Sunday, 22 November 2015
Saturday, 21 November 2015
Trusties and Trustees
Definitions:
A trustee is a member of a board elected or appointed to oversee the policy and management of an institution.
A trusty is a prisoner who is given special privileges or responsibilities in return for good behaviour, i.e. one who won't give any trouble or rock the boat.
Two quite different things as we see, though in some cases elements of the second may be considered by managers as desirable qualities in the first.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust has a board of trustees, a fact which came into focus when we realised that some of the trustees were instrumental in calling for a halt to tree felling in Sheffield streets while remaining silent on tree felling carried out by SRWT itself on Blacka.
Trustees of charities like SRWT have much in common with school governors a group singled out for comment by the Chief Inspector of Schools the other day. Too many of them he said are 'unfit for purpose' and signing up to 'boost their CVs'.
The way trustees go about their work is often veiled in secrecy. The Chair may take a prominent role in some cases but other trustees may know little of what's going on. A small sub-group may be taking on a sort of scrutiny role which is then rubber stamped by the other less-involved members. Really we just don't know because transparency is not a word used in private charities.
Even members of a charity may have no right to know what is going on. A friend who was a member of SRWT tried to get to know more by asking to see Board of Trustee minutes. He was told that he could ask a question at the AGM (which he couldn't do because he looked after a chronically sick parent). This is probably what the management and chair of trustees judges to be OK for the vast majority of their members whose general ignorance of what's going on is a welcome counterweight to those annoying people like some we know who misguidedly believe that the right thing should not only be done but seen to be done. Really, some people.
There have been recent changes to SRWT's trustees. The members of the board a year ago were as referred to in this post. The present members can be found on this webpage.
The outgoing chair, Anne Ashe is quoted as saying “I’ve been so glad to be involved with the Wildlife Trust on a daily basis." That being so it's an insight into where responsibility lies in everyday matters. The new chair has apparently spent a lot of his time sitting on boards and committees from the profile displayed on the website almost all connected to the conservation establishment so we're unlikely to get much original perspective from that quarter. The mot juste may well be "this is the way we do it". But then we don't know anything much because transparency is conspicuous by its absence. But it's a pretty fair assumption that most decisions will be taken by the Chief Executive and the Chair between them with the other trustees only coming in later on, more like the trusties mentioned above, and the members hardly even figuring as also rans. Unless of course it's all total chaos which can't be ruled out by anyone who's watched what goes on at Blacka over the years.
A trustee is a member of a board elected or appointed to oversee the policy and management of an institution.
A trusty is a prisoner who is given special privileges or responsibilities in return for good behaviour, i.e. one who won't give any trouble or rock the boat.
Two quite different things as we see, though in some cases elements of the second may be considered by managers as desirable qualities in the first.
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust has a board of trustees, a fact which came into focus when we realised that some of the trustees were instrumental in calling for a halt to tree felling in Sheffield streets while remaining silent on tree felling carried out by SRWT itself on Blacka.
Trustees of charities like SRWT have much in common with school governors a group singled out for comment by the Chief Inspector of Schools the other day. Too many of them he said are 'unfit for purpose' and signing up to 'boost their CVs'.
The way trustees go about their work is often veiled in secrecy. The Chair may take a prominent role in some cases but other trustees may know little of what's going on. A small sub-group may be taking on a sort of scrutiny role which is then rubber stamped by the other less-involved members. Really we just don't know because transparency is not a word used in private charities.
Even members of a charity may have no right to know what is going on. A friend who was a member of SRWT tried to get to know more by asking to see Board of Trustee minutes. He was told that he could ask a question at the AGM (which he couldn't do because he looked after a chronically sick parent). This is probably what the management and chair of trustees judges to be OK for the vast majority of their members whose general ignorance of what's going on is a welcome counterweight to those annoying people like some we know who misguidedly believe that the right thing should not only be done but seen to be done. Really, some people.
There have been recent changes to SRWT's trustees. The members of the board a year ago were as referred to in this post. The present members can be found on this webpage.
The outgoing chair, Anne Ashe is quoted as saying “I’ve been so glad to be involved with the Wildlife Trust on a daily basis." That being so it's an insight into where responsibility lies in everyday matters. The new chair has apparently spent a lot of his time sitting on boards and committees from the profile displayed on the website almost all connected to the conservation establishment so we're unlikely to get much original perspective from that quarter. The mot juste may well be "this is the way we do it". But then we don't know anything much because transparency is conspicuous by its absence. But it's a pretty fair assumption that most decisions will be taken by the Chief Executive and the Chair between them with the other trustees only coming in later on, more like the trusties mentioned above, and the members hardly even figuring as also rans. Unless of course it's all total chaos which can't be ruled out by anyone who's watched what goes on at Blacka over the years.
Friday, 20 November 2015
Thursday, 19 November 2015
Fungal Distribution
Now the cold is about to arrive from the north this could be a time to appraise features of the mildness of autumn so far, in particular, fungi which are partial to milder and damp conditions. Among the weirder justifications for a generally eccentric management approach has been the claim that you have to have sheep and their waste in plenty to induce waxcap mushrooms to flourish on grassland. This has always puzzled me but I have to admit that there are numerous voices in the conservation industry who seem to believe it; but then some people believe the full moon induces madness.
Now we all know that the reason SRWT manages the inby land by crowding it with sheep is because of farm subsidies and the friends it makes them among farming interests which dominate the national park. But when you ask them why a nature reserve should have all these sheep they will tell you it's because of waxcap mushrooms.
I know this is nonsense from personal experience: the grass in my garden has far more mushrooms, including more waxcaps per square metre than there are in the inby land. So it's clearly nothing at all to do with sheep.
No sheep have grazed in my garden for 31 years unless they jump a 6 foot high fence and come in at night then disappear before sunrise after cleaning up their defecation. And I would like to bet that previous owners of the property did not keep livestock as a hobby either. Churchyards are also livestock free zones but quite likely to have waxcap mushrooms.
There used to be even more waxcaps on my lawn before mosskiller was put down on a section of it - not my decision and much to my regret.
There is one waxcap on Blacka's inby land that has not so far appeared on my lawn, an attractive red one that I would make efforts to conserve if I had a say in management.
But seeing as it occurs in an area no bigger than 15 metres by 5, the idea that you have to keep the whole 85 acres dominated by sheep and cows and their defecatory habits and devoid of wild flowers just for the sake of this one species is obviously absurd.
Now we all know that the reason SRWT manages the inby land by crowding it with sheep is because of farm subsidies and the friends it makes them among farming interests which dominate the national park. But when you ask them why a nature reserve should have all these sheep they will tell you it's because of waxcap mushrooms.
I know this is nonsense from personal experience: the grass in my garden has far more mushrooms, including more waxcaps per square metre than there are in the inby land. So it's clearly nothing at all to do with sheep.
No sheep have grazed in my garden for 31 years unless they jump a 6 foot high fence and come in at night then disappear before sunrise after cleaning up their defecation. And I would like to bet that previous owners of the property did not keep livestock as a hobby either. Churchyards are also livestock free zones but quite likely to have waxcap mushrooms.
There used to be even more waxcaps on my lawn before mosskiller was put down on a section of it - not my decision and much to my regret.
There is one waxcap on Blacka's inby land that has not so far appeared on my lawn, an attractive red one that I would make efforts to conserve if I had a say in management.
But seeing as it occurs in an area no bigger than 15 metres by 5, the idea that you have to keep the whole 85 acres dominated by sheep and cows and their defecatory habits and devoid of wild flowers just for the sake of this one species is obviously absurd.
Wednesday, 18 November 2015
Swamp at Sunrise
It's good that the rainwater here is not flowing downhill into the lowlands. But that has to be expected given that the land at this point is fairly flat. At other parts of Blacka trees have been felled on slopes creating open areas and allowing more run-off after heavy rain, not by any means good practice.
The part illustrated was a narrow path which never got like this. All changed when cows came along; they would walk along here in the morning as regular as clockwork eating the grass to each side and in the course of their activity widening the narrow path to take on the look of a wide track. There were one or two small trees that helped to soak up the excess moisture that gathered but they were cut down by conscientious SRWT people. Hence the swamp.
We really love 'em.
The part illustrated was a narrow path which never got like this. All changed when cows came along; they would walk along here in the morning as regular as clockwork eating the grass to each side and in the course of their activity widening the narrow path to take on the look of a wide track. There were one or two small trees that helped to soak up the excess moisture that gathered but they were cut down by conscientious SRWT people. Hence the swamp.
We really love 'em.
Rain Forest Threatened
Rain forests are particularly important for the health of the planet. Few of us are aware that Britain is rain forest country. So it's somewhat inconsistent to protest and campaign against the loggers destroying forest in some parts of the world and ignoring what's going on in our own back yard.
This tree may or may not be on the list of the tree destruction managers on Blacka but we should be worried for all the reasons mentioned in recent posts. It is an oak tree and it is inside the compartment that SRWT has artificially designated for heathland. A careful look will reveal that some 12 feet up the tree another plant is growing on the tree - an epiphyte in fact. As revealed in the talk on this post, epiphytes are characteristic of rain forests. How can we expect other countries in the world to respect our view on their ecosystems when even our own conservation industry is destroying trees in our uplands simply to support the conservation economy?
This tree may or may not be on the list of the tree destruction managers on Blacka but we should be worried for all the reasons mentioned in recent posts. It is an oak tree and it is inside the compartment that SRWT has artificially designated for heathland. A careful look will reveal that some 12 feet up the tree another plant is growing on the tree - an epiphyte in fact. As revealed in the talk on this post, epiphytes are characteristic of rain forests. How can we expect other countries in the world to respect our view on their ecosystems when even our own conservation industry is destroying trees in our uplands simply to support the conservation economy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)