Malvern Hills Trust: Latest letters on town charity

We are now considering all the responses and the board will share them together with the proposed way forward.

I write in response to several points raised in the Gazette letters page on August 9.

Contrary to ‘asking for carte blanche to become entirely financially driven’ the trust remains solely driven by its objectives and charitable status.

New fundraising abilities would enable focus of resources on caring for the Malvern Hills and commons.

Under our proposals, the proportion of elected board members will actually rise from 38 per cent to 50 per cent.

Money spent on the 2019 consultation was not wasted. It helped to shape current proposals.

We object in the strongest terms to the allegation that staff have ‘deliberately hidden’ information from trustees about changing levy paying arrangements.

It is one thing to question a decision or policy but quite another to cast aspersions in public on a person’s integrity, whoever they are.

The trust refutes Mr Watts’ suggestion that it has lied or that he has in any way established that the consultation document contained “multiple failings”.

The only substantive matter Mr Watts raised in the trust’s meeting on July 11 was dealt with in the response to public comments.

On the question of who runs MHT. The charity is too big to be run by volunteers.

We have a professional staff to whom the board delegates responsibility for day-to-day operations.

The board sets strategic direction and governance arrangements, ensuring decisions are made at the right level.

No one is in a position to exert undue influence.

The CEO manages the staff, working closely with the chair and board so we are always focused on our objectives.

In accordance with Charity Commission best practice, all MHT trustees are required to sign a code of conduct based on the Nolan Principles.

This is to help them work together in carrying out their obligations under the Malvern Hills Acts and their responsibilities as trustees.

A key element of the code is collective responsibility.

This means that if an individual trustee disagrees with a decision or policy, they must refrain from expressing their disagreement other than with the board.

Trustees expect to be able to trust their colleagues and work collaboratively. Accordingly. trustees who refuse to sign the code are not permitted to hold office on committees or be privy to confidential information.

As stated before, we’d gladly meet with groups concerned about our proposed governance changes which are at www.malvernhills.org.uk/governance-changes.

David Core

Malvern Hills Trust vice-chair

PROFESSOR McCrae (Response to four trust letters, July 26) offers his opinion on the weight to be given to your other correspondents and to other matters concerning Malvern Hills Trust.

I take this latest offering to be another attempt to hinder the work of a great group of people engaged in selfless, public service.

My equally-clear recollection of the process last year of recruiting and appointing an interim CEO coincides with that expressed by David Core and Helen Stace.

The trustees, cognisant of the impracticality of 20 board members together urgently seeking and assessing suitable candidates in a necessarily-private process, delegated that task and then approved the appointment of the best candidate. That’s what trustees do.

The professor seems to dismiss or at least diminish the role of the trustees in the decision-making and accountability of the trust. It is they who are the ultimate decision-makers and they who are accountable collectively to the public.

The trustees are elected and appointed to do just that.

It may be that some of the trustees don’t fully understand their roles and responsibilities and it is certain that they don’t always agree — 29 disparate people rarely do.

Nevertheless, the current trustees are working towards long-overdue proposals for functional, rather than dysfunctional governance arrangements, and should be trusted to get on and do it.

Finally, to anyone who is unclear about how the trust spends its money I would commend the annual review that clearly sets out the details that the professor claims to be undisclosed.

It is available on the trust website.

Mick Davies

Welland

I HAVE been contacted by Professor McCrae requesting that I retract my comments as they are untrue.

I wholeheartedly apologise to him and hope that he forgives me for making a mistake that was genuine.

I absolutely did believe he had approached the trust about his driveway.

If this is indeed untrue then I apologise profusely.

Strangest of all about the recent letters is that everyone is so very angry.

What you need to remember is that when you accuse the trust of anything you are talking about your elected representatives who are people and have families.

Not a faceless, nameless entity.

Sarah Rouse

Leigh Sinton