Members have received a letter from the two WSRA Vice Chairmen concerning the EGM on 10 May at Bishops Lydeard Village Hall.
The letter rightly outlines some of the positives won by the current Trustees. Such as improvements to the Quantock Belle, the opportunities offered by the Inspection Saloon and the progress with 4561 (which will be needed by the WSR in the coming years) and we believe those positives should be applauded.
And it is true that how the Reform Group’s vision will be achieved is not stated. We guess that will be left to the “review”.
But WSRA+ is more concerned with bringing new information to members and also offering a different slant on existing information.
So, let’s look deeper at the letter from the Vice Chairman.
We note the Vice Chairmen point out that all current Trustees volunteer their time for “WSRA and railway activities” which may well be true. But then we are told that none of the named members of the Reform Group volunteer any of their time for WSRA activities, which may also be true. But given all of the named members give their time to “the railway”, is the last point that really relevant?
In the same paragraph, we are told the Reform Group want to gain control. But how can that happen? Only the Trustees can control the WSRA and not one of the EGM resolutions will change that.
Sadly, the letter continues with “the personal”. Trustee Ian Coleby is, again, in the firing line and we are told a little more about him. Is it co-incidental that only at this hour the Chairman and Vice Chairman have chosen to publicly denounce one of their own Trustees? Why now? Surely a bad egg was a bad egg all those months ago? What if Ian Coleby is to be one of those Trustees who has to stand down this year and stand again for re-election? Will we see two canvassing messages from the Trustees, one singing the praises of the other “re-electee” Trustee, and one criticising Ian Coleby? And yet in his condemnation of Ian Coleby (see WSRA website) the Chairman talks much about “collective responsibility”. Pah.
So, with the personal attacks on three of the Reform Group and now a Trustee, it seems the WSRA membership knows more about the WSR history of these individuals than they do about Roger Bush.
Perhaps the Chairman and Vice Chairmen would care to reply, here or anywhere, and spell out the full history, warts and all, of Roger Bush’s involvement with the WSRA? Just so we can better judge the Trustees performance.
Or is WSRA+ getting too personal…
WSRA+ 
As one member of the mediation group on commercial matters between the WSRA & PLC, I think it is very unfair of the vice chairmen in their letter to take Ian Colby to task for his lack of contribution to this process.
Most of the negotiations have been with WSRA [Promotions] so it is right that this separate legal entity is represented by their directors. Ian Colby is NOT a director, so it is right that Peter Chidzey and Susan Kaufman, both Directors.
LikeLike
In their letter the two Vice-Chairman state that “ALL {their emphasis} of the current Trustees volunteer their time for WSRA and Railway activities generally”. Yet the Chairman, in his letter on the WSRA website, is at pains to point out that “Mr Coleby’s contribution to debate and physical work for the Association is negligible”. Are those two views consistent?
The Chairman does NOT comment on Mr Coleby’s well-known years of service to ‘the railway’ as opposed specifically to the Association. Given that the Trustees claim the Assocation as the principal support organisation for the WSR, should there not be “praise where praise is due”?
LikeLike
The gauge museum is a jewel in the railway crown, albeit a small one, remind me who curates that? Oh and who was it who wrote the definitive historical guide to the Minehead Branch? You don’t have to get your hands mucky to support the railway!
LikeLike
The review should be as independent and dispassionate as possible. The Reform Group want the membership to be involved in all aspects of defining a set of recommendations for change, Those recommendations should then be considered and approved by the membership. Every voice should be heard and every voice should count. We could set out a framework now however there should be an initial “discovery” phase where the present status of the WSRA is baselined. There are details hidden away that are kept even from serving trustees so being prescriptive at this stage would certainly lead to changes in approach later on. It’s actually quite a challenge but one that I think we all must accept.
Don’t forget that we have only recently been told that the WSRA are half way through a 5 year review. This only came to light due to actions by the Reform Group. To my knowledge, not a single detail has been released but one of the first “next steps” after the EGM will be to provide an insight into what progress has been made.
Contrary to the letter sent out late last week, at least one of our group is working today to directly support the WSRA Quantock Belle and all other trains running on the “one railway”. The reality is quite different to what some people would have you believe.
LikeLike
Until I joined ‘the infected’ after the WSRA Trustees started cheating in last year’s elections, I regularly provided the WSRA with hours and hours of free legal advice, as I do for other organisations, groups and individuals on the Railway.
On Sunday I was signalman at Minehead and WSR Line Controller whent eh Quantock Bell (and its 24 diners) was about on the line. Yesterday, BH Monday would have been the same, had the QB not been cancelled for lack of patronage. How would it run without we voluntary signalmen (and other grades).
The personal attacks are vile and are showing what appears to be desperation on the part of Trustees.
See you all (in person or by proxy) next Sunday.
Robin White
LikeLike
On the Reform Group’s website at http://www.wsra-action.org there are a series of responses from that group to the various letters which the Chairman and Company Secretary sent along with the EGM notice. These responses highlight all the inaccuracies and misleading comments made by those two people.
I am surprised therefore not to see anything similar posted there in response to either the letter from the two Vice-Chairmen or the letter put on the WSRA website by the Chairman. This might be taken to imply that they consider those letters to be beneath contempt and not worth the time to reply. However some members may infer from the lack of a response from the Reform Group that the latter have no answer to the various allegations.
LikeLike
The Reform Group considered whether to spend time picking through the contemptible letter put out by Ian Aldridge and Peter Chidzey. We know, in fact that its continued theme of personal attacks, spin and half-truths, this time focussed, in particular, on Ian Coleby, has done PCZ and IA more harm than good, as did DW’s earlier letter.
We have put our efforts into ensuring that all those who want to vote will do so, either in person or by proxy, and the proof of this particular pudding will be in the eating on Sunday.
Robin White
LikeLike