charity hiccup (2)

Post by bill
Thanks to all for advice over previous query- lots of groups have
wrong info on CC website, it seems. I still can't find how to put ours
right but have people working on it.
I must emphasise that it's not the factual situation that's wrong for
us, but the words on CC site don't reflect that situation.
I am trying to establish two things- one can a section leader NOT be
on the Exec ( which must be possible I would have thought). I have a
leader who cannot be a trustee, and following POR this could be said
to preclude her from being a section leader.
two: no-one seems to list their Exec members on the CC site- either
that or everyone has an exec of three or four people.
Given POR and CC Law does anyone know if there is a consequence to NOT
showing all your trustees.

if a person cannot be a trustee , that cc law does not stop them being
a leader

Outr district showed all the exec as trustees and would do so if the
charity staus had not been removed last year , because accounts not
submitted .
No way batting an eylid about it .
Lots do not seem to show all presumably in some belief that they do
not have to ,

doubt any one will care a monkeys!

Ewan Scott

2010-08-30 18:09:46 UTC

IT does. POR Rule 23.3bii says that Leaders are members of the Exec.

The CC says that ALL members of the Exec/ management committee etc. are
Trustees.

Ewan Scott

bill

2010-08-30 18:32:50 UTC

IT does. POR Rule 23.3bii says that Leaders are members of the Exec.
The CC says that ALL members of the Exec/ management committee etc. are
Trustees.
Ewan Scott

Indeed - hence my dilemma. One I'm going to ignore, I think.
Leaders are too valuable, so she's an acting leader, or whatever.
Anything to avoid law is a ass stuff!

Ewan Scott

2010-08-31 07:42:30 UTC

IT does. POR Rule 23.3bii says that Leaders are members of the Exec.
The CC says that ALL members of the Exec/ management committee etc. are
Trustees.
Ewan Scott
Indeed - hence my dilemma. One I'm going to ignore, I think.
Leaders are too valuable, so she's an acting leader, or whatever.
Anything to avoid law is a ass stuff!

Bill,

You know that you can't just ignore it. POR says LEADERS, so this applies
only to section Leaders, Assistant Leaders can be non-voting members, so
your Leader, presumable with fiscal problems in the past, can be an ASL.
She/He can also, if she wishes to be involved be a non-voting member of the
Exec.

As far as those not listing their Exec Members is concerned... they are at
fault, or they don't have large Execs. Those listed on the CC site as your
Exec will be the first stop for investigation should anything ever go wrong.
Hence a reason for NOT listing names. However, if something were to go
wrong, the CC, if they had the time and inclination, would and could track
down those it deemed to be trustees and they have them "bang to rights" for
not being registered!

If you talk to the SA about this issue, it is a widespread and problematic
situation. Many Groups think that by not registering they can be exempted
from CC rules. They are not. They are treated exactly the same as a
registered charity.

Many registered Groups only register the bare minimum Exec, either because
they don't know any better, or because they are trying to minimise
exposure - either way they are at fault.

There have been cases, in Scouting I am told, wherethe CC became involved in
investigations and having opened up a can of worms tracked back errors and
fraudulent practices by a series of Trustees going as far back as the 1950's
in one case! And where they were still alive, pursued them over the issue.

The best policy by far here is to have a proper Exec, including your LEADERS
and elected/ nominated members and have them all listed, and have followed
the proper paperwork. Remember, it may not be your Group that attracts the
attention, and having had a look at the CC data on Groups in your locale, if
someone at the CC got shirty, they would have a field day and you could be
collateral damage! Put your house in order and get on with Scouting.

Ewan Scott

rocoho

2010-08-31 08:26:28 UTC

Doing a spot check round the district , one large group lists only
4 , - looks like gsl , dt, sec and chair , they definaly have others ,
another group lists over a dozen.

Strickly speaking that chairmans responsibility , maybe Dist chair
should remind them , "O forgot Dist Chairs not registered" so surpose
hes not actually legal, they have been advised many times but nowt
happens .

Post by Ewan Scott
There have been cases, in Scouting I am told, wherethe CC became involved in
investigations and having opened up a can of worms tracked back errors and
fraudulent practices by a series of Trustees going as far back as the 1950's
in one case! And where they were still alive, pursued them over the issue.
The best policy by far here is to have a proper Exec, including your LEADERS
and elected/ nominated members and have them all listed, and have followed
the proper paperwork. Remember, it may not be your Group that attracts the
attention, and having had a look at the CC data on Groups in your locale, if
someone at the CC got shirty, they would have a field day and you could be
collateral damage! Put your house in order and get on with Scouting.

bill

2010-08-31 18:37:18 UTC

Doing a spot check round the district , one large group lists only
4 , - looks like gsl , dt, sec and chair , they definaly have others ,
another group lists over a dozen.

Asking around, this was the "way to do it"- or so my predecessor was
told.
I did a check round and it is endemic. Our District lists 4 trustees
and publishes 14 Exec members.

Clearly it doesn't matter.......!

Ewan Scott

2010-09-01 06:28:05 UTC

Doing a spot check round the district , one large group lists only
4 , - looks like gsl , dt, sec and chair , they definaly have others ,
another group lists over a dozen.
Asking around, this was the "way to do it"- or so my predecessor was
told.
I did a check round and it is endemic. Our District lists 4 trustees
and publishes 14 Exec members.
Clearly it doesn't matter.......!

You rather obviously know that it does.

In most small charities financial handling is, shall we say, a secondary
issue compared to their main goal of providing care, activities, planting
woodland, whatever. Complying with the details of charity law are well down
the list of individual members' priorities.

However, I'm sure that when they stop and think, all that needs to happen is
for the wrong person to work their way into a position of control and
without the proper checks and balances anything can happen.

My advice, Bill, is do what you KNOW is right and Hell mend everyone else.
If your own house is in order then you have nothing to fear.

Ewan Scott

GAGS

2010-09-01 08:25:20 UTC

You rather obviously know that it does.
In most small charities financial handling is, shall we say, a secondary
issue compared to their main goal of providing care, activities, planting
woodland, whatever. Complying with the details of charity law are well down
the list of individual members' priorities.
However, I'm sure that when they stop and think, all that needs to happen is
for the wrong person to work their way into a position of control and
without the proper checks and balances anything can happen.
My advice, Bill, is do what you KNOW is right and Hell mend everyone else.
If your own house is in order then you have nothing to fear.

Totally agree with Ewan on this point. If another Group breaks the law
it doesn't mean that you can do so too!

GAGS

bill

2010-09-01 11:17:43 UTC

Post by GAGS

You rather obviously know that it does.
In most small charities financial handling is, shall we say, a secondary
issue compared to their main goal of providing care, activities, planting
woodland, whatever. Complying with the details of charity law are well down
the list of individual members' priorities.
However, I'm sure that when they stop and think, all that needs to happen is
for the wrong person to work their way into a position of control and
without the proper checks and balances anything can happen.
My advice, Bill, is do what you KNOW is right and Hell mend everyone else.
If your own house is in order then you have nothing to fear.

Totally agree with Ewan on this point. If another Group breaks the law
it doesn't mean that you can do so too!
GAGS- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

never intended to do so. However I note a disparity in so many groups
and indeed districts that we'll almost stick out when we do it right.

Ewan Scott

2010-09-01 11:37:40 UTC

Post by GAGS
Totally agree with Ewan on this point. If another Group breaks the law
it doesn't mean that you can do so too!
GAGS- Hide quoted text -

I wondered when you would appear :-)

Post by GAGS
- Show quoted text -

never intended to do so. However I note a disparity in so many groups
and indeed districts that we'll almost stick out when we do it right.

Oh, what will happen is that when you do your Scouting as right as you can,
you will stick out like a sore thumb. You will make others feel guilty, they
will complain, they will call you elitist, they will call you all sorts.
However, your group will grow, as it does, the criticisms will increase.
Don't worry about it, just get on with it and do the best you can. The
question you need to ask your team, and this includes the kids. Would they
rather play for a third division team, or play in the Premier League. Most
will opt for the Premier League. So that's where you try and take them. :-)

Ewan Scott

bill

2010-08-31 13:50:56 UTC

Bill,
You know that you can't just ignore it. POR says LEADERS, so this applies
only to section Leaders, Assistant Leaders can be non-voting members, so
your Leader, presumable with fiscal problems in the past, can be an ASL.
She/He can also, if she wishes to be involved be a non-voting member of the
Exec.
As far as those not listing their Exec Members is concerned... they are at
fault, or they don't have large Execs. Those listed on the CC site as your
Exec will be the first stop for investigation should anything ever go wrong.
Hence a reason for NOT listing names. However, if something were to go
wrong, the CC, if they had the time and inclination, would and could track
down those it deemed to be trustees and they have them "bang to rights" for
not being registered!
If you talk to the SA about this issue, it is a widespread and problematic
situation. Many Groups think that by not registering they can be exempted
from CC rules. They are not. They are treated exactly the same as a
registered charity.
Many registered Groups only register the bare minimum Exec, either because
they don't know any better, or because they are trying to minimise
exposure - either way they are at fault.
There have been cases, in Scouting I am told, wherethe CC became involved in
investigations and having opened up a can of worms tracked back errors and
fraudulent practices by a series of Trustees going as far back as the 1950's
in one case! And where they were still alive, pursued them over the issue.
The best policy by far here is to have a proper Exec, including your LEADERS
and elected/ nominated members and have them all listed, and have followed
the proper paperwork. Remember, it may not be your Group that attracts the
attention, and having had a look at the CC data on Groups in your locale, if
someone at the CC got shirty, they would have a field day and you could be
collateral damage! Put your house in order and get on with Scouting.
Ewan Scott- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

It's a right cock-up, isn't it?
Maybe, if I could get GSL training, I'd know about this. However as
the greater and gooder don't seem to know or care, I think it's
endemic and probably not covered by "modules".
When I have sought advice from the greater and gooder, they glaze
over. Then ask me why I'm bothering with red tape.....!
So the answer is: do it and do it right, I guess. And be treated as a
pedant

rocoho

2010-08-31 15:11:33 UTC

Bill,
You know that you can't just ignore it. POR says LEADERS, so this applies
only to section Leaders, Assistant Leaders can be non-voting members, so
your Leader, presumable with fiscal problems in the past, can be an ASL.
She/He can also, if she wishes to be involved be a non-voting member of the
Exec.
As far as those not listing their Exec Members is concerned... they are at
fault, or they don't have large Execs. Those listed on the CC site as your
Exec will be the first stop for investigation should anything ever go wrong.
Hence a reason for NOT listing names. However, if something were to go
wrong, the CC, if they had the time and inclination, would and could track
down those it deemed to be trustees and they have them "bang to rights" for
not being registered!
If you talk to the SA about this issue, it is a widespread and problematic
situation. Many Groups think that by not registering they can be exempted
from CC rules. They are not. They are treated exactly the same as a
registered charity.
Many registered Groups only register the bare minimum Exec, either because
they don't know any better, or because they are trying to minimise
exposure - either way they are at fault.
There have been cases, in Scouting I am told, wherethe CC became involved in
investigations and having opened up a can of worms tracked back errors and
fraudulent practices by a series of Trustees going as far back as the 1950's
in one case! And where they were still alive, pursued them over the issue.
The best policy by far here is to have a proper Exec, including your LEADERS
and elected/ nominated members and have them all listed, and have followed
the proper paperwork. Remember, it may not be your Group that attracts the
attention, and having had a look at the CC data on Groups in your locale, if
someone at the CC got shirty, they would have a field day and you could be
collateral damage! Put your house in order and get on with Scouting.
Ewan Scott- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

In all honesty I don't think any gsl training will help that much,not
these days traings been dumb 'd down . Have you tried the county
training manager.

Its a bit like government of this country - make loads of rules /
laws and proceedures. loads of high level appointments directors of
this and that , expand the county appointments , to such an extent it
cannot be policed / controlled .
Put it on computers that are frequently not accessable and so on

Do what you think is right from your own research.

Ewan Scott

2010-08-31 16:45:46 UTC

Post by bill
Maybe, if I could get GSL training, I'd know about this. However as
the greater and gooder don't seem to know or care, I think it's
endemic and probably not covered by "modules".

It is one of those things that was whizzed past. However, I hope that the
increased awareness of CC rules might be drivbing better training in this,
actually quite serious subject.

Along the same lines...

The Exec has a duty to maintain property...

The Group has public liability insurance, so doesn't worry over much about
the odd loose slate.

The loose slates are recorded but nothing is done.

The slate falls off and damages a parked car.

Insurance company says, you failed in your duty to maintain the building, so
we will not pay out. Trustees end up having to pay damages.

Oh, but you can get Trustee insurance policies.

Yes, but they do not protect you if you fail to perform your duties
diligently.

Is that covered in GSL training? Not as far as I am aware.

Ewan Scott

GAGS

2010-09-01 08:23:25 UTC

Post by bill
Indeed - hence my dilemma. One I'm going to ignore, I think.
Leaders are too valuable, so she's an acting leader, or whatever.
Anything to avoid law is a ass stuff!

Bill,
You know that you can't just ignore it. POR says LEADERS,

It says 'All Section Leaders' but hey, let's not split hairs! I knew
what you meant. :-)

Post by Ewan Scott
so this applies
only to section Leaders, Assistant Leaders can be non-voting members,

No.

Assistant Leaders (e.g. ABSL, ACSL, ASL) can be full members of the
GEC. They have to be nominated, or elected, or co-opted to the GEC;
they do not have automatic membership by reason of their role as
section leaders have.

You should not have non-voting members of the GEC. You can give people
a right of attendance - the DC and DChair have this. If one is a
member then you must be able to carry out all the functions of being a
member, that includes voting. (There is no law that says a GEC member
must vote, however, they must be able to vote if they wish.) Anyone
who attends, but does not vote, is merely an 'observer'.

Post by Ewan Scott
so
your Leader, presumable with fiscal problems in the past, can be an ASL.

Correct. Were these problems not discussed/raised at appointment/
review?

Post by Ewan Scott
She/He can also, if she wishes to be involved be a non-voting member of the
Exec.

I suggest not. Strictly speaking while POR does not say there can't be
non-voting members I fail to see why not-voting makes much difference.
Sure it means they can't get resolutions through, but they could have
a strong influence if they are allowed to debate resolutions and/or
raise them. The correct interpretation of membership and voting status
is that all members can vote. There are no non-voting members. Anyone
who is at a meeting and isn't able to vote is there as an observer and
as such cannot hold any rights that members may have, i.e. not just
voting rights, but rights to raise resolutions, or the right to speak/
address the GEC unless asked by the members to do so.

Correct.

Post by Ewan Scott
If you talk to the SA about this issue, it is a widespread and problematic
situation. Many Groups think that by not registering they can be exempted
from CC rules. They are not. They are treated exactly the same as a
registered charity.

Correct. Charity law applies to all charities, registered or not.

Post by Ewan Scott
Many registered Groups only register the bare minimum Exec, either because
they don't know any better, or because they are trying to minimise
exposure - either way they are at fault.

Correct.

Quite possible.

Post by Ewan Scott
The best policy by far here is to have a proper Exec, including your LEADERS
and elected/ nominated members and have them all listed, and have followed
the proper paperwork.

Correct. (Leaders here being Section Leaders). You have an example of
this (if my e-mail got through to you!)

Post by Ewan Scott
Remember, it may not be your Group that attracts the
attention, and having had a look at the CC data on Groups in your locale, if
someone at the CC got shirty, they would have a field day and you could be
collateral damage! Put your house in order and get on with Scouting.

Correct.

GAGS

Ewan Scott

2010-09-01 11:44:28 UTC

Post by bill
Indeed - hence my dilemma. One I'm going to ignore, I think.
Leaders are too valuable, so she's an acting leader, or whatever.
Anything to avoid law is a ass stuff!

Bill,
You know that you can't just ignore it. POR says LEADERS,

It says 'All Section Leaders' but hey, let's not split hairs! I knew
what you meant. :-)

Post by Ewan Scott
so this applies
only to section Leaders, Assistant Leaders can be non-voting members,
No.
Assistant Leaders (e.g. ABSL, ACSL, ASL) can be full members of the
GEC. They have to be nominated, or elected, or co-opted to the GEC;
they do not have automatic membership by reason of their role as
section leaders have.
You should not have non-voting members of the GEC. You can give people
a right of attendance - the DC and DChair have this. If one is a
member then you must be able to carry out all the functions of being a
member, that includes voting. (There is no law that says a GEC member
must vote, however, they must be able to vote if they wish.) Anyone
who attends, but does not vote, is merely an 'observer'.

I understand where you are coming from, but I would argue that an inclusive
Exec brings about a better atmosphere within the Group. More later...

Post by Ewan Scott
so
your Leader, presumable with fiscal problems in the past, can be an ASL.

Correct. Were these problems not discussed/raised at appointment/
review?

Post by Ewan Scott
She/He can also, if she wishes to be involved be a non-voting member of the
Exec.
I suggest not. Strictly speaking while POR does not say there can't be
non-voting members I fail to see why not-voting makes much difference.
Sure it means they can't get resolutions through, but they could have
a strong influence if they are allowed to debate resolutions and/or
raise them. The correct interpretation of membership and voting status
is that all members can vote. There are no non-voting members. Anyone
who is at a meeting and isn't able to vote is there as an observer and
as such cannot hold any rights that members may have, i.e. not just
voting rights, but rights to raise resolutions, or the right to speak/
address the GEC unless asked by the members to do so.

You say tomato...

Non-voting member or observer... I have no issue with non-voting membership/
observers being able to throw in their ideas - on the clear understanding
that since they have no legal responsibility they cannot expect others who
have that legal responsibility to be swayed by emotional argument, rather
than logic and legality.

Post by Ewan Scott
As far as those not listing their Exec Members is concerned... they are at
fault, or they don't have large Execs. Those listed on the CC site as your
Exec will be the first stop for investigation should anything ever go wrong.
Hence a reason for NOT listing names. However, if something were to go
wrong, the CC, if they had the time and inclination, would and could track
down those it deemed to be trustees and they have them "bang to rights" for
not being registered!
Correct.
If you talk to the SA about this issue, it is a widespread and problematic
situation. Many Groups think that by not registering they can be exempted
from CC rules. They are not. They are treated exactly the same as a
registered charity.
Correct. Charity law applies to all charities, registered or not.
Many registered Groups only register the bare minimum Exec, either because
they don't know any better, or because they are trying to minimise
exposure - either way they are at fault.
Correct.
There have been cases, in Scouting I am told, wherethe CC became involved in
investigations and having opened up a can of worms tracked back errors and
fraudulent practices by a series of Trustees going as far back as the 1950's
in one case! And where they were still alive, pursued them over the issue.
Quite possible.
The best policy by far here is to have a proper Exec, including your LEADERS
and elected/ nominated members and have them all listed, and have followed
the proper paperwork.
Correct. (Leaders here being Section Leaders). You have an example of
this (if my e-mail got through to you!)
Remember, it may not be your Group that attracts the
attention, and having had a look at the CC data on Groups in your locale, if
someone at the CC got shirty, they would have a field day and you could be
collateral damage! Put your house in order and get on with Scouting.
Correct.

Now then, Bill. If GAGS and myself are in so much agreement ...

Ewan Scott

bill

2010-09-01 12:01:18 UTC

Post by Ewan Scott
You say tomato...

Non-voting member or observer... I have no issue with non-voting membership/
observers being able to throw in their ideas - on the clear understanding
that since they have no legal responsibility they cannot expect others who
have that legal responsibility to be swayed by emotional argument, rather
than logic and legality.
Now then, Bill. If GAGS and myself are in so much agreement ...
Ewan Scott-

I re-read the model constitution- a nightmare document in some ways.
"Only persons aged 18 and over may be full voting members of the Group
Executive Committee because of their status as charity trustees. ".
Clearly there is an intent for non-voting members, M'lud

All of this goes to show what a mess there is, and how the untrained
can cock things up without pausing for breath. Anyway, I was told it's
ok as it's a local rule to only put GSL, Treas Sec and Chair down. So
that's alright.

See you in Court, guys...!

Ewan Scott

2010-09-01 13:11:35 UTC

Post by bill
I re-read the model constitution- a nightmare document in some ways.
"Only persons aged 18 and over may be full voting members of the Group
Executive Committee because of their status as charity trustees. ".
Clearly there is an intent for non-voting members, M'lud

Discuss....

Post by bill
All of this goes to show what a mess there is, and how the untrained
can cock things up without pausing for breath. Anyway, I was told it's
ok as it's a local rule to only put GSL, Treas Sec and Chair down. So
that's alright.

Wow! I didn't realise that as a DC and member of the District Exec I could
set aside the law of the Land. Amazing. Let's see, where can we start... Oh,
yes, don't worry about those speed cameras on Wakefield Road, all 15 of
them, because we have made it a local rule that they don't matter and you
can do 10mph over the limit without having to worry... eedjits!

Post by bill
See you in Court, guys...!

Well, only if you are representing them.... or prosecuting them :-)

Ewan Scott

Dave

2010-08-30 20:47:45 UTC

"rocoho" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1cc19809-06aa-4e13-987a-***@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

if a person cannot be a trustee , that cc law does not stop them being
a leader

I think you will find it does. An assistant no but a Section Leader is a
trustee as laid down in our rules, therefore if a person cannot be a trustee
they cannot be a section leader or a voting member of the Executive.

Outr district showed all the exec as trustees and would do so if the
charity staus had not been removed last year , because accounts not
submitted .
No way batting an eylid about it .
Lots do not seem to show all presumably in some belief that they do
not have to ,

doubt any one will care a monkeys!

Until there is a problem of course.
Incidentally, if your District failed then I'm suprised that County have not
had something to say about it as they were breaking the law. As far as I am
aware they don't remove it just for missing one year either - so must have
missed more than once unless they have started to have a clamp down.

Dave

Ewan Scott

2010-08-31 07:45:53 UTC

"> Outr district showed all the exec as trustees and would do so if the

Post by rocoho
charity staus had not been removed last year , because accounts not
submitted .

You what?!

How incompetent has your DEC been? (That'll win me friends)!

Our accounts were late or not presented for four years. When I found out we
had a problem I phoned them and they said , Fine, we've recorded that you
are dealing with the issue, don't worry.

Happily we are now up to date because "yours truly" is acting treasurer!

Ewan Scott

rocoho

2010-08-31 08:15:31 UTC

"> Outr district showed all the exec as trustees and would do so if the

charity staus had not been removed last year , because accounts not
submitted .

You what?!
How incompetent has your DEC been? (That'll win me friends)!

Totally - although this is its caused by a bank , no one else seems
really concerned, on seeking advice for my concerns from a county
paid official, I was advised to walk away from DEC " ,

This is only one omany issues in my opinion but the most important

Ewan Scott

2010-08-31 16:58:00 UTC

"> Outr district showed all the exec as trustees and would do so if the

charity staus had not been removed last year , because accounts not
submitted .

You what?!
How incompetent has your DEC been? (That'll win me friends)!
Totally - although this is its caused by a bank ," ,

Let me guess.... they won't send out statements or a letter of confirmation
of end of year balances....

I had that issue and we kicked off big time last year. This time it only
took two weeks!

Ewan Scott

rocoho

2010-08-31 18:15:54 UTC

"> Outr district showed all the exec as trustees and would do so if the

charity staus had not been removed last year , because accounts not
submitted .

You what?!
How incompetent has your DEC been? (That'll win me friends)!
Totally - although this is its caused by a bank ," ,

Let me guess.... they won't send out statements or a letter of confirmation
of end of year balances....

Pretty dam close!
O I think they sent them out, but prev treasurer moved awayhad mail
forwarded for 12 months and distroyed them , after that they went back
as not known at the address , bank has no idea where they are. Need
them to reconcile the entries . Probably it was two years worth x 11
accounts and the info has / is gradually being obtained.
Bank also lost two complete sets of mandates for I think 11 different
accounts.and all the copied identity stuff from signatures ( I hear
paperwork went to india )
wont provide statements to current DT altough local manager has been
doing print out un officially, but got into trouble for helping. In
fact the only person that has been helpful
They require a third set the mandates and signature from the ex
signatures.

hence its all moved to a different bank and is working like clockwork
and DT can acess all accounts on line to monitor how those accounts
are being used

All those previous accounts are now empty and it seems there is no
easy way of closing them

Uk gov now owns most of it and parent bank north of the border

Ewan Scott

2010-08-31 20:20:20 UTC

Post by rocoho
Uk gov now owns most of it and parent bank north of the border

Years ago, a big car dealership on the main drag into Edinburgh was shut
down by its bankers.

Before they locked up the building they put up posters with letters 8ft
high... They read "N* W*st - The bank that likes to Foreclose...."

Ewan Scott

Pete Moore

2010-08-31 21:35:01 UTC

Post by rocoho
O I think they sent them out, but prev treasurer moved awayhad mail
forwarded for 12 months and distroyed them , after that they went back
as not known at the address , bank has no idea where they are. Need
them to reconcile the entries . Probably it was two years worth x 11
accounts and the info has / is gradually being obtained.
Bank also lost two complete sets of mandates for I think 11 different
accounts.and all the copied identity stuff from signatures ( I hear
paperwork went to india )
wont provide statements to current DT altough local manager has been
doing print out un officially, but got into trouble for helping. In
fact the only person that has been helpful
They require a third set the mandates and signature from the ex
signatures.

Hey, that sounds like the kind of thing our Group's bank has been doing
for several years.

Post by rocoho
Uk gov now owns most of it and parent bank north of the border

I think it might be ;-)

I'm still confused as to how missing 2 years' worth of accounts can be
considered serious enough to get de-listed as a charity. I've seen
several with equally late returns that have not resulted in that.

rocoho

2010-08-31 07:56:49 UTC

Post by Dave
Incidentally, if your District failed then I'm suprised that County have not
had something to say about it as they were breaking the law. As far as I am
aware they don't remove it just for missing one year either - so must have
missed more than once unless they have started to have a clamp down.

More than one year , with the accounts ending mar 10 it will be 3
years , and is very very slowly being resolved by DT , who is an
experienced accountant . and we can submit with luck it is nearly
sorted, all three years required for audit, it is caused by a high
st bank.

All accounts have been replaced in another bank as the initial
accounts cannot be closed, so have been emptied, but printed
statements still missing from previous years which have prevented
audits .
County, gilwell, charity commission , bank head office , bank
chairman , banking ombudsman , FSA have been involved and are fully in
the picture, have been for some time and none appear to be able to do
anything to resolve or even help resolve the problem.
Were getting there, there is nothing wrong with the books except for
lack of audit caused by missing statements.

The point I was really making is that have a problem like this and no
one is really that concerned of if they are they are powerless to do
anything about it .

Dave

2010-08-30 20:43:01 UTC

Depends on what you are trying to change. The Scout Association have agreed
most things with the Charity Commission and you will not be able to change
much. Possibly area of operation and the fact that you are now open to gilrs
etc.

Post by bill
I am trying to establish two things- one can a section leader NOT be
on the Exec ( which must be possible I would have thought). I have a
leader who cannot be a trustee, and following POR this could be said
to preclude her from being a section leader.

Correct - the Sub Comittee have to apoint people as section leaders who fit
certain criteria - one of which is that they are eligible to be a trustee.
This is whether you are a registered charity or not - some people seem to
think if they are not registered they don't have to follow charity law.

Post by bill
two: no-one seems to list their Exec members on the CC site- either
that or everyone has an exec of three or four people.
Given POR and CC Law does anyone know if there is a consequence to NOT
showing all your trustees.

Don't know what the consequence is - but they are not giving a honest and
truthful account of the situation if they do not list them all (I am having
that problem here with a couple of Groups).

Post by bill
Thanks
Bill

Dave

Daniel Smith

2010-08-30 21:53:32 UTC

Post by Dave

Don't know what the consequence is - but they are not giving a honest and
truthful account of the situation if they do not list them all (I am having
that problem here with a couple of Groups).

Post by bill
Thanks
Bill

Dave

suggest in this case you ring the info center and ask them what they
think....
im sure that if explained the reasons they would grant an exemption from
the leader must be a trustee rule in this case

bill

2010-08-31 05:53:45 UTC

Post by Dave

Yes, we've been round this loop already. Our charitable object is
stated as "Xth Hometown Scouts" which is not correct, and our
governing document is stated as being an assignment, which is also
incorrect. Our real charitable object is [purpose of scouting] as from
POR and our governing document is the Royal Charter/ POR constitution.
Basically we know the words that should be there, but they're not
actually there.
What is there puzzles both the CC and Gilwell, although we are not the
only group with this out of date wording, I think we are the only
property holding group with it.

Dave

2010-08-30 20:49:09 UTC

Don't know what the consequence is - but they are not giving a honest and
truthful account of the situation if they do not list them all (I am having
that problem here with a couple of Groups).

Post by bill
Thanks
Bill

Dave

bill

2010-08-31 05:56:01 UTC

Post by Dave
Don't know what the consequence is - but they are not giving a honest and
truthful account of the situation if they do not list them all (I am having
that problem here with a couple of Groups).

Just take a look at the basic info for "xth random ": I think that
you'll find at most 4 trustees listed wherever "random" is. CC confirm
this is ALL they have-ie it's not just an extract.

Dave

2010-08-31 21:20:37 UTC

Just take a look at the basic info for "xth random ": I think that
you'll find at most 4 trustees listed wherever "random" is. CC confirm
this is ALL they have-ie it's not just an extract.

So presumably these Groups when completing their annual accounts and report
for the AGM they are not listing all the exec members on the annual report?

So the annual report is not correct and the AGM should have that minuted and
demand it be changed to show a true record.

If they are then what they put on CC register should tally - the CC will not
check unless there is a need.

Surely where there are discrepancies too the minutes will not tally with the
report and County should pick up on this for Districts, and Districts for
Counties.

I guess like most things though - there are no problems until ones raises
its head - like someone doing a runner with the money and they are not
listed as a trustee etc.

Ewan Scott

2010-09-01 06:38:35 UTC

You are being silly, Dave. If i put all the people who ever attended our
Group AGM in the past 17 years into one small room, you could still swing a
fairly large cat. If you put the ones who asked questions on a bus, you
would only need a tandem!

Post by bill
So the annual report is not correct and the AGM should have that minuted
and demand it be changed to show a true record.

But if they don't know, don't care...

Post by bill
If they are then what they put on CC register should tally - the CC will
not check unless there is a need.

Agreed.

Post by bill
Surely where there are discrepancies too the minutes will not tally with
the report and County should pick up on this for Districts, and Districts
for Counties.

You are having a laugh, aren't you?

Post by bill
I guess like most things though - there are no problems until ones raises
its head - like someone doing a runner with the money and they are not
listed as a trustee etc.

It isn't just the money though, it is about lots of things - property
maintenance, asset management, funding, ensuring the Group operates to its
aim and method. So, a Scout Group which gradually levitated itself to
become, for argument's sake, a kayaking club where kayaking was the prime
activity and the main reason for people joining, would be in breach of its
constitution and funds donated/ raised might be considered to have been
fraudulently acquired.

It is about managing the trustees to ensure that they are who they say they
are and that they are fit and proper people for the job, and that they
understand their roles. We had a chairman resign when he had the duties and
responsibilities explained to him. He didn't like the idea of being liable
for the building... yet if his committee ensured the building was safe and
sound he had nothing to worry about. My thoughts were that if a Trustee is
worried about the liabilities to that extent, then they are not prepared to
do the job properly in the first place and should not be Trustees.

I digress.

Ewan Scott

Pete Moore

2010-09-01 20:43:31 UTC

Post by Ewan Scott
My thoughts
were that if a Trustee is worried about the liabilities to that extent,
then they are not prepared to do the job properly in the first place and
should not be Trustees.
I digress.

bill

2010-09-01 21:25:58 UTC

I want to find a bit of paper that's short enough for people to really
read, with a form on the end for trustees to sign to say "I understood
it". Yes, I know about CC3a but it's not really succinct- I need
bullet points and then explanation.Anyone got a page like this, pls?

Ewan Scott

2010-09-02 06:31:08 UTC

I'll digress with you. I've always argued that any prospective Exec
member has to be made aware *before* becoming part of the Exec (and
therefore a Trustee) what their legal responsibilities would be. It's
not good enough to get someone involved to help with, for example, a bit
of fund-raising and then maybe let them know about a Trustee's
responsibilities if they ask.
I want to find a bit of paper that's short enough for people to really
read, with a form on the end for trustees to sign to say "I understood
it". Yes, I know about CC3a but it's not really succinct- I need
bullet points and then explanation.Anyone got a page like this, pls?

Bill,

How can CC3 The Essential Trustee not be succinct enough? It has short , to
the point answers, and longer more detailed answers. If you reduce this to
bullet points, you had better be absolutely spot on. I'd suggest that if a
candidate won't take in the information in CC3 then they are probably not
suitable to be a Trustee.

Ewan Scott

bill

2010-09-02 11:00:02 UTC

Bill,
How can CC3 The Essential Trustee not be succinct enough? It has short , to
the point answers, and longer more detailed answers. If you reduce this to
bullet points, you had better be absolutely spot on. I'd suggest that if a
candidate won't take in the information in CC3 then they are probably not
suitable to be a Trustee.
Ewan Scott- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

you're probably right.
But what I'd like is a form that summarises CC3, and has a bit at the
bottom that says "I've read the above and CC3, and I understand them"
I guess.
I'm a coward; I've a lot of experience of people signing things that
say "I've read it" when -actually- they can't be bothered or are too
busy etc.

Ewan Scott

2010-09-02 06:27:42 UTC

Post by Pete Moore

I agree entirely, and so does the Charity Commission. However, it does
recognise that many smaller charities are operated by well intention people
who have little or no grasp of the legalities. Indeed, for many, this may be
the first time that they have ever had to deal with anything quite so
complex on this level. So, they do make the information available, and in
plain English.

I recommend that all new Trustees read the CC booklet The Essential Trustee
before taking on their role, and that they also read the relevant section in
POR, Group/ District/ County...

Ewan Scott

SBR

2010-09-02 05:54:06 UTC

Post by Ewan Scott
You are being silly, Dave. If i put all the people who ever attended our
Group AGM in the past 17 years into one small room, you could still swing
a fairly large cat. If you put the ones who asked questions on a bus, you
would only need a tandem!

Swing the cat by all means, but fer chrissakes don't put it in a wheelie bin
after!

--
Stephen Rainsbury
DESC Gillingham, Kent
www.gillinghamscouts.org.uk

Grant Mitchell

2010-08-31 21:12:32 UTC

Ours are all shown. (Or rather, an out-of-date list is shown since it's
taken from the previous year's Annual Return).

Grant
ASL, 1st Disley

GAGS

2010-09-01 07:55:14 UTC

Post by bill
Thanks to all for advice over previous query-

You're welcome.

Post by bill
lots of groups have
wrong info on CC website, it seems. I still can't find how to put ours
right but have people working on it.

It can take time but keep pushing them.

Post by bill
I must emphasise that it's not the factual situation that's wrong for
us, but the words on CC site don't reflect that situation.

If the words are wrong...

A section leader has an ex officio position on the GEC, i.e. he or she
is automatically a member of that committee by virtue of the fact that
he or she holds the role of section leader. It's the role that has the
trustee position and thus anyone in that role is a trustee.

To be a section leader you have to be 'fit' for the role. Part of that
'fitness' is the ability to act as a trustee. Thus if she is not
allowed to be a trustee, she is not allowed to be a section leader (or
AGSL or GSL), but she can be an Assistant leader.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but it's what the rules say.

She should step down from the role. (I assume that she became
ineligible after she was made section leader?) It is an offence to
knowingly act as a trustee when you are barred from holding that role.

(I'm sure she's a wonderful leader. I'm just quoting the rules.)

IIRC, you are required to list all your trustees in your annual report
(registered charity or otherwise) and their term of office (unless
that is obvious, e.g. annually re-elected/appointed)

Consequences would depend on what goes 'wrong' and the involvement of
the trustees.

Regards,

GAGS

bill

2010-09-01 11:20:31 UTC

Post by GAGS
She should step down from the role. (I assume that she became
ineligible after she was made section leader?) It is an offence to
knowingly act as a trustee when you are barred from holding that role.
(I'm sure she's a wonderful leader. I'm just quoting the rules.)

I wonder why an appointments committee I know of never asks questions
about trusteeship; or why a scouter in charge I know of appointed
someone who was known to be ineligible to be a trustee as a section
leader?

Ah, the mysteries of life......!

Ewan Scott

2010-09-01 11:48:23 UTC

Because the AAC is a sub committee of an Exec that appears not to understand
its duties and liabilities.

There is no such role as Scouter in Charge. Where there is no GSL, the
acting GSL is the DC - end of discussion. So, the appointment of an
ineligible trustee was, as it were doubly illegal as since the SIC has no
role, he cannot appoint a tooth fairy never mind a Trustee.

Ewan Scott

bill

2010-09-01 11:53:51 UTC

Because the AAC is a sub committee of an Exec that appears not to understand
its duties and liabilities.
There is no such role as Scouter in Charge. Where there is no GSL, the
acting GSL is the DC - end of discussion. So, the appointment of an
ineligible trustee was, as it were doubly illegal as since the SIC has no
role, he cannot appoint a tooth fairy never mind a Trustee.
Ewan Scott- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I used the term to mean an SL who was held out to be GSL (and was thus
untrained for the role in any way)

Ewan Scott

2010-09-01 13:13:17 UTC

Post by Ewan Scott
There is no such role as Scouter in Charge. Where there is no GSL, the
acting GSL is the DC - end of discussion. So, the appointment of an
ineligible trustee was, as it were doubly illegal as since the SIC has no
role, he cannot appoint a tooth fairy never mind a Trustee.
- Show quoted text -

I used the term to mean an SL who was held out to be GSL (and was thus
untrained for the role in any way)

Being in pedant mode, he couldn't be. You either are or you are not...
but you know that.

Ewan Scott

GAGS

2010-09-02 04:23:35 UTC