Share

Question mark over IoF's appointment due diligence for McLean

Alan Gosschalk, acting chair of Institute of Fundraising
News

Question mark over IoF's appointment due diligence for McLean 5

Fundraising | Tania Mason | 29 Mar 2011

The charity that employed Amanda McLean in her last job but one before she took the helm at the Institute of Fundraising says it was not asked to provide a reference for her by the Institute.

McLean quit suddenly as chief executive of the Institute two weeks ago after just four months in the job, leaving the Institute to start the recruitment process all over again. She admitted the role was too overwhelming and didn’t allow her enough time with her children.

Debra, the medical research charity where McLean was director of fundraising and communications from January 2006 until 31 March 2008, said it was not approached for a reference. Ben Merrett, chief executive, told Civil Society: “I can confirm that we did not receive a request for a reference from the Institute.”

The Institute’s acting chair Alan Gosschalk (pictured) insists that “we did as much investigation as you would expect for a chief executive”, including following up several references, “all of which were positive”. But he declined to say where any of these originated or whether one was sought from Debra specifically. “No employer would divulge the source of references,” he said.

Gosschalk also declined to say whether the Institute was aware that Debra’s 2007/8 annual report stated that additional fundraising staff employed during 2006 and 2007 “had not performed to plan”. Asked about this, he would only say: “As I said, we were completely satisfied with the references we obtained. We are not prepared to go into other details and no responsible employer would do so.”

When Civil Society asked McLean whether she had any comment to make about the contents of Debra’s 2007/8 annual report, she said:  “Whilst I refute strongly the implications about my time at Debra, a confidentiality clause in my contract prevents me from providing details to defend my own reputation without it appearing to be at the expense of others, who also do not deserve it.”

Six months after leaving Debra, in September 2008 McLean became chief executive at Prostate UK, a job she held until August 2010, just before it merged with Prostate Cancer Research Foundation to create Prostate Action. McLean said she did not apply for the position of CEO of Prostate Action and chose to leave early on in the merger process. The Foundation’s CEO Emma Halls became chief executive of the merged charity.

Ted Clucas, deputy chair of Prostate Action, said that when McLean left, she was given a standard employment reference as part of a confidential compromise agreement. McLean told Civil Society that she provided this reference, among others, to the Institute.

“I provided a list of referees to the Institute,” she said. “These spanned the last 15 years of my career, including my time at Prostate UK.”

Gosschalk did not accept that the Institute could have done anything more to avoid the situation it now finds itself in. “Don’t forget it was Amanda that decided to resign,” he said. “There’s no conspiracy about it. She was the best candidate and very appointable.”

Kevin Baughen
Bottom Line Ideas
6 Apr 2011

The perfect recruitment process does not exist in either the commercial or nfp sectors. Good practice does, of course, but even that can never fully take into account the complex mechanism that is a human being's needs.

I don't see any story here other than perhaps an individual being a bit niaive when assessing a CEO role and then giving an interview to the sector press in the same week as resigning. And that's not much of a story.

I do sense a bit of a witch-hunt for the I of F, however, which doesn't seem to me to be particularly productive. I agree with Steve and Sheila; time to move on to more important things...

Nigel Edward-Few
Chief Executive
30 Mar 2011

I agree with Ricahrd Molineaux. I don't think Sheila Bailey should worry about anybody seeking to, or helping to, ruin Amanda McLean's reputation.

The facts speak for themselves.

Something has clearly gone very wrong in the recruitment process and it has ended up being very costly in terms of real monetary expense on recruitment, ultimately a cost to the members of the IOF, and in wasted time.

We need strong, inspirationally led umbrella bodies to speak out for the sector, especially at this time.

Regrettably, this whole debacle has reduced the credibility of the IOF. In this case, there is no such thing as any press is good press. However, you look at it, this is bad press that the Institute and the sector could and should have done without.

A final word, if Amanda McLean knew that she was leaving, as surely she didn't decide on the spur of the moment on the Monday in question, why on earth did she give such a high profile interview to Third Sector presumably just days before for it to appear the day after she resigned?

Whatever the reasons for her departure, that wasn't a very smart thing to do either and has just served to make the situation even more ridiculous.

Richard Molineux
consultant
molineux fundraising
30 Mar 2011

This "let's all be kind to each other" response is inappropriate. She had to have researched about what the job involved before accepting the post and IoF had to have done time-consuming serious background digging before appointing her: they are spending members' money. Quite a lot here, recruitment is not a cheap process. If either - or both - did not seek out what they needed to know before going ahead they, she, or IoF are/is seriously at fault.

Steve Bridger
29 Mar 2011

Totally agree with Sheila.

While Irene Khan's Amnesty International 'settlement' was a story - beyond coming as a surprise - this isn't. We should move on.

Sheila Bailey
Executive Director
Ireland Fund of Great Britain
29 Mar 2011

Amanda McLean is to be admired for resigning when it became obvious that either she was wrong for the job or the job was wrong for her. In my career, I have seen unsuitable candidates remain in posts, drawing a sizable salary, and contributing nothing to the organization either because they could not or would not - and the board would not challenge this for fear of reprisal. I see nothing to be gained for anyone by trying to ruin McLean's reputation. Let us all move on.

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.

emailalert

Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme 'too complex to have real impact'

25 May 2012

The Gift Aid Small Donations Scheme is welcome, but will only be effective if it is made less complex...

Tribunal upholds Commission's merger decision but orders changes

24 May 2012

The Charity Tribunal has upheld the Charity Commission’s decision to allow two independent schools in...

Tender is issued for £200m National Citizen Service contracts

24 May 2012

The Department for Education has issued an invitation to tender for delivery of the National Citizen Service...

Tribunal upholds Commission's merger decision but orders changes

24 May 2012

The Charity Tribunal has upheld the Charity Commission’s decision to allow two independent schools in...

BIS consultation on volunteer-led events criticised

24 May 2012

A consultation launched by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has been criticised for...

Missing People plans to use Twitter to find child runaways

24 May 2012

Missing People is hoping to track down missing children using Twitter.

Charities in Twitter storm over balloon releases

24 May 2012

Charities are being urged to abandon balloon releases in a Twitter a campaign.

Missing People plans to use Twitter to find child runaways

24 May 2012

Missing People is hoping to track down missing children using Twitter.

Marie Curie opens national support centre and adds 140 staff

21 May 2012

Marie Curie Cancer Care has officially opened its new national support centre in Pontypool, Wales, creating...

Join the discussion

Twitter button

@CSFundraising