Writing in the latest Journal about the ‘Bailey’ recommendations, the Chair of the West Somerset Railway Association points out the Association Board will ‘not agree to restructuring at any cost to the WSRA’ and he sets out a few ‘red lines’. For those who are not members of the Association, here are those red lines along with my thoughts [in italics within square brackets] on each:
1 The new charity must be a membership organisation. [The new charity must indeed be a membership organisation, a membership with a real say, via default poll votes on all resolutions, in how the new charity is run.]
2 It must be a single charity providing an overarching home for all groups on the railway. [Not entirely clear what this means. I guess it could mean a single charity for the WSR-based organisations (the WSRA and WSSRT would cease and merge into the new one). That sounds fine to me. But what is an ‘overarching home’ and how would it affect current, smaller, non-charitable organisations such as Friends groups? Would they also cease and merge?]
3 WSRA members must be offered membership of any new charity the same conditions as shareholders. [Absolutely – bringing all ‘members’ together as one and the same. No more them and us. So, the benefits and responsibilities of membership must be identical regardless of the original organisation.]
4 The governance of the new charity must be above reproach and its trustees appointed for the proven and relevant skills they can bring to the charity. [This red line seems geared towards Charity Commission guidance. Ensuring good governance can be greatly aided by membership scrutiny on a regular basis; however, defining ‘proven and relevant’ is a difficult one and it will need to be written down somewhere, along with who defines and later decides which candidate fits the bill. Gotta get this bit right from the outset – we have been here so many time before…]
5 Trustees of the new charity must face independent scrutiny of their running of the charity, and therefore ther suitability to continue in post, and this must be reported to the charity annually. [‘Independent’ scrutiny sounds sensible but who the heck is ‘independent’ and will they have full access to all the evidence they require?]
6 The WSR plc must become a wholly owned subsidiary of the new charity. [Yes, it seems that is probably the best way to do it, providing there are clear lines of responsibility from the outset.]
It is refreshing to read about the WSRA’s ‘red lines’ and as an aside it is about time we saw the WSR Plc’s ‘red lines’ too.
Elsewhere in the same pages, the WSRA Chair touches on the recent issues surrounding the WSSRT’s annual general meeting. I have no wish to comment here on matters before or after that meeting. But the WSRA Chair also mentions concerns about a related matter – that of some WSSRT trustees now also sitting on the WSR Plc board and posing a ‘conflict of interest’.
Well, I understand the concern. But heck, are we not at the point of requiring great trust in our various board members? After all, the Plc and the WSSRT memberships have decided the board placements (surely an approved process covered by the ‘red lines’ above?).
So, this is the very time for us to show our trust and for all board members to honour that trust by doing the right thing for the Railway itself. Especially those trustees who now find themselves on the board of the Plc.
And the best way to do this is to talk to each other in an atmosphere of trust.
This is not the time to rend but a time to sew.
Changing shape 