This is a devastating finding against a charity that was clearly out of control. Detailed concerns were first raised with the Charity Commission in March 2019. We are hugely grateful for their considered, thorough and forensic review of Christ Church, and their conclusions.
It is absurd to suggest that Christ Church Governing Body properly incurred these costs in a relentless, wasteful and unsuccessful campaign to prosecute Prof. Percy. It is beyond doubt now that a small group of trustees (the ‘Senate of Ex-Censors’ and handful of enforcers) at Christ Church were determined to get rid of Prof. Percy at any cost, and the Charity Commission correctly identifies this in their statement, by drawing attention to the failure of trustees in the exercise of their fiduciary duties. Notably, the Charity Commission states that:
· “There is a sense from reading the papers that whatever the cost of taking action against the Dean, the Charity was prepared to take it, which is not consistent with managing the Charity’s resources responsibly.” (Paragraph 72).
· Paragraph 67 states: “The Reviewer also observes that it is hard to avoid a view, having read the case files, that the trustees, or a proportion of them, were determined to remove the Dean from the Charity at almost any cost and this is exactly why the Commission has had such concern about the size of the costs incurred in the dispute with him and that this warranted consideration of an Official Warning.”
· Paragraph 81 adds: “There was an obligation on the trustees to be accountable for the way they spent the Charity’s funds and this requires openness amongst the Governing Body about costs.”
It is patently clear there was no effective oversight – and that there was a deliberate attempt to hide, and therefore mislead the public and alumni – about the legal and PR costs of the campaign to oust and smear Prof. Percy.
Alumni and donors will be shocked that £6.6m – money ostensibly earmarked for education – was instead squandered on lawyers and PR agencies. This was then covered up in the accounts under ‘education’. The deliberate “weaponization of multiple groundless safeguarding allegations”, all perpetrated by the individuals driving this campaign, which included clergy and church lawyers, remains a major concern.
During the protracted dispute, mediation had made little headway as the nominees acting for Christ Church mostly refused to meet with the Dean face-to-face to try and resolve matters. The nominees would then report back to Governing Body that Professor Percy was being intransigent and highly unreasonable, yet failed to disclose they had refused to meet with him. Having accused Martyn of “immoral, scandalous and disgraceful conduct”, “safeguarding failures” and also trying to remove him for alleged “mental incapacity”, the foundations for a mediated settlement were bound to be challenging for the former Dean.
Prof. Percy states: “We remain deeply grateful for the support we have had throughout this ordeal. We have now moved on, and sincerely hope Christ Church can come to terms with what has taken place and take remedial steps to reform its operations”.
However, the matter cannot be left there. Those responsible for mismanagement and/or misconduct should be held to account. Christ Church cannot recover from this episode until that happens.
We note that the College pleaded with the Charity Commission to conceal the findings from the public – claiming it would cause “reputational damage.” That suggests that, even now, a small group of unaccountable dons still running Christ Church has failed to learn the meaning of transparency and accountability. The Commission is to be congratulated on resisting this pressure.
The obvious comment is that the sums involved are far greater than the limited information previously, and reluctantly, disclosed. Might possible ‘further action’ include trustees being personally surcharged?
What a shocking amount of money the trustees squandered. This demonstrates either that they have absolutely no idea of what over £6.6 million means in the real world of church or academia, or they were so engrossed in their unreasonable battle with Dr Percy that they lost all sense of proportion or decency. It is a breathtaking amount.
Donors to Christchurch should obviously stop all financial succour to these wastrels. Very quickly those who are responsible need to be announcing their retirement. Or how they are going to repay this outrageous assault on the charity’s finances. Or both.
This is a damning indictment of the charity which, in effect, has been adjudged to have expended wrongly £millions of charity funds in pursuing a campaign to oust the Dean. Moreover, it is clear from the independent reviewer’s report that the majority of the dons, who comprise the College’s governing body and, as such, are the charity’s trustees, were kept in the dark about the level of expenditure, which the College then concealed in the annual accounts. As the independent reviewer says (para 81) “There was an obligation on the trustees to be accountable for the way they spent the… Read more »
David – both you and Professor Percy quote from a report, which presumably is the backdrop to the Warning published by the Charity Commission.
Is this in the public domain? Brief googling has not assisted…
Thank you!
Yes, the document can be found on the Turbulent Priest site,
https://www.turbulentpriest.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/20221109_Christ-Church-Decision-Review.pdf
I will add a link to the OP.
Why didn’t Christ Church’s auditors not expose the opaque accounting of the Trustees? What on earth are auditors for if not to ensure scrupulous accounting?
As quoted above: “The trustees had been advised by the charity’s auditors to consider reporting on actions related to the dispute specifically, and to seek advice on its reporting.” Meanwhile a somewhat different story has appeared on the BBC Oxford news page: “In a statement, the college said it and individual trustees “repeatedly asked” the Charity Commission “for help to resolve the disputes” with Prof Percy. In very complex and constantly changing circumstances, trustees made decisions which, having taken professional advice, they judged to be in the best interests of Christ Church.” TA readers who have followed this saga from… Read more »
I doubt the trustees could have achieved their objective more cheaply.
They are all potentially jointly liable for any misapplied funds if they were guilty of misconduct. No assumptions should be made about this, either way.
Do we know what their objective was? Did the trustees as a whole ever express a considered objective which was in the best interests of the charity? If they had, the Charity Commission might have mentioned it.
Not explicitly, but the trustees’ actions must be a reflection of what they considered the best interests of the charity to be. If that objective is accepted as legitimate then the question becomes, was there a more efficient or cost effective way of achieving it?
The CC Reviewer seems to conclude that they did not properly consider the ‘quantum’, whether they were putting more resources into this than was justified. In the same passage it is accepted that legal costs were inevitable: were they, however, getting out of control? There is a reference to the determination to get rid of Percy ‘at all costs’ – that is, presumably, that they refused to face the question of whether the cost was getting out of hand because they were so committed that they were ready to pay indefinitely. This, if it was the case, was imprudence, I… Read more »
A very pertinent question, and did the objective change at various times? The Official Reviewer appears to accept that the costs in the original Smith Internal Tribunal had been incurred legitimately, although it dismissed all but one very minor complaint of the numerous ones made against the Dean. But, significantly, he later says (twice) “that it is hard to avoid a view, having read the case files, that the trustees, or a proportion of them, were determined to remove the Dean from the Charity at almost any cost”. I assume that Dominic Grieve’s internal governance review is bound to deal… Read more »
When people donate money to a charity, they expect that money to be administered and spent diligently and proportionately. This seems not to have been the case in (at least) £6.6 million squandered in the attempts to unseat Dean Percy. It is frankly shameful that the Charity Commission has found irresponsible management of the charity’s resources. It is also shameful that the Commission has found a shortfall of transparent accountability (something essential in running a charity) even to fellow trustees, withholding full expense details, or masking them in accounts, so they were only confirmed retrospectively by the wider group… this… Read more »
Susannah, you raise so many really important points that I couldn’t possibly do justice to, that I will restrict myself to just the very last one. Why would any investigation be restricted to the last 2 years alone? There is a clear pattern of behaviour here.The recent proposed changes to the LLCRs, discussed below on TA, and artificial time constraints on complaints and investigations, all appear deliberately designed to PREVENT full disclosure, the turning over of stones etc. To whistleblowers and survivors it appears that the entire approach of the Church, over the last two years in particular, has been… Read more »
These comments are very interesting. Many of us repeatedly made the Bishop of Oxford aware of the bullying the former Dean was facing, and of his state of mind. Despite this, lawyers acting for the Diocese (and for Christ Church) worked up seven separate safeguarding complaints against him in the space of six months, coordinating this work with their PR agency to try to place media stories. The NST, the Police and the CDM, who looked into them, all then ruled in the former Dean’s favour. The Bishop and the Bishop’s Council were sent the relevant evidence but declined to… Read more »
Given the egregious scale of the malfeasance evident here, an ‘official warning’ seems almost laughably inadequate in response. That may be as far as the Charity Commission is able to go but who will be able to hold those responsible to account? Somebody needs to go to jail.
An Official Warning (itself something that is not frequently publicly deployed by the CC) is the first step in a longer process that can lead to more severe action. As the first step, this warning has the essence of requesting the trustees to identify who did what (through the Governance Review) – which leads to a decision on who is responsible for not managing the charities resources responsibly or ensuring accountability of the charity. Following the identification of responsibility by the Review, I would anticipate the CC pursuing either the whole GB, or (if it is successfully established that a… Read more »
Thanks for this response. I note that Martin Sargeant, a former employee of the diocese of London, has been warned to expect an immediate custodial sentence for defrauding a diocesan charity of c£5m, a similar amount to that in this case. And he admitted the fraud, whereas the Christ Church censors have gone out of their way to obfuscate and hide the funds they have improperly used. I am not sure that I see the actions of the CC censors as any less deserving of a custodial sentence.
The difference which you don’t seem to appreciate is between theft on the one hand and ‘mismanagement’ of funds lawfully held by the trustees. NJW has patiently explained some of the potential powers of the Charity Commission at a later stage. I had not seen his comment when writing my own much shorter one with the same message. The Independent Examiner has found that there was mismanagement and has not ruled out misconduct, but did not make a finding of misconduct.
Thanks to you and NJW for explaining the distinctions and possible future actions.
I think the distinction is a matter of the legal powers held respectively by the Charity Commission (in this case) and (I assume) those of the Crown Prosecution Service following a criminal investigation in the case of Martin Sargeant. I am fairly confident that the Charity Commission do not have the power to investigate or charge cases of fraud – but they do seem to be pursuing a strong line against the trustees of Christ Church.
It’s inappropriate to speculate what might yet happen in this protracted saga (and, to be clear, I’m not suggesting that you or Malcolm Dixon are doing so) but this is what section 336 (1) of the Charities Act 2011 says: 336 Enforcement of orders of Commission (1) A person guilty of disobedience to an order mentioned in subsection (2) may on the application of the Commission to the High Court be dealt with as for disobedience to an order of the High Court. Subsection (2) includes a long list but concludes with this catch-all “an order of the Commission requiring… Read more »
Who does have the power to investigate and adjudicate evidence of fraud in this case?
The most common route is CPS, following police investigation – though local authorities do have statutory powers in certain circumstances. (The FCA have certain powers – but not relevant in this case). Most commonly when there is possible fraud involving a charity the CC work with the police before passing on a case to the CPS to consider for potential prosecution.
As a trustee who, since November 2019, has written up to 10 letters to the Charity Commission, as well as 3 letters to the Times, in which I detailed evidence of deception and delinquency in the discharge of fiduciary duty on the part of senior members of the Governing Body and begged the Commission to intervene and set up an inquiry, how can I protect myself against any sanctions taken against trustees?
Although the question is not addressed to me, I would have thought that the Charity Commission would take full account of those facts and your cooperation in giving evidence without anonymity to the Official Examiner.
Martin Sewell, in his post on ‘Surviving Church’ writes of a “third tiny group” of trustees who “spoke up for integrity and proportionality…” Many of us would agree with his assessment that “(t)hey should be exempt from criticism and financial consequences” – indeed, justice requires that that should be so. I would hope that evidence you can present that demonstrates your actions throughout this protracted process would protect you from any sanctions.
The Charity Commission possesses further powers and the notice concludes with these words “Failure to remedy the misconduct and/ or mismanagement specified above may lead to further regulatory action being taken by the Commission.”
Lest we forget, I recall that professor Percy made allegations of failure of governance and abusive behaviour against two bodies, Christ Church college, and the Church of England and its paid advisors (centered on Oxford diocese).
Whilst investigations into the college are well under way, what is the status of the complaints against the church, and is there a danger that such an investigation never happens, and the faults there will never get addressed?
The Church of England leadership and the Diocese of Oxford seemed to funnel “the issue” into the presently moribund ISB, at the same time constraining the ISB only to review the last 2 years of a situation only really comprehensible ‘in the whole’ if the preceding years are understood as well. A key question is: did the Diocese and the Church provide adequate safeguarding interventions to support one of their own, driven to a nervous breakdown and clearly ‘vulnerable’? Another question is: why did the Church and the Diocese appear to step back and make minimal public intervention, when one… Read more »
Thank you for your full answer Susannah. You have similar questions and concerns to me. I think there is a real danger that in the focus on Christ Church college, the Diocesan questions get lost in the long grass. Although I do wonder whether the alleged actions by the Diocesan representatives can be considered simply a safeguarding matter, or are there much wider issues to be addressed?
The ISB investigation was to be focused on one specific accusation against the then Dean, namely that he had been guilty of a safeguarding failure: an accusation which was found to be without merit. It was never going to be about any failure of safeguarding protection of the Dean himself.
I have always believed there to have been an overlap in some of the actions of the C of E (Oxford Diocese) and the Governing Body of Christ Church (e.g., the ‘irregularities’ in the ‘risk assessment’ document and the presence of GB members on a C of E core group), so, surely, Martyn Percy was right that only a single, and properly constituted, independent inquiry could report covering the actions of both bodies. The present signs, so far as the C of E is concerned (quite apart from the seeming non-functioning of the ISB) aren’t promising, and I’m sure you… Read more »
The TA article above suggests that the Statement on the website ‘Turbulent Priest’ is a statement by Professor Percy. However, the statement itself is unsigned (although there is a quotation in it specifically referenced to Professor Percy in one of the paragraphs).
The ‘about’ section of the site says that it is a site created by Professor Percy’s ‘friends and supporters’.
Could somebody in the know please clarify?
Perhaps I should have described it as a press release issued on behalf of Martyn Percy. I have amended the OP.
Many Oxford and Cambridge colleges are run as glorified members clubs for the fellowship, often certain fellows in particular. (For the record, I am not saying that applies to Christ Church, I am merely making an observation in terms of generalities.) The fact that colleges are trusts and charities, and that has more of an effect than just a favourable tax regime, is likely to come as a sobering shock to fellows across both universities. Colleges which have endured for hundreds of years are notoriously slow to change but over the next twenty years I suspect the governance arrangements of… Read more »
By their nature, independent colleges are going to be charities. The Charities Act 2011 and the powers of the Charity Commission apply equally to registered and non-registered charities. The Commission will examine closely any move by a registered charity to de-register. I don’t think the governance arrangements can possibly seek to change any of this. Whether or not all fellows (‘Students’ at Christ Church) must be trustees is, I suspect, the real issue and probably what you mean by changed governance arrangements. But there’s no excuse at all for people being unaware of Charity and trustee status. Every newly-appointed trustee… Read more »
Kate, what evidence do you have that “many Oxford and Cambridge colleges are run as glorified members clubs for the fellowship…”? It may be true of Christ Church but that is not a reason to assert that it is true of many colleges, at least not without providing evidence.
I sincerely doubt that the “fact that colleges are trusts and charities” (perhaps better ‘charitable trusts’) will come as any sort of shock, sobering or otherwise, to the fellows. Their annual report will have made this clear to them on a regular basis.
How many colleges have a high table where fellows get better food than students? Better (and often free or cheap) wine? Drink from silverware? Have status within the fellowship? Can walk on lawns restricted to students? Have more secure tenure than academics at other universities? Have accommodation within college? And how many of those fellows do you think really understand the responsibilities of trustees and the potential for personal liability? There’s a reason why they describe themselves as fellows, not trustees because they see themselves as academics not trustees. Maybe some colleges run trustee training courses – do you know?… Read more »
It is not necessary to be an academic lawyer to understand and carry out the duties of a trustee effectively. I know directly of at least one college where new fellows were specifically briefed on their duties as a trustee. The highly unusual feature of Oxbridge fellowships is that while trustees they are allowed to draw benefits from the charity. Those include the agreeable dinners and so forth, but the most important point is that many of the fellows of a college will be employed by the college as tutors, either full- or part-time, and their fellowships are linked to… Read more »
To the best of my recollection, when I became a charity trustee during the last century I received a booklet directly from the Charity Commission setting out clearly both the duties and accountabilities of the role.
…and the Sub Dean left last week. Convenient.
…for another place where a dean left in unhappy circumstances…
His leaving services are tomorrow ( followed by reception) and Sunday:- From the website:- Richard will preside at the altar as Sub Dean at Christ Church for the last time on 13 November. Evensong on 12 November will be followed by a reception. He is being installed at Llandaff on 20 November – Stir up sunday/ Festival of Christ the King ( delete according to preference). He became Sub – Dean of Christ Church on 1 September 2020. It may be that Llandaff made him an offer he couldn’t refuse. Or he may have been keen to move on. Or… Read more »
What a pity the former Dean was not allowed a leaving service!
Just think how badly this would have looked if the college hadn’t spent all that money on public relations experts! 🙂
All Students are wicked, but some Students are more wicked than others. A timely reminder to them all by the Charity Commission that they are collectively responsible for these actions. Each had the power of resignation, but few if any were wise enough to exercise it. They cannot use the excuse that they didn’t know what the more wicked ones were doing, or it will be very difficult to prove such. Based on the actions required by the Commission, it will be quite a task ahead for the Christ Church auditors. The actions to be taken by the Charity to rectify the misconduct and/… Read more »
Anthony, Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experience here. It is helpful. You said, about the wider body of trustees not directly involved in the wrongdoing “Each had the power of resignation, but few if any were wise enough to exercise it.” Bearing mind Unreliable Narrator’s comments above that “it is very hard for them to resign their trusteeships, on a point of principle for example, without also losing their jobs.” Is there any lesser way they could have expressed appropriate concern and dissent, for example by speaking at meetings and ensuring their comments were recorded in the minutes.… Read more »
Thank you for raising this aspect. The answer is I don’t know. Eligible (by virtue of their academic position) Oxbridge dons always wanted to be full voting members of their Governing Body (Fellows) because only that way did they ‘know what’s going on’ and feel their voice would be heard in deliberations about, frankly, everything. As suggested above, they are ‘clubs’. Once converted formally to charities Fellows responsibilities arguably got more onerous. Most have academic college jobs (i.e. the college employs them – I think), and with it goes membership of their relevant faculty etc. (i.e. they hold a university… Read more »
Thank you. Independence is everything. A salary and a house is a good gag. At one end of the scale you get people afraid to speak out about abuse and bad conditions in agricultural tied cottages. At the other end of the scale you get bishops only speaking on controversial issues once they have retired. I can think back to the LGBTQ Armed Forces campaign. Those actually serving were unable to oppose the ban without risking everything. It was only those of us who had already lost our jobs and had nothing else to lose who could take the Government… Read more »
Not just a warning flag there, also on a Gov.uk page, which is even more stark.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/charity-regulator-issues-official-warning-to-christ-church-oxford
So very sad to see this is being led by a KC.
Why?
A very succinct but somewhat confusing comment, I suspect, for most readers. Which KC, in what matter, and what is your objection? Are you referring to Dominic Grieve, leading the Christchurch Internal Governance Review? That was in place, and he was instructed, months ago. The Charity Commission are happy that this meets their requirement. Anthony Archer has mentioned the separate possibility that the trustees’ auditors might be consulting a KC. I can’t imagine what possible objection there could be to that. Please clarify, so that we don’t have to simply guess your meaning!
Merely a reference to the advice I imagine the auditors will be needing. They did question the treatment of the costs in the 2021 accounts. Now the full £6.6 million has been spent and can hardly be hidden in the education line.
I realise that! I also looked at auditors’ duties in the 2011 Act, but thought they didn’t call for comment on TA! Dominic Grieve’s brief is a very wide one. I recall that when he was appointed the announcement included that he is a practising Christian. I think some of us are as much concerned about reform or separation of the Cathedral and College which are a distinct subject from the Charity Commission’s action. Among other things, Dominic Grieve is going to have to consider the position of the Crown as Visitor of both the Cathedral and the College. The… Read more »
I was referring to Anthony’s comment which referred to a KC., although it doesn’t actually say he is leading it. I am afraid my comment had no relevance to the thread so I should not have posted it.
I have no objection. I merely was struck by the abbreviation KC rather than QC. That is what I was sad to see, to be reminded that our Queen has gone.
Fair enough, and thank you. I am also having to get used to KC and the High Court having a King’s Bench Division and King’s Bench Masters after (in my case) 52 years of their being QC and ‘QB’.
Well I see where you are coming from, but this is about governance, and governance is technical, law, accounting, governance machinery etc. I suppose two wingers could have been appointed to work alongside The Rt Hon Dominic Grieve KC. But he will have got to the heart of the problem pretty quickly!
I gather some alumni are seeking the misspent millions to be repaid by the trustees. That costs out at £100,000 each from 66 trustees, unless the Governing Body is able to identify and evidence who withheld the size and true nature of the spends from them. That may be the direction this will go in … a small group of people under whose direction this acrid theatre has played out, facing personal ruin. Christ Church has clearly had very wrong hands at the helm, people of no wisdom and little integrity who thought the charitable funds was a free and… Read more »
Just a note of caution. Of the Christ Church trustees some were appointed as recently as September and October of this year. I don’t claim to know, but in spite of charity trustees’ collective joint and several liability, I can’t see that these recent appointments can be in the frame.
Also, it will be a matter for the Charity Commission exercising its statutory powers to decide whether there are to be surcharges to individual trustees.
Agree. But in addition, some have come and gone within the relevant period, including one to be a bishop, and one a dean. No-one is potentially immune from regulatory action if they were trustees during a decision-making period the Charity Commission may determine. That is not to say that they are culpable, but I would be running scared if I were them. Worth checking household policies for legal expenses etc. cover. Christ Church would have D&O liability insurance cover for all members of the Governing Body (the Students), unless they have had trouble renewing it in the light of circumstances,… Read more »
Certainly, the 41 members of the Governing Body (including Chapter members Graham Ward and Sarah Foot) who wrote to the then Chair of the Charity Commission, Baroness Stowell, on 20 May 2020 asserting that “Martyn Percy has breached his legal and fiduciary obligations and shown both unsound judgement and a consistent lack of moral compass, and that he is not fit to remain a trustee“, and asking the Charity Commission “to step in to insist that Martyn Percy accept a settlement or to remove him from the Board of Trustees” should, in the well-known euphemistic words, “be considering their position”… Read more »
Thank you, David, for this excerpt. Most illuminating.
Brilliant letter in The Times this morning from Professor Nigel Biggar: “Sir, The Charity Commission has found that the governing body of Christ Church buried the legal and PR costs of its action against the dean under the heading “other direct costs – teaching, research, and residential” and that this had “the potential to mislead readers of the accounts” … The commission is pulling its punch. As a former governing body member, I can testify that the potential was fully realised: I did not know the costs of the action against the dean until the commission revealed them. Moreover, if… Read more »
All the findings seem to me to point towards the suggestion that Martyn Percy was subjected to unreasonable vendetta, with the purpose of hounding him out (which purpose succeeded, at very great cost to the Dean’s mental health and well-being, and also at very great cost to all those benefactors who entrusted the College to use their donations proportionately and responsibly in the furtherance of the charity’s educational purpose. The fact that the disproportionate expenditure of charitable money in pursuit of the Dean appears to have been hidden, even from fellow trustees, lends weight in my mind to the likelihood… Read more »
Two further on message letters in today’s Times. The screws are tightening.
Two more brilliant letters from Alan Rusbridger and Jonathan Aitken in today’s edition (15 November). Note: Andrew Billen’s report (linked above) was not in the print edition of the paper last Friday – it’s only on The Times website. HOLDING CHRIST CHURCH TO ACCOUNT Sir, The response of Christ Church, Oxford, to severe criticism from the Charity Commission is not encouraging (“Oxford college guilty of misconduct, says charity watchdog”, Nov 10; letter, Nov 14). Its defence is essentially: “We did what seemed right at the time, and the dean, Dr Martyn Percy, was very intransigent.” That does not seem a very… Read more »
It may be of interest to note that at the time of writing this comment (4.00 pm on Monday 14 November 2022) no statement has been published on the Christ Church website in response to the Charity Commission’s formal ‘Official Warning’, nor the damning findings of the Commission recorded in its press release of 10 November. The only news item on the College website postdating the Charity Commission warning is one, dated 12 November 2022, recording a “Christ Church victory at Varsity Roman Law Moot Competition.” Even then, the headline is misleading. In reading the text of the item, reporting… Read more »
The Charity Commission is playing a long game. It knows that once the accounts for the year ended 31 July 2022 are published Christ Church will have finally dug its own grave. The accounts will reveal non-charitable expenditure of a hardly incidental nature. Resignations can be expected to follow then, if not before. Jonathan Aitken in his letter to The Times today asks which ones will accept the failings, apologise and depart. He is not the only one asking that question. Day to day management (not that we have witnessed day to day issues) is delegated to the dean (not relevant here), the… Read more »
I am not speculating anything, but didn’t this, in a sense, begin with the attempt (it seems successful in some cases) to suppress Sir Andrew Smith’s judgment being read by the majority of the trustees when it was ‘leaked’ to them (as I recall by Jonathan Aitken), and there was a round-robin email instruction to the trustees to delete it without reading it accompanied by a statement of the need to retain solidarity? That, surely, knocked on the head the concept of trustee collegiality. When I last looked at the Christ Church website there was a statement welcoming the unanimous… Read more »
The Smith Tribunal was forensic and came to the clearest possible conclusion that the Dean should be cleared of all charges. The case had not been made for his removal. Having got the ‘wrong’ answer from Smith (the report of which was to be withheld from trustees), the GB (not it seems all the trustees) moved to develop a series of Plan B options, and decided they would stop at nothing until he was gone. The Charity Commission picks this up in part of their reasoning behind the Official Warning where it says: “there is a sense from reading the… Read more »
A small thing, perhaps, but I think people ought not to forget that the members of the governing body, including some of the canons, are not just trustees — which is where the focus of most comments has been. They are also tutors, lecturers and holders of university chairs. And if they were to resign en masse — however just the reason — there would be several university departments suddenly bereft of some senior members and lecturers providing at least a portion of the University’s general teaching load.. While I doubt very few would miss the current Laudian Professor of… Read more »
I’m no expert in the Christ Church “dispute.” But I have the sense that some of what Martyn Percy sought to do was to modernise the House–in how it compensates staff or in other ways. It would be ironic if, between the Governance Review and the Charity Commission, outsiders were now to force reform more far-reaching than what the anti-Percy party resisted. Another way in which no one in that party seems to have considered consequences, or thought strategically. Let’s hope that other Oxbridge colleges do not suffer as a result of Christ Church’s intransigence. Institutional independence, once lost, is… Read more »
Ironic, but very sad that Martyn Percy had to go through so much pain and suffering in the way he stood up to the bullies and expose the wrongdoing.
I remember about three years ago on TA, that many people were saying that the only possible outcome for this was for Martyn to take a settlement then and walk away, having lost the confidence of the governing body. To hang on in there was not how things should be done.
Had he walked away then the bullies would still be in place.
Are not the bullies still in place?
I agree. And it’s really sad that Martyn seems to have had to face all this in quite an isolated relationship with senior members in the Diocese, and wider Church leadership. On the final point, though, even though it cost them, and may yet cost them personally, the ‘bullies’ (as I do view them) seem to me and to the Charity Commission to have had an irrational (I’d say obsessive and personalised) determination to get rid of the Dean, at any cost. They got their way. But there is still the ‘at any cost’ to be addressed. I realise Martyn… Read more »
I’m not sure to what extent, if at all, Dominic Grieve’s Internal Governance Review will deal with the detail of the trustees’ actions and the full history of these events; it will not, in any event, include the part played by the C of E Diocese of Oxford. For Dominic Grieve’s terms of reference, or rather the ‘Candidate Brief’, see TA 8th April 2022. They seem to largely address the subjects of possible reform and modernisation of the body. The charity regulation issues will continue to be the responsibility of the Charity Commission. A passing thought, not wholly unrelated and… Read more »
I’ll be linking to the Oxford diocesan synod papers shortly.
Am I alone in thinking it odd that there appears to have been no statement from either +Oxford or the diocese since the Charity Commission issued its Official Warning to Christ Church?
What do you consider they might have said, bearing in mind that they are not parties to the official warning?
Bishops and diocesan bodies frequently make statements about all sorts of matters to which they are not party. I find it odd that a major announcement on a matter relating to senior staff of a cathedral warrants no statement, however anodyne it might have been, from +Oxford or anyone else in the diocese. Not even an expression of concern, nor an assurance of prayers for all concerned.
It is more noteworthy that the college Governing Body has still not (as at 10.30 am on 17 November) made a statement on the Christ Church website in response to the Charity Commission’s “Official Warning” and the press release of 10 November, quoting Helen Earner as saying, “We consider that the actions of the trustees at Christ Church amount to mismanagement and/or misconduct, after they failed to manage the charity’s resources responsibly or ensure that the charity is accountable in the context of a costly dispute.” The trustees (Christ Church’s Governing Body) were keen enough to assert in a lengthy… Read more »
In other normal circumstances, and in ordinary situations, yes, that might be expected. Clearly the Bishop and the Diocese have their reasons. I imagine that although not parties to the official warning, they would not wish to appear to be making any public comment about the Charity Commission’s action.
Or better still a statement that the Bishop of Oxford and his staff will not take part in any appointment of a new Dean, will not grant any new dean PTO, and will not hold any diocesan services or events in the cathedral until there has been a major clear out of the governing body.
It had crossed my mind that a robust statement of that sort would be welcome. But I expect to be disappointed.
“Or better still a statement that the Bishop of Oxford and his staff will not take part in any appointment of a new Dean, will not grant any new dean PTO, and will not hold any diocesan services or events in the cathedral until there has been a major clear out of the governing body.” Sam, I think this is a really important point. The Charity Commission warning has called the whole preceding sequence of events into question, including whether Martyn was pressured out of his post unjustly (which seems pretty obvious to many now). Should the Church not be… Read more »
Members of the Cathedral Staff are trustees who have been found directly to have been implicated in “mismanagement and/or misconduct”. Further , this is clear evidence of institutional bullying. If you will make any allegation however unfounded and resource it with unlimited funds, without regard to proportionality you are acting as an institutional bully. It’s not close to being contestable
I think this reply was meant for Fr Dexter rather than myself.
This will be doggedly and patiently pursued. This is not about retribution (nothing can undo the evil wrought) but justice via honourable resignations or just findings, will be sufficient. If such an eminent clergyman can be hounded out with the Church mute with complicity – what hope is there for justice for some lowly unknown curate in the wilds of Lincolnshire Cornwall or Cumbria?
Precisely the concern. Thank you Martin. The Dean has really been treated cruelly and unfairly, and I do feel the leadership of the Church seemed to be ‘mute’ (as you say) and stayed silent. Why?
Still no statement on the Christ Church website (as at 5.00 pm on Saturday 3 December 2022) in reaction to the Charity Commission ‘Official Warning’, but the student newspaper, The Oxford Student, in reporting the warning, has these comments attributed an anonymous spokesperson for the college: “Christ Church and individual trustees have repeatedly asked the Charity Commission for help to resolve the disputes with Dr Percy, and explained the ways in which Dr Percy was unfit to be a trustee. In very complex and constantly changing circumstances, Trustees made decisions which, having taken professional advice, they judged to be in… Read more »
The similar statement put out at the time on the BBC’s Oxford news page (also reported verbatim without comment in major newspapers) did not address the inconsistencies in their claims and the factual findings of the Official Examiner contained in the Charity Commission’s Decision Review and Final Decision document dated 9 November 2022 leading to a formal official warning being issued to Christ Church. In the circumstances it seems almost naïve and perverse to put out such a statement. Sadly, I suspect that relatively few people will have read all 20 pages of the Commission’s Review to have an accurate… Read more »