Feature 12 to

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 13

got a trading company and housing association, so we’re advising in different spheres. The range of work is broad. We could be dealing with a memorandum of understanding for prison ministries work or emergency services or working on the £150 million government contract for supporting survivors of modern slavery. Although we’re a support team and not doing frontline mission, we get involved in lots of areas.

IS LSU’S WORK MAINLY REACTIVE OR PROACTIVE?

There are three levels of work. First, there’s getting the law right – responding to claims, advising on contract requirements and so on. There are issues that might come up, and that’s the reactive part of the work. The other two levels are proactive.

One is helping improve processes and governance. That’s an area where there’s constant challenge because it means determining which decisions are solely financial and legal and which decisions are spiritual or organisational. It means navigating the spiritual and the temporal in a way that acknowledges the supremacy of the spiritual and the need to comply with the law.

The second is when you get into strategic thinking about how the organisation is going to evolve and develop strategy. That’s a difficult area for the Army because there’s a desire to have local mission flourishing, and to listen to the needs of the local setting, and yet we are a £350 million turnover organisation with some centralised services that need a bit of direction. At this layer, my role is to recommend that the right things are looked at to streamline governance and performance.

ARE THERE ANY TENSIONS BETWEEN BEING A CHURCH AND A CHARITY?

Lots of charities that were previously faith-based, such as Barnardo’s or Church of England charities, have separated from the church body. I’m acutely aware of the need for the Army to hold those things together, yet to operate in different regulatory spheres. The Army is pretty much free to determine its Orders and Regulations or corps activities, but we don’t have such freedom in our centralised services. That tension presents unique challenges for oversight, compliance and funding choices. All this means we’re constantly walking a tightrope between releasing and supporting the local Army to flourish and funding and monitoring a major social services provider.

WHAT HAVE BEEN LSU’S MAJOR ACHIEVEMENTS?

Of course, we do what all good lawyers would do – we’ve won lots of cases and helped save money and reduce risk, and we have given training across the territory, from William Booth College to the Cabinet. But in addition – and this is something only an in-house team can really do – we’ve helped lots of corps and centres with frontline projects, from small partnerships for a single corps to an alliance of charities in Glasgow for homelessness work. Assisting such projects keeps us connected to the front line and involves us in areas of growth and innovation for the Army in a way that can add real value to the mission.

Looking over the longer term, I like to think that we’ve also been part of a slow move towards better governance. The territorial leadership and board of trustees often come to us for our views, which they may not have done in the past. We have become trusted advisers, which is a real honour.