WPCC - hiding in plain sight
At the poorly attended Annual Open Meeting of WPCC on Wednesday evening I raised my serious concerns about their continuing lack of transparency. I was brushed off with a claim that the ‘Statement of Resolutions” published after each board meeting provided ample explanation of what they are doing. I don’t believe this is true. So I wrote the following self-explanatory email the following day:Dear Diane,Further to our exchange at yesterday’s Open Meeting I hope you will not mind if I email you in confidence on some points arising:Lack of documentation of all types linked to board resolutions1) You suggested that I rely on the Statements of Resolutions published after board meetings if I wished to understand what is happening at WPCC. I did so today and found the following from 12th April 2018:“(h) that further consideration would be given to the publication of more detailed Minutes after the Statutory Inquiry had concluded, following a benchmarking exercise of peer organisations;”I’m surprised you did not mention this last night. Could you please confirm whether the benchmarking exercise has been started or completed?2) Sarah-Jane Holden gave a presentation last night on the establishment of a “Friends of Wimbledon and Putney Common”. I listened again to a recording I took of what she said, but I’m afraid very little of what is planned was made clear. It all seemed rather muddled and incoherent. Again I turned to the “Resolutions” for guidance as you suggested. But there is only one that seems relevant:11 February 2019Item 02.19.11 Establishment of WPCC Supporters’ ProgrammeThe Board RESOLVED to:a) support ‘in-principle’ the structure and mechanism as set out in the report for establishing a Conservator-led Supporters’ Programme of WPCC; andb) share the proposed structure with other organisations/individuals who expressed an interest in a Supporters’ Group to ascertain their views and to bring a detailed paper to the April 2019 Board for its approval.This highlights the difficulty for an outsider - even a relatively well-informed one like me - of understanding what is being done. The “report” to the board is not available. I can see no concerted effort to get views from levy-payers, and as a past Conservator surely I should have been notified. There is nothing on your website about the proposed structure.The media release from April 2019 linked to the board meeting is also less than helpful on the details:"Friends of the CommonsIn an attempt to provide opportunities for collective recognition, celebration and support of Wimbledon and Putney Commons, the Conservators have formally approved the establishment of a Friends Programme. Through the programme, which will be led by the Conservators, a series of special events leading up to the 150th anniversary of the Commons in 2021 will be held. Membership will be through an annual subscription fee and the funds generated will be used to continue to protect and enhance the Commons. There will also continue to be opportunities for individuals and organisations to make one-off donations in support of specific projects.Full details of the Friends Programme will be announced shortly including those of the formal launch event in the autumn."Following the meeting a number of questions occurred to me about FofWPC, as follows:A) What will the actual legal status be? B) What governance arrangements will be put in place. Will there be a management committee separate from WPCC. Who will be on it. How will they be selected.C) Will the funds raised and used by the organisation be passed to WPCC, or kept separate?D) What criteria will be used for the disbursement of funds?There will be many others.You will perhaps reply that all these questions and much more will be answered at the “launch” which we were told would be in July. My point about the lack of transparency of WPCC last night was that the want of any documentation prior to the board reaching decisions means that there is next to no opportunity for levy payers to participate and discuss key issues like this in advance. It is as though WPCC operates in the manner of a closed private organisation, only sharing what has been decided after decisions are made. That means that despite your claims to the contrary you are not complying with the Nolan Principles on openness and transparency. You are also ignoring both CC and ICO guidelines on how organisations like yours should behave. You are designated by the ICO as a public body as you rely on public funds for the majority of your income. You need to comply, and be seen to comply. The 1871 Act does not prevent you from doing so.The FofWPC is just one of numerous similar examples on the obvious lack of openness and transparency. Statutory Inquiry - your comments last nightI have looked again at the email from the Commission when the draft SOR was sent to me. It reads as follows: "As the Commission’s published report may be different from this draft, I must emphasise that, whilst it remains in draft form, both the report and its contents should be kept in strictest confidence. You can of course take legal and/or other professional advice on the contents of the report should you wish to do so. However, it should not be circulated to any other parties without the prior consent of the Commission. We will take any breach of this confidence very seriously."You said last night that you could not confirm whether or not you had received the draft. This was misleading to the audience. There is no instruction in the email from the Commission regarding whether you should not confirm receipt of the document.Yours,Nick
Nicholas Evans ● 2693d6 Comments