ÐÇ¿Õ´«Ã½

At a recent People for Action event, an overwhelming majority of delegates opposed the payment of board members – contrary to the research featured in your story "Consultation reveals most housing associations want to pay their boards" (28 February, page 10).

Several delegates expressed the view that the Housing Corporation's proposals implied that voluntary board members are somehow less serious and less professional than paid board members.

However, there was some support for the idea of reimbursing genuine loss of earnings, or an allowance being paid to employers.

Delegates, who came from across the housing and regeneration sector, were also concerned that payment of a salary to board members might imply a contract of employment. They felt this might further undermine the voluntary ethos of the sector and create yet more levels of bureaucracy.

They felt payment of board members would make housing associations less accountable to communities, and that payment might encourage people to join boards for the wrong reasons.

Some delegates pointed out that their organisations were involved in transferring power and influence to their residents, and that this process would not be well served by creating barriers between residents and highly-paid board members.