ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

Since the row on the board of Places For People spilled out of the office and into the news, board members up and down the country have been nervously wondering, "could we be next?"

As the dust storm whipped up by the resignations and oustings settles, it is clear that the old style of governance is on the way out, and new demands are being placed on board members (HT 3 October, page 10).

David Walker, the Guardian journalist and one of four independent members (to date) to have left the board of Places for People, says: "The governance arrangements that might have worked with old-style social housing provision look as if they are not right for this new world. Do existing RSL boards have the qualities and structures to engage in risk-taking behaviour? Our sense [at PfP] was that we weren't adequately constituted to deal with this, both in the sense of the information flow and in terms of what the board's role was."

Walker feels that they did not always get adequate information about key decisions, such as large regeneration projects funded by private house sales. He questions whether the sector's current governance arrangements can cope with the new "public-private hybrid" that housing associations have become.

The National Housing Federation's recently unveiled rebranding campaign for the sector encourages associations to branch out from the provision of social housing to running other community services as well. As many associations will testify, however, taking on new types of service inevitably presents new risks. Are boards up to it?

Many people in the housing sector now believe that the board of tomorrow needs to be smaller, regularly trained and appraised, and capable of taking the complex decisions needed for new, riskier ventures – putting the brakes on them, if necessary.

Julian Ashby, managing director of consultant Hacas Chapman Hendy, says boards should shrink to between nine and 12 members if they are to work efficiently. He adds that they should have three-year terms of appointment and need to keep their skills relevant – and this might mean parting with long-standing members.

"Some boards find it difficult to say goodbye to people," says Ashby. "For example, you might have someone who was once excellent but their experience is now less relevant." Ashby also recommends regular appraisals for board members to help associations asses board performance (HT 4 July, page 7).

The private sector is also wrestling with the question of independence. In his report for the Department of Trade and Industry, former City banker Derek Higgs recommended that boards should have a majority of independent members, serving a maximum of two three-year terms.

The Higgs report caused a furore in the City – damned as being too prescriptive by some and too timid by others. As housing associations become ever more commercial, a similar row about the direction of governance is starting to brew.