New CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis

[TheFleegleHasLanded]

I struggled to even come up with a title for this thread as I am so enraged I know I will get deleted and even banned if I say what I really think.

twitter.com/EdinRapeCrisis/status/1389112490215288832?s=20

Well if someone is an expert in Scottish law and wants to start a fundraiser ?

An advocate for all women incl trans and BME women.

all women incl trans and BME women - ?????????????

I'm just ... I can't even ... You could not make this shit up.

So that’s... what 80% of the worlds population? (Back of fag packet stonewall calculation)

Part of my job is to do with scrutinising and strengthening corporate governance and even for a smallish charity that board is very seriously underpowered, let alone for one delivering a complex service like this.

According to the website, they are mostly recent graduates (or in a couple of cases currently undergraduates!), and only one member has a long-standing career in something that might be relevant to the organisation (HR - which is fine, although it begs the question why they don't know how to operate single sex exceptions properly).

I'd expect an organisation like this to have at least one board member with a legal background, ideally family and/or criminal law, and one with substantial experience in financial management. Then I would want to see other members with long-standing experience in child protection, safeguarding, VAWG sector, local government, public health or other social policy fields, and fundraising. Not people who graduated within the last few years and have spent a few months in another country ... Jesus fucking Christ

I feel genuinely concerned for the board members. They are totally out of their depth for the level of personal liability they have taken on. No wonder they are getting walked all over.

@HerewardTheWoke

Great analysis. I thought the same thing to be honest.

Jesus, they're inexperienced children.

There are constant warnings on MN about companies googling job applicants, so be careful what you have on SM etc. Yet no one on the board was aware that this applicant was in fact a TW. Did no one Google? Surely for a top role you would want to thoroughly check people out and that their SM backed up their CV (including LinkedIn here)

No one googled, no one? So either they are completely incompetent and didn't..... Sorry just been distracted by the flying pig out the corner of my eye, or did and decided just to ignore it all anyway.

Exactly. It is discriminatory that the only men that can apply are men that self-identify as women. It is discriminatory for the CEO position to be only offered to women imho. It’s not a client facing role, so there is no reason to restrict the sex of the applicants. I hope someone launches legal challenges on both of these.

There are lots of reasons to restrict it to females. These include males having access to client records, which women may not want; and staff members and volunteers needing to discuss issues that arise for clients and themselves with someone they feel comfortable talking to, which for many won't be a man.

@AfternoonToffee

We don’t know ? They may have been fully aware ?

Yet no one on the board was aware that this applicant was in fact a TW.

Why do you think they didn't know?

Sorry I was presuming that as the trans status had not been declared, the presumption was of a natal female, in line with the job criteria.

Am I being too trusting naive ?

I'm fairly sure they did know. I imagine that either they were absolutely fine with it or they weren't confident enough in the law to tell them to fuck off, especially as they had been previously employed in a female only role. ERCC are fairly small and I doubt they could afford to right an expensive legal case. On the other hand I expect Wadhwa has got backing who can afford expensive lawyers.

This isn't about one individual, this is part of the coordinated pushback of women's rights under the guise of increasing women's rights.

under the guise of increasing trans rights.

@TabbyStar

Exactly. It is discriminatory that the only men that can apply are men that self-identify as women. It is discriminatory for the CEO position to be only offered to women imho. It’s not a client facing role, so there is no reason to restrict the sex of the applicants. I hope someone launches legal challenges on both of these.

There are lots of reasons to restrict it to females. These include males having access to client records, which women may not want; and staff members and volunteers needing to discuss issues that arise for clients and themselves with someone they feel comfortable talking to, which for many won't be a man.

CEOs should not have access to client medical records. Any sensitive issues discussed at management level should be done after anonymising the data. But given the children on their board, I have no idea whether they have any of these safeguards in place that they should have to protect victims’ privacy rights. The front line workers and first level management, yes should restrict positions by sex because it’s about what the victims need first and foremost.

The ‘comfort’ of executive level professionals not wanting to discuss rape with a man in the room is weak excuse in my opinion. Rape is more a man problem as they’re the ones doing most of it anyway. We should want more men involved in helping victims and working to end violence against girls and women. Otherwise it’s just a woman problem and out of sight, out of mind.

I am neither in Scotland nor work or have anything to do with women's rape support services. I think MW is the only high profile person I could name working in the sector and I know they are trans. Anyone appointing a CEO in that sector who knows less about MW than me shouldn't be doing the appointing.

At risk of sounding like a broken record, I just want to reiterate how deeply shocked I am at the board's set-up and lack of qualifications. This charity delivers services to children aged 12 upwards who have experienced sexual abuse, and educational programmes for children, and they have nobody with experience in child development, childhood abuse or child safeguarding on the board and no clearly identified trustee who leads on safeguarding.

Financially they are a very small operation (just over £800k income in the last year) but they have nobody on the board who has experience in audit and risk. They have not even rustled up a local accountant

NONE OF THIS IS NORMAL

No one googled, no one?

Meg didnt google ole Harry either...

In small voluntary organisations CEOs have some involvement with clients, perhaps less so if it's delivered via telephone than people coming into a centre (I don't know how ERCC operates), but still there are times when this happens, even if it's just dealing with complaints.

Workers who are dealing with issues of sexual violence will experience vicarious trauma and it's essential in a trauma-informed organisation that they feel as safe as they can do being able to express that and get support. If workers do not feel safe within the organisation they cannot hold safe space for clients. This applies even more so if you want to include peer supporters and staff and volunteers with lived experience.

@HerewardTheWoke

Is that income as a charity ? But they don’t have an accountant ?

@HerewardTheWoke

At risk of sounding like a broken record, I just want to reiterate how deeply shocked I am at the board's set-up and lack of qualifications. This charity delivers services to children aged 12 upwards who have experienced sexual abuse, and educational programmes for children, and they have nobody with experience in child development, childhood abuse or child safeguarding on the board and no clearly identified trustee who leads on safeguarding.

Financially they are a very small operation (just over £800k income in the last year) but they have nobody on the board who has experience in audit and risk. They have not even rustled up a local accountant

NONE OF THIS IS NORMAL

It's insane.

If the board is this young and inexperienced then it sounds like they must be relatively new to their roles, which begs the question, who were the previous trustees and when and why were they replaced?

It’s not normal at all. The more I think about this, the more I worry that ERCC is a shell for activists to get donations supposedly to help rape victims, but then really spend it on activism (and their salaries).

Has anyone been to a ERCC location? Or known anyone who has used their services? Do they actually do what they say they do?

I know etc was recently advertising for new board members but there is always a turnover of board members so that may replacing a couple of people. The board all looks quite young but some of them may have been on the board for a while?