Further questions about the management of Pevensey Town Trust raised this week as Pevensey Court House Museum and Gaol close for ‘essential work’ to be carried out.
The tiny museum, widely regarded as one of the jewels in ‘Pevensey the hidden crown of Sussex’ is managed by Pevensey Town Trust. The organisation receives a significant sum yearly from the collection of fees for car parking on the site of the Old Cattle Market in the village.
A few months ago Bay Life was informed that ‘all the trustees have resigned’.
Apparently as an inducement to local candidates to fill the void, there is a tried and trusted procedure. ‘The way to do it’, we were told ‘is to slip a note between the bars of the gates to the Museum if it is closed’.
We would hate to interfere with what might be a long held historical custom, on the other hand it might just be an example of complete incompetence and an inability to organise even the simplest of communication channels.
When a new Pope is announced we always see white smoke emanating from a Vatican chimney. Could it be that since we now see scaffolding outside the Court House Museum that contractors are installing a chimney?
It is not the first time that the management of the museum by The Pevensey Town Trust has come under scrutiny.
Robert Salter, writing for The Eastbourne Gazette, has commented on a number of occasions about the affairs of the Town Trust, hinting that all might not be well with the organisation.
Commenting this week (24 June) he asks if people have noticed that ‘the building is temporarily closed and is looking in a sorry state outside’.
The good trusteeship of this precious asset is of vital importance to the community. Why could the work not have been done outside the season? Publicity and profile for the organisation across the Wealden area indicates that it is open from May to September, so why isn’t it open?
Able volunteers at the museum should not have to answer these kinds of question. Responsibility lies with the trustees.
Are we being unfair in asking the trustees to come forward and explain to the village how they are managing the affairs of the trust? After all, it could be argued, they are volunteers themselves, doing their duties for the good of the community. The obvious question to ask though is, ‘yes but what if they are no good?”
All community organisations rely on voluntary activity. It is unfair to attack them, when so much is dependent on goodwill. In this case, though, there is a reason for further scrutiny.
The organisation is called a Trust. The clue is in the name.
We are asked to trust the organsation and in return the organisation offers that trust back. It is all about the question of confidence.
The legal definition goes back to the notion of ‘settlors’. Trusts have existed since Roman times, which is quite convenient, because there is a Roman castle next door but one. The High Street, and with it the Court House, came over 1,000 years later from the legacy left by the Romans. The ruins form part of the origins of the value of the trusteeship over which the organisation presides.
With trusts, because they often involve property, there is money involved. In this case we are talking about up to £25,000 a year, which is money that comes to the organisation in the form of fees from the site at the old cattle market.
So where is the money? What is it doing? Why hasn’t it been spent getting the Court House Museum ready for the season?
Since taking over ownership of the car park in 2009, Pevensey Town Trust has received revenue of over £83,353. This is up to December 2012. Since that point of course (and this appears to be the last time that accounts have been lodged), another 18 months have elapsed. There is also a small period of time before this point that brought the organsiation revenue, following the handing over of ownership rights by Wealden Council of the old cattle market site.
We are quite possibly talking about revenue in excess of £100,000. A total, in the same period, of £56,479 is recorded as having been spent by Pevensey Town Trust.
If we take the lowest benchmark figure in the period as an accurate measure of revenue (£83,353) would the Trust like to tell the village what they have done with the other £26,874?
By our calculation (if we include a ‘notional value’ to the revenue and expenditure in the last 18 months), we are talking about a figure closer to £37,000 (that is without including the small sums received by the organisation before this accounting period).
This is not an insignificant sum of money that appears to be without account.
It is a lot of money and it requires a lot of trust in consideration.
Where is this money and why is it not being spent in accord with the aims of the organisation? Perhaps there is a simple explanation. If this is the case, then would it not be a good idea to offer the explanation?
The principles behind Pevensey Town Trust are clearly stated in their record of association with the Charities Commission. ‘Our aim is to refurbish and maintain these assets for the benefit of visitors from UK, overseas and for future generations to enjoy, visit the Court House and Gaol, Easter Weekend and 1st May to 30 September’.
With these kinds of sums coming into the organisation yearly, and little or no accountability with regard to what is happening, the village is entitled to ask if the management committee is fit for purpose.
Where are the communication channels? Where is information about the accounts? Where are the minutes of the organisation? Does the failure of the organisation to make any of this information available to the village, bring into question their status as a charitable organisation?
We are not talking about a hard pressed local organisation involved in community activities with no money. We are talking about a hard pressed local organisation involved in community activities with money.
If any of us received £25,000 a year for the stated purpose of ‘maintaining these assets for the benefit of visitors from UK and overseas ‘, would we not at least have a web presence to explain to any possible visitors to the locality that the Museum is currently closed?
Has the Trust discovered the world wide web yet? Museums right across the country have recognised its promotional worth (in particular in the dissemination of news), so why is it that Pevensey Town Trust seems not to know about its efficacy?
Robert Slater in the Eastbourne Herald has also pointed out there is not even a web presence.
No website, no minutes published about what the organisation is doing and only a small ‘indicator’ yearly of what is happening with the money that pours into the coffers of the Pevensey Town Trust on a weekly basis.
So much positive activity is happening in the village at present. We are about to celebrate the first Pevensey Food and Drink Festival this August Bank Holiday, courtesy of English Heritage and Wealden Council. Will the Court House Museum be open for the hundreds, possibly thousands of people who might attend that weekend to enjoy as part of their visit? Nobody seems to know.
A new organisation, the Pevensey Villages Partnership is preparing some sterling work to promote the community to a wider audience. There are other campaigns and initiatives that are beginning to see the village and locality put back on the visitor history map. The renovated Priory Court Hotel with its tearoom, accommodation and events is also a big success.
Everyone is working so hard, and in many cases of course entirely on a voluntary basis.
With £25,000 a year in its coffers, is it time to say that the Pevensey Town Trust is letting the village down badly?
Well regarded curator of the Museum, Peter Harrison, deflected questions from Bay Life recently about the work of the Trust. Perhaps, quite rightly, he suggested, ‘If you have any concerns, you should direct them to the trustees’.
What is the Trust doing with the money? Why is the village not being told? Why is this precious asset closed as we hit the season in which there will be an increase in visitor numbers? Other organisations and activities planned for the locality could suffer in consequence. Does Pevensey Town Trust have an obligation to consider such questions?
Pevensey Town Trust gives the outward appearance of being an inadequate shambles.
Perhaps it is time that consideration was given as to whether the Charity Commissioners should be informed that there are concerns about the kind of management and level of competence that we appear to be seeing.
It would seem that the view does not get much better if we peer between the bars of the gates and pass them notes. They only meet every three months.
Simon Montgomery
Editor, Bay Life
