WSRA Trustee Election Hustings

I perhaps should have added that members should be told that would be how it worked, but as it was idle thinking on a problem that shouldn't have occurred anyway I didn't feel the need to supply details of how it could work I too share you disbelief at how no one knows what's going on. How has it worked previously! Or has there not ever been more candidates than positions before?

 

This turning out to be a real mess isn't it?........................

Its in danger of becoming a Monty Pythonesque farce................ Knight's of Nee, anyone...... or would the Black knight be better?...... (best thing I can think of this time of night!)

 

Well the Articles are there to be read on the WSRA website, so pleased to be assisted in my understanding if anyone else can read more clarity into them. In recent years it has been re-election of existing Trustees without contest.

By the way that's the West Somerset Railway Association website, not the Welsh Sea Rowing Association, which google throws up for 'WSRA'. On second thoughts, has anyone got a spare pair of oars......?. My head hurts!

kind regards

Robin

 

My understanding is the same, (and my head hurts as well) and can see no obvious solution in the articles. I can see the problem,(got the medal for surviving school dinner duties the hard way), Robin can see the problem,trouble is can the Trust Secretary ? By various accounts, last years AGM showed the need for a better system, and it should have been anticipated.

 

Hmmmm ... 14.6 says "If there are more candidates than vacancies for Trustees, the election of candidates shall be determined by a vote of the Members in accordance with the provisions of these articles." But the only reference I can find to what the "provisions of the articles" might be is 9.6 "Any vote at a general meeting shall be decided on a show of hands." And clearly, you can't conduct a sequential series of elections for each vacancy (which is implied by a show of hands) without the outcome of later elections being influenced by the known results of earlier ones.

Unless ... maybe if the following image is representative of a typical WSRA elector, simultaneous votes for four from 11 might be possible without electoral difficulty ...



Tom

 

Presumably each person attending could be given 4 cards and required to hand one in as each person they wish to vote for is named. The handing in would be a "show of hands" and the limit would be 4 votes per person. Those holding proxies could be given a plurality of sets of 4 cards.............

All this just shows the need to draft these rules carefully at a time when there is nothing contentious around. Doesn't the HRA have some "model" articles that could be adopted when the dust has settled?

 

That solves one problem - keeping tabs on the number of voters - but not the second - that later votes will be influenced by the outcome of earlier ones. In fact, it may reach a point where later candidates in the list never even get voted on, so the outcome depends crucially on the order votes are taken.

For example, imagine there are 25 voters in the room, with four votes each, so 100 votes in total. Candidates A, B, C and D are voted on in turn, receiving 22, 23, 18 and 19 votes. Candidate E then gets 2 votes. At that point 84 votes have been cast and only 16 remain in the room. No other candidate can beat D (with 18) so it is pretty pointless even bothering to hold a vote for F, G , H etc. Clearly, that is a mockery of any kind of fair election.

Agreed.

Tom

 

The Heritage Railway Association has been known to offer advice on the fair conduct of contentious General Meetings. Is the WSRA a member?

 

It gets better still.
I understand that in a joint membership even though there is only one form there are 2 lots of votes so a joint form can have 8 votes. I understand this is the suggestion of the WSRA Chairman.
We really need to keep the proxies separate and an independent and I would say someone who is not a member and acceptable to all the candidates should handle and count the votes and be at the meeting to oversee the result. I feel that the confidence in the trustees and the company sec is unfortunately not there is lots of members minds. I am not saying for one moment that anyone would fiddle the vote but there is an opportunity and that cannot in this very contentious election be allowed.
Who to count the votes my suggestion would be someone beyond reproach and is not a member ,shareholder or belongs to any group on the railway. I would suggest that a high ranking official from another railway should be invited to do the honours.

My opinion but I don't think that it will happen.

Rodders

 

Having two versions of the proxy form floating around will add to the general confusion. I wonder how many WSRA members are not aware of the error, dutifully filled in the earlier form and posted it already. The trustees cant say it is the PLC at fault.

 

I have just reread the form and the number of votes to be cast is 4 doesn't mention that there are 4 per person

All it needs now is Jeremy beetle to turn up.

 

I have also been asked about the position of the single proxy form supplied to joint members. It leads to two further muddles.

Firstly, the form is drafted for a single individual to appoint a proxy. There is no 'I/We' option, nor a place for two signatures. Both joint members are full members who might want to make different choices and not necessarily share them with the other member. The only proper option IMHO is to supply two forms.

Secondly, imagine the position where joint member (1) appoints joint member (2) as their proxy, and we have a vote by show of hands. Presumably joint member (2) holds up both hands? Interesting for the vote teller!

And how about a person appointed as the proxy for several absent members. Will they need a series of cardboard hands for each proxy they hold a la Kenny Everett?

This is going to be a tough meeting to chair........

Kind regards

Robin White

 

Its turning into a nightmare. Jeremy Paxman would have a field day.The Trusts election procedures are in desperate need of overhaul. To quote from a debate on union democracy
"Secondly, in this House the Prime Minister has agreed that a show of hands is not a satisfactory way of conducting affairs ".—[Official Report, 7 November 1978; Vol. 957, col. 684.]@

 

The problem is, at this point, is there any allowable mechanism in the rules that would allow the Trustees to vary the conduct of the election to another, less fraught, mechanism than show of hands?

Tom

 

Presumably:

An EGM could be called to amend the rules before the AGM, or an item added to the AGM agenda before a vote is taken. Such an action would be out of time for this meeting (I haven't read the rules) and itself would have to be on a show of hands
The AGM could be postponed to include the above (or an EGM immediately beforehand), which could also pick up the joint membership proxy points (but would be expensive)

etc etc

Patrick

 

Not that I'm aware of.

Given the general disapproval of the Trustees' present actions in not dropping the freehold bid, the gerrymandering and general incompetent conduct of the election, and their Stalinist approach to dissent, I see no choice but to propose a motion of no confidence in them at the AGM. Either they will wake up to the pass we have come to at that point or we are then into EGM territory.

I thought members might appreciate the woodcut print of the original 'gerrymander' from 19th century Massachusetts .......

Kind regards

Robin White

 

I think there's been two separate requests earlier this year for an EGM, one seemingly ignored and the other obstructed. This carry on does little to inspire confidence in WSRA management by either SCC OR Charity Commissioners.
As to a vote of no confidence, there will be no shortage of seconders !

 

I've been away so trying to catch up. Happy to comment, Rodders, but on what particular topic?

Steve

 

My money Robin is that the chairman will rule you out of order - Want to have a fiver bet loser gives money to WSR group of the winners choice

May I remind people who are going to the meeting that I have paid for the hall until 19.15 so we can hold a meeting after should the majority of the trustees and the company secretary still carry on in the blinkered way they are doing now. We can use this meeting if necessary to gather signatures towards the 5% that would be needed to call an EGM.

I warn you now it will not be easy I myself have tried to ask for the members list as has David Randles who got further than I did in they agreed a price for the membership list only to send back the cheque when David asked for the list in full for the purposes of calling an EGM. He was told by Susan Kaufman that he couldn't have it.

Rodders

 

I put my marker down that I will, unless things change markedly between now and the AGM, be proposing such a motion.

My 'WSRA supporter' credentials, are, I believe, impeccable, in that I am a previous WSRA Chairman, I have supported the WSRA freehold bid previously, I am not a member, let alone an officer of what I regard as the rival FoWSR organisation, and I have not been calling for the resignation of the Trustees over many months.

And if this is MY view.......

Kind regards

Robin White