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

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

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

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