Jump to content

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

Photo

Charitable Trust, independent of Council

sic charitable trust

  • Please log in to reply
377 replies to this topic

#41 north

north

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 420 posts

Posted 04 February 2008 - 04:54 PM

Democracy in action?


http://www.shetland-...teer reform.htm


The next meeting, this Monday, Room 6, Islesburgh House, 7pm will be open to the media but is being held to allow those who favour reform to establish a steering group. It was democratically decided that councillor input was not desired at this stage. An offer of independent professional assistance will be considered. Nothing, however, prevents the new councillor-trustees from finally attempting to start their own process of review.

#42 Njugle

Njugle

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 6910 posts

Posted 05 February 2008 - 02:46 PM

Interim co-ordinator Peter Hamilton said: "It was not an easy decision to exclude councillors from this meeting, but we now have a clear purpose and will welcome the support and involvement of any member of the Shetland public, including councillors, who are supportive of the group's aims."



What are the aims exactly, to orchestrate a take over the CT or to reform it as it stands? :?

#43 Caeser

Caeser

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 05 February 2008 - 06:28 PM

Anyone know if any of the rebels decided to stand for the late Cecil Eunsons SIC seat. I think closing time was this aftrnoon?

Not a gambler you appreciate, but I reckon none would have the bottle to try any possibly fail. How would that look?

I mean if they have the will of the community they would stroll in and be able to organise change from the chamber instead of from somewhere round the back of Islesburgh.

#44 Marooned in Maywick

Marooned in Maywick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1588 posts

Posted 05 February 2008 - 06:36 PM

What are the aims exactly, to orchestrate a take over the CT or to reform it as it stands? :?


"SDT and SCT lack democracy, transparency and accountability in decision making and we believe they should be reformed for the long term benefit of all the people of Shetland."

Quote from
http://www.shetland-... last night.htm (my emboldening)

Does anybody seriously think that's a bad thing?

#45 Marooned in Maywick

Marooned in Maywick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1588 posts

Posted 05 February 2008 - 07:28 PM

Anyone know if any of the rebels decided to stand for the late Cecil Eunsons SIC seat. I think closing time was this aftrnoon?

Not a gambler you appreciate, but I reckon none would have the bottle to try any possibly fail. How would that look?


Errr...it would look like they don't want to be councillors.

I mean if they have the will of the community they would stroll in and be able to organise change from the chamber instead of from somewhere round the back of Islesburgh.


But surely the will of the community to reform the Trusts is different from the will of the community to elect a councillor.

Methinks the Up Helly Aa bill has identified the wrong turd-stirrer.

#46 Caeser

Caeser

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 06 February 2008 - 06:51 PM

LERWICK South candidate Vic Thomas launched his election campaign shortly after the closure of nominations yesterday afternoon (Tuesday), putting his weight behind the campaign to separate Shetland Charitable Trust and Shetland Development Trust from the local authority.

In his election address, the prominent environmental campaigner said that if elected he would refuse to sit on the charitable trust until democratic elections were held for trustees.

Am I missing something here..............?

I thought the elections were democratic?, everyone votes for their favourite candidate and the highest vote gets in!

Coupled with an aforementioned successful election you then automatically became a trustee of CT and also SDT.

What is wrong with Mr Thomas thought process here. He has the chance to become an elected trustee by virtue of a democratic process but now he doesn't want it?

And then we have the failed councillor and serial poop stirrer Mr Peterson. His comments on not going for election are below.........

Three of the candidates, Mr Mullay, Mr Feather and Mr Leith, stood for the ward nine months ago. The other two unsuccessful candidates, Michael Peterson and Lindsay Smith, are not standing this time.

Mr Peterson said he felt he would be able to achieve more from outwith than inside the council to ensure there is proper transparency and accountability over the way Shetland's money is spent.

OF course the only way he could get inside the council was to get more votes than anyone else.

After last elections showing, I wonder if two humiliations in a year are just one too many?

Sorry - but you really could not make it up.

#47 banksbroo

banksbroo

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 11 February 2008 - 03:13 PM

It might interest you to know that at the last election (May 07), both Maurice Mullay and Robbie Leith both got more first votes than Jim Henry. So who got in, Jim Henry, because he got more 3rd, 4th, 5th preference votes etc. (
http://www.shetland.gov.uk/elections/elections2007/LerwickSouth-audit.html
) The point is that he was very few peoples first choice for councilor. That doesn't make him a bad councilor, not does it make the unsuccessful candidates views invalid. That's just how it goes sometimes.

This by-election was triggered by the death of Cecil Eunson. When he first stood for this ward, he didn't get elected either. But he didn't just give up, he fought on, and was elected 5 year later.

Democracy is an ongoing process, not an occasional event.

#48 EM

EM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1749 posts

Posted 11 February 2008 - 09:03 PM


"SDT and SCT lack democracy, transparency and accountability in decision making and we believe they should be reformed for the long term benefit of all the people of Shetland."


Does anybody seriously think that's a bad thing?


It would not be a bad thing if the three stated premises were true, but I fail to see how they are.

In terms of transparency, it would appear from their recent meeting that the rebels are ignorant of even the basic fundamentals. The following quote sums this up very well:

The Shetland Times[/i]"]
Indeed, it was evident during the discussions that the leading lights in the reform group need to do basic homework before they can speak with any authority about the trusts. Their knowledge of the workings of the bodies was vague with few of those among the audience ever having attended any trust meeting.

Nobody corrected the mistaken assertion that the public cannot attend the regular meetings of either trust and Mr Cree-Hay was under the mistaken impression that trust papers and annual reports are not readily available.


As for democracy and accountability, the facts are plain that the trusts are currently dominated by democratically elected individuals who are inherently accountable.

#49 Marooned in Maywick

Marooned in Maywick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1588 posts

Posted 24 March 2008 - 04:58 PM

The trust reform group have stated..."Shetland has been subjected to a prolonged period in which there have been examples of questionable propriety, "unlawful" spending (the documented breaking of State Aids regulations), partial truths, misinformation, sleaze (undeclared conflicts of interest) and lack of transparency in which untold tens of millions of pounds of Shetlander's oil money has been wasted."

Sleaze??? In Shetland?? Surely not?

See http://www.shetland-... oil monies.htm for full text.

I see the council have gone against D&W's £100,000 recommendation that there should be lengthy debate re the reform of the Development Trust.

How long d'you reckon Wednesday's Charitable Trust meeting will be?

#50 north

north

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 420 posts

Posted 24 March 2008 - 08:12 PM

As for democracy and accountability, the facts are plain that the trusts are currently dominated by democratically elected individuals who are inherently accountable.


If this were the case, we could expect Resignations or Sackings, for the performance of these "investments".

But then Government and Public Service always allows the blame to be passed to others.

Democracy and Accountability would be two admirable achievements!

#51 north

north

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 420 posts

Posted 14 November 2009 - 10:20 PM

Time to dust this off again, as progress is being made for change. The Shetland Times is reporting the story here http://www.shetlandt...-retain-control

The complete proposal is here.

http://www.shetlandc...xec summary.pdf


If anyone doubts the requirement and neccesity for change, then this is a classic comment - remember that there is a legal requirement to change the structure of the organisation. .


Shetland Islands Council convener Sandy Cluness has maintained his total opposition to changing the way the trust operates because it had worked well and the electorate knew when they voted that all councillors became trustees.

The overhaul was ordered by the new charities watchdog the Office of the Scottish Charities Regulator (OSCR) which insisted the trust had to show “better and more obvious evidence of independence” from the council if it wished to retain its charitable status, which saves it about £3 million a year in tax. It also follows a recent clamour within Shetland for an end to council domination of the trust and its activities.


This once again demonstrates exactly why there is a change required in the organisation of the Charitable Trust and also in the SIC leadership itself.

This is a good place to start from. The proposal is well written and complete - nice work!

#52 icepick239

icepick239

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 748 posts

Posted 10 December 2009 - 11:22 PM

So the Convener is threatening to take the case all the way to The House of Lords?
How much will that cost the Trust - half a million?, a million??
Such utter nonsense. :mrgreen:

#53 hoosn

hoosn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 10 December 2009 - 11:47 PM

scottish ombudsman by jees, well i never , spouting conditions about our charitable trust, soon to become some "scottish charitable trust" methinks

#54 icepick239

icepick239

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 748 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 12:19 AM

Read what is proposed on any future changes to the Trust.
Are you agreeing that the Convener (and probably a couple Lawyers) should spend 'your' money on an ego-driven public excercise to the House of Lords :mrgreen:

#55 paulb

paulb

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4805 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 08:09 AM

it won't matter if he did take it all the way through the courts he would lose.

by the way by what vote has he got the permission of the council/ trustees to do this. and in what capacity his he doing it.

if the trust wants to save millions in taxes then it follows the rules. after all the charity trust is no different than any other trust or charity.

#56 icepick239

icepick239

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 748 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 05:04 PM

I thought it was April 1st.

The Trust had moved to the Clickimin Centre for their meetings and to demonstrate their total independence from the Council.
However bad acoustics and a charge from this particular Venue has now seen them move back to the Town Hall (free).
Does this have the stamp of 'A Former Lawyer'.

Changing venues cannot be the answer, but changing faces can :mrgreen:

#57 sheona

sheona

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 08:13 PM

Read what is proposed on any future changes to the Trust.
Are you agreeing that the Convener (and probably a couple Lawyers) should spend 'your' money on an ego-driven public excercise to the House of Lords :mrgreen:


Just which "Lords" would he be taking it to? Don't we have a Supreme Court now?

#58 jimmy parks

jimmy parks

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 129 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 09:10 PM

Its YOUR money guys, and it should be handed by YOUR cooncillars, who YOU can vote out ift they are not up to the job (quite a few of the currant ones may be booted oot next election). YOU should not have YOUR money handled by unelected nonentitys who YOU cannot control.

#59 jz

jz

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 455 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 09:24 PM

^^

I agree, so why not elect the members of the charitable trust?
As it has to be separate from the council, insist you cannot be both a councillor and a trust member.

The current councillors however appear to be reluctant to relinquish any power.

#60 hoosn

hoosn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 458 posts

Posted 11 December 2009 - 09:31 PM

mark my words , hollyrood has set its sights on the trust millions n they are after it too





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