We are dismayed to feel the need to repeat the call of our previous article “Time, gentlemen”.
After some six weeks or so to digest the Review Panel’s recommendations, especially the “key” recommendation, it is becoming blatently clear that the “old” Trustees have no intention of voluntarily standing down. Not one of them. That surprises us as we did believe one or two might have the moral courage to realise their Trusteeship time is up and set aside. There’s still time, gentlemen. But not much longer than a day or two.
With the co-operation of the “old” Trustees, a phased process of co-option and resignation – one in, one out – would ensure the number of Trustees does not fall below the minimum stated in the Articles. As others have said, this process could be dealt with during one meeting. There are other ways, of course. But the “old” Trustees seem unwilling to do this and the matter cannot be forced as the “old” Trustees remain a majority on the Board. Our only conclusion is that the “old” Trustees refuse to budge.
OK, we could wait until the AGM. With the current number of established Trustees, the rules require just two of them to retire by rotation. We hear all the “old” Trustees will stand down at the July AGM, but nothing in writing from them, so they may not stand down come the day. We believe the “old” Trustees actually want to be pushed rather than jump.
We at WSRA+ are patient fellows but even our patience is fast running out. Other WSRA members are clearly more agitated and we hear increased chatter of plans for a fresh EGM. We too believe an EGM seems the only way forward. We suspect the “old” trustees also believe in putting their removal to the membership in a clear resolution.
A resolution will, we assume, ask the membership to approve the immediate removal of the “old” Trustees in line with the “key” recommendation of the Review.
WSRA+ are quite prepared to work with others on the draft resolution and its supporting message to the membership, and then by using online resources to help gather support from the membership for an EGM.
We are extremely proud of our Association. Of how it has played a big part in re-opening the line in the 1970s, then dragging our Railway from the dark days of the early 1980s when the line faced the real risk of closure; and through the 1990s when the West Somerset Railway finally hauled itself into the top league of heritage railways. Our Association still has a very important role to play in keeping the Railway up there with the big boys. But the WSRA itself needs a fresh start with fresh minds.
As we said at the top of this article, it really is “time, gentlemen”.
If the “old” Trustees can today summon up the courage to do the right thing and make that decision to send in a letter of resignation, then a further EGM can be avoided. So to Peter, David, Ian, Nigel, Nick and Paul, we say:
“Today would be a good day for you to make the decision and step down.”
WSRA+ 
It will come as no surprise to hear me agree with you. Given the failure of Frank Courtney and Mike Rowe to get more than a token shift of attitude it is hard to see any solution except an EGM, or action by an outside body will shift them. The failure of the hierarchy to leave just confirms their attitude is entirely self serving with no concern whatsoever for the wider interest of the WSR that they claim to support. I believe they have brought the entire UK Heritage Railway movement into disrepute by their refusal to resign.
LikeLike
It is good to see that all the voices that believe we need change are coming together. As a reformer I really hope we don’t need to take up the offer of help that the WSRA+ team have made above because the need to think about an EGM evaporates and the “old trustees” do find the courage to resign and save the Association a lot of pain and cost.
LikeLike
I agree with both the original post and the responses. The more that I read and hear from conversations elsewhere, the vast majority (I would not presume to say ‘all’) of the voices agree that the ‘old Trustees’ must follow the Report recommendations and stand down NOW. Only the Trustees themselves seem to be out of step with reality.
My only worry is that far too often in the last couple of years events have reminded me of the myth of Sisyphus – just when you thinking you are getting to the top, you’re back to square one 😦 Although there are many who place much faith in the hope/expectation that the ‘armchair majority’ of the members will have the scales fall from their eyes and ‘smell the coffee’ as a result of the Report, thereby sweeping the Trustees from power at an EGM, I’m afraid that I can not share that expectation at the moment.
Meanwhile, time is rolling on. There is supposed to be a Members’ Meeting in (late) February – will there be? Will there be a whole new Board in place – sadly I doubt it? Will the business of that meeting be to plan the future of the WSRA in conjunction with a new set of Trustees, or will we be sat there looking glumly at the same old ‘6’ and asking “why are you still here”?
For goodness sake gentlemen, GO – and go NOW !
LikeLike
My guess is that they feel they cannot resign because they think that would amount to an admission of culpability. I started off last year being broadly supportive of the Trustees but their actions and acts of omission since EGM1 and the AGM have changed my mind. I suspect there will be many others reaching the same conclusion after reading Coombes. The truly sad part of the present impasse is that by hanging on they are damaging the very thing they profess to care about. It’s time for a fresh start with new faces.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Or are they being leaned on to remain by those even higher up the local politics foodchain?
LikeLike
Suggest you all recall Peter Chidgey stating at the end of the ??AGM. ‘the association would be better off without the members’ Rather it should be ‘ the association would be better off without the old trustees’…
LikeLiked by 1 person
He also described the assembled the members f****** rabble. I have nothing but contempt for a trustee who has that attitude. He has continued to take it towards the WSR PLC and the Coombes Review. I simply can’t see that he is fit to be a trustee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And yet, according to a post on Nat Pres by Mike Rowe, up until 10th January the WSRA had only received 85 comments from members on the Coombes report, with 78 saying that all trustees should go straight away, 2 saying they should stay, and 5 were considered ambiguous. A resounding “go” verdict, but from less than 2% of the members. What happened to the other 98%? It seems to me that they would be quite happy with Micky Mouse and Donald Duck as trustees, if they cant be bothered to make their views known at this crucial time. Either that, or they take the view that there is no point in bothering to comment as the 6 trustees will take no notice of what is said anyway. A very sad state of affairs.
LikeLike
To date we have.not received the report. If we did not regularly go to either this step or the WSRA site, we would not know it was out there. I suspect this is true for lots of other members.
LikeLike
Like Jean we are yet to receive the report – if it wasn’t for a misspent retirement surfing the internet we wouldn’t know of its existence (or of many of the other issues experienced within the WSRA in the past couple of years). At the moment we’re torn between responding to a report that we’ve not yet received, or simply not renewing our membership this year.
LikeLike
The low level of response from the membership so far IS indeed disappointing. Some thoughts on possible reasons include:-
1. Some members have not yet received the Report
2. Some members are just not interested in the ‘politics’ at all and will just accept “whatever happens”
3. Some members feel that the Report recommendations are so appropriate and straightforward that there seems little point in writing to say “I agree” because they assume that the old Trustees will do the decent thing and go….and of course, with no new Journal, no news update on the website, and maybe they do not use the web anyway, then how will they know that has NOT happened?
4. Some members have worked out that the old Trustees are still in a majority on the Board and therefore feel that it will be a waste of time.
5. It was Christmas, then it was New Year, and the inertia is still lingering….
I look on the figures posted so far as a *positive* sign, that those members who DO care about the WSRA are overwhelmingly behind the Report. It must leave Frank C + Michael R in no doubt as to what must happen next.
LikeLike
I am one of those that has responded to the association telling the old school to go. My letter also asked questions and although addressed and emailed direct to the new chairman I am disappointed not to have received a reply from him. Consequently he has lost my support.
I suspect most members expect that the old school will do the decent thing and go without a further push.
As I’ve said before the association’s healing process has yet to start. I find this most disappointing.
I don’t know what the reformers are planning but I’m certain they’ll have my support.
LikeLike