Open Association of Landscape Industries
The Landscape Destitute
I am a Chartered Member of the Landscape Institute, the body that represents Landscape Architects in the UK. I would like to explain myself with regards to its current situation, should you find this subject of interest.
You may be aware of the fact that our Institute is virtually bankrupt and in urgent need to move premises. We are penniless and homeless so to speak. We now refer to it as the "Landscape Destitute" but I do not find it funny.
We are bound to lose our 55 year old archive and we have had to let go a number of employees to make up for excessive expenditure. I consider these redundancies unfair, as our employees are being made to pay by the LI's Council Members gross oversight and incompetence, if not something worse
The official explanation given so far is that a "sudden drop in advertising income" is to be blamed for the situation. I do not accept this explanation, as I have been aware of the poor way the Li has been managed and I have been waiting for something like this to come through for a long time. To state my case, I have gone through the last year's accounts first and, later, I have gone over the last five years accounts.
I believe that the LI Council has engaged in attempts at concealing the true origins of of our financial situation, which is due to not properly detailed and justified expenditure at the tune of 200,000 in one single year.
The Institutes's response so far has been to ignore me. I have been banned from all the Landscape Institute's Forums and my password access to the Professional Directory no longer works and cannot get in touch with other members and have my views heard.
All my postings related to the true origins of our troubles have been removed. In spite of some members request for my messages to be reinstated and be allowed to explain my views, I have received no confirmation from the Institute on what has become to me an issue of free speech.
Their contempt for Members is legendary and their inability to run our house properly is for all to see. Of course, given their low moral stature, they have promptly engaged in character assassination: I have been banned because I "issue threats", I am "libellous and hysterical" and make "personal attacks".
Well, I do not issue threats: I ask for summary sacking of incompetent and under performing staff, I assert the responsibility of the Council for the current situation and I call for the Police to have a look at our accounts present and past. I have also called for mass resignations at the LI and a public apology. Everything in a brutally frank language, by the way.
I have formally written to the President of the LI, specifically asking whether he is aware of any form of wrongdoing and conflict of interest with regards to the use of funds at the Institutes's disposal, and I outline my scepticism with regards to the reasons given for our bankruptcy so far.
The official reply up to now, several weeks later, has been that my letter is "receiving attention", even though my views where dismissed straight away as described above. Well, my hysterical views are receiving attention, it seems.
I am trying to get the Charity Commission to raise this issue with the Institute, even though they seem to be reluctant to do so. In fact, it would appear that they consider my concerns, "speculation" and they suggest that if I have any evidence of wrongdoing, I appeal to the Police, directly. So much for public stewardship, I presume that British Banks where run on a similar basis, so we can expect that British Charities will go pretty much the same way, the difference is that banks are being bailed out by taxpayers, the LI is being bailed out by Members like me: I pay and get nothing in return, some highly paid smart ones keep their cushy jobs and insult me back. Nice.
Mr McCapra's comment to me on all this is that "Resignations may satisfy a public sense of drama but they serve little purpose in practical terms".
Well, his resignation, along with that of the Head of Communications, Paul Lincoln for issuing what I consider, and have proven to be, a misleading series of statements, would save us not only thousands of pounds sterling, but would also further blunders, embarrassment and incompetence. Then we may be able to have our archive and archivist back. As simple as that.
There are three points that I feel are essential and are at stake:
1. We are professionals bound by a code of conduct we are supposed to uphold. We cannot accept deception, misinformation, mismanagement and/or cover ups to sustain a slim façade of respectability at our own professional body because it simply reflects on us as a whole. It is ethically repugnant and morally wrong to pretend otherwise, particularly when we are asking young people to join the profession.
2. My research shows that the LI suffers from endemic mismanagement and, very possibly, corruption as well. It is not just my opinion, it is shared by other, better qualified, individuals that have been able to read through it. We cannot tolerate and sustain the loss of our archives because of individual wrong doing. We cannot make people redundant to pay for our oversight and lack of corporate sense of ethics or responsibility.
3. Whatever mistakes I may have made in putting my ideas across, a clear fact remains: the LI has attempted to mislead and misinform its members regarding the origins of its financial situation. Those responsible must face their responsibilities and resign. Failure to achieve so equals perpetuating and vindicating their actions for the future.
One more issue to consider is our attitude and outlook in life as professionals. For a very long time, I have felt that our profession has lost its way and "raison d'être". We are flying on very low expectations and without a very clear long term mission and vision for our role in society.
I am not surprised the Architect Will Alsop took issue with us, because the truth is that we deserve a good battering for rewarding incompetence and mediocrity all the way through the professional ladder, particularly large practices. We occupy one of the lowest levels in the Consultancy industry and our influence in contemporary culture and thought is next to nil.
The way nearly 5000 members of this institute are behaving (mostly keeping their heads in the sand) is rather troubling to me and it reflects a deep erosion of the British society's values I once learnt.
It seems that anything goes now: lying, grabbing money that is not yours, avoiding work and responsibility, and above all, keeping quiet in the face of blatant misconduct and brazen dishonesty. It has all become a massive "I'm all right, Jack" one size fits all reflex, where the main goal is to keep your head low, avoid rocking the boat and go unnoticed.
I no longer recognize the society where I once learnt just the opposite values, rather distant from my own country's, by the way. I cannot do much more than what I have done so far. Now, it is up to the other 4999 members to decide what the future is going to be like. The choice is clear and simple to me, but they could just say that "I am from Barcelona" and joke their way out of this, with very few remarkable individual exceptions.
I have already outraged quite a few LI Members by suggesting that if Drake had counted on Landscape Architects to sink the Armada, the British would all be singing "Que Viva España" and sleeping siesta in the mud by now.
Mostly, it seems that many are happy to be taken for a ride and acknowledge that even though foul play is a distinct possibility, it is better to keep it quiet to avoid "disrepute". I find this unacceptable.
Hidding away and quitting has never been for me. In fact, that much I learned in Britain: when you fight, you fight with everything you’ve got, to the last. But the truth is that I do not longer wish to share membership with those that feel that it is better to stay quiet and let all this pass.
The truth is that I no longer recognise myself as a Member of the Landscape Institute and I do not wish to continue to be associated with this tainted organisation. Well, I have fought for what I believe in and love and as a result I just got spat in my face and little more. One has to know when one has been defeated, and I guess that the fact that weeks have gone by and I have heard nothing from the LI, means that there is nothing further to go on.
Just a tacit understanding that my views are right, but, so what? After all, we have always have been treated as a herd of imbeciles. Why change now?
For longer musings and more robust views on all this, please see:
http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/2009/01/23/landscape-instutite-libr...
http://www.landscapejuice.com/2009/03/has-the-landscape-institute-l...
http://www.land8lounge.com/forum/topics/a-landscape-of-destruction
http://dapofessional.blogspot.com/
http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/2009/04/09/landscape-institute-orga...
You may be aware of the fact that our Institute is virtually bankrupt and in urgent need to move premises. We are penniless and homeless so to speak. We now refer to it as the "Landscape Destitute" but I do not find it funny.
We are bound to lose our 55 year old archive and we have had to let go a number of employees to make up for excessive expenditure. I consider these redundancies unfair, as our employees are being made to pay by the LI's Council Members gross oversight and incompetence, if not something worse
The official explanation given so far is that a "sudden drop in advertising income" is to be blamed for the situation. I do not accept this explanation, as I have been aware of the poor way the Li has been managed and I have been waiting for something like this to come through for a long time. To state my case, I have gone through the last year's accounts first and, later, I have gone over the last five years accounts.
I believe that the LI Council has engaged in attempts at concealing the true origins of of our financial situation, which is due to not properly detailed and justified expenditure at the tune of 200,000 in one single year.
The Institutes's response so far has been to ignore me. I have been banned from all the Landscape Institute's Forums and my password access to the Professional Directory no longer works and cannot get in touch with other members and have my views heard.
All my postings related to the true origins of our troubles have been removed. In spite of some members request for my messages to be reinstated and be allowed to explain my views, I have received no confirmation from the Institute on what has become to me an issue of free speech.
Their contempt for Members is legendary and their inability to run our house properly is for all to see. Of course, given their low moral stature, they have promptly engaged in character assassination: I have been banned because I "issue threats", I am "libellous and hysterical" and make "personal attacks".
Well, I do not issue threats: I ask for summary sacking of incompetent and under performing staff, I assert the responsibility of the Council for the current situation and I call for the Police to have a look at our accounts present and past. I have also called for mass resignations at the LI and a public apology. Everything in a brutally frank language, by the way.
I have formally written to the President of the LI, specifically asking whether he is aware of any form of wrongdoing and conflict of interest with regards to the use of funds at the Institutes's disposal, and I outline my scepticism with regards to the reasons given for our bankruptcy so far.
The official reply up to now, several weeks later, has been that my letter is "receiving attention", even though my views where dismissed straight away as described above. Well, my hysterical views are receiving attention, it seems.
I am trying to get the Charity Commission to raise this issue with the Institute, even though they seem to be reluctant to do so. In fact, it would appear that they consider my concerns, "speculation" and they suggest that if I have any evidence of wrongdoing, I appeal to the Police, directly. So much for public stewardship, I presume that British Banks where run on a similar basis, so we can expect that British Charities will go pretty much the same way, the difference is that banks are being bailed out by taxpayers, the LI is being bailed out by Members like me: I pay and get nothing in return, some highly paid smart ones keep their cushy jobs and insult me back. Nice.
Mr McCapra's comment to me on all this is that "Resignations may satisfy a public sense of drama but they serve little purpose in practical terms".
Well, his resignation, along with that of the Head of Communications, Paul Lincoln for issuing what I consider, and have proven to be, a misleading series of statements, would save us not only thousands of pounds sterling, but would also further blunders, embarrassment and incompetence. Then we may be able to have our archive and archivist back. As simple as that.
There are three points that I feel are essential and are at stake:
1. We are professionals bound by a code of conduct we are supposed to uphold. We cannot accept deception, misinformation, mismanagement and/or cover ups to sustain a slim façade of respectability at our own professional body because it simply reflects on us as a whole. It is ethically repugnant and morally wrong to pretend otherwise, particularly when we are asking young people to join the profession.
2. My research shows that the LI suffers from endemic mismanagement and, very possibly, corruption as well. It is not just my opinion, it is shared by other, better qualified, individuals that have been able to read through it. We cannot tolerate and sustain the loss of our archives because of individual wrong doing. We cannot make people redundant to pay for our oversight and lack of corporate sense of ethics or responsibility.
3. Whatever mistakes I may have made in putting my ideas across, a clear fact remains: the LI has attempted to mislead and misinform its members regarding the origins of its financial situation. Those responsible must face their responsibilities and resign. Failure to achieve so equals perpetuating and vindicating their actions for the future.
One more issue to consider is our attitude and outlook in life as professionals. For a very long time, I have felt that our profession has lost its way and "raison d'être". We are flying on very low expectations and without a very clear long term mission and vision for our role in society.
I am not surprised the Architect Will Alsop took issue with us, because the truth is that we deserve a good battering for rewarding incompetence and mediocrity all the way through the professional ladder, particularly large practices. We occupy one of the lowest levels in the Consultancy industry and our influence in contemporary culture and thought is next to nil.
The way nearly 5000 members of this institute are behaving (mostly keeping their heads in the sand) is rather troubling to me and it reflects a deep erosion of the British society's values I once learnt.
It seems that anything goes now: lying, grabbing money that is not yours, avoiding work and responsibility, and above all, keeping quiet in the face of blatant misconduct and brazen dishonesty. It has all become a massive "I'm all right, Jack" one size fits all reflex, where the main goal is to keep your head low, avoid rocking the boat and go unnoticed.
I no longer recognize the society where I once learnt just the opposite values, rather distant from my own country's, by the way. I cannot do much more than what I have done so far. Now, it is up to the other 4999 members to decide what the future is going to be like. The choice is clear and simple to me, but they could just say that "I am from Barcelona" and joke their way out of this, with very few remarkable individual exceptions.
I have already outraged quite a few LI Members by suggesting that if Drake had counted on Landscape Architects to sink the Armada, the British would all be singing "Que Viva España" and sleeping siesta in the mud by now.
Mostly, it seems that many are happy to be taken for a ride and acknowledge that even though foul play is a distinct possibility, it is better to keep it quiet to avoid "disrepute". I find this unacceptable.
Hidding away and quitting has never been for me. In fact, that much I learned in Britain: when you fight, you fight with everything you’ve got, to the last. But the truth is that I do not longer wish to share membership with those that feel that it is better to stay quiet and let all this pass.
The truth is that I no longer recognise myself as a Member of the Landscape Institute and I do not wish to continue to be associated with this tainted organisation. Well, I have fought for what I believe in and love and as a result I just got spat in my face and little more. One has to know when one has been defeated, and I guess that the fact that weeks have gone by and I have heard nothing from the LI, means that there is nothing further to go on.
Just a tacit understanding that my views are right, but, so what? After all, we have always have been treated as a herd of imbeciles. Why change now?
For longer musings and more robust views on all this, please see:
http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/2009/01/23/landscape-instutite-libr...
http://www.landscapejuice.com/2009/03/has-the-landscape-institute-l...
http://www.land8lounge.com/forum/topics/a-landscape-of-destruction
http://dapofessional.blogspot.com/
http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/2009/04/09/landscape-institute-orga...
Tags: Accounts, Bowman, Censorship, Corruption, Financial, Landscape, Landscapes, Lincoln, Marion, McCapra, More…
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gabino Carballo on -
By the way, I cannot follow any activity on Talking Landscapes, other than the RSS feed titles. My ban extends beyond participation, i cannot even see it!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda Davey on -
Dear Gabino
It is great to have your views coming through again. They are so important and yet so many members of the LI seem to be feeling that it should all be swept under a pavement (Ala Not the Nine o'Clock News maybe). How can the less actively involved have a chance to show that they care if it is left up to the few? The public debate is our chance to show the world that we really are professionals.
I have just added a comment to Tom Turner's entry on Talking Landscapes which I will copy here so that you can see it.....
It is my belief that there are in fact three very separate issues here that have got horribly entangled. For any of them to be clearly and fairly addressed we need to look at them on their own merits.
1. A fine and valuable archive and library that need our care and proper recognition to be a representation of our own commitment to the legacy we are leaving for future generations
2. An organisation that has been left to its own devices for too long that is suffering substantial financial woe
3. A completely disaffected and disinterested membership
1. I have stated elsewhere my views on the value of the archive to the profession (http://www.landscapejuice.com/2009/03/has-the-landscape-institute-l... ) but will summarise them here. It is horribly simple. If we carry on practicing without thought on schemes for now and in the future without reference to a professional archive we are sending a very clear message to other professions that actually we don't value our work! Books are a far better and properly researched source than almost anything available on the internet and the collection was actually lauded at last years' LI Awards. The sums actually spent on the library and archive are very small. They are not a viable target for cost savings at all. In fact there is growing evidence that archives can raise profiles and funds in their own right for an organisation, so their loss would plausibly mean a loss of potential revenue!
2. The problems faced by the LI, if viewed without reference to the deeply emotional subject of the library and archive, are pretty disturbing. There has basically been a large mismatch between expenditure and income. We should care about this more than we appear to, although I do know that the Secretariat is currently fielding a large number of letters. In the end again it is very simple. They are spending our money! We could actually exercise our right to know more about this.
3. I did my landscape training at the beginning of the 1990s. I was based south of London and the only Branch I had access to was the London and South East. I tried and failed to get any sense out of what was apparently quite a closed shop of London chums. None of my friends have ever had much to do with the LI, we have all been pretty dismissive of the distant characters whose job functions seemed to bear so little resemblance to anything we might want to talk to them about. In my time as a volunteer I was quite shocked to discover that the feeling was extremely mutual. The staff (in general, there are exceptions) think of the membership as rude and aggressive. This situation has gone on for a very long time and several generations of new members of all levels have had to contend with this from an organisation that should be working WITH US and us with them! The only way to improve matters, to go back to the days of a fully interactive membership, is to follow Tom's clarion-call for more people to have their say. -
-
Permalink Reply by Gabino Carballo on
-
Amanda,
You are right when you write about this issue in every respect. I feel, however, that you (as well as many others) are politely stepping over the big stumbling rock in the LI's path to recovery:
The membership and the wider world has been lied to and mislead about the true reasons for our problems. These have nothing to do with the "crisis". They have to do with incompetent, reckless management, lack of oversight and, very possibly, wrong doing if not straight corruption. This is the issue, and no other.
I have already stated my scepticism about our current Administrative Director Mr McCapra suitability for the post. He simply lacks the qualifications and experience required for this post and the way he has been appointed leaves much to be desired. He ignores the most basic facts about our profession and treats our institute as his. It is all about "I want to", "I think that" and so on. With regards to the archive, his behaviour resembles some kind of personal vendetta against our heritage.
For instance, he states, and I quote from Talking Landscapes:
"The options are as follows:
Option 1 – retain the library and archive in the hands of a professional body which will always be small, never have huge amounts of money, always have many other calls on its attention and resources, and no adequate conservation measures for some of its key heritage assets. This is held by some to be the best of all possible options.
Option 2- transfer the collections to a large, well-funded library, with the resources and capacity to preserve it, develop it and make it more widely accessible to students and scholars, as well as employing professional archivists, with proper conservation equipment, temperature and humidity controls. This option is regarded by some as a mortal threat and has been likened to setting fire to the collections. "
Please notice his lack of intellectual integrity, his ignorance and complete disregard for the facts.
The Landscape Institute has had huge income and will continue to have huge income in the future, as 60% of it comes from pockets such as mine. We can afford to maintain the archive as per Point 2, we just need honest and capable people making the right decissions at the right time. We need to stop spending money on useless Departments, such as Communitions and Policy, stop that trashy and useless marketing waste of time "Iwanttobeacompletetosser" and such pointless initiatives.
What we need is to cut back in unnecessary staff, appoint properly qualified staff, PAY THEM WELL to do their work well and keep a close eye on all strategic decissions, which must rest in the hands of Landscape Architects at all times.
The we will have the money, the time and the right environment to look after OUR heritage.
Mr McCapra's views are vandalic, yobbish, and simply wrong and he needs to stop working against members. What he is doing now is to keep the President's and Trustees pants up with his teeth whilst he tries to confound Memebers with his self-important Managerial Mumbo-Jumbo and pomposity. I am not sure what he's doing with his hands, but I would like to ask him to take them out of my pocket: he is grabbing something other than my wallet, right now.
The shabby and unjust treatment I have suffered at his hands depicts his character as rather controlling and manipulative. Abusing his position and riding high over Members rights is not beneath him, very much the opposite.
The fact that neither the President not the Trustees have acted to correct the situation and assert my rights, is an stark example of the moral cowardice and lack of ethical backbone that corrodes our Institute. They are more than ready to sacrifice our institute and bury our profession in order to save their tattered reputation and their fake chumminess. Assasinating my name and reputation means nothing to them, I am just another paying dork, suffering their largesse with money that is not theirs.
Well, this, has to stop! -
-
Permalink Reply by Gabino Carballo on
-
Obviously, "lack of oversight" is not quite the problem! Rather, it is the opposite!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda Davey on
-
Dear Gabino
I understand completely what you are saying about the personalities involved in this sorry exercise. I wasn't intending to be polite as such, more to be clear that there was something worth protecting that is at risk, without getting people to become overly protective of people that they don't actually know and really shouldn't trust. But that was also because you have done so much work on the financial irregularity and mismanagement and I was covering different ground, in the confidence that you were covering the money side. I find it disturbing that professionals can be so glibly happy to allow the good work of key figures to be consigned to darkened corners pending 'sorting' that will inevitably lead to destruction of material that could be used to explain the design process but that doesn't look at all sexy. Especially since, once the finances are back on track, the costs of looking after this legacy are so minor a proportion of the entire spend.
But, if the comments I have seen so far are anything to go by, the membership continues to be clueless about both the money and the value of the profession in the eyes of others. Maybe, a bit like with sheep, it is the lambs who have the curiosity and once they grow up to be sheep, they cease to think on the whole? McCapra is banking on the fact that most at best don't care about anything to do with the LI and the rest of us will get tired, demoralised and go away and let him get on with his career..... -
-
Permalink Reply by Gabino Carballo on
-
-
Permalink Reply by Gabino Carballo on
-
Dear Amanda,
You are right. Obviusly, I do not expect everyone to take on this "crusade" against incompetence and abuse of power and responsibility at the head of the Landscape Institute as I do. Different views and interests are at stake, and I respect that.
However, it is important to state the lack of legitimacy that the current President Mr Williamson and the new Director, Mr McCapra suffer. The latter is not the only one concealling information and misleading members. The trustees are up to their eyebrows in this organised rip-off and several employess too.
You can see the latest Journal: it carries no information about our current state of affairs and the Editorial is nothing sort of a pack of lies. The reasons given for the Journal to become quarterly are simply not true.
This is part of a pattern of lies and intellectual dishonesty that I have uncovered with my financial analysis. See this exchange between McCapra and I, a few weeks ago, before I was banned:
Gabino - "I do not understand why nobody has resigned, why no public apology has been issued, why the subject was not widely advertised amongst the Institutes's members through its official publication".
McCrapa - "As I have indicated we have provided a steady stream of information to members and have had a great deal of response. The main reason for doing this electronically rather than in print is that circulating information electronically allows us to provide information which is completely up to date. Putting information in print means a delay of several weeks, which , given the rapidly-changing state of affairs over the autumn, would have been some way out of date by the time it reached members. I am not sure who you think should have resigned, or on what grounds. Since trustees have made reasonable decisions acting on the basis of the information provided to them I can’t see that any of them should consider resigning. " See this link for further info: http://landscapedestitute.blogspot.com/
You can see that McC proposes time as a major factor in NOT USING the official Journal as a means to convey information to Members, as it should be done. We are now at the end of April and nothing has been printed. It has nothing to do with time, and everything to do with fear of being found out liable for the funds that have been, very possibly, misspent. As for the "steady stream of information" he mentions, I already proven that it is all a pack of half truths and straight lies designed to mislead the gullible and facilitate further stripping of assets and misuse of funds at out Intitute.
You are right, the intention is to keep the Membership clueless. The sad thing is the lack of authoritative voices and respected figures standing up for Members and the profession. I could not understand this until recently, when I started collecting information on the people that has been running the Institute for a Decade.
The truth is: what we are witnessing is nothing new, it has been happening for a decade if not more. A lot of people have put their finger in the pie or have allowed other people to take a fat slice of it and turned a blind eye. As long as the cash kept rolling it, no problem, but once this stream of income has been reduced, the problem came to the surface.
Where are all these Past Presidents now, what do we have to say? Where are their credentials?
Instead, we get people like Jaqueline Fisher, who was Honorary Treasurer during Stuart Royston's time, writing nonsense and rubbish in the Talking Landscapes site. If I was her, I would shut up, considering what went on under her tenure of the post. She makes somebody like Jo Watkins look good, for God's sake.
What has happened to decency in this ptofession? Whay can those that are guilty just hang their head in shame and apologize and whay can the rest stand up and say "enough" once and for all.
We have been mislead by for a long time, and now we find ourselves penniless and voiceless. It is our fault as Members that we have allowed this to happen, and we need to take responsibility for it and put and end to it. Mr Williamson must resign and McCapra must be sacked without delay, as well as Mr Paul Lincoln.
These three individuals' assets, as well as those of our previous Director, Marion Bowman, and the rest of the Trustees, particularly Mr. Jo Watkins, will be more than enough to cover our shortfall and recover our financial status, save our Archives and afford a decent Journal.
Whether we can find a decent Landscape Architect to run the LI, is another matter. -
-
Permalink Reply by Gabino Carballo on
-
"If your majesty will not hear words, we must come to cannon and see if you will hear them" (...) "Little man (...) Go home and be quiet!"
Time for the Dog to wag the Tail!!!
After a not so long last, Members of the Landscape Institute have decided that enough is enough. We have had a long running farce at our own house, it has been a laugh, but it all has come to tears.
A number of Members, coordinated by by Dominic Cole of LUC and Brian Clouston, a Past President of the LI have decided to challenge the new and undemocratic election precedures now in place at the LI, designed to keep in place the same people who got us into this mess and ensure that they remain free to take the piss with our money, as they have done for so long.
The same people who have run us into the ground, must be brought to account by Membership, and we will do so.
Others, more qualified than me, have agreed to concentrate on removing this obstacle first, prior to implementing any further changes and we hope that many will be able to support the requisition and will do so by signing the forms, indicating membership class and sending it direct to the LI, with pride instead of fear.
Importantly, Elections are coming: Ballot papers have already been sent out and must be returned by 5th of June. It is a crucial time at the LI, our future starts here. Of course, I have not yet received anything, but who knows, I may get lucky and be allowed to vote freely for a candidate of my choice and not one that has already been selected as primus inter pares.
We risk everything we have: our history, our money, our reputation and our ability to decide in what way the LI is run. It is now time for change at the Landscape Institute and I hope that those of you who have also hoped for it will now have a chance to make your votes count.
Please download the requisition here:
http://www.adrive.com/public/1f405718ddf97dcdcde37aa9b82448b62d39fc... -
-
Permalink Reply by Amanda Davey on
-
It is very probable that the rules to which we have to raise an objection now were put in place to ensure that the senior officer posts were given to people who had experience enough to fulfil the requirements of the post. It would be a cynical person indeed to have expected the sort of trouble that the Institute has got itself into over the past few years and placed a caveat in the rules. We need this EGM to clear the current block to democracy that this situation has inadvertently caused and to be able to resolve a huge crisis for our professional integrity. Publicly and together. We also need to reinvigorate the LI, somehow. Place the membership back in the position where it ought to be, partaking and supported, while promoting a comprehensible role in modern construction, design and planning. Each pebble on each beach..... I stand proudly in support of Gabino.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Gabino Carballo on
-
I would be inclined to share your views if I had not gone through 5 years of accounts. The truth is that as far as 2005, Jo Watkins, in his capacity as Hon. Treasurer was signing off statements that were simply not true. Things were not well then. We were being misled as far as that and probably before.
I do not believe in conspiracies, but I do notice patterns, specially if they lead to a certain result. The same people that was cocking up so long ago was the one promoting the kind of change that would preserve their hold on our Institute. They are also the same that accuse the membership of not getting involved with the LI.
Why would anyone want to get involved with this incompetent and self-serving lot? Why would you want to work with people who feel proprietorial about the Institute and are not willing to relinquish it for new people to come in? I mean, if you are concerned that nobody is helping or pulling their weight, you just need to leave your post, and see what happens.
Usually, what happens is that somebody else comes in quick to fill in that post. The problem is: this lot does not want anyone to take their post. They like the self-importance, and the freebies.. And now they want to make compulsory that only them and their pals can have it large with our money.
They have had the snout in the trough for so long, that they no longer notice the stench that the rest of us have to endure in this pigsty. That is the truth about the Trustees, the Executive Committee and people like McCapra, who goes from chair to chair, clambering up in search of easy money in exchange for nice words and little more. -
-
Permalink Reply by Gabino Carballo on
-
This is my latest tirade and hysterical rant:
Mr Williamson,
Following Mr Thorne's publication in our Forum a private message concerning several confidential and delicate matters regarding the situation at the Landscape Institute, I would like to bring up a number of points.
Firstly, I must commend Mr Thorne's courage and regret his foolishness. I believe that he has at least acknowledged my communications with you all for first time in public, and has allowed my views to be expressed in the Forum, if in a strangely back-handed way.
His behaviour exemplifies the decadence of our current Institute, where past Presidents care to dignify messages that others would have found both distasteful and delicate. He concedes that he hasn't even finished reading the message, which is telling. The fact that he is so ready to go into the gutter is also telling.
You would excuse me if I consider this extraordinary display of double standards at the hands of someone who ought to be a respected figure in the LI. It seems that you will only publicise my messages to you for the purposes of public defamation of my character and little more.
I am afraid that Mr Thorne has played well the role I believe several past Presidents of the LI have played in recent years: that of an "useful idiot". I am afraid that I cannot extend the charitable usage of the term "useful" to your tenure.
Since you seem to be more than ready to breach common sense rules and decency (not to mention the law) regarding the publication of private messages containing confidential matters, you will excuse me if I do the same with a degree of impunity.
Firstly, I would to query the reasons why my lead for potential financial patronage and advice by a relevant financial institution has not been followed up in any meaningful way. The head of this family's business is a well know patron of the art of Landscape Architecture and I am confident that he would have responded with interest to such as request for assistance. I believe that, at the very least, you owe me a summary report on the course of action taken by Mr McCapra on this matter and its results. A thank you letter attached to it would be nice too.
Secondly, it has been brought to my attention that Mr Watkins has apparently been involved in negotiations to raise a loan in the region of £250,000 in order to redevelop Barnard Mews. I would like to receive a detailed statement from Mr Watkins on this point, for members clarification. I am in possession of a written document with details of location, date and people who may appear to have been party to the conversation where this possibility may have been disclosed, so please notice I am ready to submit it to the courts, should the matter reach that much further. I suggest that you may want to be very careful in the wording of any statements concerning this matter.
You can also use this opportunity to clarify why Mr Watkin's £10,000 expenses for 2007-08 have been placed under an Item reserved for staff costs. Is he a staff member or is he one of those brave volunteers that you boast so much about?
Thirdly, I am the unhappy recipient of a number of files and documents which appear to contain details of the Landscape Institutes's affairs. According to these documents, it would appear that that, as far as March 2008 the LI was well aware of an Income Shortfall in the region of £110,000 for the year 2007-08, where £1,982,000 was the Budgeted income. This income shortfall is roughly the amount to be discounted to come up with the Financial Statement accounts presented to Members as late as November 2008 - £1,879,263
The shortfall in income may be detailed as follows:
Minus £65,000 for Gift Aid
Minus £40,000 for Events
Minus £20,000 for Advertising
Minus £15,000 for sale of Publications
As you can see, Advertising does not feature very highly in the reasons for the shortfall in income, which would appear to contradict earlier statements from the Landscape Institute. I would need you to confirm its validity or not, whatever may be the case.
Strangely, in spite of the shortfall, the same document predicts a overall Income Budget for 2008-09 in the region of 2,285,000, which equals an increase in income in the region of £419,000 for the 2008-09 financial year. Unlikely, to say the least. It may well be a mistake or a forgery. I would beg you to enlighten me on this matter as you appear to budget the Gift Aid for an amount of £20,000, already. Which would mean that you were fully aware of its reduction at the time of budgeting for the year, early in 2008.
With regards to Expenditure, it would appear that in March 2007-08, the LI was aware of an increase over Budgeted Expenditure for the 2007-08 in the region of £26,000 above the expected £1,979,000. This is quite removed from the amount presented in the Financial Statement for the year - £2,100,130.
That is to say that in March 2008, the LI would have been aware of a drop in income in the region of £110,000 plus a increase in expenditure in the region of £26,000, which equals some £136,000 deficit for the year. A warning shot, I would think.
However, by November 2008, the shortfall has become £220,000, which would take the overall expenditure to £2,236,000. Considerably more than budgeted and considerably more than the LI's executive committee appears to have been aware of since March 2008.
Adding the £87,000 apparently misspent (by an officer that could not sign cheques, I am told) in 2008, would roughly come up with the desired final figure for expenditure, but would not clarify why the Membership has not been properly informed about events leading up to the latest EGM, when McCapra pushed for budget cuts in the region of £900,000. These budgets cuts appear to be firstly, excessive in relation to the LI's actual financial position and, secondly, designed to mislead Members from the real issues that originated them.
These figures in combination with other pieces of evidence bring up more questions that answers, and I would be indebted if you wrote to me as a matter of urgency to clarify my confused mental state. It would appear that my forcefully expressed views are at least partially right, namely:
1. that excessive and potentially undue expenditure is at the root of our financial problems.
2. That LI has known about this situation for considerable time.
3. the problems related to our situation have their origins in the financial year 2008-09.
4. The budget cuts required have been largely overstated with a view to mislead the membership.
4. That the LI is or has been involved in some attempt at launching a redevelopment plan for Barnard Mews behind members backs.
In the light of these personal beliefs and the supporting evidence, I would be grateful if you would reply to me within five working days with a detailed explanation, with all required documents required to back your assertions up, such as Management Budgets (in all their versions), Executive Committee meeting minutes, etc as well as all the previous documentation already requested by myself in my communications with you.
Please feel free to correct any mistakes I may have made in my message. I am open to an informed and properly backed up reply that may prove me entirely wrong. In fact, I would prefer it that way.
Should you fail to come up with a detailed and satisfactory explanation, properly backed up by evidence, I will be I will be collating these figures in detail, along with other relevant information in my possession, concerning instances of potentially undue expenditure and dubious management decisions at the LI.
This information will be shaped as a Financial report, for the purposes of handing it over to the LI first, to my solicitors second and the members later. On my solicitors advice, I will consider calling for the Police to intervene, as it would appear that relevant individuals in the LI are involved in a conspiracy to commit a fraud and default in their financial obligations, as well as to continue to take potential advantage of the position within the Institute.
All this may be elegantly averted by a timely succession of apologies and resignations and a full disclosure of the facts to Members in the next few days. I require no personal apology or personal redress, but I do require you all to put an end to rumours and potential defamation of those willing to challenge the story peddled so far.
Please do not act hastily, as your reputations may be considerably more damaged than mine. I will be reporting to the press within a week, should you fail to reply to this message to my satisfaction.
Overall, I suspect that none of you lot have ever read Swift. You could have gathered considerable insight from the scene where Gulliver urinates upon the Queen's palace to save it from fire, which results in the Queen decreeing that public urination be banned and that her rooms be left in state of disrepair, as a testimony to her disgust. A telling tale.
You would have also learnt that "A lie does not consist in the indirect position of words, but in the desire and intention, by false speaking, to deceive and injure your neighbour."
I guess that prefer to have to read legal texts instead of English literature. As this farce does not appear to have a happy ending for any of us, I suggest that you start reading as soon as possible.
Gabino Carballo CMLI -
-
Permalink Reply by Gabino Carballo on
-
I have updated my File on the History of our financial Affairs for increased accuracy:
http://www.adrive.com/public/af3fd7fbafd03faff202b8b360e89a4b2f2131... -
© 2013 Landscape Juice ® Limited - Registered in England 08356644
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
