Meeting between signatories of the “Open Letter to BACP Leaders” and members of the BACP Board of Governors

13th June 2024

In attendance:

Phil James (BACP CEO) – chairing the meeting

Natalie Bailey, Chair of Board of Governors

Sekinat Adima, Deputy Chair

Ewan Irvine, Board Member

Marc Leppard, Board Member

John McLeod, Open Letter Group

Caryl Sibbett, Open Letter Group

To provide a context for these notes, a copy of the original Open Letter is copied below.

  1. PJ briefly summarised prior meetings between BACP senior managers (Senior executive Team; SET) and OL representatives, that had discussed issues arising from the Open Letter (3 meetings) and establishing an agenda and format for the present meeting (one session). [Notes of these OL/SET meetings have been previously widely circulated]. PJ identified the purpose of the present meeting as response to insistence of the OL Group that the Board should enter the dialogue by making its own response to the Open Letter. It was agreed that the aim of the present meeting was to enable the Board to do this. PJ invited those attending the meeting to introduce themselves. 
  • NB made an opening statement that the Board had considered the letter when it was first received, and had instructed the management team to meet with the OLG (Open Letter Group) group to explore any issues arising.
  • JMcL made an opening statement that noted that the OLG representatives at the meeting saw their role as reporting back to the other signatories, the 1700 supporters of the letter who had publicly affirmed their support for the letter on an on-line blog, and the large number of additional members who had contacted him privately in a similar vein. JMcL stated that, in the light of these responsibilities, he intended to take notes that would be circulated to all attendees, with the aim of generating an agreed record of the present meeting that could be widely circulated. This was agreed, including a commitment not to disseminate reports of the meeting prior to the completion of the agreed record. It was also agreed that PJ agreed to liaise with JMcL around the production of an agreed record. 

[Note – the present document does not represent an agreed record. No response was received from BACP around the request for comments or amendments to the present document]

  • In addition, JMcL requested that the Board should make its own formal response to the OL known to members, through a statement circulated to all members. NB agreed to do this. Because of the schedule of Board meetings, no date could be established for this action to be completed.
  • The meeting then explored two key issues raised in the OL. (a) Widely circulated (e.g. social media) concerns about the governance of BACP; (b) The process of dialogue and consultation leading the publication of a 5-year strategic plan in autumn 2023.
  • Concerns about the governance of BACP. NB and PJ affirmed that an investigation had been set in motion, using external consultants, soon after PJ took up his post in December 2023. PJ had also circulated BACP members at that time, informing them that an investigation had been initiated, and that members would be informed of its conclusions in due course. The full report had been received by BACP toward the end of March 2024, and the Board and management team were working through it to identify action points, and formulate a statement that could be shared with BACP members. There was complete agreement and acceptance from all attending the meeting that this statement could not name individuals or disclose legally-sensitive information. CS requested further clarification on when this statement might be forthcoming. NB stated that the Board had seen an “analysis” or summary of key themes from the report, as part of the Board meeting in April, and that a statement for members would be released as soon as possible following Board meetings scheduled for later in June and in September. [Note: BACP circulated findings of this Investigation in August]
  • Dialogue and consultation leading the publication of the 5-year strategic plan. NB described the process through which the plan had been developed, drawing on information received by BACP around the views of members, that had been conveyed through their very wide engagement with members, including member representatives on several BACP working groups. JMcL asked whether a timeline of these consultations could be made available, that would include an account of opportunities which the wider membership were given to share their views on the proposed strategic plan. NB agreed that this would be provided. JMcL was invited to identify specific concerns around the strategic plan. He highlighted three areas: (i) international outreach; (ii) research strategy; (iii) absence of any reference to the possibility of reviewing the issue of statutory recognition in the light of SCOPED and likelihood of a new government that would be more sympathetic to legislation that safeguarded consumer/service user rights. There followed a detailed discussion in which Board members explained the rationale behind their position regarding (i) and (iii). Topic (ii) was not discussed in detail. Board members acknowledged that, in hindsight, it would have been preferable to have published more comprehensive Strategic Plan documentation, and agreed that future iterations would do that.
  • Other issues discussed.
    • Board members described many ways in which they – and the BACP staff more widely – engaged with members’ experiences and views. OL representatives stated that they were aware of these activities, and fully appreciated that they represented valuable and essential aspect of the culture of BACP as an organisation. OL representatives emphasised that the concerns in the OL had related specifically to consultation with members about the strategy, and had highlighted wider strategic issues around the governance and future identity/direction of BACP, which they regarded as constitutionally the responsibility of the Board to facilitate and address. 
    • Board members stated that they were required to make difficult decisions on complex issues, and that it was not realistic to expect all members to agree with specific decisions and policy positions. OL representatives agreed that this was the case, and acknowledged the pressure faced by the Board, and suggested that wider dialogue might be helpful in allowing a consensus to be developed within the membership, that might generate greater understanding of why certain decisions had been made.
    • Board members pointed out that, in the period preceding the Open Letter, their communication strategy had been limited because of departure of key staff, and that new appointments had been made that would enhance communication going forward.
    • NB suggested that the issues raised in the OL could have been dealt with much more quickly and effectively if the OL group had written to her personally with their concerns, rather than employing an open letter strategy. JMcL reported that, from his perspective, the group had been extremely reluctant to deploy an open letter strategy, for fear of reputational damage to the Association, and had only with great reluctance decided to do so following unsuccessful attempts to reach out to the Chair by senior members of the profession. NB reported that she had not been aware of such initiatives   
    • One member of the Board was critical of the Open Letter on the grounds that: (a) it dehumanised Board members, and (b) raised Equality Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) concerns. There was not time to discuss these important aspects because these points were only raised at the very end of the 1 hour allotted time for the meeting. 
  • Future dialogue. NB proposed that further dialogue should take place, facilitated by the CEO and senior staff. OL representatives welcomed this proposal. PJ agreed to take on this task.

ACTION POINTS

  1. Finalisation of agreed record of meeting. PJ and JMcL to facilitate.
  2. Publication of Board formal response to OL. NB to lead.
  3. Publication of Investigation report. NB and PJ.
  4. Production of a timeline of the Strategic Plan process, to serve as a basis for further dialogue. Was not agreed who would do this.
  5. Arrangements for future dialogue between BACP Management/Board and members. PJ

The meeting took place on TEAMS and lasted for 70 minutes.

APPENDIX

OPEN LETTER TO TRUSTEES AND SENIOR STAFF

BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR COUNSELLING AND PSYCHOTHERAPY

For the attention of:

Natalie Bailey (Chair, Board of Trustees); Sekinat Adima, Punam Farmah, Ewan Irvine, Alwyn Li (Board Members/Trustees)

Anna Daroy (Chief Executive Officer); Philippa Foster, Ben Kay, Jamie Redmond (Senior Leadership Team)

Martin Bell, Grace Gardiner, Emma Hayes, Caroline Jesper, Adam Pollard, Clare Symons, Judy White (Senior Management Team)

Professor Lynne Gabriel OBE (President); Luciana Berger, Jabeer Butt OBE, Julia Samuel MBE (Vice-Presidents)

29th October 2023

Dear colleagues

The counselling and psychotherapy profession is facing a situation of unprecedented economic, political, technological and environmental challenge. The BACP has a unique role in relation to supporting mental health, well-being, justice, equality, and constructive social change. To fulfil this potential, BACP needs to be able to harness the vast talents, knowledge and experience of all of its members, as well as working in an effective and collegial manner alongside like-minded organisations, communities and occupational groups. Throughout our careers, in a range of areas of practice, training and research, all of us who are signing the present letter have consistently viewed BACP as a model and example of how people with different perspectives can resolve difficult issues through open dialogue. At the present time, BACP is falling short of this ideal. 

In the light of this situation, we have decided to write this open letter to you, albeit with heavy hearts and following much deliberation.  Many of us have been individual members of BACP for many years, have served the Association in various roles in a voluntary capacity, and have been part of organisations that stood alongside BACP in the furtherment of the profession.  We all share the same motivation to ensure high-quality, ethical and trustworthy therapeutic interventions for the clients and communities who use our services.  BACP’s charitable objectives also speak to this endeavour.  We are willing to do whatever we can to support the Board to re-affirm and if necessary re-imagine the purpose and mode of operation of the Association, and are confident that many other members would also wish to contribute to this task.

A series of events over the last two years have caused us to be increasingly concerned about the general direction of BACP. In recent weeks, these concerns have gained more momentum with material posted on social media (and not refuted by the Association). Taken together, the issues that we outline below, represent a pattern of governance, and in particular Board actions, that falls short of its duty to protect the integrity of the charity and its members and, by default, runs the risk of incurring significant reputational damage to the profession to undermining public trust in what we do. It is critical the Board works to the Nolan principles of selflessness; integrity; objectivity; accountability; openness; honesty; and leadership. The multiple losses of BACP Board and staff members over the past 12-18 months, culminating with the recent invocation of Article 36 to remove a Board member (Kate Smith), suggests that these principles are not being appropriately invoked or upheld. 

There are three primary areas that cause us particular concern:

  1. The unexplained departure of highly experienced and highly regarded staff, including the CEO, Deputy CEO, COO, Head of HR, Head of External Relations, EDI Lead and Data Protection Lead, amongst others.  Of course, we all make career decisions to move on to new and different work opportunities.  However, the speed and sequence of these staff departures is worrying, as is the destabilising impact on the work of BACP in terms of the loss of experience, skill and consistency of work.  We need to state that, as a group in unison, we would like to offer our support to the staff team at BACP, who we believe – and have experienced – to be talented, generous, committed and wise in undertaking their work and have, without question, played an integral part in the furtherment of the profession.  We honour their work and are dismayed by the high levels of work-related stress that they are currently encountering, as reported through social media and other channels of communication.
  • The pattern of departure of highly-experienced Trustees, six of whom have left the Board through resignation prior to their term of office ending.  This too speaks of dysfunctional governance and, at the very least, also speaks of a Board lacking sufficient experience to steer the Association through its work.  This reached a point of crisis when Kate Smith, an elected Trustee of the membership, was removed from the Board through Article 36 of the Articles of the Association; an action with no precedent in recent times and which marks the 7th departure in a short time span.  At the time of writing the Board have failed to provide the membership with an explanation of the events that led up to one of their elected Trustees needing to be removed in this way. 
  • It is not appropriate for the Association to launch a 5-year strategy without  consultation with members or staff prior to its official launch.  We feel duty bound to remind the Board that BACP belongs to the membership: Trustees are stewards of the Association on behalf of members.  While final strategy decisions clearly sit with the Board, is it not reasonable that funds and other resources – primarily accrued through professional membership fees – should be committed to 5-year projects without an adequate consultation process.  This speaks of either a lack of understanding of the role of Trustee, or a disregard for the views of the membership, or both.

Our over-arching concern is that the Association lacks effective strategic leadership, with a Board that is not functioning in an appropriately rigorous and transparent manner (for instance, there is no Deputy Chair in post, as stipulated in Article 33), and is disconnected from the membership. We are also aware of assertions, from multiple sources, that have been made about conduct and actions within the Association that are inconsistent with the charitable aims of the Association and that have the potential to bring the entire profession into disrepute. 

Each of the individuals listed below are signing this letter in an individual capacity and with a positive intention, in the hope that restorative work can be undertaken by the Board to establish a more constructive way forward and to repair its relationship with its staff team and the membership. In particular, we believe that it is crucially important to ensure that the membership can regain confidence in Board processes, policies and decisions. 

We call on the BACP Board of Governors to undertake the work of restoring the effective functioning, accountability and good reputation of the BACP, in an urgent, thorough and transparent manner.  Our strong preference is for this process to be carried out on the basis of consultation and consensus. However, we are aware that, if necessary, it would be possible  for us to take further action in accordance with procedures outlined in the Articles of Association. We hope for BACP and the profession that such an outcome can be avoided. 

Even at this late stage, we would ask that BACP leaders engage in a conversation to take forward positive actions to repair the relationship between the BACP Board, its staff and its membership.  In the spirit of progression, we invite you to take steps to talk openly about what is happening not only with ourselves, but with any other individuals and groups within the broad and diverse BACP constituency who might wish to be involved. 

This letter will be circulated as widely as possible to BACP members. 

Yours sincerely,

Professor John McLeod 

Maria Albertson

Paul Atkinson

Richard Bagnall-Oakley

Nicola Barden

Professor Tim Bond

Una Cavanagh

Professor Divine Charura

Professor Mick Cooper

Dr Elizabeth Cotton

Dr Philip Cox

Dominic Davies

Professor Windy Dryden

Dr Patricia Joyce

Myira Khan

Julia McLeod

Professor Ian Parker

Dr L.J. Potter

Dr Seb Randall

Professor Andrew Reeves

Heather Roberts

Dr Jeannette Roddy

Dr Alistair Ross

Professor Andrew Samuels

Dr Caryl Sibbett

Erin Stevens

Vanessa Stirrum

Janet Tolan

Professor Sue Wheeler

Dr John Wilson