Listen to this story Members can listen to an AI-generated audio version of this article. 1.0x Audio narration uses an AI-generated voice. 0:00 0:00 Upgrade to premium to listen to this article Subscribe Being CEO of an organisation is rewarding – personally and financially. Risks carried, decisions taken are shared by the collective body to whom the individual leader is accountable. When it works well, the price paid to exercise executive leadership is worth the cost to the individual leader and to the organisation. Collective leadership by charity trustees, undertaken voluntarily, comes at a different price; its cost rarely considered. Sometimes devastating consequences ensue as at City & Guilds of London Institute (CGLI), the charity I chaired until recently. Disproportionate and unsubstantiated attacks in the media on former executives and CGLI trustees leave me disheartened, disillusioned, and dismayed – a sad conclusion to 35 years’ voluntary service in over 50 charities. Over the last four months, ill-informed commentary and serious personal allegations (‘secretive deal’, ‘unlawful sale’, ‘illegality’) have been made in the media. The Charity Commission (CCEW) is the appropriate regulatory body for independent investigation of such claims, and I was pleased to meet them recently. I am disappointed however, that concerns have not been taken up directly with me as chair of CGLI at the time of the divestment. I take no issue with rightful and necessary scrutiny. I welcome challenge and face-to-face engagement. Through listening to concerns, mutual understanding – although not necessarily shared agreement – can be achieved. Disagreeing agreeably is a responsibility of leadership. The torchlights of scrutiny must be shone on facts and not on fiction. The facts are that CGLI is not a public body, as has been claimed. It is a registered charity. In 2020, the board, then chaired by Sir John Armitt, and under Kirstie Donnelly’s executive leadership recognised that CGLI faced a difficult commercial environment, an increasingly competitive, constantly changing UK qualifications scene, and an IT infrastructure requiring significant investment. CGLI was financially vulnerable. Trustees had a choice – face up to or ignore this challenge. In May 2023, to avoid further decline, trustees acknowledged that CGLI’s long-term financial future called for strategic transformation. The ‘do nothing’ option would have resulted in continued gradual descent into peril as evidenced in published accounts over the last ten years. As charity trustees, ignoring this would be tantamount to dereliction of duty. The decision to divest the charity’s commercial assets was instigated by trustees. Through a formal tender process, trustees engaged specialist independent commercial and legal advisers. Together between May 2023 and October 2025, they undertook a detailed commercially confidential review and options process, restricted by NDAs and called Project Birthday. Led by a trustee chaired task group, which excluded me as chair, it comprised trustees with specialist commercial experience and financial expertise. Its work was recorded and regularly reported to the board and its committees. Trustees’ overriding collective responsibility was to act lawfully to secure the best possible price for the divestment. Trustees obtained almost twice the original estimated value. In ceding control to PeopleCert through the sale of loss-making commercial activities, trustees disposed of assets that for decades had operated uneasily under the umbrella of a charity, simultaneously preserved a structurally unchanged, now financially secure charity able to fulfil its educational charitable objects. Acting throughout on external advice, in taking what was a carefully considered decision, trustees did not act unlawfully in undertaking a commercial transaction strictly in confidence, were not in breach of CGLI’s constitution or Royal Charter by not informing the council until its meeting on October 16, 2025 and consulted with, but did not require, regulatory approval from CCEW. Trustees were required, as a condition of sale, to ensure that the purchaser of the awarding organisation, PeopleCert, received full registration from Ofqual before divestment. In concluding the sale on October 31, 2025, with Department for Education knowledge, Ofqual approval was given to PeopleCert – at a time of least disruption to learners and examination centres – which was the shared objective of all parties. Leadership decisions are sometimes inadequately communicated, misunderstood, or unpopular, and can have consequences which not everyone accepts. This does not make decisions wrong or unlawful or the people that took them villains or criminals. CGLI trustees acted in a voluntary capacity, in good faith, in accordance with the charity’s objects, completing three years of considerably complex confidential work and deriving no personal benefit. Trustees took the right collective leadership decision and action, at the right time, to secure a financially strong future for the charity – which was our duty.
Terry 8 April 2026 This defence reads less like an explanation and more like an attempt to reframe the crisis as a misunderstanding. The reality is far simpler—and far more uncomfortable. A 148-year-old national institution has been sold into private ownership, senior executives have received multi-million-pound bonuses, and regulators have deemed the situation serious enough to launch a formal statutory inquiry into governance, transparency, and decision-making. You do not get a statutory inquiry because the public has misunderstood “the facts.” You get one because something does not withstand scrutiny. The claim that trustees acted “lawfully” is a narrow defence that misses the point entirely. This is not a courtroom—it is a question of public trust. And on that measure, the optics are stark: A charitable institution sells its core operating business -Executives linked to the deal receive seven-figure payouts -Those same executives are subsequently placed on leave while investigations are launched -The new private owner signals a £22 million cost-cutting programme and workforce reductions following the transaction This is not a perception problem. It is a credibility problem. Even more concerning is the attempt to position criticism as “ill-informed.” That argument collapses the moment you acknowledge that both the regulator and the acquiring organisation have opened investigations into the same set of events. When scrutiny is coming from inside the system—not just the media—it is no longer defensible to dismiss concerns as noise. The uncomfortable question remains unanswered: How does a transaction that results in private gain, public controversy, regulatory investigation, and sustained reputational damage still qualify as “the right decision at the right time”? Leadership is not judged by internal process notes or legal thresholds. It is judged by outcomes—and by whether trust is strengthened or eroded. On that measure, this is not a story of strong governance. It is a case study in how quickly institutional credibility can be lost—and how difficult it is to recover once it is.
Anon 9 April 2026 I am surprised that ‘Baroness’ Ann Limb has chosen to comment on this situation when litigation is on the horizon. I am also surprised that, in an article on leadership, there is little mention of the importance of honesty and integrity.
Noel Johnson 9 April 2026 It’s not entirely clear what this is seeking to achieve,. Whether its explanation, reassurance or defence. What it does set out clearly is a justification of process, legality and intent. What it doesn’t do is demonstrate reflection on leadership. Decisions can be lawful and taken in good faith, yet still be experienced poorly in terms of transparency, engagement and stakeholder confidence. That distinction matters. What is notably absent is any acknowledgement that this has been experienced negatively, or that aspects of the approach may have contributed to that outcome. Reasserting that everything was done “properly” is not, in itself, a sufficient response to legitimate concern. Leadership requires not just justification of decisions, but accountability for how they are perceived and the impact they have.
Majid 10 April 2026 I’ve known Ann for over 25 years, and in all that time her commitment to education, public service, and the many charities she has supported has been nothing short of extraordinary. Ann has always been someone who gives generously of her time, energy, and expertise, and she has never asked for anything in return from anyone. Some of the comments being made here are simply not fair and don’t reflect the facts. Before making assumptions, it’s important that people take the time to understand the full picture and the decades of positive impact Ann has had on so many communities. I stand by Ann and the integrity she has always shown.
Anon 10 April 2026 This rather ignores how the Trustees represented the prospects for City &Guilds in their annual reports between 2020 – 2025. At no time did they suggest that the Institute was challenged strategically or financially. That in itself reflects poor judgement and misrepresentation. A failure of leadership, accountability and responsibility and that sits fairly and squarely with the Trustee Board and Chair.