An extract from the Charity Commission investigation into Carmarthen Mind Association, March 2008

Lessons for other charities

25. The Commission welcomes user involvement as a way of helping a charity achieve its aims more effectively. Users can contribute their direct experience to the development of services and help other trustees develop a greater knowledge of the user perspective. They can broaden a charity's contacts and influence and, sometimes, open up avenues of funding that were previously closed. Many forms of user involvement are straightforward and present no problems. However, the inclusion of users as trustees is a decision that each charity should consider based on its own circumstances and needs, including the proportion of user trustees on the trustee body who are also beneficiaries of the charity. User trusteeship will be appropriate for some charities but not for others. First and foremost, each charity should consider whether user trusteeship would enhance the effective management of the charity and have a positive impact on the delivery of its services. Those involved in the management of a charity should work collaboratively giving consideration at all times to whether their actions are in the best interests of the charity.

26. Charity trustees must not allow themselves to be influenced or manipulated. If a charity trustee is unable to make independent decisions in the best interests of the charity they must consider stepping down from their position. Trustees must consider the future position of any individual trustee who is not acting exclusively in the best interests of the charity or who has allowed him or herself to be influenced. A charity is entitled to the independent and objective judgement of each of its trustees, acting solely in the interests of the charity.  Trustees who simply defer to the opinions of a dominant employee are not carrying out their duty to the charity.  A case in which a dominant employee effectively deprives a charity of the benefit of the considered judgement of the trustees is an example of poor governance amounting to mismanagement.

27. In charities where the trustees (and others, including volunteers) have direct contact with users who are vulnerable (for example, by reason of their age or mental health), more vigorous background checks to ensure their suitability may be necessary. All charity trustees have a duty of care and a duty to act solely in the interests of their charity. The Commission considers charity trustees risk being in breach of these duties if they fail without good reason to carry out appropriate Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks when they are entitled to do so. In some circumstances such failures may be viewed as evidence of misconduct and / or mismanagement in the administration of the charity.  It is also a criminal offence in some circumstances for someone to offer certain positions working with children to someone who is disqualified from doing so.

Crown copyright 2008