Peter Harvey posts….
We look to do the right thing in an honest, fair and responsible way through appreciating others’ opinions, viewpoints, thoughts and ideas so that we build strong and trusting relationships.
We keep people informed through clear, open and honest communication.
These two statements are taken from the BPS’s 2024 Strategy document [see https://cms.bps.org.uk/sites/default/files/2024-01/BPS%20Strategy%202024_0.pdf]. Along with a whole collection of vacuous feel-good, virtue-signalling, management-speak phrases the commitment to openness appears on the very first page of the document. It must be important then.
But, in a phrase much used by my old head of department, the late Bill Trethowan (yes, for those of you with long memories, that Trethowan) when testing for thought disorder “Fine words butter no parsnips”. How do these fine words translate into behaviour?
If we take the latest minutes of the Board of Trustees (BoT) [note: access to these on the BPS website is restricted to members, so I have included screenshots of the relevant sections]. These were published around the middle of March 2024 and refer to the meeting held in November 2023. Two things to note here – the long gap between meetings of the BoT as well as the delay in publishing them. We have pointed out previously that the BPS is undergoing serious financial problems and we are aware that a number of staff have been/are being made redundant (we can say no more than that because the BPS has been completely silent on this critically important matter). It comes as something of a surprise that at a time of such serious financial pressures there were not more meetings. And, by the way, don’t bother trying to find anything in The Psychologist. As ever, it shows absolutely no interest in keeping the membership informed about anything to do with the management of the BPS – not enough opportunity for virtue signalling I would guess.
You might imagine, as a member of an organisation that you pay for, you might be able to see just how your money is being spent. Please add your own hollow laugh at this point. At the top of the BoT minutes the following appears:
I can fully appreciate the need for redacting information that relates to individuals – so far, so understandable. But the phrase “…commercially sensitive…” is a bit more problematic. Correct me if I’m wrong but the BPS is a membership organisation and a charity – it is not a business. I accept that the organisation should be run in a business-like manner, ensure that income is at least equal to expenditure. So far, so GCSE Business Studies. If the BPS were a company in the commercial sector where activist shareholders or predatory asset strippers prowl in the shadows, keeping your accounts under wraps is understandable. Could this be true of the BPS? Is the Royal College of Psychiatrists about to make a hostile take-ever bid? Perhaps Stonewall want a new identity and is looking to the BPS (on second thoughts, some recent pronouncements from a BPS Officer suggests that has already happened)? Is the BPS in such robust good health financially that a sanctioned oligarch sees the opportunity to launder their ill-gotten gains through a ‘respectable’ UK organisation? (To borrow from Private Eye – That’s enough, Ed).
I think not, m’lud. In truth, the BPS is a completely unattractive proposition for any potential buyer (perhaps we should run a competition – devise a sales prospectus as if for floating a company) – unless Del Trotter might be interested, of course.
Back to reality. The statement above is played out in practice….
What an interesting phrase “..giving a misleading impression…”. I leave it up to you, the reader, to make what you will of it. In all, there are 16 redactions.
Perhaps the BoT needs to be reminded of some important things:
- The money is not theirs, nor the Senior Management Team’s. It is extracted from the members to pay for services.
- Members have a right to know how that money is spent.
- Trustees – acting on behalf of the fee-paying membership – have a duty under the law to ensure that “…your charity’s money is safe, properly used and accounted for. Every trustee has to do this…” [https://www.gov.uk/guidance/managing-charity-finances].
How can members, either indirectly through the Trustees or directly as an individual member, find out if their money is being spent wisely, if all the relevant information is withheld? This is made all the more difficult by reference to the following statement (again from the November BoT minutes: (under 8. AOB, noted 3)…
I refer you back to the statements at the start of this post. Can anyone explain to me how the extracts above square with these?
Now I am sure that the BPS will argue that it follows due process by publishing fully audited accounts for the membership at the AGM. Of course they do, for otherwise the Charity Commission would be sniffing around (again!). But for those hardy souls who choose to plough through all 48 pages of the last consolidated financial statements there are two things to note: (1) that they are anything but recent (they only cover the year up to 31 December 2022); and (2) they have all the detail and clarity of a political party’s election promises. For example, try to find out how much was spent on legal fees and external consultancies (if you find it, please let me know). Up-to-date information about finances is (or should be) available to the BoT and the SMT (although if our experience with the much vaunted £6 million Change Programme is anything to go by I wouldn’t guarantee that). Surely it is possible to able to provide meaningful information to the membership without compromising any properly confidential detail?
Secrecy is a pernicious poison, sowing mistrust, suspicion and disbelief. The recent furore about the manipulation of photographs (as well as the wider debate about ‘fake news’ and AI-influenced material) should give us all cause for concern. Why deny members access to information to which they have a right? To remind the BoT – it is the members’ money you are accountable for. You have a duty to be open and honest – let our parsnips be well and truly buttered by your commitment to truth and transparency.
BPSWatch 