The very public row in the boardroom of Places for People is, as some commentators have remarked, bringing the sector into disrepute. But it could also be doing it a service.
At the centre of the Places for People brouhaha is the issue of just how seriously the chairman and chief executives took the role of their five independent board members. These five rebels, four of whom have either been voted off the board or have resigned, claim that the relationship between the chief and chair was too cosy and that decisions had been made without thorough and proper debate.

Uncomfortable as it may be for Britain's largest housing association, the episode should also encourage the sector as a whole to pause and ask: are we doing all we should to ensure good governance?

For example, is it really on that board members get their papers through a day before the meeting? And how many multimillion pound deals are nodded through simply because most of the board members haven't a clue what the finance director is on about? Then there is the chair who is long past his or her sell-by date, but no one wants to upset them by telling them so. And what about councillor Richard Kemp's assertion that too often boards are packed with mates of the chief executive, who rarely provide an adequate challenge to senior staff (see page 15)?

Some would argue that many of the problems of governance are part and parcel of the voluntary sector ethos and that the reason boards have a high proportion of long-servers and retired people is because no one else wants to do it. If that is so, then offering payment and employment contracts might make it easier to jettison those who aren't up to the job and attract those who are.

There cannot be one rule of governance for those that pay their members and another for those that do not

But there cannot be one rule of governance for those that pay their members and another for those that do not. Recent guidance notes say that the best-performing boards will have fixed-term appointments and limit the number of terms members can serve.

Yet many are ignoring this recommendation. And, as good as many long-standing boards or chairs are at the job – and some are outstanding – associations have to be seen to be accountable. There is more political pressure on that front than ever before.

Source

Housing Today