Carer’s response and further complaint to Ms Irene Mungall Chair UCI re failure to get written permission from a vulnerable adult
Posted: April 30th, 2010 | Author: DGPPG | Filed under: NewsComments: 1 - Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
Dear Ms. Mungall, I am writing to you because I am very concerned about your response to this entire matter with respect to the rights of vulnerable adults and their parents/carers. As a charity, UCI have responsibilities to those they profess to work on behalf of, in this case, users and carers. As a carer myself, I am appalled beyond words at the behaviour of yourself and your colleagues in response to what is a very serious charge. “Alleged” unauthorised photo? You heard directly from the family that it had not been authorised and yet you used it in your literature and as far as we know are still distributing it. Are you indeed in the business of interfering with the legal rights of vulnerable adults and those who have legal powers on their behalf? Everything I have seen in the course of this whole sorry saga says that is exactly what has happened here. There is no doubt that users and carers in Dumfries and Galloway are in dire need of a champion charity to put their needs top of mind in an uncertain budgetary environment. What you seem to be doing with your organisation is perverting the intent of your own charter. Is that how charities are run nowadays? Because I can assure you, I would not come within a country mile of your organisation if I found myself in need of help, advice or support, and I would tell everyone I know (and I know quite a few people who would potentially be served by your “charity”) to steer clear of you.
If you are indeed partly funded by DG Council, then I am doubly offended. The public purse – my tax contributions – are funding your folly. More’s the pity…but rest assured that I have my own complaint procedure which I will be pursuing on that front.
Make no mistake, many many people are watching this situation and the way you have handled it, and I truly believe your organisation’s reputation will suffer badly in the long run. You still have time to redeem the situation, make apologies, withdraw the offending documents and provide proof of your corrected actions. I urge you to do the right thing and not be a victim of your own hubris. Focus on your charter, not your ego. Admit that a mistake was made and make things right. You may not like how it feels now, but it will serve you and your organisation much better than what you have done up to now.
For the purposes of your process, you can consider this an official complaint against U.C.I. Named Carer of DGPPG
Leave your feedback, post a comment here »
REGRET NO CRYSTAL BALL AVAILABLE
Dear Ms Mungall. I have just read your message sent at 13:12 today (cc attached) in which you write: “Dear Mr. B, I am somewhat surprised by your blatently (sic) dishonest email message. I would like to point out that the complaint that was upheld was yours in relation to a UCI Trustee and not regarding an alleged unauthorised photo. Please withdraw your email. I Mungall”
Although not explicitly signed as such, may I assume this message is sent in your capacity as “Chair UCI”?
On reflection you may wish to reconsider the language of your reply? Because it appears rather intemperate, extreme and unjustified to accuse me of being, “blatently (sic) dishonest” when I was only replying to your letter Weds 28 April as attached, which was important enough to be sent by ‘Recorded Delivery’. In this you wrote as follows: “Dear Mr. B, Re: Complaint regarding behaviour of board member of UCI. Your complaint regarding the above has been upheld and the matter addressed. Yours sincerely, Irene Mungall Chair UCI Scottish Charity SCO 31853″ (sic)
I am very, very sorry that my latest ‘crystal ball’ is not working very well; perhaps the images are somewhat ‘blacked out’ and fuzzy? If I have not properly understood your brief letter, please do not accuse me of being “blatently (sic) dishonest”, without explaining in detail how and why such a serious accusation is justified. When doing so please consider that:
1. Your ‘complaint upheld’ letter 28 April does not refer to a “Trustee” as you now claim. It refers to a “board member”, but not named. As you know the two are not necessarily the same, especially has UCI has still failed to supply the requested details of its Trustees and Officers. Where is that information, asked for long ago?
2. Quite reasonably I understood the person responsible for publishing the unauthorised photograph blacked out in felt tip was a ‘board member’? Indeed the glossy 4pp UCI Annual Report 2009, with that blacked out face on the front page as part of the “Chair’s Report”, was ‘signed off’ immediately above the ‘defaced’ photograph in question by you as, “Chair”.
3. Obviously and quite reasonably I understood that as Chair you would naturally be responding first to the most serious and longest outstanding complaint; viz taking and publishing at least four unauthorised photographs, one ‘blacked out’ in felt tip.
4. Your letter does not detail or reference the complaint in any way. Or make at all clear that it is not the most serious “unauthorised photographs” complaint that was “upheld”, when it clearly must be upheld. Or is the ‘legal advice’ Paul Nolan advises you are seeking in order to find some legalistic technicality to evade any responsibility, whatever the obvious moral position? So that as ever, no one will be responsible for anything; the ‘not me guv’ culture of today.
5. Do you agree it is accepted good practice in all complaints procedures to acknowledge, agree and define any complaint with the complainant to avoid ambiguity, especially if there are several complaints? I am correct to assume that, in your role as Chief Executive CAB, that is the advice you would freely give to those ordinary citizens coming to the CAB for help when dealing with any oppressive organisations who have caused great upset and distress in this way?
6. Your letter provides no explanation or any other detail from which I could reasonably infer or understand this was not referring to the unauthorised photographs. You do not say how the matter has been addressed or offer any apology for the action(s) complained of, which in such an ‘upheld’ letter should normally be mentioned. Doing any of that would have prevented me, or any other reader, from being misled.
7. In short I am not a mind reader and unfortunately do not have a real ‘crystal ball’. I cannot read into your letter what should be there explicitly, but is not included by you for UCI, for whatever reason.
8. In these circumstances I could, but would not actually dream of doing so, accuse you of being ‘blatantly dishonest’ by deliberately writing such a misleading cryptic letter in order to create just this situation. However, that would be as unjustified as your message to me, which you may perhaps now wish to correct and start again?
9. When UCI sends me a properly detailed letter acknowledging and defining all the complaints and explains what is being done and has been done, detailed the circumstances of the complaints, then together we can perhaps achieve some clarity. Meanwhile I cannot withdraw anything, when UCI are being so deliberately opaque and unhelpful by obfuscating the facts, refusing to answer correspondence and not operating in a proper professional manner, as a registered charity should.
10. To avoid any doubt I refer you to my complaint sent 21/4 at 21:44, copy attached. There is also other correspondence that UCI has ignored. Please will you now reply to this, which first dates from the email dated 21 Dec 2009. Do you now require us to list and index all this correspondence, so you do not miss anything? We will happily do so, to help you.
11. Had UCI properly responded to the complaints and correspondence timeously and professionally, then this situation and your wholly unjustified accusation of my being “blatently (sic) dishonest”, would not have occurred.
12. I will not bother asking for any apology or “withdrawal”, because from the attitudes already displayed it appears that would be a pointless waste of time. So I will leave it for other recipients to judge any of the ‘rights and wrongs’ of this situation, given that UCI is a business with a turnover of more than £100,000 pa and an administrative infrastructure within the offices of CAB and supported by expert CAB employees, like you as Chief Executive, together with D&G Council and the NHS.
13. Like Mr & Mrs A, we are merely ordinary members of the public with care responsibilities. Amateurs compared to you professionals comprising the elite. Our time is precious and we do not need or seek any of this hassle and oppressive bullying, especially from those funded by the public purse and who should exhibit much higher standards, not least of basic and elementary good manners. Noticeably absent in this affair. Any correspondence must be copied by email please, in addition to any hard copy you may send by post. We look forward to receiving full and comprehensive answers and wholly reject your unjustified assertion of being “blatently (sic) dishonest”. No doubt Mr & Mrs A may wish to add their comments in due course along with other recipients of this email, who should feel free to comment as they see fit. No doubt DGPPG may wish to consider posting this, after necessary editing, on the http://www.dumfries-galloway.org.uk web site in due course for wider public consideration and hopefully comment as well. Thank you. Mr & Mrs B