The board of Scouting Ireland Services CLG has recently called an Extraordinary General Meeting. Another month, another crisis in National Scouting in Ireland.  

OUT WITH THE NEW..

The board are bringing two motions to the shareholders of the company. They have signalled they want the membership to accede to the removal of two of their colleagues on the board. The grounds for the removal centres on a number of (protected) disclosures, made by these two directors, to various external entities including the Children’s Committee of the Oireachtas, the Director of Corporate Enforcement and the Charities Regulator.

The disclosures seem to centre on concerns about standards of corporate governance, and alleged financial irregularities including the ability of the company Scouting Ireland Services CLG to continue to trade as a ‘going concern’. There have also been concerns expressed about safeguarding protocols and how these are implemented at national level.

The attempt by the board to dismiss this as squabbling about minor matters and allude to personality clashes looks a little like gaslighting. These are very serious allegations, made by people who appear to know quite a bit about corporate governance.

EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS

In addition, the concerns raised by Jacques Kinane and Don Reynolds have also attracted the attention of the Department of Children, the government department that funds Scouting Ireland to the tune of around €1.5m per year. These concerns are not being taken lightly by important, influential external stakeholders.

The two directors have made a statement to members via public forums/fora that confirm the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement has already commenced an investigation into Scouting Ireland and the investigation is presently ongoing.

As this article was being prepared for publication, a statement by Messrs Kinane and Reynolds has shown evidence of not one but TWO live investigations presently underway, by government bodies. The rest of the board contend that various requests for information have been made by these entities, but that there are no formal investigations underway. The documentation published by Mr Kinane would appear to contradict this.

THE NEED FOR A DIVERSE BOARD

A statement two weeks ago from Scouting Ireland Services CLG’s latest Chairman, Paul Mannion (now in his sixth year on the board), did not mention the wider matter of wanting to remove two directors – roughly 20% of the board. Mr Mannion does talk about the need for more directors and his desire to see a diverse board and one where all opinions matter. This is not the first time the board of Scouting Ireland or it’s representative(s) appear to say one thing, whilst feverish efforts take place behind the scenes to apparently do the complete opposite.

Do we want a diverse board where all opinions are welcome, or do we not? What exactly is the role of a director if it is not to ask questions, challenge performance and demand high standards?

CALL THE LAUNDRETTE

The boards official statement on this matter appears to fret about reputational damage to Scouting Ireland from (I’m paraphrasing) ‘washing dirty laundry in public’. The usual toadies for Scouting Ireland’s longest established clique are equally concerned about ‘making us look foolish’ in their waspish social media remarks. Is it conceivable that ship may have sailed some time ago?

It is precisely because the organisation and predecessor entities fought for years to cover up ‘dirty laundry’ that we have barely any national reputation left. Theirishscouter has been taken aback by just how low an opinion is held of Scouting Ireland in corporate, civil service and political circles at present. Issuing statements to ourselves proclaiming the contrary feels like quite an inadequate response to this.

Would it not be better to demonstrate integrity and be seen as open-minded and proactive when our own people raise genuine concerns? Otherwise, it feels like we are allowing history to repeat.

The (rest of the) board contend they have tried to engage positively with Messrs Kinane and Reynolds. The two directors argue they DID raise matters ad nauseum with the board and were told to (paraphrasing) go with the flow, comply, fit in with the prevailing narrative.

CANARIES IN THE COAL MINE?

Those arguments aside, the board of Scouting Ireland are in effect asking the membership to neutralise two volunteer Scouters who, having joined the board through an electoral process, are now raising questions – serious questions – about how the entity is run.

If one takes out the ‘he said, she said’ element (and this is a rather large part of the board’s rebuttal to the opening statement of the two directors) , the fact remains that two people with far more information than an average member have rung alarm bells and have gone so far as to not only raise issues of concern with external entities in government and quasi-governmental agencies, but have done so at great personal risk and cost. Why would not one, but two people go out on a limb to this extent?

Furthermore, government agencies do not react to rumours. Investigations are not initiated on the basis of in-fighting. Submissions are carefully screened. Thresholds of evidence must be met before resources are deployed.

A third director of Scouting Ireland who theirishscouter understands had also raised concerns, mysteriously resigned recently. Several other people who joined the board from inside (and most tellingly, outside) Scouting also appear to have left with rather indecent haste over the last 24 months. There may be perfectly logical reasons why most new directors leave and most of the longer serving directors remain, but it is starting to look like a pattern.

This feels like a seminal moment for Scouting Ireland. A moment to reflect on how we want the organisation to be run, how we want the organisation to be viewed in Irish society.

What happens if members reject the board’s request to remove these two directors?

Er, nothing happens.

Nothing, except the membership retains two people in key roles who are demanding higher standards and have the personal integrity to put the demands for those standards above their own personal interests.

Incidentally, there is no risk of a closure of Scouting Ireland, as some rather hyper proclamations from people who should know better, have suggested. It is really quite disappointing that the board itself has not moved to correct this nonsense.

If the membership supports the board position and agree to the removal of these two directors, diversity of opinion on the board and accountability in decision making will be set back considerably. In addition, if any external investigation finds evidence of governance breaches (or worse) inside Scouting Ireland, the entire membership will have been complicit in attempting to gloss over it. Think about that.

Ian Elliot used words like ‘complicit’ in his report in 2018.

Surely the entire board, if diversity and differences of opinion are truly valued (as Mr Mannion set out in his recent statement), should welcome the retention of these two valuable contributors and should work with them to raise standards?

The board is not a fellowship patrol (well, one hopes its not at any rate), so like any other corporate board, members do not have to like each other, or even have a great deal in common. They merely need to work out, as grown-ups often do, how to collaborate in order to best serve the interests of shareholders. Consensus is not always good on a board of directors.

A degree of positive friction keeps everyone honest and reduces the risk of power having a corrupting effect. This is not specific to Scouting Ireland, it is human nature. Removing people who advocate for positive change or challenge the prevailing narrative weakens an organisation and increases the risk of group think, governance lapses and worse.

When all is said and done, these two directors are just like us. They are volunteers. This treatment could be doled out to any member who speaks out of turn or raises a concern. Is this really the sort of organisation we want?

If external entities do their work and find nothing, these two directors have done the organisation some service by asking questions and testing the integrity of internal systems – that is part of the job of a director.

If on the other hand, the flags raised by these two individuals lead to serious breaches in governance being uncovered, the organisation will have an opportunity to tackle such breaches head on and will get to do so quickly, rather than another scandal festering under the surface for months, before inevitably exploding across the media with all the resultant catastrophic reputational damage.

Local Scouting’s reputation has held up extraordinarily well since 2018, despite the ongoing national melodrama. This weekend’s EGM will directly tie groups and members to the course of action taken from here.

Keeping these diligent, competent, courageous, no-nonsense directors in place is a win/win for Scouting Ireland. No, they are not in the approved clique who have run the organisation since 2018, nor have they complicitly warmed a seat and toed the line, but that is precisely why they are so valuable where they are.

Time for shareholders to decide.

NOTES

Theirishscouter would strongly advocate for a secret ballot to be formally requested on the day of the EGM. If requested by three shareholders at a properly convened meeting, this must be provided by law. As the board have rightly stated, it is very important that the votes at this meeting are not only fairly cast and accounted for, but they are SEEN to be so.

• Protected disclosures and those making them are – as the name suggests – protected under the Protected disclosures (amendment) act 2022. It is an offense under Irish law to attempt to scapegoat, ostracise, intimidate or fire a person who makes a protected disclosure. This protection extends to Directors and Volunteers of organisations (not just employees).

• On the topic of the Board allegation that both directors did not engage with the board, the government-commissioned Jillian Van Turnhout report (2018) specifically talked about a culture of ‘blind loyalty’ to ‘cliques’ inside Scouting Ireland. In this context, the report highlighted the difference in response to any concern, complaint, ‘open call’ submitted to National Office depending on whether one is in the approved clique or outside it. Studies have shown that when people do not have confidence in the impartiality of those in authority in an organisation, they are far less likely to have confidence to raise matters internally.

Both directors nonetheless do maintain they sought to engage positively with the rest of the board so the point is disputed between the respective parties.