Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

With your Shetlink login details, all classifieds, private messages, and invoices are now accessed through the new Njord | Market system. Please see Njord | Market FAQ for more details.

Photo

Charitable Trust, independent of Council

sic charitable trust

  • Please log in to reply
377 replies to this topic

#16 Wheesht

Wheesht

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 572 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 10:50 AM

An few personnel digs cropping up here now, is that allowed mods? They do the pro change group no favours at all.

I see no difference in elected councilors sitting on the trust or elected other people doing it. We elect the council every four years and have the ability to change our councilors if we see fit. If I feel a person elected is not doing a decent job in any aspect or running Shetland's affairs I have a vote for change and use it.

No need.

#17 Fjool

Fjool

    Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPip
  • 4206 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 11:09 AM

An few personnel digs cropping up here now, is that allowed mods?

Depends, I guess. If he is quoted as saying that, and if he does wear two hearing aids, then it's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect to see commented about on the likes of 'Have I Got News For You'.

Mockery of public figures is a national pastime, and quite right too!

#18 Wheesht

Wheesht

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 572 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 11:14 AM

An few personnel digs cropping up here now, is that allowed mods?

Depends, I guess. If he is quoted as saying that, and if he does wear two hearing aids, then it's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect to see commented about on the likes of 'Have I Got News For You'.

Mockery of public figures is a national pastime, and quite right too!


If if if, balls, aunt, uncle.

#19 Njugle

Njugle

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 6910 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 12:36 PM

Mild mockery, based on fact is fairly harmless. We draw the line at defamation, attacks and offense.

It seems to me that the logical fact that councillors are elected representatives complies with the requirement of CT membership, though perhaps they should be further elected to this role.

Mr Bill Manson's stance in recent VE related events causes me concerns as to the structure of CT decisions, but i would hope he is not a majority of one, so to speak.

Perhaps there should simply be more Trustees, to allow greater democracy to prevail.

#20 clanchief

clanchief

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 268 posts

Posted 07 December 2007 - 10:40 AM

An few personnel digs cropping up here now, is that allowed mods? They do the pro change group no favours at all..


Eh, What, sorry could you please repeat that?

Not a bad comment from someone who posted - "Cue duelling banjos" in a forum that was discussing the depopulation of Foula !

#21 Pooks

Pooks

    Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPip
  • 2603 posts

Posted 07 December 2007 - 08:46 PM

Back on topic please.

#22 Caeser

Caeser

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 07 December 2007 - 10:33 PM

I thought da Flea had a good point in the Times today.

Words to the effect of...
'It was a pity of those interested in changing the Charitable Trust did not stand for councillor in May. That way they could change things from within the existing structure, if they felt that way inclined'.

Why was that?

1. Did they try, fail and are now pissed off?
2. Are they happier shouting from the sidelines, knowing they are invincible from where they stand?
3. Are they scared to try, just in case they fail and then where are they then, when they realise no one actually believes they could improve things?

Or is there a separate agenda?

#23 Marooned in Maywick

Marooned in Maywick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1588 posts

Posted 08 December 2007 - 08:35 AM

I thought da Flea had a good point in the Times today.

Words to the effect of...
'It was a pity of those interested in changing the Charitable Trust did not stand for councillor in May. That way they could change things from within the existing structure, if they felt that way inclined'.


I think Councillor Duncan is full of hot air and likes the sound of his own voice too much.
I'm not aware of any of the group of five (Willie Ross, Steve Jack, Peter Hamilton, John Scott, Vaila Wishart - hope I've got the right people) either standing for election as councillors or ever having been councillors therefore I'd've thought they'd've had enough to contend with being new councillors without being agents for change to the Charitable Trust as well.
And unless they were elected solely on the purpose of wishing to change the CT from within, they'd be doing their electorate a huge disservice.

And let's face it - who would vote for someone standing on a single issue - even one as important as this - when there's schools threatened with closure, roads needing improved, ferries to pay for etc.?

Why was that?

1. Did they try, fail and are now pissed off?


Don't recall any of 'em standing this year.

2. Are they happier shouting from the sidelines, knowing they are invincible from where they stand?


None of the three at last week's meeting looked particularly happy to be there but I commend their stance.

3. Are they scared to try, just in case they fail and then where are they then, when they realise no one actually believes they could improve things?


Try what?

Or is there a separate agenda?


I believe there's an agenda separate to those 3 questions you've posed.

Namely that the issue of the CT being overwhelmingly dominated by councillors is one that needs to be addressed.

#24 islandhopper

islandhopper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 08 December 2007 - 11:21 PM

To me it is not the question of
- whether or not the "protesters" stood for election as councillors or ever having been councillors ... or
- whether or not the elected councillors are qualified to do the job.

The only remaining problem is the fact that under the present situation one body (the council) is allowed to transfer its intentions/political will, the resulting actions and the included risks to a "third party" under their absolute control (the trust) ...
... including the possibility to alter the statutes of the said "third party" in case it is not fitting to their political intentions as council.

I dunno say that it was intended or hat this was the only reason why they acted in the way they did ... but it is possible ... and no-one must wonder if the whole "windmill handling" leads to some similar thoughts in the public.

There is nothing against a "qualified" minority on the board of trustees of let me say 25% + 1 vote but all the rest ist questionable and I'm sure it will be questioned ...

Especially with regard to the windmill project it would have been more suitable to form a special development company ... guaranteeing the whole development costs (defined as maximal agreed loss) up to Xmio £ out of the council's household.

Putting the whole development risk onto the CT without any limitation but leaving the decisions up to the same councillors who want to build "their" monuments is far beyond any kind of being politically correct ... ;-)

#25 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9173 posts

Posted 09 December 2007 - 12:31 AM

Putting as large a distance between local politics and politicians and the Charitable Trust as possible, can only be a good thing. However, I'm less than charmed by the current initative to do it, far too many failed wannabe politicians and landed gentry among the leading lights for my likings.

#26 Marooned in Maywick

Marooned in Maywick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1588 posts

Posted 09 December 2007 - 02:37 AM

But somebody's got to do it.
And if these wannabe politicians have studied the goings-on of said bodies as part of their election platform then why not have them as instigators of change.
Not one of them at last week's meeting (as far as I can recall) ever expressed any desire whatsoever to become one of the trustees - simply that they felt the public in Shetland weren't getting the best value for money from the CT due to its make-up.

#27 Caeser

Caeser

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 09 December 2007 - 10:41 AM

From what I can see, if the gang of four and the other 20 odd meeting attenders would come out of the closet, and confirm that they would not be standing for the coveted CT disbursement committee, then their idea would go further. ( I suspect that they would, however, be first at the trough if there was a chance of getting in)

A bunch of failed, wannabee politicians (but are scared to put their names forward for council election, just in case they get beat) and people with massive chips on their shoulders, will really not get a groundswell of the general public behind them.

#28 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9173 posts

Posted 09 December 2007 - 02:49 PM

^^ Exactly! The leading lights at the very least need to nail their colours to the mast right from the start, make clear individual statements of their personal aspirations for the future, "if" a reorganised trust should come to pass.

Personally I'd also prefer, at least the names, of all who attended the meeting and pledged support for the idea to be published, then everyone can judge for themselves where this is headed. One of the leading lights is connected with the main local newspaper business after all, there is virtually no excuse for not making the maximum amount of information as easily available as possible.

There is little trust within the operation of the Trust as it stands due to folk suspecting bias, hidden agendas, cronyism etc etc influencing decisions, what is needed most of all is open-ness and transparency, and unless the new guard start off firmly on that footing I strongly suspect any move led by them will be little other than out of the frying pan and in to the fire.

#29 Marooned in Maywick

Marooned in Maywick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1588 posts

Posted 09 December 2007 - 09:47 PM

From what I can see, if the gang of four and the other 20 odd meeting attenders would come out of the closet, and confirm that they would not be standing for the coveted CT disbursement committee, then their idea would go further. ( I suspect that they would, however, be first at the trough if there was a chance of getting in)

A bunch of failed, wannabee politicians (but are scared to put their names forward for council election, just in case they get beat) and people with massive chips on their shoulders, will really not get a groundswell of the general public behind them.


I can't speak for the other 30 or so (not 20) folk who attended the meeting but I have absolutely no desire to be one of the folk who has the final say in where the money goes - I'd just like a bit more say in who decides.

So that's me (David Smith, Maywick) off your list of meeting attenders who want to be Trustees.

The purpose of the meeting was (as far as I was aware) simply to ascertain opinion - not make concrete decisions on how the Trust ought to be constructed or how the members should be elected/selected.

#30 Caeser

Caeser

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 11 December 2007 - 06:36 PM

I've had an idea !

Very simplistic of course, but how would everyone out there feel about arranging the CT to be locked away in the hands of an investment bank from everyones reach (current trustees, officials and wannabees!). This way there could be no more sherging about what is spent, where, how much, and by whom!

All that would be returned to the town hall would be profit from investments less inflation. This would protect our nest egg for future generations, without having to depend on the wind farm etc!(Heaven help us).

If the payment was £1 or £10 million we would only be able to budget one year in arrears, with what was cleared funds so to speak in the bank?

This is how most people get by so why not the CT?

It would put an imediate end to wish lists, and overspending. IF the councils operating account ran out of money by the end of October then I guess there would be no wages for a coonty workers until January...........

That would sort out the single status as well! Boy am I getting good at this. Maybe should stand for the council or would that be the CT?





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: sic, charitable trust