WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

It has just been pointed out to me by a correspondent that one of the existing WSRA Trustees offering themselves for re-election has been missed off the proxy voting form included with the above. It would seem to me that the validity of the election is in doubt unless the proxy form can be re-issued (to all WSRA members) before the 14-day deadline passes........interesting times.

kind regards

Robin White

 

Huh- be good if I had any voting forms or proxies. I hope that this is only due to the "mass mailing" being done alphabetically.

Robin - who got missed off?

 

Still awaiting the envelope ! My reading of the pdf is four trusteeships are subject to vote,(3rotation, 1 confirmation), if one has been missed off then that makes 5, therefore the members should have five not four votes.

 

I am quite shocked to see anything on the pdf except for the candidates election addresses. It doesn't happen in normal elections the council doesn't make comments on candidates. I would have thought that candidates would have good cause to make a complaint to the charities commission because this election cannot be deemed to be fair in the accepted sence with these comments on the election address.

 

Dick Holland. His name appears in the covering letter, and in the biography sheet. I understand that it is being described by the WSRA management/administration as a "clerical error".

Frank

 

The .pdf I have posted is correct, so it is 4 votes, but on the proxy form, I am informed that the option to vote for Dick Holland has been missed off.

I don't have immediate sight of the form as I have just settled into my seat on the 21.45 from Paddington, and the rest of the paperwork is at home on Somerset. Could someone with sight of it confirm the error?

The Journal (and so the AGM) mailings always seem to take about 3 days to reach their destinations, and there does not seem to be any alphabetical reasoning to who get's theirs when.

Incidentally, I bumped into Sir William McAlpine on the 1424 from Taunton on the way up to London this afternoon and he asked how the differences were getting sorted out......

Kind regards

Robin

 

Text of e-mail sent to David Williams, WSRA Chairman, today.

Dear David

Now that you will be re-issuing the proxy voting forms given the error in excluding Dick Holland, I would strongly urge you to take the opportunity to remove another feature of the present election which has the appearance of considerable unfairness – the co-option of Chris Walters.

I should say that I have nothing against Chris himself personally, who undoubtedly is a fine fellow, although he is unknown to me. I will return to that lack of notability.

The problem is that he appears to have been co-opted as a Trustee between the request for nominations and the sending out of the ballot papers. That inevitably leads to the suspicion that his co-option was an attempt to have a convenient placeman confirmed in post rather than running the risk of the election of one of the other candidates whom the present Trustees would find troublesome. I hesitate to use the ugly word ‘gerrymandering’ but it is a word which arose in a discussion with another WSRA member overnight. That is a very unfortunate impression for Trustees to have created.

That suspicion could be allayed by explaining the pressing need to co-opt Mr Walters in the timescale you have. What special skills and abilities does he bring to the WSRA Board of Trustees that they did not have before? Why did he have to be co-opted now? Given his apparent lack of notability he does not obviously have such essential skills or abilities, nor are they apparent from his ‘personal statement’.

I would strongly urge you, as a friend and a long standing WSRA supporter, to remove the appearance of unfairness by following one of two courses. (1) reverse the co-option and let Mr Walters take his chances with the others, or (2) given that you will have to produce some covering document to explain the new proxy form to WSRA members, take the opportunity properly to explain the co-option, including answering my questions.

Given that time is short to correct this matter, and we are in the midst of a controversial and contested election in which I am a candidate, in which the propriety of the Trustees’ actions is a significant feature, this is an open e-mail which I will share those of my fellow candidates and your fellow Trustees for whom I have an e-mail address. Please take the opportunity to deal with this matter.

Please also take this e-mail as formal notice from me of a question at the AGM as to the propriety of this co-option. Plainly, if a satisfactory explanation of the co-option emerges before then, I can withdraw my question. I also request that this question be dealt with at the AGM before there be any voting for Trustee, as, at present, the propriety of the election is, I believe, uncertain.

Kind regards

Robin White

 

Nothing like a bit of name dropping is there.

 

I only meant to illustrate how widely and notoriously the WSR difficulties have become known.

kind regards

Robin

 

Yes we believe you ...honest..

 

They have indeed - far beyond this Forum it seems.

 

Of course. But given how widely these have been aired in public, especially here, it's hardly surprising they're common knowledge. Sir Richard Branson was saying the same thing to me only the other day.

 

Does he like vinegar on his chips?

 

Who will be footing the bill for mailing out 6000 new envelopes + printing it has to be around the £3000+ mark another waste of money and sign of incompetence.

 

If I am ever in a quandary as the correct course of action, a quick chat with Elvis, JFK or IKB usually straightens things out for me.

Nurse, is it time for my next injection?

Kind regards

Robin White

 

He prefers a guacamole dip.

 

Ah the old Peter Mandleson tale......

 

It (recommended candidates) has been used by other organisations (e.g. my building society) for a few years, to the extent of big arrow saying "we recommend you vote for these candidates" on the ballot paper. IMO the practice stinks. As a matter of bloody-mindedness I always do the opposite of what they say.

The "co-option" route is also widely used, including by other heritage railways.

Patrick
(not a WSR member)

 

My building society does the same.(Nationwide).However, the current goings on makes me seriously question the WSRA electoral process , and change to a secret vote as the Bluebell or Moors,with a shift away from cooptions whenever possible , although I appreciate the need to coopt to cover a specific responsibility or knowledge.

 

Does the WSRA election allow for votes against individual candidates?