DAVID SOLE

The SRU has, at last, published a statement, following on from Lesley Thomson’s review, commissioned in the wake of Keith Russell’s successful action in court against his former employers. As statements go it was pretty banal, predominately picking up on issues of process and governance which could be strengthened, while singularly failing to make any comments about the culture of the organisation – something that Keith Russell was at pains to criticise. Thomson’s report was always going to come under real scrutiny from the outside world, not least because she sits on the board of the SRU and therefore cannot be considered to be truly independent. That some of the outcomes of her report cannot be made public will undoubtedly raise eyebrows, even though the SRU have intimated that this is to remain in line with staff privacy policies and data protection legislation. The former Solicitor General’s conclusions make no reference to the leadership or culture of the organisation – and Mark Dodson the CEO, who is ultimately the accountable officer, isn’t even named in the statement. Undoubtedly, there will be many questions being asked around the country right now. Scottish Rugby isn’t the first governing body that has run into problems regarding criticism of its culture.

‘ The question of whether Scottish Rugby is “toxic” or not, remains unanswered

British Cycling, one of the mostsuccessful sports in the country, found itself on the front pages of the newspapers with accusations of bullying and a toxic culture only a matter of months ago. The Board of British Cycling came in for considerable criticism as a result, but it is very hard for a Board to truly understand what it is like to work in the organisation. Boards are non-executive for a reason – they are there to challenge and support the executives and to ensure that the governance of the organisation is well-managed. They interact mainly with the executives and senior leadership in the organisation and therefore cannot understand what it is like to be a “foot soldier” at the coalface. If Keith Russell is to be believed, this is where Thomson, or ideally someone who is truly independent, should have focused their attention. Of course, settlement agreements are used in organisations and from what the report concludes, they were used properly – just rather too often and as part of the performance management process. They are a relatively easy way to get rid of people, albeit often quite expensive, and now a sub-committee of the Board will have to approve them. So the core question, of whether the culture of Scottish Rugby is “toxic” or not, remains unanswered. It is a shame for the many staff who do such a great job in promoting and developing the game that a cloud still hangs over their employer. There is still much to resolve.