Questioning the Expulsion – Part 2

Were both sides heard fairly?

The statements from the BPS make the observation that Dr MacLennan declined to present evidence to support his case despite repeated requests. We are at a loss understand this as it is presented. We could speculate that Dr MacLennan might chose to distance himself from a process that he might believe to be illegitimate and be biased against him and that, by co-operating, he would add spurious validity to it. However, it is a surprise that, in view of the seriousness of the issue for him on a personal and professional level, it is implied that he made no efforts to defend himself robustly. We would ask, therefore, whether he was given due time to collect together all the evidence he might need? Was he able to access all available material that would be necessary, such as privileged communications to which he as an office-holder, would be entitled? What efforts were made by either the Panel or the Responsible Person to find our why he would choose to take this course of action? Was the RP able to satisfy himself that Dr MacLennan did not wish to defend himself in the dock?

Was it a level playing field from the outset?

We can have some idea of how the BPS views complaints from this extract from the Minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting in December 2020

“This year has seen a trend for the potential misuse of the complaints process, where it has been used to express a difference of opinion or dissatisfaction with a consultation outcome.The volume of complaints is a strategic risk for the Society and was considered at the Risk Committee.”

Clearly, complaints about the running of the Society are unwelcoming intrusions rather than a learning experience, a risk to be managed. Whilst is it easy to fob off the ordinary member with tactics such as simply not responding, not answering questions or crudely cutting off debate, when an elected officer, who will be an integral part of the organisation arrives, different tactics will be required.

It was very clear from his election statement that Dr MacLennan was a man on a mission – a mission to overhaul the BPS. His successful election (44% of votes cast) must have given him some confidence that he was doing the right thing. His experience, and that of others who he canvassed and supported him, was enough for him to believe that reform was an absolute necessity. We have no doubt that this energy translated into an enthusiasm and diligence to find out, in greater detail, about the mechanics of how the BPS worked (or, more importantly, how it didn’t work). We have no doubt that for some in the organisation this was a significant threat. We have already noted that the BPS had serious problems well before his election and that many people who were meant to have formal oversight of the organisation had – at the very least – taken their individual and collective eyes off the ball (including the Trustees). To support this assertion we can do no more than to quote part of the resignation tweet of Professor David Murphy, lately Vice-President (and therefore a Trustee during his period as President-Elect and President) which identified 

“…governance oversight, escalating expenditure and lack of openness and transparency…”

as one trigger for his leaving. And that of Past President, Professor Peter Kinderman

“…When I was President, I was routinely excluded from key decisions, was threatened with legal action over ‘fraud’ (I was completely exonerated, of course) and forced to resign (as Vice-President) for advocating for what is now effectively BPS policy…”

So we know, from two very senior past office holders, that there were significant problems well before Dr MacLennan was propelled into the scene. And remember that Professor Kinderman was in post for the two years 2015-2017 (until his forced resignation) and Professor Murphy for the years 2018 – 2021.  We also know, from the minutes of the Board of Trustees meeting in December 2020, that some Trustees themselves were anxious enough about the Society to support

“…a wider discussion in relation to a governance review and stressed the urgency of moving forward with this action…”

Bear in mind also that the Leicestershire police are investigating an allegation of a major financial fraud within the Society.  So we have a picture of an organisation that is clearly dysfunctional and under scrutiny and had been so for some considerable period of time. Is it any wonder that some within the organisation, both staff and volunteers, may have felt more than a twinge of anxiety at the arrival of an avowed new broom? We would suggest that in the light of all this, the BPS bureaucracy was on the defensive. This not only might have influenced the trigger for the investigation, it may have influenced its course.

The third and final post will appear tomorrow, Saturday 22 May 2021.

Peter Harvey, Pat Harvey and David Pilgrim

BPSWatch Editorial Collective.