In a letter to The Herald today Charles Barrington, proposer of the no-confidence motion at the NTS AGM has attacked the NTS Board’s claim in the Sunday Herald that a tiny percentage of dissident members could “set back a reform programme widely perceived as vital to the charity’s long-term survival”.
His letter is reproduced in full below:
Sir,
On Sunday you published an article on the good news of increased membership and visitors at NTS, as indeed is the case at Historic Scotland.
However you also quote senior figures at NTS as deriding the no-confidence motions for AGM as based on “0.007% of membership to threaten to overturn board decisions …”. A far more telling statistic is that we asked 29 members, received two refusals and one withdrawal. That is 89.7% support in favour of the motions!
We do not wish to “set back a reform programme widely perceived as vital to the charity’s long-term survival”. In the Trust’s very own AGM papers it records our statement that the motions are “in no way intended as destructive of Trust governance” , that no-confidence in the Board would be several rather than joint, and no-confidence in the Council would be a “rebuke”. The rebuke is that they, as supreme elected governing body of the Trust should stand up to their Chairman (who is 0.0003% if management’s statistical approach is adopted).
At NT staff are given membership (right down to the telephonist I spoke to today). At NTS this is not so, leaving them without voice or vote. If the true state of management at NTS is to be known, a Staff Satisfaction and Opinion Survey counted by a notary would help. Perhaps it would allay our fears. I’ll have a pro-forma on the CE’s desk tomorrow.
The Chief Executive said on “You and Yours” on Friday that they had “repeatedly” sought to speak with In Trust for Scotland and met refusal. This is false and a retraction is currently being sought.
Just now the proposed sale of Charlotte Square HQ is the most urgent matter. The Board only hold any powers at all as delegated by Council. The (joint) Chairman, who is perhaps the most commanding and dominant person in Trust history, has seemingly pitched her camp with the Board, excluding her own Council. She says she has actually taken legal advice confirming that she is right in saying that the sale and move to a business park is simply “operational” – ie not for Council. It is more than that. It would be a major irreversible strategic decision for NTS. A large sum of money is involved. Long-term it might seem crazy. After paying back £6.9m to Heritage Lottery, the surplus would seem not to give interest enough to pay the new rent. The Lottery Fund would hardly have given money if it did not see heritage value that, instead of a commercial operation, it should be NTS who “have an overriding fiduciary duty to the nation at large” (NTS Law Agent), would transform, use, furnish and partially make available this grade-A listed building. While many things are for the Board, in this matter the Council have more hard relevant expertise. The membership for whom at best guess I speak for 89.7% or 282,000 – odd, surely expect the Council they have elected to call this decision in for proper consideration, whichever way they eventually decide.
The Chief Executive is right in asking members to come to the AGM. If they can’t they know how to give proxy votes to NTS staff. They can give them to friends for use at AGM, or direct to me at 502 Lanark Rd. EH14 5DH
