Has anything really changed?

One of the functions of BPSWatch is, without wishing to be too grandiose, to hold those in senior positions at the BPS to account and to give them an opportunity to provide us, and hence the wider membership, with information about what is actually going on in the organisation. It should be the case that we are unnecessary, that the BPS was actually keeping its recent promises about openness and transparency. This is not happening, so we plod on in a so far vain attempt to ensure that the organisation that we all have contributed to over the years really does become one of which the discipline of psychology can be proud.

Below are copies of recent correspondence between David Pilgrim and David Crundwell, the Chair of the Board of Trustees (BoT). These are presented unedited and open for you, the reader, to allow you to draw your own conclusions. A brief opinion follows.

David Pilgrim’s email:

Dear Mr Crundwell,

A few weeks ago I invited you to be a discussant at the book launch on December 8th of my edited collection British Psychology in Crisis: A Case Study in Organizational Dysfunction. You declined, arguing that you only wished to look forwards and not backwards. You said that the book contained “accusations” and I argued that these were empirical claims for you to admit to or refute with evidence. Your refutation about the critique in the book is still awaited and may be impossible to fashion because you know very well that broadly our claims about misgovernance are completely valid. Now the BPS staff are vindicating our warnings in this regard.

In the past couple of weeks two important events have highlighted your lack of wisdom in refusing to learn from history. Sadly you appear to have reinforced a pre-existing cultural norm of toxic positivity. The two events exposing your error are a. the need to make a fifth of the workforce redundant and b. the incipient vote of no confidence in the SMT from the BPS staff. Their concerns confirm what we in BPSWatch  have been warning you about for the past three years. The BPS is heading towards a state of both financial and moral bankruptcy. 

On the financial front you are making hardworking staff redundant, while at the same time pouring more and more membership fees into defending the inexcusable (i.e. the contrived expulsion of Dr Nigel MacLennan). His imminent Employment Tribunal will, in its evidence taking, expose far more damning detail than we have been able to publish in the book, on our blog and on our X account about corruption and cover up. You are now drawing down reserves which are not unending. The Society has been in financial deficit year on year recently. Finance directors have mysteriously disappeared in haste.  Members are leaving in a state of disgust and exasperation. 

On the moral front, transparency remains absent and the wool is pulled over the eyes of members and the public as a matter of course, seemingly with no regret or shame from either the SMT or the BoT. The obvious channel to keep members informed should be The Psychologist. Instead it offers an assured biddable silence.

So, an open discussion about the deepening crisis will continue to rely on journalists and us in BPSWatch reporting events. 

The Charity Commission will soon become aware of the failure of the BPS leadership to mend its ways over broken governance. Do you think that a U-turn might now be wise for you and others on the BoT about this ongoing silence? Why not just admit that the truth about the crisis and those culpable for its emergence need to be named and explained properly to members and the public?

We look forward to you answer to these important questions. 

Dr David Pilgrim on behalf of BPSWatch

David Crundwell’s reply:

Thank you for your note, and apologies for any delay in replying – Christmas and all that. It is worth me clarifying a couple of points.

I, and three other new trustees from outside, volunteers all, joined the BPS a year ago now in response to the change in board, and goverance, structure agreed by members in 2022. 

You are of course correct, and it is a matter of public record, that the organisation has operated in deficit for a number of years now, clearly that is not something that can continue. Hence, drawing down on reserves is not new as you suggest – reserves have always funded those deficits, also a matter of public record. The board of 2023 was set the challenge, by the board in 2022, of returning the organisation to a balanced budget and this is a priority. This can only be done responsibly alongside creating a sustainable, scalable, operating model.

A balanced budget will give the BPS opportunities to build on key areas such as research; and new ways to support those interested in all aspects of psychology enjoy a lifetime’s journey within the BPS.

The board is the ultimate decision maker on strategy and so too the finance envelope; it then operates in partnership with the executive team to deliver on those goals. It is not, and should never be, the other way round. Substantial progress has already been made in 2023 through improved focus and taking tough decisions. Tough decisions which are not taken lightly. Our progress to date will be clear with the publication of the audited accounts later this year.

As you are aware the employment tribunal judgment last summer is being appealed by the plaintiff. I do not feel it appropriate to comment while the case is still underway. Though I have read the initial judgement, as I am sure you have, with interest.

Equally, while the organisation is in consultation with a number of staff, it again would not be appropriate to comment on that legal process. Suffice to say in line with my observations earlier we are doing our best to shape the organisation for the future.

Our actions in 2023 reflect an organisation learning from the past, and using good data, good governance, and best practice – rather than emotion – to move forward with focus and purpose.

Turning to The Psychologist magazine, this exists to serve as a forum for communication, discussion, and debate on a range of psychological topics. This is its clear mandate as is explained on the BPS website https://www.bps.org.uk/about-psychologist The Editor of The Psychologist is independent of the Board of Trustees and the Senior Leadership Team regarding the publication’s content. As they should be. He is free to publish within the law and his remit – whatever he wishes. 

He works closely with the Psychologist and Digest Editorial Advisory Committee on content and consults with them regularly on editorial direction as well as individual editorial decisions. The Psychologist is not there to report on the organisation itself, that is outside its remit. Communicating with members about the organisation takes place through a variety of channels – messages direct from the President, through discursive forums such as The Senate, member groups, and a wide range of other communications channels including the website, “X” and the like.

On the issue of corruption, you imply you have detailed information. I am of course aware of the fraud case, and the details of that investigation. Are you referring to any other issue or incident which I may not be aware of? I would be grateful if you could provide details. It is important that any new allegations can be investigated and substantiated, otherwise there is potential for the defamation of innocent individuals. The board would take any defamatory statements seriously, as we have done in the past, as a responsible organisation.

As I said when we first corresponded, I was happy to meet with you all in person, alongside the CEO, The President, and the President-Elect. The opportunity was to discuss your concerns and take a rounded view with all key stakeholders present; an offer that was declined.

Finally, I have referenced twice in our past correspondence my dislike of online bullying and trolling. Online bullying is an insidious byproduct of social media and cannot be acceptable at any level. It is one of the most corrosive aspects of modern society. Constructive dialogue quickly becomes futile in such an atmosphere. Something I am sure you would as a group, and individually, be prepared to agree with me on?

2024 is an important year for the organisation. Our work continues both on the finances and to build a sustainable, scalable, operating model. We will be doing this by focussing on what matters, while highlighting more of the world class work, and mature debate – based on quality research – that members can be proud of.

Bests,

David 

Commentary by Peter Harvey, Blog Administrator.

On the plus side, David did at least get a reply (a significant and welcome change from previous administrations). And, yes, it was a detailed response to most of the points that he raised. But (you couldn’t have imagined that there wouldn’t be a ‘but’ sooner or later) let’s look at some of the content in more detail (and in no particular order).

The reply is a good example of corporate-speak – the verbal style of a comms team rather than a person. It is essentially complacent in its tone – “Yes, there are problems (unspecified) but we have it all under control”. 

There is a serious mismatch between the seriousness of the financial problems and the sparse and skimpy information that has been given to the membership. Indeed, bland statements available in the highly redacted BoT Minutes suggest that the overall financial situation is positive [see my previous post here]. There is no sense of an impending crisis – and proposing over 30 redundancies is as serious a crisis as it gets.

There is not a trace of empathy for those staff whose heads will roll. As I have said before [see here], I doubt whether the redundancies will be at the very well-paid top of the hierarchy. It will be at the level of member services, the very people on whom those in senior positions rely on to do the everyday key tasks on which the membership (and the future of the Society) depend.

Mr Crundwell states that The Psychologist is not there to report on the organisation itself. Sorry to contradict, but I quote from The Psychologist Policies and Protocols document, published in March 2021, Section 3.2 which states that The Psychologist is expected to fulfil the following roles 

• as a source of information about the views of the Society; 
• as a place to publish Society news and business, and to reflect the Society’s member-voted policy themes and current priorities; 

Mr Crundwell argues that there is a multiplicity of other sources of information. This view compares unfavourably with my experience of another organisation of which I am a member – the Royal Photographic Society (RPS). In their Journal there is always a full narrative report of their Board of Trustees meeting; there are regular updates on RPS activities; the President writes a regular column. And there is still room for the main content. I guess that the RPS see their journal as an important archive which records the formal activities of the Society.  The problem with Mr Crundwell’s sources is that they are uncoordinated and transient – and, of course, more easily edited or ‘lost’.  In my view, a key function of the Society’s house journal is to act as a Journal of Record (similar to a Newspaper of Record) so that there is always an accessible and permanent record of the Society’s activities. It would not take that much space. It would also be a lot more accessible and member-friendly than the increasingly impenetrable post-£6 million Change Programme website. It’s almost as if the BPS doesn’t want its history recorded.

As so to the sly references in Mr Crundwell’s response to “bullying”. It’s Interesting to note how often that word has occurred in our collective correspondence with the BPS. It’s almost as if there is a little bit of code in the word-processor that recognises our names and automatically boilerplates a phrase about bullying and/or harassment. For me bullying has to include intent to harm (both ACAS and the Anti-Bullying Alliance include this concept in their guidance). ACAS also invokes the abuse of power as a factor. I think we can put that to one side – unless I am seriously misreading the situation, the power of a large, wealthy organisation which could, at any time, revoke our membership trumps that of a small group of malcontents. So, to intent, m’lud. We have always made it clear that our intent in all of our activities is to prevent damage to a discipline of which we are proud. In our view the BPS has, in recent years, failed singularly and particularly to represent psychology in all its many and varied forms in a responsible and professional manner. When we (and many others) have tried to engage senior members of the Society (whether elected or paid) we have been fobbed off, blocked or simply ignored. Because the amount of important and relevant information about the workings of the Society is so hidden from public view, we will often have to repeat requests. This is not “harassment” or “bullying”. It is a reaction to an unresponsive, defensive and secretive organisation. As a further observation, at no stage has the BPS felt the need to correct any of our statements or assertions when given the opportunity either publicly or privately. To reinforce this we are more than willing to publish any statement from the BPS without editorial interference.

He also refers to “trolling” which, according to the UK Crown Prosecution Service is

“…a form of baiting online which involves sending abusive and hurtful comments across all social media platforms.”

We would like to see the evidence to which this implied accusation relates. In our public statements, whether here or elsewhere, we focus on the behaviour of the organisation and the behaviour of office-holders in their role  – we clearly do not target individuals personally with abusive communications. We raise legitimate questions about the Society which is accountable to its membership for its actions. I would challenge Mr Crundwell to show us and the wider membership concrete examples of any malicious or abusive communications from any one of our contributors. As with many public statements, accusations are made without supporting evidence and hence are slurs and smears which cannot be refuted.

Mr Crundwell is right in stating that we refused a meeting with him and key stakeholders. Our reason for that is simple. We have argued long and hard that the Board of Trustees is not fully independent of the BPS – and paid staff are clearly not. What we asked for – and continue to request – is a meeting at which we can speak freely to one of the only independent trustees who has no vested interest (legitimate or not) in protecting their position within the Society. 

Enough of my ramblings. As Mr Crundwell notes, 2024 is an important year for the Society. It will be spending even more of members’ money on legal fees; will probably waste members’ money on consultancies and outsourcing; be evermore in thrall to whatever “social justice” bandwagon it feels the need to jump on; and generally fail to be the organisation of which members can be proud.