In 2004 the press reported:-
‘ACEVO GOVERNANCE GROUP MEETS TO DISCUSS THE WAY AHEAD
A new group of charity leaders headed by RNID chief executive John Low has met to discuss the role of the chief executive in corporate governance, ACEVO announced today.
The group, which met on Tuesday, is to work to improve performance, accountability and professionalism in the sector, and will respond to recent comments from ex minister Alan Milburn, who is chairing the Joint Committee on the draft Charities Bill. Speaking at an ACEVO conference on May 6, he warned charities that they "cannot consider themselves immune from the general loss of confidence in corporate governance", and said that the sector should adopt "governance structures capable of guaranteeing probity and professionalism".
'In 2005 ACEVO published the report 'The End of the Affair? Public Trust in the Management of Charities’.
‘This underlined the need for more honest and open communications in safeguarding trust.’
The ACEVO website states: ‘The report argues that for third sector leaders, a better awareness of the way in which audiences learn about the sector, and how the media interact with the sector is essential in providing a more solid basis for public trust through more accurate perceptions of third sector work.
In particular, sector leaders should be clear, open and positive about:
- The costs of their operations (including salaries),
- Their cause and the challenges you face
- Their organisation’s failings or the possibility of future failures;
- The need for professional standards and professional pay in the sector, and the need to finance appropriate levels of overhead costs.
Is this the same ACEVO whose CEO is resisting the publication of chief executives expenses?
In November 2007 ACEVO presented their findings on their 'Inquiry into current governance structures in the third sector'.
The study commented that "boards are frequently not performing or do not operate within their governance role. This raises significant questions about board performance and accountability."
Stephen Bubb commented in his blog posting earlier this week that "to suggest there is a link between MPs' arrangements and ours is simply wrong. The governance arrangements are clearly different. The problem with MPs is that they decided and audited their own arrangements. We do not. All our CEOs have to get sign off by their non-exec Chairs and the expenses are independently audited and an audit will pick up irregularity and report on it. And that will be public."
Has Stephen not read his own research? Relying on trustee governance to make sure expenses are fair and reasonable is not the answer. And with the drive from ACEVO to demonstrate better transparency can there be a better example to work with than disclosing expenses of CEOs?
