Anne Dyer failed to seek collective agreement from her fellow trustees, or even consult them, before acting on behalf of the Diocese, a registered charity. This included when she unilaterally conducted an unlawful redundancy process to remove the disabled victim she had been bullying and discriminating against from her post.
Dyer was a so-called “dominant trustee”. OSCR, the charity regulator, explicitly provides that one person should not “take over control of the charity”. It is unlawful for one trustee to conduct his or herself as a dominant trustee.
Without forewarning or consulting Standing Committee, the body of trustees, Dyer informed it that “she had asked the Diocesan Registrar, assisted by the Chancellor, to prepare for her and [sic] advice paper on the role of the [trustees]”.
This advice paper, accessible here, found that Dyer should have a veto over other trustees and decisions they made collectively. It said that Dyer “should declare where she disagrees with a decision of the Standing Committee at the meeting where it is taken, and where [she] so declares the decision shall fall”.
It also found that Dyer should be “the prime mover in decisions on hiring and firing” and that she need not inform other trustees of her actions until after decisions had been taken. There is no basis for this or her veto powers in law.
Trustees were told the advice paper had been commissioned just seven days after Dyer had unlawfully made her disabled victim’s post redundant and one day before Dyer made her disabled victim herself redundant. Dyer made the decision to make her victim’s post redundant without the agreement or knowledge of Standing Committee.
At least two other trustees had objected to Dyer’s conduct. However, the paper had the effect of appearing to retrospectively rubberstamp Dyer’s unlawful, discriminatory behaviour.
Those that prepared the advice paper were reported to be close allies of Dyer at the time. It is thought this may explain why the report made no reference to the law or OSCR guidance prohibiting dominant trustees. It also failed to reference the Diocesan constitution, which states that staffing matters are the responsibility of all trustees.
OSCR notes that dominant trustees are an area of particular concern and said that it is “increasingly concerned about dominant behaviour in charities. Dominant behaviour in a charity’s governance happens when one person (or a small group of people) makes all the decisions in a charity and prevents the charity’s trustees, as a whole, from acting collectively and doing their job properly or force the charity trustees to legitimise their decisions at a later date”.
Dyer “wanted it recorded that she was happy with the paper” after it had been shared, regardless of the law and OSCR’s guidance.
A member of the Diocese, commenting anonymously, said: “The rumour is that Dyer knew that she shouldn’t have made [her disabled victim] redundant behind other trustees’ backs and felt very exposed.
“That would explain why she seems to have asked close allies of hers to help backfill her position. It’s deeply unpleasant behaviour and I can’t understand why the Diocese keep her around. She’s demolished her credibility and that of the Diocese.”
The Scottish Episcopal Church’s Procurator, a senior independent lawyer, found that there was sufficient evidence to convict Dyer of having bullied, harassed and discriminated against a disabled person as well as having run an “ultra vires” redundancy process, amongst other charges. The Diocese continues to allow Dyer to carry on in her post.
The Diocese did not respond to a request for comment.
Leave a Reply