Swim England has finally published minutes of its emergency board meeting over an Olympians’ call for resignations but has still refused to explain its position, simply redacting all key information from the minutes. 

The Olympians’ call followed severe criticism of the governing body by independent reports, with stakeholders talking of a culture of fear:

Olympians Call For Board Resignations In Swim England Reform Process

An open letter from more than 20 Great Britain Olympians has called for key former and current members of the Swim England’s board to resign from their swimming governance positions in order to build stakeholder trust in the running of the sport

State Of Swimming +Craig Lord

Olympians Reject “Pointless” Offer To Meet Swim England Chair As Resignation Calls Grow Louder

Swim England governors want to meet Olympians calling for resignations but swimmers, past and present, say ‘no’, one key reason stated like this: “Resignations will improve trust. And those associated with past failures are hardly likely to be the best future leaders.”

State Of Swimming +Craig Lord

However, neither the reports nor the voices of Olympians have led to any resignations, and Swim England refuses to explain why. Feedback to SOS and on social media suggests that a response from Swim England that does not address key questions is further damaging trust. One of those who wants to see action described Swim England's silence on those key questions as akin to “sticking two fingers up to its members”.

Olympians call for governors’ resignation

In an open letter in March 2026 25 Olympians called for the resignation from aquatics governance of Chairman Richard Hookway and of Neil Booth, a longstanding board member who had safeguarding responsibilities, and former senior independent member Caroline Green. 

The call followed three critical reports, including the 2024 Listening Report in which only about 30% of thousands replying said they trusted the governing body.

Andy Salmon, the man who was in charge of overseeing the roll out of reforms agreed as a result of that report, resigned as CEO in June. Months before, he had spoken candidly to SOS of the shock of meeting so many stakeholders who felt frightened of swimming governors.

The Olympians have questioned why longstanding board members or Richard Hookway - who had strongly praised the state of the organisation - are best placed to lead the reforms. The Olympians had hoped that the resignations would help create trust, which Swim England says is a priority.

The governing body held an emergency board meeting on March 20^th to discuss the letter. However. the outcome, as previously reported, was that no resignations were forthcoming or requested within Swim England's leadership. 

• Reference to the reports, developments so far and material from the interview with Andy Salmon can be found here:

Loss Of CEO Stacks The Odds Against Trust Being Restored In Swim England

Andy Salmon’s departure as CEO coincides with silence on whether a Swim England chair under pressure from Olympians to resign played any role in the appointments of new independent board members. Plus: a timeline of events & what Salmon told SOS late last year

State Of Swimming +Craig Lord

Andy Salmon’s leadership, as he tried to tackle the problematic culture, has been widely praised and was backed by Olympians in their letter.  However, he resigned in June - without a role to go to and looking for a new one - saying that leaving Swim England “felt right” for him.

That resignation has unleashed a torrent of heartfelt support and acclaim for him on social media, along with fears for the future of Swim England, among those expressing concern stakeholders who have spoken to this journalist.

Following an internal recruitment process, the role of interim CEO has since been filled by Rebecca Cox, who was also acting CEO during Andy’s Salmon’s period of leave prior to his resignation.

Minutes finally published but silence on critical questions 

The minutes of the emergency meeting about the Olympians’ letter were finally published on 13^th July. That was just three days after SOS's latest commentary, on July 10, in which we highlighted, once more, Swim England’s continuing refusal to comment publicly on why it still backs the old leadership, 

Those who hoped that those minutes would shed some light on the saga have been sorely disappointed: all key information has been redacted.

• The minutes can be found here

They give no clues on WHY the board decided not to ask for resignations, and questions that SOS and stakeholders have raised remain stubbornly unanswered. 

• Why does the board believe that individuals so linked with the past failures identified in the reports are still the best people to lead? 
• Why do they think that Richard Hookway, who so strongly proclaimed the excellent health of the organisation before the Listening report revealed the truth, is the best leader for the reform?  
• Why do those individuals themselves think they are the right leaders?
• How does continuation of this old leadership fit with the priorities of creating trust and making people feel safe? 

Hookway’s involvement in new board appointments

In response to this author’s questions about appointments, Swim England referred to the process set out on its website. This shows that independent board members are appointed by the board itself on the recommendation of the three-member Swim England People Committee.

The author’s further research on the Swim England website (not easy to use) has found that this committee has been chaired by Richard Hookway himself since at least March 2024. Based on dates on Companies House website, it looks very much the case that the recommendations for at least four of the current six independent member roles  - i.e. all those appointed since publication of the Listening Report – has been made by a process in which Richard Hookway has played the leading formal role (the first of these being made in April 2024 and the others in late 2025 and early 2026).

In our last exchanges on the saga, Swim England said it had nothing further to say on the matter, for the time being, while an offer from a new appointee to work towards improve communication was made, and accepted down the line.

Meanwhile, Richard Hookway, may have also been involved in the appointment process for a fifth board member. (He also chaired the predecessor committee, then called the Remuneration Committee, but the specific role of that committee in appointments is not known.) If there was no involvement - meaning any role whatsoever - SOS is happy to set the record straight.

So what do we know and not know about the emergency board meeting?

• We know the emergency meeting was held on March 20^th from 8am-8.30am i.e. took just 30 minutes. 
• We know that all board members except one were there, including the two most recent appointees, as also was Caroline Green.
• We know that Richard Hookway himself chaired the meeting and that discussions were held about the letter that included the three individuals whose resignations were called for.
• We know that those three individuals then left the room for some further unspecified matter on the basis of conflicts of interest. It would be expected that this was some kind of discussion about their future position.
• We also know that one action was agreed at the meeting: that Andy Salmon was to proceed with seeking legal advice.

The information about the actual content of any discussions and decisions on resignations is, however, redacted from the published version.

So we don’t know what the content of any discussions was, what questions (if any) other members put to the three individuals, and how those individuals responded.

That is, perhaps, fair enough. But what is harder to explain is the lack of any published information about what happened after the three individuals whose resignations have been called for left the meeting, including whether there was a vote or any consensus on resignations, or how any vote went.

We don’t know what decisions were based on, nor – crucially - the reasons behind those decisions, including any backing for some or all of those individuals. 

We already made clear, on July 10, that this author was told by a source that there had been no resignations and that no-one had been asked to resign. However, the minutes themselves don’t provide even that most basic information. 

While the minutes record that legal advice was being sought, they don’t inform stakeholders what the purpose of this was.

“Sticking two fingers up to the membership”

One member summed up the feeling of many more in touch with SOS with these words:

“After everything they said about taking the Listening Report to heart the board’s own behaviour beggars belief really. No resignations, no transparency over why, people in power kept there with no explanation or obvious justification simply by the backing of those they have served alongside or in whose appointments they have been closely involved. It makes a mockery of the grand talk of “doing what is right”, “shifting the culture”, creating trust, making everyone feel safe etc. Are we all suddenly going to trust those who let us down so badly before? And where is the accountability for failures?  

"Not even giving any reasons for the board’s position is simply unacceptable. It’s just sticking two fingers up to the membership. It’s basically saying 'we’re digging in and staying on and we don’t have to explain ourselves to our members'.”

Sadly, as many feel, Salmon is now gone. Hookway and Swim England are still saying they would like to meet the Olympians. The trouble with that is described very well in the response of Olympians who say they don't want a private chat to persuade a relative few that change is on the way.

What they want is much more clarity for all stakeholders: they want the board to explain to all stakeholders, openly and transparently, why they think those called on to resign because of their links to a time when - and/or support for leaders in charge when - so much went wrong are the right people to be in charge of a reform process.