Hal Moggridge on due process by the Landscape Institute
Did the LI follow due process in dealing with a Whistleblowing Disclosure against President Elect Brodie McAllister in 2023?
Analysis by Hal Moggridge CBE PPLI VMH RIBA FIHort
[Editors Note: Hal Moggridge was one of the six Landscape Institute Past Presidents who wrote to the LI Board of Trustees in 2022 recommending against the undemocratic removal of the President Elect. The Past Presidents’ letter and other background information can be found from this link. Hal began his career in Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe’s Gower Street office and became a principal in Colvin and Moggridge. He is widely regarded as the UK’s most distinguished landscape architect].
The examples detailed below show that due process and natural justice were not followed by the Landscape Institute when it prepared a case to prevent President Elect Brodie McAllister taking up the post of LI President, to which he was elected in June 2022.
The numbers in the below text refer to evidence numbered in the Landscape Institute Report of the Advisory Council Committee of Inquiry, dated May 2022; (App. refers to an appendix to this report).
Heading: The report is headed “Strictly Private and Confidential”, which the Committee sought to impose upon the President-Elect. Though as the accused he could not be under any such obligation, he largely concurred, to his grave disadvantage.
App.1,1.2: Terms of Reference for Committee of Inquiry:“The purpose of the Committee is to investigate concerns regarding the conduct of Brodie McAllister arising from a report from the Trustees dated 30 March 2022 and make a recommendation as to whether the Council should remove Brodie McAllister as a Trustee.” This purpose jumps immediately to the most serious possible recommendation, when natural justice should require first consideration of the validity and seriousness of the Trustees concerns. [Note: At this date two of the Trustees were invalid members of the Board having exceeded their maximum term of service]
1.5; 1.6: Though the Advisory Committee was established under LI Regulation 21, which states specifically that “Council … may establish a committee of Members of Council to investigate …” Jane Clarke, Independent Trustee with Responsibility for Whistleblowing but NOT a member of Council, (and indeed not a landscape professional either), acted throughout as secretary to the Committee.
App.4: Jane Clarke attended all 11 meetings of the Advisory Committee, though not entitled to do so. This failure to follow proper procedure appears to make the whole proceedings of the Advisory Committee and their lengthy report invalid. [Note: The LI Legal Advisor also attended the 1st,2nd,3rd,5th, and 6th meetings of the Committee, though at the time subject to an unresolved complaint by past LI presidents with the Solicitors Regulation Authority due to perceived failure to uphold proper standards in their role as LI solicitors in more than one instance]
5.3 – 5.12: Issue1 concerned a ‘Teams’ monthly management meeting on Jan 12th 2022, set up by Yvonne Matthews, attended by Jane Findlay, Sue Morgan and Brodie McAllister; Noel Farrer and Matthew Haslam invited but not attending. An unknown attendee requested access using the homophobic identifier ‘…….’s Bum Chum’. For some reason Yvonne Matthews temporarily brought this ridiculous attendee into the meeting, sharing the homophobic title with those present. Jane Findlay and Sue Morgan have asserted without firm evidence that Brodie McAllister was responsible for this intrusion, which he denies. Any of those invited to the meeting, as listed above, could equally easily have been responsible; or the incident could be a plant by someone else within the LI.
5.12 – 13: On this Issue1 The Committee sought advice from an independent specialist IT
consultant …(who also) offered to undertake a forensic examination of the Subject’s computer. This would have proved Brodie McAllister’s innocence or otherwise. The offer was declined, presumably to avoid proof of his innocence.
App.6.2Tab1: A June 8 email, Jane Findlay to Hal Moggridge, included: “I have not interfered with the process because I don’t believe it would be proper for me to do so …” This was not accurate; Jane Findlay had written a witness statement accusing Brodie McAllister of “improper conduct”, though without proof.
App.2: 5.3 The Trustees Code of Conduct states: “ I recognise my responsibility to support other members of the Board of Trustees…” The Trustees involved in this matter, particularly Jane Clarke, have continually and cruelly failed to support Brodie McAllister, as shown by the Committee of Inquiry Report & Appendices.