| |
| |
| A
useless redraft? |
| |
| The
Governance Hub’s Code of Governance is up for review.
Should the sector care about the redraft of a voluntary set
of standards inexorably tied to the now defunct hubs project,
or does the code have a life of its own? Hannah Fearn asks
the sector |
| |
There
was little surprise within the third sector when Capacitybuilders
announced in early autumn that the National Hubs of Expertise
were to meet their maker. Criticism of the hubs had been widespread,
and no love was lost between the supporters of the programme
and its fiercest opponents.
However, though the future of infrastructure support remains
in limbo, the work of the hubs rolls on until spring 2008.
The Governance Hub has recently put out to tender the planned
review of the Code of Governance. The code has only been in
existence for a couple of years, but the hub is committed
to ensuring it is continuously up to date. But are there really
new lessons to be poured into a new code already?
Rodney Buse, chair of the Charity Trustee Network thinks so.
“I do believe we should be learning from experience
at this stage,” he says. “We should be learning
from how [the code] is being used – I think that is
good practice.”
The question Buse believes the sector should be asking of
the fledgling code is whether it needs a rewrite or whether
a few tweaks here and there would tighten the thing up, improving
it as a tool for trustees and chief executives alike. “My
guess is that it doesn’t need a total rewrite,”
he says.
Jules Mason, head of governance support at the British Red
Cross, agrees that it is the right time to review the code,
especially as it offers the opportunity to integrate the newly-written
National Occupational Standards for trustees. As it was always
the intention to review the code every two to three years,
the introduction of the NOS now provides the driver to do
so.
“They were seen as two sides to the same coin,”
Mason says. “Anything which links those two up and provides
guidance and support for charities to enhance and develop
their governance procedures is welcome. I hope that they use
this opportunity to do that.”
Mason was a member of the original trustee standards implementation
group, a committee of people drawn from across the third sector
to design the governance code. He says the group intended
for it to be reviewed regularly, and that it was clear there
was already room for adjustment. If the code is to be adapted,
guidance on which parts should be used at the different stages
of a charity’s development would be useful.
“There was always a desire to make it a manageable tool
for charities of all sizes,” Mason says. “[Charities]
need to be seen to be doing the best they can do within current
constraints.”
That is where the code can help – offering a benchmark
and allowing organisations to test their own performance against
agreed best practice. Nevertheless, it is only a voluntary
standard, and charities are not required to follow it. Peer
pressure may not be enough to ensure that the sector raises
its game on governance.
Now that the debate about standards has reignited, the question
as to whether the governance code should become mandatory
is back on the table. The members of the initial steering
group always supported a voluntary code. “It comes down
to what’s realistically achievable by charities,”
Mason adds. “If any of it was mandatory it would have
to be the bare bones. It would then have to be enforced through
the regulator.”
Mason believes that having a set of voluntary, inclusive standards
is actually more useful for an ‘industry’ like
the UK third sector. “It will be hard to have a narrow
three or four requirements that will apply to what is a very
broad sector.”
Nevertheless, trustees are already contending with a mound
of best practice and guidance. A rewrite, or even a redraft,
of the code of governance would offer up yet another document
with which to be familiarised.
But CTN’s Buse believes that trustees are engaged with
the code, feel a sense of authorship, and would not resent
an update. “Let’s understand who the architect
was of this piece of work, and who chaired the steering group,”
he says. “It’s not a government document at all.
It was a partnership of a number of organisations. It’s
there to help and support trustees that want to do a good
job. It’s not an absolute requirement. It’s interesting
to see whether it becomes more than that.”
Top
Buse suggests that it would be foolish to make the governance
code a set of mandatory standards. Following the principle
of Hampton, he says, the law is in place to make sure that
there are measures to deal with those who are determined to
flaunt it. Codes of good practice, in contrast, exist to help
organisations to do their jobs better.
The level of uncertainty about which organisation or body
will be spearheading the good governance movement once the
hub has dissolved is also causing consternation. If it is
unclear who will take up the responsibility for pushing best
practice, why review the code now?
Buse says he will be watching carefully as the new infrastructure
landscape unfolds. If the transition between the Governance
Hub and its replacement, or successor, is not seamless, it
will be charity trustees who feel it first, having no single
organisation to guide them.
“It’s true there is a measure of uncertainty.
The goalposts have been moved several times,” he adds.
“The question will then be if there will be a hiatus
between the closure of the hubs and the start of the new regime.
We certainly hope not. If trustees are to feel anything it
will be then.”
Speculation suggests that, whatever happens through the Capacitybuilders
review, key players in the sector keen to offer governance
support will form their own ‘hub’ to simplify
the transition between the two regimes. Something, it is said,
will spring up to fill the void.
Seb Elsworth, head of policy at Acevo, is confident that whatever
the changes, the show will go on for charity governance. “I’m
not worried that we’re going to lose momentum on the
code,” he says. “The code is a fantastic document.”
He reports a high level of uptake on the standards outlined
in the code, with many of those who are reaching the standards
not talking about their achievements as loudly as they should
be. For Acevo, this represents a “broad cultural revolution
within the sector”, and something that funders are wising
up to. The ball of good governance, it says, will not stop
rolling just because the body that gave it the push will no
longer be following its progress.
“I can certainly understand why that’s a concern
but I think the code is very well owned by the sector,”
Elsworth adds. “The hub was a natural place for it to
be administered from, but I don’t think the restructuring
will necessarily be a problem. I think the code itself has
a particularly solid future. [It] does have a life of its
own, above and beyond whatever body is administering it.”
It is, after all, something that the sector imposed on itself
rather than another in a long line of government initiatives
for charities. Any changes, and confusion in the interim,
are unlikely to affect individual chief executives’
desire to improve the governance of their boards.
Nevertheless, an answer to all the sector’s questions
is required from Capacitybuilders, sooner rather than later.
“I do think it’s important that we move on to
a new stable structure that provides long-term support for
organisations wanting to do that,” Elsworth concludes.
One person in an unenviable position throughout this debate
is Gill Edleman, head of the Governance Hub. She, too, claims
to be in the dark about the future of governance support (“I
don’t have a crystal ball” she says), although
what is known is that both her organisation and her current
role are to shortly come to an end. Until spring, though,
the hub still has a job to do. Whether or not the sector will
be looking closely at the outcome of the review of the code,
it will be carried out as planned.
Edleman says the review will ask how well the code has bedded
down; whether it has reached across a broad spectrum of third
sector organisations; whether it is easy to use; and how it
could be made more useful. These are probing questions, but
she is not expecting any substantial changes to the substance
of the code.
“The principles are very robust,” she says. “I
think we have to ask the sector whether it’s meeting
their needs. I think in different sub-sectors, people may
have different perspectives.”
Much of this work will be about ensuring that the Governance
Hub leaves a tangible legacy, alongside the code itself. There
has been a huge growth in trust in governance, and the development
of the code has been just one part of this change in attitude.
The best practice developed by the largest charities is filtering
down to smaller organisations.
The intention, Edleman adds, is for there to be “a seamless
transfer of power” to whatever new order follows the
Hubs.
We have all heard this terminology used before, but when Gordon
Brown took over earlier this year – the electorate at
least had some indication of what to expect from the new regime.
Until the sector knows what to expect from the future of governance,
it is unlikely to expend too much energy on meeting a new,
redrafted, and ultimately voluntary code of conduct.
Top
To return to the Oct-Nov 07 features list click
here
|
| |
| |
| |
|
|
