Sheffield Wildlife Trust's charitable status is embedded in a Memorandum of Association which can be accessed here:
http://www.wildsheffield.com/sites/default/files/memorandum_of_association_september_2012.pdf
It also has Articles of Association
http://www.wildsheffield.com/sites/default/files/articles_of_association.pdf
The latter details the procedures and processes by which the organisation and its trustees are governed. When I wrote to the Chief Executive in December raising the lack of accountability of SWT for Sheffield citizens who collectively own the land, she said " In addition, of course, we are accountable to our membership of over 6,000 local people any one of which can contact us at any time...."
I was recently contacted by one of these 6,000 people, a member of SWT who had asked whether copies of trustees meetings were available to members. The answer came back from the Chief Executive:
"...we do not make the Board papers, agendas and minutes public or available to members – only to all Trustees as they are signed up to a ‘duty of care’ to the organisation and its charitable objectives"So much for the democratic essentials of accountability, transparency and public scrutiny.
1 comment:
So, the Board of Trustees annually fixes the number of Trustees as well as their method of election. I wonder how those conversations go - and how often there are genuine elections? Trustees can also delegate any of their functions to committees consisting of two or more individuals appointed by them, and which don't appear to have to be members. I wonder if these committee members get minutes of the Board Meetings?
I've been a Chair/Trustee of a range of charity Boards, and it never ceases to amaze me how poor is the level of democracy in the governance of the allegedly charitable conservation industry. Why does the Charity Commission accept these lower standards from them?
Post a Comment