Expenses update - a view from the top and an ex-MP

Blogs

Expenses update - a view from the top and an ex-MP 10

Governance | John Tate | 23 Jun 2009

John Tate is unconvinced that charity expenses can't be abused as easily as MPs' expense claims.

There has been some comment that a number of chief executives do not support the idea of expenses disclosure and I spoke to Jackie Ballard – CEO of the RNID - about this today.

As an ex-MP Jackie is no doubt sensitive to this issue and I am pleased to say she supports the principle of the idea – but feels that expenses information is only useful if published at a detailed level.

She also points out that it is a non-trivial issue to correctly and fully disclose expenses. For example if travel bookings are made and paid for by the charity rather than the individual should this also be disclosed? If so there would be some work required to provide all this information.

She also feels that a clear expense policy for all staff with the appropriate checks to make sure this is enforced will help overcome concerns in this area.

The good news is that former Charity Commissioner Lindsay Driscoll is to chair a new high-powered working group that will develop best practice on how charities should report the expense claims of their senior managers and trustees. The committee has been established by the NCVO and Charity Finance Directors’ Group. Hopefully this will help establish some clearer policies on this issue.

Jackie did come up with one interesting observation when comparing charity CEOs' expenses with MPs'. She suggested that there is less scope for abuse with charity CEOs' expenses as they are limited to a much smaller category of expenses items – such as travel, overnight stays and subsistence. Hence she sees a lot less scope for funding jacuzzis/duck pond homes, subsidised accommodation and the like.

But I am not convinced of this – and would be interested to hear your views on whether there are examples of this in the sector?

Directory: Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID)
Who's Who: Lindsay Driscoll | Jackie Ballard

Place a comment

Tim
1 Aug 2009

The more I read about transparency; the more it appears to mean different things to different people. Charities seem to think it ought to mean putting out information about their impact. Some think it ought to mean publishing accounts and details of expenses. These all have their place. I think that 'transparency' and 'accountability' are two words that are often lumped together, even though they are different kettles of fish. I beleive it should be paramount that charities, especially 'representative' charities are accountable to their beneficiaries. Beneficiaries should be able to contact their charities or charity trustees in the same way that constituents contact their MPs - that is what 'representative' means. RNID could and should be doing more in that direction - especially as deaf people obviously have existing communication difficulties. E-surgeries and a general forum are two ways to do this. While transparency is important, it should not eclipse accountability.

[Reply]

MM
1 Aug 2009

Ms Ballard is fudging the answer. Who books travel arrangements first consults the person travelling, I have no hesitation in saying if the RNID booked her into a B&B downtown to save money, she would be first to insist this is a bad 'image' for a CEO of a major charity herself.

We saw for example the RNID flying in a Scottish audiologist for a 32- minute speech at Cardiff, totally uneccessary and, totally irrelevant to the occasion too, but nice work if you can get it. The RNID is ALL about image.

[Reply]

Ann Searcy
22 Jul 2009

In answer to CLIVE (above): What on earth are you talking about?

I am a carer and I have been a member of Carers UK for some time and I know Imelda personally. Carers UK is exemplary in delivering excellent services for carers through campaigning for their needs on a very low income - look at other charities' income and see what they deliver.

Imelda is hard working and could get a lot more salary if she chose to be in the private sector, but she doesn't. She believes and works passionately to change the landscape for carers. I haven't seen her expenses but if you study the accounts, they must be very low. How on earth you can compare her expenses to those of an MP is beyond me. I have noticed that you spend all your time picking on Imelda and Carers UK, it's obvious that you have an axe to grind, so please air your demented ravings elsewhere from now on!

[Reply]

Clive
21 Jul 2009

I fail to understand the need to hide expense details. I've been trying to find the details of the CEO of Carers UK's (Imelda Redmond) expenses but the reluctance to be 'open' and honest astounds me. As a carer myself I want to know the financial details of the people that 'claim' to represent or speak for me, this particular charity will not disclose anything and if they fail to supply details asked then I view them with suspicion.

Yes Richard W, I believe there is a bandwagon, and it will run and run until someone exposes who exactly is on it.

[Reply]

Ians1
21 Jul 2009

This is only the tip of what I suspect is a rather big and fishy smelling iceberg. Many large charities operate limited companies and it is the details of the people employed by these that are often obfuscated and deliberately posted at Companies House in a misleading way.

In a recent FOI request to the Charity Commission they refused to supply details of ALL companies registered to UK charities. Very shortly the Charity Commission will take over a special class of limited company that will completely bar the public's prying eyes from these big lucrative money-making "charities". How convenient for them. There is a huge gravy train going on with charities and it's about time it stopped.

[Reply]

Whistleblower
12 Jul 2009

I wonder how many charity shop workers realise how many senior people within that same charity feel they MUST claim first class on trains?

[Reply]

Richard W
2 Jul 2009

I can spot a bandwagon when I see one - wonder how long it will run?

[Reply]

Andy
26 Jun 2009

I agree with Bev Cross. The devil will be in the detail. Five star instead of business class, first class on trains instead of a normal ticket. Taxis everywhere and at London prices that soon adds up.

Extra-expensive lunches even if for visiting dignitaries. I don't suggest that they go to Fred's Caff but they tend to have functions at the Ritz at £100 a plate. You said : "She also points out that it is a non-trivial issue to correctly and fully disclose expenses.

For example if travel bookings are made and paid for by the charity rather than the individual should this also be disclosed? If so there would be some work required to provide all this information." Scuse me if I am wrong but I thought that's what the accountants did? Surely the auditors will make at least some checks that expenses claims are authentic, if only to satisfy the Charity Commission rules.

The expenses will have been included in the accounts so all they have to do is include the listing. Another possible abuse of funds is when people in charities give employment to their friends and relatives. In one case I know of a woman, her partner and his and her friends were all working for the same charity. This is the equivalent of MP's employing their friends and family.

[Reply]

John S
24 Jun 2009

The accounts, including the expenses, of all major charities are subject to external audit. I am happy to give to charities of my choice. The expenses paid to MPs were not subject to any effective check. I distrust my MP.

[Reply]

Bev Cross
24 Jun 2009

I have been a charity lawyer for over 20 years. By law, all charity expenditure must be in furtherance of its objects. This includes payment of staff expenses - but only those incurred in or connected with carrying out their duties as the charity's employees.

Criticism of CEO expenses (if any) would probably centre around how much is spent rather than on what. For example, did s/he really need to stay at the Dorchester during that London visit for the charity rather than a B&B? Did s/he really need to travel first class everywhere on the charity's business?

[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.