Openness and transparency – again

Peter Harvey posts….

We have long complained on this blog about what we see as the lack of openness and transparency about the workings and decision-making processes within the BPS. Despite regular – almost monotonous repetitive mantras – from incoming  Presidents and Chairs of Boards, little seems to have actually changed. And one might ask why such statements appear so frequently – perhaps it’s a reflection of the very absence of these characteristics that requires a constant re-iteration of their importance. 

So as not too seem too carping, however, and in the spirit of constructive criticism, I am going to make some simple, easy-to-implement suggestions that might make a difference. But first, let’s see why we continue to claim that things still need to change. 

I refer the interested reader to the two most recent published minutes of the Board of Trustees (BoT) (see here for the December 2024 meeting, here for the May 2025 meeting)[note, non-BPS members may not be able to access these]. In passing, I am mystified by this comment in those latter minutes under the heading Minutes of Previous meetings:

“….The minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2025 (not for posting on the website) were approved…”.

If the minutes have been approved why are they not being published? 

[REDACTED][REDACTED][REDATED]

For those of you unfamiliar with reading these documents I need to point out to you that there is a policy of redaction for matters that “…are commercially sensitive or contain confidential information…”. The redaction of material that is personal or is relevant to an individual (such as HR-related issues) should generally be kept confidential and I have no problem with that.  It is the phrase “…commercially sensitive…”  that is of concern. When it comes to looking at many BoT minutes, it is seems (to my mind, at least) to be used to hide virtually all detailed financial information about the BPS. Under some circumstances there may be a genuine commercial need to keep information confidential – at least temporarily – although as a membership organisation and a charity such circumstances are the exception rather than the rule. Members who pay their subscriptions to the BPS are, in essence, in a quasi-contractual relationship with the organisation. They give their money to ensure that the agents of that organisation deliver services that benefit members and further the charity’s aims. In my view members are entitled to – indeed are obliged to – know just how that money is being spent so that those people employed by the Society and its financial guardians (the Trustees) are using that money appropriately and can be held accountable by the membership. Publishing an annual Statement of Accounts is one – and only one – route to that accountability (I am preparing another post on the Annual Report and Accounts to  appear soon). I can find no compelling reason that the membership (to whom both staff and Trustees are accountable) should not receive regular updates on how the organisation that they fund is actually spending their money. To hide behind the mask of commercial sensitivity as a blanket excuse to reveal virtually nothing is not, as they say, a good look. It engenders suspicion and mistrust and is certainly neither transparent nor open.

Information, information, information.

There is a more general set of comments to be made, however, concerning the management of information. Many, if not most, organisations’ deliberations do not excite or entrance members nor attract much attention. After all, we elect or pay other people to do the necessary legwork to keep the organisation running smoothly.  Despite that, those same people owe the membership some responsibility to make those deliberations as open as possible without either compromising confidentiality or overwhelming them with verbiage. As far as I am aware (and I am open to correction if wrong)  dates of meetings of Boards are not pre-announced.  I am old enough to remember the days when the Bulletin (forerunner of The Psychologist) published dates of all major Board meetings well in advance. However, even If I have this wrong and the dates are somewhere on the website, I am pretty sure that Agendas for these meetings are not made available, nor are supporting papers. However, it should be noted that even the Board members themselves have a problem with this; in the Minutes of the BoT  dated 16 December 2024 is the following statement

 Some trustees felt it was inappropriate to have information visible for the first time during a BoT meeting. Information should be made available in advance to allow proper consideration. (BoT Minutes, 16 December 2024, Section 3, Noted para 2 p 7).

Proper and open debate requires information. Clearly, Board members feel hampered so how can we as members engage with debate if we are not aware of what is being debated?

As I have already said, minutes of meetings are not literary masterpieces, nor should they be. But they should be informative and they should be timely. As to the former I am surprised that there is no narrative version of the meetings available to the members. In actual fact, this has been explicitly rejected by the Board. On page 2 of the BoT Minutes of the meeting held on 8 May 2025 is the following statement:

The proposal that a narrative summary of Board of Trustees meetings be prepared had been considered further. It would involve a disproportionate amount of work relative to the number of people who read the minutes on the website and would therefore not be implemented. The decision could be reviewed at a later date if appropriate. (1.5 Action Log; Noted 2).

Frankly, I don’t think this is good enough. The Royal Photographic Society (of which I am also a member) has a membership of over 10 000 and an income of approximately £1.7m – a significantly smaller organisation than the BPS. Yet its Journal manages to publish a full and detailed narrative summary of each and every Trustees meeting without fail. But, and more importantly, the crude cost-benefit analysis (we are not going to do it because too few people access the minutes) is risible and demonstrates a sense of that making an effort to inform the membership doesn’t actually matter. Perhaps one reason that the minutes get so little web traffic is that members are not notified of when meetings are, what is being discussed, the delay in publication and the lack of meaningful information when they finally arrive. 

I mentioned the delay in availability above. Now I know that Minutes have to be approved  and so forth but, in this electronic age (and particularly with the brand spanking new £6m Change programme benefits), why is it not possible to streamline the whole process and have Minutes reviewed and agreed electronically within two weeks of the meeting. 

Six Suggestions

1 Whenever an item is deemed worthy of redaction, the Minutes state whether it is Personal/Confidential or Financial.

 2 As a general rule, detailed financial information is included in the Minutes: for example, if we take item 2.1 (CEO Report) from the December BoT the following statement is made “… 2024 management accounts showed a [REDACTED] surplus…” it should clearly state the actual numbers.

3 The agendas of all the major Boards of the BPS are made available to the membership at the same time as they go to Board members. 

4  All papers associated with the upcoming meeting are also available for all members prior to meetings unless they are confidential (bearing in mind the comments made above). This will allow interested members to make comments to Board members to inform the debate.

5 A narrative summary of all major Board meetings is published regularly (ideally in The Psychologist, but the magazine seems resolutely opposed to publishing any detailed information about the Society’s internal processes) after each meeting.

6 All major Boards are obliged to published agreed minutes within 2 weeks of the meetings.

Note that these suggestions are minimal cost options as this can all be done electronically, and are an obvious and clear signal that the membership is important enough to be told what is going on.

For the BPS to thrive it depends on its members and their interest and commitment. My suggestions are neither complex nor earth-shattering nor will they deal with all the problems that are facing the BPS. But perhaps they could be an outward and visible sign that making efforts to engage members in the running of their Society is something that is taken seriously.