Charitable Trust, independent of Council

This is what some of the Scottish charitable sector think of the current CT on-carry.

http://www.thirdforcenews.org.uk/2012/09/reasons-for-toppling-goliath/

HE Shetland Charitable Trust is a Goliath of charitable organisations. It is one of the biggest trusts in Scotland with one of the smallest remits; its existence is no doubt a major reason why Shetland Islanders are the happiest people in the UK.

 

The Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator is a bit of a David in the field of regulators – a bit puny and considered to have little power to change the way dysfunctional charities operate.

 

It my have taken OSCR a little longer to slay its Goliath than the mythical David, but it has finally forced the trustees of Shetland Charitable Trust to back down and change the make up of the board.

 

The move has revealed for the first time the existence of the charity regulator’s teeth to the relief of the rest of the charity sector.

 

The fact that Shetland Charitable Trust, responsible for around £200m a year in assets and a major investor in what is set to become one of Scotland’s biggest wind farms, has been flouting charity law and demonstrating appalling governance has been an embarrassment to us all.

 

It has however also highlighted the need for a better understanding of charity governance across Scotland. It is not more democratic to allow people elected to serve on a local authority to automatically run a local charitable asset – it is a blatant conflict of interest.

 

As an increasing number of councils set up arms-length organisations to take over services, OSCR and the wider sector must bear this in mind.

It has however also highlighted the need for a better understanding of charity governance across Scotland. It is not more democratic to allow people elected to serve on a local authority to automatically run a local charitable asset – it is a blatant conflict of interest.

The SIC has three or four other charities, the Zetland Educational Trust beng the largest, where the trustees are either the Council as a corporate body or the individual councillors. Around Sctland, there are hundreds of charities run by other local authorites.

If what Muckle Joannie is correct and what he quotes is the prevailing view, then presumably OSCR will be moving to change the governance of all the local authority charities?

Personally I don't expect this to happen which makes we wonder why the SCT was singled out - its size? a nice pissing contest for OSCr to win?

The SCT was brought to OSCR's attention by someone local who was unhappy about the way it was run. OSCr are slowly reviewing all Scottish charities so there may be change in the trustees of those others through time.

I couldn't agree more with Dr Wills letter A Convenient Untruth

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/letters/5612-a-convenient-untruth

But why did he leave it until the 'redeemer' had just departed? Maybe he was afraid his personal attacks would cost the council another half a million.

At the end of the day, I hope any new trustees answer 'yes' to his question.

But then, Turkey's don't often vote for Christmas.

The new trustees have been chosen and it seem that the Charitable Trust will be getting closer to the Shetland Health Board

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/6058-eight-new-independent-trustees-appointed

Three of the new independent trustees have health board connections, including current chairman Ian Kinniburgh, vice chairman Keith Massey, and former chairwoman Betty Fullerton who is currently a non executive director of the board of NHS Scotland.

Bell and Ratter are also non executive members of the Shetland health board.

Where might this lead us?

same old faces.

Bell and Ratter are also non executive members of the Shetland health board.

 

Where might this lead us?

Right back where we started

Looks to me that there might be scope for a small 'cabal' of 5 to start manipulating things.

You also have to ask just 'who' appointed the Trustees and also, who were the unsuccessful candidates.

Bell and Ratter are also non executive members of the Shetland health board.

 

Where might this lead us?

 

Right back where we started

 

Looks to me that there might be scope for a small 'cabal' of 5 to start manipulating things.

 

You also have to ask just 'who' appointed the Trustees and also, who were the unsuccessful candidates.

I was one. The panel was Malcolm Bell, Valerie Nicolson and a consultant from Edinburgh who has worked in appointing people to government bodies, including Health Boards - see a pattern developing here?

I must state here and now that I am not querying this beacause I did not get appointed. I expected the appointees to be mainly community minded people like me, not another ruling elite.

I was one. The panel was Malcolm Bell, Valerie Nicolson and a consultant from Edinburgh who has worked in appointing people to government bodies, including Health Boards - see a pattern developing here?

 

I must state here and now that I am not querying this beacause I did not get appointed. I expected the appointees to be mainly community minded people like me, not another ruling elite.

I hope you are asking for feedback as to why you were unsuccessful and that you get a detailed explanation. Sorry to hear you didn't get appointed.

I expected the appointees to be mainly community minded people like me, not another ruling elite.

There was always a serious risk IMHO of the apointees being the incestous little clique (again) that they are, given the very narrow eligibility criteria that was invited to apply. In a nutshell, as I read it, unless you were a former SIC Councillor, are/were a Community Councillor or are/were a Health Board member, you were going to have to do a lot of stretching to the eligibility definitions to consider yourself qualified.

Not knocking having an ex-Councillor, or a past/present Community Councillor or Health Board member of two on the trust, but in moderation, and with a healthy cross section of the community sitting alongside them.

I can't see why anybody with even a little experience on any commitee, eg. Hall Commitees, UHA Commitees etc, couldn't be as capable as a Councillor or Health Board person. Maybe someone, say with Hall Commitee experience would have been seriously considered, but the distinct impression I go from reading the eligibility criteria was that such experience wouldn't be considered "big or important enough".

I did very seriously consider applying, and despite having had commitee experience in the past at a local level, I did not believe I could be arrogant enough to claim it constituted the level of experience their criteria seemed to specify, so I reluctantly didn't take it further.

Sorry to hear you weren't successful MuckleJ, that says quite a bit about the panel's agenda given who were appointed.

If more folk from the community would get DIRECTLY involved then there would be a better representation. If there then is a continued selection of the SOFs then there can be a call in on the panel to the public.

I do hope you have another go Joannie and hats off to you. It has taken me a couple of goes to get onto panels and committees I wanted to sit on. Worth it now.

So we end up with a bunch of council, ex council or health board. Most who are in or were in the high end of the earning scale. I feel what was needed here was more local business people and some who are used to having to make do, not people who have become accustomed to having plenty of our cash to spend.

Don't get me wrong there are one or two who I believe will be good trustees, but why is it that these type of committes are always filled with ex SIC management or those already in highly paid positions. I would be surprised if there were not more local business people in for the positions.

The sooner we get around to these positions being voted in the better.

Another cliche I fear!

The one response in defence is the experience. I can assure you that even your new councillors are still feeling their way.

Though I fully agree that more effort, by all should be put into finding a deeper pool of skills and experience. This then may go back as far as folk who stand for election and the then realisation of winning on the real work load and responsibilities. Personally, I would see being an S.I.C. councillor as a full time appointment. There are 14 or 15 meeting spots to fill by each of them per month, some do much more, some will do less.

This then may be why you see the same sorta folk doing this...

The one response in defence is the experience. I can assure you that even your new councillors are still feeling their way.

Though I fully agree that more effort, by all should be put into finding a deeper pool of skills and experience. This then may go back as far as folk who stand for election and the then realisation of winning on the real work load and responsibilities. Personally, I would see being an S.I.C. councillor as a full time appointment. There are 14 or 15 meeting spots to fill by each of them per month, some do much more, some will do less.

 

This then may be why you see the same sorta folk doing this...

You could be right Pete, but experience in what, spending large budgets of public finances, possibly overspending. What I would have liked to see is some more people in the Trust who have had to live in the real world! A better balance would have been better for Shetland.

If you look at the list of Trustees all with possible a few exception have been, or are in jobs likely paying over 50k a year. That doesn't guarantee the right experience. But it does smack of "jobs for the boys"

Now these unelected Trustees (with the exception of the councilors) have a vote on how to spend our cash, who knows what their thoughts are on that, and they can't be voted out if the public in general disagree with them.

That's why I believe there should have been a better selection of the community. After all there were plenty of people who applied who likely have had suitable experience.

OSCR have really lost the plot by insisting on this system. These positions should have been filled by election, so that we the public can select who we best feel would look after our interests. I would doubt if some would have got in if that was the case.

The common approach. That is, by a commoner, for want of a better description. Community panels could be involved, alas though, there will be criteria and training to look at. Who would know the difference between a revenue spend and a capital spend. Something I am still working out. There have been times when on the community bids panel, what I thought could be a capital spend really would be listed as a revenue one, even though the purchase was for a substantial amount of tools.

The S.M.A.R.T.(E.R.) way of working a panel to its decision can work, alas there should be fundamental questions asked first. One is would there be a need? Another is the sustainability, in the long term. The final one should be about the criteria, does it fit with the reason and constitution of the Trust.

This is what the panel should be looking at. The involvement of Councillors should be representative, though, when folk elect or choose who they want, the appointments to committees is part of the package. Perhaps voters should then lobby candidates about the panels they want them to sit on.

I always worried about the way the S.I.C. could get its hands on the Trust cash. With the end of payments to those in sheltered accommodation, it seems the "price" of that accommodation has appeared to come down since. I hope some one will tell me that that is not the case. It is the next thing on the to do list.

I have not found any F.O.I. requests made on the Trust either via the S.I.C. though there are links about healthcare.

It will be a long term adjustment I would think, and the willingness of folk to get involved. As so many are already working or have disclosable pecuniary interests to do with the S.I.C. and the Trust, the pool will remain somewhat shallow. We need to sop the pool stagnating though.