Charity lawyer calls for sector debate on US-style trusteeship 4

Fundraising | Vibeka Mair | 2 Nov 2011

Governance expert Lindsay Driscoll has mooted whether the UK should explore the US model for trustees, where they are expected to fundraise, find contacts who would give and donate to their charity.

Driscoll, who made the comments this week in a panel debate at the NCVO Trustee Conference, said she did not necessarily agree with the model, but added: “If you as a trustee don’t give to your charity, why would anyone else? I don’t necessarily agree with the US model. I have sat on the board of a US charity and I was surprised to get a letter from it saying I had not yet donated this year.

“But I’m interesting in exploring the idea that trustees should play a role in fundraising. Should we aim for this or any other different demands on trustees?” she asked.

Driscoll, a a consultant at Bates Wells and Braithwaite, added that US trustee charity boards follow a model called "the 3-Gs approach – give, get or get off".

"Also, the idea that donating time is the equivalent of giving money is being increasingly considered a myth by many US charities."

Directory: National Council of Voluntary Organisations (NCVO)
Who's Who: Lindsay Driscoll

Place a comment

Gary
Trustee
3 Nov 2011

By all means have the debate but its hard enough to get trustees as it is. I believe this would kill the charity sector and create a critical shortage of trustees.

I believe donating time is as useful as money after all time is money don't they say of are you saying the hundreds of hours a year I put in mean nothing.

[Reply]

Peter Jeffrey
Chairman
YMCA Guildford
2 Nov 2011

I chair a couple of charity boards and sit on 2 others. I have always assumed that for most trustees part of the brief was to give and fundraise. If you aren't giving to your charity, however small an amount, it is surely difficult to ask others too. Also as a trustee your commitment should make asking for money a natural thing to do.

BUT fundraising is not your primary aim and the focus should remain on running the charity in accordance with it's objectives. Also I would hate to see groups, such as young people, put off from becoming Trustees by a formal fundraising objective or the 3 G's approach!

[Reply]

Rowena Lewis
2010 Clore Social Fellow
Clore Social Leadership Programme
2 Nov 2011

Well done Lindsay for raising this question! Enough of the whispers amongst fundraisers and Chief Execs, and time instead for a well overdue debate.

But who will take up the challenge of faciltating this discussion..?

[Reply]

Adrian Beney
Partner
More Partnership
2 Nov 2011

This would be a good debate to have. I think it would be a mistake to run away with the idea that all US trustee boards are good at this. Yes, the private universities and arts organisations have made a great deal of mileage out of the "give, get and get off" approach, but it does not always necessarily make for good governance.

There are good examples of charities where the trustees run the charity and a separate fundraising board, operating on the 3G model, gets on with the fundraising. This works well until the fundraising board does not have enough to do fundraising, and instead becomes a discontented shadow-governing body, and in this scenario lies great unhappiness for all concerned.

Having some trustees who understand fundraising, and who give, is essential. Indeed, I do think that ALL TRUSTEES SHOULD GIVE ACCORDING TO THEIR MEANS, but I am less convinced that all trustees should be fundraisers. There is more to running a charity than fundraising.

A final anecdote: in my first fundraising job the first year of costs of a capital campaign were entirely paid for by the trustees. This was an extraordinarily powerful message to be able to give to potential donors.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.