Much is made by the trustees of their “collective responsibility”.

But where is the collective voice of those trustees who must know things are not right.

For example, when the member being deprived of his right to cast a proxy vote spoke up at the recent EGM, why did the trustees not rise as one and tell the EGM chairman to continue the meeting? Not a murmur.

And then,after the EGM, how could all the other trustees have voted to suspend Ian Coleby when some of them did not have the detail of the charges against him? They knew the “nature” of the charge – something like serious misconduct or breach of confidentiality – but not the detail. Surely a worthy trustee would side-step “collective responsibility” until utterly convinced of the need for suspension.

We believe the use of “collective responsibility” is too often an excuse for dictatorial processes – easy to administer when objection is deemed defiance.

The WSRA membership deserves to be served by trustees, each one willing to dare to be a Daniel.