Friday, 20 February 2026

When Trustees Go Quiet - Wednesbury


When Trustees Go Quiet

Let’s keep this simple.

I asked the trustees of Let’s Dance Again CIO a series of formal, written questions about governance.

They have not answered them.

Instead, there has been noise. Accusations. Deflection. Public commentary from people who are not trustees.

But no substantive written answers.

What This Is About

This is not about personalities.
It is not about shutting events down.
It is not about volunteers.
It is not about politics.

It is about governance.

Let’s Dance Again CIO is a registered charity.
Trustees carry legal duties.
Those duties are not optional.

When concerns are raised about:

  • Data protection
  • Safeguarding
  • Financial transparency
  • Exclusion of members
  • Conflicts of interest

… trustees are required to respond.

Not emotionally.
Not theatrically.
Not through supporters or intermediaries.

In writing.

The Record So Far

For clarity, here is the sequence:

6 January 2026 – Formal written governance and safeguarding questions sent to the Chair.

8 January 2026 – Formal data protection clarification requested.

19 January 2026 – Follow-up noting no response.

22 January 2026 – Further written questions regarding conflicts of interest and public claims about regulators.

4 February 2026 – Formal notice reminding trustees of their responsibilities and requesting written clarification.

To date:

No substantive written response addressing the questions.

That silence is now part of the record.

What Happened Instead

Instead of trustee responses, what followed publicly included:

  • Claims of bullying
  • Claims of intimidation
  • Assertions about “leaking”
  • Invitations to meet privately
  • Commentary from individuals who do not hold trustee responsibility

For clarity:

Governance matters should not be handled in cafés, Wetherspoons or restaurants.
They should not be handled on podcasts.
They should not be handled via social media commentary.

They should be handled by trustees.

In writing.

The full email record shows boundaries being set, requests for clarification being made, and confirmation of removal where inaccurate public material was involved.

That is not bullying.

That is documentation.

Responsibility Sits With Trustees

This has nothing to do with stopping events.

Nothing to do with destroying anything.

Nothing to do with personal grudges.

It has everything to do with whether:

  • Personal and special-category data is lawfully processed
  • Safeguarding procedures are robust and documented
  • Exclusions are fair, minuted and appealable
  • Financial controls are transparent
  • Conflicts of interest are declared and managed
  • Public statements about regulators are accurate

Trustees hold fiduciary responsibility.

Volunteers and supporters may speak loudly.

But trustees are accountable.

Annex: 15 Core Governance Questions Still Awaiting Answers

  1. Who is the named Data Controller for the charity?
  2. What lawful basis is relied upon for collecting health and next-of-kin data?
  3. Has a Data Protection Impact Assessment been conducted?
  4. Where are registration forms stored and who has access?
  5. What retention policy applies to personal and special-category data?
  6. What safeguarding policy is in force and when was it last reviewed?
  7. Who is the named safeguarding lead?
  8. What written complaints procedure exists?
  9. What documented appeal process applies to excluded members?
  10. How are conflicts of interest declared and minuted?
  11. When was the last AGM held?
  12. Were all trustees properly appointed and recorded?
  13. What internal financial controls apply to events and bingo income?
  14. On what basis were public statements made that regulators are “completely happy”?
  15. Have trustees formally reviewed and minuted the concerns raised?

These are not hostile questions.

They are governance basics.

The Position Now

If governance is sound, answers are easy.

If answers are difficult, that is precisely why they are being asked.

Rather than third parties attempting to badmouth individuals, speculate about motives, or escalate matters publicly, their energy would be better directed toward encouraging the trustees to do what trustees are legally required to do:

Act in accordance with Charity Commission guidance.
Respond formally.
Provide documentation.
Answer the questions.

The door remains open.
The questions remain on the table.

#CharityGovernance #TrusteeDuties #AccountabilityMatters #TransparencyNow #SafeguardingFirst #GDPRCompliance #FollowTheQuestions #PublicTrust #CharityCommission #GovernanceNotDrama #AnswerTheQuestions #LetTheRecordShow

No comments:

Post a Comment

Three Friar Park Approvals. Three Warning Signs. One Planning Culture Problem.- DC/25/70154, DC/24/69650 and DC/23/68742.

Three Friar Park Approvals. Three Warning Signs. One Planning Culture Problem. Let’s get one thing straight from the start. Fri...