Are Councillors The Proper People To Be Trustees Of Charities?

[Albert T Smith]

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?

 

You address the right man with that because I'd imagine he his an expert.

 

When the Liberal Democrats were last kicked out of office at the Sheffield Council. They had squandered £25 Million of the Sheffield Investment Bond and left a £10 million overspend on the council tax which resulted in a whacking 20% increase in Council Taxation. That is why the Lib-Dems were voted out after three years.

[cgksheff]

Are you standing as a paper candidate again, this year?

[Albert T Smith]

Are you standing as a paper candidate again, this year?

 

' No '. not this time round, I believe in giving someone else a chance!!.

 

Have a go - I'll deliver you some leaflets. Nothing ventured - Nothing gained.

[wolfstalin]

Can anyone imagine: ' Arise Sir Albert ' ?

 

No, but Peter Price certainly was, LOL.

[wolfstalin]

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?

 

Yes that true, never thought about it to tell the truth even though I do contribute to the RNLI nationally and at Filey and Scarborough.

 

....and it seems they have managed more than adequately to both raise funds and find trustees over their very long history.

 

.........not to mention staying true to their course aims and objectives, you never hear of the RNLI selling off land to developers either.

[Albert T Smith]

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?

 

I believe that many people, previously involved in charity work at the top end, ( Trustees ) preferred not to be at the beck and call of politicians or anyone else. These days it is the politicians who have changed these ways.

 

I found over the years, that until about twenty years ago, people involved with a charity were involved from the heart just because just wanted to be. Many did a great deal of work at home and often never claimed expenses, even though they could have done so. They just looked upon it as a way of helping the charity that they were attached to.

 

More recently, a number of people becoming involved with a charity are those who have been, either retired off early or finished off working. They often get involved because they have nothing better to do or to enable them to expound their former management qualities, frequently forgetting, that if they were of any use, they would still be employed and getting paid.

 

The type of society where charities flourished is now no more and the name or status of a charity is now actually a taxation avoidance organisation or one that enables grant funding to be more readily available

[Tony]

I agree with much of what you say that Albert, especially the final paragraph.

 

That's not to say that charities shouldn't wish to attract talented people but as you have alluded to, some individuals personal reasons for involvement are not always in direct line with the aims and ethos of the charity which they represent.

 

I have a bit of an issue with the creation of special charitable trusts to administer former public assets simply because the people who create them never let go of the apron / purse / puppet strings and we end up in an unholy mess as per Norton Nurseries.

 

I gave the examples of the RNLI and Air Ambulances because (I support both and) they have deliberately avoided government subsidy in order that they maintain their core objectives. That's a sad way for them to have to view things, but it is entirely understandable.

 

As they say, the proof is in the eating, and the success of these (expensive) asset dependant charities just shows how it can be done.

 

But back to the question in the OP... Are councillors the proper people to be trustees of charities? Well I can see no principle reason why they shouldn't as individuals, but I would question whether councils should be setting up charities to deny their responsibilities while retaining control.

 

As we can see from recent events, they don't seem able to be trusted with a simple thing like a park.

[Albert T Smith]

I agree with much of what you say that Albert, especially the final paragraph.

 

That's not to say that charities shouldn't wish to attract talented people but as you have alluded to, some individuals personal reasons for involvement are not always in direct line with the aims and ethos of the charity which they represent.

 

I have a bit of an issue with the creation of special charitable trusts to administer former public assets simply because the people who create them never let go of the apron / purse / puppet strings and we end up in an unholy mess as per Norton Nurseries.

 

I gave the examples of the RNLI and Air Ambulances because (I support both and) they have deliberately avoided government subsidy in order that they maintain their core objectives. That's a sad way for them to have to view things, but it is entirely understandable.

 

As they say, the proof is in the eating, and the success of these (expensive) asset dependant charities just shows how it can be done.

 

But back to the question in the OP... Are councillors the proper people to be trustees of charities? Well I can see no principle reason why they shouldn't as individuals, but I would question whether councils should be setting up charities to deny their responsibilities while retaining control.

 

As we can see from recent events, they don't seem able to be trusted with a simple thing like a park.

 

 

I'll come back to this.

 

I think the entire self created shambles with the future of Graves Park Nursery is probably because of politicians being advised my bureaucrats attached to, what has become since Mr Pollard's days, a dogmatic department re-acting to sincere opposition opposed to their views.

 

By becoming a trustee of a charity, someone forgot that a responsibility is entrusted and often its reaction can not accord with what is expected by the creation of the charity. Finding or thinking out, a long term, viable answer, as been made much harder by it.