Dean insisted that she was not “giving a nod and a wink”. But she told the National Housing Federation voluntary board members conference, “some of the bigger associations may now be competing with other organisations, such as National Health Service trusts, which do pay their governing bodies”.
Delegates who argued that the corporation should have settled the issue long ago, were told “you will not be criticising me for that next year”.
Andrew Ketteringham, chair of Paradigm Housing Group, told her: “If I don’t have people on the board who have equal expertise to our executives, they cannot be challenged.
“I am disappointed the corporation has adopted a ‘Sir Humphrey’ attitude of yet another round of consultation. The permissive regime must be right.”
Dean replied: “If it sounds like the ‘Sir Humphrey’ style, one reason is that the sector is split. There is no overwhelming majority for either option.”
She had earlier laid out the competing arguments – the tradition of voluntarism against claims that more could be demanded of board members who were paid.
National Housing Federation policy director Liz Potter said: “This has long been a controversial and uncertain area. A way forward from the corporation will be helpful, but it should be for individual boards to decide for themselves.”
And Chartered Institute of Housing president Richard Kitson said: “The institute welcomes the idea of housing associations being able to pay voluntary board members if they wish to do so. We first made this proposal ourselves two years ago.
“Modest payments would help associations to retain the number and quality of board members.”
Lenders have been calling for some means to attract competent board members as the sector becomes more diversified and complex.
Source
Housing Today
No comments yet