Brodie McAllister’s improper exclusion from the presidency of the UK Landscape Institute

VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT by LI President Elect Brodie McAllister (LinkedIn October 22, 2025)

Over more than twenty years I had contributed actively to the Landscape Institute in many roles: as Vice-President, Co-founder of the College of Fellows, Council member, Branch Representative, IFLA Europe Representative, P2C mentor, external examiner, university review-group member, and three times an Awards judge. I stood for President because I believed the profession could be more outward-looking, inclusive, and effective, and I welcomed a contested election. Being chosen by a popular vote felt like a validation of my record and of those aspirations. From the moment I began my term as President-Elect in July 2021, however, I encountered unexpected resistance. I was excluded from events and discussions where I should have been involved and from contributing fully to projects such as the LI100 programme. Soon after, I faced an allegation that my election conduct had been improper—an unsubstantiated claim that was later dropped. What should have been a collaborative transition became marked by suspicion and obstruction. Within months I was the subject of a formal complaint from the now President, alleging that I had brought the Institute into disrepute. The process extended well beyond the allowed time limits, creating sustained and unfair pressure. Although the independent review concluded that there was no case to answer, there was no acknowledgement or apology, and the complaint was not deemed vexatious despite clear grounds. Only days later a new allegation was raised under the Institute’s whistleblowing policy. This initiated an investigation that consumed nearly half a year and effectively my entire period as President-Elect was taken up by allegations. The scale of the inquiry was wholly disproportionate to the alleged conduct, which concerned an internal remark during a private online meeting. The figure in the Accounts for the period to 4th November 2022 is £169,698 on legal spend. This excludes staff time and the money spent after this date. Salt was added to my anguish as trustees misled members that most of this spend was my fault- how could it have been when I was afforded no professional help defending myself against the most senior partners of an expensive firm directed to remove me at any cost. I was also excluded from participation in Board activities, denied full disclosure and unable to defend myself in any meaningful way. The cumulative personal impact of this barrage was severe. The combination of public uncertainty, isolation, defamation by the Institute and reputational damage led to anxiety, sleeplessness, and a need for counselling. I was not treated with the required duty of care and as it proceeded felt mis-led and tricked by the initial hollow declaration that the investigation would be impartial and keep staff apart. I felt like a tin can set up to be kicked, held at arm’s length whilst accusers had full access, characterised as a monster accused of serious wrongdoing and was aware of slurs being spread that were irrelevant to the case; it felt as though I was being cast as a stranger or dangerous intruder – in contrast to my background of good character and how well members knew me. An inner minority repeating second hand information as if that proved something made the atmosphere worse. I felt concerned for my supporters who represented a large and significant cross section of the membership but were wrongly characterised as old white men, beating up on staff. I continued to fulfil my duties as best I could, knowing that almost everything I said or wrote might be scrutinised for potential use against me. When communications to members were blocked, I felt completely powerless to correct misinformation or defend my professional standing. When the case became known more widely, the Institute’s public statements implied indisputable wrongdoing and even ( falsely) that I had admitted guilt without presenting facts or admitting that it was never shown using facts or hard evidence that I had caused exceptional damage ( the required threshold to take such drastic action against me). Reports that the solicitor had offered biased advice as though impartial ( under the direction of trustees) made my heart sink. The one way communication from the institute compounded the distress, as colleagues and clients were left to draw their own conclusions. The experience has shaken my confidence in the organisation I had served for most of my career and has left me questioning whether I can continue with the art and profession I care so much about. It is dismays me that the authors of this attack mostly still cling on as trustees to this day. I got the strong sense that the motive, in defiance of advice to the institute to seek conciliation, was to silence questioning of the orthodoxy for all time. I was just the symbol. I am sharing this not to reopen past wounds but to explain, openly and honestly, how the Institute’s handling of these matters affected me personally and professionally. The process was, in my view, unjust and unnecessary and lessons have not been learnt then shared. The chance for members unsure of the facts to have them verified independently was dismissed by trustees leading to total despair at what I thought was a just and moral profession. Official language against me felt designed to be punitive: accusations of being unfit for office, dishonest and lacking in integrity ( with no right of reply) were emotive and unnecessary rather than rational conclusions. When I eventually read the reports my heart sank to realise the solicitor claiming to be impartial had in places omitted the defence side of the evidence or confined it all to an appendix, whilst expert reports appeared doctored in order to cast a false sense of conclusively. I never had a chance. I hope that by understanding the human consequences of this avoidable dispute, colleagues will recognise the need for fairness, proportionality, and compassion in how we treat one another within our professional institutions.

For Brodie’s LI election manifesto see https://landscapewpstorage01.blob.core.windows.net/www-landscapeinstitute-org/2021/04/LI-Election-2021-President-Elect-Candidate-Brodie-McAlister.pdf

See video Six Landscape Institute past presidents object to election result being overturned

Summary of events

Background

Brodie McAllister was elected President-Elect of the Landscape Institute in June 2021, due to assume office in July 2022. His election was widely seen as a vote for change — to make the Institute more outward-looking, member-focused, and transparent. A number of long-serving board members and senior figures reportedly viewed his approach as a threat to the established order.

Sequence of Complaints

1. First complaint- raised by a trustee of improper election conduct resulted in no case to answer
2. Second complaint – raised by Carolin Göhler (later appointed President Elect in 2023). It alleged misconduct by McAllister for improper association with the Jellicoe Group that sought reform. An independent inquiry concluded there was no case to answer
3. Third complaint – formed the basis of a whistleblowing disclosure arising from a small internal meeting. The alleged misconduct concerned an off-colour joke about Prince Andrew and the inconclusive claim to have used an inappropriate online screen name. McAllister denied all allegations.

Despite the trivial and internal nature of the alleged behaviour, the Board treated it as a “whistleblowing” case and commissioned a London law firm to conduct an extensive investigation, reportedly costing at least £170 000— an exceptional sum for a small professional body. The investigation included a trawl of McAllister’s correspondence and staff views in search of language or opinions that could substantiate misconduct.

Proceedings and Removal

• The Advisory Council received the lawyers’ 227-page report only a day or two before meeting to decide McAllister’s fate.
• The meeting was attended by many Board members, some not members of Council (and included the then-President Jane Findlay, who had made the disclosure).
• McAllister was denied legal support and was not shown the full report until after the decision.
• On 27 June 2022, the Council, acting under Regulation 21, voted to remove him as a Trustee and thus prevent him from assuming the presidency.

The Past Presidents’ letter of protest (June 2022) argued that:

• Due process and the principles of natural justice were not followed.
• The complaints were trivial and should have been resolved through mediation.
• Regulation 21 applies only in “exceptional circumstances” involving actual reputational harm — not private internal remarks.
• Overturning a democratic election damages the Institute’s reputation and future credibility.
• Spending large charitable sums on what appeared to be a personal vendetta was improper.

Aftermath

Six former Presidents and many senior members representing the diversity of the profession called for an independent inquiry comparable to the RICS Levitt Review. The Board refused, citing confidentiality and asserting that correct procedure had been followed.

When the group requisitioned an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), the Board declared the request invalid and blocked member-to-member communication, preventing the requisitioners from contacting the wider membership. A member led EGM nevertheless proceeded on 27 June 2023, chaired by past President Tim Gale, and called for a review within 30 days.

At that meeting, speakers including Merrick Denton-Thompson, Hal Moggridge, and Helen Tranter argued that:

• The process was illegitimate and secretive.
• Council was manipulated by the Board, which had conflicts of interest and had exceeded its authority.
• The case reflected a longstanding cultural problem of bullying, opaque governance, and intolerance of dissent.
• The Board’s behaviour contravened the LI’s own Charter (which states that the Institute shall have a President) and the principles of charity law.

Core Allegations by the Objectors

• Misuse of charitable funds for personal or political purposes.
• Breach of natural justice: the accused was never properly heard or seen.
• Misapplication of whistleblowing law — used as a weapon by the strong against the weak.
• Suppression of democracy: overturning an election result and preventing communication about it.
• Conflict of interest and lack of transparency in Board conduct.
• Failure to follow Charity Commission guidance on dispute resolution and proportionality.

This is in addition to alleged:

breach of bylaws twice by the institute in disallowing an EGM that did conform to requirements of evidence of sufficient support and purpose with potential outcomes that would not be unlawful; and voting at Council by non members. Breach of regulations in convening a Council meeting unlawfully. Prejudice against objectors wrongly categorising them as a few old white men when they were documented in their hundreds as representing the entirety of the profession. Criminal breach of Section 60 The Charity Act 2011 for misleading statements in an annual report. Conflict of interest and misrepresentation by a trustee appointed solicitor in a Council inquiry.

The objectors contend that the only legitimate remedy is an independent external review and reinstatement of democratic principles within the Institute.

Commentary on the Rights and Wrongs

From a governance and charity-law standpoint:

1. Procedural fairness – The principle of audi alteram partem (“let the other side be heard”) appears not to have been honoured. Denying McAllister full disclosure or legal representation would be inconsistent with natural-justice standards applied in charities and professional bodies.
2. Proportionality and reasonableness – The alleged behaviour was minor, and any sanction should have been proportionate. Resorting to a full legal inquiry costing six figures seems excessive and inconsistent with trustees’ fiduciary duty to use funds prudently.
3. Use of “whistleblowing” – Whistleblowing law protects disclosures of wrongdoing in the public interest, not interpersonal disputes between trustees. Applying it to an internal spat stretches the concept beyond its legal intent.
4. Governance structure – The blurred lines between Board and Council decision-making, retrospective regulation changes, and the reappointment of over-tenured trustees raise legitimate concerns about governance integrity.
5. Democratic legitimacy – Overturning a member election without transparent cause damages the credibility of a chartered professional body. The Charter’s requirement that the Institute shall have a President suggests a continuing vacancy that arguably should have been filled by the elected individual.
6. Charity-law obligations – Trustees must act in the charity’s best interests, avoid conflicts, and ensure effective use of resources. If personal animosity influenced decisions, or if funds were used punitively, that would contravene both the Charity Commission’s guidance (CC3, CC9) and section 177 of the Charities Act 2011.
7. Communications and member rights – Preventing members from contacting one another on governance issues is inconsistent with democratic norms and may breach data-protection law only if no opt-in or mediated process was offered.

Overall Assessment

While the full evidence remains confidential, the objectors’ version presents a consistent and credible pattern: a small governing clique resisted reform, weaponised disciplinary procedures, and spent substantial charitable resources to remove an elected reformer. The handling of the affair appears to have failed the tests of transparency, proportionality, and fairness expected of a professional chartered body.

The appropriate resolution — still sought by many — would be an independent, impartial inquiry to establish facts, restore trust, and protect the integrity of the Institute’s governance.