Garden of Wales decision time - longish
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Gavin Wheeler" wrote in message om... But I truly believe, both from talking to the two trustees present *and* from a number of ex-employees 'in the know', that this is not the case. - They are down to 6 trustees. I don't know how many they started with, but this was mentioned by several people. If only two trustees were present out of six, then, in view of the crucial nature of the meeting, it is obvious that at least four haven't learnt a thing. Who might be in a position to dismiss them, and when may one expect that to happen? Franz I know none of the details of the problems the National Botanic Garden, so these comments are NOT directed at this case but are general observations on UK charities. The term "Trustees" suggests a legally constituted charity, in which case they are registed with the Charity Commission. Anybody with complaints against a legal charity can go to the Charity Commision. If there is a sufficinetly persuasive case, the Charity Commioners can investigate the operations of a charity and have extensive powers to instruct charity Trustees to act in a required way, dismiss Trustees and/or take over the running of the charity. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Charity Commisioners are usually insufficiently slow to act against poorly run charities and there are many instances where they should act and don't. They do have problems, however, in that there are many thousands of charities in the UK and I don't doubt that the Charity Commission is underfunded, not being a politically fashionable cause. Having been, in the past, a charity trustee, I would also point out a couple of things that most people involved with charities are not only unaware of but often find counter to what they believe. Trustees have total and complete personal and legal responsibility for the running and operations of a charity. If a charity becomes bankrupt, its trustees are personally responsible for the debts. If a charity's employees cause loss or injury, again the trustees are personally responsible - hopefully, the charity is properly insured but if not, the trustees carry the can. I'm not sure on this point but I suspect that even resigning as a trustee does not evade responsibility for the charity while a trustee. Finally, as a consequence of this personal and legal responsibility, trustees are not actually bound by any decisions taken by the charity's member at, for example, AGMs. Of course, trustees would probably be wise to accept the decisions of an AGM, unless illegal, but they are not bound to so do. A charity's member may often not even have any right to elect new trustees. So, think very carefully before agreeing to become a charity trustee and if you come across serious problems, speak up, make sure it is a matter of public record and if necessary, quickly resign. -- Larry Stoter |
Garden of Wales decision time - longish
In article ,
(Larry Stoter) wrote: If a charity becomes bankrupt, its trustees are personally responsible for the debts. That's an extremely common misconception. They might just be liable for some of the debts if they have been dishonest or incredibly stupid. The situation is a very long way from trustees being automatically liable. For an example of the Charity Commission dealing with an insolvent charity,see http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...yreports/milex trainingcentre.asp Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com |
Garden of Wales decision time - longish
Steve Harris wrote:
In article , (Larry Stoter) wrote: If a charity becomes bankrupt, its trustees are personally responsible for the debts. That's an extremely common misconception. They might just be liable for some of the debts if they have been dishonest or incredibly stupid. The situation is a very long way from trustees being automatically liable. For an example of the Charity Commission dealing with an insolvent charity,see http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...yreports/milex trainingcentre.asp Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com Nevertheless, ultimately, the trustees are liable. If they can show they acted in good faith didn't do anything negligent or illegal, then they are OK. It is, however, more than possible for problems to come back to the trustees if they have not taken an active interest in the charity finances. The position of trustee has very real legal responsibilities and I suspect far too many people take on the role of trustee, regarding it as some sort of honary position -- Larry Stoter |
Garden of Wales decision time - longish
Steve Harris wrote:
In article , (Larry Stoter) wrote: If a charity becomes bankrupt, its trustees are personally responsible for the debts. That's an extremely common misconception. They might just be liable for some of the debts if they have been dishonest or incredibly stupid. The situation is a very long way from trustees being automatically liable. For an example of the Charity Commission dealing with an insolvent charity,see http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk...yreports/milex trainingcentre.asp Steve Harris - Cheltenham - Real address steve AT netservs DOT com Nevertheless, ultimately, the trustees are liable. If they can show they acted in good faith didn't do anything negligent or illegal, then they are OK. It is, however, more than possible for problems to come back to the trustees if they have not taken an active interest in the charity finances. The position of trustee has very real legal responsibilities and I suspect far too many people take on the role of trustee, regarding it as some sort of honary position -- Larry Stoter |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter