NTS Report 4 Aug 2010 - National Trust for Scotland

14
Engagement and Transparency
Who Scrutinises Whom, and When?
NTS jam-packed into the 2009 AGM at Murrayfield, many expressing disappointment and anger about decisions taken that year
Throughout the consultation process, the Review team has
regularly had to address a whole series of questions about who,
in the Trust, scrutinises whom.
At meetings there have been complaints about a ‘culture of
secrecy’ and the inability of members to receive or access
information quickly.
There has been a general welcome for the Review’s proposals to
draw a line between governance and management. That makes
clear that it is the responsibility of the Trustees to scrutinise the
Chief Executive and Directors in working to published plans and
delivering results.
However, this has led to two further questions: “How will we
know?” and “Who scrutinises the Board?”
In our Recommendation that Trustees adopt a Code of Conduct
(p13) we outline charity best practice for “regular and
appropriate communication and consultation with stakeholders”.
While some matters will clearly have to remain confidential,
summary reports of all Board business should be posted on the
Trust’s website within 14 working days. Members who wish
this information by post should be able to register for such a
service.
Where major initiatives are not contained within previously
published plans, we propose that the Board should announce its
intentions and invite comments within a time-limited period.
During the consultation period, we have received a regular flow
of complaints from members that NTS do not reply to
correspondence or, if they do, that they reply very late. This is a
matter which the Chief Executive should address.
P1: The Review proposes that, as from 2011, the Trust’s AGM
becomes an annual Assembly.
We make this proposal for two reasons. First, we believe this
should be the occasion when members have a full opportunity to
scrutinise the Trustees’ stewardship of the charity. And, second,
we believe that this yearly event is a time to build common
cause and vision.
The Assembly should go beyond presentations and question and
answer sessions. It should encourage genuine debate, letting
members – as they have put it – “have their say”.
The Assembly would have the powers of the AGM – the right to
elect the President and honorary office-holders; the right to
appoint auditors; the right to adopt or reject, wholly or in any
part, the annual report of the Trustees and all accounts tabled at
the meeting; and the right to initiate debate on recommendations,
as laid down in standing orders. A clear majority vote at the
Assembly will be binding.
So what is different?
What is different is a change to a more participative culture in
which there is open recognition by Trustees and the Leadership
Team that the Assembly is the occasion for members to
scrutinise them.
The Trust’s 310,000 members should be encouraged to believe
that they have ownership of the meeting as well. The Trustees
should indicate, through their published Code of Conduct, that
more advance consideration will be given to members’ views
and more time provided to hear them.
This is all in accordance with charity best practice.
The Assembly should not be all internal business. There should
be workshops, fringe meetings with other heritage organisations,
visits to local sites and social events. We therefore feel that the
Assembly may in future become a two-day event.
The Trust may also wish to consider an annual NTS Lecture at
the Assembly : a world-leading conservationist invited, perhaps
by the Patron’s Club, to give focus to the Trust as a leader of the
conservation cause internationally as well as in Scotland.