Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

That position is why I specifically said "none of the above" in my response - on the grounds that the case is not made and has significant holes. It is also inappropriate to constrain choices so much at this stage; my hope is that the feedback will lead to an improvement on what has been presented rather than option C as presented.

 

Quite right but Chris Duffel did manage to get elected. The 'outside' candidate at the last AGM didn't but I personally didn't find his election statement as convincing as the one from Chris.

I am unclear why L and B are not 'looking after' their land. This may add to the level of objections - locals may say 'if they can't look after the land they have now what will make it different when there is a raiway there'. In addition seeing a regular programme of works will mean less issues when they need to do something like cutting a dangerous tree down.

 

As I posted on another thread a few weeks ago "Not only do GDPR laws not prevent contact with shareholders (which should be obvious as it is "for the legitimate interests of a data controller") but it is part of the duties of the Company/Trust Secretary to maintain a neutral position and ensure that all shareholder/members are kept informed of nominations together with brief backgrounds on the nominees and their proposed policies. As the majority of this information distribution can be made by electronic means there is no great charge on the organisation."
To which I would add that it would be entirely unethical for a Secretary to refuse to make the membership lists available to legitimate contenders for office.

Unfortunately for those intending to stand for election at the upcoming AGM they are leaving their run very late if they want to attract support !

 

Although it is common practice in many Societies for members unable to attend the meeting to be able to give their proxy to any other member attending the meeting. (i.e. it does not have to be given to the Chairman.) I can see no provision for proxy voting in the Trust's Memorandum of Articles. Can somebody clarify, please ?

 

Yes there is, Clause 25 et seq

NB: unlike some other societies, the proxy holder must also be a Trust member

 

I suspect that there will be little change as a result of the AGM - the leadership does not seem likely to be changed at the elections.

 

They are. For many years there have been regular working parties carrying out a programme of routine maintenance of land, fencing, structures, and other aspects - even on some land not (yet) in L&B ownership!

 

I must confess I thought that they were - but someone posting on here seemed to think they weren't.

 

The website used to feature regular calls for seasonal weekend working parties to attend, usually accompanied by comprehensive accounts of work completed afterwards, but I can't recall the last time one of these was featured, certainly pre- pandemic, so presumably there have been no working parties in that period, at least on that previous scale, as there has been no calls for turnout.
I always thought that these were helpful towards community relations, as everyone could see what was being done.
But that was all before the drawbridge got pulled up.

 

I think the pandemic has a factor in progress on many things. I liked the old website - the one now called the archive site. I didn't like the replacement and I am not sure about the new one. Maybe it's difficult to get updated now.

 

As part of the previous L&B web management team, I was often responsible for making those pages, and yes, they were well-regarded and appreciated. The problem though is partly one of social media (perhaps the less said about that the better at the moment!) To create a new web page , first you have to take the photos, then write the copy, upload to the website, and publish. Whilst this can be done quite quickly, it would normally involves two or three people, with emails and file transfers between them, taking a fair bit of effort, and often a couple of days' elapsed time. Nowadays, anybody at Woody Bay can upload photos and even videos to FB instantly (network signal permitting!) while they're standing on the platform watching the work - or even actually fitting a new sleeper in place on the trackbed! This is why much of the activity is reported piecemeal online before getting to the websites, and perhaps why less is visible to those not on social media.

 

That discussion sums up the importance of setting the approach to communications, and making sure all involved - in whatever capacity - have a common understanding of what the expectations are. This is not a technology issue - the new website is technically better - but a human issue.

 

I am pretty certain that it would be against GDPR for the membership secretary to provide contact details to would be candidates. I would be pretty irritated to receive unsolicited communications.

 

That would depend on the reasons for holding their data given when it was first collected. If it was for the purpose of legitimising the election of trustees, for example. The data doesn't have to be handed over, of course, the data controller merely needs to transmit the provided information on behalf of the candidates to the membership without fear or favour.

 

That's my understanding, too @Old Kent Biker .

 

I’m sure GDPR wouldn’t prevent that. It would prevent that candidate holding the data for ad hoc communications.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The L and B website defines the trusts privacy policy and my reading of this precludes passing it to a third party.

 

IMHO Chris Duffell has expressed various concerns which have been all toious to many other members for some while past and he should not be made a 'scapegoat' in any way to deflect attention from where it is most needed. Sadly there are those who need to take off their rose-tinted spectacles and 'smell the coffee’

 

Hear, hear. And there does appear to be a growing number who are indeed smelling a less than freshly -ground brand of coffee, now. Time for change.

 

None of which preclude, for the purposes of an election address, enabling use of that list. As has been said, to do so would be in breach of other laws and therefore GDPR would not prevent the usage.

It may be worth - though you would need to be feeling brave to do so - working through one or other of the WSR threads to pick up on previous discussion around that point.