Are Councillors The Proper People To Be Trustees Of Charities?

[anarchist]

The City Council appoints councillors to the following Charities/Educational Foundations:-

 

Anne Reresby Trust, High Green (1)

Bolsterstone Educational Charity (1)

Bradfield and Onesacre Educational Foundation (2)

Bradfield Feoffee Estate Charity (1)

Cook and Beard Homes Charity (1)

Ecclesall Bierlow Poors Land Charity (4)

Norton (5)

Sheffield Bluecoat and Mount Pleasant (2)

Sheffield Church Burgesses (1)

Sheffield Grammar School Exhibition (including Fulwood Educational Endowment Trust) (6)

St William’s Educational Trust (1)

 

(NB Figures in brackets relate to the number of councillors so appointed)

 

No mention there of the J G Graves Charitable trust which has 2 LABOUR appointees.

[redrobbo]

No mention there of the J G Graves Charitable trust which has 2 LABOUR appointees.

 

My information was obtained from the council website.

 

Link: http://www.sheffield.gov.uk/your-city-council/council-meetings

 

Go to bottom of page and click on "Memberships of Council Meetings" download. Scroll down to "Other External Organisations (no. of places)" and then to "Charities/Educational Foundations:-" which is where I copied the list of appointments from.

[wolfstalin]

If a councillor or anyone for that matter is a trustee of a charitable company and there is a conflict of interest regarding a decision to be made then the person should express the conflict and withdraw from the discussion/debate/vote.

 

I don't think that they should be excluded from being a trustee, neither do I think all charities should have a councillor on the board.

 

Logically then what you're saying is that all the labour Group should declare their interest in their stated policy to sell off parkland and not vote on the Graves Park sale.

[Nemesis]

We have a prime example here, don't we? As far as the parks are concerned, I think Trusteeship should be devolved to the "Friends Of" groups, who are the ones best placed/knowledgeable/motivated to act in the best interests of the parks.

 

I agree. Either that or the Friends should make up a sizable number of the trustees in each case.

[Nemesis]

Logically then what you're saying is that all the labour Group should declare their interest in their stated policy to sell off parkland and not vote on the Graves Park sale.

 

Perhaps on this basis, as many trustees are co-opted on by existing trustees, the charities in question should consider co-opting members of Friends groups on to their committees.

[Albert T Smith]

I agree. Either that or the Friends should make up a sizable number of the trustees in each case.

 

The trouble with that is fairly obvious. But what happens if the selected group start to loose interest in projects?

 

A number of very active Parent - Teacher Associations existed when the prospect of a new school building was in mind. After the new building was completed, a great lack of interest then set in.

 

That is a very great danger to our Parkland. Win one battle. Everyone then sits back eventually loosing interest, the trustees are then slowly replaced and the war is then lost.

 

A great deal of thinking needs to be done still.

[Albert T Smith]

It isn't my personal interpretation, it is the fact. Graves did not establish a charity or a trust. SCC did that just a few years ago. It also extracted the City Hall and lots of other venues and placed them inside quangos that give the legal benefit of being 'arms length'.

 

Obviously the last sentence about reneging is open to debate

 

Do we have a link to this information. From a distant memory I believe the ' Star ' carried an article about this.

 

The public idea was sold, that it would allow funding to be obtained more readily. What was not mentioned, was it would also allow hiving off of some of our open spaces and parkland to private developers. Not leasing it over a ninety nine year or shorter period along with attached covenant's, that could be agreed to by interested groups.

[wolfstalin]

Perhaps on this basis, as many trustees are co-opted on by existing trustees, the charities in question should consider co-opting members of Friends groups on to their committees.

 

I think charities and politics don't mix, let charities be in the voluntary sector, put people on who care IE local people who actively engage in the charities work IE all the friends groups.

 

Why not have one big charity that covers all the parks to give an even balance, make the covenants really strict and unbending.

 

Most of all councilors should stop playing football with the assets of the city, parks aren't piggy banks and not freebie bribes either to get a knighthood.

[Albert T Smith]

I think charities and politics don't mix, let charities be in the voluntary sector, put people on who care IE local people who actively engage in the charities work IE all the friends groups.

 

Why not have one big charity that covers all the parks to give an even balance, make the covenants really strict and unbending.

 

Most of all councilors should stop playing football with the assets of the city, parks aren't piggy banks and not freebie bribes either to get a knighthood.

 

Can anyone imagine: ' Arise Sir Albert ' ?

[Tony]

I think charities and politics don't mix, let charities be in the voluntary sector,

 

The RNLI and Air Ambulance charities refuse money from Government, choosing to raise their own money to avoid being at the whim of here-today gone-tomorrow politicians.

 

Who needs a new lifeboat or helicopter when we can spend another couple of million quid on civil servants with vote slips this year?