illegal, or legal but morally wrong on charity voting
Discussion
This is the situation
A charity,lets call them charity A, has been given a bequest of over 50k from a member. At the time of writing it he suggested the trustees put it towards a project,which ,at the time, was not in existence ( lets say he suggested in 2005 putting it towards the building of a replica Aircraft and suggested several he would like to see flying) since then a project has commenced which fits his wish. Lets call this Charity B
now here is the 'dodgy' bit
Two of the trustees of chairy A are founder members of Charity B and a third is also a trustee of charity B
At a recent meemting of A's trustees it was a unanimous decision to donate a substantial amount of the bequest to Charity B
Now i thought that anyone who had vested interests i Carity B should announce them and abstain from voting. This, due to the unanimous decision wa no the case. As i asked
Legal, or have any laws been broken in voting for something they have a ested interest in?
A charity,lets call them charity A, has been given a bequest of over 50k from a member. At the time of writing it he suggested the trustees put it towards a project,which ,at the time, was not in existence ( lets say he suggested in 2005 putting it towards the building of a replica Aircraft and suggested several he would like to see flying) since then a project has commenced which fits his wish. Lets call this Charity B
now here is the 'dodgy' bit
Two of the trustees of chairy A are founder members of Charity B and a third is also a trustee of charity B
At a recent meemting of A's trustees it was a unanimous decision to donate a substantial amount of the bequest to Charity B
Now i thought that anyone who had vested interests i Carity B should announce them and abstain from voting. This, due to the unanimous decision wa no the case. As i asked
Legal, or have any laws been broken in voting for something they have a ested interest in?
silverfoxcc said:
This is the situation
A charity,lets call them charity A, has been given a bequest of over 50k from a member. At the time of writing it he suggested the trustees put it towards a project,which ,at the time, was not in existence ( lets say he suggested in 2005 putting it towards the building of a replica Aircraft and suggested several he would like to see flying) since then a project has commenced which fits his wish. Lets call this Charity B
now here is the 'dodgy' bit
Two of the trustees of chairy A are founder members of Charity B and a third is also a trustee of charity B
At a recent meemting of A's trustees it was a unanimous decision to donate a substantial amount of the bequest to Charity B
Now i thought that anyone who had vested interests i Carity B should announce them and abstain from voting. This, due to the unanimous decision wa no the case. As i asked
Legal, or have any laws been broken in voting for something they have a ested interest in?
Just to try to translate that mess to English...A charity,lets call them charity A, has been given a bequest of over 50k from a member. At the time of writing it he suggested the trustees put it towards a project,which ,at the time, was not in existence ( lets say he suggested in 2005 putting it towards the building of a replica Aircraft and suggested several he would like to see flying) since then a project has commenced which fits his wish. Lets call this Charity B
now here is the 'dodgy' bit
Two of the trustees of chairy A are founder members of Charity B and a third is also a trustee of charity B
At a recent meemting of A's trustees it was a unanimous decision to donate a substantial amount of the bequest to Charity B
Now i thought that anyone who had vested interests i Carity B should announce them and abstain from voting. This, due to the unanimous decision wa no the case. As i asked
Legal, or have any laws been broken in voting for something they have a ested interest in?
Mr X dies. He donates £50k+ to charity A. This gift has no reservations, just a "suggestion" that it goes towards a particular purpose.
Some years later, charity B is started to do that purpose.
The trustees of charity A agree for charity A to donate a similar amount to Mr X's bequest to charity B.
What, exactly, is your point...?
Not only are charity A's trustees doing something they're perfectly entitled to do, but they seem to be fulfilling Mr X's wishes, even though they had no obligation to.
You seem to think that three of charity A's trustees somehow forced all the other trustees to do their bidding - how many trustees are there?
Charity B trustees are "related parties" of Charity A. At the very least A needs to disclose in its Annual Report any payments made to B. There's also a potential conflict of interest. A should have a CoI policy and follow it in this situation. To be purer than Caesar's wife Trustees of B should not partake in any decisions made by A which have an impact on B.
But (afaik) there's nothing legally stopping them.
But (afaik) there's nothing legally stopping them.
Countdown
Thanks, you have read it correctly. Two trustees of A are involved with B, and one trustee of A is also a trustee of B. I would have expected that instead of the vote being unanimous that it should have been for example 5 for with three abstensions to make it above suspicion.
Thanks, you have read it correctly. Two trustees of A are involved with B, and one trustee of A is also a trustee of B. I would have expected that instead of the vote being unanimous that it should have been for example 5 for with three abstensions to make it above suspicion.
Charity trustees are obliged to act within the law and in the best interests of their charity. Seems to me that they have done exactly that in this case. Charity A had £50,000 for a project it wasn't doing, and therefore could do nothing with the money. They are allowed to give money to other charities as long as the aims and objectives are similar or tighter.
So no problem with money going to charity B and it allows the wishes of the original benefactor to be met. Everyone happy well in theory.
So no problem with money going to charity B and it allows the wishes of the original benefactor to be met. Everyone happy well in theory.
silverfoxcc said:
Countdown
I would have expected that instead of the vote being unanimous that it should have been for example 5 for with three abstensions to make it above suspicion.
From a governance perspective, that may have been more appropriate, but as others have stated, it seems the donor's wishes have been complied with, and that is the most important issue here.I would have expected that instead of the vote being unanimous that it should have been for example 5 for with three abstensions to make it above suspicion.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff