|
SO NOW we know the headline funding figures that Canal & River Trust will be 'running' with!
Seems a huge amount, and at first look it is. But I am sat here pondering about the reality of it all and how this wonderful (in theory) Trust will actually spend it on the 'essentials' of waterway fabric maintenance, pension fund, wages and overheads.
Cost more to collect
Setting aside the 'commitment' to pension fund and staff wages which must be met. I am particularly interested in understanding how this 'pot of gold' will be utilised. We have already been shown that monies coming in from individuals, whether by membership subscriptions or otherwise will cost more to collect than actually generate in the first few years so for my current thinking that can be ignored to some degree.
In an earlier post, [in the forum] I questioned how the regional partnerships raising funds from businesses and councils etc. in their areas would promote a well-funded and managed network to an even standard throughout. My observation at that time was that regional/local partnerships worked well for the National Trust but would not do so for a national waterway system.
Highlighted
This issue was highlighted recently by a well written article in Dragonfly (The Wilts & Berks Canal Trust magazine—Winter 2011) by the Finance Director, Peter Kinsman, in answer to a direct question at their recent AGM, which asked why, when the Wilts & Berks Canal Trust appeared to have so much money 'on its books' was there under funding for projects. The answer was very interesting which I will try and put into a shortened version here.
Under Charity Law there is an obligation to report income and expenditure and financial position at any point by defined categories, which govern the way the funds may be used. The categories reported by the Wilts & Berks Canal Trust were:
- Unrestricted—those funds that trustees should spend on any of the charity's purposes. Examples of income in those funds would be member's subscriptions, donations given without specifying any particular purpose and profit from any commercial venture.
- Designated—those funds, which trustees have earmarked for a particular purpose. An example would be an Emergency Repair Fund. Whilst trustees may have designated these particular funds, they do have the authority to reassign the funds to another purpose.
- Restricted—those funds that the trustees are obliged to spend only on a particular purpose. An example of this would be funds donated for a particular purpose by individuals or bodies.
It is the third category that concerns me most. If the regional partnership raises funds for Canal & River Trust then donors may well caveat those donations to be used only in their area. This would severely hamstring Canal & River Trust in balancing work across the whole network and lead to area specific benefits to the detriment of other 'poorer' areas.
I realise that this is only one aspect of the whole funding scenario but it would be interesting to hear (without spin or platitudes) how Canal & River Trust Trustees will address this issue.
Orph Mable |
