Lewisham Celebrates Trustees Week

[Tim Lund]

In celebration of the good works and contributions of Trustees to the development
of voluntary and community sectors in Lewisham, Voluntary Action Lewisham and
Volunteer Centre Lewisham are organising “Trustees Evening 2010”

Date:
27th October 2010
Venue: Rooms 1 & 2
Civic Suite
Catford, Lewisham
SE6 4RU
Time: 6.30 – 8.30 p.m.

[...] members of the public that are interested in becoming Trustees are all invited to this
evening of celebrating contributions of Trustees and recruitment of new ones.

The evening will provide networking opportunities for Trustees and a chance
for anyone thinking of volunteering as a Trustee to find out more and to meet
local organisations wanting to recruit trustees or committee members. Volunteer
Centre Lewisham will be present to provide information and register those who are
interested in being Trustees.

To book a place on the event or register by email, contact mike@valewisham.org.uk
or sheila@valewisham.org.uk for further information, check http://www.valewisham.org.uk

What could they be thinking of?

Something else to think of here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trustee

[georgemichael]

Whats your point?

I've been away for a while and I want to catch up - now wheres Snappy Snaps in Sydenham?

[Tim Lund]

My point is that becoming a Trustee is a significant legal responsibility, and a whole lot more serious than the typical language of celebrating what volunteers do. Faced with the cuts, and policy from central government about localism and the 'Big Society', the Council seems suddenly to want a new crop of Trustees - who won't necessarily know what they are taking on. As per the Wikipedia entry, Trustees don't get paid, but are responsible. If we are talking about Trustees for social enterprises which are to deliver some public services previous delivered by the Council, Trustees should know that they are likely to be responsible for the hiring and firing of those who are actually going to deliver the services. So they will need some serious management experience, which is not easy to come by - and it's not an area the Council itself is necessarily very good at. Indeed, I suspect that some of the Council's interest in promoting social enterprises is as a way of shuffling off its own management responsibilities.

It's a wholly different world from being on the committee of some community group.

I have nothing against social enterprises per se, as long as they are as accountable as local authorities, and in principle I like the idea of localism. But I am not sure if the Council is really ready to work with them - or, for that matter, whether there are many people from the community up for working with the Council in making it happen. I think the Council would do better to focus simply on delivering its services more efficiently. I suspect that central government pressure for 'the Big Society' and getting social enterprises going will actually distract them from these essentials.

[simon]

Tim, I think you’re confusing social enterprises with charities. To me they are very different things. A charity is an organisation that relies on goodwill to achieve its social aims, while a social enterprise seeks to achieve its social aims through enterprise. For this reason charities have a different legal status to most social enterprises, which tend to be either not for profit companies, cooperatives, Industrial Provident Societies or Community Interests Companies. The difference is illustrated by the treatment they receive from HMRC, with charities being exempt from many of the charges that social enterprises (if constituted as one of the four examples above) are liable for. Note that the big high street charities have to set up trading arms constituted as limited companies to sell non donated good in their shops other wise they would lose their charitable tax status.

You are right that being the trustee of a company carries with it responsibilities and potential personal liabilities. That is why most social enterprises prefer a limited liability model. As well as less personal risk, the limited liability model has less of a regulatory burden. The downside is that a social enterprise that is a limited company doesn’t enjoy the tax breaks a charity does.

When it comes to social enterprises that the Council may hope to farm services to, it is highly unlikely that any takers would be charities. It is much more likely that they would be not for profit companies, limited by guarantee.

Accountability is another matter and it certainly is an issue when personal liability is removed. I’ll comment on that on your other thread on these issues.

George; enjoy your Freedom! I’m sure there’s song in there somewhere

[Tim Lund]

You're right Simon - I hadn't defined my terms, and to the extent that I implied all social enterprises had Trustees, I was wrong. My excuse is that I want to take the focus away from forms of organisation, and onto the responsibilities involved in delivering a public service - which could even be done by normal commercial enterprises - e.g. being an employer, taking charge of money and being able to account for it, etc.

It's not that I don't think forms are important, but to me the term 'social enterprise' seems too broad to be useful. The flavour-of-the-month 'Red Tory' guru Phillip Blond cites John Lewis as one such, and we could also think of the Co-op and Nationwide. At the other end of the scale, I might say my allotment association, collecting its rents, and running its Open Days is also. I believe that legally its officers are also Trustees, even though it is not a charity.

The bottom line is that anyone should start from knowing what they want to do, and only then think about what structure best suits.