S Poddar
Naomi Campbell, the supermodel, has been banned from acting as a trustee for any charity for at least five years after her registered charity, Fashion for Relief, was probed by the Charity Commission into its administration. The inquiry revealed that the funds generated by the charity were not spent for the purposes intended. Instead, massive money was being lavished on petty personal expenses, including hotel reservations in expensive hotels and spa treatments.
What the investigation had found was that it promised more money than it actually destined for causes in charity. The money-raising events for charitable causes were diverted to meet Campbell’s personal expenses in the form of cigarettes and security services. Even unauthorized payments were made to another trustee of Campbell.
Ms. Campbell, speaking to the AP news agency, reacted with distress over what she had just discovered from the findings of the inquiry. “I just found out today about the findings, and I’m extremely concerned,” she said. She added, aged 54, that it was she who was not responsible for handling the charity’s funds, implying that others in the organization had managed to misuse those funds.
In the investigation, two trustees including Campbell-Bianka Hellmich and Veronica Chou have been prohibited from acting as charity trustee for a number of years. For Campbell it will apply for five years, for Hellmich for nine years, and for Chou for four years. The debarment follows an investigation that uncovered a wide range of irregularities and breaches of the rules of the charity.
In this regard, it has been reported that the BBC tried contacting representatives from Campbell for further views but nothing has been reported back.
One of the most stark findings of the investigation was regarding illegal payments to Hellmich, amounting to £290,000. As per records, money was paid to her for consultancy services, which, according to the constitution, she was not supposed to take. These were improper payments and brought forth grave doubts over the governance and the financial control of Fashion for Relief.
Although Hellmich had offered to repay the money, appointed interim managers from the Charity Commission, took control of the situation and the money was indeed repaid to charity. This was only to be expected but did not protect Hellmich from the imposition of her nine-year exclusion from charities.
Campbell’s charitable foundation, Fashion for Relief, was established to raise money for disaster relief among other causes through stylish exhibitions and participation by celebrities in fundraising activities. However, the scandal of financial mismanagement has cast a shadow over the whole legacy of the charity and its future is now left hanging in the balance with an even prospect of review of the broader responsibility that is being placed upon celebrities when trying to establish charitable organizations.
Although one does not necessarily associate the name Campbell with philanthropy, the drudge work of the program reveals a bit about challenges stars often have in carrying out charitable work. Managing a charity is an enormous responsibility, and this case reminds us how the best of organizations can run into trouble in the same way if proper oversight and governance are lacking.
This specific case by the Charity Commission reflects a more general concern in the nonprofit sector-there is a high demand for increased transparency and accountability to sustain trust within the nonprofit sector. Maladministration of funds set for charitable purposes hurts not only the charity but also causes loss of public confidence in the nonprofit community as a whole.
Whether Campbell will take the implication to be merely the first step towards review of the license and whether Fashion for Relief will continue or not, is a matter for the future. For now, however, the bans on Campbell, Hellmich, and Chou signal a serious consequence for their role in the financial mismanagement of the charity.
For now, at least, Campbell’s focus is probably going to be diverted away from doing good. At least in the short term, this court decision will likely expand the circle of people implicated by its effects, including Campbell. More importantly, however, the implications of this case are clear for the charity sector at large: only robust governance and laws can be able to provide for the hopes of charitable contributions going to the right recipient.
