The Attempt to Suspend me in November 2008

10^th November 2008,  I was subjected to yet another kangaroo  court and despite all feoffees knowing that the ‘evidence’ produced against me included blatant untruths, the majority voted to suspend me.

It was ultra vires of course and I was therefore never suspended but for over two months the Town Estate website included a  report that I had been suspended until the Town Estate was threatened by solicitors with a legal injunction.

The following voted for my ‘suspension’ :

Derek Simmonds, Derek Whitehouse, Ken Saunders, John Southerington, Dr Bruce Williamson, Derek Larder, John Sanderson, Tim Webster and Richard Sage.

When I was elected in October 2007, as the first woman Senior Townwarden since the charity commenced in 1549, I had been so proud and excited. But it was soon clear that I was not wanted. But I had been democratically elected as Senior Townwarden with responsibilities to the charity and its members, the people of Melton Mowbray.

Three days after my election, Townwarden duties and powers were transferred from me to a   sub committee to be known as the ‘feoffees’ management committee’. The title was misleading as usually that term refers to a governing body. Clearly, the governing body of the Town Estate is the Board of Trustees ( feoffees) in accordance with charity and trustee law and the Charity Commission Scheme of Arrangement for the Town Estate dated December 1989.

Charity Commission guidance, the Good Governance Code, NCVO  and the ICSA all stress the importance of policies and procedures to a charity although nobody would expect a Board to be a slave to paperwork or to provide policies which were not required. Any organisation but especially the Town Estate, an important charity with substantial assets, needs strategies, policies and procedures.

But soon after joining the Town Estate in October 2007, behind the scenes I began to discover that things were not as I had expected. So much of the charity was excellent but there were not in place the strategies, policies and procedures relating to management of the charity which are needed, indeed some were legally required and many may not be delegated. Responsibility for those policies remains with the Board of trustees (feoffees).

January 2008 – at the Board meeting I mentioned some my legitimate concerns but my worries were dismissed out of hand.  It appeared that, instead of wanting to work with me, the attempts to drive me off the Board increased.

Within a few weeks of that Board meeting I was locked out of the Town Estate office by the chairman Ken Saunders, although clearly he possessed no authority for such extreme and bizarre action.  When I said to chairman Ken Saunders in February 2008 that it was difficult trying to work with people who wanted me off the Town Estate he said that applied to them all.  At the next two Board meetings in April and June 2008 I was censured at ‘Kangaroo Courts’. 

Those events were traumatising for me and the treatment I received certainly did much to ensure that  I could not be effective as  a trustee. Who could be effective  in those circumstances ?  But I was never completely silenced although I found every meeting to be incredibly difficult.

But I tried to persevere, mentioning  some of the missing policies at meetings  but it was not easy – I was so clearly not wanted.  Sometimes I tried to fight back but I should not have needed to. I had been properly and democratically elected. Mostly I concentrated on actually  turning up for meetings and staying on the Board – I did not want to be ‘driven off ‘ the Town Estate.

During the twelve months that I was Senior Townwarden, I was made unwelcome, verbally abused, excluded, locked out, physically threatened, subjected to kangaroo  courts and censured. 

But this was not a private club or a secret men’s society – this was an important local charity and more importantly it was a members’ charity – belonging to the local people but managed on their behalf by the Board of feoffees.  But some feoffees appeared to believe the Town Estate ‘belonged to them’ and was ‘nobody else’s business’.

As the 2008 annual meeting approached, I had a duty to the charity – the members of the charity were entitled to know what was going on behind the scenes in their charity and I made public some of the unaddressed problems. I also made clear that there was much good, even excellence as well as the unacceptable, within the charity.

October 2008 – at the Annual Town Meeting, I was re-elected as Junior Townwarden.

10^th November 2008 was the first meeting of the new Town Estate year and I was subjected to yet another kangaroo court- there was a motion to ‘suspend’ me. I did not believe the feoffees had that power but I felt that would not stop the majority of feoffees from carrying it through.

The allegations against me were contained in a pack of papers and the two main documents included allegations which were known by the feoffees to be deliberate untruths.

The two main documents were

(1) The Motion including the “background to the motion”  which had been circulated by chairman Ken Saunders

(2) The letter dated 31^st October 2008 from Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse addressed to chairman Ken Saunders.

 Those documents included deliberate untruths.

Some of the untruths included in the two documents are repeated below in black type and are followed by my comments in blue.

Allegations in the Motion and the ‘background’

It was stated : that I had falsely misrepresented  feoffees. That I had made unfounded allegations to the Charity Commissioners  That I  had made untrue statements in an election leaflet

My response to those allegations

Those were deliberate untruths. I have never told one lie about any feoffee nor have I ever falsely misrepresented any feoffee. I made no unfounded allegations to the Charity Commissioners The election leaflet contained no lies Not one example was given, in the Motion or the ‘background’ of any false misrepresentation, nor of any unfounded allegation made to the Charity Commission nor of any untruth in the election leaflet !

 

Alleged by Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse :

Pat Cumbers as then Senior Town Warden and titular head of the Town Estate distributed the green paper to voters on the night of the AGM knowingly that the statements made were false ( sic ) Pat Cumbers as then the Senior Town Warden and titular head of the Town Estate circulated e-mail on the 5th October knowingly that the statements she was making were false ( sic )

My response to those allegations

Those allegations by Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse were known to be untrue. The ‘green paper’ referred to the election leaflet which included many statements and questions but nothing which was ‘false’ -  To see the email dated 5th October which included similar information, none of which was ‘false’ -  The election leaflet and the email dated 5th October 2008 contained no ‘false statements’ and Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse knew that.

 

Alleged by Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse :

The statement of no genuine Child Protection Policy in place is untrue There are two: One in the Health & Safety Manual, which is aimed at young people being employed or on work experience within the Town Estate. The Child Protection Policy within the Personnel Practices Manual was formulated as a result of considerable research with Leicester City Council, Blaby & District Council, Hinckley & Bosworth Council, The Forestry commission and the Charity Commission guide lines.

My response to those allegations

It was a deliberate untruthful statement by Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse that there was any Town Estate Child Protection Policy in place on 5th October 2008 and they knew that. The documents described as Child Protection Policies which were included in  the November 2008 “suspension pack” had never before been seen by the Board of feoffees and had certainly never been discussed, considered or adopted by the Board of feoffees as Town Estate Policies.

 

 

The History of the ‘Child Protection Issue’ in the Town Estate When in January 2008 I first raised the subject of a CRB checking policy I had expected the feoffees to be pleased – I assumed that the matter had just been overlooked. But my suggestion was met with hostility and I was shouted at to "tell us which one is the paedophile !" But the Town Estate had a history of paedophilia which should have provided the Board in 2008 with more understanding than most of how deceptive but completely convincing that paedophiles can be and therefore, the need for much vigilance.  A previous ( now deceased ) Senior Townwarden/feoffee, one Peter Cox, a solicitor, had been convicted of sexual offences involving two young boys whom he had enticed into his house. There were feoffees on the 2008 Board who had been feoffees when Cox was on the Town Estate Board. In addition, most of the 2008 feoffees had been feoffees when Town Estate employee Michael Bonshor (now deceased) was illegally grooming vulnerable underage girls for sex whilst he was on duty in a Town Estate park, working as a Town Estate kiosk attendant. Indeed chairman Ken Saunders had been Senior Townwarden when that paedophile was imprisoned in 2005 for the above sexual offences and also for  having had illegal sex with one of those same underage girls. Chairman Ken Saunders was later to describe such sexual criminality by a fifty five year old man against underage vulnerable girls, to the Charity Commission, as ‘six of one and half dozen of the other’. The Town Estate was advised by the Charity Commission in April 2008 that a Child Protection policy was required. That information was initially kept secret by chairman Ken Saunders but we later learned that a document described as a Child Protection policy had been sent on 13th May 2008, with no discussion by the Board, by the chairman to the Charity Commission. That document was described by the Commission as "more directed to protection of the charity’s workforce". It was not, of course, a Town Estate policy because the Board had never seen it, let alone approved it. Despite many requests at board meetings and at the office, the only document described as a child protection policy, which I saw, was a document entitled ‘Protection of Young Persons’ at the Town Estate office, described by the bailiff as "all he had". That document was clearly directed to protection of the charity’s workforce and was clearly not what any member of the charity or beneficiary would expect to see described as a Child Protection policy. In addition the document was not a Town Estate policy because it had not been considered and adopted as a Town Estate Policy. I therefore still believed it just possible that there was another document described as a Child Protection policy and I continued asking to see the document which had been sent to the Commission but without success. At the Board meeting on 1st September 2008 I again complained that I had still not seen the ‘Child Protection policy’ but was told by chairman Ken Saunders that the ‘policy’ had been written to cover the Town Estate and had been approved by the Charity Commission. I responded that we needed a policy to protect the children. I found it difficult to believe chairman Ken Saunders when he stated that the Commission had approved the "Town Estate Child Protection policy" and I just could not understand why the feoffees were constantly refused sight of the document. As the Annual Meeting approached , I could no longer remain silent. I had a duty to the charity, to the members and child beneficiaries. I decided to ‘go public’ in emails and the election leaflet about some of the problems including the lack of any genuine Child Protection policy despite the history of paedophilia within the Town Estate and despite the Town Estate having been told in April 2008 that such a policy was necessary. (Later, on 10th December 2008 The Charity Commission called a meeting for Feoffees in Melton Mowbray to discuss various issues including the Child Protection Policy. I had been right to disbelieve chairman Ken Saunders’ assertion in September 2008 that the Commission had "approved" the document he had described as a child protection policy. My doubts were confirmed when the Commission stated at the December meeting that both ‘policies’ they had seen had been concerned primarily with the protection of the Town Estate’s workforce. They had clearly not ‘approved’ any document as a Town Estate Child Protection policy – Mr. Saunders’ statement had been untrue. The Commission wanted the Town Estate to have a policy which included the Commission ‘essentials’ and they placed a copy of Safeguarding Children in the hands of chairman Ken Saunders.)

 

Alleged by Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse :

The question of there being no Standing Orders, Equalities Policy and a Code of Conduct is untrue (sic) ‘The Job Description and the requirements of a Feoffee along with the Code of Conduct ensure all feoffees are treated fairly and equally’ ‘There are Standing Orders which again she said did not exist is untrue they are already on the system.(sic)’

My response to those allegations

These allegations by Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse were also deliberate untruths – there were no Town Estate Standing Orders, Equalities Policy or Code of Conduct in place on 5th October 2008 and Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse knew that. No Standing Orders, Code of Conduct or Equalities Policy for Feoffees had ever been seen by the Board of Feoffees at 5th October 2008, so plainly none had ever been considered and adopted by the Board of feoffees.   Standing Orders The Town Estate possessed no Standing Orders at 5th October 2008 and none had been seen by the Board of feoffees prior to issue of the November “suspension” agenda. Attached to the emailed November Agenda was a document described as “Draft Standing Orders”. Agenda Item 8 for that November meeting was: “Introduction of Town Estate Standing Orders” After I was obliged to leave the meeting as ‘suspended’ the Board of feoffees discussed the new draft Standing Orders as an agenda item, made minor amendments and voted to formally adopt the first ever Town Estate Standing Orders ! That vote was taken not many minutes after the majority of feoffees had cynically found me guilty of lying because I had said on 5 October that the Town Estate possessed no Standing Orders !   Code of Conduct There was no Town Estate Code of Conduct on 5th October 2008. No such Code had been seen by the Board of feoffees prior to its attachment to the emailed November agenda. Item 9 on the Agenda for that meeting was: “Introduction of Feoffees’ Code of Conduct”   After I was obliged to leave the meeting as ‘suspended’ the Board of feoffees discussed the proposed Code of Conduct as an agenda item and adopted the Town Estate’s first ever Code of Conduct without a formal vote. That too was not many minutes after the majority of feoffees had cynically found me guilty of lying when I had said on 5 October that the Town Estate possessed no Code of Conduct !   Equalities Policy Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse had alleged that “The question of there being no Standing Orders, Equalities Policy and a Code of Conduct is untrue “(sic). That statement implied that there was an Equalities policy for feoffees. But Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse had then stated “The Job Description and the requirements of a Feoffee along with the Code of Conduct ensure all feoffees are treated fairly and equally”. That implied that Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse acknowledged that there was no feoffees Equalities policy but that they personally, in their wisdom, had decided that such a policy was unnecessary. But of course such a policy was necessary. It was a deliberate untruth to say there were a feoffees’ Equalities Policy, a Code of Conduct, Standing Orders or a “Job Description and the requirements of a Feoffee”, in place on 5th October 2008

 

Alleged by Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse

She has stated there is no training scheme for Feoffees untrue (sic) There is a comprehensive training programme for Feoffees as presented for final review at the September meeting.

My response to those allegations

This was another deliberate untruth told by Derek Simmonds and Derek  Whitehouse – there was no comprehensive Training Programme in place on 5 October 2008 and Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse knew that. I had tried to raise my concerns for many months about the lack of feoffee training. I believed it to be at the root of many of the problems within the charity. There was no mention of any ‘Comprehensive Training Programme’ at the September 2008 Board of feoffees meeting. There was, of course, no comprehensive training programme for feoffees in place on 5 October 2008 and Derek Simmonds and Derek Whitehouse knew that.  Indeed, a year later in October 2009 still no feoffee had received any sort of induction or Town Estate training.

 

 

After hearing all the ‘evidence’ against me, it required the intervention by the Town Estate solicitor Howard Partridge before I was allowed to speak – chairman Ken Saunders wanted to proceed immediately to the vote. I said I had not lied, I loved the Town Estate, they did not have the power to suspend me and I would see them at the next meeting.

Despite all feoffees knowing that the ‘evidence’ produced against me included blatant untruths, the majority voted to suspend me.

The following voted for my ‘suspension’ :

Derek Simmonds, Derek Whitehouse, Ken Saunders, John Southerington, Dr Bruce Williamson, Derek Larder, John Sanderson, Tim Webster and Richard Sage.

A few days later the Charity Commission confirmed that the feoffees did not have the power to suspend me . Suspension was ultra vires and I was therefore never suspended.