Statement of Peter Bradley on the Friends of Brockwell Park Committee
This all started with a joyous thing—how to welcome more volunteers onto the committee of the Friends of Brockwell Park (FOBP). It seemed likely, although not certain, that the FOBP Constitution would need changing to permit this. The question was, how should this happen? On the committee, two people, who I will call the proposer and the seconder, urged that the constitution should be changed at the upcoming AGM on 20 October 2024. As chair, I felt that there was no rush—no convincing case has still been made for any urgency—and this was something better handled by the new committee elected at the AGM, who could set up a constitutional sub-committee to examine any necessary changes methodically and in a timely fashion.
The proposer sent four resolutions, one of which was an unwarranted attack on the role on our committee of the chair of the Brockwell Park Community Partners (BPCP), something wholly against the interests of the FOBP, and which he fortunately later withdrew. Without going into detail, all the remaining resolutions have flaws that would have benefited from examination by a sub-committee.
As this matter arose between the September and October committee meetings, but was important enough not to wait, I asked committee members to say which option they preferred:
1. Change at the 20 October AGM
2. Let the new committee appoint a constitutional sub-committee
Members voted by 5 to 2, with two abstentions, for the second option. That majority vote is binding on the whole committee, but to my astonishment, the proposer and the seconder did not accept this decision, insisted that their minority view must prevail, and submitted, very late in the day, and without any discussion in committee, resolutions to amend the constitution, for discussion at the AGM. A further two members supported them, amounting to a total of four, still a minority of the committee.
Although on both occasions they had failed to get majority committee support, the proposer and the seconder embarked on a secretive campaign to get their unsupported resolutions set before the members for discussion at the 20 October AGM. Asked twice to say whether he would accept with good grace if his resolutions were defeated at the AGM, the proposer twice refused to give that assurance.
The final decision of communicating with the membership always lies with the chair. However, the sending of an official email to all members was engineered, containing those resolutions, without my knowledge or consent as chair. Shameful for all concerned.
On 23 September, the proposer wrote in an email to the whole committee that he would refuse to serve in an FOBP committee chaired by me. A week or so later, the seconder, his wife, was installed as chair nominee in my place, again without my knowledge or consent. Shabby.
I joined the FOBP committee in 2005 and was first voted chair in 2009. I have been elected chair 15 times, yet the FOBP membership has not been given the chance to vote on my record, which I would have defended had there been a contested election. And a committee I have served for almost 20 years has got rid of me as chair without giving me the chance to say a single word to them in my own defence. Disturbing.
Most seriously, the email containing the resolutions is illegal, in that it wasn’t sent out at 21 days’ notice. On 30 September, I clearly warned the whole committee about this potential illegality. If you seek to change a constitution, you must first abide by the one you’ve got. It’s not optional: 21 days’ notice means 21 days. To send out a notice knowing it is illegal is not something I thought the FOBP would ever do. Unbelievable.
I must say something about the tone in which this debate has been conducted. I have always sought to argue on the issues, never on personalities. Yet I have been subjected to repeated personal attack and misrepresentation. I have been told there must be something wrong with me. I have been called a blackmailer.
Hateful, hurtful words, just for honestly disagreeing. The effect on me is not something I—or anybody—should have to put up with; but I have a strong feeling that this all has seriously impacted negatively on other members of the committee as well, perhaps on the majority. Indeed, so toxic have matters become that the committee has agreed to bar candidate members from attending the 15 October committee meeting, for fear they would be put off joining us if they saw the behaviour. For the good of the FOBP, this must be directly and promptly addressed.
The dynamic of a couple in a committee needs to be carefully examined too. For obvious reasons, the primary loyalty of the couple is to one another, not to the committee; it is very difficult even to be neutral about the partner’s opinion, let alone disagree fundamentally with them. Would the wife as chair be able to discipline the husband as treasurer, for instance?
I do not believe what has happened to me here is fair, but life isn’t always fair. It has been the honour of my life to be a member of the FOBP committee for almost two decades, and chair for 15 years. I took over after the Herne Hill Junction battle, which tore the community, and the committee, apart. I successfully worked to heal the wounds—and the FOBP’s finances—and I later reached out to our former opponents, deliberately involving them in two major projects, the return of the Bristowe Bust, and the restoration of the Clock Tower.
I instituted annual ‘away days’ to set FOBP strategy and allocate grants to local organisations, such as St Matthew’s Football Club, the Miniature Railway and the Walled Garden, from our now healthy reserves. I led our long campaign to oppose Lambeth Council’s damaging policy of holding major events in the park, writing press releases and defending our policy on radio and TV. I oversaw the introduction of a new website and am proudest of its accessibility section and map. In our monthly meetings, I have tried to give every committee member their say, in an atmosphere of mutual respect, free of bluster or bullying, while at the same time ensuring our business is conducted promptly.
I thank all those, on and outside the committee, who down the years have helped make Brockwell Park, and its Friends, so significant.
As Rafael Nadal reminds us, in this life, everything has a beginning and an end. So far as the Friends of Brockwell Park committee is concerned, I have, for the reasons stated above, come to the end of the road. I am stepping down as chair with immediate effect and will not be standing for any position on the new committee. It is a matter of regret that this means I will no longer be able to serve on two wonderful organisations: the Lambeth Parks Forum, including alongside some great Lambeth officers; and the Lambeth Local History Forum, including alongside some great Lambeth archivists.
With the caveats mentioned, I genuinely wish the new committee all the best and will support it loyally as an ordinary member. Times are tough for parks at the moment and look likely to get tougher. We need a strong FOBP and a strong BPCP.
This is a public statement.
Peter Bradley
2024 October 13
