There has been much debate lately about payment for board members, but it has been in the context of the social housing movement as a whole and not stock transfer. Unpaid board membership is a key statement in consultation.
The risk is that now, instead of the notional £50 per year, we will have £20,000 thrown about.

Saying that a board will never be paid is hardly realistic or sensible. Initial board members may say this on their own behalf and, to their credit, usually take that view. But in a world of paid board members what might be appropriate? Perhaps the way of getting "suits" onto the board might be to offer them the same payment as "competing" social landlords? It matters not that £20,000 will be available only to a very few. That figure will be in the back of people's minds.

We have also to think about the internal "dynamics". Equal treatment for all board members helps remove "constituency" barriers. Allowances for councillors have disappeared. The new payment regime threatens to reintroduce the issue and make unwelcome distinctions. By all means let's look hard at expenses, but let's not go for payment.

Tenants who sit on boards can do without accusations from anti-transfer campaigners of taking the proverbial silver – that's nonsense, but in transfer, PR tricks go a long way.

Source

Housing Today

Postscript

Ian Doolittle is a partner and head of public sector at law firm Trowers & Hamlins idoolittle@trowers.com