Warning: There are no pictures here just a boring table but please read on as it’s important
Much space is given over to discussing appropriate standards of remuneration in the non-profit and public sector. One of the things I have considered over time is the degree to which the boards of non-profits struggle to find and retain good committed board members. As both a former head of a number of organisations and both former chair and board member of many others I have seen the best and also the worst of behaviour, discretion, risk management, preparation, and conflicts of interest. Without a doubt, getting board appointments right is key to the success of the organisation.
Being a board member of a non-profit is by default a voluntary commitment. Many board members don’t even claim expenses, feeling it is their role to support rather than cost the charity money. Being a board member of a non-profit is also by default a responsible and time-consuming job if it is done properly. Being a chair even more so and sometimes, the rules around whether chairs and board members can or should receive some form of remuneration can be counter-intuitive. No, they cannot profit from the charity but yes they have to spend their well-earned downtime working to ensure the oversight of often complex and challenged organisations. This goes some way to explaining some of the challenges we face when trying to secure a diverse board. Governance costs money, if not to the charity, then to the individual board members.
Which is why when I look at public arms-length bodies, I have no issue with remuneration of the chairs and vice-chairs. I have seen the work needed to ramp up accountability to befit the duties devolved to body by government, often handed down with a slew of additional accountabilities and reporting measures (how they pass those on to the nonprofits is a story for another day). But I think I always thought public appointments operated to some kind of standard. Salaries and expenses of staff of public bodies and the departments they report to are all regulated. Ministers have set rates of pay. I think I just assumed this would be the same. So why do the most recent advertised public appointments of Chairs to the boards of Sport NI, Arts Council of Northern Ireland, the Health & Safety Executive NI and Big Lottery Fund NI differ so radically not only in the remuneration but the way it will be calculated.
Table 1: Calculated from the public appointments website on 27 September 2016
|Position||Chair – Big Lottery Fund||Chair – Sport NI||Chair – Arts Council NI||Chair – Health & Safety Executive|
|Period of appointment||Up to 4 years with possibility of reappointment||Up to 4 years||Up to 4 years||3 years|
|Time commitment||up to 5 days per month||8 days per month||At least 40 days per year. [from ACNI website: ‘In addition, the Chairperson will be expected to ensure the visibility of the Council by attending arts events on a regular basis.’]||1.5 days per week|
|Notes||Commitment is capped by remuneration is fixed||Monthly commitment will be reviewed later but income is costed at a daily rate||Calculation here is based on the guaranteed minimum number of days excluding arts attendance||Calculation has been done as 1.5 x 52 but this does not allow for holidays|
Some of these appointments talk about reimbursement of expenses, some don’t. None of the ads mentions whether this remuneration is an honorarium or liable for tax. Is it an employment? Do they get paid leave or is 1.5 days per week a 52-week commitment? Why is the Chair of the BLF worth nearly 40% more than the Chair of the HSE? Why are some fixed annually with open-ended commitments and others paid daily? Why is the Chair of the Arts Council expected to attend events unpaid – is it a perk of the job? From my experience of meeting many Arts Council members, Chairs and Vice-chairs over the years, going to shows, readings, exhibitions and visiting projects,although often inspiring and valuable, is not about visibility of the Council or a perk but a vital part of the job in the Boardroom. It will occupy at least two evenings a week and more if you want to experience the full array of the portfolio over which you will sit and make decisions. What calibre of appointment will be attracted if this is wrong and how diverse can appointments be if the time and resource commitment is disproportionate?
If I’ve got this analysis wrong, then I’m very happy to be corrected and will happily publish any clarification. If I haven’t got it wrong and there is a marked disparity I would really like to see an examination of what is deemed fair remuneration across our public appointments. This is what public accountability means, isn’t it?