Battle of Bruton
There may not have been one before but there certainly is right now. Somerset Confidential® sent editor Andrew Lee to find out more.
Dear readers
Today’s Somerset Confidential® is available for all our subscribers. We hope you find it interesting. If you’d like to get our free material you can subscribe for it here:
Much of what is reported by Somerset Confidential® goes unreported elsewhere. Either because it is beyond the remit of others or its simply passes them by.
Which is why we see this venture as a public service. Reporting the news and providing most of our journalism free of charge. However we would like to do more, indeed we need to do more.
We’d love to have your support to help us do that. If you feel able to offer it, we’ve set a paid subscription rate at £30 per annum. That’s 58p per edition, or 25% of the price of a cup of tea at Starbucks.
For that we’ll give you:
Two extra articles a month (That’s value for money right there.)
Full access to our back catalogue – you can search every shenanigan we report on. (Yes there have been a few of those!).
Comment – have your say! – on anything we write.
And experience the satisfaction of supporting the most innovative, public-service journalism project in Somerset.
Supporting Somerset Confidential® is supporting a better governed and more accountable Somerset. You can join and support us here….
Thank you!
Andrew Lee - editor
Battle of Bruton
When you call a public meeting you never know for sure how many will turn up. So it is always good to have a back up plan. Bruton Community Hall maybe small and perfectly formed, but it is not the most spacious of venues.
On 27 November a public meeting had been called for 7.30pm at the Community Hall to discuss proposals to change the charitable objects of the charity that had until last year, run Bruton Girls School (BSG).
It was clear from the chatter as ever larger numbers entered the room, that there was a lot of emotion and disquiet over the fact that the girls school that BSG had run, had been closed down. That the five trustees of BSG presented themselves for questioning at a public meeting was brave and worthy. At times it looked (perhaps it felt) a little like being lined up before a firing squad.
By 7.20 the Hall had nearly 100 in it and it was already standing room only. However Cllr James Hood, Chair of Bruton Town Council who was hosting the meeting had a back up plan. Which was probably just as well.
Within a matter of moments the entire congregation had shifted to the parish church across the road. It was a freezing night yet strangely the church was reasonably warm. People were still filing in at 7.40pm and there were well over 200 in the church by the time things got under way.
Before we go any further a bit of a back story will probably help. We first introduced this story in our weekly news summary of 17 November which you can read here.
Essentially there are two versions of the story.
The gospel according to Kings Bruton School (KSB) runs as follows:
In January 2022 the Bruton School for Girls (BSG) approached Kings Bruton explaining they had a problem.
In March they invited Kings Bruton to take them over. At which point they had a school roll of 120 pupils. The trustees and directors of BSG were replaced by trustees who were members of KSB or trustees of it.
In May the trustees claim they were surprised to learn from “the board” that there were now only 48 pupils likely to be on the school roll for the 23/24 academic year.
The trustees felt that as things had deteriorated too far there was no option but to announce the closure of BSG that month as the least worse option.
As there was no longer a school, the BSG trustees looked at how to use the assets that belonged to the trust (which still exists even though the school does not). In order to do so they needed to change the objects of the trust.
From one that was all about providing girls an education in or around Bruton in general, to one that provided education for girls at KSB specifically.
And to that end KSB was engaging with the Charity Commission and had promised to undertake a consultation. As part of which they had organised two public meetings (of which this was one).
The gospel according to their detractors (of whom a sizeable number were in the church) was somewhat different.
The moment that KSB took over the BSG trust, parents were told BSG was in trouble, they should consider sending their offspring elsewhere.
Therefore KSB were directly responsible for the collapse in the school roll.
This was a conscious act as it had been the intention of the trustees to get their hands on the assets of BSG for the benefit of KSB.
This process is the real reason why SG trustees want to change the charitable objects of the trust, so the BSG assets can be used exclusively for the benefit of KSB
The fact that the property on which the school once sat has been put up for sale with an asking price of £9m has only heightened interest in the issue in the local community.
The only thing that emerged from the public meeting with any sort of clarity, was that both sides could not be right. Perhaps the truth lay, as it so often does, somewhere between the two.
The meeting was generally managed well and with civility and calm. The trustees put their case, explaining the order of events as they saw it. Then the audience were invited to put questions. The trustees, were tasked with answering. For the most part with one or two exceptions, they did.
Objects
The one fact that is beyond dispute, is that the trustees of BSG (all of whom are now KSB trustees or members of KSB staff) would like to change the charitable objects of BSG. In order to show good faith, they have organised a consultation with the community to do that.
There is some dispute over the original wording of the objects, but according to the consultation document the original objects were:
“The provision of a day or day and boarding school in or near Bruton for the education of girls and boys (provided that such boys shall not have attained the age of 8 years) and by ancillary or incidental educational activities and other associated activities for the benefit of the community.”
and the proposed new objects are:
The advancement of education at KSB including all or any of KSB, Hazelgrove, and any other school owned or operated by KSB at any time and at the nursery school known as Sunny Hill Nursery.
By the provision of bursaries to girls up to the age of 18 and to boys up to the age of 8 at either or both of KSB and the Nursery, such boys and girls being referred to below as the Beneficiaries and
by supporting activities, providing facilities and equipment which support either or both of KSB and the nursery and advance the education of the Beneficiaries.
Which is what seems to have caused most disquiet among the good folks of Bruton. The old objects are general. They support education in general terms they do not even specify that the provision of a school should be an independent school and they stress the benefits to the community as a whole not one particular institution.
The new objects…..very specifically benefit KSB and its operations in general to the exclusion of all others
The new objects by contrast very specifically benefit KSB and its operations in general to the exclusion of all others. And do not mention the community of Bruton at all. So if for instance KSB decided to up sticks and move its school and other activities to say, the the town of Warwick (for the avoidance of doubt - we are not suggesting for a moment that any such plans exist), they would be entitled to do so and the funds, originally donated for the benefit of Bruton, would follow the institution of KSB out of the community and out of the county.
This was the nub of several questions from the audience. The Trustees for their part were receptive to the points made. They said they would take on board public concerns, the purpose of the consultation was to listen and the new objects could indeed be amended. Which does beg the further question, once amended will they too be consulted upon?
Audience members also wanted to know why some of the assets of BSG (theatres, astro turf etc) could not be offered up to help local schools such as Sexeys?
There were two strands to the answer the trustees gave. One, that any school could of course put in a bid to buy the assets of the school. Which rather missed the point of the question. The second stated that the objects of the BSG charity as they stand before any proposed alterations, only allowed for the use of assets for an independent school.
This is not what the wording of the objects presented in the consultation, or indeed stated in the accounts of BSG actually says. In the accounts of BSG the stated objects make no mention of independent schooling.
It is true that in the accounts of BSG, under the heading “Aims Objectives and Impacts” it is said that: “within these objects the school aimed to provide public benefit through high quality independent education.”
But that is not the same thing. In the accounts BSG is simply stating that their chosen activities were within the objects of BSG.
But the objects, at least as presented in the accounts and consultation, do not preclude the trustees acting to help or gift assets to other schools in the area, whether or not they are not independent schools.
Of course there may be other elements to the objects which we do not know about, but if so, they should have been published in both the consultation document and the accounts of BSG.
Grammar School
At this point we have to introduce some grammar. Specifically the use of the first, second and third person plural by the Trustees and audience in their debate. The terms “we”, “you” and “they” were used frequently.
Although BSG no longer has a school it does still have trustees and it does have directors. Since the 1 March 2022, these have been the same people. Messrs Wilmhurst, Hobshouse, Tuson, Donald and Anderson. But Messrs Anderson and Donald were trustees of BSG before the takeover on 1 March.
So when several members of the audience suggested that between January and May 2022, “you” had told parents of girls at BSG that they should send their pupils elsewhere it got confusing?
Was it “you” singular, aimed at either Ms Anderson or Mr Donald? Or “you” plural aimed at both Messrs Anderson and Donald? Or indeed you plural aimed at all five trustees?
In the end it made little difference. None of the trustees, singular or plural, gave a direct and concise answer to that question. Which as a result was repeated several times. And it was an important question given that many in the audience, rightly or wrongly, clearly believed this was the real reason the school roll fell from a plausible 120 in March to an unworkable 48 in June.
Meanwhile other questioners wanted to know why the trustees had not taken specific actions to enhance the prospects of the girl’s school between March and June.
In his description of the events leading to the closure the decision that led to the closure of the school Mr Tuson appeared to separate the trustees of BSG from “the board” of BSG. He explained that there was a plan in March that everyone had agreed upon.
The board, (“they”), came to the trustees (“us”) in May with news that the roll had fallen to 48. At this point he explained “we” (the trustees) could do nothing other than take the decision to close the school.
Which sort of begs two questions. Who were the board (the “they”) who came to the “us” (the trustees)? Clearly they weren’t the directors of BSG. For the simple reason that the directors registered at Companies House are exactly the same five people listed as trustees at the Charity Commission. So unless all five had developed split personalities, there would be no “we” or “they” involved.
And second. Irrespective of who was on the board that came to the trustees in May, the directors and trustees should have been showing a high level of curiosity. In March they inherited a situation that they knew to be precarious.
Business
Directors of a business whose prospects were known to be that precarious should have been asking for updates on performance against the agreed plan on a weekly basis, fortnightly as a minimum. It is not clear if this was happening.
Therefore, it cannot have been a surprise to the Trustees that in May there were only 48 on the roll and the school needed to close.
Having served as a company director in various businesses for 30 years I can assure you that if I had not noticed that one of my businesses had deteriorated from viable to not viable in the space of two months, I would have been fired. And deservedly so.
And that perhaps is why so many questioners wanted to know what “you” did to save the school. Because if the plan wasn’t working, other things should have been tried.
But the trustees seemed unable to give an account of other things being tried or indeed to confirm that they had been keeping a weekly eye on progress of the rescue plan. And perhaps that is why the answers given seemed not to satisfy the audience.
Another business related issue cropped up later in the meeting. A member of the audience wanted to know how much KSB had paid to “take over” BGS. The questioner actually asked two questions, one was answered but this one was forgotten.
There may have been no answer on the night, but we can answer that question by looking at the accounts of BSG for the year to 30 June 2022.
Starting with the simply fact that when one charity buys another, they don’t really pay for it. There are no shareholders to buy out. And in this instance, it appears from the accounts that they did not inject any funds into it either. At least not prior to the 30 June 2022.
According to those accounts, KSB acquired the “business” of BSG which on 30 June 2022 had net assets of £3.2m. And that includes land and buildings valued at £5m that are currently being marketed for sale at £9m.
The accounts of BSG also show:
KSB have paid no money to acquire those assets.
redundancy payments for BSG staff on the closure of the school, were all paid out of the assets of BSG, not funded by KSB.
That the assets were clearly more than sufficient to meet redundancy costs accrued for in the accounts.
There were no cash injections from KSB aside from £7,800 paid to BSG for the use of a minibus.
Whilst in some ways a school may be like a business, in business you do not get given £9m of assets without any consideration (payment) passing from one party to the other.
Which is not in any way to suggest the process was in some way improper. It wasn’t. This is just how things work with charities. The issue is therefore, not around the acquisition of the assets, but simply the closure of the school that the assets were designed to fund.
Which is in turn at the root of much of the disquiet in the community around the takeover of BSG by KSB.
There were of course many other questions. Some moving testimony from parents of children who had flourished at BSG was interwoven into the fabric of the evening. Emotions ran high at times, but the tone of debate remained civil throughout.
As an outsider looking in, at the end of 2 hours of questions and answers, the two sides looked to be as far apart as they had been at the beginning of the evening
Circular argument
For all the wrangling, the accusations on the one hand and the arguments in defence of everything that has happened and is proposed to happen on the other, one question, late in the proceedings illuminated a rather crucial conundrum.
A member of the audience raised what was, on the face of it, an entirely sensible observation. If the objects of BSG could not be met, surely the right thing would be to return the assets donated to the trust to the donor or their descendants.
the right thing would be to return the assets donated to the trust to the donor
Trustee Edward Hobhouse indicated he would take this one. It had been, thus far, a tense evening. For the first time one sensed the start of a smile playing on his lips. He turned to the questioner. He might have said “if you’d like to write me a cheque for £9m I’m not going to argue.”
But Mr Hobhouse is more elegant and operates with a certain deftness of touch. He politely observed that: “I am sure that was not what my grandfather (who had been the benefactor of the Girls School) would have wanted.”
This of course is the nub of the problem. Objectors to the plans can point to all sorts of what they believe to be skulduggery. But if the objects of the charity cannot genuinely be met, returning the assets to the descendants of the original benefactor might well be the right thing to do.
But then if the funds were passed to Edward Hobhouse as the direct descendant of the original benefactor, what if he chose to donate them in their entirety back to KSB? Which he would be in his rights to do. Would we not be back in the same place that the trustees are arguing for today?
If you need Christmas present ideas and you’ve enjoyed reading our material, why not gift a subscription to someone close to you who might enjoy it too?
And feel free to share our work with friends family and colleagues. You can do that here:
And of course, don’t forget to subscribe to make sure you don’t miss an issue!
Thank you for explaining a complex timeline of events, with a little more clarity.
Smoke and mirrors springs to mind, as the saying goes;
"you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time"
but it appears these people aren't fooling anyone!
Just shows the contempt with which the locals are held, sadly all too common these days.
More excellent journalism. What you describe happening in Bruton could be reflected in other communities everywhere. What surely isn't right is a sense that a valuable local community resource (a school and its educational facilities), originally intended to benefit the (whole) of that community, is now on course to be transferred to an independent (private) education trust. This does not seem right. Nor does it seem fair, for the people of Bruton. I hope they keep asking difficult questions - and that Somerset Confidential continues to shine a light on all of this..