This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/06/the-guardian-view-on-charity-trustees-no-role-for-amateurs

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Guardian view on charity trustees: no role for amateurs The Guardian view on charity trustees: no role for amateurs
(34 minutes later)
For many who are following news of the downfall of Kids Company, its story will ring sadly familiar. Here was an organisation, run by a charismatic founder-leader, that collapsed when problems came, as they tend to do, not in single spies but in battalions. And its trustees had failed to recognise and remedy those coming ills until it was too late.For many who are following news of the downfall of Kids Company, its story will ring sadly familiar. Here was an organisation, run by a charismatic founder-leader, that collapsed when problems came, as they tend to do, not in single spies but in battalions. And its trustees had failed to recognise and remedy those coming ills until it was too late.
Many charitable organisations are run with the help of brilliant boards, who work with great skill and subtlety – and for no financial reward. Nonetheless, there are recurrent governance problems that are widely recognised in the charitable sector – which is why, alas, the tale of Kids Company has the feeling of deja vu about it. Only last week, this newspaper ran the heartrending story of a 99-year-old woman who, with fellow residents in a care home run by a charitable trust, was forced out of her accommodation within the week. The charity was embroiled in financial problems that had not been spotted by the trustees. In the arts, English National Opera this year had high-profile problems between its board and executive, culminating in the resignation of its chair after he wrote to a fellow trustee claiming that the artistic director had “lost £10m”. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that assertion, clearly the humours of the organisation were radically out of balance.Many charitable organisations are run with the help of brilliant boards, who work with great skill and subtlety – and for no financial reward. Nonetheless, there are recurrent governance problems that are widely recognised in the charitable sector – which is why, alas, the tale of Kids Company has the feeling of deja vu about it. Only last week, this newspaper ran the heartrending story of a 99-year-old woman who, with fellow residents in a care home run by a charitable trust, was forced out of her accommodation within the week. The charity was embroiled in financial problems that had not been spotted by the trustees. In the arts, English National Opera this year had high-profile problems between its board and executive, culminating in the resignation of its chair after he wrote to a fellow trustee claiming that the artistic director had “lost £10m”. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that assertion, clearly the humours of the organisation were radically out of balance.
Related: Kids Company’s demise speaks volumes about how Britain is run | Letters
The position of trustee requires something more than a desire to be seen to be a good egg. The work demands time, commitment and ability. It is not a role for amateurs. There are meetings to attend and onerous board papers to read. Support, advice and guidance must be judiciously given to the senior executive team; at the same time clear-headed scrutiny must be applied to identify troubles when they are a mere speck in the distance. Often the seriousness of the work is underestimated – not least by those recruiting people to boards, who tend, perhaps understandably, to underplay the necessary commitment. Joining an arts board can appear glamorous; a seat on a charity board can present itself as an opportunity to burnish a halo. But serving as a trustee is a serious business. Trustees may be financially liable if things go wrong. When things go right they are barely recognised.The position of trustee requires something more than a desire to be seen to be a good egg. The work demands time, commitment and ability. It is not a role for amateurs. There are meetings to attend and onerous board papers to read. Support, advice and guidance must be judiciously given to the senior executive team; at the same time clear-headed scrutiny must be applied to identify troubles when they are a mere speck in the distance. Often the seriousness of the work is underestimated – not least by those recruiting people to boards, who tend, perhaps understandably, to underplay the necessary commitment. Joining an arts board can appear glamorous; a seat on a charity board can present itself as an opportunity to burnish a halo. But serving as a trustee is a serious business. Trustees may be financially liable if things go wrong. When things go right they are barely recognised.
Boards also require a balance of skills. Individual boards are sometimes castigated for containing insufficient representatives of the business world (“there was no one who could read a balance sheet”) and sometimes for containing too many (“a bunch of City bankers”). Clearly boards of trustees need those who can accurately understand a charity’s financial workings. But they also require people whose minds are subtle enough to understand that charities and arts organisations are different from profit-making organisations. They need to be financially solid and sustainable, but the mission will be quite different from maximising the figure at the bottom right-hand corner of the balance sheet. They will deal in different concepts and use different rhetoric to describe their purpose and values. The best trustees from the world of business come with a good dose of humility and willingness to learn about the realm in which they find themselves. And in the end, the most important relationship is that between the chief executive and chair – which at its best is one of trust, respect, guidance and complementary skills.Boards also require a balance of skills. Individual boards are sometimes castigated for containing insufficient representatives of the business world (“there was no one who could read a balance sheet”) and sometimes for containing too many (“a bunch of City bankers”). Clearly boards of trustees need those who can accurately understand a charity’s financial workings. But they also require people whose minds are subtle enough to understand that charities and arts organisations are different from profit-making organisations. They need to be financially solid and sustainable, but the mission will be quite different from maximising the figure at the bottom right-hand corner of the balance sheet. They will deal in different concepts and use different rhetoric to describe their purpose and values. The best trustees from the world of business come with a good dose of humility and willingness to learn about the realm in which they find themselves. And in the end, the most important relationship is that between the chief executive and chair – which at its best is one of trust, respect, guidance and complementary skills.
How can boards be improved? More training for trustees would be welcome, such as that, in the arts, offered by the Clore Leadership programme. There could be more ways of sharing common problems between boards. Workplaces could better support (and give a little time off) to staff members who sit on external charitable boards, recognising such work as helpful professional development in itself. Too often trustees tend to be drawn from a narrow sliver of society – white, male, of a certain class and bearing and type. There is more work to do in widening the pool of talent from which boards are drawn. This lack of diversity is a question of practicality, not political correctness. Without it, the skills, outlook and assumptions of boards are curtailed and the ability to see problems (as well as opportunities) is narrowed.How can boards be improved? More training for trustees would be welcome, such as that, in the arts, offered by the Clore Leadership programme. There could be more ways of sharing common problems between boards. Workplaces could better support (and give a little time off) to staff members who sit on external charitable boards, recognising such work as helpful professional development in itself. Too often trustees tend to be drawn from a narrow sliver of society – white, male, of a certain class and bearing and type. There is more work to do in widening the pool of talent from which boards are drawn. This lack of diversity is a question of practicality, not political correctness. Without it, the skills, outlook and assumptions of boards are curtailed and the ability to see problems (as well as opportunities) is narrowed.
The work of trustees needs to be better celebrated and valued – not as a kind of establishment sinecure that might lead to a gong, but as a public-service endeavour to which any skilled person, wherever they stand in society, should be welcome to contribute. In return, we should expect more vigilance and competence from trustees – for often, it is the most vulnerable in our society who suffer when they fall short. The work of trustees needs to be better celebrated and valued – not as a kind of establishment sinecure that might lead to a gong, but as a public-service endeavour to which any skilled person, wherever they stand in society, should be welcome to contribute. In return, we should expect more vigilance and competence from trustees – for often, it is the most vulnerable in our society who suffer when they fall short.