I have a slightly less rosy picture of this report. Let me illustrate it with some excerpts:
1. The second SIR [Serious Incident Report]
Following the opening of the inquiry, the trustees filed a second SIR on 12 February 2023 as they became aware of a historic safeguarding incident involving one of the former trustees prior to that individual’s appointment as a trustee of the charity.
From the Findings:
The trustees then reviewed and updated their safeguarding policies and procedures and whilst these revised policies and procedures were generally in accordance with the Commission’s guidance, there was scope for further revision to provide more robust safeguarding. The Commission provided the trustees with regulatory guidance and advice in accordance with s.15(2) of the Act about this. The individual named in the SIR resigned from their position at the charity.
Is this about OCB?
2. On conflicts of interest
[…] The inquiry noted that whilst the charity had provisions within its governing document which explained how to manage conflicts of interest there was no formal training or guidance provided to trustees or employees as to what would constitute a conflict of interest, how to raise it or how it should be managed and resolved.
The inquiry found that the trustees were not required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when joining the trustee board, and such a requirement was only introduced in October 2022.
[…]
The inquiry found that the charity had financial policies and procedures but that these were not adhered to or reviewed regularly as the charity’s income grew. It was only in 2022 did the charity have a dedicated finance team to monitor and control the charity’s finances. This lack of control highlights a weak point which the inquiry notes has now been remedied by the charity.
I am glad that the Inquiry found no evidence of malfeasance. But I also think that, for a movement partly based on a critique of the lack of effectiveness of the philanthropy sector, finding out that one of its core organizations lacked some basic controls is a bit frustrating.
I agree that the full report gives a more rounded picture than my quick summary—but we’re pleased with the final conclusions, and the improvements EV has made
My top line summary is: in several areas, EV were operating below the standard the commission would expect, but have rectified the issues to the commission’s satisfaction.
I have a slightly less rosy picture of this report. Let me illustrate it with some excerpts:
1. The second SIR [Serious Incident Report]
From the Findings:
Is this about OCB?
2. On conflicts of interest
I am glad that the Inquiry found no evidence of malfeasance. But I also think that, for a movement partly based on a critique of the lack of effectiveness of the philanthropy sector, finding out that one of its core organizations lacked some basic controls is a bit frustrating.
I suspect today’s reaction is influenced by the fact that ~all of this was seemingly already ~known and thus not really a negative update?
The timings are description line up very closely to the public record, so I’m almost certain it must be.
I agree that the full report gives a more rounded picture than my quick summary—but we’re pleased with the final conclusions, and the improvements EV has made
My top line summary is: in several areas, EV were operating below the standard the commission would expect, but have rectified the issues to the commission’s satisfaction.