Managing the fallout from a trustee tainted by scandal
After being banned as a trustee for allegedly misusing funds by the Charity Commission, Naomi Campbell is now set to launch an appeal, claiming that a fake identity was used in communications with lawyers. As a result, questions have been raised about the role of trustees in charities, and what can be done to manage the fallout when one has been hit with harmful or defamatory allegations.
Claims of impersonation can make these cases especially complex and difficult to navigate during legal proceedings. Ultimately, however, any allegation against a trustee has the potential to wreak havoc on a charity’s reputation long term and so requires a clear plan of action.
As this kind of scandal can be incredibly damaging, it’s crucial to have a clear crisis plan for every stage, from allegation, through to investigation, and finally to resolution. While it may seem easier to bury your head in the sand, having a considered response and reacting quickly will minimise long term damage to the charity. Allegations can be complex and differ from case to case, but it’s important to keep a close eye on the situation, assess how the situation is unfolding at every step, and tailor the plan accordingly.
Charities must begin building their crisis plan from when the allegations are first made against a trustee. This can then be used to help navigate the entire process and should include measures such as who needs to be notified, for example the leadership, legal and PR teams, and what they are in charge of coordinating. This early stage represents a crucial opportunity for charities to provide a clear response that positions them as reliable in the public sphere.
Gather information
In order to achieve this, charities must first gather as much information about the allegations as soon as they arise and use this to craft a clear response. It can be difficult to cut through a whirlwind of public reporting and get an accurate picture, particularly when allegations have not been made directly to the charity, which is more likely when high-profile trustees are involved. Getting precise details will help to shape the response in any case, as any inaccuracy in public response could further damage trust and potentially implicate the charity in the court of public opinion.
Although being thorough in this information-gathering is important, it’s also vital not to fall into a trap of waiting too long to have your say, at which point reputational damage could be too far gone. Providing an early response also lays the foundations for ongoing communication with the public, as the investigation progresses and new details potentially arise.
Once an initial response has been decided, the charity must begin navigating the longer term situation, balancing conducting a fair and thorough investigation with maintaining its reputation.
The first step is to assess if the role the trustee holds is crucial to the charity, as this can help decide if or how damage can be contained. For example, if the trustee is public-facing but not involved in the charity’s operations, the reputational damage may be more easily isolated and implicating the charity as a whole may be avoided. The charity can then decide if it is able to take the trustee off the board or make changes to their level of involvement in light of the allegations.
This may, however, become complex in cases where a trustee acts as the ‘”ace” of the charity and is key to its representation. Charities must consider how this could affect them later down the line, and whether it may be worth distancing themselves from the individual, if possible, to avoid the associated scandal. If the trustee plays a more functional role, charities will have to carefully balance the severity of allegations against the trustee’s significance to operations.
Despite the nuances, charities must come to a decision which takes all of these factors into account and which is quick without being hasty.
Genuine threat
Once the investigation is underway, the process can often be lengthy and complicated. Public scandal can spiral and pose a genuine threat to the charity’s funds and ability to carry out necessary work. Having prepared well in the very first instance of allegations, charities can expect to be better equipped for this – but managing the situation does not stop there.
Moving into this developing stage, charities must continue to follow their crisis plan, tailoring this as the process changes. Halting delivery on work, for example, is a tough call to make, but often necessary while the charity is navigating complex legal proceedings.
When it comes to communicating with the public throughout the investigation, charities must shape any response with the intention of repairing trust. Responses will vary, but they typically fit into one of four key categories.
The first of these, a consistent “no comment” response, rarely works and often reflects charities turning a blind eye to spiralling allegations, as well as suggesting that there may be something to hide. There may be some exceptions, such as for lower-level charities or when allegations are predominantly made online rather than progressing to the public sphere; this should not, however, be relied on as a safe option.
The second response is when charities take the position of the allegation being false and defamatory. This, while effective, requires extensive understanding of the accusations made, and charities will need to ensure that they have taken the necessary steps of investigating the allegation in the first stage to justify this firm type of response. They must also be prepared to follow this through, potentially with legal action, and to be under a strong spotlight in these developing stages of the investigation.
Strategic response
The third response is a strategic response that recognises allegations, sheds light on the charity’s position and maintains clear communication with the public throughout. This is often the most helpful in any case, and allows for better manoeuvring as the investigation develops. Coming to a clear resolution is helpful, but charities shouldn’t shy away from communicating with the public until they have decided their position.
If charities are investigating and monitoring the situation, this can be enough to communicate in a public response, showing that the charity is aware, understands concerns and will be following up accordingly.
The fourth type of response arises when the allegations aren’t completely unexpected, and the charity has already been made aware of the allegations before they became public. Taking a similar approach to the third response, it’s important to convey both awareness of allegations, and actions being taken behind the scenes to deal with these.
Towards the final stages of the investigation, charities mustn’t take their foot off the gas. It can be easy to fall into a trap of assuming the hard work is done as the scandal dies down and legal proceedings conclude. This can, however, risk the charity being unable to recover and deliver on necessary work, or even an unexpected resurgence of public disapproval. Repairing public trust is most vital at this stage, to reinstil lost confidence and reposition the charity in the public sphere.
If the claims made against the trustee are found to be untrue, this will of course soften the blow to the charity’s reputation. However, they will still need to take careful steps to re-enter into the public sphere. The best thing to do can often be to allow the trustee themselves to decide how best to deal with defamatory allegations, once they are found to be as such. They may, for example, find it justifies a claim in itself, in which case the charity can allow this new legal process to play out while it focuses on continuing to deliver on important work and supporting the trustee in their internal role.
If allegations are found to be true, the charity will find itself in a better position if it has worked on maintaining public trust throughout the investigation. If the charity has succeeded in building a positive narrative in its response that has separated it from the trustee, they will find that longer-term reputational damage will have been alleviated. Once the charity has provided an adequate public response that recognises the outcomes of the case, it can shift its focus back onto its work, which ultimately represents it in the public sphere.
Continuing visibility
Ensuring that the charity’s work is visible as the case closes is vital to mending broken trust, particularly amongst existing and potential donors. Charities must ensure they are delivering to their core stakeholders and demonstrating that they are still doing necessary work. Distancing the charity from scandal and focusing on exhibiting the charity’s core values and key work is most appropriate at this stage.
It’s important to note that the time this takes all depends on the severity of the allegations, the trustee’s role, the outcome of the case and how the charity has responded to public criticism up until this point.
It’s clear that trustees can often be really significant to charities, whether in the role they play behind the scenes or in the attention they garner from the public. Ensuring trustees are carefully elected can help to minimise risks of allegations later down the line. Sticking to an established process of detailed checks both prior to taking them on, and once they are part of the charity is a core part of this. Social media can also be used during this, helping to spot any issues, raise and investigate concerns in a timely manner and manage a potentially worrying digital footprint.
Even with extensive checks, a large part of electing a trustee does rely on trust. While charities should keep on top of the necessary checks, monitoring activity and managing any allegations, they shouldn’t let this spiral to the point of overbearing for the trustee. Remaining alert, charities must keep bearing in mind that they themselves operate on a foundation of trust, and therefore they should not break this trust with trustees who have a real interest in the charity and its progression.
