-
In short because I trust in the C.C. having attempted to do their job properly on this.
Previous Engagement Prior to the inquiry opening, the Commission
engaged with the charity on the following issues:In March 2021 the charity requested the regulator’s permission to
employ Hannah Ingram-Moore, a former trustee, on a salary of £60,000
per year, for 3 days a week. The Commission requested evidence of the
benchmarking exercise undertaken. The charity provided the Commission
with this evidence and a revised proposal to appoint Hannah
Ingram-Moore on a salary of £100,000 on a full-time basis. In July
2021 the regulator refused permission to employ Hannah Ingram-Moore as
chief executive on a salary of £100,000, considering the proposed
salary neither reasonable nor justifiable. In August 2021 the
Commission permitted the charity to appoint Hannah Ingram-Moore as
interim CEO on a salary of £85,000 per year, on a 3-month rolling
contract, for a maximum of 9 months whilst the trustees conducted an
open recruitment process. This period has now ended and the charity
has recruited a new CEO.Either that or this is a witch hunt conspiracy against are Sir Captain Tom and we should all march on our front gardens in outrage.
You are reading a single comment by @rhb and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
rhb
What does this even mean though? What were the grounds for objection? What percentage of the chairities income was spent on salaries? (The answer is less than 1% for that time window). Why jump to conclusions and assume wrongdoing without knowing the details?