Tony Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 I came across some information relating to St Luke's but I didn't want to clutter up that thread with something so off topic. What's the reasoning behind moving assets such as parks, museums, art galleries, concert venues, etc into arms length charitable trusts? I've heard all sorts of notions but the ones that seem overriding are that it limits the financial liability and direct culpability of the Council it it goes wrong, while allowing slightly more 'creativity' on fund raising. As I understand it SCC still contributes financially, has virtual indirect control, so why create a system that allows them to pretend that they don't own or control?
cgksheff Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 Would it not be reasonable to expect ALL the Trusts and Charities that Councillors are trustees of to appear on the "list of the memberships of the various Council meetings and representatives on external organisations" which is a download file at the bottom of this page? http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings
Heyesey Posted March 15, 2008 Posted March 15, 2008 In many cases - everything donated by Graves, to start with - it's because the council do not own the items in question. They're merely charged with looking after them on behalf of the Sheffield public. If they owned Graves Park, they could've sold it for housing years ago, and the arguments about the hospice would be irrelevant.
Tony Posted March 15, 2008 Author Posted March 15, 2008 I found an interesting take on the homepage of Professor Simon Roodhouse.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.