Many will have read of the sad demise of Scargill - the House which is up for sale, and the Community which has been summarily disbanded. Many have written about their shock and dismay - many others have expressed their dismay at the manner in which the difficulties have been handled by the current Trustees. A far less helpful and accurate tussle about the ethos of Scargill has developed. Others have set about a campaign to save both House and Community
I have resisted commenting since with the move and the new role I do not have the time to get involved directly. However others have asked me to comment so I have with a heavy heart tonight added this comment to the Campaign site.
"I was on Scargill Council between 1998 - 2002, and on the Management Committee for part of that time. Like many I have been saddened by recent events and the decisions that have been made. Unfortunately with a recent move to a new role in Scotland I am not in a position to offer a more active response.
However in our sadness it is easy to lay blame, and to ask questions of others which lead to answers which are unintentionally misleading.
I have been asked to make the following points about the past and some which may help take the situation forward.
1. “Scargill” in my understanding of the history (and have known and met some of the founding fathers and subsequent Council members) has always been a balance/tension between what might be called the three “C’s”:
The “Community” - at the core of the life but it has always existing for others -
The “Context” - the life of the “House” in its very special divine setting - which has over many years provided both an attraction and a means of grace - but Scargill was always something more than this.
The “Causes” throughout its history Scargill has had emphases for its ministry at particular times - healing ministry, youth work, a pioneer of eco-projects on the estate etc etc - but these have never dominated at the expense of the other two.
2. The Council has always been a self-perpetuating body - and that until recently has been one of its great strengths - it has been a mix of current community (elected), The Warden,former community members, church leaders, and people with particular skills or interests. Significantly in the Nineties the Charity Commission insisted that Community Members ( as “employees” could no longer be Council Members. After a sustained discussion they eventually agreed to the Warden remaining as a Council Member.
3. It is all to easy to imagine that it is only recently that Scargill has struggled financially - but in fact throughout my time on Council and in more detailed way on the Management Committee it was clear that Scargill was running on a knife edge financially calling for very careful and informed judgements which balanced income with both revenue and capital expenditure.
So where to from here in the actually situation which Scargill finds itself:
a. There has been tremendous turnover in the Council/Trustees since 2002 which is deeply worrying - ten trustees are now Charity Commission listed of which only three were on the Council when I left in 2002. I hear that two of those are no longer on Council. So there should be a list provided of who the current trustees are - if the Charity Commission list is not up-to-date then an updated list can be requested from them and they can enforce this. More helpfully the Chairman could publish a current CV of the Trustees and their previous history with Scargill.
b. People are suggesting that The Charity Commission cannot “intervene” without being clear what question is being asked. So they may not be able to stop the sale of the “House” since the current trustees have legal obligations to the Bank, and the current trust deeds do not tie the “Community” to Scargill House. It is hard to be convinced that the Charity Commission would accept either of the two alternatives which are being suggested ( one of which is based upon “promises” of cash, the other on a promise of a bank loan which will not have access to the detailed information needed to commit to that loan). Very regrettably I think that the current Trustees may well be right in making that decision.
c. It is questionable however whether the proposed “Foundation” (with its ambiguous intentions and inaccurate description of Scargill's purposes) actually falls within the terms of even the “revised” Trust Deeds - and it would worth asking for the Charity Commission to advise on that.
d. I fully understand and appreciate that the refusal of the Trustees to be more open about the sale is constrained by the current financial and legal position advice. Sadly this too easily leads to a sense that this is perhaps a stitch up (or asset stripping) by a group of Trustees with little understanding of the value and history of Scargill, who are determined to press ahead with a simplistic “cause” agenda of their making without any regard to the context and community which has been so essential to its ministry.
e. There is one very straightforward way to allay these fears which is be more open about the sale and the current financial position ( which would enable sound rescue plans to be put together) and to publically now say that if the sale is inevitable then no decisions about the future will be made until the sale has been completed (and the funds available are known) and the widest possible consultation about the membership of the Trustees and the future of Scargill has been undertaken.
Without such an undertaking I fear that not only might we loose the “House” and the “Community” but the causes as well into the kind of never never land of a “virtual community of members”.
If the Trustees fail to respond then I suggest that people will draw their own conclusions and an exciting alternative could be proposed for the Scargill Community to begin a new life, with a new set of Trustees, drawing on the wonderful support which has been demonstrated by this site. Sadly “Scargill House” will be a place of many great and happy memories, but also a memorial to the current Trustees failure to act".
Recent Comments