Thursday 10th November was a significant day in the Christ Church Oxford saga with the publication of an Official Warning by the Charity Commission (CC) to the College. The trustees of Christ Church are found to have failed to manage the charity’s resources responsibly. This Warning does not bring about a retrospective resolution of the dispute between the former Dean and the Governing Body (GB). Rather it focuses its attention on what has been an extraordinary disbursement of funds by the College authorities in their attempts to rid themselves of their Dean, Martyn Percy. The intervention by the CC is welcome as it appears to ask some of the many questions that people have been asking over the long period of this dispute. The CC Official Warning does not address the origins or the rights and wrongs of the College dispute. Its main finding is that £6.6m has been spent by a charitable body in ways that involve mismanagement and/or misconduct.
Surviving Church has carried several pieces on the Christ Church story and on two occasions the contributions have been challenged by lawyers working for College or the Diocese of Oxford. It is good to be able to have one simple undisputed fact in the current story, namely the total sum spent by the College on the dispute. This figure of £6.6m is given for the first time in the Official Warning. The first thing that might strike anyone about this huge sum of money is that it is actually quite hard to spend on this scale. Even lawyers and public relations firms charging top London rates need to do a lot of work to be able to earn such large fees. Having felt some surprise at the total amount of expenditure, we need also to recognise that in order for lawyers and publicity agents to do their work, there have to be clients giving instructions. The industrial scale of the Percy dispute suggests some of the censors/members of the GB had themselves to work extremely hard in managing the dispute process. Commissioning millions of pounds of legal work and reputation management takes time and a lot of effort. In other words, there were, among the Christ Church fellows or Students, some who gave sacrificially of their time to coordinate this work of removing the Dean.
When someone in an organisation gives a great deal of voluntary time to further a project, we can assume that there is strong motivation to do this. The £6.6m project at Christ Church was, at one level, a simple one, to rid the College of its Dean. Here we may pause and recognise that a group of senior members at the College seemed ready to put themselves in a place of vulnerability as well as considerable effort to accomplish this task. There would have been numerous meetings to attend and endless conversations with lawyers to discuss strategy. The question we have to ask on a human level is, was it worth it? It goes without saying that the dedication of so much time to this project required persistence and energy. It would have been a source of considerable disappointment when various legal schemes were shot down along the way. From the Dean’s point of view all this effort to remove him from office was experienced as severe persecutory bullying with elements of cruel sadism mixed in. He and his family did suffer appallingly but, in a kind of perverse way, to an extent so did his persecutors. There was something mega-obsessive about what they were doing in trying to destroy the Dean professionally and reputationally. It is hard to see that any greater good was being served, even if the Dean had been a person threatening harm to others in the College. No, what we observed at Christ Church was what might be described as an exhibition of entitled power, mixed up with jealousy, vindictiveness and poisonous hate. These toxic emotions will continue to sully the lives and happiness of the persecutors over many years. The £6.6m spent on the Dean’s persecution achieved fairly little in the end. Its main legacy is a dark shadow which even now must impinge on the happiness and well-being of the persecutors and persecuted alike.
The persecutors of Christ Church, and those who joined in from the ranks of the CofE clergy, may have lost something more than their peace of mind. They have put at risk another important possession, personal reputation. The College itself has also severely damaged its own institutional reputation for at least a generation or two. This would be true even if the Dean had been shown to be a malefactor, which he has not. Any moral high ground claimed by the College was also especially undermined when one of its team allowed the (expensive) reputation managers to feed salacious and defamatory stories about the Dean to a Sunday newspaper. Most of the story will eventually be forgotten but some will remember the narrative of an Oxford college spending extravagantly to get rid of its head. No one will explain why this happened. That part of the story has not really been explained to us who live as contemporaries of these extraordinary events.
Losing one’s peace of mind to engage in persecution of an individual is one thing. To be also part of a group that is being held to account for wasting massive sums of charitable money on an ultimately futile witch-hunt is another. This will add to a feeling of acute discomfiture among some residents of Oxford. Sadly, the Church of England, which is tied up with the College, has not at any point covered itself with glory. The same lawyers working for the interests of the College were also working for the Diocese of Oxford. This has created some serious conflicts of interest. The poison originally found in the College was allowed to spill over into the Cathedral and thence out into the diocese. The effect of the whole episode will be around with us for a long time to come.
In summary the CC has spelled out to the trustees of the College that they must put their managerial house in order. The CC had been shocked by its discovery of the £6.6 million spent on the persecution of the Dean. Also, it was revealed that as much as £5.3m was approved by the trustees only retrospectively. The CC calls on the trustees to submit to the Independent Governance Review under the oversight of Dominic Grieve KC and keep the Commission informed at every stage of this process.
The decisive intervention by the CC in the Percy/Christ Church affair will not resolve the past injustices committed against the former Dean. That was never the aim of the CC intervention, but the Dean’s case (and thus his reputation) will be helped by the revelation of the arbitrary and irregular practices until recently in operation in the College’s administration. When we go right back to the beginning of the dispute between Dean and College, what we find are not stories about pay and rumoured scandal but about governance and good practice in the management of the College. Dean Percy made valiant attempts to reform this governance. He was constantly frustrated by the obstruction of vested interests who did not welcome any involvement by the Dean in administrative matters that they regarded as their own. It is now the task, maybe, of the CC to oversee the task that the Dean had tried to put in place but was never allowed to complete.
Dominic Grieve QC not Greene.
https://www.chch.ox.ac.uk/news/house/christ-church-appoints-rt-hon-dominic-grieve-qc-lead-its-independent-governance-review
KC?
Yes now, but not then! The job was advertised in April and he was appointed in June, almost three months before our late Queen died. Thank you for posting the link which reminded me that his report is expected in 2023.
‘ The Commission has found that the charity’s published accounts (for years ending 2018-21) categorised costs associated with the charity’s actions involving the former Dean as “other direct costs – teaching, research and residential”. The Commission says that this has the potential to mislead the readers of the accounts. The trustees had been advised by the charity’s auditors to consider reporting on actions related to the dispute specifically, and to seek advice on its reporting.’
In other words, the college attempted to disguise the expenditure.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/charity-regulator-issues-official-warning-to-christ-church-oxford
Christ Church has invited representations to the governance review by members/alumni. I have written in, proposing the total separation of college and cathedral, which might entail the removal of the cathedral and the reduction of the existing cathedral to the status of a pro-cathedral.
As I have suggested on previous occasions, the system of dual control brokered in 1867 was only plausible if there were a critical mass of suitable clergy who could join the chapter and/or be appointed to the deanery. However, that settlement was soon undermined by the laicisation of college fellowships (including almost all of the studentships). Thus, most clerical headships were scrapped 15 years after the passage of the 1867 Act. The 1867 settlement was sustainable for as long as it was because the talent pool for capitular and decanal appointments evaporated gradually, because the clerical rump were conscious of the political weakness of their position (surrounded by an increasingly secular SCR) and behaved accordingly with discretion, and because of institutional inertia.
Well, the clerical talent pool has long since evaporated, but the struggle of the last few years has exposed the limitations – indeed, the redundancy – of the 1867 settlement. It could even be said that the settlement has facilitated poor practice at Christ Church: successive deans have functioned only as comparatively weak chairmen of the governing body (Heaton perhaps aside), and have ceded more and more control to the current and former censors. The visceral reactions to Dr Percy’s bid for reform indicated that the students were only prepared to tolerate an inoffensive clerical presence which would know its place (its place being not to disrupt existing policies or patterns of behaviour).
Therefore, the 1867 settlement had become a cancer on the college, and the best way to deal with a cancer is to excise it; as such, there should be a clean separation between college and cathedral. Some people may protest such a proposal, on the basis that the Church has an ‘interest’ in the college. It’s interest is, at best marginal, and if it were to have a say it would be akin to a tail (a very short tail) wagging the dog, and characteristic of the self-absorbed self-interest of the Church, and of its increasingly entitled presumption to privileges unwarranted by its tiny and moribund numbers.
Others may say that this would lead to a reduction in the Church’s influence in the University, to which the great bulk of public – and University – opinion are likely to say: “Good! Bring it on!”. The Church was already effectively beaten out of the University a long ago as 1852-82. Moreover, can it really be argued with any credibility that the recent functioning of the 1867 settlement has given the Church anything other than cause for acute embarrassment, and has perverted its own safeguarding agenda?
As per Robert Frost, ‘good fences make for good neighbours’.
A demerger of college and Church would be a good but expensive idea. Imagine the colossal fees accountants and lawyers would have to charge to complete such a transaction. Not least because the respective parties would quibble endlessly about the division of assets. However at least such fees would be easier to justify and less disreputably incurred. I agree with the premise.
Oxford Diocesan Synod have been debating the proposed diocesan submission to the Grieve review this morning (12 November). The relevant papers (publicly available on the diocesan website) include the draft submission authored (according to the metadata) by ‘DPO’ – presumably Darren Oliver, and a personal reflection by the Bishop of Oxford, Steven Croft. See (including the agenda): https://www.oxford.anglican.org/diocesan-synod-documents/
Unless I have misunderstood them, I don’t understand how the role of the Dean would work under these proposals. Understandably the Bishop wishes to attain the normal role and jurisdiction of a diocesan, including the right to be involved in the appointment of the Dean. The Dean, properly, is to be accountable to the Chapter, not the Governing Body, in ecclesiastical matters.
So this is not intended to be a total separation of Cathedral and College. It leaves open whether the Dean continues to be Head of the College. Is the College likely to go along with such an idea, particularly with the Bishop staking a claim in the Dean’s appointment? Possibly I have got this completely wrong, but surely the logical step would be a new Head of College accountable to the Governing Body. Of course there are funding issues to be faced in either case.
Many thanks. Indeed, and having read now read the papers to which Mr Lamming has kindly referred, a lot of things start to make sense, including the way in which the diocese *appeared* to back the students.
The diocese is evidently desperate to retain the status quo, with only the most tokenistic change. The notion that the dean can somehow wear two hats, and that this be presented as a ‘reform’ is amusing, but indicative. Indeed, there is a barely disguised threat to the college should it wish to pursue more comprehensive reforms than the diocese (and the Church Commissioners) are prepared to tolerate: “If, either at this or any future point, there were to be any kind of separation of the current joint foundation, the Church of England would expect that a substantial proportion of the assets would become the responsibility of the Church, recognising that the first objective for which the foundation exists is to provide a cathedral for the diocese.” (para. 49).
The premise that the college exists only because of the cathedral is wholly spurious; the college had been brought into existence by Wolsey in 1525 prior to the foundation of the diocese in 1542, and by Henry VIII in 1532 before the destruction of Oseney in 1544. In other words, the cathedral was only removed to Christ Church faute de mieux; the college is therefore the ‘host’ of the cathedral, rather than the cathedral of the college. The claim of a ‘substantial portion of the assets’ would be, on the basis of para. 48, be in the ratio of 1:6 between cathedral and college. Of course, if the cathedral were to be brought within the jurisdiction of the Church, that would mean a transfer to the Church Commissioners, so what the diocese is really claiming (on behalf of the Commissioners) is a hefty chunk of the capital as a divorce settlement: they are eying up an opportunity. Phrases like ‘the Church of England would expect’ indicate a sense of entitlement, whereas it could be argued that the Church has no entitlement to anything any more than it did when other colleges (which were once rated as ‘ecclesiastical establishments’) were laicised: i.e., to nothing.
Moreover, if the present cathedral were to become a pro-cathedral, shorn of its ecclesiastical establishment (the size of which the diocese does not wish to reduce) then there would be little or no need for any transfer of capital from the college to the Commissioners. If that were so, there would be no reason why the choir school, a major overhead, should not continue to be the responsibility of the college, much as at Magdalen and New Colleges, or King’s and St John’s Colleges, Cambridge.
The two papers are so transparent and self-serving in so many ways that it is hard to know where to begin. In my submission to Katherine Selwyn (who is co-ordinating submissions on behalf of Mr Grieve) I mentioned that I had a premonition that something like this might be served up by the Church.
From your earlier contributions here and on ‘Thinking Anglicans’ I anticipated that you would propose this, and I think you are specially placed to do so as an alumnus of Christ Church.
We have previously discussed the (hypothetical) division or separation of Christ Church buildings and personnel. Theoretically (or factually, according to the Statutes) the two bodies of Cathedral and College are defined, with separate seals and accounts. For example, the Cathedral, clergy houses, the choral foundation and school all vest solely in the Dean and Chapter, as one would expect. You explained that in practical terms, the accounts are treated as consolidated. I’m not at all sure that separating the two bodies would be as expensive and difficult as some seem to suggest. Of course it will require agreement of both ‘parties’ (unless imposed) and legislation. The position of the Crown as currently Visitor of both bodies will have to be considered. Might that include rationalising the status of the Bishop of Oxford becoming Visitor in ‘his’ Cathedral and the Crown continuing as Visitor of the College? Does the status of the Cathedral need to change (and if so, why?). Why cannot it become a ‘normal’ C of E Cathedral with a reconstituted Dean and Chapter, retaining the right of the College to use it as the College Chapel? If there are worries about, e.g., the choral foundation, surely that could be the subject of special agreement such as shared funding? One significant new post, presumably, would be the need for a new Head of College. I don’t see any problem of the College lacking independence; arguably both College and Cathedral would gain it.
Of course, all this is conjectural – and possibly impertinent from an outsider! It will be interesting to see whether any such proposals emerge from Dominic Grieve’s Governance Review.
Also, he’s not Sir Dominic Grieve (at least, not yet – and undoubtedly he is more worthy of the honour than, say, Gavin Williamson!) Correctly he is the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve KC.
Apologies to all who pointed out my slipshod mention of the Right Hon Dominic Grieve KC. This come from not checking sources!
I gather some alumni are seeking the misspent millions to be repaid by the trustees. That costs out at £100,000 each from 66 trustees, unless the Governing Body is able to identify and evidence who withheld the size and true nature of the spends from them. That may be the direction this will go in … a small group of people under whose direction this acrid theatre has played out, facing personal ruin.
Christ Church has clearly had very wrong hands at the helm, people of no wisdom and little integrity who thought the charitable funds was a free and bottomless purse to spend recklessky as they liked. It wouldn’t surprise me if recent donors (last 4 years) asked for their donations to be returned.
So much of this could have been avoided if there’d been instinctive wisdom from inside the college, diocese, and cathedral. All come out of this scandal looking distinctly seedy. And as for the lawyers and laundries that together mopped up the millions, Winckworth Sherwood and Luther Pendragon and others, ‘seedy’ barely begins to describe the unethical carry-on. If individual trustees face personal ruin while these outfits go scot-free and unaccountable – then the lawyers and laundries will be the only winners. But I suspect there will be a clamour for justice and a call for the Church of England to divest itself of further involvement in such disreputable corporate bodies.
Gilo: A note of caution. Some of the Christ Church trustees were appointed as recently as September and October of this year. I don’t claim to know, but in spite of charity trustees’ collective joint and several liability, I can’t see that these recent appointments can be in the frame.
If there are to be any surcharges of individual trustees I’m certain that the Charity Commission (1) will have to determine that there has been misconduct (2) the relevant dates and (3) the identity of those trustees who were in office on the relevant dates. It’s a matter for the Charity Commission to investigate and make these decisions with the legal powers which they possess.
I’m not commenting about the lawyers’ and PR fees, but the Charity Commission will also be looking at those.
The position of the C of E isn’t clear. It seems that nothing is happening currently. The Charity Commission’s action is directed solely to the Christ Church Governing Body, which happens to include in its name the Dean and Chapter, but the C of E as such is not involved. As you know, the C of E ISB investigation is in abeyance and its very limited terms of reference did not, in any event, cover the matters which you raise.
This comment has just been posted today by Anthony Archer on ‘Thinking Anglicans’:
“Brilliant letter in The Times this morning from Professor Nigel Biggar:
“Sir, The Charity Commission has found that the governing body of Christ Church buried the legal and PR costs of its action against the dean under the heading “other direct costs – teaching, research, and residential” and that this had “the potential to mislead readers of the accounts” … The commission is pulling its punch. As a former governing body member, I can testify that the potential was fully realised: I did not know the costs of the action against the dean until the commission revealed them. Moreover, if there is a plausible reason for the mis-categorisation other than the intention to hide the truth, I cannot imagine it.
Nigel Biggar
Oxford”
As regards “who knew”, when the auditors discussed the matter, typically they would have raised it with an “audit committee”. Most significant organisations have one, even if it’s termed something different.
Warning: There are 20 pages and an hour or more’s reading, but important for getting a clearer picture of what has happened and the reasons for the Charity Commission’s actions. At present the Charity (essentially the Christ Church Governing Body) is the respondent of the warning notice and not individual trustees. This also explains that not all of the £6.6 million is in issue. Some costs were legitimately incurred, although it’s clear that a highly complex picture still remains.
https://www.turbulentpriest.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/20221109_Christ-Church-Decision-Review.pdf
‘ ….. in the financial year 2018/19 the Charity estimated professional costs of just £9k but spent over £1.5m. The Reviewer finds it unusual that neither the Finance Committee nor the Charity’s Treasury Department highlighted this extremely large discrepancy as part of the Charity’s internal scrutiny processes.’
Somewhat shorter, I hadn’t previously seen this extended narrative in a public statement by the Charity Commission. It speaks for itself!
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/charity-regulator-issues-official-warning-to-christ-church-oxford
Oh dear, a blunder! I see that Steve had already posted this at the beginning of the discussion!
Taxpayers are effectively subsidising this charity. As most people know, charities enjoy considerable tax advantages in recognition of their public benefit.
How these eye watering amounts were spent will be of considerable interest to them. You do wonder if this was the sole profligate area of expense over the years.
I haven’t seen any terms of reference for Dominic Grieve’s Internal Governance Review, but when it was announced in April this year, there was a comprehensive ‘Candidate Brief’ from which, quoted below, I have extracted one relevant item (13) which will be of interest:
“Broad scope of review
The following matters will be considered.
This is not an exhaustive list, but identifies certain areas that should be covered:
13 – The proper management of the institution’s assets including, but not limited to, the annual budget forecasting process, the process for budgetary approval, the Finance Committee’s role in conducting proper oversight of expenditure against budget, the process for reviewing and updating budgets and reporting to Governing Body as well as the minuting of the budgetary approval and oversight processes.”
In the Martin Sargeant London Diocesan fraud, it appears he groomed (unsuspecting?) clergy as follows:
‘Sargeant’s fraud targeted the Trust for London, a fund with an endowment of £350m, from which it makes grants to good causes. Up to £10m a year is allocated by the trust for London’s City Churches grants committee for restoration projects and special appeals. Sargeant was clerk to this committee and able to distribute benefits to favoured clergy. Some went on trips to America with him; others received generous grants for their churches.’
Private Eye 1586. Nov-Dec 2022
Trustees and others in authority would do well to consider carefully their own receipt of benefits and privileges.
Grieve may well take a look at this area too, if he is so minded.
A further conundrum. Has there been a correct understanding of the Dean’s powers and role? For three (?) years I have been asking how the Bishop’s powers relate to the Dean, bearing in mind that the Bishop is not the Visitor of the Cathedral, but no answer has been forthcoming – until now! The Diocese of Oxford published last week the Christ Governance Review Consultation Paper, which at paragraph 34 says this:
“The Dean is a royal appointment to a royal foundation and so is not licensed by or subject to the bishop’s appointment or subsequent Ordinary control. Unlike every other cathedral in England, the Dean, not the Bishop, exercises Ordinary jurisdiction in the cathedral, ie the Dean is the highest ranking ecclesiastical authority in the cathedral and is not subject to any other ecclesiastical authority insofar as the cathedral is concerned.”
This has a potential bearing on the actions taken by the Church (as well as those members of the Governing Body who are in clerical orders).
I should have written Christ Church Governance Review Consultation Paper, of course.
Rowland. A rather general question, when this is a specific case. There was a suggestion that the 66 Trustees might be obliged to pay back a share of any wrongly spent money. It was pointed out that some of them were appointed after all these shenanigans. If Trustees are jointly and severally liable, does that make any difference? Ie, are they still liable? And, in fact, if some of the trustees aren’t liable, doesn’t it all fall onto the rest? Theoretically, any single Trustee could be done for the whole lot? This nearly happened to me when I was on a committee a while ago. It struck me that my liability could be unlimited, even though I hadn’t been present at some of the meetings.
I don’t claim any expertise, but I think any one of those three alternatives is possible depending on what is established to have actually happened. The year-ending accounts for 2022 are the crucial documents. I think Martin Sewell has summarised the alternatives clearly and fairly on the following thread “The Christ Church Malcontents gambled “The House”, they should bear the loss.”
The duties of a charity trustee are, indeed, onerous. I think joint liability might be avoided if a trustee disagrees with a proposal or decision and insists that their veto is recorded in the minutes of the meeting. If a trustee was not present at the meeting but disagrees with the decision(s) made, he or she should immediately notify the secretary in writing. In either case, if it was something extremely serious, they should resign from their trusteeship. I think that’s the best I can offer.
I have been a charity trustee. In a well run charity that can be rewarding and you feel that you are contributing something worthwhile, e.g., for a beneficiary’s benefit. I remember being delegated to visit a beneficiary’s widow to find that she was living in near poverty, and the charity was able to make a grant to her. A different scenario to Oxford, I agree.
PCC members and church wardens can be vulnerable. It’s possible that they might be protected by personal liability insurance, but I have to stress that this is outside my experience. It would be sensible for them to check that possibility.
Thank you. The situation I was in turned out to be corrupt! The people who had most influence with the chair changed and manipulated the times of the meetings to make sure that access was restricted. I turned up, quite innocently, and it was plain I was somewhat de trop! I was able to suggest some changes that limited liability. With the support of the senior church reps, tbf. But in the end I jacked it in. I wouldn’t like anyone innocent of wrong doing to find they have been bankrupted by collective responsibility.
People are honoured to be invited to stand as trustees without always realising the responsibilities.
Good to hear from you EA. You keeping ok? Feels like normal traffic is missing at the minute, what with later posts having no comments allowed. I appreciate the reason of course but I miss the interactions.
Hi, Steve, nice of you to ask. I’ve not been on, I didn’t think I wanted to see more stories about how awful people can be! Life has been a bit full! My husband was in hospital with sepsis for three weeks! He’s well recovered now, but I had a blackout and am not allowed to drive until they sort me out! Too much going on! Add in a mother in extreme old age and trying to organise Christmas! And I’m preaching on Advent 2, for the third time! So I have to think of something new to say! And I shall have to do it sitting down, so I’ll feel a bit foolish. It doesn’t seem to be bothering anyone else, I might say. So, nice to expound a bit. I have been reading other relevant material, but as everyone on here will appreciate, studying abuse gets a bit indigestible. Praying for all victims.
Life can be like this and stretch us beyond our limits. At least it would me. Hope the talk goes well, and regards to your husband and mum.
Thanks.😀
A belated further thought about just one aspect of the Christ Church conundrum.
Section 24 (2) of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 states this:
No penalty of removal from office imposed on an archbishop or bishop or on any person holding any preferment the right to appoint to which is vested in Her Majesty (not being a parochial benefice) shall have effect unless and until Her Majesty by Order in Council confirms the penalty.
I must have read it countless times without fully taking in its significance. This, surely, demonstrates the anomaly and absurdity of the Dean of Christ Church being subject to both a potential penalty of removal from office as Dean of the Cathedral under the Church CDM, requiring confirmation by Her Majesty (now His Majesty) in Council, or removal from office (both as Cathedral Dean and Head of the House) by an entirely different, largely secular, body under Statute XXXIX of the Christ Church Statutes.
Froghole mentions above that Dominic Grieve is inviting submissions from alumni (which I am not!) so one hopes that it is something which he will address in the Christ Church Governance Review.