1st October 2016
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

Audit chairman claims the trust changes are necessary

4 comments, , by , in News

The chairman of Shetland Charitable Trust’s audit and governance advisory committee, Keith Massey, sets out why he sees changes within the trust as necessary.

Keith Massey

Keith Massey

My purpose in this article is to clear up some of the misunderstandings that have arisen in public and media discussion of the latest reforms to Shetland Charitable Trust.

Firstly, I would like to emphasise that the decisions made at the trust’s most recent meeting on 12th May – including reducing the number of councillor-trustees from seven to four while taking steps to broaden both the age and gender diversity of trustees – require approval from the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator (OSCR).

Before we seek approval from OSCR, the trust’s chief executive and I will begin a formal consultation with Shetland Islands Council on the terms of the governance review and the number of councillor-trustees in particular.

In line with standard practice, as part of its approval process OSCR will invite members of the public to submit their comments.

Trustees took the view that this was more appropriate than the trust itself carrying out an expensive public consultation at a time of austerity, especially given that no fundamental changes were being proposed.

The trust, which was set up by the council to manage the disturbance payments made by the oil industry, has for more than a decade been distancing itself structurally from the council while continuing to work with the local authority for the benefit of everyone in the islands.

That is a result of the evolution of charity law in this country, which now proscribes conflicts of interest, whether those of a councillor who sits on the trust or an appointed trustee who may be seen to represent a group or any other vested interest.

•  In 2003, the name changed from the Shetland Islands Council Charitable Trust to the Shetland Charitable Trust and the trust employed its own staff.

• In 2012, the make-up of the trust was changed from 22 councillors and two appointees to seven councillor-trustees and eight appointed trustees.

The latest changes emanate from a condition that was agreed in 2012 to conduct an independent review of the performance of the new arrangements within three years.

This review began in August last year. The Institute of Directors Scotland (IoD) won a tender to carry it out, overseen by trustees and officers. An extensive series of interviews and discussions were held and detailed reports produced.

A fundamental point emphasised repeatedly during the review process was that the combination of councillor-trustees and appointed trustees had worked well, with difficulties on only a handful of occasions.

Similarly, it was clear that there had been no “us” and “them” split between councillor-trustees and appointed trustees.

All aspects of trust governance highlighted by the IoD, including election versus selection, were considered by trustees, and a consensus developed around the recommendations that were made in the final report.

Yes, amendments were not permitted by our admin regulations, but trustees were entirely free to support or reject the recommendations, or indeed propose an alternative for officers to take away and consider (before bringing new recommendations to a future trust meeting).

While individual trustees have different views on how the board should be chosen, one thing that has become evident to me in undertaking this review is how the trust is united behind seeking a fairer and more comprehensive representation of the people of Shetland.

The reality is that with such a wide-ranging trust deed as ours, institutional conflicts will remain a fact of life in such a small population.

However, we have a duty to ensure that as broad as possible a cross-section of that population sits on the board and we will now begin work on detailed proposals for achieving this.

Finally, it is worth remembering that the trust has charity status for a very good reason – to maximise the financial benefits of the funds to Shetland. Were it not a charity, the trust would be obliged to hand over a large chunk of income to the UK Treasury every year.

This means that while its origins may be unique, the trust today is far from unique in how it must operate under the regulatory troika of OSCR, HMRC and its own auditors.

One of the many consequences of this tight regulatory framework is that the trust is discouraged from conducting its business through the media. It has been very frustrating for trustees that only part of the story could be told. Now the facts have been set straight.

4 comments

  1. John Tulloch

    The point was laboured during the trust meeting that the trust is accountable to OSCR and not the Shetland public.

    That is a red herring. Accountable in law to OSCR it may be, just as SIC is accountable to Audit Scotland. Yet the SIC is democratically accountable to the Shetland public for its actions.

    SIC is accountable to the Shetland people and must operate within the law.

    The charitable trust is no different, except that the money involved is a capital asset which actually belongs to the Shetland people, not to the trustees.

    Reply
  2. Jonathan Wills

    My friend and colleague Keith Massey wants “fairer and more comprehensive representation of the people of Shetland” on the charitable trust. This is a laudable aim.
    However, if councillors should not be trustees any more (and they shouldn’t, because the council is a beneficiary of the trust) then the only method I know of achieving “representation” is by the public having a direct vote for the majority of trusteeships. Anything else is surely either co-option or consultation.
    The bizarre thing is that, by writing this letter, I risk being thrown off the trust for breaching corporate confidentiality. There are some amongst us who find abhorrent the idea of trustees publicly debating issues in the media. They think it “brings the trust into disrepute”.
    On the contrary, the current debate is necessary and beneficial for the Shetland people’s trust.
    Unlike some people, I have a mandate to do this. In 2012 I was re-elected as a councillor on a manifesto to “campaign for a directly elected, democratic majority on the Shetland Charitable Trust”. So I intend to continue making public comment on the future of the trust and I defy anyone who tries to stop me.
    Councillor Jonathan Wills

    Reply
  3. Heather Butler

    Once again it is clear to me that the Trust set up was for the benefit of Shetland. There is a need for the local population to be included and involved in any possible decisions that may be made. Again it seems to me that we have elected those Councillors who gave a clear message that they will work on our behalf. In other words, carry out our wishes.
    There are too many advisers of a non elected variety.

    Reply
    • John Tulloch

      Indeed, Heather, democratic accountability is key.

      The SCT money belongs to the people of Shetland, not to SCT trustees and certainly not to the Scottish or UK government.

      Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.