West Somerset Railway General Discussion

Their job is to indeed to ensure the charity meets its stated objectives. Whether a merger with the WSRA, or some other arrangement with a brand-new combined charity, would be to the benefit of those objectives, or to their detriment, or neutral, is evidently a matter of opinion. Some posters in this thread last year argued that the combined charity would be in a stronger position for raising funds for all its objectives, including those of all the former separate charities.

How can we persuade the WSRHT's trustees that their continued endorsement of the PLC's current path will be bad for all the associated organisations? Or, if the present trustees are of a fixed mind, how do we persuade the WSRHT membership of that? The last attempt was defeated by determined action (and, arguably, some seriously dirty tricks) from the incumbent trustees.

Edit: corrected a typo.

 

That's going to be slow and painful, at best. The best path forward is that the current WSR management really do care, somewhere, about the WSR (don't laugh, it's quite possible), and look at the appeal results, and think about what that means for the WSR (especially in the long run), and decide the best thing they can do for the WSR is bail. Mind, I'm not at all sure this is going to happen; I mention it purely because it is possible, and any other way forward (such as your suggestion above) will be slow and uncertain.

(Organizing the workforce and getting them to threaten to go on strike is another possibility, but will likely be even harder to make happen. The ORR could step in, but I don't get impression there is anything happening that would cause them to become involved.)

I guess we're going to see if the current WSR management really cares about the WSR, or not.

Noel

 

There's merit in trying the same tactics again, but learning from the previous defeat. It would require candidates who are not volunteers and so cannot be threatened with the withdrawal of their ID cards, it would require public website through which all correspondence would be conducted, it would require some thick-skinned candidates who are physically and organisationally distant from the railway, so that certain other "dirty tricks" would be difficult to practice and it would require a completely honest statement of why the candidates are standing and what they hope to achieve if they get elected. Probably something along these lines:
- The best hope of survival for the WSR and hence for the WSHRT to have any relevance in the future (which it won't have if the WSR goes under) is for the railway to be controlled by a single overarching charity (not the WSRA, for historic reasons)
- That the WSHRT should use its shareholding in the Plc to try and bring such a charity into existence
- That the WSHRT should continue as a stand-alone charity under the new charity, being the heritage arm of the railway and providing funding to do things in a more heritage way, where that would cost more than simply what was required for operational reasons.

 

I suggest its far from clear that such a plan could succeed. It assumes (1) That a the combined shareholding of the WSRA and WSHRT (less than 20% in total) would be sufficient to secure a voting majority at an EGM because of the number of deceased/moribund PLC shareholders and (2) That the Directors would be bound to/able to comply. The creation of a new charity holding company would involve substantial elements of the assets and business being transferred. It seems far from clear that even a majority vote could oblige the directors to take that step with the detriment to shareholder value that would be involved.
I always though the new charity model could only work if it was supported by the vast majority of PLC shareholders principally because their travel benefits would be preserved. Any attempt to force through change without the endorsement of the board seems unlikely to secure such mass support. It's also worth remembering that the external confidence of organisations, on which the railway depends (such as lending banks, and potential grant funders) is essential and fragile. They tend to be unsettled by internal coups.
However well intentioned having another go could easily inflict substantial damage.

 

I agree.

Change will only now come when the majority of supporters in all categories come to understand that the existing arrangements are doomed to inevitable failure.

To me that’s clear. But I have the advantage of great clarity arising from many years of working with and within the WSR organisations (all of them), other, better arranged structures, voluntary and third sector organisations, grant making organisations, corporate and economic structures of all kinds and with commercial and governmental organisations at all levels.

Put another way, how close to the iceberg will we get before the turn is ordered, and how many watertight compartments will be breached in the collision…

But, of course, I could be completely wrong. Where were the binoculars kept?

 

Robin I think even someone who’s as thick as 2 short planks as me can see that the iceberg’s right ahead without binoculars. Things need to change and change sharpish but why is it I get the feeling those in charge are handing out next years cruise brochure?

 

I don’t think it would be helpful for me to set out my answer to that question. It’s not as if I have spent over a quarter of a century deconstructing the psyche and motivation of parties to litigation and witnesses on a daily basis…

Robin

 

Just what I was thinking only put much better and more diplomatically

 

Setting all other comments aside, I’d be very uncomfortable about an attempt to force change using “outsiders”. There is much under the surface that would rely on people with knowledge and experience of both the railway and its people, which “outsiders” would lack.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Apologies, didn’t mean to put you on the spot.

 

Never had a difficulty with that.

Von Clausewitz wrote of the ‘Schwerpunkt’. Its the only place to be.

Robin

 

I rarely post on this thread but I do my best to follow it and keep up to date with the comments although every time I visit I keep thinking of this song by Del Amitri particularly the lyric
“And nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all
The needle returns to the start of the song
And we all sing along like before”

 

Hi Robin,

I think the 'Titanic' references are unhelpful.

Unfortunately, it is of far more mundane matters; lack of WSR plc board accountability, scrutiny of accounts, a disparate shareholding, etc.

The WSR has been riven with disputes since it's inception.

Sometimes, to use a Harold Macmillan analogy, it is best to depart the stage and not hang around the Green Room, and accept that one's departure is the best way forward.

 

I think new faces elected to positions of influence at the WSRHT is the only way to set a different course for the WSRHT. I think different faces at the helm of the WSR are necessary- quite different from those, all of those, who have wielded power in the past decade or more. Mr Grantham is quite right though- complete outsiders would lack essential background knowledge, relationships, experience and time served. It would be best if people could be found within the greater WSR who have the necessary knowledge and skills without being tainted by politics from forgoing.
Who, though? If everyone willing and capable is to be excluded because of previous loyalties or non-loyalties or whatever, new brooms may be needed

 

I find the analogy entirely apt.

It’s not about ‘who’ but ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘when’. I’m spending some time this week elsewhere passing on signalling lore and couldn’t be happier. I’d be delighted if new folk with the right characteristics could be found to bring the necessary change in Somerset.

There is plenty of gardening to do at Station House, Stogumber.

Robin

 

Dakota's on Minehead Beach?

 

You are putting words in my mouth that were never uttered. My second point was "That the WSHRT should use its shareholding in the Plc to try and bring such a charity into existence", no mention of EGMs, shareholders' votes or forcing through change. I am sure the opponents of change would love such an approach as you describe, it being the easiest one for them to defeat, indeed the pushback has already started, with talk of "internal coups" and I've only made a suggestion. To be fair, when confronted with the belligerence that characterises WSR internal politics, it is difficult to remember that there are other ways of doing things, jaw, jaw, not war, war. If any reform movement wants to succeed, it needs to renounce the jingoism that so much of the last 2008 pages ring with, the desire to have somebody's head on a pike above the city gates after the hated regime has been deposed.
I am sure you are right that "the new charity model could only work if it was supported by the vast majority of PLC shareholders" although, given how many Plc shareholders are either inactive or dead, I don't think the majority need be that vast. Any new candidates for trusteeship of the WSRHT will first have to persuade the membership of the charity to back their aims. If they succeed in doing that, their next task would be to apply the same arguments to the Plc shareholders. No need for any boardroom coups or voting in or out of directors or any of the sturm und drang that accompanied the recent changes in the WSRA leadership.

 

Leaving aside that I said nothing about "forcing change", the problem about bringing in outsiders at director/trustee level is not one that worries most companies with turnovers several orders or magnitude greater than that of the WSR. The people who need "knowledge and experience of both the railway and its people" are the employed management, not the directors. They need knowledge and experience of railways and people in general.