This is an open question for discussion - which of the following views do you tend to agree with more, and why?
a) The Commission should focus primarily on helping charities to understand the legal requirements and to run themselves effectively
OR
b) The Commission should focus primarily on dealing firmly with non-compliance with charity law
Welcome to the Charity Commission’s strategic review site. The Commission’s funding is to reduce by 33% in real terms over the next four years – a reduction of around £8 million. Cuts at this level mean we can’t just keep going as we are. We have developed this site to help you shape the Commission’s future.
a)
ReplyDeleteThere doesn't seem to be a way of answering a or b, but b is right. The Commission's job is to maintain an accurate register of charities, to see that they file reports and accounts where required, to correct breaches of trust and to give advice on specific points when asked. It is not part of its job to issue "Guidance", especially as much of its "Guidance" is wrong, or at least very dubious, in law; nor to badger hard-pressed charity trustees with paper or emails which they will probably not read, nor need to read. Cutting out these aspects of its work would probably produce the 33% saving in costs that is required.
ReplyDeleteIs that all? I would have expected a Strategic Review to ask more questions than one, but if there are any more I don't find them on this page.
ReplyDeleteB. Sadly... But someone has to do it and I don't know who else will if the CC does not.
ReplyDeleteSurely it's 'b'. The Commission is the specialist regulator; it is better placed to address non-compliance issues as oposed to any other organisation - plus the law says it has to do this. It should deal firmly with non-compliance. Though, from reading charity reports on this web-site, I get the feeling that it waters things down so much - and that it is afraid to take firm action and actually do anything when wrong doing occurs. The law gave you powers - use them more often. Guidance - well, that can come from literature (downloaded). If you waste money advising and guiding only - and people don't follow the guidance and advice, who will sort the mess out, if there is no money for dealing with non-compliance?
ReplyDeleteIf it has to be black and white then definately B. But...trustees are volunteers, it can't be all stick and no support or else what is the incentive for people to get involved? There must be free and clear guidance and support for trustees otherwise there will be more problems to sort out unwittingly made by people who are trying to do the right thing.
ReplyDeleteI think (as the other comments perhaps show in their unease of picking one or other) that this shouldn't be an either/or. In addition this assumes a traditional structure of 20, 30 or more years ago.
ReplyDeleteGiven current technologies (crowdsourcing, social networking, open data) there is another possibility -- that of lowering the barriers, and greater engagement, and using open data and the community to police itself, with the Commission acting as the judge.
In the second decade of the 20th century, it's crazy that it's so hard to find out how and where a charity spends its money, & what it's doing to carry out its charities goals and benefit the community.
Sites such as OpenCharities.org (disclosure: I'm the developer), have real potential to improve the sector for the better, and allow the Commission to both reduce its costs and increase engagement
Should we focus on explaining the law or enforcing it?
ReplyDeleteThe law explaining in not up to standard imho.
The law enforcing is not up to standard imho.
typo correction:
ReplyDeleteShould charities have to seek permission from the Charity Commission for their decisions?
The law explaining is not up to standard imho.
The law enforcing is not up to standard imho.
The Commission should do both. They are responsible to provide guidance but also ensure there is no abuse in the sector. The CC should be hard on those who are blatantly abusing the sector for personal gains or simply flaunting the law. The CC also has a duty to ensure trustees are aware of their legal duties and responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteThe question concerns the "primary" focus and within limited resources enabling charities to run effectively and comply with the law is a helpful resource for trustees and this can be can be backed up with necessary regulatory intervention.
ReplyDeleteThese two courses of action are not an "either/or" proposition. They are both core to what the CC's mission requires. There should be zero tolerance on fraudulent and corrupt activities by charities, and the CC should provide guidance that clarifies, at least, what behaviors are unacceptable. It might be necessary to strengthen and make more arbitrary some rules, eg relating to when a trustee can be paid for a service,or whether a charity can fund-raise for another charity with a different mission, even if it means that no special circumstance, which would in the past have led the CC to advise a specific charity that such an action is acceptable, will now be allowed.
ReplyDeletePS: as I understand none of the options under "Comment As" except for the last one, I am posting this anonymously. I am a trustee and an officer of a mid-size charity.
Both.
ReplyDeleteYou cant be expected to enforce the law if you are unable or not prepared to advise on its procedure.
And as a regulatory body, you cant only advise on the legalities without being able to enforce the requiremets either.
I strongly believe it's important for people to learn the laws that affect their daily lives. We are all legally bound to know every single law and statute inside out, yet even most police struggle to explain most laws.
ReplyDeleteA little sui juris goes a long way and can help prevent problems before they become issues!