charitable status and units -are they really?

[RedEarth]

quote:
Well there are precedents for charities taking over other charities or merging. And there is even recent legislation (2006) that specifically addresses the matter of charities merging (see press release below)
http://www.charitytimes.com/pages/ct_fea...umbers.htm

As for the parallel with a charity paying staff to make income I don't see that as valid. Surely an archaeological charity that pays 90% of its income to staff carrying out the function of the charity i.e archaeology, is actually being efficient, rather than wasteful.

Interesting note about the mergers of other charities - I stand corrected.

However the second part only partially stands up - the remit of a company that is part of a larger charity surely cannot be 'archaeology', it is surely education or some worthy cause. I don't think a lack of archaeology is ranked very highly amongst the social injustices in the world. Using your example the entire remit of charities that had second hand shops would be to sell second hand stuff, full stop. The point of the commercial arm of a charity is to raise money to support the core aims of the charity (whatever they might be) not just to pay its own staff. Obviously if the expectation is that an archaeological company won't make any profit this seems a bit futile. I would assume that the education element of an educational charity doesn't extend to educating (i.e. training) its own staff as they are not the 'target'. I think of charities as helping the needy, and no matter how archaeologits might feel most are not that bad off in the grand scheme of things.

So what is to be made from this? I am probably wrong in many areas and look forward to being told as much, but my argument still remains that a system where you have several organisations doing essentially the same thing but with quite different structures is not helping those within it very much.

[kevin wooldridge]

[quote/]... the remit of a company that is part of a larger charity surely cannot be 'archaeology', it is surely education or some worthy cause.[/quote]

Here is the stated aim of one archaeological charity taken from the Charity Commissioners website (I have 'replaced' a single word):

A) TO PROMOTE THE ADVANCEMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE SUBJECT OF ARCHAEOLOGY. (B) TO INITIATE AND CARRY OUT AND PUBLISH A COMPREHENSIVE AND SYSTEMATIC PROGRAMME OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE CITY OF THE COUNTY OF BORSETSHIRE THE SURROUNDING AREA AND ANY OTHER AREA IN ENGLAND RELATED THERETO AND TO ARRANGE FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS, SURVEYS, REPORTS AND ADVICE AND FOR ANY CONSEQUENT OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. © TO ARRANGE FOR PUBLICATION WHERE APPROPRIATE OF THE RESULTS OF SUCH WORK. (SEE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES FOR FULL DETAILS)

It would be wrong to believe that an archaeological undertaking cannot be registered as a charity.

Again I urge anyone interested in this subject to check the Charity Commissioners website. Every archaeological charity organisation is included there with the stated aims and intentions behind their charitable status. Some mention education as a primary aim, but not in every case. Many have a wider brief (as in the Borstetshire example)

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge

[quote/]... the remit of a company that is part of a larger charity surely cannot be 'archaeology', it is surely education or some worthy cause.

Here is the stated aim of one archaeological charity taken from the Charity Commissioners website (I have 'replaced' a single word):

A) TO PROMOTE THE ADVANCEMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE SUBJECT OF ARCHAEOLOGY. (B) TO INITIATE AND CARRY OUT AND PUBLISH A COMPREHENSIVE AND SYSTEMATIC PROGRAMME OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN THE CITY OF THE COUNTY OF BORSETSHIRE THE SURROUNDING AREA AND ANY OTHER AREA IN ENGLAND RELATED THERETO AND TO ARRANGE FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS, SURVEYS, REPORTS AND ADVICE AND FOR ANY CONSEQUENT OR SIMILAR ACTIVITIES. © TO ARRANGE FOR PUBLICATION WHERE APPROPRIATE OF THE RESULTS OF SUCH WORK. (SEE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES FOR FULL DETAILS)

It would be wrong to believe that an archaeological undertaking cannot be registered as a charity.

Again I urge anyone interested in this subject to check the Charity Commissioners website. Every archaeological charity organisation is included there with the stated aims and intentions behind their charitable status. Some mention education as a primary aim, but not in every case. Many have a wider brief (as in the Borstetshire example)
[/quote]


Indeed, I'm not having a go at companies that are charities, honestly. What I would say, which is what has already been said, is that such mems and arts were written before the PPGs even existed and so it is questionable how easily they can be applied. Also the notion that a company operating out of 'Borsetshire' for the benefit of Borsetshire can tweak its mems and arts to then include anywhere else seems a bit cheeky. The point still remains - aim A is education, and yet this arguably in some cases takes a back seat to serious commerce.

My concern has been and remains the difficultly of comparing like with like when organisations operate in very different ways. Does it make a difference? Is it better or worse with one type or another? Are there advantages/disadvantages in operating one way over another and does this damage competition and development etc?

[Oxbeast]

Perhaps they should give up all reference to counties and cities then, and just say 'for the benefit of the general public'. After all, if they are publishing things they are presumably available everywhere.
I was more puzzled by the aim of 'initiating and carrying out excavations'. Surely if you're working under PPG16, the company is not initiating anything, they are following a brief. Or perhaps they mean research digs.

[RedEarth]

quote:Originally posted by Oxbeast

I was more puzzled by the aim of 'initiating and carrying out excavations'. Surely if you're working under PPG16, the company is not initiating anything, they are following a brief. Or perhaps they mean research digs.

This does sound like a throw-back to pre-PPG16 days, when rescue work was more of a public service than something developers were expected to pay for. That sounds to me more like the work of a charity rather than, as Oxbeast points out, work that is initiated by the planning system. Of course, I wasn't there then and can't comment on the historical development of these things.

[chiz]

sorry to start this one off and then disappear, been busy.

red earth said:
"Indeed, I'm not having a go at companies that are charities, honestly. What I would say, which is what has already been said, is that such mems and arts were written before the PPGs even existed and so it is questionable how easily they can be applied. Also the notion that a company operating out of 'Borsetshire' for the benefit of Borsetshire can tweak its mems and arts to then include anywhere else seems a bit cheeky. The point still remains - aim A is education, and yet this arguably in some cases takes a back seat to serious commerce."

I agree, I'm not saying they aren't properly and technically charities, just that it seems an anachronism that could possibly distort the market if there were any advantages. As no-one has actually come up with any advantages of being a charity unit, I guess this isn't a problem.
Not all charitable units have actually changed their geographical areas in their remit, but some still work outside their stated areas ocasionally, but cannot set up offices there. I imagine they are absolutely allowed to under some wording or other, but the trustees won't let them push it on a permanent basis as they don't want to change/dilute, their purpose.

re charity shops, these often get cheaper rents and rates, as councils prefer charity shops to empty shops in town centres, and many shops do object as the use of volunteers and the proportion of 'free' stock does distort competition. But at least in archaeology we don't have units using volunteers to undercut competitors anymore eh! Many large (non-arch) charities are very aggressive, and some will say their size means they have to be, as BAJR Host said on a previous topic, you have to feed the beast. Small charities often complain of the grip of the big few on the 'giving' market, but maybe they should be swallowed up or their 'niche' is unnecessary. My partner once worked for a major charity, who then took on a govt. contract to run outreach services, it caused huge problems internally as the employees wanted to do things for the 'clients', but the charity had to fulfil their contract with the Home Office. The charity said 'better we do it as we care, rather than <insert security company name here>, who don't'care, it all ended up with the charity side being subsumed to the commercial side, although they did still did a lot of work and lobbying. It changed the ethos of the charity, and a lot of people left. I suppose its all about a balance.

re a unit set up as an educational charity not having to invest in educating its staff, well maybe they don't have to, but it would be nice, no-one else is going to, and if they don't, how do those staff educate the public?

[Noddy]

quote: But at least in archaeology we don't have units using volunteers to undercut competitors anymore eh!

No just (at least) one archaeological charity getting members of the public to pay to go on commercial excavations...

[RedEarth]

[quote

if there were any advantages. As no-one has actually come up with any advantages of being a charity unit, I guess this isn't a problem.

[/quote]

People have mentioned advantages that potentially or definately do exist - reduced rent, cheap software, money potentially coming in from other sources, but without being an expert these are really all guesses. That is the problem and the point I have made several times - it is virtually impossible to know what potential imbalances there might be between the different ways in which organisations are run without doing a fairly massive amount of research. My concern would be that the varying status of organisitions might be preventing the profession progressing (how about that for a bit of alliteration!). Would it not be better for everyone to have the same status so that easier comparisons can be made? I would like to see the IFA investigate whether it does have any affect on things like pay and conditions. For example, the comments made about using voluneteers (largely aimed at charities it would appear), which are pretty damaging when considering increases in pay, accusations of directors taking large cuts from companies (ditto), not to mention the sort of undercutting and pretty much selling your granny to win work that tends to go on throughout. Do charities exploit there workers by playing the 'well we're a charity and as such don't make a profit' card in order to justify no pay rises and long hours? Do companies ensure that all profits go into the pockets of directors and that in order to make a profit the archaeology gets a limited amount of attension? Just a few themes...

[chiz]

in reply to Noddy, quote:
'No just (at least) one archaeological charity getting members of the public to pay to go on commercial excavations...'

well that is a step up from unpaid volunteers isn't it! And remembering back when you had 'paid' volunteers...if you can make them pay, well...

Oddly the unit you refer to (I assume...) is one that takes its educational role very seriously, possibly the best in the country at this? and definitely not an 'aggressive' charity.

[chiz]

in reply to red earth, I was being slightly tongue in cheek. Only very slightly.
I agree I'd like to know whether it is a level playing field or not. I just haven't seen any real proof it is or isn't, its a matter of rumour and perception though as many people assume or believe it isn't level. As so often, perceptions matter. Its like my original post about what educational work these units (nearly wrote companies!) do, and what proportion it is of turnover/personnel. There's a common perception amongst archaeologists that there is very little actually of merit, and that an 'open day' is not enough. When you look at what some commercial units do re public archaeology it puts the educational charities to shame.

I was referring to non-arch charities when I talked of volunteers, not arch units, but I agree with you re their use at too high a level on-site or off-site. I know nothing about directors getting all the profit, and haven't heard that one before. I do think the 'we don't make a profit' card, as you put it, is of interest though in how long-term wage increases are achieved. If you have no intention of making a profit/surplus, its easy not to make one.