Something has been going on behind our backs.
Writing on the unofficial WSR forum (in reply to Robin White) the WSRA Chairman, says “I note that you choose to misquote a comment made in what you insisted was to be a ‘confidential meeting’ not to be discussed with either your fellow reformers or the WSRA trustees. Your idea of ‘confidential’ also seems to be misplaced. If as I presume your announcement will be based around the demands you made at that meeting, I will leave others to conclude how ‘constructive’ they are.”
In reply to a message from another reform supporter on the National Preservation forum saying “I reckon there was lots to discuss at last evening’s Trustee meeting.”, Robin White posted “It is right that they have some serious choices to make.” and “The Reform Group are likely to have an announcement on Saturday morning.”
So with these two exchanges on public discussion forums, can we tell what’s been going on behind our backs?
Members will note it seems Robin White has made demands to the WSRA. There are reasonable grounds to assume the demands were to be discussed and choices made at the Trustees meeting held in the evening of 4 June. And members will note that the reform group – who clearly know what Robin White has been up to – along with, it seems, at least one other reform supporter not part of the reform group, are likely to make an announcement on Saturday morning.
Members might wonder under what mandate the reform group are placing demands on the WSRA Trustees.
Members might want to know the detail of those demands.
Members might wish to know why they have been utterly ignored by the reform group on this story.
Members might ponder on the secrecy surrounding all of this and what happened to openness and transparency, consultation and communication.
Members might be puzzled by the lack of democracy.
Members might wish to know what they can do if they don’t like the demands.
Members might wonder what deals have been made as part of those demands and whether the membership will get the chance to have their say.
WSRA+ will post more on this story, regardless of the contents of the “likely” announcement by the reform group.
WSRA+ 
Members may wonder also whether there is any connection with the fact that the Association has started sending letters/e-mails to members of the Reform Group advising of their intention to terminate their membership. It seems an odd response from the WSRA given the recent statement by their new Chairman about the need to deal with the ‘disconnection’ with part of the membership.
LikeLike
Indeed, Peter.
We will be commenting on the membership terminations later.
LikeLike
The writers of the blog must surely be aware of the fact that during any confrontation there is always an amount of back channel diplomacy which is intended to avert outright war between parties. Such diplomacy must of necessity remain confidential until such time as it might bear fruit. If you look carefully at the exchanges you might well ask who leaked and why rather then speculating on why such confidential discussion were taking place.
LikeLike
MIke. No problems with having discussions. And we never said we had a problem with the “confidential” nature. It’s the demands (and deals) that we think the membership might be interested in. As far as we can tell, the reform group have no intention of consulting the membership as it would seem the trustees were given an ultimatum. Maybe the reform group will spell out those demands and deals tomorrow. Then we can comment further.
LikeLike
This site has posted on facts. Now it is posting on assumptions. See what develops rather than making assumptions. Who knows how many other WSRA members have been suspended?
Nick
LikeLike
Fair comment, Nick. We have strong reasons and evidence for making those “assumptions” and we felt it was necessary to pose those questions today so that members may check for answers in the reform group’s statement tomorrow. Since posting that article, the news of the membership terminations has broke, which re-inforces our decision to publish the article today. There is, we believe, a link. We hope the reform group will publish their demands in full.
LikeLike
Dear WSRA+, I find it a pity that you cannot seem to bring yourself to address the ongoing behaviour of the trustees with the same degree of hostility that you treat those looking for reform.
Ask the questions by all means but if you wish to continue to demonstrate your neutrality then a little more even handedness in the way you do so is needed.
LikeLike
Demands is a strong word. It’s hard to see how the reformers could demand anything. Perhaps you mean heads of agreement that the Reformers could have recommended to their supporters if they had been accepted?
LikeLike
Alan – do you think the actions of the reform group should not be questioned? Especially if there are deals being made. We think the membership should know.
Mike – no, we think demands is the right word, given what we have been permitted to see (and we hope the reform group publish in full today) No “heads of agreement” was mentioned, no “recommend to supporters”, just an ultimatum (And by the way it’s the WSRA membership that should decide, not the reform group’s supporters!)
LikeLike
Steve,
I do agree that it is the whole membership generally who should decide matters of WSRA policy but you’ll acknowledge that only the Reform Group and it’s supporters can actually withdraw (or more correctly, not submit) the call for EGM2? So I’d contend that it is correct to say Reform Group Supporters in this context. Again you chose to use a new and equally emotive word “ultimatum” given that there were concessions proposed it can’t have been an ultimatum. I’d also point out to you that what was presented came after a meeting between Robin and Peter so it didn’t come out of the blue either.
However in the light of subsequent actions it would seem this line of discussion has become a little redundant. We are where we are today and sadly WSRA members need to confront the situation facing them.
LikeLike
Mike, it’s all part of the “deal”, done behind our backs. Had the trustees gone along with it, then fait accompli. No general membership say whatsover. The seven items proposed by the reform group as a way of “peace” are nothing short of an ultimatum. Do this, we concede that. If not, we proceed with EGM2. If that is not an ultimatum we do not know what is! We are preparing an article “Demands II” which discusses how the reform group are prepared to do a deal with the trustees providing the reformers get their own way.
We believe the AGM is the right way for WSRA members to confront the increasingly serious situation. We will do all we can to get new people on the Board, people who will not be “yes men” to any pressure group – that is the right way to resolve things.
LikeLike
Surely it would have been better to have done some sort of deal so that we could have moved forward to a peaceful, democratic AGM rather than to continue the war that isn’t helping the Railway. However, it seems that the Reform Group can’t win since we have been accused of both not negotiating and of trying to negotiate a peace deal, neither stance apparently being acceptable. What the Reform Group wants is a return to democracy so that we can get on with enjoying our hobby. Anything that you can do to get new people on the Board would be most welcome but unfortunately the deadline for nominations has passed and nobody else was prepared to step up.
LikeLike
Nigel, sadly the attempt by the reform group to do a deal shows that the reform group are as bad as the other lot, and show no respect for the democracy that you mention will follow. But will it? The reform group’s hand has been shown now. And of course, not all members like what the reform group want or how they do it. Getting “democracy” by unilateral action and not the ballot box? Not a convincing way forward. Best way, we think, is via the AGM trustee elections.
We believe you are a candidate trustee, Nigel? There are, we gather, six candidates in total. We believe the membership has a good choice ahead. The AGM provides an excellent opportunity to make a start on change. Make the most of it, Nigel.
It’s not what we can do to get new people on the Board, it’s up to the candidates to win the votes of the membership by showing change can happen through the Board itself in future.
LikeLike
I think that you are being a little unfair. Please re-read Mike Sherwood’s post of 5th June above. The negotiations had to be confidential to have stood any chance of succeeding and any resultant co-options would have had to have been ratified, democratically at the AGM.
Yes, I am a candidate trustee but only because nobody from outside the Reform Group would stand. And, if the attempt to remove Paul Whitehouse’s membership succeeds, there will be only 5 candidates.
The AGM would be “an excellent opportunity to make a start on change” if it were to be properly organised. Given the history of last year’s AGM and the EGM last month I’m afraid that I lack your confidence. Sorry.
As for you getting new people on the Board, I was merely quoting from your own reply to Mike above!
We need to move on again now. The Trustees lost a vote of no confidence at the last EGM but there has been no change. The membership endorsed a call for a review but nothing has happened. The voting on the removal resolutions was questionable. We have tried to negotiate but it seems that wasn’t right either. So we will have another EGM because there is no other route open to us.
LikeLike
Steve,
The one thing we are totally agreed upon is that the AGM is the only forum left where members might have a chance of making enough changes to pull the Association back on course. However you might want to consider the impact of removing a member who was planning to stand as a trustee in your article. As to a deal – well there was no deal in the end was there? The result is the chaos we are now plunged into.
The other thing I’d say is that there is more than one way to conduct a negotiation. You (and perhaps I) may not like the hardball way but it’s legitimate as a tactic.
Perhaps another key question you might like to ask is what’s happened to the Review in all of this? The review voted for by a majority of members at the EGM, is there a chairman yet appointed? If not then perhaps you might ask why not?
LikeLike
Mike, we have long believed the only way forward is to get new people onto the Board via the AGM which this year provides the opportunity to vote in at least three new faces and possibly more. Sure it will all take longer, but many of us are prepared for the long run, building on change as we go.
LikeLike
Steve
I am not sure that you have considered the risk that any new trustees may be taking personally if they become involved with a WSRA board that has only a partial change of members.
The liabilities of the trustees are joint and the actions of the rest of the WSRA board may make the liabilities of any new members unacceptable.
The result could well be that in a short space of time, the new wave WSRA board members just leave (as appeared to have happened in the past), the current team are left in place and just co-opt people to bring the numbers up to keep going.
This will not achieve a new look WSRA, just much more of the same for years to come.
At least the EGM2 would provide a new start, the actions of the past can be evaluated and once understood, a new course set.
The best we can hope for is 5 new look WSRA (including Ian Colby) and 5 current WSRA team members.
It is quite possible that it might be 4 new and 6 current WSRA team
The AGM may bring long term change but it is more likely bring in the short term ongoing uncertainty.
EGM2 is a clear, clean new start, the WSRA needs it and the WSR deserves it
Jeff Price
LikeLike
Jeff, your first point is a matter for the candidate trustees to consider, not us. It’s interesting that you now support EGM2 – again – when for a few days last week you supported “the deal”. We just feel the whole idea of “the deal” was wrong from the outset but you didn’t ask the membership what they thought so we had no opportunity to comment. Ring any bells?
LikeLike
I would be very keen for a resolution of the current WSRA situation so that the WSR railway can as a whole, move forward to a bright new future.
If that involved a deal to get there quickly, it was worth looking at, it would appear that Peter Chidzey was happy to explore such a deal as detailed, it would appear that the rest of the trustees were not.
You and your partners may have not liked a deal, however you would have the opportunity along with the rest of the WSRA membership to vote on the situation at the next AGM.
Sometimes you have to settle for what is offered or achievable because perfection as we may see it personally, is just not attainable.
Things have moved on and we are now no nearer a solution.
The WSRA can terminate as many members as it chooses, it will not solve the underlying issues and they show no signs of resolving themselve.
Meanwhile, we all will carry on supporting the WSR
As I have said before, if anyone has any workable solutions to the current WSRA situation, we will all be happy to hear about them in detail so that they can be robustly tested
Jeff Price
LikeLike
There is much talk – quite sensibly – about sorting out matters at the AGM. However, let us not forget that EGM2 is/was planned to take place *before* the AGM.
Whilst I respect the attempts by the Reform Group to seek ‘peace not war’ by continued negotiation, I can not accept that they had the right to offer to withdraw the EGM2 motion as part of any ‘deal’. They report that over 400 members have signed the call for the EGM, I do not see therefore how that call can be silenced without the agreement of those signatories. Otherwise there is a risk that those members will feel betrayed by the Reform Group as much as by the Trustees, thereby alienating much-needed support.
LikeLike
members will note that the reform group – who clearly know what Robin White has been up to – along with, it seems, at least one other reform supporter not part of the reform group
As the reform supporter referred to here I should point out I was first told about the proposed ‘deal’ by Steve Edge! WSRA+ therefore needs to be added to the list of those with advance knowledge of it.
Sorry for the delay in replying but I have temporarily been in a different La La Land (P&O). Just 700 NatPres messages to read and I will be back up to speed.
LikeLike