Latest news with #trustees
Wall Street Journal
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
Columbia's Acting President Apologizes for Texts Criticizing Jewish Trustee
The acting president of Columbia University wrote a letter to members of the school community Wednesday apologizing for messages in which she appeared to diminish concerns about antisemitism on campus and criticize a Jewish member of the university board of trustees. 'The things I said in a moment of frustration and stress were wrong. They do not reflect how I feel,' wrote Claire Shipman, Columbia's acting president. 'I have apologized directly to the person named in my texts, and I am apologizing now to you.'
Wall Street Journal
a day ago
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
The Social Security Crisis Is Coming
Today's political din makes it difficult for genuine warning calls to break through, but the Social Security system's trustees in late June sent a signal so alarming that America can't ignore it: Unless lawmakers do something, the system's trust fund will be exhausted in the first quarter of 2033—sooner than earlier reports predicted. This crisis will trigger large cuts in benefits to current and new beneficiaries. To preserve Social Security, Congress will need to address the coming insolvency crisis no later than the next president's first term.
Telegraph
a day ago
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
Who's who on the board of the British Museum (and the power they wield)
It was with surprisingly little fanfare that Apple guru Jony Ive was appointed to the board of the British Museum earlier this month. The design genius who brought us the iPod, iPhone and iPad was hailed by George Osborne, the chairman, as 'one of the founders of the modern age', but the news did not trouble bulletins or front pages. We ought to be more interested in the small group of people who run Britain's leading cultural establishments, however, as it tells us much about the state of the arts and who controls them. Ive is just the latest in a galaxy of particularly starry names who have been made trustees of the British Museum recently, as the 272-year-old institution has quietly assembled a Who's Who of power players who show where the centre of gravity in UK culture is today. Tom Holland, the historian, and broadcasters Martha Kearney and Claudia Winkleman joined in March as part of the 'all-star collection of thinkers and communicators', as Osborne now likes to describe his team. There are two members of the House of Lords, three knights, four dames and five professors on the board; captains of industry rub shoulders with artists and lawyers mingle with scientists. As the UK's most-visited attraction – 6.5 million went last year – they might just be the most important cultural clique in the country. The board has up to 25 members, 15 of whom are appointed by the prime minister after an application process run by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Another five are chosen by the trustees themselves, which, according to one insider, means people who 'you'd think wouldn't get through the government process, whether that's for political reasons or whatever else' can still make it onto the board. One trustee is a Crown appointee (currently that is the Indian-born economist Abhijit Banerjee), while the presidents of the Royal Academy, the British Academy, the Society of Antiquaries of London and the Royal Society all get to nominate one trustee apiece. The chairman is elected by the trustees; Osborne was unanimously elevated to the post in 2021. The unpaid trustees convene for four board meetings each year. As well as the usual responsibilities for people sitting on boards – such as signing off financial accounts and holding executives to account – the museum's trustees are also responsible for some of the most contentious issues facing the museum today. The British Museum collection is ultimately owned by the trustees, so decisions about the future of the Elgin Marbles and other contested objects are taken by the board. Trustees were also central to the response to the thefts scandal that emerged in 2023. 'For intellectual, interested people who want to grapple with and influence big issues, it's second-to-none,' says an insider. Grayson Perry, who was a trustee until last year, says that he sees the board as a 'philosophical think-tank to consult about difficult decisions'. Here's our guide to the key figures, why they're there, and the influence they wield. Why is he there? The former Chancellor was a surprise choice when the trustees made him chairman, out of the blue, four years ago and his appointment was criticised by many on the Left as he had cut arts budgets while he ran the Treasury. It quickly became clear that Osborne, now 54, was chosen because he would help raise the funds required for the museum's £1 billion redevelopment project from a mixture of deep-pocketed philanthropists, big business and Government. Ever the politician, he is also the man for the job to run the high-profile negotiations with the Greek Government over the fate of the Parthenon Sculptures. Sphere of influence Quite apart from his legacy and wide contacts from his time in government, Osborne continues to have a famously large portfolio of other jobs, of geographical reach as well as influence. He is an investment banker at the boutique outfit Robey Warshaw (where, among other things, he has been involved in the sale of The Telegraph), lectures at universities including Manchester and Stanford, and is president of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership think-tank, which advocates for greater investment in the North of England. Why is she there? When Downing Street blocked Britain's most famous classicist from joining the board in 2020, apparently for her stridently anti-Brexit views, it caused an almighty rumpus – but the trustees were so keen to bring Beard's academic rigour to the museum that they appointed her regardless. Sphere of influence No other scholar of Ancient Rome hits the headlines as much as the funky Beard, 70, who has a devoted following that listens to her pronouncements on everything from how Margaret Thatcher was not a feminist to what Elon Musk gets wrong about the Romans – all delivered in lilting tones. Why is he there? The Tory peer is a friend of Osborne who advised John Major as Prime Minister and William Hague as Leader of the Opposition. Finkelstein is known for his intellect and will be able to lend advice about how museum bosses can navigate the increasingly political world in which they work. Sphere of influence A newspaper columnist and ghostwriter of David Cameron's memoirs, the 62-year-old will be familiar to listeners of The News Quiz on BBC Radio 4. He is also no stranger to being on the board of occasionally dysfunctional organisations: Finkelstein is also a director of Chelsea FC. Why is she there? Emin, 61, succeeded Grayson Perry as the Royal Academy 's representative on the board, with the former YBA the voice of artists among trustees. Emin has quietly become the eminence grise of her generation of artists, as signified by the prestigious commission to design the new doors of the National Portrait Gallery. Board meetings are unlikely to be dull when the creator of My Bed is making her feelings known, while her attendance at museum parties lend a bit of much-needed stardust. Sphere of influence Osborne hailed Emin's recent efforts at regenerating Margate, her hometown, 'through her willpower'. She gains column inches and her drive is formidable. Her diagnosis with (and recovery from) virulent bladder cancer in 2020 has appeared to refocus her artistic output, while her bravery in the face of this illness has brought her an appeal which reaches far beyond the art world. Why is he there? If anybody knows how to make history appealing to the masses, it's Holland. As co-host (with Dominic Sandbrook) of The Rest is History, he has become one of Britain's most successful podcasters and has packed out venues like the Royal Albert Hall. Could he help revive the British Museum's podcast, which has been in abeyance since 2020? Sphere of influence As well as The Rest is History, Holland writes popular books about ancient and medieval history and recently published a translation of Suetonius for Penguin Classics. British Museum bosses will hope that his appointment in March is not an ill omen: Holland was a trustee of the British Library when it suffered a crippling cyberattack in October 2023 that disrupted most of its operations. Why is he there? Ive, 58, is the most recent trustee to join the board, and it is hoped that the man who popularised iPhones can help drag an institution founded in the 18th century squarely into the 21st. He was appointed by the trustees themselves, rather than the Government. Sphere of influence Not content with being one of the most significant designers in history for his work on the iPhone, Ive has recently teamed up with ChatGPT-maker Open AI to make alternatives to smartphones. 'It's hugely impressive that they got Jony Ive, that's a great result,' the director of a rival museum tells me. 'I'm very jealous.' Why is she there? The appointment of Jenkins, 53, in March is bound to ensure there are robust debates in the boardroom about the future of the Parthenon Sculptures. The academic is the author of an influential book – Keeping Their Marbles: How the Treasures of the Past Ended up in Museums… and Why They Should Stay There – in which she put forward the case against returning museum artefacts to their countries of origin. Could Jenkins kibosh Osborne's plans for a deal to return the Marbles to Athens? Sphere of influence Jenkins is a serious scholar on modern museum practice, having written a book about what should be done with human remains in collections, but also crosses into the mainstream as a sometime Radio 4 presenter, podcaster and frequent newspaper columnist. Her bright red hair is a world away from the grey locks of typical boardroom suits. Why is he there? The 59-year-old Sandhurst graduate and former Scots Guards captain brings some much-needed military discipline to the board, and chairs the sub-committee overseeing the £1 billion 'Masterplan' for the museum's redevelopment. It deals with the unsexy but serious work of revamping the energy systems and visitor entrance. Sphere of influence Mayfield is best known for his 13-year stint as chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, during which time it became the undisputed favourite of Middle England, and must have been asked for advice by the team that run the museum's gift shop, a vital cash cow for an institution that doesn't charge entrance fees. Why is he there? Weston, 61, does not have the high profile of some of his fellow trustees but he is arguably the most powerful of all. The transatlantic family of which he is a scion has a reported £18 billion fortune and are some of the most generous donors to British arts organisations. As the British Museum looks to raise the funds for its transformation, having a Weston on the inside is invaluable. Sphere of influence Weston gives Mayfield a run for his money as the most retail-savvy trustee. He has been chief executive of Associated British Foods, the FTSE 100 giant that owns Primark, since 2005, while his family's companies also own department store Fortnum & Mason and Twinings tea. What could be more British? Why is she there? The recent appointment of Winkleman may have triggered scepticism among some who thought it signalled the museum abandoning some of its highbrow principles, but the 53-year-old is seen as a savvy appointment. Like Emin, the Cambridge history of art graduate brings genuine star-power to museum events and is an experienced boardroom operator (as a trustee of Comic Relief). Sphere of influence Winkleman is now a near-ubiquitous presence on our TV screens as host of The Traitors, Strictly and The Piano – as well as a fashion icon for her characteristic black bob-and-eyeliner look and Highlands wardrobe. When it comes to grabbing headlines, she's possibly the most significant board member of all.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
To all who think capitalism can drive progressive change, it won't – and here's the shocking proof
The axe fell with shocking suddenness. On Thursday Aberdeen Group plc terminated its Financial Fairness Trust without notice and sacked the CEO, Mubin Haq, the chair and all the trustees, leaving eight staff dangling. The company tells me it plans to move in a different direction. That dreaded phrase marks the end of 16 remarkable years, during which the trust sponsored some of the most influential research into inequality and its financial causes. Aberdeen is a wealth management and investment company. I admired its willingness to fund research not in its own immediate interest, but for the sake of social improvement, as a sign that decent capitalism was possible. Now that's over. The mood has changed. Wildfires started by President Trump are engulfing global companies as his administration attempts to bar asset and retirement plan managers from considering environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in investment decisions and targets private sector diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives with executive orders. Companies doing good are at risk. I ask Aberdeen if that's why it has shut down the trust. It denies it strongly, saying it is just a 'natural evolution'. Expect an explosive backlash. Just look at the list of research organisations it has previously given funding to but is now casting off: the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), the Resolution Foundation, the Royal United Services Institute, Bright Blue, the New Economics Foundation, the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), the Child Poverty Action Group, the High Pay Centre and Transport for All. It has also funded funeral poverty research by Quaker Social Action and consumer research by Which?. The trust has £3.6m of grants promised, in a field where small sums for social research projects can profoundly affect policy and politics. Paul Johnson, the outgoing IFS director, says this money is 'a crucial part of the UK's research funding infrastructure focused on improving the financial security of those on lower incomes'. He talks ruefully of billions of pounds for scientific research but a pittance for social research. 'We have no Large Hadron Colliders.' Aberdeen should beware the swathe of distinguished economists, researchers, academics, public servants, public thinkers and charitable entrepreneurs it has unthinkingly cut off in this political assault. The trust was founded in 2009, using unclaimed assets after the demutualisation of Standard Life, which later merged with Aberdeen Asset Management. Last week, its website shut down instantly, with the misleading notice 'Please bear with us and we will aim to resume normal service as quickly as we can'. There will be no normal service. David Norgrove, the summarily sacked chair, is not going quietly. Neither is he someone to be treated so high-handedly. He is a former chair of the UK Statistics Authority, the Pensions Regulator, the Low Pay Commission, the M&S pension fund, the Family Justice Review and more. He is outraged at how the trust was cancelled in a day. 'Shoddy behaviour,' he says to me, then adds: 'Abrupt, rude, ungracious.' This will, he says, 'be damaging to them'. Aberdeen did lose £5bn in net outflows in the first quarter of this year – its share price has somewhat revived since – but says all the funds will still go to charity. I ask if there is a guarantee that the latest £3.6m of grant funding letters will be honoured. The reply is weaselly: 'The various funding relationships will be under review and that will include looking at what contractual commitments are in place, so it's too early to be definitive.' CenTax is a grant recipient left in limbo over the future of its promised three years of funding. This week the trust was about to start on another £2m round: due for grants were the Living Pension Foundation, to sign up 500 companies to join Aviva, L&G and others pledging more livable pensions. The Child Poverty Action Group will now get no funds for an annual forensic review of child poverty strategy, nor will the High Pay Centre receive money for research into remuneration committees that focuses on entire workforces, not just top executives. Why is Aberdeen trashing its reputation? Because times have changed. Doing good is not fashionable in the business world. Johnson says: 'I presume some of the trust's funding is not compatible with Aberdeen. It's an overreaction to our research on pension tax relief, or the Resolution Foundation's work in wealth tax reliefs.' Most social research is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Nuffield Foundation, but he says after the trust, there are 'no significant others'. Aberdeen says the only reason for the change is to divert its funds to a conventional charitable foundation that supports individuals, such as young unemployed people – although this is funding that won't lead to a larger questioning of social, financial or tax systems. The company is already famous for idiocy – it abolished the Es in its name in 2021 to become the unpronounceable 'Abrdn', claiming it was a 'modern, agile, digitally-enabled brand'. Mocked for 'irritable vowel syndrome', it joined disaster rebrands such as Royal Mail's Consignia and PwC Consulting's Monday. It makes you question any decisions their boards make. But this is serious. It's a symptom of darkening business attitudes. Research this month shows that 56% of senior financial professionals in the UK now 'believe their leadership will place less focus on ESG principles over the next five years'. WPP, one of the largest media companies in the world, removed all mentions of DEI from its latest annual report. Research by the Observer found that mentions of ESG declined by 22% in last year's annual reports from FTSE 100 companies. Amazon is scaling back its DEI policy, calling this civilisational regression an 'evolution'. Former trustees suggest Aberdeen may have had complaints from clients who hate research about poverty and wealth that exposes unjust tax reliefs for the rich. When I ask, its press officer does admit he sometimes has to tell journalists from the Telegraph and others that Aberdeen Group plc is not responsible for the research its trust may fund: every trust-funded report has a disclaimer saying the trust is entirely independent of the company. This turns out, sadly, not to be true, since Aberdeen can cancel it at whim. This week will mark the launch in Westminster of a trust-funded two-year commission into pensions by the IFS, with the former minister David Gauke chairing its advisory committee and Torsten Bell, the pensions minister and former head of the Resolution Foundation, speaking. The chair of Aberdeen Group, Douglas Flint, who is due to attend, may find himself less in favour than when he was invited to join Labour's City advisers as part of a financial services review. He lobbies for less regulation of banks, calling the post-financial-crash restrictions 'disproportionate'. If I were him, I wouldn't dare turn up. Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
The Guardian
2 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
To all who think capitalism can drive progressive change, it won't – and here's the shocking proof
The axe fell with shocking suddenness. On Thursday Aberdeen Group plc terminated its Financial Fairness Trust without notice and sacked the CEO, Mubin Haq, the chair and all the trustees, leaving eight staff dangling. The company tells me it plans to move in a different direction. That dreaded phrase marks the end of 16 remarkable years, during which the trust sponsored some of the most influential research into inequality and its financial causes. Aberdeen is a wealth management and investment company. I admired its willingness to fund research not in its own immediate interest, but for the sake of social improvement, as a sign that decent capitalism was possible. Now that's over. The mood has changed. Wildfires started by President Trump are engulfing global companies as his administration attempts to bar asset and retirement plan managers from considering environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors in investment decisions and targets private sector diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives with executive orders. Companies doing good are at risk. I ask Aberdeen if that's why it has shut down the trust. It denies it strongly, saying it is just a 'natural evolution'. Expect an explosive backlash. Just look at the list of research organisations it has previously given funding to but is now casting off: the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), the Resolution Foundation, the Royal United Services Institute, Bright Blue, the New Economics Foundation, the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), the Child Poverty Action Group, the High Pay Centre and Transport for All. It has also funded funeral poverty research by Quaker Social Action and consumer research by Which?. The trust has £3.6m of grants promised, in a field where small sums for social research projects can profoundly affect policy and politics. Paul Johnson, the outgoing IFS director, says this money is 'a crucial part of the UK's research funding infrastructure focused on improving the financial security of those on lower incomes'. He talks ruefully of billions of pounds for scientific research but a pittance for social research. 'We have no Large Hadron Colliders.' Aberdeen should beware the swathe of distinguished economists, researchers, academics, public servants, public thinkers and charitable entrepreneurs it has unthinkingly cut off in this political assault. The trust was founded in 2009, using unclaimed assets after the demutualisation of Standard Life, which later merged with Aberdeen Asset Management. Last week, its website shut down instantly, with the misleading notice 'Please bear with us and we will aim to resume normal service as quickly as we can'. There will be no normal service. David Norgrove, the summarily sacked chair, is not going quietly. Neither is he someone to be treated so high-handedly. He is a former chair of the UK Statistics Authority, the Pensions Regulator, the Low Pay Commission, the M&S pension fund, the Family Justice Review and more. He is outraged at how the trust was cancelled in a day. 'Shoddy behaviour,' he says to me, then adds: 'Abrupt, rude, ungracious.' This will, he says, 'be damaging to them'. Aberdeen did lose £5bn in net outflows in the first quarter of this year – its share price has somewhat revived since – but says all the funds will still go to charity. I ask if there is a guarantee that the latest £3.6m of grant funding letters will be honoured. The reply is weaselly: 'The various funding relationships will be under review and that will include looking at what contractual commitments are in place, so it's too early to be definitive.' CenTax is a grant recipient left in limbo over the future of its promised three years of funding. This week the trust was about to start on another £2m round: due for grants were the Living Pension Foundation, to sign up 500 companies to join Aviva, L&G and others pledging more livable pensions. The Child Poverty Action Group will now get no funds for an annual forensic review of child poverty strategy, nor will the High Pay Centre receive money for research into remuneration committees that focuses on entire workforces, not just top executives. Why is Aberdeen trashing its reputation? Because times have changed. Doing good is not fashionable in the business world. Johnson says: 'I presume some of the trust's funding is not compatible with Aberdeen. It's an overreaction to our research on pension tax relief, or the Resolution Foundation's work in wealth tax reliefs.' Most social research is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Nuffield Foundation, but he says after the trust, there are 'no significant others'. Aberdeen says the only reason for the change is to divert its funds to a conventional charitable foundation that supports individuals, such as young unemployed people – although this is funding that won't lead to a larger questioning of social, financial or tax systems. The company is already famous for idiocy – it abolished the Es in its name in 2021 to become the unpronounceable 'Abrdn', claiming it was a 'modern, agile, digitally-enabled brand'. Mocked for 'irritable vowel syndrome', it joined disaster rebrands such as Royal Mail's Consignia and PwC Consulting's Monday. It makes you question any decisions their boards make. But this is serious. It's a symptom of darkening business attitudes. Research this month shows that 56% of senior financial professionals in the UK now 'believe their leadership will place less focus on ESG principles over the next five years'. WPP, one of the largest media companies in the world, removed all mentions of DEI from its latest annual report. Research by the Observer found that mentions of ESG declined by 22% in last year's annual reports from FTSE 100 companies. Amazon is scaling back its DEI policy, calling this civilisational regression an 'evolution'. Former trustees suggest Aberdeen may have had complaints from clients who hate research about poverty and wealth that exposes unjust tax reliefs for the rich. When I ask, its press officer does admit he sometimes has to tell journalists from the Telegraph and others that Aberdeen Group plc is not responsible for the research its trust may fund: every trust-funded report has a disclaimer saying the trust is entirely independent of the company. This turns out, sadly, not to be true, since Aberdeen can cancel it at whim. This week will mark the launch in Westminster of a trust-funded two-year commission into pensions by the IFS, with the former minister David Gauke chairing its advisory committee and Torsten Bell, the pensions minister and former head of the Resolution Foundation, speaking. The chair of Aberdeen Group, Douglas Flint, who is due to attend, may find himself less in favour than when he was invited to join Labour's City advisers as part of a financial services review. He lobbies for less regulation of banks, calling the post-financial-crash restrictions 'disproportionate'. If I were him, I wouldn't dare turn up. Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist
