Forum Topic

Conservators General Open Meeting - 9th December 7pm London Scottish Golf Club

Does the following “resolution” passed at the board meeting on Monday mean anything to you? Seems to beg more questions than it answers.Resolutions from Board Meeting of the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators (WPCC) 2nd December 2019Item 12.19.7 Update on WPCC’s Constitutional FrameworkThat the WPCC Board RESOLVED to commence a phased consultation process to understand the views of stakeholders regarding potential amendments to WPCC’s constitutional framework in the following three areas:1) potential amendment of WPCC’s Special Levy, recognising that:i. a founding principle of the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871 Act is that the Levy is intended to serve as the principal source of funding to maintain the Commons; andii. the Levy is currently insufficient to meet the long term maintenance and investment requirements for the Commons;2) regularisation and clarification of land and building matters enabling WPCC to resolve a number of operational matters associated with managing the Commons, recognising that there is neither a desire nor intention of diluting or diminishing the very high level of protection that is afforded by the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871 to one of the most unique and precious resources in the country but simply a need to ensure that the Act provides a sound legal basis for future investment in all aspects of the Commons; amendments to address the issues in this area would neither impact WPCC’s charitable objects nor diminish the duties imposed upon the Conservators but regularise the current state of the estate and clarify the Conservators’ powers and prohibitions in this area;3) modernisation of WPCC’s governance arrangements and election procedures recognising the practical challenges of working under legislation relating to those matters dating back to the founding legislation of 1871.The primary means of effecting changes to WPCC’s constitution will be through secondary legislation.Present: Conservators:Mrs Diane Neil Mills, Chairman Mrs Shirley GillbeMr David HinceMr Peter HirschMrs Sarah-Jane Holden Mr Mike RappoltDr Ros TaylorMr Nigel WareOfficersMr Simon Lee, Chief ExecutiveMr Stephen Bound, Chief Operations ManagerMs Paula Graystone, Deputy Clerk and RangerMrs Angela Evans-Hill, PA to CEO and Communications Officer

Nicholas Evans ● 2533d10 Comments

What does a “phased consultation process” actually mean? Will all 60,000+ levy payers be given their democratic right to approve or reject any changes recommended by the board to the 1871 Act of Parliament that has stood the test of time. How long will this take? Why are changes being proposed now?“a sound legal basis for future investment in all aspects of the Commons; amendments to address the issues in this area would neither impact WPCC’s charitable objects nor diminish the duties imposed upon the Conservators but regularise the current state of the estate and clarify the Conservators’ powers and prohibitions in this area.”Again, this sounds very unclear about what the Conservators intend. Will they have a new power to raise the levy beyond the current levels? Will “regularise the current estate” involve the right to sell or lease land? What “powers and prohibitions” do the Conservators want clarified or changed? Has a review of the estate been undertaken and how much is the necessary investment to bring it up to an acceptable standard likely to cost and over what timescale?What will “modernisation of WPCC’s governance arrangements and election procedures” actually involve? Will Trustees (Conservators) continue to be elected? Do the board propose new electoral procedures, including limits on candidates expenditure on electioneering? Will the WPCC apply to be subject to FOI regulations and provide unfettered access to board and committee minutes and papers?How much will making changes to the constitution through secondary legislation in parliament actually cost?I am sure there are many others questions. In my experience working in both commercial and not-for profit organisations, including the UN, it would be normal for major changes to be carefully explained in advance before resolutions are passed. Perhaps a discussion paper setting out the reasons behind the proposed changes, the likely cost and impact of the alterations, the alternative options for obtaining the necessary objectives. Instead the Conservators have engaged in discussion within closed doors, with a sub-committee that does not allow public access to its meetings, minutes or briefing papers. Nor do their seem to be legal opinions available on embarking on secondary legislation on what form this will take. All this for a local charity that still awaits the result of a Charity Commission Statutory Inquiry into maladministration which has taken over 4 years to reach a conclusion. Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2533d

I served a EIR request on the WPCC on 11 October asking for the background papers to the constitutional changes. On 7 November I received a 12 page letter from Diane Neil Mills' lawyers telling me to **** off and die. The 1871 Act had protected the commons for nearly 150 years. The only threats to the commons have been from colluding, deceitful trustees and the WPCC CEO Simon Lee. The Act is just fine, what needs to change is the quality of governance.

John Cameron ● 2533d

smoke & mirrors, it sounds to me as though they are concerned about plugging the pension deficit, perhaps Mr. Lee has one eye on his retirement :)

Adam Tripp ● 2533d

@adamBang on. That is precisely what they are doingYou are clearly well informed

John Cameron ● 2533d

ii. the Levy is currently insufficient to meet the long term maintenance and investment requirements for the Commons;Yes and why? Ans. Because the Trustees have consistently failed their management of the WPCC.

Sarah Roberts ● 2533d

The LIABILITY for the defined pension scheme was  £2.7m (at 31 May 2019)😘

John Cameron ● 2532d

I am sorry?  I think I am having very painful landings here but....  "the liability for the defined pension scheme was £2.7m as at 31 May 2019?Excuse me for asking this but, I am at a loss here.  Are conservators not volunteers?

Ivonne Holliday ● 2532d

The Conservators spent around £500,000 on legal fees between 2015 and 2018. Wasted money that could have been spent on the estate. They admitted to a loss of £300,000 selling off rights over Putney Common (the tarmac road built by Durkan to give access to the flats) and probably much more - the valuation they obtained is full of flaws. For many years under David Devons the Conservators failed to raise the levy in line with inflation. The compound effect means that when they did eventually get round to increasing the levy they had left thousands of pounds on the table. Gross mismanagement.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2532d

Yvonne, the Conservators are the Trustees of the charity and receive no payment. They appoint a Chief Executive who is paid, as are all the staff, some twenty in all. They are members of the Local Authority pension scheme, administered by Merton Council I think. Unfortunately the contributions made by WPCC over time do not cover the liability of the pension scheme for future staff retirements.When I was a Trustee in 2015 it became apparent that the charity had been “topping up” the salaries of members of staff in their final year who were retiring as the pension was based on the final salary. The justification being that they had been underpaying staff for years. This was illegal under the pension plan and was discontinued. As always with the Conservators this was all swept under the carpet and two Conservators - Sir Ian Andrews and David Devons I think - were deputed to sort things out. I found it exceedingly difficult to find out about what had been going on in previous years. I eventually was allowed into the CEO’s office and shown the file. I was not allowed to take copies. By then they seemed to be back on the straight and narrow.Nick

Nicholas Evans ● 2532d

The money left on the table amounted to millions.In May 2017 I confirmed to the Charity Commission, during their ongoing Statutory Inquiry into misconduct, that the since 1990 the WPCC deliberately failed to collect levies of £2.290,0000. They money was theirs, but were pressurised by Wandsworth to not collect, it is recorded in material I have seen.When it came to selling the land at Putney Hospital there was no valuation.Again Wandsworth threatened them, and they sold the access to the school for £1.  The access to the school and flats was valued in 2015 at £1.9mLee lied about it to the Charity Commission, as did their lawyers.  When they sold the freehold of Mill House, the purchaser made a £3.6m profit, with no risk and no tax in an afternoon, flipping it to a Cayman Islands Ltd.  I am currently challenging the ICO in a FTT to order the material of the Mill House is published. The WPCC are defending their refusal to publish, as they are concerned about what will come out - if they are ordered to publish the material.

John Cameron ● 2532d