Reflecting on a few words exchanged with one of SRWT's trustees (one of thirteen and to his credit the only one who has made any effort to engage with me on any level), I wondered again: What is the point of trustees? How much do they influence what goes on and do they seriously admit any personal responsibility for what SRWT does? Or do they hope one of the others is covering what they don't? I've posted about this before but recent events have brought up the question again.
It’s pretty unlikely that any supporter of FoBM would be invited to become a trustee of SRWT. But that would be the only way of getting to know what goes on inside their meetings. There is some documentation on SRWT's website on the role and duties of a trustee, some of which is doubtless culled from the Charity Commission, the RSWT and the NCVA, but some may be specific to SRWT.
DUTIES
The kind of list that is assembled in this way can be problematic in that its compilation becomes a project in itself and may lead to a tick box exercise. That can blinker people from vital considerations not specified and at the same time a counsel of perfection leading some to decide we can't do all this properly anyway so we'll just go our own way in what we prioritise; feasibilty being a sore point with unpaid volunteers some of whom are more interested in adorning their CVs. Another consequence is the tendency to agree that some roles get taken on by small sub groups whose work may not be fully scrutinised by the wider body of trustees; this may turn out to be the Chair and the Chief Exec, possibly with one other trustee or staff member.
TRANSPARENCY AND MEMBERS
All this is speculation because, in this case at least, what goes on is secret. Minutes of meetings are not available to the public which you might expect. But the secrecy goes beyond that: even members, who've paid their £50 have no right to see board minutes. Once a year they may attend the AGM and are then allowed to ask questions, though I'm not sure if they have to be submitted in advance nor how rigorous they are. SRWT's claim is that they have approaching 6,000 members and their staff have reminded me several times of this when implying that my views and those of other local users of Blacka should not be taken seriously in this light. How many of these 6,000 turn up to the AGM, have even been on Blacka, know where it is? How well informed are these members and trustees who serve as a counter to the very well informed, thoughtful and engaged members of the user public who each tot up hundreds of hours of visits and observation each year? (see Paternalism post).
LISTENING?
The SRWT trustee I spoke with is the one most likely to be seen on Blacka and at meetings so I'm assuming he takes his role more seriously than some others. None of them has previously addressed me about what I write here but this one did. It clearly bothered him that I write in such terms about SRWT and he used some quite strong words. As he did not go so far as to contradict anything said here I concluded that it was the factual accuracy of my comments that was more troubling than the occasional colourful language I choose. And the latter is of course a response to the dumb refusal to engage in dialogue over many years. I'm not proof against the tendency we all have when people are intent on not hearing what we say – I raise my voice and speak more robustly.
DEFENSIVENESS
This was not the first time I had recently come across a pained response to my criticisms. That must be good news. It means they are bothered. Anything is better than the institutional refusal to acknowledge that there is another point of view and that it might be valid and that it could be worthwhile doing things differently. We need to be careful, however, that when they try to focus on what we say and especially how we say it, is not a tactic designed to move any argument away from the serious points at issue – i.e. their policy and practices, what they actually do.
Among the things touched on was one that raises my suspicions more than most: the size of SRWT. From what was said to me on this occasion, I could be forgiven for having a go at the National Trust or the RSPB because they are wealthy centralised bodies. SRWT on the other hand has limited resources, only a small income and very few staff. I don’t buy this. Presumably any public criticism I make of these bigger charities won’t make a bit of difference anyway but if criticism of a smaller group like SRWT could cause more serious damage. The trouble is that SRWT does not behave like a small group. If SRWT is claiming to be more local and community focused then they should be able to accept that they should be more keen to consult in an honourable and meaningful way. And this does not chime with those things I’ve observed, the mentions of 6,000 members, the empire building through land acquisition, the insistence on PR, employment of publicity and development managers, website design and spin and such efforts to manage their brand and image. If it walks like a duck ................ They put themselves into the public eye through press releases behaving in much the same way as a commercial enterprise while giving scant attention to the legitimate concerns of local people who have intimate knowledge and great attachment to the land they hold. Should I reign in my criticism while this continues? And they do have a national bureaucracy, maybe smaller than their competitors but still with centralising tendencies. And I've observed numerous times when the national body has dictated or influenced what has happened. So I’m suspicious of this story that SRWT is just a small scale operation with only minor ties to the national RSWT. I’ve seen times when the national body has intervened.
WHAT TRUSTEES COULD BE DOING?
In the extremely unlikely event that I became a trustee, and if I had the power, I would replace most of the duties listed and referred to above and prioritise the following, emphasising that the charity should always be serving the public good.
1 Acting as a representative of a wider civil society dedicated to transparency and accountability going beyond the narrow interests of one organisation and steering them well clear of the potentially murky areas of competitive business expansion, and marketing.
2 Being aware that staff may have experienced a narrow education and that at times their moral compass might need some adjustment; therefore insisting on the truth.
3 Taking more of a role as a ‘critical friend’ rather than a dedicated promoter of the 'brand'.
Taken together these could help to make the trust more worthy of the trust of local people.
No comments:
Post a Comment