Another GC employment tribunal. Roz Adams vs Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre #2

I agree. MW has got the fan Board he wanted.

Rightly or wrongly these days and in this type of situation the key decision makers may actually be the media and the public. They may make it untenable for MW to continue so they resign.

The question will be how the media report this. Remember a pair of pink leggings managed to do more than hours of Scottish Government Committee meetings to raise awareness of rapists being housed in Women’s prisons. It also made Nicola Sturgeon look like a rabbit in the headlights trying not to say Isla Bryson was a man, she ended up creating a 3rd sex rapist.

To add: MW was well-known when hired, it's a massive assumption to assume the board will want rid, even now.

thanks @Justabaker for your response. I would disagree that 'youth' by itself is an issue and really if any women on this thread are reading and thinking they're too young/don't have enough experience to reflect on whether that's true or whether that's the patriarchy telling you you're not good enough. We know that women frequently underplay their competence and capability. Feminist organisations need young women; age is also a protected characteristic. There is also an organisation in Scotland that helps younger women get these sort of roles and supports them while carrying out their duties, by the way.

It can also be very easy to get a bit of a car crash when you do a bunch of recruitment and end up with people who then run out of term all at the same time. It's not best practice but it is real-life. A limit of two three year terms is very common. And given how hard it is to recruit busy women to trustee roles, I don't think it's a stretch that those women then don't hold any other voluntary or non-exec roles.

But clearly the Board hasn't done its job very well here, so what do I know? I think trustee-ing is really difficult and often quite boring. People are attracted to it to build CVs yes, but also because they want to make a difference. To then find that the 'difference' is reading the balance sheet and chairing the disciplinary panel: probably not quite the difference they intended to make. The HR company advising here needs to pick up quite a large portion of blame but ultimately, I think this is group-think. When we talk about hiring for diversity this is what we actually mean: diversity of thought that doesn't assume the whole world thinks in the way we think.

Have these trustees got any self-awareness at all? It's beyond shocking, really a bloody joke.

I have wondered about applying to become a trustee in the past and have always thought I'm not yet senior/experienced enough.... For context, I'm a chartered accountant having several years of experience in external and internal audit and most recently in risk management... Now work as a senior manager leading a team of ~25... So certainly could contribute to things like audit committee etc!

This is very much due to failures by the government and Charity Commission too. The CC have responsibility to regulate charities, and have received various complaints about 'by women for women' charities who have opened their services to 'anyone who identifies as a woman' -even when evidence shows this excludes their target beneficiaries. Yet the CC is failing to intervene. And so have the government eg to ensure that council funders keep female services single sex (Brighton and Bristol are further examples where all women's services are required to be mixed sex or get defunded).

Well worth spending the time to read all 55 pages.

The treatment of the claimant by the management of Rape Crisis Scotland is awful, and the level of non investigation done will not surprise anyone!

“I turned down an appointment when they couldn't tell me who provided their officers and directors insurance. But 'we're sure have some'. “

😲

Exactly on target.

I was reflecting on how they get MW to go. I cannot see any of the trustees that would have the energy, patience, knowledge and determination to undertake this task.

Will ERCC just 'implode'? Who can they get to join the trustees? I would guess that even the handmaiden crowd will be edging away.

And on that point, whilst I agree with encouraging women to get involved, I’d also strongly urge you to make sure you understand what you are letting yourself in for beforehand.

Post-Grenfell, there was considerable talk about increasing the (vicarious) legal liabilities of trustees which would make some posts very undesirable. Does anyone else recall that and the outcome?

Yes I can imagine that @Hedgehogdetective

'strongly urge you to make sure you understand what you are letting yourself in for beforehand'
@LoobiJee - this is great advice. If you're doing the role properly it requires real time commitment, there's a lot to keep on top of and there are legal and financial responsibilities.

I turned down an appointment when they couldn't tell me who provided their officers and directors insurance. But 'we're sure have some'.

FFS

I think MW feels untouchable because if they do get fired they’ll claim it’s discrimination based on them being trans. So organisations are too scared to fire them.

“For me, the key thing about a Board, like most things in life, is balance. So there is room for people with less experience who want to learn and grow as long as that is balanced by the rest of the Board. I'd say you also want to have a few more on Board than you think you need, as there will always be someone who needs to step away at short notice due to unforeseen circumstances. So succession planning is vital and ideally before recruiting you would undertake some kind of skills analysis and then recruit to the gaps. “

Completely agree with Guinness on this. Usually on a board you’d be looking for one or maybe two younger trustees as a balance to the fact that those with more experience and skills are likely be older.

According to that tweet, iirc, they’ve got 7 trustees. Four (= more than half) are under 25. One trustee is a student. One trustee has a job title which suggests they are the most junior person in their team. It’s possible that the student brings experience from volunteering on the student union rape crisis helpline if they have one. The other junior volunteer may bring survivor perspective. Both valuable perspectives, if so. That leaves five trustees to contribute expertise in finance, HR, governance, etc. Realistically the other two under 25s are unlikely to have that. The trustee witness brings fund raising experience. So that leaves two trustees to cover HR, finance, governance.

I think in some sectors people volunteering for trustee roles don’t appreciate the legal and financial responsibilities it carries, and think they are just there to turn up and share helpful ideas, not realising that they are there to make sure the place doesn’t go bust or do anything illegal.

And on that point, whilst I agree with encouraging women to get involved, I’d also strongly urge you to make sure you understand what you are letting yourself in for beforehand.

Yes agee, @Floisme and @Rainbowshit I would encourage anyone to consider becoming a Trustee. If you are in Scotland you will likely also find local Trustee opportunities listed with your local Volunteer Centre / Third Sector Interface. You can do some background checks (and ask relevant questions) in terms of Accounts, any tribunals, any inquiries or reports from OSCR etc to give you an idea of what you are going in to. And if it is local you can probably get an idea of any issues, reputation etc from people you know. The sector needs good people willing to ask the right questions!

The line up (or rather hokey cokey in and out dance line) supposed to keep MW in check is a joke.

Yes, exactly. They all want to push their various agendas as well, I imagine.

Floisme and Rainbow please do volunteer! Charities really need you. Life experience, professional experience, especially on financial side.

On charity trustees - a relative of mine was in demand as a trustee after he retired and ended up helping several charities.

He was an accountant and had been a senior director of a UK household name company.

The other charity trustee I know was a director of a major bank, among other roles, and again is now retired. Oh, and a younger one with a science PhD who works in the City.

That's the kind of calibre and experience serious charities look for, even for activities which are not nearly as sensitive as a rape victims' support centre.

The line up (or rather hokey cokey in and out dance line) supposed to keep MW in check is a joke.

Sorry, I somehow managed to miss a whole page of discussion.

For me, the key thing about a Board, like most things in life, is balance. So there is room for people with less experience who want to learn and grow as long as that is balanced by the rest of the Board. I'd say you also want to have a few more on Board than you think you need, as there will always be someone who needs to step away at short notice due to unforeseen circumstances. So succession planning is vital and ideally before recruiting you would undertake some kind of skills analysis and then recruit to the gaps. I agree that there are charlatans out there, only interested in what they can get, but when I think of the many Boards I have known and loved over the years, they are few and far between and you can generally spot them a mile off. Mind you, I had Nathan Sparling's number based on one promo / gushing piece in TFN well before any of the dodginess came out so I do somewhat pride myself on being able to spot a wrong 'un 😜

In terms of ERCC, it's not so much a few people leaving at the same time, it's the lack of length of service / continuity in the Board as it does look like none of them have served for long. As far as I can see from Companies House the two longest serving Trustees were appointed in 2021, which is definitely not ideal in terms of continuity. The problem is, the way ERCC is now, no one who meets the criteria to be a good Trustee would even consider getting on Board, and it's been like that for some time. I've taken on Board and Chair positions in difficult circumstances with my eyes wide open but ERCC is a whole different level and I can't see how they could ever recruit decent Trustees now.

I've just handed over the reins as Treasurer at a similar sized charity (Rainbow, do consider volunteering). ICAEW (Chartered accts) has a volunteer section where members can advertise for free and sign up to email alerts.

I thought the Board turnover unusual, ditto the ages.

When we recruit (formal interview by two Trustees, meeting CEO and Ops manager to find out about the charity, informal chat over coffee with another trustee to rubber-stamp and attendance as an observer at a Board meeting before joining the Board) we have an expectation that Trustees will commit to a 6 year term. Very occasionally somebody might have to stand down because of illness/new work commitments.

There is an expectation that people bring experience to the table and have oversight of a particular aspect of the charity (e.g. HR and staff development, finance, PR, fundraising, governance) so that we can understand the issues and suggest solutions but not to get involved with day to day management of the charity. Most either have or have had a senior management role in their day job.

I'm struggling to understand the value added by being a Board member for <12 months. It feels like a waste of time for the Trustee and the CEO.

When accessing counselling I've always been told the sex of the counsellor it's normal and standard.

Hi - that's my thread. As someone who has been both a charity and a public company director; it's the cumulative impact of all of those things in a single group of trustees:

• youth
• underwhelming expertise and employment qualifications
• no long serving trustees (reappointment is standard especially in small charities 2 or even 3 terms would not be unusual)
• no other trustee or nonexec roles
• dominant chief executive who is also the company secretary

A point on company secretary: it is common to use a paid company secretary in many charities etc. They are properly insured and their job is to keep the governing body legal: agenda, minutes, declaration of interests, the list goes on. To have it be the chief executive points, in combination with the attributes of the current trustee pool - smells like avoidance of scrutiny.

I know some people are appointed by friends and from inner circles.

However, in places like the Guardian or specialist agencies you'll see vacancies advertised. They're unpaid posts (expenses reimbursed) and can carry a lot of responsibility.

https://trustees-unlimited.co.uk/roles/

Caveat to non-payment here as trustees can be paid for goods and services.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trustee-expenses-and-payments-cc11/trustee-expenses-and-payments#:~:text=Charities%20have%20a%20statutory%20power,prohibits%20this%20type%20of%20payment.

PS: sorry, got distracted while writing, forgot to check for more posts and didn't notice PPs had answered.

Just generally, the gall to keep calling this email a data breach when Mermaids publicly hosting all their confidential emails about their trans child clients in a publicly searchable space was handwaved away.

With details that shouldn't have been discussed by email anyway.