» Chapter 4: Harvard business school and the Second Supplemental Charter Page 1 of 5

Home Chapter 4: Harvard business school Subpages for Chapter 4:

and the Second Supplemental Harvard business school
Chapter 1: Andrew and the Second
Carnegie and “The Charter
Glen” Supplemental Charter:
Brown drops business-school bombshell.
Chapter 2: Early In November 2005 various press articles
history of the Trust,
the Deed and Royal appeared suggesting that a Harvard-style business school was being considered
Charter for Scotland. Harvard and other US educational institutes denied any
involvement in such a project.
Chapter 3: Recent
history of the Trust,
and Royal Charters In late January 2006—during the period when, unbeknown to the public, the

Chapter 4: Harvard
Trust’s secret charter application was being considered by the Privy Council
business school and Office—Dr Gordon Brown MP was on the stump in Rosyth with the prospective
the Second
Labour candidate in the by-election for the vacant Dunfermline and West Fife seat and was
Supplemental
Charter shocked when told by journalists that a US inkjet manufacturer were pulling out of Rosyth with the
loss of 500 jobs. Dr Brown was only temporarily fazed by this bad news and within hours—to the
Chapter 5: Is
Pittencrieff Park amazement of the press—responded with a piece of good news by hinting that a new £30 million
safe with a Trust Harvard-style business school was to be built in Dunfermline.
that can’t spell it?

Chapter 6: Reflection Speculation over site for business—school. Surely not the Glen?
on how the Trust has The press speculation that followed this off-the-cuff, electioneering sound-bite was intense, and
failed Carnegie and
the people not confined to Dunfermline reaching the national broadsheets whose editors were anxious to find
out who the educational institution was, and where in Dunfermline the site would be. The Glen was
Chapter 7: Future
campaigns to oppose
soon in the frame as a possible site, being the most scenic location for such a school. This rumour
commercial was quickly discounted as it was common knowledge that the terms of Carnegie’s gift—known to
development in the
every schoolchild in the Dunfermline District who marches to the Glen on Gala Day—were such
Glen.
that the Glen would belong, in perpetuity, to the people of Dunfermline for their recreation.
Contact Form
During the spring of 2006 a series of leaks in the local press intimated that the preferred site for
Recent the mooted business park was within the Glen, and though these rumours were denied by the
Comments Trust, they led to a great deal of concern from Dunfermline citizens being voiced in the local press.
TheMill on Chapter 7: Every leak however led to a denial by the Trust.
Future campaigns to
oppose commercial
development in the Take it or leave it ultimatum by Barrie.
Glen. The smouldering concerns of the local people erupted into anger when on 27th July 2006 Scott
john.lynne on Welcome Barrie the local MSP was quoted in an article in the Dunfermline Press under the banner headline:
to Saveourglen.com
“It’s Glen or nothing for business school – MSP”. Mr Barrie stated “The people behind the £30
jlowry on Chapter 7:
Future campaigns to million Harvard-style executive school being considered for Pittencrieff Park are not interested in
oppose commercial any other location in Dunfermline” Mr Barrie went on: “One of the advantages I have is that I’ve
development in the
Glen. known about this for a long time and know that the people behind the project want the iconic
setting of the park. They’re not interested in any other location in Dunfermline”.

Group forms to protect Glen.

I immediately e-mailed Mr Barrie—my constituency MSP—asking him if he would share the
knowledge he had known for such a “long time” and expand on the identity of the developer, but
Mr Barrie made no reply. However in early August 2006 following Mr Barrie’s “take it or leave it”
statement I was one of a group of concerned Dunfermline people who met with a view to form a
society to oppose any inappropriate building in The Glen. The group gave themselves the title of
Pittencrieff Park Support (PPS). At the inaugural meeting of PPS several people spoke of hearing
rumours that a change to the Trust’s Royal Charter was being sought to support development such

http://www.saveourglen.com/?page_id=10 21/04/2008
» Chapter 4: Harvard business school and the Second Supplemental Charter Page 2 of 5

as that mooted.

Trust sought secret charter changes.

After the meeting I did a Google search on this subject and to my amazement found that a
Supplemental Charter had been applied for by notice in the Edinburgh Gazette of July 2005. I
obtained a copy of this publication to ascertain the extent of the amendments to the Royal Charter
and to my astonishment found that no details of the terms of the amendments were given.

I had found out about the changes to the charter too late to object to them or lodge a counter
petition, but even if I had saw the Trust’s notice when it was posted in July 2005 I would not have
been able to object to the changes, as no details of the nature of the changes was given—or even
hinted at.

Days after discovering that a Supplemental Charter was being sought—on 10th August 2006—the
founder members of the PPS, including myself, met with Nora Rundell, C.E.O. of the Trust and
protested that the Trust charter was being changed without the people of Dunfermline being
informed. The PPS group stressed their concerns that this development taken together with the
drip-feed of rumours regarding the business school gave rise to a suspicion that the Royal Charter
was being changed to facilitate commercial development in The Glen.

Tweaking of charter nothing to worry about says Trust.

The C.E.O. of the Carnegie Dunfermline Trust would not give details of the proposed changes to
the Royal Charter, nor would she allow the PPS delegation to see the Draft Supplemental Charter,
but she assured us that the charter changes would not facilitate development, and were simply
“tweaking” to bring the charter up to date with new legislation governing charitable trusts. Ms
Rundell admitted that there had been one letter from Mace—a construction group who had recently
completed the Royal Bank of Scotland HQ in Edinburgh—but insisted that the enquiry had only
been in general terms and had been read and answered purely out of courtesy.

The reassurances given to the PPS by the C.E.O. of the Trust did not allay our concerns, and I
sought to elicit the terms of the amendments to the Royal Charter from the Privy Council Office.
The P.C.O. refused to furnish any details of the terms of the amendments which they informed me
had been approved by them, were private until published, and were awaiting signature of HM The
Queen, and the application of the Scottish Seal by the Scottish Executive.

It was apparent that our meeting with the C.E.O. of the Trust had flushed the Trust out as on 22nd
August Nora Rundell was quoted extensively in the Dunfermline Press in an article entitled “Trust
chief issues warning on Glen”. As the title of the article suggests the Trust was, at last having to
come clean, and while still insisting that the secret changes to the Royal Charter would not have
helped them push through the business school, Ms Rundell did reveal that a “10-year masterplan”
for the Glen relied on a £5 million Heritage Lottery Fund grant which in turn was dependent on the
“park making money”.

So it seemed that the inheritors of Carnegie’s legacy—the people of Dunfermline—were not entitled
to know how their inheritance was being changed until it had been irrevocably altered and in
addition to this, their recreation park must make money. This is diametrically opposite to Andrew
Carnegie’s insistence that the Trustees must carry the people with them in their stewardship of a
recreation park (as opposed to a business park) for the people.

Please help us your Majesty?

Being appalled by the secret moves to change the people’s inheritance I wrote to HM The Queen
suggesting that either she has been let down by her Privy Counsellors or they themselves have
been misled by a flawed, secret, application from the Carnegie Dunfermline Trust. The Queen
noted my concerns and passed these on to the Scottish Executive. I also petitioned the
Scottish Executive asking them not to apply the Scottish Seal to the Supplementary Charter, as
to do so would fly in the face of the stated aims of the Executive—openness and transparency. The
Executive said they would investigate.

Public petition opposing business—school.

While this correspondence was going on the public outcry from the people of Dunfermline, via the
Dunfermline Town website and the local press was such that the PPS drew up a petition to

http://www.saveourglen.com/?page_id=10 21/04/2008
» Chapter 4: Harvard business school and the Second Supplemental Charter Page 3 of 5

enlist support for a campaign to stop commercial development in the Glen. In an unprecedented
outpouring of public anger 5,000 local people soon signed the petition.

By appointment only.
On 1st September 2006, in response to the growing groundswell of public concern which
manifested itself in the form of letters to the press and articles in the press, Angus Hogg, Trust
Chairman, issued a press release. This release stated “The alterations to the charter, which are
currently being implemented, are necessary to comply with changes in the law. When they were
complete the public will see for themselves that they make no tangible change to what can or can’t
be done within the Park,” Mr Hogg also agreed to allow an inspection of the terms of the Draft
Supplemental Charter—by appointment only, at the Trust HQ. Mr Hogg also stated that there was
no question of the sale of the park and no mention was made of leasing.

Celebrities join the fight to save the Glen.

As part of the PPS group’s petition campaign to enlist support for opposition to the commercial
development of the Glen famous persons with links to Dunfermline were contacted for their views.
Well known artist and novelist Alasdair Gray, singer songwriter, Barbara Dickson; writer Iain
Banks; and film director, broadcaster, journalist, Richard Jobson were quick to endorse the
campaign.

They don’t know what they are talking about.

In a typically arrogant manner Trust Chairman Hogg dismissed the views of four of Scotland’s
most respected artists as ill-informed and implied that they [the artists] who had “emerged from
the shadows” had been duped by the petitioners and did not have the ability to view the issue
independently. This despite the fact that all four of these, successful members of our society, have
strong links with Dunfermline in general and the Glen in particular. Throughout the petitioning
campaign Angus Hogg chose to attack those with views different to his own instead of engage in
an open exchange. “We know best” and “there is no alternative” might be good mottos for the
Trust.

A chance to see the proposed changes.

I was the first member of the public to take Mr Hogg up on his offer to view the draft supplemental
terms. The process of viewing the Trust’s Charters was rather daunting. After waiting some time
for an appointment to view the original and supplemental charters I was allowed to view a
photocopy of the documents at the boardroom of the Trust. I asked if I might have pages of the
document photocopied but this request was refused. I was informed that I could only view the
charters for several hours and would only be permitted to take brief notes.

Secret changes make two Glens from one.

It was quite an onerous task to compare the old charters and the new draft supplement as the
documents were couched in Legalese but even with this impediment it was soon apparent that the
supplemental terms being sought by the Trust divided the Glen into two separate entities: (a) an
inner core which “the Trustees intend to retain as a recreational park for the public benefit”. And
(b) an exception to the Charter terms which allowed the sale of “small parts of land on the fringes
of Pittencreiff Park” these fringes could be sold or leased for commercial development provided
that “such lets were broadly in sympathy with the general tenor” of the Royal Charter.

In simple language it seemed that the Trust was re-defining Andrew Carnegie’s wishes as set out
in his original Trust Deed. The possibility of commercial development such as service-sector or
other light industries (today’s industries) being located in the Glen is repugnant to the terms of the
Royal Charter. I immediately booked the Glen Pavillion and politely invited Angus Hogg and Nora
Rundell to join me in a public debate on these issues. After some delay both declined.

Secret changes delete council and reduce quorum from 10 to 6.

It was also immediately apparent that the privileged role enjoyed by the local authority of
Dunfermline was being done away with and the number of trustees who could form a quorum and
make decisions drastically reduced.

What would Andrew have made of it all?

Would Andrew Carnegie have allowed the industries of his day to locate on the fringes of his

http://www.saveourglen.com/?page_id=10 21/04/2008
» Chapter 4: Harvard business school and the Second Supplemental Charter Page 4 of 5

people’s park? Of course not, to have steel-works or coal mines in the Glen would have been
unthinkable as Andrew Carnegie stated clearly that the Glen was for the recreation of the masses
who toiled in these industries. Put another way the Glen was specifically designated by Carnegie as
a place of refuge from the workplace.

Harvard is welcome to come to Dunfermline but not the Glen.

In late September it was confirmed by Angus Hogg to one of our members that the interest in the
Glen was indeed from an American academic partner. At about this time I had also became
aware from two separate sources that the educational institute interested in siting a business
school in the Glen was indeed Harvard. On hearing this I wrote to Vartan Gregorian the C.E.O. of
the Carnegie Corporation of New York who had alerted Harvard to the availability of the Glen and
to Jay O Light, Dean of Harvard to encourage them to continue with their efforts to site a
business school in Dunfermline but not in the Glen as it was not for sale or rent. I treated them to
a copy of the excellent book by J B Mackie, entitled “Pittencrieff Glen, Its Antiquities, History, and
Legends” and left them in no doubt as to the illegality of the secret charter changes. Whether or
not these changes had been made specifically for Harvard we do not know but we do know that
they would allow modern service industries to site in the Glen.

Second S.O.S. to our Sovereign and her Privy Counsellors.

Armed with the knowledge I had managed to glean from the notes I had taken of the supplemental
terms I once again wrote to HM The Queen to HM The Queen, HRH Prince Charles, The Privy
Council Office, and the Scottish Executive to urge them to halt the ratification of the Supplemental
Charter. Concern was expressed by Prince Charles. The Privy Council Office however attempted
to justify the charter changes as being in line with the original deed and 1903 letter and I
promptly rebutted this spurious proposition.

Too late to stop the charter changes.

On 22nd September 2006 the Trust’s 2nd Supplemental Charter received the Great Seal of
Scotland in Edinburgh, became law, and for the first time the public was able to see the amended
terms of the charter. I was shocked to see that my notes and interpretation were not wrong and
the charter changes were indeed repugnant to the original charter.

Economic time bomb ticking under Pittencrieff Park.

In October 2006 amid controversy involving Gordon Brown MP, the Trust Chairman, Angus Hogg
again raised the temperature of the issue by declaring that an “economic time bomb is ticking”
under the Glen, which needed a “kiss of life” as it was headed for “rapid deterioration without
economic development, such as the business school”.

Mr Hogg again targeted the celebrities who supported the opposition to commercial development
and said “The dreamy image of a sun-kissed park continuing to function with no financial input is
mythical – economic facts are the reality”. It seemed as if the Trust were blaming the people for
the failures of the Trust, this was apparent when Mr Hogg referred to opponents of his plans as
“these people”.

Business school abandons hope of locating in the Glen.

On 20th December 2006 the Trust Chairman, Angus Hogg announced that the business school
interest in the Glen was ended as Mace the company fronting the bid had pulled out. Stating
that the financial difficulties caused by Fife Council’s budget difficulties still remained Mr Hogg
warned that other commercial developments would have to be considered to make the Glen viable.
It would appear the Trust’s wish to develop remains.

Home Chapter 3 Chapter 5

Share This

Edit this page

Write a comment
Name:

http://www.saveourglen.com/?page_id=10 21/04/2008
» Chapter 4: Harvard business school and the Second Supplemental Charter Page 5 of 5

E-mail:

Website:

Your comment:

Submit

© 2008 | Powered by WordPress | Contact Form | Logout

Theme design by Andreas Viklund and web hosting sources

http://www.saveourglen.com/?page_id=10 21/04/2008