Jump to content

Charitable Trust, independent of Council


marlin13
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

(from next post) ... 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.

 

Now on the one hand, perhaps some of us might think if you can get on a panel then there's hope for the rest of us. :wink: ... then I realise you simply haven't sussed it, have you? You're with the programme, you believe in all the hype. If people like MuckleJoannie who have previously been in the programme can't get voted in, then what hope is there for the rest of us? Sweet FA, that's what, if ya face don't fit and they think you gonna vote against the existing Trustees, especially if you do happen to represent the majority views of the people.

 

Besides, make your mind up, SP. Perhaps I should be applying to sit on a board of some trust or council or whatever elsewhere in the UK such as my home town where I haven't lived since I was 12 or alternatively, how about in your area? Having an interest in Shetland goings on is one thing but your interest doesn't appear 'healthy'. Yes, I know your dad lives here but you wouldn't like it if I was telling you how to run things in your neck of the woods so why do you persist and insist in dictating to those living in Shetland what to do? You DON'T live here. When and if you move back here, that's different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

 

And therein lies the problem. The idea that these people can be chosen by a few to represent Shetlands millions is not in our best interest. There is no question that theses positions should have gone through a full election process. As it stands we have little say, if these people do not do a good job.

 

I might add that along with the failed wannabe's there are a few who I believe will help steer the ship in the right direction, but I would rather that they had all been elected in an open fair way. The charities folk should be ashamed at thrusting this non democratic system on us.

 

Although I know little about the work of the SYIS, I am concerned by the way the funding has been cut at such short notice, especially when this was at at time the council were carrying out a review of such services. Would it not have made sense to allow this review to reach conclusion.

 

I am also concerned that already two members have considered that resignation is the best option, due to the way this decision has been reached. Out of the six that voted for an immediate cut in funding, only one was a councillor elected by the voting process. The other five, well, who are they answerable to? As we the public, can't unellected them!:roll: :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I when the heat in the kitchen gets to much --leave.

 

Guess most would have stayed,put out the flames cleaned up the mess

& started cooking again & would eventually have got a menu to there likeing.

 

What would Maggie Thacher have done faced with the same situation .She certainly would not have walked away!

 

Seems to be the way now a days if you cannot get you own way just get out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And therein lies the problem. The idea that these people can be chosen by a few to represent Shetlands millions is not in our best interest. There is no question that theses positions should have gone through a full election process. As it stands we have little say, if these people do not do a good job.

 

I might add that along with the failed wannabe's there are a few who I believe will help steer the ship in the right direction, but I would rather that they had all been elected in an open fair way. The charities folk should be ashamed at thrusting this non democratic system on us.

 

Although I know little about the work of the SYIS, I am concerned by the way the funding has been cut at such short notice, especially when this was at at time the council were carrying out a review of such services. Would it not have made sense to allow this review to reach conclusion.

 

I am also concerned that already two members have considered that resignation is the best option, due to the way this decision has been reached. Out of the six that voted for an immediate cut in funding, only one was a councillor elected by the voting process. The other five, well, who are they answerable to? As we the public, can't unellected them!:roll: :?

 

I don't think it would have made any difference of the make-up of Trustees re the SYIS funding situation. If they were given £X in order to do Y and Z, and didn't carry out Y and Z, then as Trustees they had responsiblities - what message would it be sending out to others applying if they hadn't withdrawn funding? I think it is the case that if, for example, funding was from the National Lottery and an organisation had failed to do Y and Z within the time period specified, the money would have had to have been repaid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it would have made any difference of the make-up of Trustees re the SYIS funding situation. If they were given £X in order to do Y and Z, and didn't carry out Y and Z, then as Trustees they had responsiblities - what message would it be sending out to others applying if they hadn't withdrawn funding? I think it is the case that if, for example, funding was from the National Lottery and an organisation had failed to do Y and Z within the time period specified, the money would have had to have been repaid.

 

I'm not so sure. Do we know if the trustees warned the SYIS that their money would be withdrawn without warning, or for that matter what the conditions of the grant were.

 

Both councillors who have resigned have suggested that this decision was made without the full information available. I'm not suggesting that the SYIS have been without fault. i dont even know what they do. I just question the timing of this when the council were nearing completion of a review of services.

 

I would have thought common sense would have been to give funding for the three months to allow the review to be completed then an informed judgement could be made.

 

My gripe however is more to do with the fact these trustees have not been elected but chosen by a small panel.

 

Urabug.. I agree with your thoughts on the resignation of the two trustees, it is all to easy now to walk away, which is not the answer, nor he way to argue your point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it would have made any difference of the make-up of Trustees re the SYIS funding situation. If they were given £X in order to do Y and Z, and didn't carry out Y and Z, then as Trustees they had responsiblities - what message would it be sending out to others applying if they hadn't withdrawn funding? I think it is the case that if, for example, funding was from the National Lottery and an organisation had failed to do Y and Z within the time period specified, the money would have had to have been repaid.

 

I'm not so sure. Do we know if the trustees warned the SYIS that their money would be withdrawn without warning, or for that matter what the conditions of the grant were.

 

Both councillors who have resigned have suggested that this decision was made without the full information available. I'm not suggesting that the SYIS have been without fault. i dont even know what they do. I just question the timing of this when the council were nearing completion of a review of services.

 

I would have thought common sense would have been to give funding for the three months to allow the review to be completed then an informed judgement could be made.

 

My gripe however is more to do with the fact these trustees have not been elected but chosen by a small panel.

 

Urabug.. I agree with your thoughts on the resignation of the two trustees, it is all to easy now to walk away, which is not the answer, nor he way to argue your point of view.

 

According to press reports (last week's Shetland Times), SYIS were aware/were not totally in the dark - I think it was JW who said words to that effect. Same report had detailed info on what SYIS did in way of services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we know if the trustees warned the SYIS that their money would be withdrawn without warning,...

Surely that would be impossible? If you warn about something, it can't subsequently be executed without warning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we know if the trustees warned the SYIS that their money would be withdrawn without warning,...

Surely that would be impossible? If you warn about something, it can't subsequently be executed without warning.

 

Ha ha, got me there :D I meant did SYIS get previous warnings that funded would be withdrawn, prior to it happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/10196-legal-advice-leaves-charitable-trust-in-disarray

 

It's a bit late and I'm not thinking to clearly at the moment but, does anyone else think that the reported episode means that the SIC is finally beginning to realise that the SCT cash is no longer theirs to dip into at will and, that they will have to finance their own projects with their own(?) money?

 

Despite the fact that the majority of sct trustees are unelected 'appointees', maybe some good will come of this but, I'm not holding my breath.

 

If the sic are finally beginning to realise that the fund is not 'their' money, how long will it take the sct to realise that it isn't 'theirs' either?

 

I'm also a little puzzled by the reported fact that an SIC employee is not under the same conflict of interest restraints as his employers.  I'm no expert in these things but, I would have thought that he would have had some 'interest' at least.

 

Either way, I can't figure out why, given that 'stand' taken by his employers, he decided to stay.  He is quoted as saying "for the sake of perception he would not vote and “probably” wouldn’t take part in discussions",  If so, then why the hell did he stay and make that part of the meeting quorate?

 

Shooting yourself in the foot is bad enough but, shooting yourself in both feet whilst somebody rams it into your nether regions is beyond the pale.

 

Malcolm Bell described him as "quorum fodder".  I'm afraid that might prove to be way to charitable.  Wonder if he has another job lined up.. <G>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I agree that the SCT have to balance the books, the whole thing smells a bit fishy to me. It looks like the SCT were trying to get this budget rushed through without any interference by the council members. So basically we have a small group of non elected and non answerable individuals making these massive decisions on the future of Shetland's money. At least the councillors are answerable to the public.

 

Why do I get the feeling it's all about to go "tits up"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Possibly but, what about the last minute "legal advice"?  Could it have anything to do with one of the councillors visiting sct prior to the meeting and, maybe,  "kicking up a storm".  Perhaps the Staff/Management at sct originally sought "legal advice" in order to protect(?) themselves from such intrusions and, the 'block' emerged as a result?

 

However, I think that the real villain here is oscr.  When presented with an opportunity to have a fully representative, democratically elected trust, they did nothing.

 

Anyway, it's (almost) good to see the sct trying to balance it's books and not spend more than it's income.  Makes you wonder if the sic's attempts to balance it's own books was not a little to dependent on using sct cash to fill a black hole or two in it's own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its really clear what needs doing. it always has. the charity trust must be fully independent from the council. we need a wide body of normal Shetlanders to run it. not appointed mates friends x council members. i still think as a temporarily measure we should use community council members until we can sort a permanent solution.

i do think its very wrong for a council member to be demanding the cut should be stopped. i do hope he treats SIC staff better. just think of the day Shetland is run properly.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several questions. Firstly where was the seventh SIC nominated SCT trustee, namely Mr. Wills? Five SIC nominated trustees are named as having walked out of the meeting, Ratter appears to have been attempting to participate via phone, so what of the remaining one? Did he ignore the legal advice and stay, or did he not attend this meeting in the first place? Whichever way it was, an explanation is needed, as ignoring legal advice, if that is what occured, or failing to attend what could arguably be considered the most important trust meeting of a year, is as bad as each other in their own way IMHO. Especially as the individual concerned is also the SCT Vice-Chair.

 

If the legal advice given is correct and SIC nominated trustees could not participate in decisions involving the funding of SIC run care homes, then surely the three trustees who are also NHS board members were also on thin ice for a budget meeting, given that the SIC and NHS now have some sort of integrated joint funding and management arrangement for some care services. Granted one is also an SIC nominated trustee so removed themselves on those grounds anyway, and another is due to step down as a SCT trustee shortly, but that still leaves one outstanding.It also calls in to question the legality of having the Chair of COPE as a trustee at a budget meeting, given that COPE rely on SCT funding to exist.

 

Finally, the biggie. How in hell can councillors have sat as trustees for over 35 years and set budgets that have involved a knock on effect on the provision of council services have been supposedly "legal", yet now suddenly have now become "illegal"? Have they been in receipt of bogus legal advice all that time, or has there been a recent law change? Especially given the way this has arisen, what happened some years back, there used to be a "Welfare Trust" which ran care homes, but it was dissolved and its work integrated in to the SIC. At which time, if memory serves, the legal advice was it was "okay" to have a SCT comprising as it was at that time, all 22 councillors sitting as trustees part funding the work.

Edited by Ghostrider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...