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

#31 sheepshagger

sheepshagger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1154 posts

Posted 11 December 2007 - 08:50 PM

^keeping to a budget :!: now who's living in cloud cookoo land :?:

#32 Caeser

Caeser

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 21 January 2008 - 03:01 PM

Following on from the second CT rebel meeting, where it was agreed to exclude councillors from the steering group, does that mean, therefore that steering group members should now exclude themselves from any future council elections?.........................or do they really just want to run both the trust and the council as well.

It's nail your colours to the mast time - methinks??

#33 MuckleJoannie

MuckleJoannie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3268 posts

Posted 21 January 2008 - 10:38 PM

Following on from the second CT rebel meeting, where it was agreed to exclude councillors from the steering group.


The decision to exclude was initially for the first meeting only, with a final decision to be made following a meeting with the so far unnamed consultant. It may be a good idea to decide on their strategy without councillors, but in the long run they will have to engage with them and persuade a sufficient majority that change is necessary, otherwise the rebel group will just be a talking shop.
One of the themes raised by the rebels is that the Trust does not do enough for social deprivation in Shetland. My view is that they would be better employed trying to alleviate that rather than wasting their time trying to change the SIC.

#34 north

north

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 420 posts

Posted 27 January 2008 - 06:04 AM

Sorry, but they really lost me when they decided they are going to do anything that involves excluding anyone, on any grounds.

This is a worse idea than letting the council continue to run it. I do not distrust the councillors or the participants, I distrust the current system and oversight that exists.

I am now starting to have serious doubts about the intent of the individuals behind the entire concept of change, if they themselves are limiting transparency and participation from the beginning.

Just the same old thing, under new management! I can see it getting hi-jacked into a politically motivated scheme that might end up blowing more money than the exisiting group - and potentially with less accountability.

Of course, I am always open to having my mind changed again.

#35 Marooned in Maywick

Marooned in Maywick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1588 posts

Posted 27 January 2008 - 09:08 AM

I do hope anyone will put me right if I've got this wrong...

I feel that if there is a meeting arranged for a particular purpose (i.e. setting up a steering group) then people attending the meeting will broadly agree with the aims.
The feeling I got from the latest Change the CT meeting was that most people who voted felt that councillors attending the steering group setting up meeting would not be a good idea as they'd still have a foot in both camps, so to speak.
Personally I was one of the 5 who voted to allow councillors to attend, but perhaps that's just me displaying political naivete - I'd like to think any councillors attending the steering group setting up meeting would have done so with the best of intentions for the people of Shetland.

#36 north

north

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 420 posts

Posted 27 January 2008 - 06:24 PM

Well, I for one agree with you. The very notion of creating a group that excludes anyone from participating, is to me an unacceptable breach of the entire democratic process.

I have to say that the Councillors who have bothered to take the time out of their own lives to attend these meetings are precisely the type of participant that a reformed organization needs - the other councillors obviously just attend their meetings because they are required to.

I think the entire process needs to be changed, but the very notion that in its initial stage of conception, it feels a need to exclude anyone is completely and totally unacceptable.

My fear from a group of so inclined individuals, is that once they became ensconced in their positions, an entire new agenda might arise, and there would be no means to debate it or remove them from power.

They would need to convince me otherwise - but I would remain resolutely opposed to any organization that disqualifies any legitimate participant on a basis that the reforming organization themselves determines.

#37 Claudias

Claudias

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 489 posts

Posted 27 January 2008 - 07:45 PM

^ ^
Why are you not then opposed to the SIC? They pack the Charitable Trust with their own members to the exclusion of others.

#38 north

north

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 420 posts

Posted 27 January 2008 - 08:03 PM

I am entirely opposed to the current set-up with the SIC. However, this is the established method by which the entire charitable trust is governed, and in electing a councillor, you are also electing the members of the charitable trust. If you read one of my much earlier posts, you can read my surprise at that fact!

My issue is that in an attempt to reform the manner under which this organization is governed and its membership elected, or selected, no person should be eliminated from the ability to participate or have input into the changes and improvements being considered.

I see the current proposal as WORSE than anything the SIC could create, due to the fact that it specifically excludes specific willing or able participants, whatever their position or role. Intrinsically, I do not trust any group that wishes to exclude any other, because typically, this is because there is an agenda other than the primary cause, that will be revealed at some later date.

As I have said before, I am completely open to having my mind changed.

#39 Caeser

Caeser

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts

Posted 27 January 2008 - 08:36 PM

Following on from the second CT rebel meeting, where it was agreed to exclude councillors from the steering group, does that mean, therefore that steering group members should now exclude themselves from any future council elections?.........................or do they really just want to run both the trust and the council as well.

It's nail your colours to the mast time - methinks??


As I said before, I believe the 'rebels' have shot themselves in the foot with their decision to exclude individuals from the process.

What I reckon we have is a bunch of people who want to be politicians but are afraid to put their heads on the block in an election.

They do not really want to sort out boring things like roads, essy carts etc, but want to play god by handing down the feel good factor funds.

I am currently unsure where our current trustees are supposed to have gone wrong? I feel they have done very well. We have excellent roads, leisure facilities, old folks homes and schools. (Indeed such is their success in building schools, we now clearly have far too many!)

Is it some business investements which have failed that has upset the rebels? Is it not however, a case of better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all...........?

Maybe we should just leave all our funds in th stock exchange, not invest anywhere, and wait until the markets collapse? Would that have been more appealing than having supported a failed business?

It would be a good idea if the rebels could put their investment / spending ideas to the forefront to see if the public think they are any better than what has gone on before?

It would be some excellent propoganda for the next elections whan the rebels could all stand, and no doubt become elected such was the strength of their ideas.

We're waiting...........................?


The

#40 Njugle

Njugle

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPip
  • 6910 posts

Posted 27 January 2008 - 09:32 PM

Or they could start their own investment club, specialising in venture capital, there's plenty of folk around here with more than a few bob to spare, local investors in local ventures, it works in Norway. :wink:

If that was successful they could look to taking over public funds, otherwise.....?

#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.





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