12.07.2024
ArtsEd Independent Investigation – Public Statement
Ghazaleh Rezaie
Profile: Ghazaleh Rezaie | 12 King’s Bench Walk (12kbw.co.uk)
1. ArtsEd is a charity overseen by a Board of Trustees. ArtsEd comprises a Day School and Sixth Form for 11–18 year–olds and a Higher Education arm which is split into the School of Musical Theatre and the School of Acting.
2. Following the publication of articles in Deadline in November 2023 making allegations of bullying and favouritism within ArtsEd, I was instructed by ArtsEd to carry out an independent investigation into the allegations.
3. The purpose of the investigation, as set out in my Terms of Reference, was to enable the Board of Trustees to understand the basis of the allegations and the nature and extent of any alleged misconduct by the Principal and/or others during their employment at ArtsEd. The reference to “or others” is important: my task was expressly not confined to investigating only allegations against the Principal.
4. Prior to my instruction to conduct this investigation, I had never had any dealings with anyone associated with ArtsEd including employees or Trustees. I had never received instructions to act for or against ArtsEd as a Barrister. I am, therefore, entirely independent of the Board of Trustees and of ArtsEd.
5. Throughout the course of my investigation, I received the full cooperation of the Board of Trustees through the Working Group (the composition of which changed as became appropriate) established under my Terms of Reference to act as a conduit between me and the Board. I take this opportunity to thank the various members of the Working Group for their work.
6. My Report was prepared by me with no interference from anyone at ArtsEd. The findings I made and conclusions I reached are mine and mine alone.
7. As anticipated in my Terms of Reference, my Report contains confidential information about those raising issues and/or making allegations and those responding. Given data privacy considerations and general confidentiality requirements, the full Report is for the Board of Trustees only and will not be published.
8. However, given that the investigation was a response to criticisms made in the public domain, my Terms of Reference required a summary of my conclusions from the investigation capable of being published as a public statement. This document is that public statement.
9. I was formally instructed by ArtsEd on 11 December 2023. My work began after Terms of Reference had been finalised and published on the ArtsEd website on 10 January 2024.
10. A designated investigation email address was established and those with information were encouraged to come forward before 22 January 2024. I received emails making allegations against the Principal as well as emails in support of her. Following that date, I formulated and particularised the allegations I would investigate and identified those whom I considered necessary to interview.
11. The first interview with a witness who had provided information via email took place on 31 January 2024. Interviews continued throughout the course of February, March and April. In total I interviewed 30 witnesses, some more than once.
12. In some instances, despite insistence from the individual that they had information relevant to the investigation, their evidence during the interview revealed nothing of relevance to the investigation and was ultimately used as an opportunity to ventilate grievances against ArtsEd.
13. By April 2024 I was ready to interview the Principal to obtain her response to allegations made about her. As is public knowledge, the Principal has been on sick leave since before my investigation began. She remains on sick leave. I understand that the sick leave has been supported by appropriate medical certificates. I have not seen nor considered it appropriate for me to see those medical certificates.
14. I am not a medical practitioner and unable to make any assessment of the state of the Principal’s health. I have worked on the basis that the health issues and their effect on the Principal are genuine and as described to me by or on behalf of the Principal. That said, I did not form the impression that the Principal’s state of health prevented her from participating in the investigation. The Principal participated in the investigation process in a meaningful way at the times that she was able to participate. She articulated herself well, was able to recount events with clarity and specificity and was able to seek out evidence in support of her written and oral representations. That is not to say that she was unaffected by the matters she recalled.
15. I was able to interview the Principal on a number of occasions. On one occasion it was clear to me that she was not in a fit state to participate in the interview. She appeared visibly unwell and unable even to speak without causing concern. Overall, progress was slow and it is important to note that a significant number of the allegations were not directly responded to by the Principal in the time available. Given the Principal’s health, even with the extensions, it was not possible to obtain the Principal’s full response to all of the allegations ahead of my final deadline of 28 June 2024.
16. I am grateful to the Trustees for their agreement to extend the deadline for completion of this Report on two occasions given the difficulties set out above. I believe that was a fair and appropriate response notwithstanding the external pressure to complete the investigation. Although the extensions did not allow me to complete the investigation, they did at least provide sufficient time for me to hear from the Principal (albeit in a limited way) and to make the recommendations I have now been able to make and were worthwhile in that respect.
17. My Report and the evidence I had considered was delivered to the Trustees on 28 June 2024.
18. Based on my interactions with the Principal and the wider staff, notwithstanding those who gave evidence in support of the Principal’s leadership, it is clear to me that the professional relationship between the Principal and current employees has been damaged beyond repair. This is notwithstanding the mentoring and coaching which the Principal has received from the Board and externally. ArtsEd needs to consider whether, in those circumstances, there are sufficient grounds to maintain a sustainable working relationship between the Principal and a significant number of employees.
19. My Terms of Reference required me to determine:
(a) whether there is enough evidence to support, on the balance of probabilities, any allegation(s) made; and
(b) if any allegations are supported by evidence against, in particular, any ArtsEd employee:
(i) whether I would then recommend that a disciplinary process be conducted; and
(ii) whether that means that areas of ArtsEd’s operational or reporting practices need to be improved.
20. Before saying anything further I make two important caveats:
(a) first, any recommendation that a disciplinary process be conducted or disciplinary action taken should not be taken as a recommendation that any disciplinary sanction be given. Fairness demands that any disciplinary panel must be allowed to examine any evidence gathered, make its own enquiries and then make its own independent decision on whether or not to impose a disciplinary sanction. That is all the more important in a situation where the allegations have been played out publicly, often with competing agendas and without the benefit of a further detailed examination of allegation and response, with time for reflection and consideration; and
(b) secondly, as described above, I was not able to obtain the Principal’s response to all of the allegations within the time available due to the Principal’s health. I have had to reach a number of conclusions therefore without the benefit of having had any or any direct response from the Principal.
21. Having given those important caveats, I have recommended to the Board that a disciplinary process be conducted in respect of the Principal concerning two areas:
(a) I concluded that the Principal did call students “snakes” as later revealed in an audio recording which had been made public; and by denying this the Principal allowed ArtsEd, in turn, to make a public statement forcefully denying the allegation, bringing ArtsEd into disrepute and damaging trust and confidence; and
(b) not all allegations against the Principal have been substantiated. I found around half the allegations to be “not well-founded”. I did, however, find the other half gave rise to the need to further exploration through a disciplinary process. Whilst it is unlikely that any single example of these allegations would justify disciplinary action in isolation, I found that the cumulative effect created an unhealthy environment and I recommended that should be examined further in a disciplinary process.
22. Although my Terms of Reference referred to “bullying and favouritism,” in fact, I found no evidence of favouritism that I could confidently recommend be treated as a standalone allegation to be the subject of a disciplinary process and invited ArtsEd to treat such allegation with caution.
23. I do not believe that I can or should say anything publicly about the individual allegations. The investigation was confidential and there are obvious privacy considerations regarding the information gathered and conclusions reached. Going further would potentially damage trust and militate against staff and others coming forward in the future with concerns, which would be entirely the opposite response to this investigation from the one the Board desires.
24. My recommendation regarding a disciplinary process is dealt with above.
25. Most of the allegations made during my investigation relate to the way in which the Principal has personally interacted with her colleagues or the students. This makes it difficult or unwise to make recommendations where they might lack any general applicability. There may, however, be ways in which ArtsEd’s internal processes could be strengthened to prevent any similar problems from arising in the future and/or if they do arise, to be raised sooner and more transparently to the Trustees without blurring the distinction between oversight and operational matters.
26. The Terms of Reference asked for my opinion on the question of the Principal holding the role of Trustee. I am unable to offer an opinion especially not from a regulatory perspective as that falls outside of my expertise. I would add, however, from a staff confidence perspective, the general consensus was that from their perspective it gave the appearance of a conflict of interest with a general feeling that there was no recourse to the Board of Trustees when a complaint was about the Principal who was a Trustee. The Trustees may therefore wish to take this back to the solicitors who made the original recommendation that the ArtsEd Principal should also be a Trustee, no doubt for good reasons, as part of their independent governance review.
