BWA: THE ELECTION HAS GONE – THE QUESTIONS HAVEN’T
Follow the money. Follow the power. Follow the silence. Now follow the unanswered questions.
Regular readers will remember my previous excursions into the curious world of the Bangladeshi Women’s Association Limited (BWA), the Tipton Muslim Community Centre, Jubilee Park Community Centre, and the various tentacles connecting community organisations, public money, Sandwell Council and the Sandwell Consortium.
We started by following the money.
Then we followed the power.
Then came the silence.
Well, here we are in July 2026.
The election has been and gone. Sandwell Council has changed political control. Syeda Khatun lost her Tipton Green council seat.
But here's the funny old thing...
The questions haven't lost their seats.
They are still sitting there, patiently waiting for somebody to answer them.
And some of them have now been waiting since November 2025.
THE NUMBERS HAVEN'T DISAPPEARED EITHER
Let's start with the latest BWA financial figures we have been examining.
For 2024/25:
Income – £475,924
Expenditure – £479,601
Deficit – £3,677
Total reserves – £318,788
Unrestricted reserves – £177,021
Cash at bank – £344,179
Staff costs – £276,092
And staff costs increased by around £63,000.
Now before somebody gets excited and starts shouting that having reserves is perfectly legal – yes, of course it is.
Having reserves isn't evidence of wrongdoing.
Having £344,179 sitting in the bank isn't evidence of wrongdoing either.
Paying £276,092 in staff costs isn't evidence of wrongdoing.
But when a community charity receives public and grant funding, operates community facilities and has substantial unrestricted reserves, I think the public is perfectly entitled to ask:
What's the reserves policy?
Why is that level of unrestricted money being retained?
What are the reserves earmarked for?
Why have staff costs risen substantially?
How much of those staffing costs ultimately comes from public or grant funding?
These aren't allegations.
They're called questions.
Sadly, questions seem to be an endangered species in certain parts of Sandwell.
TWO COMMUNITY CENTRES – SO WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS?
BWA operates through both Tipton Muslim Community Centre and Jubilee Park Community Centre.
So I've asked another terribly complicated question:
Are separate management accounts maintained for each centre?
If they are, let's see the broad figures.
How much income does each centre generate?
How much does each cost?
Which grants relate to which centre?
What capital expenditure has taken place?
How are BWA's central costs allocated?
And what happened with historic funding associated with Jubilee Park's sporting facilities?
I don't think you need Sherlock Holmes, Poirot and Columbo sitting around the same committee table to answer that.
Either centre-level financial information exists or it doesn't.
If it exists – transparency would be welcome.
If it doesn't – how exactly are trustees monitoring the individual financial performance of two community facilities?
THEN THERE ARE THE ASSETS
This is another subject I've been banging on about.
Over the years there has been public and grant funding associated with community facilities and equipment.
So I've asked about things including:
IT equipment and IT suites
CCTV
sports equipment
courts and pitches
marquees
containers
furniture
capital improvements
Again, nobody is alleging somebody has driven off down the Birmingham New Road with an IT suite strapped to the roof of a Ford Transit.
I simply want the audit trail.
What was purchased?
Who paid for it?
Who owns it?
Where is it?
Is it still being used?
Was anything replaced?
Was anything sold, scrapped or transferred?
If so, who authorised it?
And if grant-funded equipment was replaced or disposed of, were the appropriate funder conditions followed?
That's basic asset management.
THE IT SUITE QUESTION STILL HASN'T GONE AWAY
Regular readers may remember my particular interest in expenditure concerning IT equipment.
I've previously raised concerns about the possibility of replacing or substantially spending upon an apparently functioning and already equipped IT facility.
Again:
What was purchased?
Why?
What happened to the previous equipment?
Who authorised it?
Which funding pot paid for it?
Show the paperwork and another question disappears.
It's amazing what transparency can achieve.
AND THEN WE ARRIVE AT SANDWELL CONSORTIUM...
This remains one of the most interesting parts of the whole affair.
BWA has been identified as a member organisation of Sandwell Consortium.
That isn't improper.
Community organisations working together isn't improper.
Nor is somebody connected with one organisation being involved with another.
But once organisations become involved in publicly funded commissioning, grants and service delivery, conflicts have to be actively managed.
And demonstrated to have been managed.
The question isn't:
“Is there a connection?”
We already know there are organisational connections.
The important questions are:
Who makes funding decisions?
Who scores applications?
Who sits out?
Who declares an interest?
Who receives the papers?
Are recusals recorded?
Can an organisation connected with decision-makers benefit?
What independent safeguards exist?
Where is the audit trail?
Because if money travels something like:
Public authority → intermediary/consortium → community organisation
then the public should be able to see that decisions were made independently and properly.
That protects everybody – including BWA and Sandwell Consortium.
THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE HAS CHANGED
There has been another rather substantial development since my earlier articles.
Syeda Khatun is no longer a Sandwell councillor.
She contested Tipton Green in May and lost.
That doesn't erase history.
During her time as a councillor she was also publicly associated with BWA as its Chief Executive.
I repeatedly asked questions concerning declarations of interest, recusals and the overlap between her council responsibilities and organisations with which she was connected.
She did respond once, saying she registered her conflicts and did not participate in relevant Council decisions involving organisations with which she was connected.
Fair enough.
But she then dismissed the remaining matters by saying:
“The other matters you raised do not apply to my role as Councillor.”
I asked her to explain that.
And asked again.
And again.
And again.
The substantive clarification never arrived.
Losing an election doesn't retrospectively answer questions concerning someone's period in public office.
SUZANNE HARTWELL REMAINS A COUNCILLOR
There is another connection worth remembering.
Suzanne Hartwell, who has been publicly associated with employment at BWA, was re-elected in Oldbury.
Again, employment by a charity while serving as a councillor isn't automatically improper.
The issue is conflict management.
Declarations.
Recusals.
Transparency.
Proper separation between public office and outside interests.
That's why registers of interests exist in the first place.
RECRUITMENT – ANOTHER SIMPLE SET OF QUESTIONS
I've also asked how recruitment works within BWA.
Where are jobs advertised?
Who shortlists?
Who interviews?
Are scoring sheets retained?
How are conflicts handled?
Are relatives or close associates of senior figures, trustees or politicians employed?
If so, what safeguards demonstrate that appointments were made fairly?
Again – I'm not alleging favouritism.
I'm asking BWA to demonstrate the systems which prevent it.
There's quite a difference.
AND WHAT ABOUT WHO ACTUALLY USES THE SERVICES?
BWA is described publicly as providing facilities and services for communities.
Excellent.
So another useful piece of transparency would be anonymised demographic information.
Who is benefiting?
Which communities?
Which neighbourhoods?
What age groups?
How broad is the reach?
Have there been complaints about access?
Publicly funded services claiming broad community benefit should surely be delighted to demonstrate exactly that.
BUT HERE'S THE BIGGEST RED FLAG OF ALL...
For me, it isn't actually the £344,179 in the bank.
It isn't the £276,092 staffing bill.
It isn't Sandwell Consortium.
It isn't even the missing centre-level information.
It's this:
THE TRUSTEES STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED.
I formally wrote to BWA's trustees on 7 December 2025.
I chased them on 15 December.
Their original deadline expired on 21 December.
I sent a formal final notice on 28 December.
I wrote again on 19 January 2026.
Again on 18 February.
And now again in July.
Not one substantive trustee response.
Nothing.
Nada.
Zilch.
The tumbleweed must be claiming overtime.
TRUSTEES AREN'T DECORATIONS
This is important.
A charity's trustees aren't there simply because somebody needed some names to put on Charity Commission paperwork.
They are responsible for governance and oversight.
They should understand the finances.
They should oversee senior management.
They should understand significant risks.
They should ensure conflicts are properly managed.
They should safeguard charitable assets.
And if serious governance questions are repeatedly raised, you'd expect somebody on the Board eventually to say:
“Right. Let's answer these.”
Instead, months later, we're still waiting.
That doesn't prove that any of the original concerns were justified.
But prolonged trustee silence has now created another governance concern entirely of its own making.
THE CHARITY COMMISSION HAS BEEN INFORMED
After repeated attempts to obtain answers directly, matters were formally referred to the Charity Commission in January 2026.
That referral included concerns around:
financial transparency;
trustee oversight;
reserves;
assets;
conflicts of interest;
the relationship with Sandwell Consortium;
public funding;
and the continued failure of trustees to engage.
That isn't something I've suddenly sprung upon BWA.
They were warned repeatedly that escalation would occur.
It did.
AND WE'RE GOING BACK AFTER THE PUBLIC RECORDS
Sandwell Council previously refused my broad FOI request on cost grounds.
So we're changing tactics.
Instead of one enormous request covering years of grants, contracts, assets, monitoring, safeguarding, conflicts and everything else, I'm now breaking the investigation into focused and proportionate requests.
The first has already gone in.
Others will follow covering subjects including:
current funding and contracts
capital assets
IT expenditure
asset disposals
conflicts and recusals
Sandwell Consortium funding flows
community-centre arrangements
monitoring and performance
Piece by piece.
Document by document.
Because if the information exists, eventually the picture starts assembling itself.
THIS ISN'T ABOUT PROVING A CONSPIRACY
And this point matters.
I'm not saying BWA has stolen money.
I'm not saying trustees have misappropriated assets.
I'm not saying Sandwell Consortium has improperly awarded funding.
I'm not saying employing politically connected people automatically means something dodgy has happened.
Those would require evidence.
What I am saying is considerably simpler.
There is public money.
There are substantial charitable funds.
There are community assets.
There are political and organisational connections requiring proper conflict management.
There are questions about recruitment, assets, accounts and expenditure.
And there has been an extraordinary reluctance to answer straightforward questions.
That is a legitimate matter of public interest.
SEVEN MONTHS LATER...
Perhaps somebody at BWA might eventually discover the Reply button.
Because after seven months the questions really aren't complicated:
What is the reserves strategy?
Where are the centre-level figures?
Where are the asset records?
What happened to replaced equipment?
How are recruitment conflicts managed?
How are BWA/Sandwell Consortium conflicts managed?
What public funding has been received and for what?
What oversight have the trustees actually exercised?
And perhaps the biggest question:
WHY WON'T THE TRUSTEES ANSWER?
If everything is perfectly proper – excellent.
Publish the evidence.
Answer the questions.
Close down the red flags.
Nothing would please me more.
Until then...
Follow the money.
Follow the power.
Follow the paperwork.
And, unfortunately...
keep following the silence.
#BWA #BangladeshiWomensAssociation #TiptonMuslimCommunityCentre #JubileePark #SandwellConsortium #SandwellCouncil #Tipton #Sandwell #PublicMoney #CharityGovernance #Governance #Transparency #Accountability #ConflictsOfInterest #CommunityGroups #FollowTheMoney #FollowThePower #FollowThePaperwork #FollowTheSilence
No comments:
Post a Comment