Thursday 26 January 2012

David Morton enquired of Rogerson what authority he had to suspend DCB. The reply:

"Dear all

I, as Chairman of the Society, will try to answer the central question, raised in Dave Morton's email of 25 January, which is - what authority do the trustees have?

The Trustees (as a body i.e. all five acting collectively in the case of PNFS) have an overriding duty to pursue the best interests of the charity. 

Quoting from Charity Commission Guidance CC3:

• Trustees have and must accept ultimate responsibility for directing the affairs of a charity
• Avoid undertaking activities that might place the charity's endowment, funds, assets or reputation at undue risk.
• Consider getting external professional advice on all matters where there may be material risk to the charity, or where the trustees may be in breach of their duties.

Our, the trustees, overriding duty means that in extreme circumstances we must act promptly. I believe that I and the other trustees acted promptly in the best interests of the Society. At the Officers Meeting scheduled for the 10th February, the Trustees will have to explain our actions. We will have to do it again at the AGM to the membership at large. 

I am comfortable with the fact that I can fully justify all my actions as a Trustee. " 

So he believes his suspicion (that Dave was 'misappropriating charitable funds') was sufficiently well grounded to justify suspension with independent examiner's inquiry. Yet he did not apparently consider discussing the matter (D's request to spend £25 to expedite the printing and distribution of the newsletter) or even asking why he wanted the money, or even reading the emails that D had already sent explaining why he wanted it.  Nor did he pay any attention to the Charity Commission's additional advice - that trustees should try to sort out problems internally by all appropriate means before resorting to expensive external agencies, and advocating mediation. His action seems totally disproportionate and bereft of common sense, let alone civility or intelligence. As the examiner pointed out, better communication, and willingness to communicate, could have solved much of the problem before it started. Dave tried his best to explain and discuss. The trustees refused. 

So now he is writing to all the recipients of Rogerson's letter to put these facts before them and ask them to consider them fairly, since he hasn't been invited to their meeting on 10 February and is unlikely to get a fair hearing in person.