|
|
| The Corporate Mugging of a Whole Community - by The SDCC |
|
In the summer of 2006 the Dartington Hall Trust and Dartington College of Arts decided that they would rather see the precious legacy with which they had been entrusted destroyed than abandon the entrenched corporate mindset that governs their thinking and their actions. Unable to transcend their differences, the executives and boards of trustees and governors of the Trust and the College decided that it was better to discard the efforts of decades and to devastate a whole community than to overcome their own personal inability to communicate, and work towards an outcome that would put the legacy of the Tagore/Elmhirst vision as the foundation for all their actions, as well as the welfare of the people who have dedicated their lives to it, and to those whose lives have been so enriched by it.
Since then both the Trust and the College have made every effort to deny and repudiate any suggestion that this is what lies at the root of the Dartington fiasco. Only last week, James Cornford, Chairman of the Dartington Hall Trust was quoted in the Independent as saying: "It's not true that there is a personality clash or that we want to appropriate facilities," he says. "The problem is structural and it's not going to go away. Nobody wanted this to happen. The idea that the Trust is plotting is wrong."
Vaughan Lindsay, at a meeting in late February, threatened repeatedly to have Richard Gonski, a leading member of the Campaign, 'thrown out' for continuing to pursue this line - ie: that the root of the problem was Mr Lindsay’s and Mr Brewerton's inability to work together towards a solution that would keep the College on the estate. This, after he told Mr. Gonski and Professor Frank Denyer that "he and Brewerton were like a married couple having difficulties" and Jim Port’s (the consultant used in three of the four reports) view that College and Trust could be creative partners if as he put it, “they rediscover the benefits of mutual respect and confidence, and of closer and more advantageous collaboration in those specific areas where both partners have agreed that their mutual interests lie”.
Jim Port went on to say:
“…there has not been any systematic joint strategic planning, and issues which affect both organisations such as the academic profile of the College; the desirable size of the College; its strategic development, and the investment needs for its estates have not been addressed jointly, in a way which current Trustees and Governors can recognise. Nor has joint consideration been given to ways in which the College could make a bigger contribution to the aims of the Trust or vice versa”.
This article presents some of the evidence that has been accumulated over months of campaigning. It shows conclusively that had Messrs Brewerton and Lindsay and their respective governing bodies had the wisdom to transcend the short term corporate visions to which they seem enslaved - we would today be working towards creating a college on the estate that would reflect the true needs of our community, rather than fighting tooth and nail to ensure its continued existence.
First – some background.
On Wednesday 27th June the Save Dartington Campaign released the 'People's Report'. It was written in response to the three reports commissioned at huge expense by Dartington College of Arts and HEFCE (the first two) and HEFCE and the RDA (the final one) More recently there has been a further commissioned report on the subject of the proposed merger of Dartington College and University College Falmouth. (This last report, full of praise for the Falmouth option and the huge benefits it will bring to Cornwall, makes no mention – not one word – of the impact and consequences for Totnes and South Devon)
The first report, by JM Consulting stated that 'with hard work' the college had a sustainable future on the Dartington Estate. Following the failure of Professor Andrew Brewerton, Principal of the College, and John Bull, Chairman of the Board of Governors to make that statement a reality, the Falmouth scenario magically appeared on the horizon.
For the moment, suffice it to say that things are not quite that straightforward. It will come as no surprise that John Bull has been promoting the Combined Universities of Cornwall idea for a very long time indeed and that Andrew Brewerton, on his own admission, approached Falmouth first - not the other way around. The 'acquisition' of Dartington College of Arts and the addition of 700 odd students to their student numbers will enable Falmouth to apply for university status within a few years, thereby allowing it to become a part of the CUC. (This corporate model of growth, based on expansion and merger, is sweeping through the whole of higher education). The fact that this will impact on the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people who populate Totnes and the South Hams does not seem to be on their radar at all.
The subsequent two consultant's reports declared that Falmouth was after all a very good idea, as does the most recent one. Again, it surprised no-one that despite the huge resistance from the local community to the closure of the college, Brewerton, Bull, and the College Governors decided that 'unfortunately, there was no alternative' and in a move reminiscent of the 'weapons of mass destruction' ploy repeatedly stated that HEFCE would soon 'pull the plug' and close down the College. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is indeed the case. Indeed there is mounting evidence that the exact opposite is true. Brewerton added his bit of truly Orwellian doublespeak by repeatedly stating that the Save Dartington Campaign would be the ones who would be responsible for the College's closure if the Falmouth merger was blocked.
The other party to this story, the Dartington Hall Trust, are currently breathing a huge sigh of relief and licking their wounds after suffering the worst public relations disaster in their history. HEFCE (who apparently regarded the Trust as "sharp operators") and the RDA have now done an about turn and are looking to the Trust to cover their embarrassment - after all, they are about to waste £37 million of public money on a move that absolutely nobody wants. Indeed, Vaughan Lindsay, CEO of the Trust has just been appointed as Chair of one of the most important bodies in the South West. So far, so predictable.
Equally predictable was the total absence of consultation with the local community, staff, students and anybody else who wasn't a member of the small group of people who are responsible for this whole fiasco.
Hence the People's Report - it didn't cost huge amounts of money, we didn't hire a fancy consultant - we just asked this huge group of disenfranchised people for their thoughts and ideas. They were pretty unanimous in their response: Outrage, indignation, a deep sadness and the unshakeable conviction that asset stripping and even cultural vandalism were on the rampage once again.
The question everybody has been asking is: "Why is this being allowed to happen and how can they get away with this?"
Sam Richards (recently dismissed from the College on a charge of gross misconduct for daring to oppose the College’s closure) answers the question in part in his article ‘Democracy, What Democracy?’ He points out that rule by quango and a complete and utter disregard for the aspirations and feelings of ordinary people is the method which is currently prevalent.
The underlying philosophy however, is the spreadsheet culture which is currently doing its best to destroy the planet. What has truly horrified campaign members is the realisation that everyone from the (ex) Prime Minister Tony Blair down the chain through Ben Bradshaw, Minister for the South West, HEFCE and the RDA see this model as being not only acceptable, but positively beneficial and ‘a really good thing’. Add in the spiders web of strategic board and committee memberships of the various personalities involved in this whole sorry saga, and you begin to find the answers to the question above.
Back to Dartington. Two groups of people, sharing the same house couldn't get along with each other. One, the Trust, (CEO: Vaughan Lindsay) thought the College would never get their act together and would lead them all into bankruptcy. Lindsay told this to members of the Save Dartington College Campaign last December. He also said that his attendance at College Governor's meetings had made him tear his hair out – he repeatedly told them (the Governors) that they had to get their house in order and they ignored him. The local MP, Anthony Steen said in a newspaper interview: "He's (Brewerton) been running a college that's been heading for an iceberg. He didn't see it and the governors didn't. They should have seen it years ago."
Then there was the Kate Caddy (one of the Trustees) statement to the press that made it quite clear what she thought:
"Dartington Hall trustee Kate Caddy, the direct heiress to the Elmhirsts' Dartington dream, has declared her altruistic grandparents would have approved of the Dartington college pull-out.
She declared they never intended to set up Dartington Hall as an "alternative world" or a "refuge" for people to pursue alternative lifestyles. Instead, she said, they would have seen the sense and accepted the need for "the current change with the college". (from the HERALD EXPRESS - 15th January, 2007) The decoded message was that Dartington no longer wanted long-haired sandal wearing hippies lowering the tone of the estate. We must, in all fairness, give Ms Caddy the credit for being the only trustee to date (bar the odd bland statement from the Chairman, James Cornford) to have publicly said anything at all.
The corporate vision of the Trust has become abundantly clear over the past few months – branding, creative enterprise (read: if you’re an artist who isn’t an entrepreneur, don’t even bother), arts parks, jumping on the green bandwagon….
On the other side, we have the College, led by a man whose grandiose ideas for a 'state of the art' arts college were doomed from the start. Brewerton’s demand that the Trust come up with £20 million or else was so preposterous and delusional that one wonders whether he was serious when he made it. More importantly though, was the complete (and mutual) antipathy and mistrust that the College had towards the Trust.
Ian Wellens, a member of the music staff summed it up perfectly in an article he wrote for the Save Dartington Website in response to a joint statement issued and signed by Brewerton and Lindsay which stated among other things that:
"The Trust has done everything within its capability to support the College’s stated priority – that is, to secure its future at Dartington"
Wellens responded:
"In the light of this statement, I feel that it is now important to put on the record the very different account given by Andrew Brewerton at a meeting with Music Department staff on 4 December 2006. His key points, delivered forcefully over about 2hrs were:
- that the student accommodation issues could have been resolved with goodwill from the Trust;
- that the Trust did not see the College as part of its vision of the future;
- that he believed the Trust had another agenda;
- that in his view Trustees wished to see the back of the College because 1) it had too high a profile on the Estate, and 2) because it was part of the public education system.
He (Brewerton) went on to say:
- that the Trust's public position was an inaccurate portrayal of the situation;
- that their role in and responsibility for the current crisis should be exposed;
- that he was unable to confront the Trust publicly due to the need to maintain a good working relationship with them;
- that he had a strategy which would bring pressure to bear from third parties - politicians, HEFCE etc - and that they would be doing what he could not.
Wellens continued:
'Not confronting' the Trust is one thing, but I think it would be fair to say that none of us expected him to issue a statement of unequivocal support.
This Dec 4 position and the joint statement with Lindsay are quite incompatible. I have asked Andrew both in writing and in person to explain the discrepancies between the two. In the absence of any satisfactory response, and because of the damage the joint statement could do to the campaign, it seemed vital that this information should be made public. "
Mark Taylor, Vice Principal and Director of Finance at the College wrote to the Save Dartington College Campaign (in an email to Richard Gonski) regarding this 'joint' statement with the following:
"This is a Vaughan whitewash – the Trust could have the College if it wanted it – by placing it at the centre of its mission, and by therefore using its asset base to secure a future, albeit accepting the attendant risk." Mr Taylor does not explain why Mr Brewerton would be party to a ‘Vaughan whitewash’
Another senior member of staff emailed the Campaign to say:
"Andrew is not the driving force behind the decision to move. He had no choice but to look at an alternative location for the college since the Trust is basically evicting us."
and
"Not only does the Trust want the college to leave, they have made it clear that even if a solution was found to keep us here, they do not want us to stay on the estate."
and
"Don't believe everything Vaughan Lindsay says, most of it is spin"
On the issue of the residencies, Mark Taylor wrote:
"It was extraordinarily difficult to get the Trust involved in the competitive tender process for developers to build residences at Foxhole – they seemed to say simply that it was “a college matter” even though they held all the cards.
Two years ago I distinctly remember an external property consultant .... looking completely dumbfounded when the Trust turned down Blackler Copse. He simply said “But if you want the College, you must have residences – it’s that simple.
So it’s the ‘want’ question. Kate Caddy, in a coded way, has let the cat out the bag."
Another trustee spent over an hour on Totnes High Street 'explaining' to campaigners that the Trust "could not, and would not allow the College to drain the Trust indefinitely."
From the above, and many other examples that could be cited, it is clear that the root cause of the whole Dartington fiasco is down to a complete breakdown in communication and trust between the Dartington Hall Trust, the College and their respective executive bodies and a complete unwillingness to overcome it. To their eternal discredit, there was not one among them, neither a trustee nor a governor, that had the wisdom, commitment or determination to persuade their respective executives that losing the College was not an option. They seem, without exception, to have capitulated completely to the 'facts and figures' of their directors of finance.
Mark Taylor again:
"I think you have spotlighted Vaughan. The role of Mark Howell (the Trust's Director of Finance) should not be underestimated - he certainly killed the Blacklers Copse project. The opportunity cost concept came from Mark, who suggested to Trust that the rents were worth £400k+ more than the College were currently paying"
Some weeks later, Mark Taylor and Mark Howell subjected campaign members to a 3 ½ hour Powerpoint presentation based on the theme of ‘no alternative’.
As with the joint statement, it was one version for some and another for the rest.
Many critics of the move to close the College have accused Vaughan Lindsay and Andrew Brewerton of a lack of vision. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real tragedy is the nature of their respective visions (neither of which could co-exist on the same estate) which are based on ideas, structures and philosophies which have long since passed their sell by dates. It is all about figures and projections, outdated, unintelligent and short term financial and economic models, branding, prestige, expansion and merger. Community values, the importance of art, spirit, feeling, local networks and communication are completely absent - they seem simply to not exist in their view of things - hence the title of this article 'The Corporate Mugging of a Community'.
Their failure and the indictment of which they are guilty is their inability to realise that these values should have been at the forefront of their minds right from the start and should have been the foundation upon which their actions rested - they should have understood that without these, not only are our communities doomed - their plans are as well. The beauty of the Dartington vision is to be replaced by a bland supermarket model devoid of all the qualities that made Dartington such a unique and beautiful place. Where once we had individual expression we now have a 'brand'. These shiny, superficial replacements will wither and die, sooner rather than later, as do all things which lack real substance.
One of the more startling things to emerge from campaigning on the streets of Totnes has been the realisation that the horror of this corporate vision resonates with almost everyone - you don't have to explain - it is happening in our health service, in our schools and in our places of work - everybody has a story of how they are experiencing the same things in their own lives. Feelings of helplessness, frustration, anger and resignation are the norm. One wonders if Vaughan Lindsay, Andrew Brewerton, John Bull, the College Governors and the Dartington Trustees have ever stopped to ponder the effects of their actions and to wonder whether they really do want this as their legacy.
Sadly, it appears that they do. They seem to believe that what they represent is the 'real world' and that unconvinced members of the wider community, and specifically the Save Dartington College Campaign, are at best 'sadly misinformed'. If the College is closed, Andrew Brewerton and John Bull will no doubt see this as a victory and congratulate themselves on having withstood the force of public opinion in the belief that 'they knew best'. They will disappear off to Falmouth leaving behind a community devastated by their actions and at the mercy of the ‘market forces’ vision and the ‘Creative Industries’ of the Dartington Hall Trust. Blinded by the lure of their unintelligent and short sighted vision, they remain blissfully unaware that their mutual failure to work together for the welfare of the local community is how they will be remembered.
|
|
|
|
|
|