Lynton and Barnstaple - Operations and Development

He already had an insight into the likely result having been at the official count of all the available the proxies the previous day, so he had had the night to dwell on it.

 

Yes, given that they needed 75% to change the M&As, it would have been clear which way it was going. What wouldn't have been clear was the sheer humiliation of failing to even get a bare majority for their proposals and losing the room so comprehensively. As @35B and others have said, there were several members I spoke to who came in wanting to support the three measures and ended up opposing all of them - in several cases, vehemently.

 

I wonder how you think that this could happen given the ineptitude of those at the helm? If, as you suspect, 'many of us just want to see the L & B get steadily bigger and better', then a more agile and forward-looking team is surely required? I wonder whether the current cabal could organise a piss-up in the front room of the OSI... And, yes, if you didn't know, Exmoor Associates / Yeo Valley Trust are beavering steadily away to buy trackbed which will eventually enable the L&B to become bigger and better. If you are not already a member, perhaps you might consider joining?

 

I can assure you and anybody else that the Chairman was NOT present at either the count on Friday at Woody Bay or on Saturday downstairs at the town hall. With Brom, Jonathan Griffiths and myself actually doing the counting with Anne observing on Friday at Rob on Saturday, there is no way he could have ‘an insight into the likely result’ as he wasn’t there on either occasion. Both Anne and Rob might have had something to say if he had been there.

 

One has to ask WHY the Chairman wouldn't be at the official count, especially as the ballot forms requested that the proxies be returned to him (implying he was the only one who could act as proxy on their behalf). Yes, I was told about this initial count, presumably done to save time when it came to the count on the day. Why, Oh why do we have to live in ignorance of what goes on. If there was some honesty and openness about all these proceedings the people on here would be motivated to have some sympathy. All this cloak and dagger stuff just drives people away, convincing people it is run by a cabal for their own interests. And before you dispute this comment, please explain why this meeting to change the articles was rushed through without any prior involvement of the membership in a situation where a special resolution cannot be altered at the meeting. Nobody has yet explained why the announcement of the results could not have been made by the Chairman or the Secretary or one of his fellow Trustees. It shows a lack of respect. My wife (a former railwaywoman but not passionately L & B) attended the meeting having joined a month before (but never sent any papers or Magazine) and viewed the conduct of the meeting objectively and was appalled at the Chairman ignoring virtually every comment from the floor. Apart from being disrespectful it is probably illegal.

 

I’ll not criticise him for not being at the count. With so many concerns about fairness, it is hard to criticise him for letting the counters get on with their work unimpeded.

As for being a proxy holder, I equally observe that Mike Buse delivered many and was also not at the count itself.

That mercy only goes so far, however. His absence for the results, especially as meeting chair, spoke volumes for the contempt for the ordinary members present that I, as did your wife, observed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Do we perhaps have a Chairman who is unwilling to 'face the music'? Or are we now at a time when the message to him should be "ask not for whom the bells tolls, as it tolls for thee"?

 

We have to be getting close to that point.

 

I can't see in the M&As any description of how the Chairman is appointed. Presumably it is by vote of the financial members annually.
That being the case, is there any reason why an alternative person could not be nominated for the upcoming AGM ? A contest for that position could help to clarify the issues.

 

I believe it is by vote of the trustees, but am not sure whether that's by virtue of the M&As, Companies Act, or just custom.

As it's not been customary, I'd be reluctant to support such a change - it could easily become a form of coronation and prevent change. As part of a structured change of M&As, it could be a useful idea - but as part of a balanced package.

 

Isn't that what has been occurring anyway ? The current Chair seems to have been in post for the past 17 or so years !

 

It is quite common for the trustees to elect one of their number as chair.

 

Indeed. But where someone has lost what is in effect a vote of confidence, I'm loath to provide a route around.

 

Unfortunately two of the more trustworthy people on the Board have lost their positions, so we need all four vacancies to be filled by good guys (or good ladies) for the Chairmanship to be reviewed, and that might be a tall order but we have to keep the faith. After all when the two who have just been thrown out were elected they were comparative unknowns to the great unwashed, and they still succeeded. Not long now for the receipt of papers with the nominations.

 

Assuming that at the next AGM the 4 people standing to replace the ones standing down, and the 2 who were dismissed, won't that be a stalemate, with the chair retaining the casting vote? the chair could still try to play silly games, ok he won't be able to easily sidetrack 4 new trustees, unless some other trustees realise the gig is up, and begin to side with those who will want to see transparency and proper guidance return to the trust, I think his days as chair, might be over sooner than he might hope,

 

IF there are 4 new Trustees, then there will be 4 old Trustees plus Mike W, which would give a 5:4 majority in favour of the new (and not so new).

 

The nearest that I can find to answer that question is Clause 53:-

53. The trustees may appoint one of their number to be a chairman of their meetings and may at any time remove him from that office. Unless he is unwilling to do so, the trustee so appointed shall preside at every meeting of trustees at which he is present.

There appear not to be anything in the M&AoA which actually mandates the need for a Chairman, but a lot of references to one in terms of Board and General Meetings which assume that there would be one.

 

All of this is dependant on who stands and who is elected. We could speculate endlessly but I would like to see who stands before I speculate.

 

I agree - but @martin1656 is also right to highlight the importance of behaviour in what could easily be a finely balanced board, depending on who stand for office and win election. The last year has seen how disruptive factionalism can be, and the costs that refusal of some to work with trustees they seem not to get on with have imposed.

 

I know this is speculation but lets say we do get four new Trustees not only would that bring into question who is to be Chairman, but the new board could and should also replace the Secretary due to all the hassle he has created over the past few years.

Having a a new Secretary might help to turn things around that much faster.