We would please like to understand how the LI intends to deal with the risks to the effective running and functioning of the LI arising from the current situation and minimise erosion of trust from its membership
The Vice-President and the Immediate Past President continue to provide leadership for the Institute.
The Board and other governance groups are fully functioning.
The Independent Review identified that the Institute needed to work differently and that it needed to tackle member bad behaviour.
The 2022 Campaign to visit members and non-members across the UK in the next three months is recognition of our wish to work differently. We suggested this approach in our joint Council and Board strategy session in January this year. We want to hear direct from members about their concerns and what they need from the Institute. This feedback will then shape our new strategy for 2023/2028 which will put members at its heart.
We would also like to understand the process for the election of a new President and proposed timescales
This has been set out in an email to members. This is the only timeline and process which does not require a change to the LI Regulations.
Whilst we understand the confidentiality of the whistleblowing instance, we feel that outline information on process, timescales, decisions taken by whom and at what points in the process, resources and funding used should now be actively demonstrated to the membership to increase transparency
There is always a presumption of innocence. Confidentiality protects the reputation of the subject in the event that there is no case to answer and is therefore the basis for all investigations.
A Whistleblowing disclosure has specific requirements for confidentiality and is unlike a usual complaint.
We will as usual, publish the report and accounts in advance of the AGM after they have been signed off by our auditors and approved by the Board of Trustees. The Board wants to make sure all members receive the full information at the same time so that it cannot be misrepresented.
The suggestion that the solicitors’ fees are in hundreds of thousands is very wide of the mark but that the nature of the interventions by the former President Elect and the small group of senior members have significantly added to the timeline and to the cost of the inquiry.
The confidentiality clause to which the LISW Branch Representative was bound during the process did not allow for confidential consultation with the committee or at least the Branch Chair, (if/as required) which we felt would have been appropriate and proportionate to allow. This is particularly so as the Branch Rep role is entirely voluntary and should not be solely responsible for responding to something as significant, distressing and time consuming like this without the support of their committee
Branch reps are not ‘delegates’ of the branch Committee. Members elect their Council representatives to represent all the members in their region (not the Committee) and to vote and take decisions based on their own judgement. They take on the duties and responsibilities required of all members of the Advisory Council and act as a collective body.
A Council Member would normally want to hear the views of branch members on issues on a Council Agenda. An exception to this is in the case of confidential issues such as its responsibilities under Regulation 21 “the removal of trustees”.
We feel that the quantum and tone of correspondence on this matter to the membership from the LI does not necessarily inspire honesty and openness of process. We appreciate there are confidentiality and legal issues which may constrain communication – there would however have been opportunity to communicate with branches and the wider membership much earlier and during the process, about the procedure, without the need to disclose confidential detail, but in the interest of transparency and comms management of a difficult situation
Advisory Council worked hard to keep the inquiry confidential to protect the reputation of the subject and that of the Institute.
It is usual for the outcome of an investigation to be communicated only when it is concluded.
The Board agreed before this case to include its report on Conduct Matters or Complaints and their outcomes in its trustees annual report.
It was the decision of the subject and a small group of members to share confidential information including a number of inaccuracies during the process with a view to disrupting the process that has led to the current situation.
We have also seen calls to an Extraordinary General Meeting from some parties and suggest that this could form part of a strategy to manage this issue with the membership going forward, in a true and open fashion, working to gain back trust lost among the membership
There is a procedure set out in the Regulations for members to requisition an EGM.
In the Board and Councils opinion an EGM is not required. The process followed the provisions of the By-Laws & the Regulations already approved by the members and Privy Council. The AGM is the right place for the Board and Council to give a report on the case.
Further, we believe that there needs to be an urgent update from the LI on the progress of implementing the findings of the Independent Review in light of the challenges posed by the current situation. The last update on the website is from December 2021, and some members have been stating that the findings of the review were not fully implemented and hence this lack of implementation has contributed to the current situation of perceived lack of transparency, communication and loss of trust. For example, the December 2021 states that “Members can now access formal records of Board and Council meetings, with minutes published in the LI members’ area as a matter of course within three weeks of each meeting”. This however appears not to be the case, there are a number of minutes and papers that appear not be available
A substantial number of recommendations from the Independent Review have been implemented and we remain committed to the ongoing implementation plan.
All aspects have now been moved into business as usual.
A report on progress to date in available in the member lounge. The Minutes for Board meetings (other than confidential sessions) are available in the member lounge and are published soon after they have been approved at the subsequent meeting as stated on the website.
In a normal calendar year between January and September we would expect Board to meet in March, June and September. As the original Board planned for March was replaced with closed confidential sessions on receipt of a Whistleblowing allegation the website was updated to reflect the change in meetings for 2022.
Board met as usual in June and as the draft minutes were approved at the September meeting they will be made available on the LI website soon. As the September Board was held 14 September there was no opportunity to publish the approved June minutes before the branch chairs meeting of 16 September.
The full independent review report is available here.
We would like to request that the communication with the wider LI membership on process, accountability and overall transparency is reviewed, alongside also reviewing the whistleblowing policy. The latter should in particular ensure that appropriate communication with branch committees is possible, and that branch committees are consulted on a revised policy before it is finalised. The review must take account of the pressure this process puts on voluntary members of committees and the AdCo, and the ability to communicate with committee members
The Board is committed to reviewing all its policies and procedures at regular intervals. A review date is published on each policy.
The purpose of a whistleblowing policy is to ensure that any fraud, misconduct or wrongdoing by members, staff, volunteers and others working on behalf of the Institute is reported and dealt with by ensuring the confidentiality of those making such allegations and protecting them from being victimised, discriminated against or disadvantaged. This is what differentiates a whistleblowing disclosure from a complaint. It requires any matter raised under this procedure to be investigated thoroughly, promptly and confidentially. It would not therefore be possible or appropriate to communicate with branch committees during an investigation.
The current Council have reported that satisfied with how they have discharged their duty within the governing documents.
Is it true that the LI not having a President is repugnant to our Royal Charter? [Clause 11 of the Charter states that the Landscape Institute ‘shall’ have a president. It does not state that the Institute ‘will’ have a president at some future date. It uses the word ‘shall’ in the specific legal sense of ‘mandatory’]
The Charter does not prevent the office of President ever being vacant in exceptional circumstances.
It is important to note that the Board and other governance groups are fully functional, and any leadership risk is mitigated by the current arrangement.
As already stated in the information to members on the 28th of June 2022, the Vice-President and the Immediate Past President are providing the leadership for the Institute following the decision of Council.
The planned autumn campaign is about making sure that the new corporate strategy is informed by, and has, members needs at its heart.
A report from the Trustees dated 30 March 2022 made a recommendation that the Advisory Council should remove Brodie McAllister as a Trustee. Is it true that the whistleblower(s) were also Trustee(s)?
The Board asked the Council to consider whether there should be an investigation into the allegations contained in the whistleblowing disclosure with a view to possible removal as a trustee inline with our Regulations.
The purpose of whistleblowing legation is to protect the identity of the whistleblower(s) and to protect them from being victimised, discriminated against or disadvantaged. We will not therefore be identifying the whistleblower(s).
Board papers in this instance were marked confidential and should not have been circulated. This breaks the Working Together Policy, the Trustees Code of Conduct and Terms of Reference for Advisory Council.
Six past presidents of the LI that they disagreed with the recommendation to the Advisory Council. Was their opinion given due consideration before ‘going nuclear’ and, on 28th June, deciding to eject the PE and adopting a retrospective regulation to make the removal of a PE possible?
The decision was not based on a retrospective regulation change. It was taken under Byelaw 23.
Advisory Council Members took exceptional care in addressing this matter. They were only too aware of their responsibilities to the membership and of the gravity of the situation.
Council also recognised that having received a Whistleblowing Disclosure it had a legal responsibility to ensure it was investigated properly and that any actions required were taken however difficult or uncomfortable.
The Advisory Council were clear that they had no option, based on the unequivocal evidence they had before them, but to remove Mr McAllister as a Trustee, Council Member and President-Elect.
The Past Presidents were not parties to the case and should not have attempted to disrupt the process by contacting Advisory Council Members directly during the process.
The solicitors fees for the attempted removal of the PE are said to be in the hundred thousands. Please can we have your estimate of the bill
The details will be published to all members in the Annual Report and Financial Statements. This year we will publish the report and accounts as early as possible after they have been signed off by our auditors and approved by the Board of Trustees.
It is important that all members receive the full information at the same time so that it cannot be misrepresented.
It is important however to report, that the suggestion that the solicitors’ fees are in hundreds of thousands is very wide of the mark. The nature of the communications and interventions by the former President Elect and the small group of senior members have significantly added to the timeline and to the cost of the inquiry.
We are also grateful for the volunteer hours that the Council and COI have committed to this process. Their diligence and hard work is to be applauded.
The former President Elect was not able to attend the Committee of Inquiry and the Advisory Council meeting that determined his exclusion due to medical reasons and that this is also both contrary to the Institute’s Regulations and to natural justice
The Statement of Issues was sent to Mr McAllister 11.04.22 by registered post and email. He was provided sufficient time to respond to the statement of issues by the CoI and granted additional time when requested, bearing in mind that he had already provided an initial response to the disclosure in March. He, on health grounds, requested and was permitted two extensions of time to submit his responses, which was eventually received.
The Committee of Inquiry also provided an opportunity for a face-to-face meeting/interview with the him. Arrangements for the interview also proved difficult. At his request, the original date was postponed – and subsequently the postponed date was converted to a virtual appointment at the subjects request. His request to convert the meeting back to a physical meeting shortly before the due date could not be accommodated due to there being too little notice to coordinate the logistics of a return to a physical meeting.
Finally, he indicated that he did not feel well enough to attend even virtually. Mr McAllister was then given (and took) the opportunity to provide any final supplementary information for consideration by the Committee. It was also suggested that he could pre-record his statement to the Advisory Council or ask the member he had nominated to attend the meeting with him to speak on his behalf. The CoI made every effort to engage face-to-face with him but the subject’s requirement to rearrange multiple times led to time and financial costs. He was offered support and option of being accompanied by a friend or representative.
Throughout the process the subject was also offered access to confidential counselling advice and support, but these offers were not taken.
