Royal Institution coup to sack trustees ends in failure

Governance | Vibeka Mair | 13 Apr 2010

Dissident members of the Royal Institution (RI) have failed in their attempt to oust the charity’s trustees, after an overwhelming majority of RI’s members voted in support of the chairman and council in a general meeting this week.

The dissident members had hoped to expel the current trustees, replace them with a new council and reinstate ex-director Baroness Greenfield, who was made redundant at the start of the year.

However, 81 per cent of the RI’s members voted against the motion.

Baroness Greenfield (pictured), who has reportedly lodged a £1m claim against the RI for sex discrimination and unfair dismissal, told the London Evening Standard: “Obviously I’m disappointed, I felt we had a very exciting agenda and vision for rescuing RI. The transitional council proposed were very well equipped to deliver that vision, by contrast with the incumbent council who haven’t clearly articulated their plan.”

The rejected new council included Lord Hunt, former head of the Met Office; Lord Stone, former managing director of Marks & Spencer and Lord Garel-Jones, managing director of UBS Investment.

The saved RI council said they were pleased their members had supported them: “Now we can focus on bringing back the much-needed financial stability and strong scientific leadership that this great Institution deserves,” said a council spokeswoman.

According to newspaper reports, the trustees decided that the post of full-time director was no longer affordable in light of recent funding problems. A refurbishment of the Institution's Mayfair headquarters instigated by Greenfield has left the charity facing a shortfall of more than £3m - a deficit on unrestricted funds of £1.6m and net current liabilities of £1.5m.

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

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.