New on our blog |
Adam Rothwell
- Thursday, September 11, 2008
With 3.5 million members, 50,000 volunteers, and an annual turnover of £350m, the National Trust is impressive by anyone’s standards. But what makes it really outstanding is how seriously it takes criticism.This might seem an odd thing to say, given the Trust’s distinguished history of conserving old houses and bits of countryside. But lots of charities do sterling work looking after Olde England. Very few, however, have such an open and accountable attitude to their work. I know about this because I’m a member of the Trust. Yesterday, their members’ magazine flopped onto my doormat, and, just as I was chucking away the mountain of flyers that fell from its pages, I noticed a rather more serious looking document amongst the junk. I was intrigued. The document asked me (in rather large letters) to “Vote for your Trust,” and contained an invite to the Trust’s AGM in November. It also told me that I could vote on the AGM’s resolutions in advance, either online or by post, and contained nifty summaries of all the questions that were being put to a vote at the Meeting. Stunningly – for a charity known for its conservatism – it also revealed that the AGM’s proceedings would be broadcast live over the internet. And the AGM looks about as exciting as an AGM can get. Amongst the resolutions I was asked to vote on, one was proposed by a band of disgruntled members, asking for a major project to be scrapped. And another asked for the sacking of the Trust’s staff responsible for instigating the project. Blimey. Each of the Trust’s members gets the chance to vote on each of these issues. It’s a pretty safe bet that most of them won’t. But the fact that the Trust gives them the chance demonstrates, I think, an admirable and open attitude to decision-making. So far as I know, most charities don't give their members this sort of input. Mostly, they’re content to use their members as a source to tap for easy cash. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course. But wouldn’t it be so much better if more charities were like the Trust? Don't give the National Trust too much credit! What they don't tell you is that the Trusts chairman can use his proxy block vote to sway motions voted at in the AGM (he usually has thousands). Doubtful he is going to vote for their own development to be scrapped or his buddies to be sacked. Just a slight conflict of interest me thinks but that doesn't seem to bother them. rspcacambridge, that's a really interesting point. I think a lot of people are put off giving to big charities because of their 'corporate' feel, and involving members (like the Trust does) seems like a great way of getting round that. I know it makes me feel more positive about the Trust, at least. Adam, Intelligent Giving The RSPCA can probably beat the NT in terms of "interesting" AGMs, but I'm impressed that they're prepared to offer public access so that anyone with a broadband connection can look in. Maybe it's the way to go persuade people it's actually worth joining organisations. At least part of the resistance to engaged support for charities is a feeling that they're boring and bureaucratic. Post new comment |
Recent comments
10 hours 11 min ago
1 day 8 min ago
1 day 3 hours ago
1 day 4 hours ago
1 day 5 hours ago
1 day 6 hours ago
1 day 10 hours ago
2 days 2 hours ago
3 days 2 hours ago
4 days 5 hours ago