Whistleblowing Disclosure to the CEO of the Landscape Institute

See also: Six Landscape Institute past presidents object to election result being overturned

This is the Second Whistleblowing Disclosure made to the Landscape Institute in 2022. Having spent over £170k on The First Whistleblowing Disclosure, the LI refused to investigate any of the points made in the second disclosure. Most likely, the fear was that doing so would bankrupt the Landscape Institute.

Dear Sue Morgan

We make this Whistleblowing Disclosure on account of our love for the landscape profession and for our professional institute. Deeply concerned that the Landscape Institute has lost its way, we have itemised our concerns and request explanatory responses, very much hoping that the issues can righted. Matters were brought to a head by the adoption and immediate application of Regulation 21.5. Their progression to this point has been slow and troubling, with diminishing attention paid to the interests, wishes and concerns of members. Our 1930s constitution Clause 2 stated that ‘‘The Institute shall be formed to promote the study and general advancement of the Art of Landscape Architecture in all its branches, and to serve as a medium of friendly intercourse between the members and others practising or interested in the Art’. As exemplified by the following points, these purposes no longer appear to be the objects of the Institute. Points are sub-classified as (a) the obligation (b) the indications of non-compliance (c) our questions/recommendations and requests for explanations.

Please will you confirm receipt of this Disclosure within 48 hours and please respond to the points raised within 10 days of receipt. We are advised that these time periods are normal for Whistleblowing Disclosures of this kind.

1. (a) Obligation Members of the Institute’s Board are under an obligation to meet high standards of behaviour¹ (b) Indications of Non-Compliance The current Vice President has written that the Whistleblowing Inquiry into Brodie McAllister was ‘conducted by the Advisory Council with no involvement of the Board or Employed Officers’. This statement is untrue appears to be wrongdoing. The LI stated that: “The purpose of the Committee is to investigate concerns regarding the conduct of Brodie McAllister arising from a report from the Trustees dated 30 March 2022 and make a recommendation as to whether the Council should remove Brodie McAllister as a Trustee.” (c) Questions, Recommendations and requests for Explanations. An explanation of the inconsistency is requested. It would clear the air if the text of the original WB Disclosure were made available and if the whistleblower(s) revealed their identities. Members believe they were Trustees. The signatories to this Disclosure are proud of their long support for the LI and, believing in transparency, are happy for their names and the text of their disclosure to be released and/or to be published on social media (including LI Connect).// The LI is aware of the actual position. The Board referred concerns to the Council who directed an investigation appointing a committee. The Council considered its committee’s report and made the unanimous decision to remove Mr McAllister. Neither the Board nor any employed officer were part of the decision making of either the Council or its committee.
2. (a) Obligation Caring and Nurturing is a declared value of the LI ² (b) Indications of Non-Compliance When the Board, the Advisory Council and the CEO approved heavy expenditure on legal services to try and remove PE Brodie McAllister, the Board it refused him legal support in defence of his actions and his reputations. This was heartless to the degree of improper conduct. Furthermore, due process was not followed in conducting the Investigation [ie with regard to giving notice of meetings and giving the President Elect opportunities to respond or with due consideration to the impact on his mental health] ³(c) Questions, Recommendations and requests for Explanations. An explanation of the inconsistency is requested. Should the LI choose to instigate a thorough investigation of our disclosures, we would be happy for the matter to be dealt with by arbitration or by an independent inquiry, so that both parties receive equitable treatment. // The LI is aware of the actual position. Although you express views as to how you believe a process might have been less formally handled, the LI procedure followed the provisions of the LI’s By-Laws and Regulations. The LI’s view is that the costs incurred were very substantially increased by the approach taken by Mr McAllister and his supporters. The LI viewed the matter as significant and required advice to ensure that it dealt with issues properly and that its duty to those making The decision not to fund BM’s legal advice or representation was one for the LI’s Board to make. It considered the request and rejected it having taken advice from its insurers. The LI had no obligation to reimburse his legal expenses.
3. (a) Obligation The LI has stated that ‘We need the Institute to be open and accessible to all members at all levels.‘ ⁴ (b) Indications of Non-Compliance In response to an email from the present whistleblowers, the Governance & Regulation Team refused to provide access to members details and email addresses for the purpose of calling for an EGM. This appears to be unlawful and conflicts with an advisory note by the LI’s solicitors (Russell Cooke) that “Clearly where members wish to call a general meeting and need the names and addresses of members in order to do so, this would constitute a proper purpose and the charity should not restrict access to the register. Failure to provide a copy (except in the case of a successful court application as above) can lead to a fine for the charity and its officers”. (c) Explanations/questions/recommendations. An explanation of the inconsistency is requested and we recommend that members are given opt-in/opt-out rights for making their email addresses available to fellow members. Branch chairs should also have the email addresses of branch members who opt for their availability. This would facilitate the ‘friendly intercourse’ our founders envisaged.// The LI is aware of the actual position.If members effectively requisition an EGM, the calling of that EGM would be facilitated by the LI. The LI is not, however, prepared to release personal data which is not provided for in its data privacy statement to facilitate communications which may be expected to disparage the LI and be unwelcome to many members. The LI has already received a number of complaints from members who have received unsolicited communications from supporters of Mr McAllister.
4. (a) Obligation Trustees should use Landscape Institute resources responsibly⁵ and should adopt a Caring and Nurturing approach to members and staff (b) Indications of Non-Compliance The former President of the LI (Jane Findlay) declined to release information about the expected legal expenditure on attempting to remove PE Brodie McAllister. But from the time it took and the hundreds of pages of text, it appears to have been a 6-figure sum. Further, the expenditure on legal services in preparing a case against the ‘accused’. The investigation could have been done more equitably and more economically by using an arbitrator. The President Elect was refused the legal support in defence of his actions which is entailed by the Caring and Nurturing approach declared in the Trustees Code of Conduct. The expenditure on legal services has severely diminished the funds available for developing policies to conserve and improve the environment. This is against the public interest. We are aware that Trustees considered the accusations against the President Elect to be serious but this has to be considered in the light of seven past presidents judgement that they were trivial. (c) Questions, Recommendations and requests for Explanations. An explanation of the inequity and of the misallocation of resources is requested. (i) we request a full disclosure of the expenditiure on legal and other professional services in relation to the ‘removal’ of the President Elect (ii) If any future issues of this nature arise, our recommendation is that proceedings commence with a round-table discussion, that arbitration is the next alternative to consider and that expenditure on lawyers is regarded as a last resort for use only in desperate circumstances. (iii) We consider it bad practice that the Advisory Council which took the fatal decision was dominated by branch representatives who were forbidden to discusses the issue with the chairs of the branches or with the branch members they represent. // The LI is aware of the actual position. This does not appear to be the disclosure of information at all. It largely repeats the assertions at paragraph 2 above and essentially puts forward the disagreements of the signatories with the LI’s approach. Whistleblowing disclosures are mechanisms by which people provide information not where they demand it.
5. (a) Obligation Trustees have a duty to act in the best interests of the Landscape Institute as a whole, to be fair-minded and not to act as a representative of any group or individual⁶ (b) Indications of Non-Compliance The scope of the investigation of the President Elect carried out by the LI’s solicitors went far beyond anything that can reasonably be supposed to have been mentioned in the text of the Whistleblowing Disclosure. It has been likened to a witch hunt and can be seen improper conduct Questions, Recommendations and requests for Explanations. Explanations of this approach, and of the solicitor’s extensive trawling operation, are requested. Was its scope set out in the instructions given to the solicitors? Our belief is that the Advisory Council should have drawn up the instructions and that it should be made up of elected Branch Chairs, instead of by appointed reps. // The LI is aware of the actual position. This does not appear to be the disclosure of information at all. It asserts the views of the signatories as to process. This does not appear to be the disclosure of information at all. It asserts the views of the signatories as to process.
6. (a) Obligation Clause 1.1 of the Code of Conduct requires Trustees to act within the governing documents of the Landscape Institute and the law, and to abide by the policies and procedures of the organisation. This includes having a knowledge of the contents of the Royal Charter, the By Laws, Regulations, Conflict of Interests Policy, Working Together Policy and other relevant policies and procedures. (b) Indications of Non-Compliance Landscape Institute Regulation 21.5 was published on the same day (28th June 2022) that members were informed that the President Elect had been removed. The Regulation was retrospective because prior to 28th June neither the Board of Trustees nor the Advisory Council had powers to ‘remove’ a President chosen by the membership. Retrospective regulation, even if it is conceived as a clarification ‘for the avoidance of doubt’ is universally regarded as bad practice and is inconsistent with good governance Questions, Recommendations and requests for Explanations. An explanation of the inconsistency is requested. Our recommendation is that in order to retain the trust of members and of the public the Landscape Institute resolves not to engage in retrospective regulation. // The LI is aware of the actual position. This does not appear to be the disclosure of information at all. It asserts the views of the signatories as to process. The LI notes but does not accept the analysis and objections of the signatories. The LI notes but does not accept the analysis and objections of the signatories. The position of a President who was no longer a member of either the Board or the Council would be self-evidently untenable. The continuation of even a nominal association between the LI and a trustee removed for misconduct would not have been in the public interest or that of the LI.
7. The Council had made its decision to remove the President Elect based on By Law 23 as it stood at that time. In case a similar situation were to occur in the future the Board agreed that it was sensible to provide more clarification about the application of By Law 23 by amending Regulations 14 and 21. These amendments applied from 28 June 2022. // The LI is, of course, aware that the office of President is vacant at present. It has not however been abolished. Although your view of the law and the interpretation of the provisions of the Charter are noted, the LI does not accept them. An interpretation which would mean that whatever the misconduct of a President they could not be removed or that the death of a President would place the LI in breach of its legal obligations is not in the LI’s view sustainable.
8. (a) Obligation Clause 1.1 of the Code of Conduct makes specific reference to the Royal Charter⁷ (b) Indications of Non-Compliance. Regulation 21.5 is repugnant to clauses 11 and 17 of the Royal Charter. Clause 11 states that the Landscape Institute ‘shall’ have a president. It does not state that the Institute ‘will’ have a president at some future date. It uses the word ‘shall’ in the specific legal sense of ‘mandatory’. This admits of no exceptions. Leaving the Institute for even a day is an unlawful breach of the Royal Charter. (c) Questions, Recommendations and requests for Explanations. An explanation of the inconsistency is requested. Our recommendations are (i) the Institute is punctilious in following the provisions of the Royal Charter (ii) the stipulation that a president can only serve one term should be extended to the office of vice president, so that in exceptional circumstances the vice president can become the acting president (iii) candidates who stand for president or for vice president should be asked to declare any conflicts of interest or other issues (including court judgements) which could stand in the way of their holding senior positions in the Institute (iv) Trustees should be reminded that they can hold office only for two terms and that further extensions will not be allowed (v) the membership should be consulted about whether the voting rights of independent trustees should be retained (vi) voting should be by directly elected Trustees. //8. This is not a disclosure but the assertion of the signatories’ own views. The LI does not agree.
9. (a) Obligation Clause 2.2 of the Code of Conduct requires Trustees to act ‘in the best interests of the Landscape Institute as a whole, and not as a representative of any group’ and to avoid ‘bringing the Institute into disrepute’⁸. (b) Indications of Non-Compliance when information about the secretive investigation of the President Elect began to leak, presumably from members of the Advisory Council, six Past Presidents of the LI advised that the attempted removal of the President Elect would probably bring the Institute into public disrepute. This is exactly what is now happening and part of the explanation appears to be that the the Board of Trustees has, for at least ten years, been neglecting the concerns of those who, like the signatories to this Disclosure, wish to see the Institute take forward the beliefs of its founders (as identified in the preamble to this document). Trustees are entitled to take a different view but they have a duty under the Code of Conduct to treat the views of all individuals and groups with courtesy and respect. This is particularly so when the group in question is calling for the Institute to devote a high proportion of its income to public goods (c) Questions, Recommendations and requests for Explanations. An explanation of the inconsistency is requested. Our recommendations are (i) Trustees refer to the Wikipedia entry on the Landscape Institute for further information about previous suggestions for taking the Institute forward in line with its founders’ wishes (ii) Trustees extend the LI’s commitment to inclusivity to include dissident groups within the membership (iii) Trustees continue to implement the recommendations of the 2020 Independent Review and include in its Annual Reports updates on progress, problems and fresh issues (iv) Trustees reincarnate its onetime practice of including an analysis of resource allocations in its Annual Reports. Our belief is that a majority of members would like to see a growing proportion of the Institute’s resources devoted to expanding the the membership and promoting the many areas of work through which members can serve the public goods which lie at the heart of the Landscape Institute’s mission (v) extreme caution should be exercised before allocating further resources to proceedings against members (vi) the work of the Institute should be based on the values of being caring and nurturing; creative and passionate; and socially and environmentally aware. //The LI does not intend to carry out any further investigation in relation to these matters for the reasons set out above. The LI is very conscious of the diversion of its resources caused by your campaign and the continued barrage of parallel intemperately worded complaints about the same issues designed to overturn its decision in relation to a single individual.

The signatories to this disclosure include senior practitioners, former trustees, former presidents, LI gold medalists, former council members, authors and educationists. //The Charter and By-Laws provide mechanisms by which the Board of Trustees and Council are accountable to members. It appears, however, that your views are not shared by any significant proportion of the membership. Notwithstanding this, you have indicated that you have submitted a complaint to the Charity Commission and have even made a groundless complaint against the LI’s solicitors to the Solicitors Regulator Authority which has been rejected.