This is an open question for discussion - which of the following views do you tend to agree with more, and why?
a) The Commission should investigate individual organisations only rarely and in cases where large amounts of charitable funds are at risk
OR
b) The Commission has a responsibility to investigate any case where there is prima facie evidence of a registered charity breaking charity law
Welcome to the Charity Commission’s strategic review site. The Commission’s funding is to reduce by 33% in real terms over the next four years – a reduction of around £8 million. Cuts at this level mean we can’t just keep going as we are. We have developed this site to help you shape the Commission’s future.
The Charity Act 2006 states in Part 1c2(3)that the Commission's general functions include "Identifying and investigating apparent misconduct or mismanagement in the administration of charities and taking remedial or protective action in connection with misconduct or mismanagement therein".
ReplyDeleteI guess to answer the question properly you would need to have a definitive definition of "the administration of charities". Does the administration of charity cover money? If not then option A above can not be done. Indeed the Act doesn't specify a charity "breaking charity law" - if so then option B can not be done either.
Could some what "administration of charities" actually means as this would then open the debate properly.
I'm not coming at this from the point of view of trying to comply with the law because if the law is inappropriate it should be changed - more at issue is what the role of the Charity Commission should be.
ReplyDeleteI take the view that the Charity Commission can pretty well limit itself to detecting fraud or collection of money by providing misleading information. On that role it should investigate every case that comes to its attention but it need not see every case through to prosecution - it can pass evidence to the police.
Should it investigate other issues such as poor administration? I think not. If a charity complies with the law on external reporting let the press or other campaigners point out such issues to the public.
To me prevention is better than cure and charities need to be advised of their legal obligations and encouraged to adhere to them. It is better to prevent an issue arising rather than trying to investigate and rectify it once the horse has bolted. With the limited resources available a careful balance needs to be made between prevention and investigation.
ReplyDeleteIt would be pointless, and inefficient, to attempt to investigate every infringement of Charity Law. But where there is clear evidence of financial mismanagement, these cases should be investigated by the Commission - they can cause much damage to the charity itself, and also to a charity's public profile
ReplyDeleteEvery day the news is full of scams/thefts/frauds, etc. uncovered after painstaking investigations by one authority or another. Many, it's clear, started off as apparent 'small' issues. It is the investigation of these that leads to the uncovering of the extent of things - and in turn highlights the greater risk (ie from them continuing long term, untackled - thus placing all future expenditure at risk). Option 'a' seems to imply that the Commission would look at the income/expenditure of the charity first, before looking at the alleged offence? Seriously, this would be a folly. It's not the size of the charity that reflects the risk. A serious allegation (in a medium or even smallish sized charity),may end up uncovering big issues which the Commission (the law says)should deal with. The police prosecute people sometimes for very small things - because it's their job and the public expects it. Why should a person get away with something (ie. not face a Commission investigation), if it just so happens that they are involved in a charity that is not as rich as another? Surely that's discriminatory to small charities? Surely you have to treat people equally? Surely you would create a 'cheats charter'. If you are up to no good, all you'd have to do was work in a smallish charity and you'd know that at least (if caught) you'd not be bothered by the Commission. Great message that would be - to donors, fundraisers, beneficiaries, MP's, the general public, funders, etc.
ReplyDeletea)
ReplyDeleteI would say a), but would much prefer to see the £250k incoming resources threshold below which unregulated accountants can independently examine accounts being removed in favour of professionally regulated practices. Regulated accountants are externally verified giving confidence that appropriate work is being undertaken annually and so reliance can be placed on their report and whistle blowing responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteShould we investigate every single case of breach of charity law?
ReplyDeleteThe breach definition is not strictly followed thus the investigation standard is not high with the public being cheated imho. Have an example about this.
Option B
ReplyDeleteThe level and form of regulatory investigation may vary according to the nature of the breach but to state that some breaches of Charity Law should not be investigated could call into question the value of the commission and its role. Beneficiaries, donors and other stakeholders could be deeply concerned if informed that though there is evidence of the law being breached this will not be investigated as it is not considered a significant breach.
If the Commission is going to introduce any kind of threshold for deciding what it does or doesnt look into, rather than setting a lower limit they should pass responsibility for the most serious of allegations, particularly in relation to allegations of charity links with terrorism, to the security forces or police. The Commission is not and should never be the front line in the fight against terrorism. Some commentators seem to think the Commimssion has more power than it does in such matters. The police and security forces are far better placed to deal with this.
ReplyDeleteOption B
ReplyDeleteThe level and form of regulatory investigation may vary according to the nature of the breach but to state that some breaches of Charity Law should not be investigated could call into question the value of the commission and its role. Beneficiaries, donors and other stakeholders could be deeply concerned if informed that though there is evidence of the law being breached this will not be investigated as it is not considered a significant breach.