WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

Noted and point taken. I will refrain from further public comment on the subject. Happy frying and make sure the fat is hot enough!

 

I would suggest that if Steve continues on this course then when the current trustees go which is what Robin is working for he will have no place in the new order. I have kept out of the current postings so as not to inflame tempers but by waiting for the WSRA to make a comment and not take the word of a barrister who has a whole lot to lose should she be found to be lying you have shown that you are the WSRA's chairmans mouthpiece and not independent. Why not publish the "Plan" you have so we can all comment.

 

to suggest robin white may be lying is i think slander/libel i would be careful in your statements.

 

Nobody has suggested that she is or was. Quite the reverse in fact.

 

That is the way it was meant Robin and I do not normally see eye to eye but I do respect her truthfulness she has to much to lose to tell untruths.

 

Please can we concentrate on the main objective- change.Sniping at Steve will only help them divide and rule. I am certain the AGM report on his site is stop gap, hinting at problems without being specific, effectively inviting WSRA to correct him and deliver their own version ! His report is adjustable, WSRAs is not.We will need Steves knowledge of the web in the weeks ahead, keep him on side. As for putting the Plan in the open for all to see- think Arnhem. Keep them guessing and worried.They knew the plan at the AGM, it wont happen again.

 

Whilst I have no knowledge of Steve as a person I am familiar with his role as "reporter" in which you need to be "all things to all men"; in that context Steve has to omit certain facts (which it appears that others wish to have published) or include certain facts (which others wish to remain confidential) in order to give a balance that treats both sides of the argument equally.

The old adage of "don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the message" seems most apt here and - as Tiffer notes - detracts from the main thrust of any discussion after Saturday's concerto of disaster; the order of the day is to remove the prevaricating Trustees who are no longer trusted and establish the WSRA as the support organisation that it was originally created to be.

Looking from the outside it appears to be a battle that must be won if the WSRA is to have any future relevance and - like many - all I can offer is words of support and comfort after being involved in similar battles of egos and politics within the preservation movement.

 

If my Dad were still alive I would say, "My Dad is bigger than your Dad". I support Tiffer and the others - please stop bickering. Steve is a long service volunteer on the WSR and an ex Station Master, its his web site and he pays for it so he can, basically, print what he likes but he doesn't. Please rest assured he will, if need be, amend the article when the trustees add something.
The Yorkshireman has also been a volunteer for some time in the past and has been a good benefactor to the Railway, he has certainly done his bit. He has agreed to stop gnawing at the bone, in part our lady legal beagle has agreed with the Yorkshireman. Time to let it rest.
Lets think about what to do next. Lets put our thinking caps on and feed the info to Robin, many hands make light work etc. There is a solution to this problem we just haven't found it yet so lets generate some brain power and work it out - for the second time, United we stand, Divided we fall.

 

I think Greenslade did not read the post correctly: also also read it as Ralph and one or two other did.

 

Faol: I've edited out my original just to be safe!
Maybe you could edit out my original post in your reply too? Okay, I'm being paranoid, but that doesn't mean etc etc

 

Good advice, edited and gone, many thanks.

 

Noted. Vincit omnia veritas!

 

As circumstances prevent me from volunteering I am always loath to make too many observations on internal disputes on the WSR. However the current situation with WSRA and in particular the recent AGM is of great concern - even to a remote member and in conversation with friends who are also remote members they too are concerned.

We love the WSR and always find the friendliness of the vast majority of the staff and volunteers exceptional. In contrast the situation with WSRA is anything but friendly. I support the moves by Robin and others to bring about change and would remind the current trustees who obviously do not want change despite the overwhelming feelings of the majority last Saturday, of the words of the American author Bruce Barton - "When you are through changing you are through"

Can I also add my support for Steve Edge whose website is my first port of call every day to find out what is happening on my favourite railway. I should declare that I am an occasional photographic contributor th WSR.org but other than that I have no connection with Steve whose website is second to none in the world of Heritage Railways.

David Smith

 

It will be interesting to see the Trustees statement and how they explain the events on Saturday to those not present in the notice for the next instalment of the AGM. They must have been shaken by the scale of the protest,and their discussions post event may well have been interesting, particularly if the moderates found their voice. WishI had been a fly on the wall.

 

I have been a member of the WSRA for almost a year, after the comedy of the weekend & reading all the bickering posts since it goes to prove that two separate organisations cannot run one project amicably. My thoughts are that come September I join the PLC & put the money where it's really needed for the railway & not squandered on the WSRA solicitors & such-like.

 

>>>>There are much simpler forms of charitable status such as trusts which would have removed the onerous double reporting the current structure imposes.....

Ironically there is one of the former on the railway which apparently proposes to change to the latter state, despite the fact that it already struggles to submit its accounts to the Charity Commission within the required timescale

As regards any 'time limit' for the reconvened AGM, the only thing remotely applicable within the Articles is that the Trustees are only required to give "at least seven clear days" notice of the reconvened meeting (Article 9.3) UNLESS the meeting is adjourned for 30 days or more in which case the period of notice will be "in the same manner as an original meeting" (Article 9.5) which is 14 clear days for a general meeting (Article 8.3).

It might be interesting to note also that, under Article 9.5 ....
"The chairman of a general meeting at which a quorum is present may (and shall if so directed by the Members at the meeting in person or by proxy on a show of hands) adjourn the meeting...." {my emphasis}....
....so if, at the reconvened meeting, you still do not like the way that business is being conducted, a majority vote simply of those persons present (whether in their own right or as proxy) could force the Chairman to adjourn the meeting again!

 

I'm not sure how the bit about proxies could work in directing the chairman to adjourn.

On a separate note, and not related to the quoted post, I have to say that the personal attacks that litter the posts since the AGM do not endear their authors to me. If I had a vote at the recalled AGM I would bear this thread in mind when deciding how to vote.

 

Shhhhhhh!!!!! The Trustees will hear you!

Seriously though, there is a plan for the resumed AGM. If you want to make a difference, do come along if you can. Everyone who comes will be able to make a difference.....

Kind regards

Robin White

P.S.
Thank you for the earlier comments. My professional ( and personal) integrity is very important to me, and I do try to be truthful and accurate in all that I do.

 

>>>I'm not sure how the bit about proxies could work in directing the chairman to adjourn.....

As I read it, this is NOT the normal 'postal' proxies, but someone who attends the meeting as a proxy for an absentee. In other words, ONLY those persons actually at the meeting get to vote.