Charitable Trust, independent of Council

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

It's already gone "tits" up.

 

Which bits of VE constitutes an institutional conflict of interest?  If I'm understanding this correctly, SIC are the Landlord, guess that is a conflict of interest but not on its own an institutional one.  Having, however, the obligation to be the Planning Authority and the fact that they will be involved re the roads and the converter station (which only has outline planning permission, not full), but I guess those are deemed okay on their own because unlike with the care homes they don't make financial gain from those alone ... but add on the fact that where the wind turbines are proposed to be seated (some on SIC land) and they need the converter station and the roads because without them they would be useless; again, you have a conflict of interest but is it an institutional one?

 

The SIC grants itself planning permission all the time; for example, for school buildings but there isn't financial gain.  With VE, there would be financial gain.  So if the Planning Department and the SIC Councillors didn't give permission for certain bits of VE (like the converter station) the Developers would probably appeal (and we know who to - I'm taking it they have the right to appeal to the Gov.) but if they do give permission for the remaining bits of VE, the argument could be put forward that they couldn't approve it due an institutional conflict of interest dependent perhaps also upon who sits on the SIC Planning Committee.

 

So the SCT allowed a staff member to remain and vote because unlike SIC councillors who represent the financial and legal part of the SIC, the social services staff member doesn't have a 'direct' financial interest in the running of the care homes.

 

If the SIC isn't allowed to run commercial profitable venture in line with EU legislation(?), then dependent upon the amount they receive as a landlord, whilst in the past the land might not have made profit and have therefore been exempt, additional income coming in might run the risk of no longer being exempt ... unless the SIC aren't charging VE rent?  The SIC run Sullom harbour thingy and that's income so does the EU legislation apply only to new ventures?

 

I think certain people have always wanted it so that when VE got to a certain stage, SIC Councillors on the SCT wouldn't be able to vote.  Was it at this same meeting that they had their financial advice which was written about by Wills - he said that the Trustees would be getting information re the funding for VE before their next meeting from financial advisors relating to the proposed £70 million drawdown from SCT funds being used as, I presume, 'gearing'/deposit, to raise the further capital required for VE.

 

Because on the one hand, if they remove the institutional conflict of interest, they can make decisions on their own.  Plus, if the SCT decide that the advice they received is that its too risky and/or that they have an idea that the SIC are going to make things difficult in the future re VE, they'll sell or transfer their shares - not that they weren't ever going to be reducing their stake in VE anyway, dependent upon how they financed the project.

 

So who picks it up?  SSE or the remaining party, who have already, albeit some at arm's length, created several new companies currently not 'actively trading' (with the names of such companies being the names of hills where turbines will be placed)?

 

It wouldn't surprise me if this isn't, and hasn't, been planned all along, albeit it was apparently Duncan who went off for legal advice ... but who whispered in his ear that it might be a good idea to get it?

 

Call it conspiracy theory if you will but the timing of all of this is somewhat suspicious; that, or the whole saga is just getting too complicated to follow!

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

@Ghostrider

Wills was on the phone, as were Ratter and Massey.  They could stay on the blower, no doubt, to make up the quorum but couldn't vote.  Whether or not that should have been permitted is another farce.

 

No doubt the technical difficulty could well have been the fun n games associated with getting 3 participants on a conference call, four if you include the room in Isleburgh!

[Who Knows]

The rules for the SCT are covered in the organisation deed of Trust which is in the link below and paragraph 6a would be the relevant section on Quorum and voting.

 

http://www.shetlandcharitabletrust.co.uk/assets/files/deeds/Registered%20Trust%20Deed%20for%20SCT%20-%202012.pdf

 

Simple reading of this would conclude if those on the phone are counted as "present" to form a valid Quorum then they must have vote otherwise there is not the correct number present.

 

Was not at the meeting so if the comment above is correct that the three on the phone were not allowed to vote because they were not in the room then they cannot be counted as present and hence there would no longer be a quorum.

 

There can be valid personal reasons for not being physically present in the room that is beyond their control and phoning in to participate can be valid attendance.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Who Knows

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

^ The English equivalent allows voting (via telephone) provided that a trust has had permission in advance from the Regulator, which begs the question as to whether or not the SCT have had, in writing, prior permission for votes to be acceptable by means of telephone attendance and if the OSCR operates in the same manner as the Regulator for England.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Suffererof1crankymofo

[paulb]

we do need to ask over the years how many millions has been quietly passed over to SIC. you could say its for Shetlands benifit so its ok. but just look at the care centres for example.  we must remember care of the elderly is a legal requirement placed on the council. either as commissioner or provider. it seems odd that a branch of the charity built them. when transferred to sic control  how much was paid for a multi million pound investment. 

remember the council must provide the care. so why had the council not built care homes. due to the lack of fiscal responsibility the care homes are extremely expensive. and when the trust is paying just under 2.5 million a year supporting a service that should be funded by the council.

with the new anderson school will the sports centre remain in trust control. are the trust being paid for the use schools use of there sports centres. the sic has a duty to provide pe. 

 

you do wonder what other little costs have been switched to the trust. just imagine say 3 million a year over the years of its existence. thats like 100 million of lost funds not earning interest. 

 

its clearly time for community control and returning to its original purpose. not as a bank of first call for the council. maybe then we can care for our old and needy.      

[Ghostrider]

@Ghostrider

Wills was on the phone, as were Ratter and Massey.  They could stay on the blower, no doubt, to make up the quorum but couldn't vote.  Whether or not that should have been permitted is another farce.

 

That only became apparent in the hardcopy report in the ST. What we don't know is, did Ratter and Wills actually remain on the phone as observers during any debate and vote, and if they did, did they do what they were told and keep quiet and not vote. Remember Hunter claimed he could not tell other trustees how to act, only relay to them the legal advice he'd been given and leave it up to them to make up their own minds.

 

What also isn't known is who actually participated in debating and approving the budget etc at this meeting. Reportedly they just had enough for a quorum, which is six. Hunter and Morgan we know were in the room, Massey was on the phone, assuming Ratter and Wills remained listening in and counted towards the quorum, that still leaves one body to account for, was it Fullerton, Napier or Smith, or did Ratter and/or Wills vamoose, and two from that three, or all of the three comprise the quorum?

 

Allowing for the fact that Morgan did as he indicated and didn't participate in the debate or vote, and Fullerton, Napier and Smith were all there, then it probably isn't too bad, as it would have been them three plus Hunter and Massey making up the meeting. However, if either Ratter and Wills remained to make the quorum but didn't vote, we're left with Massey on the phone, plus Hunter and and unknown in the room to comprise the debate and vote. In which case, for once I agree wholeheartedly with Greenflee, it was a "charade" and virtual "dictatorship" - although the irony that it was a SIC Councillor who felt that way about the SCT rather amuses, given that a lot of folk felt exactly the same way about the SCT when all Councillors were the trustees.

[paulb]

the trust must make cut because its wasted millions. it must have always been obvious to the regulators that you really cant have councilmen sitting on it. you end up with a farce like this. just remember it was a councilman trying to bully the trust into continuing to pour an extra 1/4 million in council funds.

 

just think its now council property run by council staff. yet the trust is expected to maintain them. can i just say no.

 

the council has enough staff to do its own repairs. or are they telling us that the 2k a week charge does not cover operating costs.

 

sound like a very poor business plan. remember all centres are nearly 100% full. either we have lazy management or incompetent. every private and charity care centre in this country will have a maintenance and refurbishment budget. paid from its clients fees.     

[north]

It is almost unimaginable that this travesty is continuing in this manner, but is perhaps completely understandable when the foundation of the Governance is considered.

 

What a colossal continuing rooster up!

[Colin]

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/10275-trustees-seek-to-heal-rifts

 

Lots more I could have picked up on but;

"Following the meeting, Bell said it was "absolutely vital" that the trust and the council find a way to work together"

 

What, to me anyway,  "absolutely vital" is for the SCT to become a wholly elected body and for the SIC to take a leaf out of SCT's book and to start living within it's means.

 

Dipping into the SCT funds every year to subsidise activities for which they (SIC) are legally responsible is not the best way to achieve this and councillors turning up at SCT meetings expecting their demands for cash to be met without question cannot continue.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

Colin, wasn't it the case though that the SIC and the SCT had a signed agreement going back a couple of years though regarding the funding of the care homes and the agreed amount?

[Colin]

Colin, wasn't it the case though that the SIC and the SCT had a signed agreement going back a couple of years though regarding the funding of the care homes and the agreed amount?

Apparently so but, can you think of any other 'commercial' enterprise that is willing to spend more than its income?

[Ghostrider]

Hey, ho! Yet again more of the same: http://www.shetnews.co.uk/newsbites/10386-three-new-trustees

 

A few more "Good Ole Boys" to keep the old gravy train trundling along nicely. Like folk could expect anything else.

[MuckleJoannie]

I'm surprised anyone wanted to take it on.

[Colin]

I'm surprised anyone wanted to take it on.

Me to.....

 

Bit of a "poisoned chalice" if you ask me... 

 

On the one hand you have the SIC who expect SCT to fund all their little "extras" and, on the other hand you have the "general public" who expect something a little different for their money...

[Windwalker]

The only thing that surprises me is the system of electing Trustees. We now have those, whom none of us voted onto this Trust, selecting the new Trustees, it's just not on and smacks of jobs for the boys. ie; if you don't meet the approval of those who are there already you won't get in. It's the public approval which should matter.

 

It's very commendable that these people are willing to give up their time to serve Shetland, but it's time to see a public election where individuals are to serve a four year stint, and the public can decide if they are worthy of re-election.

 

As I've said before, I'm sure there are many trustees who's heart and head are in the right place, but the present system is undemocratic.