Dear Editor

I am very disappointed to read about the volunteer who no longer feels valued. I am a volunteer and have been for about 16 years. My property still provides biscuits, special volunteer events with food and drinks and an annual Christmas lunch. However, I am aware of volunteers being ‘squeezed out’ from some roles and a steady growth in paid roles which are just paper pushing.

It all seems to depend upon the local property manager. As a comparison, I used to travel over 70 miles, and get my costs reimbursed, to carry out hard work in remote places but there has been a change in management and they won’t agree to the travel payment - I no longer do the work! One property gives full access to written reports about archaeology whereas another doesn’t - why not? There is no overall National Trust policy in place. A colleague was doing some work on photographs and asked for the National Trust’s policy. He was told there is none, make it up as you see fit - or words to that effect. I tried to trace some artefacts that could have been stored at the National Trust’s archaeology warehouse but all I got back was an insulting email saying who are you and in so many words asking why I was disturbing them!

The National Trust has some very poor management and seems to be more interested in ‘rewilding’ rather than the potential loss of food production and the environmental cost or importing food from all over the world. The refusal to restore Clandon is a prime example of where they are losing the support of members who think for themselves. We can only hope that Sudbury Hall with its disco ball and speech bubbles will eventually change back to what it should be. Visitors don’t need gimmicks like ‘poo’ at Tyntesfield. 

As a suggestion why doesn’t Restore Trust ask for a ‘quick vote’ for their candidates. It can only be democratic for a pressure group to be given the same privilege as the controlling organisation. I wonder what the Charity commission would rule on this sort of request?

Yours sincerely

Anonymous

Editor’s reply:

Thank you for writing. Your suggestion that more than one slate should be allowed to benefit from a ‘Quick Vote’ is a good one. It is one of the recommendations in our report. However, our favoured alternative is a much simpler open vote which encourages members to see who the candidates are before they make their decision. Simpler voting systems tend to lead to fairer outcomes.