Thank you for your ongoing support and interest in our campaign for justice for all former Salvation Army Officers who have been denied their pension.
Today the Steering Group for the campaign wrote to the leader of the Salvation Army in the UK and Ireland challenging him to tell the truth openly on the matter. We have copied in all the directors of the SA Trustee Company, all the trustees of the Pension Fund, Knox Cropper, who are the SA's accountants, and the CEO of the Charity Commission. A copy is given below for your interest. We'll keep you informed.
philip.mountain@talktalk.net
Dear Commissioner Anthony Cotterill,
An opportunity to tell the truth to all Members and Friends.
This challenge is offered to you personally as leader of the Salvation Army in the UK and Republic of Ireland on behalf of the Former SA Officers Pension Campaign Steering Group.
The weekly publication Salvationist (For everyone linked to The Salvation Army) seems to be a vehicle through which you can respond to the recent newspaper articles in the Guardian and Daily Telegraph. The Daily Telegraph chose this headline: “The Salvation Army left us pensionless after 30 years of service. Ex-officers say they have been denied their pension and treated like deserters”. This, as well as the Guardian news, will have surprised and shocked many members and friends.
In the published articles it has been reported that, "A Salvation Army spokesman said the charity was prohibited from making pension payments to officers who chose to leave early. He added: 'We pay a grant to those who resign before retirement age. Our donors expect their money to be used to help vulnerable people and we work hard to ensure as much money as possible goes directly to our services’."
My expectation would be that “our donors” expect the truth to be uppermost in ALL the Salvation Army’s actions. It seems contradictory to this concern when “our donors” are asked to make their contributions to an organisation prepared to evade the truth. Surely this is no basis for any ongoing support!
In my Corporate career the reaction of the ‘silent customer’ was of continual concern. Had you delivered on all your promises? To believe that these newspaper articles will have no impact ignores the ‘silent customer’ – you will never know. There may well be reactions posted online to these articles; contemplate the silent community ……… would their reactions be different?
The SA states it is "prohibited from making pension payments to officers who chose to leave early”. Is this really true? This statement sounds preposterous and empty because it begs too many questions, e.g.
1. What other pension scheme has a prohibition like this?
2. Why is it prohibited? By whom? Consider the thousands of readers, some being members of pension schemes themselves, who will question, how can this be true (and why)?
3. If there is a law ( Which one?) which prohibits, why has this not been changed?
4. Bizarrely there is the conundrum that in one breath the SA says it is “prohibited’ but the article then states "In 2017, it changed the rules so that an officer could transfer a pension after 10 years’ service but is still discretionary.” HOW? Are the pension payments to former officers prohibited or not? (This act raises very serious questions which are addressed later.)
5. Then there is the question of whether pensions (or settlements) have in fact been paid to some former officers, in spite of the claimed “prohibition”, under the clause “on any other grounds which in the opinion of the board justify the payment of a pension or the making of an allowance or grant (as the case may be)” (SA Act 1963, Section 3 (2) (c)). In which cases and in how many cases has this provision been exercised since 1963? “Our donors” expect the Officers Pension Fund Board to be accountable so the chair of its board, i.e. yourself, should come clean.
The expectation from our “leaders” is that members should avoid any action that MAY bring the SA into disrepute. This means any act which a reasonable and informed third party, having knowledge of all relevant information (including unauthorised, reasons for non-disclosure agreements, biased and preferential assessments etc.) would conclude negatively effects the reputation of the SA.
In General Gowans’ 24 Aug 2000 letter to ALL Officers on the 28 recommendations from the International Commission on Officership, in number 26 he declared a policy for a portable pension transfer on resignation or dismissal of their service years as an Officer. This policy statement causes us to question your rejection of the General’s authority and disbelief through your positions as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Salvation Army Trust Company (SATCo) and Chairman of the Corporate body of the Officers Pension Fund Board (OPFB) created by the SA Act 1963. For indeed you have rejected and ignored that policy declaration from the General by only introducing a portable pension in April 2017(!) through a SATCo policy which ignores the existence of the Officers Pension Fund (OPF) and which only applies to an Officer with more than 10 years’ service (Legislation of 1973 & 1993 regarding “short service” is considered irrelevant by you), knowing full well that accruals for service years are with the OPF(!) and knowing that the OPF is barred from making any fund transfer to any other SA body!
In summary your actions are bringing the SA into disrepute.
Surely Salvationists and friends throughout the Territory should hear from their leader the truth published openly and unreservedly in the weekly Salvationist for everyone linked to The Salvation Army.
On this matter silence is not golden but more likely interpreted as indicative of a character tainted by the above acts.
Signed For and on behalf the Former SA Officers Pension Campaign Steering Group.