Charity being mis-managed

[NCOneDayOnly]

I've name changed for this and would really appreciate any guidance from anyone with experience of working within the charitable sector who may have experienced something similar, or anyone who has experience of Charity Commission procedures.

I work for a charity that I have serious concerns is being mis-managed; both by the chief exec and all of the board of trustees (with one notable exception).

My concerns relate mainly to operational and financial mis-management; for example:

• CEO and board of trustees being entirely dis-interested in day-to-day oversight, governance or interaction with staff and the various projects we run in the charity's name


• failure to act in a timely manner to avoid unnecessary expenditure and costs to the charity's available funds


• promises of actions/work being undertaken by the CEO which never materialise (the CEO essentially sits in meetings with staff, agrees to undertake tasks, admits they need to act differently and then does precisely nothing different)


• inconsistency in budgeting eg: applying costs to a project that the CEO knows cannot afford to pay them owing to lack of funds (funding being exceptionally difficult for some of the charity's projects in the wake of covid), no clear guidance on how budgets are set up, repeatedly failing to address budgeting inconsistencies and failure to understand or act upon staff concerns around budgetary issues


• board of trustees do not act with any impetus, for example: a major source of funding was lost to the charity during 2018/19 and a strategic review for the organisation to address this was not implemented until 2021/22


• once the strategic review was begun, and recommendations were put to the board of trustees, the trustees once again failed to respond in a timely manner and/or ignored or watered-down the recommendations - for example; a 'deep dive' financial review was recommended. That 'deep dive' was undertaken only by the CEO and the chairman of the board of trustees who declined an offer of assistance and support from an external, independent officer.


• office space costs the charity around £30,000 p/a. The office space has not been used to any really degree since the start of the first pandemic lockdown and all staff have been working remotely for around 95% of the time. Trustees have STILL not agreed that notice can be given to give up the office space, thus forcing the charity to pay around (to date) £75,000 in rent which could have been avoided. Staff unanimously agreed that the charity should give up the office to save costs, money which could have been diverted to the projects, but the board of trustees did not wish to enter into discussions with any staff members about this.

Several colleagues and I feel that the charity is being mismanaged and that the board of trustees has allowed it to run into financial difficulties. The last set of filed accounts state very plainly that money applicable to 12 weeks reserves should be maintained with an accompanying note stating that the reserves at the end of 2021 were actually very much less than that - surely, that means the trustees have been negligent - if only on that one point?

Staff have reported concerns to the CEO and various members of the board of trustees on numerous occasions, but nothing ever happens. Colleagues who have worked for the charity for longer than I have been through two previous strategic reviews and NOTHING has changed. The charity simply limps along until the next lot of interim funding saves it from collapse in the nick of time. As a result, medium to long-term planning is impossible.

Charity Commission guidance on whistleblowing says the Charity Commission will '... if we investigate a concern we usually work with the charity and the trustees to get it back on track...'. There's also some advice that says you can report 'mis-management' if you think it actually is happening, has happened or is 'likely' to happen, so that might cover some of the above.

I am conscious that any whistleblowing would/could have an impact on jobs, but I am also hugely concerned that a charity is being managed in such a careless way.

Any advice would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

I wouldn't do this - aside from anything else, it's not hugely newsworthy. If I'd caught the CEO paying for hookers from charity funding, that might be a bit different though! 😃

My sympathies, OP. Being in this role has made me realise how frustrating it must be to work for a small charity and be dependent on trustees.
Like I say, our board is now really efficient and full of people who care and who are responsive and hard working. But there've been times before that I've really felt for our staff.

But of course having really sharp and on the ball trustees can also be a pain. I'm already picking up vibes that some staff who are used to being left alone, are now annoyed that the trustees are 'poking their noses in'! And yes, I know that our former CEO blamed us for her mistakes. It's maddening.

It really is a no-win kind of role, and I'm amazed that so many people are prepared to do the job, unpaid, and on top of their own. And it comes with MASSIVE legal responsibilities. I often wish I hadn't joined, but I feel so strongly about what our charity does, I feel obliged to do my bit to keep it funded and functioning.

@JennyForeigner thanks for your input on this - very useful.

I also think stronger, more 'interested' trustees are the key to enacting change.

I'm thinking of speaking to some colleagues about us all putting ourselves up for trustee roles - whilst actively seeking to recruit new trustees to take our place - so we would, ideally, only be in role for a short time, helping to drive the change from the top, as it were.

We could state our intent to become trustees ONLY to take an active role in implementing the changes recommended by the strategic review process.

@saraclara as far as I can tell from staff meetings and discussions, there are two members of staff out of a total of nine who think everything's fine and don't want anything to change. It's telling that those two have been with the charity longer than anyone else and, in the case of the one who has their own project, NEVER feeds back any info or stories about their part of the service and no-one knows how their role is actually funded (despite questions being asked on this very point).

You can't be a trustee and an employee. Charity trustees must be unpaid.

What @Supersimkin2 said. I'm a Development Director and money talks. If someone yanks their donation then that'll really get people's attention. Big donors are very, very savvy about their giving and I doubt they'd be happy with this.

I had a quick look on the CC website, but couldn't immediately see anything definitively saying employees can't be trustees. I know trustees can't be paid for their work 'as trustees', and there would be concerns about a conflict of interest, but I was thinking of it as a short-term solution; to enact the recommendations of a strategic review, before we all then step down having recruited replacement trustees.

Sort of like a boardroom coup, no?

@allfurcoatnoknickers I couldn't do this as it would mean everyone losing their jobs. The reserves situation is also unclear - and I don't believe the figure given by our CEO is correct because, well, financial information from them is NEVER correct!

I have just left a charity, who if it was in any other sector would be in serious trouble .I cant even begin to talk about what's wrong. I know though, that the charity commission would do fuck all if i reported it. Some CEOs and Trustees think they are untouchable

@NCOneDayOnly we had a trustee with the skills we needed in a vacancy within the charity. I was the trustee who spoke to the CC about whether or not he could stay as a trustee (he was valued on the board and had lived experience which we really needed) but the answer was no. They agreed that he could work p/t for a couple of months as a consultant for a particular funding project (though we had to cover ourselves in a myriad of ways for that to happen), but as soon as he became an employee, he had to resign from the board.

I see no way that several of you could join the board while being employed by it.

I’ve been a trustee. I didn’t really want/ expect to become one, it just sort of crept in as I was doing a rather visible role ( unpaid) for the charity.

I hated it. All the meetings seemed to be about insurance, and grievances (donors and beneficiaries) and procedure ; very little to do with the actual field of interest, which was why I got involved in the first place. I just found it very worrying, it was the opposite of ‘power without responsibility’. When I discovered just how responsible the trustees might be for other people’s actions, I couldn’t go on with it. It was a shame, I loved the original role, I was pleased to give my time for it, even if it was quite demanding.

I’m aware that this hasn’t got much to do with your problems, I suppose I just thought it might be useful to hear from the ‘other side’. I think the whole legislation and procedure for charity oversight is probably just too antiquated to cope with modern conditions.

This sounds incredibly frustrating and discouraging, OP. I was trying to think of any way you could tip off a local reporter who might investigate -- without being implicated yourself. Would someone from one of the projects that has gone unfunded make a complaint? It would be good to bring this out into the open.

But local newspapers have tiny budgets and very few staff these days. And they may not have the means to investigate anyway.

Maybe the best move for you is to seek another job. You're trying to put the charity right, but there's too much inertia and you'd have to push too many people who can't be bothered.

All the meetings seemed to be about insurance, and grievances (donors and beneficiaries) and procedure ; very little to do with the actual field of interest, which was why I got involved in the first place. I just found it very worrying, it was the opposite of ‘power without responsibility’. When I discovered just how responsible the trustees might be for other people’s actions, I couldn’t go on with it.

Exactly that. It's a soul-destroying job, and nothing like I thought. And the responsibility for other people's fuckups, is absolutely terrifying. And we do it for no pay. Responsibility for eveything and blame for everything, yet absolutely no day to day power or control. That's all in the hands of the CEO who wishes we didn't exist and resents us asking the simplest question (not our present one, I hasten to add...or at least she hasn't demonstrated that yet)

@saraclara thanks for that info - bang goes my boardroom coup idea! 😊

@ThinkingaboutLangClegosaurus My current contract expires in a few months anyway and, although I'd love to stay and continue working with my lovely colleagues, I doubt there will be any funding forthcoming for my current role. I might be able to take a different role if funding IS forthcoming for another area of the organisation (which is a possibility), but I suspect I'll end up going back to doing what I was doing before I joined this charity - a freelance career which is easy to drop in and out of.

@NConedayonly You're welcome! And you shouldn't have to join the trustee body on a formal basis. Ask your chair about an ex officio presence or an employee rep and take it from there. Imho useless 'fluffy' boards love this the most.

Generally a sign of a sh*t board is one where they don't have regular interaction with employees so don't get beyond the Chief Exec. It's excused as not being operational, but how are you going to fulfill your legal assurance duties if you don't have a clue what is going on? And it's not like there aren't enough red flags in what you have said.

BTW I am a 'crisis' board member with charities, in that I get invited on to boards on an interim basis when they are in trouble and usually, need new leadership. It's a great thing to do! If you aren't feeling part of delivering the core objectives then that's another bad sign - board work is all about strategy and oversight, and that means taking responsibility for keeping it focused.

May the charities you support go on a journey of continuous improvement 👏 😄

Generally a sign of a sht board is one where they don't have regular interaction with employees so don't get beyond the Chief Exec.*

There are CEOs who won't actually allow them to interact with employees or contact them directly.

I came on to say this. This might be a helpful bit of the whistleblowing policy for you as legal obligations is quite a wide term in terms of charity/trustee governance.

I'd also be inclined to report all this to the funders. That may be the only way to give CEO and trustees a kick up the arse to actually do something.

Going straight to the funders risks the charities future existence, and everyone's jobs.

I wish I knew the answer here. As a small number of trustees unhappy with how the board was performing, though a contact, we were able to get advice from an expert in governance (I'm starting to get really worried that I'm outing myself with all this). Their advice was enlightening and gave is a path to take with the chair and other long term members. That's allowed us absolutely transform how we work. Maybe your on side trustee could look into that?

I can only suggest, OP, that you Google organisations that support charities and boards (and presumably employees) and who who might advise you on what to do.

I feel like you’re working for the charity where I used to work.

In our case, we (employees) got together and presented our concerns to the directors. They responded by calling us to meetings separately, the old divide and rule strategy. We refused. Went through a process of trying to engage with trustees who were equally inept then sued them. We each settled with them at mediation and went on to much better situations. We tried 🤷‍♀️

Oh my goodness yes! The CEO of the joke I just left made it very clear that if an of us dared to contact a trustee, he would be most displeased.
First thing I did when I left. Mid you, they all seem to be in his pocket so it was a waste of time...

I don't disagree but that's the chairs' responsibility, and should be a sacking offense for the CEO. No-one is saying trustees should be wandering around during breaks but they are legally responsible for their roles, and the chair doubly so.

If you want change, find a job elsewhere.

Having worked in a tax compliance area, it may surprise you, or maybe not, many charities are somewhat of a rort.

OP what do you hope to gain by doing this? Are you likely to be the new CEO?

I paced the floor one night over a similar dilemma while on a contract for a charity. I had some mad idea of the importance of right and wrong....

Fortunately I came down on the side of common sense and just resigned early and quietly. The least stressful option. And I don't donate to large charities.

it sounds like I was way junior to you though.