Are charities by their nature condemned to make and repeat the same mistakes over and over, or is there a possibility for change? Can such an organisation be turned upside down rather than turned around, from a top-down, competitive, empire building outfit to a bottom-up, co-operative place of community sharing?


THE BACKGROUND

A large and powerful 'charity' in Wrexham is fighting for its life having been comprehensively exposed by an Employment Tribunal after it victimised, discriminated against and constructively dismissed a disabled worker. Trustees will meet today (30 August 2011) and there are some big decisions to be made.

After a six day hearing at Abergele in a tribunal case that has dragged on for over two years, the Tribunal panel declared itself "shocked" by the goings-on at the Association of Voluntary Organisations in Wrexham (AVOW), which supposedly acts as an umbrella body for other local charities, voluntary organisations and community groups. Senior officers and Trustees were roundly condemned for their behaviour in a ruling which exonerated the claimant from any blame:

"We reject the respondent's suggestion that there should be a deduction for contributory fault because we do not accept that there was any."


UNREASONABLE BEHAVIOUR BY THE RESPONDENT

AVOW was criticised for the unhelpful and unreasonable way it conducted itself in the Tribunal proceedings:

"[The respondent's witness statements] were singularly unhelpful. None exceeded four short sentences in length; most did not exceed two. None were ready by the directed date for exchange (10 January 2011)... They told us almost nothing about the position of the respondent’s witnesses on the matters in dispute. They barely complied with the letter, let alone the spirit, of the requirement to disclose evidence in chief by the provision of statements."

"The respondent maintained that the claimant was not a disabled person yet did not challenge what she said her in impact statement, either prior to the Hearing or during cross-examination. If it was not going to challenge her in this respect, it should have conceded the point. It was unreasonable not to do so. It added unnecessarily to the issues in dispute, the size of the bundle and the length of the Hearing."


CHIEF OFFICER'S BEHAVIOUR "REPREHENSIBLE"

Chief Officer, John Gallanders, was slated by the Tribunal. His evidence was found to be unsatisfactory on many fronts, he was found to have abused his position and his behaviour was described as "reprehensible".

Extracts from the ruling include the following:

"We reject his evidence. The reality, we find, was simply that Mr Gallanders was fed up of the claimant and wanted to find a reason to get rid of her, whether that came through medical reports casting doubt upon the truth of her migraines or, worse, by trying to dig up dirt with a belated enhanced CRB check."

"We regret to say that this [writing a letter to the claimant in the name of the Chair of Trustees without his knowledge] demonstrates the extent to which Mr Gallanders was manipulating the organisation of which he was the chief officer."

"The members of the Tribunal, who have all had personal experience as trustees of charitable organisations, think it was reprehensible for Mr Gallanders (who was not himself a trustee) to write a letter in Mr Davies’ name, without his consent, giving the deliberate impression that the chair of trustees was 'at a loss' to know what the claimant was looking for. It was a further act of bad faith on his part and reflected his desire that the claimant should not work for the respondent. It was also an abuse of his position as chief officer."

"The bundle contained two undated letters described as having been sent 'jointly on behalf' of Mr Gallanders and Mr Davies (pages 339 and 345). Mr Davies told us that he had been shown neither the claimant’s letter addressed to him nor the further letters also sent in his name. The second of these letters, sent on 1 October 2008, asked the claimant to complete an enhanced CRB disclosure application form."

"Mr Gallanders deliberately decided to hold the DDA grievance meeting in circumstances that the claimant had previously said would risk triggering a migraine, and he did not tell her that he was doing so."

"Following a pattern that had by now become well established, the letter [rejecting claimant's grievance appeal] was in fact from Mr Gallanders. He wrote it in the first person (e.g. “I do not find in your favour”) even though he had not been present at the appeal. Mr Gallanders was not simply manipulating the body of trustees to achieve the outcome he wanted, he was usurping their role by reaching their decisions for them."

"As we have seen, in view of her allegations about Mr Gallanders, the claimant had raised these concerns directly with the trustees. However, at a meeting between Mr Gallanders and the trustees on 11 November 2008, it was resolved that all her future correspondence would have to come directly to the chair of trustees or to Mr Gallanders (page 439). Mr Gallanders had already demonstrated his willingness to write letters in the name of the chair of trustees and without his consent; this resolution was, in our judgment, an attempt on his part to remain in control of the allegations being levelled against him and to obstruct their independent scrutiny by the trustees."

"It was clear to us that, all along, Mr Gallanders had wanted the claimant’s appeal to fail and had been looking for a basis on which to reject it. This explains why he wrote his decision without the input of the trustees who had been chosen to hear the appeal."

"[T]he members of the Tribunal were shocked (again, a word we do not use lightly) at the manner in which the respondent conducted the DDA grievance meeting on 7 October 2008. It was used as a mechanism to test the claimant’s ability to withstand the daylight tubes in the office, notwithstanding her clear assertions that such lighting was unsuitable... it was an experiment carried out without her knowledge or consent and which could have resulted in pain. The claimant’s analogy of a meeting being held upstairs to test whether a person has impaired mobility was a sound one. The fact that the respondent has sought to the last to defend its approach to this meeting in the Hearing before us demonstrates that it still has no appreciation of the nature of migraine and the mechanism of warning signs and delayed response. No explanation was given for why the respondent did not discuss the arrangements for the meeting in advance with the claimant. The only reason the meeting was held in this way was because the claimant suffered from migraines. The respondent would not have treated a person without migraines in this way. It was a clear act of direct disability discrimination."

"We also conclude that the respondent victimised the claimant... That victimisation took various forms: the initial reluctance of Mr Gallanders to accept the claimant... under TUPE; his expressed desire to be “awkward” with her on the issue of medical evidence; his stubborn refusal thereafter to make reasonable adjustments, continuing until the date of her resignation; his control of the respondent’s internal procedures so as to deprive her of a meaningful resolution to her grievances; his subsequent refusal to allow her access to the trustees for redress; his unilateral withdrawal of the whistleblowing policy once she activated it; and, worst of all, his “long shot” of trying to show her instability by seeking an unnecessary enhanced CRB disclosure about her. This last step was reprehensible (a word we do not use lightly) and an abuse of his position; it was also a manifest breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence."


"NO EXCUSE" FOR TRUSTEES' FAILINGS

The Tribunal also condemned the way the Trustees had behaved:

"Neither Mr Neale nor Ms Thomas [Trustees] responded to the claimant’s disclosure about Mr Gallanders’ behaviour. As noted above, Ms Thomas passed the C(1) document directly to Ms Ross and discussed its content with Mr Gallanders. When Mr Gallanders wrote to the claimant on 23 October 2008 withdrawing the whistleblowing policy and making a guarantee of confidentiality, he must have known that Ms Thomas had acted contrary to that guarantee by discussing the claimant’s concerns directly with him (and without her agreement)."

"When questioned by the claimant at the Tribunal Hearing, Ms Brydon [Trustee] told us that the claimant’s concerns about Mr Gallanders were to be resolved 'by discussion with the trustees'. When asked if any such discussion between the trustees ever took place, she could not recall if it had."

"There was evidently a great deal of discussion about the claimant’s employment by the trustees at this time, because Mr Davies [Chair of Trustees] prepared a confidential report about her for discussion at a meeting on 13 January 2009 (page 506). The respondent has failed to disclose it."

"It was not enough for the respondent simply to arrange for meetings where the trustees would say, in effect, 'we’ll get back to you' and then not do so. The effect of Dr Rosenberg’s [new Chair of Trustees'] letter was to erect a stone wall between the claimant and the trustees on these other issues."

"This is a conclusion that we reach in only exceptional cases, but we have reached it in this case without hesitation: from start to finish, the grievance processes were a sham. They did not resemble a fair attempt to deal with the claimant’s concerns. The process was controlled by Mr Gallanders (and, to a lesser extent, Ms Ross). The trustees merely listened to what the claimant said and took no proper decisions in response. They deferred all such decisions to the officers. They failed in their duties to oversee the conduct of the officers. The fact that they are unpaid volunteers is no excuse."

"Most serious of all was the lack of any proper attempt to deal with the claimant’s grievance against Mr Gallanders."


AVOW'S EMPIRE BUILDING UNDER THREAT

There has been trouble at another Wrexham project in recent months: Plas Madoc Communities First. Communities First is "the Welsh Assembly Government’s flagship programme to improve the living conditions and prospects of people in the most disadvantaged communities across Wales" (Communities First website). Unfortunately, the people who seem to have benefited most from Communities First programmes in Wrexham have been the workers, their friends and relatives and there have been a number of scandals and enquiries, most recently a criminal investigation triggered by a whistle-blower into the running of Plas Madoc Communities First, which operates in a disadvantaged community some five miles from Wrexham town centre.

Following findings of mismanagement and failures of governance at PMCF, AVOW has stepped into the breach and taken over the running of the organisation, which has an annual income of over £500,000. Some detractors have complained that the contract wasn't put out to tender and others have pointed to management and governance failings at AVOW, additional evidence for which has now been revealed in the Employment Tribunal's findings.

AVOW's positions both as umbrella body for voluntary organisations in Wrexham and as the body managing the Plas Madoc Communities First programme look increasingly untenable.


ONE WREXHAM?

AVOW is also a signatory to the 'One Wrexham' Charter, which sets out "a statement of values and commitment" and is supposed to be "delivered by creating strong community networks, based on the principle of equality, trust and respect for local diversity, and nurturing a sense of belonging and confidence in local people." AVOW is busy promoting the Charter and signing up other groups. The only problem is that the Charter sets certain standards including, amongst other things, that members will "challenge discrimination and unfair practices." It is hard to see how being found guilty of direct disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation and unfair dismissal is consistent with this standard.


TRUSTEES IN THE SPOTLIGHT

The Chief Officer, his then deputy Rachel Ross (who has now left the organisation) and a total of ten Trustees (three of whom are no longer Trustees) are directly implicated in the Tribunal's findings, with the wider Trustee body guilty by association unless they act quickly and at least ensure that the body is run legally and in compliance with charity and company law.

Trustees directly involved in the scandal and whose credibility is now compromised include:

Mervyn Rosenberg, the current Chair of Trustees, who also sits as a member of the Social Services Appeals Tribunal for the Welsh Assembly.

Gail Thomas, Vice-Chair of Trustees.

Marjorie Dykins OBE, founder member of AVOW, previously Company Secretary, and previously Chair of Wales Council for Voluntary Action, which distributes funds to AVOW and similar bodies on behalf of the Welsh Government.

Moira Jones, who is also a member of the Valuation Tribunal Service for Wales.

Many of the Trustees of AVOW are also Trustees (including chairs) of other charities and voluntary groups. All should now be considering whether they are fit to remain as Trustees for AVOW and all these other organisations would do well to consider whether AVOW Trustees are suitable people to remain on their governing bodies.


WHAT NEXT FOR AVOW?

The coming days and weeks are bound to bring much in the way of hand-wringing and manoeuvring as factions struggle for control of AVOW and the Plas Madoc 'millions'. It's not going to be an easy time for the now sizeable AVOW workforce either.

Bureaucrats and politicians will no doubt become involved in the blame game and start shifting responsibility around in efforts to cast themselves in the best light and, where they are or should have been taking action much sooner, doing their utmost to avoid being linked to and dragged down by the debacle. The Welsh Government has already issued a response to the tribunal findings, declaring that "[t]he issue referred to is an operational matter for AVOW and it would not be appropriate for the Welsh Government to comment.” That might change as pressure mounts on the government, the main funder of AVOW, to account for the way public monies are being used.

Far from being a disaster, this situation brings unique opportunities to start again and do things differently.

It should be obvious to anyone working in non-governmental organisations that the capitalist model benefits the rich and powerful at the expense of the rest. Given that basic truth, why on earth are voluntary organisations copying these same, failed structures? Running such bodies along business lines - as mini or not-so-mini hierarchies slogging it out against the competition - might please the rich benefactors and the suited bureaucrats who manage the funding pots, but such practice does nothing to change the things that are all wrong with our society and, in the final analysis, actively militates against efforts to build a better world. We don't need more of the same old 'charity' in the form of successful careers for staff with opportunities for progression 'up the ladder' while the poor stay poor and have to make do with the crumbs from the rich man's table on condition of their eternal and unquestioning gratitude. What we need is co-operative grassroots action, community building and good examples of non-hierarchical organisation which include and empower rather than create elites and reinforce existing divisions. Another world is possible.