Following claims and counter claims of conflicts of interest at the PFRA and Institute of Fundraising boards, Celina Ribeiro takes a closer look at the trustees of these two fundraising organisations. 

Yesterday, the Institute of Fundraising suggested that by having face-to-face fundraising agencies on its board the PFRA suffered from an inherent conflict of interest.

The Institute’s chief executive, Peter Lewis, was speaking after hosting a charity-only summit on face-to-face fundraising which has resulted in a commitment to charities working together to look at issues from training and standards monitoring to the allocations system.

But is there a conflict of interest? The PFRA’s head of communications Ian MacQuillin promptly responded that his organisation has no more a conflict of interest than the Institute does in having direct marketing consultants such as Stephen Pidgeon sitting on its board and standards committee.

So what’s the story? Is this a case of pots calling kettles black?

In actual fact, there is not a great deal of difference between the charity-supplier split on the boards of the Institute of Fundraising and the PFRA. Of the Institute’s 16 board members, 69 per cent are from charities and the remainder are members from the commercial world. At the PFRA, 56 per cent of board members are from charities, 39 per cent are from agencies and 6 per cent (one member) is independent.

The PFRA’s governance structure means that should there be a board meeting at which every charity member does not show up but those that do all vote unanimously on a point, the value of those votes will be counted as nine – which means they will automatically outnumber the independent and corporate members of the board. 

At some point, both institutions have seen fit to include people working both within charities, and working for companies which provide services to charities. It makes sense. By including agencies and consultants the organisations are ensuring all players in the fundraising world are brought into conversations and, one would hope, held to account for their actions as part of the community.  

But has the balance been tipping too far to the commercial world? Do charities need to work together, independently of suppliers, to tackle the big issues facing fundraising or does everyone need to be at the table?

If we believe that is the case, I wonder if we might see the same charity-propelled review of the rules and practice around direct mail and telephone fundraising. These were the two most complained about types of fundraising last year. While these areas definitely garner nowhere near as much negative media coverage as face-to-face fundraising, I am sure the Institute would not feel that having both direct mail and telephone fundraising suppliers on its own board prevents it from rigorously defending the best interests of charity fundraisers in these controversial areas.

We might just find out how much, if at all, commercial players influence the debate and structures around face-to-face after the charities which have been pulled together by the Institute start releasing their positions. If these are radically different from the positions taken by the PFRA, with its seven commercial trustees, then perhaps all organisations might have to look at the make up of the boards.