thing it ought to have been shut to trains earlier than it was!

 

There is one way to guarantee the attention of the board, but it requires volunteers to organise themselves, not simply to quietly quit or retire from volunteering individually.

 

What right have "the committee of wise people", presumably the existing board, to choose who they want ? If there is an election then it is up to the membership to decide amongst the eight applicants without interference (no doubt considered "guidance ) from the Board or any of its officers. It is called democracy and is one way of ensuring the the Board does not get stuck in a self-perpetuating cycle, which may indeed be part of the present problem.

 

The members voted by a majority of well over 90% to adopt Articles of Association that include a Nominations Committee which includes independent membership. Its role is to assess candidates against a matrix of qualities to ensure so far as possible that the Trust Board has the necessary skills and experience. As the process is part of the Articles the "right" is more of a duty since both the Trustees and the members are bound by them. It's also a corporate governance measure which grant funding organisations that continue to support the railway see as an important way of achieving board diversity.

 

I’ve no idea who the candidates were, or whether the nomination committee decision was good. I also don’t care.

The impression left, on top of the timing and delay to the AGM, is appalling, and can only leave an impression that the wagons are being circled. I also find the defence of diversity, taking it to mean “diversity of thought”, deeply unconvincing given the recent history of the organisation.

I am a member of the National Trust and, each year, am invited to vote for trustees. While the board do level the odds slightly in their favour with a default option, all candidates are allowed to stand on an equal footing even where they belong to groups explicitly opposed to the current Trust approach. The nominations committee impact is limited to advising which candidates are recommended. Over relatively few years, this has taken the heat out of opposition and left the trust leadership in a stronger position. Would that NYMR had the same wisdom.

When NYMR is struggling financially, reliant on goodwill to sustain itself, and underachieving on its appeals, this decision is not one that can give confidence but which will undermine confidence still further - and make recovery all the harder.

 

And how do you know that grant funding organisations see it as an important way of achieving board diversity? It is just more bu115h1t