West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Really? I thought that a key issue here is the WSSRT membership as a whole has NOT been asked for their view about a merger, any comments so far having been the view only of the Trustees.

 

Regarding the WSSRT Supporting Plan PLC: In the “Three Chairman’s Press Statement” dated 19th September it was stated in reference to the John Bailey report:

“His conclusion and recommendation is for evolution which is endorsed by and recommended to their respective Boards by Jon Jones-Pratt (Chairman of WSR Plc) , Mike Sherwood (Chairman of WSRA) and Chris Austin (Chairman of WSSRT).”

For some detail to avoid doubt, JB’s original report (the partly redacted one of which I have a full copy) could have been taken either as Plan PLC (New 3rd charity, removing Charities 1 & 2 from representing the WSR) or Plan Rebel Alliance (merging Charities 1 & 2 to represent the WSR). However he later clarified his views in the “One Railway” statement on 25th September as follows (and has given his views clearly on here stating Plan PLC is the only way since):

My recent report “Peaceful Somerset” envisaged a new controlling membership charity for the railway. It is wrongly portrayed by some as recommending a merger of the WSRA and WSSRT. The railway has an unenviable history of internecine warfare and power struggles amongst its constituent groups. Depressingly they all seem to agree with the controlling charity recommendation but the one thing that really unites them is determination to ensure that “the other lot” do not control the process of change, or its implementation.

The essential healing “One Railway” culture is not going to be achieved by any one entity, including the PLC, winning out over the others. Yet the latest plan seeks to impose the vision of one sub-group justified by arguments reflecting past divisions. It is proposed manipulation of both the WSSRT and WSRA is bound to create disaffected members and, if the plan succeeds, a new cohort of angry and potentially disruptive individuals.

Contrary to its supporters’ best intentions I am confident it can only add further bitterness, anger and distrust when what is desperately needed is peace and harmony. Weaponizing the charities to further the group’s ambitions is not going to generate the healing of past wounds or generate the desperately needed cohesive culture.

Far better for all parties to collaborate in crafting a new charitable entity facilitated via the consultative and co-ordination role of the Partnership Development Group.


Regarding stating in public that WSSRT Members had voted on the WSSRT’s future and another confirmation that the WSSRT Board support Plan PLC (in becoming a separate standalone Charity, not representing the WSR which Plan RA doesn’t include but Plan PLC does). WSSRT Board Press Release 4th September regarding the deferring of the AGM, this was also repeated in the local press.:

“This clearly has profound implications for all parts of the railway, and particularly for the Trust’s members who previously have expressed a wish to remain as a separate charity focussing on the the museums, carriage restoration programme and educational outreach at which the Trust has been so successful in recent years”.


Ian, Thank you for giving your personal pledge to ensure vote counting will be done correctly. I have no reason to doubt your personal integrity and during all of the limited dealings we have had between us during my time on the WSR you have only ever given me the impression you have the necessary integrity to do this. However my two concerns with your offer would be:

1. Will you be playing a key and controlling part in vote counting?
2. It would be much better for your own protection that you didn’t because you are conflicted as the member of the current Board who have decided which way they are going to vote (which is of course your right) and that could only allow ‘the other side’ to put you in an un-defendable position at the slight irregularity in the voting process which wouldn’t be of your making but you couldn’t then defend with true partiality.

It’s much better for the votes to be counted totally independently of all parties with a vested interest,

However thank you for your public statement on it, it does have value in being made.

 

some times, I just wish, the Somerset County Council would just say to the warring factions, " we have had enough, we own the land you operate on, and we have lost confidence in all of you, and give the PLC 12 months notice to quit the site, and then ask another organisation to take over a new organisation, new charity, it would mean starting from scratch, but i can't see the warring fractions ever coming to any agreement, unless there is a total clearout of not just the board of the PLC, but of the WSSRT also as the current Secretary has thrown his lot in behind the PLC, its clear now why he was given a seat on the PLC Board, to nullify any attempt to remove the present PLC.

 

Just to clarify, it's not the Chairman of the WSSRT (Chris Austin) who is also a Director of the PLC. It is the Secretary of the WSSRT - Steve Williams.

 

thank you, I have amended my post accordingly

 

Ian, I like others have every confidence in your personal integrity. This situation, however, begs questions over the integrity not of the counting process but of the confidentiality of those who vote. It is not a numbers question; if even one person has been directly or indirectly made to feel that their position as volunteer or, worse, employee is linked to their membership and/or voting behaviour, it is a disgrace.

Rotten boroughs and their illegitimate siblings, pocket boroughs, were abolished before the railway reached Minehead; they are part of the past that does not want preservation, and Trollope’s Loughton is somewhere we should wish to avoid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Maybe so, but I wonder what the point of elections for positions on the respective WSR boards is. I thought elections were to ensure the company or charity was administered by the board and as such allow them to make decisions for its administration. But if some people disagree with those decisions it seems a challenge has to be made. The interesting thing might be if the composition of a new board makes changes will they be respected or challenged?

 

35, I agree that not even one person should be subject to coercion. But it is the ten who have stated that "dozens" of people have been coerced. As I said, I await their evidence sent to me confidentially and if the evidence stands up, I will treat it very seriously.

And for the avoidance of all doubt, the WSSRT elections will be handled properly. Voting papers will never be shared outside of the WSSRT. Apart from all reasons of normal etiquette, it would break any relevent rules I can think of.

Ian Coleby

 

I totally agree and recall that when there was some "interesting" vote counting practices in the time of the 6+1, Ian had the backbone to stand up and ask to see the papers. This was at a great personal cost and a number of people publicly backed Ian. I recall that there was even a special beer named Coleby's Courage.

What would be very helpful is that a credible public assurance be given that votes cast by staff and stakeholders shall never be seen by or divulged to anyone outside of a named few tasked with counting the votes.

 

I regard the assurance from @ikcdab in the post above your post as such an assurance and, in the spirit in which it is given, that those named few would not themselves use it for illegitimate purposes.

 

I would trust Ian, to be honest and play by the book, unfortunately, I can not say the same for other trustees, but any leaking to any member of any other board, they may just happen to sit on, would be a serious dereliction of their duties to the members of the WSSRT. In such a case, were it to happen, will the trustee responsible be removed from the WSSRT Board?

 

Martin, I appreciate the vote of trust. I wonder how well you actually know the other trustees? Almost all of us have very long associations with the WSR and never has there been any question around any of us. So I wonder what you base your opinion on? The WSSRT chairman (for example) is a person of the highest personal integrity. He spent a career as a senior manager on BR and everyone who knows him has the greatest respect for him. I hope you are not basing your opinion on what you read on here!
Ian C

 

Having been a Trustee many years ago (of a body not a million miles away from Washford), I would suggest that there were two scenarios here:-

1. Sometimes potential Trustees would be elected because they were quite specific that they wished for the Trust to follow a certain course of action (sound familiar?) If subsequently they were judged not to have at least tried to get the Trust to do that, then eventually they would face the displeasure of the membership at the ballot box
2. Trustees were indeed elected to manage the Trust on behalf of its members (leaving aside the issue of members' wishes v charitable obligations etc). However in matters considered to be of significant importance (eg livery for a locomotive) then it was to put the vote of the membership at a General Meeting.

In this particular case it would appear that the WSSRT Board is making statements about the alleged wishes of the membership without having actually consulted them in any way. They may well find that the membership are not very happy about that....

 

May I refer you to the HRA code of conduct ….

https://richard-barnes-ryad.squarespace.com/code-of-conduct

.... and explain why no allegations which contravene the code require investigation.

 

I believe that a certain Vladimir Putin has been co-opted as a political advisor.

 

That sounds like a good idea. It would make the PLC seem quite amenable in some peoples eyes.

 

Bailey is an apologist for the plc board. No surprises for me from his posting!

 

To be honest comments such as this are utter tripe and totally worthless. I don't know what you are hoping to achieve by posting such stuff.

 

And here you go again. "disgusting"? The board are humans too. You should stop posting such insults.
Ian C

 

Turntable Cafe reports dramatic drop in sales of tea and coffee......