My counter to Nationwide’s statements made today regarding my suitability
[UPDATE 28th May, 19:36 I have now obtained a copy of Nationwide’s “reactive media statement” briefing against my candidacy. I urge supporters to review my below responses and — with regards to Note 4 in Nationwide’s statement — to consider my response on the quick vote here: Fact checking Nationwide’s statement re ’emerging governance issues’.]
Nationwide today issued a statement to the press (that at pixel time, I still haven’t seen) regarding my candidacy in an effort to defend the Board’s decision not to recommend my candidacy, and to use the Quick Vote — not just FOR the board appointed candidates, but also AGAINST me as the first member nominated candidate for over 20 years.
The statements made in The Times article published this evening (Rebel customer faces ‘unfair fight’ for seat on Nationwide board) were as follows – and similar comments were used for a piece published by City AM (Nationwide accused of picking ‘unfair fight’ with member board candidate):
It said Sherwin-Smith, who has previously worked as a management consultant and in the payments industry, “does not have any relevant or practical experience of board-level governance or decision making at a building society or mutual, or in any regulated financial services firm of comparable scale and complexity as Nationwide”.
The article continued:
However, the mutual argued he “would not materially improve Nationwide’s current extensive member engagement processes, or board governance, and that his election would not be in the best interests of the society and its current and future members”.
Further, the outgoing chair of Nationwide, Kevin Parry OBE was quoted as follows:
“No board, regardless of whether it is of a mutual or public company, should ever recommend the appointment of a director who does not have the skills and experience necessary to do the job.”
Kevin Parry OBE, the outgoing chair of Nationwide
Below are extracts from the email the Society sent to me today, as justification for the Board’s decision not to recommend me. The three salient points they make about me are listed below, with my response:
1. “do not have any relevant or practical experience of board level governance or decision-making”
It is true that I have not previously served on the board of a major financial institution. I have however served as the CEO and Board member of a FCA-registered business. However, if prior service inside large incumbent institutions becomes an effective prerequisite for election, that inevitably limits the scope for genuine independent representation and challenge.
Many member-nominated or consumer representatives are intended to bring external perspective rather than simply replicate the existing board profile.
2. “do not have experience of representing a broad and diverse membership base”
I secured the required nominations directly from Members, and I have engaged extensively with Members, campaigners and stakeholders throughout this process. I believe there is a meaningful constituency of Members seeking stronger accountability and governance scrutiny within Nationwide. I am standing to represent the interests of all Members.
3. “would not contribute effectively to Board considerations, challenge or oversight on strategy, and the important operational matters and risk management”
Ultimately, this is a subjective judgement made by the existing Board. My own view is that constructive challenge, independence of thought and willingness to ask difficult questions are important components of effective governance, particularly in member-owned institutions.
Boards benefit from diversity of perspective and thought, not simply similarity of background.
I would also like to note that I was a management consultant at Oliver Wyman, which specialises in risk and strategy consulting, and a payment executive at Vocalink, the company that runs retail payments systems in the UK eg Bacs, FasterPayments etc as well as real-time payments in multiple countries across the world that depend on these systems as critical national infrastructure.
For more about my skills and experience please see:
Ultimately I believe Members should have the right to be represented by one of their own, who has been nominated and elected by them. I don’t believe it is right for an incumbent board to act is a way that entrenches their position and disadvantages a member nominated candidate by weaponising the board’s recommendation with a Quick Vote mechanism in this manner.
I have asked the Society to provide me with proof copies of my election address, the voting forms and the accompanying pamphlet “Who are you voting for?” so that I have the same information as the board appointed candidates. The Society has so far refused.
It remains a concern for me how the voting form will be constructed – see my posts here for more information: