Landscape Institute call for an EGM Extraordinary General Meeting

See LAA report on the 27th June 2023 Landscape Institute Members EGM

Dear Supporter

Thank you so very much for your support and patience over the calling of an EGM.

The motion was submitted on the 24th January 2023 and the LI are obliged to arrange a meeting within two months. To date we have not received any confirmation that the necessary arrangements are being made. Should the LI fail to call an EGM for the 24th March then we are entitled to arrange our own with their cooperation. In the meantime it is critical that as many members as possible understand that this issue reflects the wider dysfunctional nature of our Institute. We have prepared this paper explaining, to those that might be confused, the issues surrounding the barring of Brodie McAllister becoming President. Please could you very kindly pass this on to other members to encourage them to engage in the EGM.

We are planning to have a Zoom Meeting on Tuesday 7th March @ 5pm to prepare for the EGM, if you would like to participate in this please could you let us know and we will send you a link.

With best wishes

The Signatories to the letter to the LI calling for an EGM are:

Past Presidents:

Brian Clouston, Hal Moggridge, Alan Tate, Tim Gale, Merrick Denton-Thompson,

Fellows:

Helen Tranter, Sally Marsh, Bill Cairns, Peter Hutchinson, Edward Hutchison, Tony Edwards.

Senior Members:

Annabel Downs, Diana Armstrong Bell, Tom Turner, Tom Robinson, David Appleton,

This is why 131 members of the Landscape Institute have called for an Extraordinary General Meeting. We believe (1) the removal of President-Elect Brodie McAllister was wrong (2) the process by which he was removed is inconsistent with the LI’s By-Laws and Regulations (3) the fact that the LI has been without a president since June 2022 is inconsistent with our Royal Charter (4) the process of his removal has caused serious reputational damage to our Institute and will discourage other members from standing for office.

The motion is:

We move that steps are taken towards establishing the truth and proper reconciliation with regard to matters of governance leading to the removal of the President-Elect in June 2022. Thus, within 30 days of the EGM, the process resultant in his removal would be examined by an independent arbitrator. The findings thereof would be implemented by a binding arbitration. The arbitrator would be appointed by mutual agreement with reference to the Dispute Resolution Service of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

The rationale for the motion is as follows:

a) Unresolved questions

The requisitioners believe there are unresolved questions about the process of Brodie McAllister’s dismissal as a Trustee of the LI and his consequent removal as President Elect. This has resulted in a situation which has damaged his professional reputation and that of the Landscape Institute itself. It has also diverted a considerable portion of members’ subscriptions to pay lawyers’ fees. The LI Board and Trustees have consistently refused to consider any form of mediation as proposed by a group comprising several formerpresidents and other senior members of the profession. The absence of mediation is a serious omission in the complaint system.

This document is complementary to a detailed analysis of mistaken process prepared by Past President Hal Moggridge CBE. https://www.landscapearchitecture.org.uk/hal-moggridge-on-due-process-by-the-landscape-institute

b) Service to the Landscape Institute.

Brodie McAllister has served the LI in many capacities for some 20 years – as a member of Council on three occasions, external examiner, review group member, pathway mentor, awards judge on three occasions, instigator and co-founder of the College of Fellows, representative to IFLA Europe, branch representative, designated leader of LI100, presenter and chair of many conferences, Vice President and finally as President Elect of the institute.

c) Manifesto

Brodie McAllister’s manifesto as a candidate for President responded to the LI’s independent review of January 2021. The review identified several failings and made 37 recommendations for improvement. Among many points it noted:

“Feedback from staff and volunteers and my own observations of the functioning of the LI led me to conclude that there had been insufficient focus on the principles and practice of good human and financial resource management and operational delivery”.

The manifesto included the following statements:

“We can move towards a more outward facing agenda, communicating our part as a broader institute, dissolving professional barriers, challenging conformity, accepting criticism, listening to members, increasing collaboration and engagement, lively debate and networking.

Efficient governance is essential, and we should avoid internal dissension. My professional experience can

assist these goals.”

d) Elected in June 2021 removed in June 2022.

Brodie McAllister was elected in 2021 by a majority of 53% to be President from July 2022. In June 2022 he was removed as a Trustee and consequently prevented from taking up his elected position.

e) Repetitive complaints

Following his election Brodie McAllister was subjected to a continuous series of unjustified complaints from other

Trustees which undermined his ability to pursue the initiatives he was committed to and significantly affected his

mental health.

Complaint 1 – without merit

A Trustee made a complaint concerning Brodie McAllister’s election campaign. This complaint was not pursued.

Complaint 2 – no case to answer.

In September 2021 a second complaint was made by a recent former Trustee against Brodie McAllister and others. The four-month investigation breached the LI’s published time limit when on January 7th 2022 the Investigations and Screening Panel (ISP) concluded that “there does not appear to be anything in this email that gives rise to any concern. The ISP does not consider that this allegation meets the threshold of a case to answer.”

– unproven.

On 14 January 2022 a new complaint was made by another Trustee arising from an internal ‘Teams’ meeting. Despite it being denied, unproven and ostensibly made in a private context, an allegation of homophobia has been used to undermine Brodie McAllister’s reputation and paint a false picture of this bringing the LI into disrepute.

Questions for an Independent Arbitrator.

Q1. Were these overlapping complaints part of an orchestrated campaign to discredit and remove the President Elect?

Q2. Why was an unproven allegation made by one Trustee of another Trustee’s behaviour pursued as a confidential whistleblowing incident rather than the Investigations and Screening

Panel?

Q3. Has Brodie McAllister been libelled by the unproven allegation of homophobia and is he owed an apology for the resultant damage to his professional reputation?

In February 2022 the Board Instructed the senior partner of Russell-Cooke LLP, the LI’s solicitors to provide a report for the Board detailing relevant facts, setting out available options and making recommendations;

Referring the report to the Advisory Council to consider whether there should be further investigation with a view to possible removal as a Trustee, Initiating a disciplinary complaint relating to potential misconduct as a member of the LI.

During this period the President-elect was precluded from meeting the Advisory Council.

Q4. Should mediation have been considered before Russell-Cooke LLP were instructed to assist the committee of inquiry?

Q5. As a trustee at the time, why was Brodie McAllister precluded from meeting either the Advisory Council or the Committee of Inquiry?

Q6. Was this report “a fishing expedition” commissioned to find material to support a case against Brodie McAllister in the absence of firm evidence?

g) Termination as a trustee

The regulations state:

“When a committee of inquiry has reported, the Council shall have the power to remove the Trustee. However, such power may only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as, if in the reasonable opinion of the Council, the behaviour of the Trustee has damaged or is likely to damage the reputation of the Institute.”

Q7.Since most of the alleged misdemeanours reported by the Committee of Inquiry were internal to the Landscape Institute, how did Brodie McAllister’s alleged misbehaviour meet the

‘exceptional circumstances’ criteria?

h) Improper constitution of the Board of Trustees

From 11 February 2022 two trustees who had exceeded their terms of office were reappointed, making the Board improperly constituted from that date.

Q8. Why were two Trustees reappointed after their terms of office had been exceeded?

i) Regulation 21 In a legal opinion from a barrister at No.5 Chambers

“On the face of it, Regulation 21 allows for the removal of a trustee (a very serious step) following a process which is nowhere near as rigorous or clearly structured as the disciplinary procedures contained in the By-laws (no tiers of investigation and no genuine right of appeal) and it is not particularly clear why one would resort to Regulation 21 before the subject (especially where they are a member of the LI as well as a trustee) has been through the process set out in the By-laws and those findings being fed into the Regulation 21 process”.

Q9. Why was Regulation 21 process used?

Q10. Was it good practice for the Landscape Institute Regulation 21.5 to be published on the

same day (28th June 2022) that members were informed that the President Elect had been

removed. Prior to 28th June neither the Board of Trustees nor the Advisory Council had powers

to ‘remove’ a President elected by the membership.

Q11. Has the dismissal of an elected President been carried out following the correct processes

and has it damaged the reputation of the LI?

j) Legal fees.

The papers issued for the AGM in November 2022 contained the following statement:

“The adversarial and very public campaign adopted by the former President-Elect and the members supporting him has meant that we have incurred further costs in the new financial year (22/23) on legal advice to protect the standing of the Institute as a self-regulating professional body. Professional fees for the period included £78,034 related to legal fees arising from the whistleblowing case; and a further £91,664 (FY22/23) due to the further aggravated activity of the members in relation to the whistleblowing case.”

Q12. What evidence is there to support the assertion that the majority of legal spend was incurred by aggravated action in defence of the former President-Elect. It should be noted that

he was not afforded a legal defence.

Q13. Who gave the Board authority to spend such large sums on this case?

Q14. Was Russell-Cooke LLP given an open-ended brief with no limit on time or fees expended?

Q15. Does this episode demonstrate open and robust governance by the officers, staff and agents of the LI?

k) Further action

The Vice President of the Landscape Institute asserted at the AGM in November 2022 that the Institute was drawing a line under this episode. The requisitioners for an Extraordinary General Meeting believe that it is essential for the future good governance of the Landscape Institute to appoint an independent arbitrator to review the flawed process which has led to the dismissal of an elected incoming President and destruction of his professional reputation.

l) What you can do

The requisition for Extraordinary General Meeting was submitted on January 24 th 2023. At the time of writing the LI have acknowledged receipt of the requisition but not yet given an indication of their next steps. We as Landscape Institute requisitioners are precluded from having email access to all members and rely on individuals communicating their shared concerns. If you have doubts about the fairness of the process and the justice of the decision to dismiss Brodie McAllister please give your support by sharing with others and contacting [email protected] .