Charitable Trust, independent of Council

[MuckleJoannie]

Lawyers have a tendency to give the answer the client wants.

 

Any company must have its directors appointed by its shareholders. The Shetland public are the shareholders in the Charitable Trust so I can't see why they shouldn't elect the trustees.

 

You still have to comment on the scheme to reform the trust, the latest date for the receipt of objections is 19 April 2012. The summary of the application is here.

 

http://www.shetlandcharitabletrust.co.uk/assets/files/Governance%20Changes/Charity%20Reorgansation%20-%20Summary%20of%20Application%2024%202%2011.pdf

[Dratsy]

Lawyers have a tendency to give the answer the client wants.

 

Absolutely then they can get the client to go to court and fight the case based on their advice, racking up the billable hours.

 

What do you call 50 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

a good start

[hairyian]

We now see the Regulator sticking his nose into the investment decisions of

the SCT.

 

Can we be sure in future he will only do this if it is a 'contentious issue'?

 

I think it is time to abandon the legal status of 'charity' and escape the grips of its regulation.

 

Sure there will then be more tax to pay, but we will be ensuring the folk of Shetland can spend or invest their money as they see fit without having to suck up to Government lackey.

[MuckleJoannie]

 

I think it is time to abandon the legal status of 'charity' and escape the grips of its regulation.

 

Sure there will then be more tax to pay, but we will be ensuring the folk of Shetland can spend or invest their money as they see fit without having to suck up to Government lackey.

 

Any proposal to remove charitable status would have to be approved by OSCR.

 

The results of the consultation have been published.

 

http://www.oscr.org.uk/news-and-events/latest-news/shetland-charitable-trust-proposed-reorganisation/

 

The vast majority of the objections expressed concern about the proposal to select eight independent trustees as opposed to the current system, where all trustees are elected through their positions as local councillors. Many of the objectors feel it is their right to be able to elect the trustees, as they believe that the Trust belongs to the people of Shetland.

 

A common factor was the strong view that the Trust should be democratically accountable.

[Colin]

Any proposal to remove charitable status would have to be approved by OSCR.

 

The results of the consultation have been published.

 

http://www.oscr.org.uk/news-and-events/latest-news/shetland-charitable-trust-proposed-reorganisation/

 

The vast majority of the objections expressed concern about the proposal to select eight independent trustees as opposed to the current system, where all trustees are elected through their positions as local councillors. Many of the objectors feel it is their right to be able to elect the trustees, as they believe that the Trust belongs to the people of Shetland.

 

A common factor was the strong view that the Trust should be democratically accountable.

 

What I find particularly irritating about the whole thing is, given that the CT had to be 'opened up' to a wider audience AND knowing that there was a lot of deep running local feeling, the Trustees arrogantly assumed that we would accept just 7 Councillors out of 22 whilst a minority of those so 'appointed' get to chose a further 8 'independents' thereby removing the CT from the electorate at a stroke.. Breathtaking...

 

The current system, whilst deeply flawed, at least gives you a chance to vote for a Trustee who is accountable.

 

The proposed system is a joke. Just WHO would get to appoint the lucky 7 and from those, just WHO would get to pick a further 8...

 

Simple solution;

Let's elect 1,2,3 whatever Trustees from each SIC ward for a period of, say, 4 years..

 

Make ALL meetings open to the public. To hell with business 'confidentiality' I just don't buy it. It's OUR money and we have a right to know just what other people intend doing with it.

[Ghostrider]

R.I.P. SCT!

 

Talk about a thrown together botch up....

 

Thankyou Sandy "Head buried in the sand - it's always worked fine, we're NOT going to change" Cluness. This is going to be your "iconic" contribution to Shetland's future. The OSCR gave plenty of time and notice to face facts and formulate an acceptable to all future SCT structure, this mess was brought about by denial at the higest level.

 

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/5519-trust-reforms-voted-through

[Kavi Ugl]

I'm not saying I was 100% happy with the existing/old SCT set up but this has been a sad day for Shetland and OSCR are just bullying modern-day scottish lairds.

 

The end game is ultimately to grab control of the reserves and this is just another step along that road.

 

As mentioned, they will now interfere more and more in what the SCT does and invests in.

[unlinkedstudent]

... The end game is ultimately to grab control of the reserves and this is just another step along that road.

 

As mentioned, they will now interfere more and more in what the SCT does and invests in.

 

I don't actually agree with you here, Kavi. It is quite clear from the correspondence that the Regulator was sick and tired of telling Clueless & Co. to get his/their act together but Clueless was having none of it. The previous Trustees had time to get their thinking caps on but decided not to, preferring instead to waste time (ongoing since 2010?) with the end result being that the new lot had no alternative but to accept what was on the table.

 

Perhaps the Regulator will keep a closer eye on the SCT but interfere more than they do with other Trusts? I doubt it, provided that the SCT toes the line.

[Clickimin Clippie]

I'm not saying I was 100% happy with the existing/old SCT set up but this has been a sad day for Shetland and OSCR are just bullying modern-day scottish lairds.

 

The end game is ultimately to grab control of the reserves and this is just another step along that road.

 

As mentioned, they will now interfere more and more in what the SCT does and invests in.

 

Agreed.

 

As far as I know democratic control of the oil money was inshrined in law in the 1970s.

 

Could Dr Wills call thier bluff and get an high court injunction to prevent the new changes?

[Ghostrider]

The end game is ultimately to grab control of the reserves and this is just another step along that road.

 

They'd better hurry up then, if VE runs its course all Shetland's reserves will be in SSE's coffers.

[MuckleJoannie]

As far as I know democratic control of the oil money was inshrined in law in the 1970s.

 

 

The harbour profits of Sullom Voe were legally ringfenced by the ZCC Act of 1974. However the Charitable Trust funds came from a different set of negotiations.

 

The law regarding charities in the 1970's was a lot laxer than it is now and the SIC had a lot of leeway how they spent the trust's money. However the actions of a few cowboys resulted in the law that brought OSCR into existence.

 

Recently I was at a charity conference in Perth where I attended a seminar on Charity Reorganisation, done by two representatives of OSCR. They had picked the SCT as one of their case studies. They took great pains to explain that although they had received a record number of objections the scheme proposed met their requirements so it had to go ahead. There is no doubt that the proverbial would hit the fan if the trustees voted against the planned changes.

[Kavi Ugl]

Yep, sad but true Ghostrider.....

 

It was however heartening to see some honest words from some councillors today.

 

Malcolm Bell summed it up pretty well when he said that he "didn't like OSCR's actions and didn't like to be threatened".

 

George Smith said "This is a sad day for democracy. OSCR has no trust in trustees, and I find this objectionable.â€

 

Another nail in the coffin for relations between Shetland and Scotland....

[Scorrie]

Lawyers have a tendency to give the answer the client wants.

 

Absolutely then they can get the client to go to court and fight the case based on their advice, racking up the billable hours.

 

What do you call 50 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

a good start

 

[Clickimin Clippie]

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/letters/5528-a-charitable-clusterbuckle

 

"But my own evidence-based, peer-reviewed performance management analysis of his outcomes for key stakeholders reveals serious deficiencies."

 

Im sure the CE of OSCR will be a-quiver knowing Dr Wills is watching his every move.

 

He's probably more offended that Dr Wills sees himself as one of his peers.

 

What is more worrying is that the Chair and Vice Chair of the trust that controls our funds seem to be at war now.

 

Come on Dr Wills - resign again and take your battle to court. Writing a few letters never achived anything for you.

[Para Handy]

Sooner the councillors go the better see how much they have wasted over the past 30 years

Oh Mr.Wills please note just because you were elected does not make you trust worthy

Trust is earned not handed out with the ballet box.