Latest jobs
Jobs of the week
- International Director of Programmes, TPP Not for Profit
- £60000 per annum + (inc of Geographic Allowance), Pension, City of London
- Funding and Development Manager, ARK Schools
- Highly Competitive Remuneration, Central London
- Fundraising Manager, NFP Resourcing
- £27829 - £37281 per annum, Leicestershire
- Major Donor Manager, Prospectus
- £30,000 - £33,000,
- Marketing & Events Manager, Shoreditch Town Hall Trust
- £28k - £30k, Shoreditch
Famous names
Daniel Roche supports environmental organisation Wren's Biodiversity Action Fund
Report says charities should not be required to disclose expenses
By Mathew Little, Third Sector Online, 3 March 2010
credit cards
Independent Expert Group on Expenses says compulsory disclosure 'could damage public trust'
Charities should not be required to publish the expenses of their staff or individual trustees, the Independent Expert Group on Expenses has recommended.
The group, which was set up by the NCVO and the Charity Finance Directors' Group in the wake of the MPs' expenses scandal, concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to justify a "wholesale expansion of expenses disclosure" in the sector.
"We found little indication from the Charity Commission or from those with an overarching view of the sector that widespread public concern about expenses exists either within the sector or on the part of the general public," the report says.
Greater disclosure might lead to misinterpretation or suspicion and damage public trust and confidence, the report says.
But it adds that there will often be reasons why disclosure is desirable for individual charities. "We encourage trustees to consider whether, in the context of their own organisations and in the interest of their stakeholders, they should go further and disclose the expenses of individual trustees and senior managers," it says.
The group, chaired by former charity commissioner Lindsay Driscoll, reminded charities that are required to comply with the Statement of Recommended Practice on Accounting by Charities, or Sorp, that they are obliged to disclose the total amount of trustee expenses, the nature of the expenses and the number of trustees involved.
The Charity Commission should review the level of compliance with these Sorp requirements, the panel also recommended.
You must log in to comment on articles.
You are reading Third Sector Daily, the free breaking news bulletin that delivers the top stories affecting charities, voluntary organisations and social enterprises every working day.
You must be logged in to make full use of all the site content and features.
All Comments Make a comment
Mark Waterfield, 3 March 2010, 11:59
I am surprised that the report says..."Greater disclosure might lead to misinterpretation or suspicion and damage public trust and confidence,"
This has to be A FIRST that increased transparency might leads to suspicion and damage public trust and confidence.
I am sure that there was insufficent evidence....... we do not know all of the facts.
It is notable that the view about the public's concern came not from the research from a representative group of the public but from the Charity Commission or from those with an overarching view of the sector.
There may not be WIDESPREAD concern but perhaps there only needs to be concern?
[Report this post]
Marian Stead, 3 March 2010, 12:10
As a member of staff, I would have no hesitation in making details of expenses paid by our charity available to a member of the public. I am confident that the committee of management would not object either unless the demand for this information was so great that it affected the running of the charity. It is after all PUBLIC MONEY we spend and we should be accountable.
[Report this post]
Tim , 3 March 2010, 13:23
If this group is "independent" then I am a fishfinger. The reluctance of charity to observe principles of transparency and accountability is backward and unacceptable. It is findings such as these that will cause 'suspicion and damage public trust and confidence.'
[Report this post]
carl allen, 3 March 2010, 13:52
A considered work on what constitutes transparency and accountability with an unspoken view of public ability to deal with information. Or should that be the sector's inability to communicate information properly?
[Report this post]
John Broadhurst, 4 March 2010, 06:39
There is already suspicion and distrust. This attempt to justify a cover up has an unfortunate resonance with the attitude of parliament not so long ago,
The arrogant attitude of people paid with public money, that the public is too stupid to undestand anything is insulting. They have no problem taking money from us cretins.
[Report this post]
pauline Bradbury, 5 March 2010, 09:29
I have been involved with a charity where discrimination is rife and the large amounts of money the trustees have in expenses are not itemised. It is time that charities realise that it is not the trustees that make a charity work it is the volunteers and public money. The charities have an obligation to let everyone know where the money is going and to be totally transparent. It is not accdeptable to use a position within a charity as another career in which to earn money.
[Report this post]
Bill Steel, 6 March 2010, 16:42
I Think that open accounts are trusted accounts.
We should not have to worry about trustees "Drinking the Profits" and trustees should be happy to share
[Report this post]
Stephen Cook, 8 March 2010, 14:16
Mark Waterfield is spot on with his observation that the glaring omission in the report is any attempt to capture the public's point of view. And why didn't the authors canvass the public? Why, it's our old friend public ignorance again! Chapter 3 of the report says they decided that "given the widespread public misunderstandings that exist regarding the claiming of expenses and remuneration of individuals in the sector, we doubted that a simple and cost-effective survey could be devised that would provide results we could interpret confidently and consistently." No evidence is given about these widespread misunderstandings. Instead the authors decided to measure public concern by asking the Charity Commission, the Office of the Third Sector and bodies such as the NCVO. So it does begin to look like a bit of an inside job. For more on this, see tomorrow's editorial in Third Sector.
[Report this post]
Catherine Clark, 10 March 2010, 16:11
Charities operate in the public trust and they receive significant tax benefits for doing so. Of course expenses should be revealed. If that's a problem then ... there's a problem!
[Report this post]
Anne Wade, 13 March 2010, 00:22
Let me see, disclosure, freedom of information, full accountability - this would upset us and make us suspicious? Just how does that work? 'Greater disclosure might lead to misinterpretation or suspicion' - should we try that on our tax returns?
And if a charity which has always been open has been subverted, and has changed into something secretive, members have no powers to insist on answers, because the CC are overloaded and refuse to listen to concerns: they just 'encourage' the trustees to 'consider' disclosure. And that is OK with this 'expert group'? Where did they get this evidence? Who did they ask, where were the questions publicised, where is the public response? Who are they? Who gave them the authority to write such nonsense?
Anne Wade
[Report this post]