WSRA+ offer some comment on the Resolutions.
1 “Members have no confidence that the WSRA is being appropriately managed by the present Trustees.”
We feel the scope of this resolution is too wide as it suggests the members have no confidence in all of the current Trustees. We know there are some excellent Trustees on the WSRA Board who need to given the chance to properly participate. Quite often the result of a vote of no confidence is a mass resignation of Trustees [edit: a correspondent has pointed out in the case of the WSRA, Trustees are not permitted to resign if it would mean less than the minimum number of six Trustees so a “mass resignation” is not possible. However, given the membership have no confidence in them, Trustees might simply stop their work…] and that is the last thing our Association needs. Members will need to consider the possible result following the vote on this resolution.
2 “The Trustees shall cause to be conducted a review of the purpose, objects, structure and activities of the WSRA, intended to return the WSRA to its core role as supporting the West Somerset Railway as a whole. The review shall be chaired by a person independent of the WSRA or any group on the Railway but the review team shall include WSRA Trustees, representatives of the WSRA Reform Group, WSR plc, and the WSSRT, and may include representatives of other groups on the Railway as the review chairman shall decide. The will be an opportunity for all interested parties to contribute to the review. The review report shall be completed within 6 months of this resolution being passed and shall be presented in its entirety to the WSRA membership on completion. The trustees shall then bring forward proposals to the WSRA membership to implement the review recommendations no later than the Annual General Meeting following the publication of the review report.” We agree the WSRA needs a “review of the purpose, objects, structure and activities of the WSRA”. However, we see it as adding to the WSRA’s existing core role of supporting the West Somerset Railway as a whole. Despite the criticism, the WSRA remains a major contributor in our view. That said, there could and should be some significant changes that will enhance that contribution. Achieving that aim depends so much on the other WSR organisations and their expectations of the WSRA, and we sincerely hope such a review be a key vehicle towards improving relationships, understandings and agreements within the WSR family. The review team should not, however, include representatives of the Reform Group. The resolution looks like a method for “parachuting” members of the Reform Group – which is not a recognised member of the WSR family – into key roles within our Association. That said, we would have no objection if those same people are selected by the review team chairman as we know the Reform Group includes individuals with appropriate skills to join the review team and likely to make a good contribution to the work of the team. But not simply through being part of the Reform Group. Furthermore, the review team should consist only of WSRA members. It is a WSRA review. Not a pan-WSR review. So no place for WSR Plc or the Steam Trust (WSSRT) – those fine organisations would undoubtedly provide a huge contribution to the review as senior consultees, perhaps along with others in the WSR family. To repeat, it would be a WSRA review with decisions made by the review team members who would all represent the WSRA and no other party. Members need to consider these matters before voting on this resolution.
3 “David Williams shall be removed as a Director and Trustee of the WSRA with effect from the end of the General Meeting, as one of the persons closely associated with the recent policies, actions and approach of the Trustees.”
4 “Peter Chidzey shall be removed as a Director and Trustee of the WSRA with effect from the end of the General Meeting, as one of the persons closely associated with the recent policies, actions and approach of the Trustees.”
5 “Michael Nicholls (a.k.a. Nick) Nicholls shall be removed as a Director and Trustee of the WSRA with effect from the end of the General Meeting, as one of the persons closely associated with the recent policies, actions and approach of the Trustees.”
We believe the only way members can decide on the last three resolutions is by reviewing the statements by the WSRA Chairman and by the Reform Group. We have tried to offer some comment through this blog, intended only to suggest a few matters for members to question during their considerations.
The final decision on each resolution is down to each member. We strongly urge members to make their own decision and to vote at the meeting or vote using the Proxy Form. If using the latter, it is essential the member selects a trusted proxy who will be attending the meeting and most importantly the member instructs the proxy to vote according to members voting decisions on the proxy form. In other words – make sure you place a tick (or cross) in the appropriate box (For, Against, Abstain) against each of the five resolutions.
Use your vote wisely!
WSRA+ 
The reformers hope that the trustee’s not specifically named don’t choose to resign if the vote of no confidence is carried. What we do hope is that they step into the limelight and work hard if the review motion is carried to make sure that the review is undertaken as directed by the resolution. Why have we suggested members of other organisation be involved? Well that’s easy, if the WSRA is to be an umbrella fundraising organisation for the railway then the views of other organisation need to form a part of the review. It speaks back to the original “One Railway” theme of this whole situation.
I think the recent actions of those named trustees speak for themselves.
Finally I will say that if any WSRA member reading this is unclear as to why we have done what we have done then please feel free to contact any of us via http://wsra-action.org/index.htm or ask questions when you see us about the railway. Or indeed post a question on Nat Pres. We are reviewing as many forums as possible to make sure members questions are answered and they have all the information needed to understand the reformer view.
LikeLike
Oh I almost forget. We are not trying to parachute ourselves in by the backdoor. Post the EGM we stand ready to help in any way that we can to support the trustees to carry out any resolutions passed at the EGM. We would hope that all members of the WSRA including the authors of WSRA would fully agree that this is what they would do if so called upon?
LikeLike
>>>“Members have no confidence that the WSRA is being appropriately managed by the present Trustees.”
>>>We feel the scope of this resolution is too wide as it suggests the members have no confidence in all of the current Trustees.
I am minded to agree with that suggestion. While I would accept the comments made by Mike Sherwood, I can envisage that many others may /assume/ the motion to be a broad condemnation of ALL Trustees.
>>>We know there are some excellent Trustees on the WSRA Board who need to given the chance to properly participate.
I would agree. The problem is that currently such Trustees – for whatever reasons – have said little or nothing in public to support their own case, probably – one may suspect – because they have to adhere to the principle of ‘corporate responsibility’ ie they have to go along with the ‘party line’ of the majority Board vote even if they disagree. Perhaps this is something on which the Reform Group could have been more specific.
Nevertheless, the ‘core element’ of this Motion is whether or not “the WSRA is being appropriately managed by the present Trustees”. One could argue therefore that the Motion is about the ‘management’ of the Trust, not the competence of individual Trustees. If members believe that it is NOT being managed properly, then they should vote accordingly – the fact that the failing may be due to only to some Trustees and not others is irrelevant.
LikeLike
Just flip the comment the other way up. If you vote ‘no’ or ‘abstain’ in respect of this motion you will be saying that your view is that either the WSRA is being appropriately managed by the present Trustees, or you have no view .
Hmmm
Robin White
LikeLike
The fact that 3 of the Trustees no longer play any part in the day to day dealings is quite significant. There is a 2 tier structure within the WSRA leadership (or 3 or maybe 4 depending on how you cut it) so calling for a vote of no confidence for specific tiers would be incredibly confusing. The “no confidence” is applicable to the overall function which is clearly broken but hopefully not beyond repair.
LikeLike
A “mass resignation” of the trustees is not possible. All are bound by the Articles of Assocoation of the WSRA which state that no trustee is permitted to resign if that would cause the number remaining to fall below the minimum of six trustees.
LikeLike
Asking members to “…consider the result…” when you have just made the suggestion of a mass resignation (which is not possible) could be very misleading. Please correct this so that all can see it without having to delve onto the comments for clarification
LikeLike
It can do no harm now to say that the Reform Group have made contact with all but one of the residual Trustees and can say that a ‘mass resignation’ is not on the cards, so that spectre can be laid to rest.
The motion of ‘no confidence’ focuses on how the WSRA is being managed. At the moment that is done by a ‘kitchen cabinet’ of the Trustees we have listed for removal, and the WSRA Manager/Company Secretary/WSRA Promotions Ltd Managing Director.
As far as the Review is concerned, a Review of the WSRA involving the whole Railway is, frankly, just what IS needed, so that the WSRA once again fits in within the WSR ‘family’. If the Review were only conducted from the perspective of the WSRA, we might be in the same boat all over again. The motions cannot be changed now, so is WSRAplus suggesting no Review is better than the Review on which the members can now vote? Any proposals for change would have to come back before the WSRA membership, so what is wrong in involving the significant stakeholders on the Railway and the group which have had to work so hard to give WSRA members this chance to influence the future of our Association?
Have you noticed, by the way, that the Reform Group have fully engaged with WSRA plus, but that from the Trustee ‘cabal’ we have heard…….not a dickey bird…..
This is stated to be a site ‘about things members should know’. When that was all the site was doing, its authors remaining anonymous was fine, if a little disappointing. If WSRAplus wants to suggest how members should vote, perhaps it is now time to emerge a little more clearly into the daylight, as the Reform Group have done from the start of the campaign.
kind regards
Robin White
LikeLike
If we have strayed towards suggesting how members should vote then that is not our intention. As with members of the Reform Group we as individuals have a good idea how we will each vote. However, WSRA+ is simply trying to point out some things for consideration before members vote. It should be no surprise that the article drawing most comment from members and supporters of the Reform Group is this one. We are grateful for all comments which are adding to a rounded debate on the issues and we are glad to provide a platform for that debate.
LikeLike
The latest ‘Steam Railway’ magazine carries a news item on the WSRA EGM, with comments from the Chairman which include the following: “A lot has been said that is inaccurate, and we have kept very quiet up to now. At the EGM, we’ll be setting the record straight, and putting the facts into the public domain”.
It maybe reasonable for members to draw from those comments the implication that there is pertinent information which has been withheld from them until now, but will be disclosed at the EGM. Yet by that time it is likely that many members will have submitted proxy votes, which apparently will have been cast now without knowledge of all the relevant information.
The ‘Trustee’s Response to the Reform Group Statement’ table (enclosed with the EGM mailing from the Association) criticised those who walked out of the 2014 AGM as ‘not respecting the democratic process’. By the Chairman’s own admission the Trustees have ‘kept very quiet up until now’ – reinforcing one of the key complaints from so many members that the Trustees simply do not ‘communicate’ adequately with the membership – so how is he ‘respecting the democratic process’ by expecting members to vote by proxy in ignorance of all the facts?
LikeLike