Carrot and stick
21 May 2012
Community isn't led by government, so why wait for it to tell you what to do, protests Robert Ashton....
Share
Another coup for the camel!
My friend the camel which is the FRSB has once again got the hump!
I can hardly believe the report that the FRSB intends changing its constitution so it can adjudicate on complaints brought against non-members. Is this yet another attempt to bully and intimidate the majority of fundraising charities who refuse to join it as ‘members’ and to support its activities by paying a subscription for which they get no discernible benefit, not even a vote.
Ultimately any adjudication by the FRSB is bound to be a matter of opinion. The Institute of Fundraising Codes are themselves opinion – they are the distillation of current best practice, but they are subject to revision, a work in progress. They are not incontestable. Any judgement based on them is bound also to be a matter of opinion, and will be open to question. There is very little actual law on fundraising. The FRSB itself has no statutory foundation, and thus no protection against legal action by an aggrieved charity.
Any adjudication by FRSB against a non-member would surely have to take into account the near certainty of a legal challenge which FRSB could not afford to lose. ‘Could not afford’ not just in the sense of financial liability of the organisation or its trustees (although they might well be liable jointly and severally as the saying happily goes) but in the sense that FRSB’s reputation would be totally shot if it lost. So opinions expressed about any non-member would have to be so carefully phrased as to be meaningless, rendering the whole exercise completely pointless.
But otherwise there could be no avoiding the unedifying spectacle of the FRSB – funded with charities’ money – fighting a charity in court. How would that improve public trust and confidence in charities? It is unthinkable. The FRSB needs to think long and hard about what possible benefit could accrue which would justify the risk of this appalling outcome.
If the FRSB wants to change its constitution (and not before time, it's rubbish) how about making it democratic and letting charities be proper members, with votes at the AGM and the ability to scrutinise its accounts and its activities? That might prevent the dear old camel from coming up with any more crazy notions.
Place a comment
Alistair McLean
15 Jul 2009
At the last FRSB Board meeting on 2 July 2009, the Board debated the role that the FRSB could play in addressing non-member organisations that demonstrate poor fundraising practice which reflects badly on the sector as a whole.
To date, the FRSB has regulated members' fundraising practice, addressing those that have demonstrated standards of fundraising that are not compatible with the FRSB's Fundraising Promise or the Institute of Fundraising's Codes of Fundraising Practice directly. The FRSB also has a duty to publicise the results of any investigations and adjudications on members' fundraising.
Since its formation, the FRSB has received from the general public complaints about fundraising involving non-members and now feels it should consider playing a wider role in highlighting issues around poor fundraising practice amongst non-member charities. This is also something that has been raised by the recently formed FRSB Advisory Forum as members feel more and more frustrated that their work and the high standards in fundraising that they follow are being undermined by instances of poor practice beyond the membership. Such practice can be damaging to the sector's reputation.
The FRSB is now looking to address poor fundraising practice amongst non-member charities.The ultimate aim will be to drive up standards of best practice, to protect the reputation of the fundraising profession and to encourage more fundraising organisations to commit to these standards and sign up to self-regulation. Adjudications and the official 3-step FRSB complaint procedure will remain unique to FRSB members.
Alistair McLean, chief executive, FRSB
Peter Storey
9 Jul 2009
Oh dear, I think it's Andrew who's got the hump here.
This sort of technical argument reminds me of the debates that were around when the Buse report came out and the FRSB was conceived. These are navel-gazing process arguments; rights of representation are not the issue and they are certainly not of interest to the public. And any challenge to an FRSB decision would be seen as destructive in-fighting in the sector. Self-regulation is a matter of public perception.
I am happy that the FRSB exists to demonstrate that many charities see the need to sign up to a standard and give the public confidence in our sector.
Celina Ribeiro (64)
Jonathon Grapsas (30)
Michael Naidu (22)
Adrian Beney (20)
Andrew Scadding (20)
Niki May Young (17)
Jonathan Waddingham (15)
Suzie Who (15)
Vibeka Mair (14)
Andrew Chaggar (14)
Less +++
More +++
How to resolve your pensions problem
21 May 2012
How do you solve a problem like a pension deficit? David McHattie tackles the issue.
Pursue pension change together
15 May 2012
David Davison mounts his soapbox to call for pensions reform.
Time for charities to get real about going green
24 May 2012
Charities, like businesses should be held to account over their environmental standards, says Katy Wing.
Carrot and stick
21 May 2012
Community isn't led by government, so why wait for it to tell you what to do, protests Robert Ashton....
Two tribes - when male panelists meet female campaigners
17 May 2012
Men may have ruled the political panel, but women packed the punches from the audience in the Civil Society...
Charity Investment Conference 2012
15 Oct 2012
Charity VAT & Tax Conference 2012
15 Oct 2012
Charity Property Conference 2012
15 Oct 2012
Charity IT Conference 2012
19 Nov 2012
Contact us
Civil Society Media Limited
15 Prescott Place
London SW4 6BS
United Kingdom
Tel +44 (0)20 7819 1200
Fax +44 (0)20 7819 1201
info@civilsociety.co.uk
Co. Reg: 2855714
VAT reg no: GB 629 3702 31
Adrian Beney
16 Jul 2009
Of course I understand why Alistair McLean has used this forum to respond to Andrew Scadding's criticism of the FRSB's proposal to extend its judgements to include non-members. But the very fact that this debate is taking place on an internet forum rather than at a proper meeting illustrates one of the most fundamental problems with the constitution of the FRSB.
This is supposed to be "self-regulation" but the "self" - i.e. the charities - are largely excluded from the regulation by the completely non-representative constitution. Further, Alistair notes that "To date, the FRSB has regulated members' fundraising practice."
I think I take issue with this. It's the Charities Act and the Institute of Fundraising's Codes of Practice which provide the regulatory framework. What the FRSB does is facilitate a complaints procedure and make some judgements on whether the codes have been adhered to. Sorry - I think this thing is still a mess, and nothing short of wholesale re-constitution will sort it out.
[Reply]