Opinion: Charities are right to return the Presidents Club money

Our writer claims charities are perfectly right to reject donations from such a sordid club – and even to return past payments…

So many storms and debates have erupted out of the Presidents Club scandal revealed last week by the Financial Times.

Questions abound over male-only networking events that include women only in subservient capacities, over political influence being offered as prizes to the wealthy, and over claims of groping, letching and inappropriate behaviour.

People are lining up on both sides of the debate to argue about whether this one final scandal in a city tainted by misogyny and old-boys’ clubs, or whether it’s actually a bears/woods kind of non-story.

But one of the most divisive issues, even among people who agree that the event was sordid, is the question of whether charities are right to return the money they have received from the Presidents Club.

Great Ormond Street Hospital said it was "shocked" to hear of the behaviour reported and will return previous donations from the organisation.

The Evelina London Children’s Hospital added it was “very alarmed” by the allegations and that it intended to return the money paid to it.

And a host of other good causes and organisations have said they will hand back cash.

I think that’s understandable and that they should be applauded for taking such decisive action.

Now read: How Facebook investment scams work

Are they actually allowed to return the money?

In a nutshell, yes. The Charity Commission has published guidance on this specifically in response to the Presidents Club donations, saying trustees must make their decision to reject donations or not based on the best interests of the charity.

“That will include weighing up any issues around how the funds were raised, which may include reputational concerns, against the financial impact on the charity of turning the donation down,” it states.

As for returning previously accepted donations, charities may need to seek the commission’s authorisation to return the money, but they can decide to do so.

So what’s the right thing to do? I believe any charity that wants to expunge the support of such a tainted event from its books should feel free to do so. Here’s why.

How to give to charity without paying more

Accepting means condoning

Accepting money from an event condones that event. It allows the organisers to use a reputable charity to make their event seem more respectable.

Essentially, a night where rich and powerful men networked to the exclusion of women, bid on prizes including access to powerful ministers, and gawked and pawed at women chosen for their looks and legs, is somehow less seedy when ‘it’s all for a good cause’.

It is right that those good causes stand up and reject any association with such grubbiness, even if it means handing back the cash.

By retaining that money, charities risk offering tacit acceptance of the alleged sexual harassment and the exclusion of women as guests at an event where companies had sponsored tables and some even sent their senior (male) staff.

Now read: Latest bank scam that gives crooks access to YOUR cash

Charities risk becoming hopelessly compromised by the whole sordid affair, while being used as justification for those who would say the event was harmless and ‘just a bit of fun’.

If you disagree with me, let’s imagine a few more extreme examples. Various far-right groups often try to align themselves with initiatives that support soldiers and veterans. It’s a way of gaining authority and justification for events that are really nothing more than a means of spreading hate.

So charities that support troops, former soldiers and their families have to refuse such donations or risk their names being associated with the event and used to white-wash very murky gatherings.

Similarly, it’s common for so-called psychics to perform for free at fundraisers for charities supporting grieving parents. Again, the mantle of the charity’s respectability is being thrown over the act and it looks as if it has their support.

It’s easy to see that a charity appears to show support when its name is associated with an event.

Now read: Government property register ‘would be a goldmine for criminals’

You could argue that the charities, in this case, do not need to refuse or return money in order to show their disapproval of the event – the club has closed down, the newspapers are full of the sordid details and the public disapproval is obvious.

But there are many, many people who would still like to argue that the event was ‘just a bit of un-PC fun’ and ‘for the kiddies’, and who would see charities retaining the cash as proof the event was a good thing and not problematic.

Worst of all, some of those people might include guests.

There should not be any pressure

I do believe that charities are right to return the money raised for them by the Presidents Club. However, I do not believe they should be forced or pressured into doing so if they cannot.

Large organisations like Great Ormond Street have a healthy cash flow and lots of donations and fundraising benefit them. No child will be left untreated if they return a donation from this old-boys club.

However, I have already heard anecdotal stories of smaller charities being forced to lay off staff in order to return money they received in the past.

Small organisations that do not benefit from a steady cash-flow should not be left struggling because of the past actions of their dodgy benefactors.

I would never criticise a charity for not returning the money if doing so would leave it facing difficulties.

However, I would respect them more if they issued a statement condemning the fundraiser but explaining that they cannot return the money without compromising their ability to continue in their work.

Larger charities with more varied income are absolutely right to return the cash.

What should happen to the money then?

Okay, clearly something needs to be done with this tainted money. It has been donated with the intention it be spent on underprivileged children, it can’t be left sloshing around in the dormant account of a closed-down charity. That won’t help anyone.

So here’s what I think should be done with the money. It should be given to a charity that will use it to help underprivileged kids but in a way that also acknowledges the wrongful way it was collected. It could then be washed clean of the stench of sordidness.

Perhaps it could be given to a charity combating sexual harassment among young people, or one that educates and empowers girls to overcome ingrained sexism and flourish in male-dominated fields like engineering.

Maybe it could be spent on programmes to support young men and women from poorer backgrounds who want to enter an ‘elite’ field but do not have the old-boys network that so many Presidents Club attendees have benefitted from.

By using the money to both support disadvantaged young people and make amends for the morally culpable way it was collected, I think the trustees could go a long way to repairing some of the damage.

Now read: Should all pensioners REALLY get the Winter Fuel Payment?

The Presidents Club revelations revealed how considerably far we are from ending the old-boys club mentality, the male-only networking that entrenches power among a group of elite men, let alone overcoming issues of misogyny and sexual harassment.

If the money that has been raised this way was used to support ending the very problems exemplified by the gala then that would go a long way towards washing it clean of the issues.

I think such charities could accept it on the grounds that they would use it to end the problems stemming from the night, making it okay.

But I fully understand why so many reputable charities felt unable to keep money that was so tainted by the way it was collected and I admire them for rejecting it.

What do you think? Are the charities right to return the money or are they making a grand gesture at the expense of the children who need their help? Have your say using the comments below.