By Carole Dennett
Attempts by crisis-hit Visit Isle of Wight (VIOW) to move on from its governance issues have suffered further setbacks, with the company forced to revise its voting procedures and meeting arrangements following pressure from levy payers.
The organisation, which in 2021 forecast it would receive more than £2.9 million, over five years, from a levy imposed on tourism businesses across the Island, has struggled to shake off criticism that it is out of touch with its funders and unable to manage its affairs properly.
VIOW has also continued to spend money resisting public scrutiny, recently instructing Southampton solicitor, Crispin Dick, to write to the IW Observer in an attempt to silence questions about the employment status of its chairman, Kent-based David Bignall-Curtis. However, Mr Dick has not replied to our letter of October 22 explaining our position.
As previously reported, the number of directors elected by levy payers fell to just two – despite the Articles of Association requiring a minimum of five to form a quorate board. Mistakes were admitted by the chairman, who is now under growing pressure to demonstrate compliance with the rules and transparency.
The BID levy, paid by around 1,200 Island businesses, funds VIOW’s tourism and marketing work. Its governance model is intended to give levy payers a meaningful voice through elected representation. However, Mr Bignall-Curtis has not explained why only 27 individuals are formal members of the company – the only businesses legally entitled to participate in its governance. There is no charge for levy payers to become members.
The board recently launched an election to appoint 12 new member-elected directors, but the process has again been criticised for failing to comply with the Articles. Initially, businesses were told they had only one each, despite 12 vacancies. This was changed to 12 votes following challenges from levy payers. It was also claimed that successful candidates would need to be ‘appointed’ by company members – a procedure not found in the Articles, meaning that elected candidates were directors immediately.
A proposed online-only general meeting on November 14 was also revised to allow in-person attendance, following accusations that the board was avoiding direct engagement with levy payers. The meeting itself has now been challenged, as the current board cannot make decisions beyond arranging for new directors to be elected.
One candidate wrote: “The current board is not quorate and cannot call a meeting. That decision is void. Misreading the Articles – or ignoring them – has led some to believe they own the company and can do as they please. They can’t.”
Another said: “Kent-based Mr Bignall-Curtis needs to read the room and enjoy his retirement in his home county. VIOW needs him like a hole in the head or should that be a hole in an IW ferry’s hull – he’s badly holed beneath the waterline!”
Candidates familiar with the Articles say the 12 successful names should be announced this afternoon (Friday), although VIOW has said it will delay the announcement until Monday (November 3), but with no reason given.
Mr Bignall-Curtis failed to answer our request for information or a comment on the issues.
