Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Over the past few weeks, there has been a great deal of comment on what’s going on at CH in regard to the Masterplan. In fact, as of 4-05-05, there have been 2,121 viewings and 175 postings on the subjects of –

· Future of the Masterplan - Where will the money come from?

· Masterplan - What are the Almoners really trying to achieve?

· The sale of Queen Anne's Gate

· Is CH wasting money?

However, as long as the comments go unanswered by anyone in ‘authority’, everything amounts to nothing more than conjecture. What I suggest is that people write directly to the Clerk. (The Clerk, The Counting House, Christ’s Hospital, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 0YP). He is in charge of the Counting House, a paid member of the Foundation and in direct contact with the elusive and silent Council of Almoners. Written letters from a wide spectrum of concerned Old Blues asking for clarification on various aspects of the Masterplan will, hopefully, elicit a response.
10 points that have raised concern on the CH Forum are –

1. How could the cost of refurbishing the first eight boarding houses amount to £16.9 million when the cost of completing the last eight boarding houses is predicted to cost £5 million with no loss of quality on their part? On what was the ‘missing’ £11.9 million spent?

2. If the school is so strapped for cash, is employing school leavers in the Counting House to ring up Old Blues asking for donations a wise use of scant resources?

3. Does the neglect of routine maintenance for years, and the fact the school is now facing massive bills for emergency repairs (water tower falling down, tube collapsing etc), demonstrate some incompetence on the part of those in charge of the school’s care?

4. Why is the school cutting valuable teaching posts yet taking on a manager for the Old Blues Association on a reported salary of £28,000 for a part-time 4 day week? Especially if his role threatens to be little more than a propaganda outlet for the Council of Almoners?

5. If the move to Total Return as a method of accounting succeeds, will it be used merely to access capital appreciation in order to fund the ailing Masterplan? Would it be fair to compare this action to Maxwell draining his company’s pension fund to prop up other failing business interests?

6. If the move to Total Return is turned down by the Charities Commission, will the Council of Almoners then look to raise funds by admitting day pupils to CH with little or no limit on parental income?

7. If, as you claim, all the Council of Almoners’ major decisions are made collectively, why did your announcement to the Common Room of the proposal to knock down housing at King Edward Road and Close at the beginning of the Michaelmas Term 2004, come as complete news to several members of the Council?

8. Are these plans to knock down the houses at King Edward Road and Close part of a ‘grander’ scheme to build a housing estate that would link to the one at Station Yard if the Council of Almoners’ application for planning permission there is successful?

9. Are the repeated attempts of the Council of Almoners to build housing estates on the edge of the school endangering the school’s environment and souring the attitudes of local people to Christ’s Hospital?

10. Who was Hedgemanor Ltd? (The company whom the Council of Almoners sold the houses to at St Anne’s Gate for such an astonishingly low price.)

Please feel free to use any (or all) of these questions if you write. And could anyone who does write, also post up a copy of their letter here and (if and when) the Clerk chooses to reply, post up his answer too? It will be an interesting exercise since obtaining meaningful feedback on these matters has proved impossible by all other means.

A quick question - what's 'total return'?

7. If, as you claim, all the Council of Almoners’ major decisions are made collectively, why did your announcement to the Common Room of the proposal to knock down housing at King Edward Road and Close at the beginning of the Michaelmas Term 2004, come as complete news to several members of the Council?

8. Are these plans to knock down the houses at King Edward Road and Close part of a ‘grander’ scheme to build a housing estate that would link to the one at Station Yard if the Council of Almoners’ application for planning permission there is successful?

Well there you go: I thought there must be at least some truth in it for that rumour to have started.

Total Return is a method of accounting that would give the Council of Almoners access to the capital appreciation of the Foundation’s assets. It’s a move the Charities Commission treats with extreme caution because of the grave implications it encompasses.
For instance, accessing of capital appreciation could take the form of disposing of foundation property. The money made from this could then be used to finance current projects: we are, of course, talking about ways to fund the ailing and ill-considered Masterplan.
It’s a move that’s been compared to Maxwell’s raiding of the pension fund to finance his failing empire and to Mrs Thatcher selling off ‘the family silver’ in regard to public utilities.
Once these assets are gone they are extremely hard to ever claw back – think of Queen Anne’s Gate. Five Grade One listed townhouses in London the Council of Almoners let go for £2.9 million in January 1998. The cost to purchase them now? In July of that same year they were being marketed by a property developer for £1.5 million EACH.
A (very!) detailed summary of Total Return can be found on the Ridley Society web site (http://www.ridleysociety.com), under the letter from the 10 Feb. When the Clerk failed to address any of the points in his reply the matter was raised again under the letter from the 16th March. The Ridley Society is still waiting for the Clerk’s response.
In response to tbs - the rumour about King Edward Road and Close will remain just that while the Clerk is allowed to evade making any response. Drop him a line, see what he has to say.

Given that Total Return is something which the Charity Commission approve of, and sometimes will allow, under what circumstances do they allow it?

There's what looks like quite a good description of the reason for Total Return here:- CLICK HERE

"The total return approach does not mean that trustees are given unrestricted powers to spend the capital, but it does allow them to invest in a way that generates the best overall return regardless of whether that is income or capital. This allows flexibility in distributing permanent endowments for the charity."

...better still - if you can find an email address for the clerk we could simply copy and paste your commments into an email and forward them that way. It's far quicker and you have a reasonably good idea that your message has reached its target, ahem, dedicated recipient.

Yes, I tried that but the old trout who answered the phone wasn't giving it out to just anyone. I'll try and get it via another means though - watch this space.

The only council I'd add is not to "spam" The Clerk - I'm sure he's more likely to respond to some sensible clear questions, and a constructive response is unlikely to be gained from that (I know I wouldn't respond if I was spammed with 10's of emails on the same subject!)

J

10's of names on the same email might be an option

I think JTaylor has a point here - it will be hard enough to get any sort of a response, without providing him with the excuse that he doesn't reply to spam.
A letter is preferable - feel free to cut and paste questions from the original posting of this thread, the essence of a letter is already there. (Dear Clerk, in the light of the hundreds of viewings and comments on the subject of the Masterplan currently found on the CH forum website, could you please provide some answers to the following questions...)
It's only the price of a stamp and a few minutes of your time.

The clerk does not have an email address that goes straight to him, you have to go via his secretary Vicky who is on [ideally other's email addresses should not be published on an open internet site - hence removed - Mod]

A letter will thererfore be the best option.

Who said teachers couldn't be censored ???

well, given that the headmaster's secretary is on:
[removed - mod]

there's a distinct possibility that the clerk's secretary would be on:
[removed - mod]

of course, i don't know for sure, and if i did, i'd be breaking the data protection act by posting it here!

Ahah! So we are not to know what they be all "on" in deepest, darkest Sussex. Down 'ere, we be mostly on just pasties and cream, but 'tis rumoured that they surfers down Newquay way be on summat stronger!

so can we perhaps infer from the mods removal of the e-mail address in my previous post, that it was, infact, correct?