Charities in Twitter storm over balloon releases
24 May 2012
Charities are being urged to abandon balloon releases in a Twitter a campaign.
The Shaw Trust paid out £915,000 in severance payments during 2009/10 to 15 employees who earned salaries of £60,000 or more, its latest annual report reveals.
The ‘emoluments’ table on page 30 of the report shows that one employee was paid a total package, including salary, bonuses, benefits-in-kind, car allowance, payments in lieu of notice and redundancy, of between £210,000 and £220,000.
Two people took home total packages, including severance payments, of £190,000 to £200,000, and one person each was paid between £170,000 and £180,000, and £130,000 to £140,000.
The charity confirmed to Civil Society that in total, 15 employees whose total emoluments exceeded £60,000 did receive redundancy and/or payments in lieu of notice, and the total amount of these payments was £915,000. This was a large jump from the year before, when just £95,000 was paid out in severance payments.
The Trust declined to provide details of which staff were made redundant and why. A spokeswoman said: “Not all of these were senior staff and we do not think it appropriate for specific information regarding the emoluments of individuals to be placed in the public domain.
“The reasons that the individual staff members were made redundant are varied.”
When chief executive Sally Burton (pictured) joined the Trust in late 2009, she instigated a new strategy and set about hiring lots of new talent in the top team. When Civil Society interviewed her in February 2010, she had already moved former retail director Nick Mason into a new role of director of business and performance and made Stuart Knowles, previously in charge of programmes as director of employment, the new chief operating officer. But several key roles remained filled by interims; chief financial officer, commercial director, director of workforce and organisational development and head of retail. Most of these appointments were made by June last year.
The Shaw Trust had record income during the year of £96.6m, up from £81m the previous year. It employed 2,552 people (averaged throughout the year), virtually unchanged from 2009 (2,562 staff). However, its wages bill rose significantly – from £47.5m in 2009 to £53.7m in 2010.
For the third year running, the Trust featured in the Top 100 Employers Guide sponsored by the Corporate Research Foundation. It was also ranked 41st in the Stonewall Workplace Equality Index, up six places from the year before.
24 May 2012
Charities are being urged to abandon balloon releases in a Twitter a campaign.
23 May 2012
The Institute of Fundraising is to replace its 28 codes of fundraising practice with a single code and...
23 May 2012
A theatre company run by war veterans charity Stoll has partnered with the Royal Shakespeare Company Open...
24 May 2012
The Charity Tribunal has upheld the Charity Commission’s decision to allow two independent schools in...
24 May 2012
A consultation launched by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has been criticised for...
24 May 2012
Missing People is hoping to track down missing children using Twitter.
24 May 2012
Charities are being urged to abandon balloon releases in a Twitter a campaign.
24 May 2012
Missing People is hoping to track down missing children using Twitter.
21 May 2012
Marie Curie Cancer Care has officially opened its new national support centre in Pontypool, Wales, creating...
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
15 Oct 2012
19 Nov 2012
Nigel Edward-Few
Chief Executive
20 Apr 2011
How dare the Shaw Trust decline to provide details of which staff were made redundant and why and “Not all of these were senior staff and we do not think it appropriate for specific information regarding the emoluments of individuals to be placed in the public domain".
Does it not occur to said spokesperson that the Shaw Trust is not a private company but a public charity dependent on the generosity and support of their supporters who have a right to know such details? Shouldn't the Charity Commission not have a right to know also?
She also says, “The reasons that the individual staff members were made redundant are varied.” There are only three significant reasons for redundancy - a lack of funding for the posts concerned, an unreasonable relocation requirement or related to the second perhaps, that the role in which the person worked or a significant part of it is no longer required. All of these are legitimate and should be published.
I am getting fed up with yet another passive pay off scandal. When is this going to stop? How many more such situations will cause a diminution of confidence in our sector?
If said terminations are outside of this, why was their employment discontinued - was it that their faces no longer fitted, were they dimissed for misconduct or incompetence? If so, then they were not redundant.
[Reply]