Hodgson's proposals on payment of trustees are ill thought through

Hodgson's proposals on payment of trustees are ill thought through

Hodgson's proposals on payment of trustees are ill thought through1

Governance | Gareth Jones | 18 Jul 2012

Gareth Jones argues that Hodgson's reasoning for payment of trustees at large charities is flawed and calls for a better compromise.

Lord Hodgson’s proposal that large charities should be able to pay trustees has reopened an old debate, with opinions split down mostly predictable lines. However, it is illuminating to take a close look at how his argument is framed in the review document.

While he makes a fairly convincing case that a decent portion of charities have trouble recruiting trustees (though it does not state what size of charities these are), he then goes on to make, at different points, the following two statements:

  • “Interestingly, very few organisations mentioned the inability to pay trustees as a barrier to recruitment. Where it was reported, the issue was more the uninitiated expecting payment and being discouraged when this was not forthcoming rather than otherwise strong candidates being unable to take roles due to lack of payment.”
  • “Considering the limited concrete evidence on this issue, there is no real indication from sectors that do have the general power to pay trustees that they have found this helpful in recruiting and retaining quality trustees. Universities submitting evidence to the Review could see no clear benefit, and many have actively decided not to use the power they have, with one citing a wider survey they had conducted among universities that supported this conclusion. Similarly, evidence from housing associations is that paid boards cannot be shown to have delivered an increase in quality (though arguably in quantity) of applicants.”

As such, it appears that contrary to expectations, the shortage of trustees cannot be the driving force behind this proposal.

It is here that any pretence to evidence-based policy ends. There are other convincing theoretical arguments in favour, notably that payment will increase diversity in what is indeed a woefully homogenous role, but in Lord Hodgson's summary, these seem finely balanced by the theoretical arguments against.

However, because a section of the sector wishes to pay trustees, Hodgson appears to feel that something has to be done, regardless of the concerns. His compromise is to give the ability to pay trustees only to larger charities, as unlike smaller charities, these are on “the public ‘radar’.  The public’s radar system will be assisted in preventing abuse by the requirement that there are “clear disclosure requirements on the quantum and terms of any remuneration in the individual charity’s annual return”.

Yet this is likely to be woefully inadequate. Firstly, regarding annual report disclosure, this isn't just about pay, it's about what work goes on behind the scenes and the strategic direction that trustees decide for the charity to take. Secondly, at the risk of making a somewhat populist point, the public has disapproved of banker behaviour for some time, but has been unable or unwilling to force change. Thirdly, is the public really interested in the back-room activities of charities, especially those that do not fundraise? And finally, the public is not really best placed to judge - it already disapproves of paying charity chief executives the amount they currently earn, but rightly this does not stop charities paying a competitive rate.   Therefore, as with most Conservatives, Lord Hodgson's faith in the market and public scrutiny to preserve good behaviour is overreaching.

If payment of trustees must go ahead, a better compromise would be that a majority on the board must remain voluntary, in order to preserve the altruistic principles if the charity, but still give the flexibility to recruit diverse and skilled staff. Although this could of course be divisive within the boardroom, it would be a necessary measure to protect the primacy of the charity mission. As it stands, Hodgson's measures are ill thought out and have not presented a strong enough case to convince the doubters.


Hilary Barnard
Principal Consultant
18 Jul 2012

Perhaps one of the reasons for the largely negative reaction to this proposal is the lack of evidence that payment of Trustees will actually improve the effectiveness of charity governance. Hodgson acknowledges this but fails to follow the logic, and insists on making an unnecessary proposal that will probably bite the dust.


[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The 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


  • 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.

Tesse Akpeki (55) Martin Farrell (46) Robert Ashton (41) Tania Mason (23) Andrew Chaggar (23) David Ainsworth (20) David Philpott (14) Making Good: The Future of the Voluntary Sector (13) Ian Allsop (12) Vibeka Mair (11)
Niki May Young (11) Celina Ribeiro (10) Dorothy Dalton (10) Kirsty Weakley (10) Leon Ward (10) Gordon Hunter (9) David Davison (8) John Tate (8) Neal Green (5) Jeremy Swain (5) Rowena Lewis (5) Andrew Hind CB (4) Daniel Phelan (4) Belinda Pratten (4) Suzi Leather (3) Stephen Lloyd (3) Pauline Broomhead (3) Rosie Chapman (3) Andrew Purkis (3) Ingrid Marson (3) Alexander Swallow (3) Alice Sharman (3) Sir Stuart Etherington (2) Adrian Beney (2) Joe Saxton (2) Jesper Christensen (2) Paul Gibson (2) Andrew Scadding (2) Anne Moynihan (2) Rosamund McCarthy (2) Kevin Carey (2) Garreth Spillane (2) June O'Sullivan (2) Dan Corry (2) Paul Emery (2) Simon Steeden (2) Andrew O'Brien (2) Lesley-Anne Alexander CBE (1) Victoria Cook (1) Claris D'cruz (1) Peter Gotham (1) Sir Thomas Hughes-Hallett (1) Justin Davis Smith (1) Kate Sayer (1) Alison McKenna (1) Paul Palmer (1) Anne-Marie Piper (1) Jo Swinhoe (1) Karl Wilding (1) Richard Williams (1) Mike Hudson (1) Sir Christopher Kelly (1) Martin Brookes (1) Simon Hebditch (1) Lindsay Driscoll (1) Jo Coleman (1) Cedric Frederick (1) Jonathan Lewis (1) Dame Mary Marsh (1) Jill Pitkeathley (1) Nick Brooks (1) Linda Laurance (1) Suzie Who (1) James Thompson (1) Stephen Hammersley (1) John May (1) Julian Blake (1) Malcolm Hurlston (1) Andy Gregg (1) Anne Owers (1) Beth Yorath (1) Paul Amadi (1) Caroline Beaumont (1) Judith Davey (1) Diane Lightfoot (1) Douglas Rouse (1) Jackie Turpin (1) Jonathan Last (1) Lynda Thomas (1) Tom Flood (1) Dan Sutch (1) Jenni Cahill (1) Jonathan Crown (1) Ruchir Shah (1) Katy Wing (1) George Ames (1) Jenny North (1) Sir David Varney (1) Liam Barrington-Bush (1) Mairéad O'Reilly (1) Tobin Aldrich (1) Michael O'Toole (1) Lisa Clavering (1) Jamie Ward-Smith (1) Ian Joseph (1) Sarah Atkinson (1) Jonathan Bruck (1) Rachel Short (1) Dr Debra Beck (1) Andy Rich (1) Ian Leggett (1) Leigh Daynes (1) Tim Willis (1) Richard Caulfield (1) Emma Callagher (1)
Less +++ More +++

The long and unhappy saga of the Local Sustainability Fund

29 Jun 2015

Last week the government announced a £20m pot of funding for charities. This sounds like good news, says...

Government can't ask charities to compete for contracts while savaging council spending

15 Jun 2015

The government cannot tell charities they must compete for contracts in a market while slashing the spending...

'Northern Powerhouse'? Almost as clearly defined as the big society

4 Jun 2015

Ian Allsop talks tomatoes and why charities should look north for income growth opportunities under the...

Free eNews

Join the discussion


Attending our one day courses is a highly effective way of ensuring new and existing trustees fully understand their role, responsibilities and liabilities.

>> Find out more <<