Row erupts between BDA and Ben Fund
- Details
- Published: Sunday, 19 August 2018 11:07
- Written by News Editor
- Hits: 2665
An acrimonious dispute has arisen between the BDA and the Benevolent Fund over proposed amendments to the latter’s rules, to be proposed at its AGM in September. BDA chair, Mick Armstrong, has described the changes as taking the Fund away from its democratic roots, isolating it from its major supporters and potentially damaging its ability to help those most in need of its support. But long-time Ben Fund Trustee and Treasurer, Bill Nichols, has described this as scaremongering and fake news.
In a letter to all members BDA Chair, Mick Armstrong, has urged them to ‘scrutinise’ plans from the Benevolent Fund trustees which, in his words ‘dramatically change the relationship between the two bodies, and may impact the charity’s ability to help dentists and their families when they face hardship.’
He continued: “These proposals fundamentally change the nature of the charity. And they have been developed without properly consulting members, beneficiaries or the Fund’s two largest stakeholders – the BDA and the LDCs.”
Currently all members are considered members of the Fund and have voting rights to oversee the organisation with the responsibility and authority to make certain decisions and agree or veto any changes proposed to them. Members can also vote upon and elect Trustees who oversee the charity on their behalf.
Armstrong claims that the trustees intend to break the link between BDA and Fund membership, something which Bill Nichols, as a long-serving Trustee of the Fund, has disputed on this forum.
The changes, according to the BDA’s PEC, include:
- Removing the need to be a dentist in order to be a member.
- Giving the current trustees a veto over anyone they do not wish to be a member, and therefore control who will be the trustees of the future.
- Changing the requirement that rule changes must be approved by at least three-quarters of the members at an AGM to a simple majority.
They claim that a future board of trustees could in theory restrict membership to those who will support the current board, remove all dentists from membership and change by a simple majority the purpose of the charity from supporting dentists to another charitable purpose, a stand that Bill Nichols strongly disputes.
Mick Armstrong points out that the Ben Fund ‘has a high profile in the branches who, along with the LDCs, are the largest fundraisers for the Fund’. The Fund has nearly £7m in reserves, but only spends £150,000 pa on beneficiaries, and has made a surplus in every one of the last five years.
Armstrong believes that the Fund could ‘better support dentists and involve its members if it placed a higher priority on services than bank balances and annual profits’. He also points out that the BDA provides free office space and services to the Fund, at a cost of £20,000 pa and threatens that the BDA ‘would have to consider why it houses a charity it has no relationship with and that doesn’t prioritise the welfare of BDA members’.
He concludes by saying that the proposals “take the Fund away from its democratic roots, isolate it from its major supporters and potentially damage its ability to help those most in need of its support”.
Bill Nichols replies
Bill Nichols, a Trustee of the Ben Fund for 22 years and a BDA member since 1971, wrote on this Forum that he was ‘deeply upset’ by the letter, which, he said, contained ‘many false and misleading statements’. The BDA established the BDA Benevolent Fund in 1883, and the two are closely linked and, up till now, ‘have enjoyed a harmonious, mutually beneficial and valued relationship’. He said: “as far as the Ben Fund is concerned, there is absolutely no desire, or need, to sever the relationship”.
The Ben Fund will ‘of course’ be making a comprehensive response. But the fact remained he said that, unlike the BDA, the Ben Fund cannot access the list of its own members and contact them individually, which is a serious disadvantage in rebutting the allegations’.
Bill pointed out that there is a need for the Ben Fund to comply with its Regulator - the Charity Commission, but the Fund’s current rules in respect of membership and the appointment of Trustees, ‘fall woefully short’ of their Code of Governance for Smaller Charities. He said: “The rule changes for which the Trustees are seeking approval are purely and simply to bring the charity into the 21st century and to conform more closely to the Code – nothing more, nothing less”.
He ‘categorically’ denied that there was any intention to change the ethos or the aims of the Ben Fund but, he said, there must be a means of denying membership in truly exceptional circumstances. He added: “With its fanciful projections, the BDA is promoting self-interest and indulging in a scurrilous, malicious Project Fear”.
The reserves, which the Fund holds are clearly visible in the Annual Report and they are held in accordance with the charity’s Investment and Reserves Policy, which is ‘to maintain a reasonable balance between capital growth and income, so that the Charity can meet future as well as current needs’. Bill gave some examples from his time as Treasurer, when the Fund ‘faced five consecutive years when there was a substantial operating deficit’. He said: “Excepting one year (2017), every £1 received by donation has been distributed to beneficiaries. The growth of the endowment to today’s £6.25m is down to recovery in the financial markets and the diligence of the charity’s investment manager; it provides an annual income of roughly £180k, without which the charity would need to dip into the reserves or, reduce the level of support given”.
He asked readers to study the papers for the AGM and “don’t rely on Fake News and scaremongering from the PEC” at:
You need to be logged in to leave comments.
Report