My understanding is that the law does not place any restriction on how many Trusteeships an individual can hold, but they do have to declare anything which might create a conflict of interest. Transparency is the key work here, which is actually in short supply within the ACO, but which is something the Charity Commission is keen to promote.
How about having the Chairman of a supposed independent Charity who is also the Boss of the organisation making decisions affecting the beneficiaries of that Charity, and how the charitable funds are applied.
Ah you might say but there are other Trustees! - well some of these are also involved in that decision making process. But to mitigate against the conflict of interest, some further Trustees have been introduced, which under the TofR have probably been nominated by that same Chairman of Trustees.
I dont think Transparency is maintained when Trusteeships seem to involve individuals who are ineligible under the provisions of the revised Governance guidance in ACP11. Those appointments slip in under the radar. For what purpose we wonder?
We see what you are saying and whilst sometimes you are correct other times you talk utter drivel…
Do you and is that so?
I wonder where those figures came from? HQAC perhaps.
As paracetamol has posted, if the many who cannot see the wood from the trees, believe there was wrong-doing, they should raise a complaint with the Charity Commission - look at their website and find Report a Charity. But I think you might find there are Trustees who actually fully understand their responsibilities under the Law, and who were consistently acting in the interests of the beneficiaries.
If there was any wrong-doing the Commission has the power to open a public inquiry, even for an Excepted Charity, but to do so might reveal the HQAC hand, and I dont think they would want that, given they have a tendency to keep the lid tightly shut.
If the opposite was true this thread would have ended long, and Charity business would be managed by independent Trustees without HQAC interference, so subjective judgements without possession of the full facts is not a win- win.
There’s a difference between whether they did anything legally wrong - which there doesn’t seem to be evidence of - and morally wrong, which is clear to anyone with a set of eyes.