JLC trustees had no choice but to refer report on Jeremy Newmark's spending to police, spokesman says

Mr Newmark is known to be angry about the JLC’s refusal to publish what he said is “the bulk of my detailed response” - with the former JLC chief executive claiming that his “detailed forty-six section response has been rejected in its “entirety.”

But JLC sources told the JC that they had redacted sections from Mr Newmark’s statement because, crucially, they would have helped identify the whistleblower who blew the lid on his conduct at the body.

Praising the whistleblower, who according to the report first approached a JLC trustee on or about September 7 2013, the JLC spokesman added that they had worked hard to protect their identity.

He added that they believed the protection of whistleblowers is one of the most important developments in charity law over the last five years.

The JLC’s whistleblower had, they said, made a detailed complaint about a CEO and took all the proper steps to do so and make their evidence available to a trustee.

The spokesman also defended the decision to allow Mr Newmark back into the offices of the JLC after he had been suspended from the organisation after the allegations first came to light.

The report states: “Simon Johnson said that after his arrival in mid-October 2013, JN [Mr Newmark] came to the office on one occasion and removed some boxes and to deal with paperwork relating to the car. SJ [Mr Johnson] thinks it was very unlikely any other material was removed after his appoint as interim CEO in Mid-October 2013.”

The spokesman told the JC that while Mr Johnson witnessed Mr Newmark removing boxes from the office, he did not know at any stage what was inside them.  But the spokesman admitted there appears now to be a dispute between Mr Newmark and the panel about what happened on Mr Newmark’s arrival in the building.

The JLC spokesman confirmed that Mr Newmark had met Mr Johnson for lunch on one further occasion – but that was their last meeting. After that engagement, Mr Johnson is said to have decided to implement major changes around the governance at the charity.

The changes, which are said to have been welcomed by the trustees at the time, included lowering of the financial authority level available to the CEO from £12, 500 to £5,000 – a level that Mr Johnson was said to believe was standard in companies elsewhere.

The panel report was deeply critical of Mr Newmark’s ability to lease a car using his JLC account, onto which he added a personalised number plate. The JLC source said Mr Johnson insisted that the JLC no longer needed the car at all after his arrival, although he decided it was unclear whether or not the vehicle was being used as a pool car.

Simon Johnson, the JLC’s chief executive since October 2013 following Mr Newmark’s departure, told the JC: “The lesson from this is that transparency and openness are critical when there is an issue, whatever the size of the problem and however controversial.  The recent crises at major charities such as Oxfam and Save the Children have put this firmly in the spotlight.

“We’ve been open with the Charity Commission right the way through. We got their agreement that an Independent Panel be appointed to conduct this review.  The panel submitted their full report to the Charity Commission. They have got that, and it is for them to decide on any next steps.”

“Despite being a small charity, we have done all we can to get to the truth and learn the lessons.”

The JLC spokesman said they had decided to publish as much as possible - and more than they originally intended - from the report in order to show the community they were a transparent organisation.

But he refused to criticise the conduct of the 2013 trustees in relation to the scandal around Mr Newmark – suggesting that their failure to report the allegations to Charity Commission or to take independent legal advice at the time had been a result of the fact that the allegations actually involved the CEO himself.

“The things that the trustees would have relied on the CEO for – in the absence of the CEO – they didn’t do,” said the spokesman. “They didn’t report it to the charity commission. They didn’t take independent legal advice.  They don’t appear to have liaised properly with the auditors.

“The report references some of these processes – but if the CEO is not there to drive what they do, the trustees must know what do in this absence.”

The panel, said the spokesman, confirmed on a number of occasions that the trustees acted in the best interests of the JLC. He said this was “an important finding”, adding that “we always thought they acted in good faith and what they thought was in the best interests of the charity.”

But one lesson that has emerged from the aftermath of the scandal, according to the spokesman, was the realisation that professional trustees have a higher level of trust and obligation placed upon them.

It was not just a lesson for the JLC, he said, that professional trustees “owe a greater sense of responsibility.”

The spokesman said that the  JLC now sought to show the community they were “driving forwards” and that in return the community should be “able to trust us” especially after they had been so open about the scandal around Mr Newmark.

The spokesman suggested the JLC now had “nothing to hide” having published the full details, including all of the criticism of their previous operations, and having accepted every recommendation made by the Review Panel.

A spokesperson for the Charity Commission said: “We have received a copy of the final report of the independent review into the Jewish Leadership Council and are currently considering its findings. Our regulatory compliance case into the charity remains active; we are unable to comment further at this time so as to avoid prejudicing its outcome.”

In his statement, Mr Newmark said:

"The report claims that those interviewed and criticised were offered the opportunity to read those criticisms and respond to them before the Report was finalised.

"I was not offered this opportunity other than in relation to extracts from an unpublished appendix containing an accountant’s report.

"I had welcomed the opportunity to publish my responses on the JLC’s website which goes some way towards rectifying this.

“However, I am disappointed that they have refused to publish the bulk of my detailed response because they say it contains defamatory statements about third parties.

“ I had originally been led to understand that they would publish my response and redact any parts they felt might be defamatory. Instead a detailed forty-six section response has been rejected in its entirety.

“ I am also disappointed that JLC has refused to publish a section of this statement because they claim it contains information that could lead to the identification of the whistleblower.

“I believe it set out important background that is being suppressed. My position set out in the deleted text and restated here is that I have and will continue to refrain from naming the individual because I have no wish to cause any anxiety, pain or distress to the individual and because I am under twin threats of injunction by the JLC and legal action by the individual concerned.”