Secret RBH pay scandal meeting to 'increase transparency'

The comment from Jane Stichbury came as she defended the emergency talks between elected governors and directors last Tuesday, which the public were barred from attending.

Hospital bosses arranged for medical director Mr Fozard to retire on a £1.9million pension, including a £325,000 lump sum, before being allowed to return a month later on a bumper £152,000 salary - £20,000 more than he received previously for the same role.

This came just days before the government closed the loophole allowing the trick, with the Department of Health branding the hospital’s behaviour “completely unacceptable”.

Lead governor Bob Gee attempted to keep the meeting he called to discuss the scandal secret, but a leak forced him to justify his rationale for barring the public.

After repeatedly asking for the Daily Echo’s source, Mr Gee attempted to explain his decision by comparing the meeting to “having a private conversation with your mum”. He added that those not well versed in the acronyms the trust uses might find it “difficult to understand”.

This led to frustrated governor Colin Pipe to stand down, blasting the “arrogant and patronising” trust and calling for the meeting to be open to the public, to whom the governors are accountable.

In a statement released immediately following the talks, Ms Stichbury said the privacy allowed for views to be shared in a “robust manner”. She added that everyone in the meeting agreed that both the decision and process of appointing Mr Fozard were “correct” and that the trust is now working harder to “ensure greater transparency”.

When challenged by the Echo that it appeared contradictory to say greater transparency could come from having a secret meeting, Ms Stichbury said: “I think the outcome from it will [be greater transparency] actually... I am sure you have meetings, any organisation has to have meetings sometimes where you can clear the air and everyone has a chance to discuss things in a really frank way.”

Asked if she considered the matter closed, she replied: “I would like to think so. I think we have had a very detailed discussion both through your paper and also with our governors.”

She added that it is important “every effort is made” to address negative perceptions and “wholly understands why people feel this is a very sensitive issue”.

The Echo asked how she can chair governors’ meetings, which are supposed to hold the non executive directors to account, at the same time as being a non executive director herself. She said it was “challenging”, adding: “We have a number of meetings in which the governors question non executive directors. I think from previous experience I can assure you there is very vigorous questioning.”

She said she wants to now encourage more people to attend the trust's public meetings.

Q&A with Jane Stichbury

Q) When were you first aware of the decision to reappoint Basil Fozard?

A) I actually would like to stick to the comments we have already made following the really positive meeting we had between the governors and most of our non executive directors just this week about this whole issue.

We have been through it in some detail with them, as I had earlier in August, when the story first came out.

They have been briefed about the timeline and how it has all gone, as we have said in the factsheet.

Obviously Mr Fozard decided to retire. We had meetings in early 2015 and this was communicated and sent to Monitor, our regulator, in March 2015. As you know that was well before the General Election. And of course the comments made by the secretary of state for health.

Q) Do you sympathise with those who say this decision was morally wrong?

A) I can understand that this is a matter that has excited a great deal of public interest and media interest, as you well know.

The MPs, let me assure you, have likewise been briefed as to all the facts so I feel really assured that they know what the position is. They know that our regulator was aware, the timelines and how and why this decision was reached.

Clearly the secretary of state has said he wishes to change the situation. Let’s not forget this guidance is still in place even as we speak. So people are entitled to access the pension they have paid into and to come back in this way.

I wholly respect what the secretary of state has said for the future and I am sure he will change things, and I think he has signalled his wish to do so by April 2016.

And obviously from your coverage and the comments that have been made, I wholly understand that people feel this is a very sensitive issue and find it quite difficult. I do understand that and have been listening very carefully.

Q) Why was the governors’ meeting held in private?

A) Can I say I personally don’t shy away from any public meetings. I think we are transparent as a trust and I have a vision for transparency and being recognised as transparent. And to that end, one of the things that came out in the meeting I think which is really positive, was that we already have our board meetings in public because we want to welcome the public even more to those meetings and ensure there are opportunities to ask questions.

Q)Were you embarrassed by Bob Gee’s justification for keeping the meeting private?

A) No I am not going to say that. I think we have really got to be positive and look to the future now.

The key thing here is the trust wants to be more transparent and we want our governors’ meetings to be more transparent.

We were talking here about an individual person’s circumstances and some of those issues, about pay, are all in the annual report and we have been public about that. Let’s not forget that. I think if it is anybody, if it is about their personal circumstances, there are things you want to say in a private meeting and you wouldn’t expect everything to be held in public. And I believe the governors can see that point.

Q) But this was an issue that attracted heightened public opinion. Why was it held in private?

A) It was agreed it would be held in private. There are many other meetings where people can come along and listen to what is happening in the trust. I mean to hear about some of the really good work that is going on as well. I am really keen that people come to our public meetings.

Q) Is this matter closed?

A) I would like to think so. I think we have had a very detailed discussion both through your paper and also with our governors which is the really important thing. We had a very, very helpful meeting, very robust discussion. Everyone was able to say what they wanted to say. Clearly we want to get onto a different place going forward. And that is what I would want to do.

Q) In the meeting, did all the governors agree?

Well I hope they did. The summary of the meeting was that this was the correct appointment and followed the correct process. We recognise that there is a real public interest here that you keep coming back to.

This is the reason we produced the factsheet, with more detail for the public. I want to be seen as an open trust. We are a public service and I am used to working in that environment. I have no problem at all with that. I just hope people will come along and talk to us about any concerns they have but also come along to hear about the fantastic work we are doing.

We are only making decisions that will lead to a better service. That is the only thing that really matters to me.

Q) Do you see the contradiction in saying a private meeting will lead to greater transparency?

A) I think the outcome from it will actually. Because I have said to you we have given a commitment. We want to ensure the public coming along have an opportunity to ask the questions. I am sure you have meetings, any organisation has to have meetings sometimes where you can clear the air and everyone has a chance to discuss things in a really frank way. I feel confident that is what happened. And that is actually very, very positive.

Q) Isn’t the distinction that the governors are elected?

A) They are, absolutely elected by members of the public and they will be able to convey their views back. Again, I encourage them to come along to the public board meetings.

Q) Was Colin Pipe wrong when he described the trust’s public perception as “arrogant, secretive and patronising”?

A) Look, I think Colin was actually expressing what he thought was the public view or the view of some of the public. I always say ‘perception is all’ so actually whether you believe it is right or wrong, if that is the perception, you have to deal with it. I think it is important we make every effort to address that perception.

Q) You chair the governors’ meetings and are also chair of the non executive directors. Is that right?

A) That is exactly right. That is how the foundation is set up. It is quite a challenging position as you probably agree because you have to chair both boards - the board and the council of governors.

Q) But the governors are supposed to hold the non executive directors to account. How can you chair the governors’ meetings whilst holding the non executive directors to account when you are one of those non executive directors?

A) Well we have a number of ways. Governors have a number of powers and responsibilities and that includes for example the appointment of non executive directors. We have a number of meetings in which the governors question non executive directors. I think from previous experience I can assure you there is very vigorous questioning.