3rd May 2012, 09:28 PM
I agree with Uo1 on the level of importance and significance that should be considered for Zero VAT.
However my concerns are not quite the same as how Uo1 is depicting them at the surface level.
When we consider the Zero VAT factor we have to ask the principle issue of whether the activities are assigned at either the Logistical Capacitance or Logistical Supportive scales, where the impact within Organisational Budgetary allotments underlines the organisational performance.
Not just as the Work Flow management, but to incorporate the Logistical Flow management too.
Where this comes in, is at the Trustee level where Quarterly meetings are evidently insufficient, to support potential budgetary pitfalls.
Working on the below sums Trustee consideration can be 3 times longer than breech intervention requirements, at the contractual level, whilst at the organisational level, a hiring policy effects the breech limits, where the selection process can be loaded.
Logistical Capacitance:
Working within the contractual environ, where if say you had 5 archaeological sites for a month, that alone would breech Budget level for Trustee considerations.
This would be on the basis of employing 10 people per site to work in-office, on-site and as specialists.
This equates to over ?50,000 at the work-flow level, whilst logistical support is assumed to be able to be drawn from pre-existing support structures.
Logistical Support:
Alternatively employing say 200 people for a year, would equate to ?250 per person per annum, or ?5 per week (an interesting sum).
Whilst employing 40 people the same process would equate to a 3 Week pay packet for per person, over the course of a year.Potentially based upon the period in which people would focus their time by volunteering on training excavations and potentially being paid for their efforts.
In my experience of working within Logistical Capacitance, individuals fall by the wayside, whilst hiring policy is culturally transformative and plainly too independent of Trustee interest for the boards interest in organisational oversight.
As such if you do not operate within the umbrella of operational Trustees’ then you can find yourself as isolated from the supportive Trustee Culture, not Corporate Culture, which may not be down to elections, but invitations.
I’d say if you work in a Charity and never met a Trustee of Patron, then the problem is beyond solving outside of job descriptions, which may not support Charity Status activities by negligible inactive reference or absence.
I worked in archaeology for while and I never ONCE saw or met a Trustee, in any form of walk around.
As such I think it shows the level of disparity between the stakeholders and the influence they have upon determining Profit to Charity ratios.
:face-topic:
In returning to the Topic are they looking for new volunteer sub-committee trustees, or will it remain tacit NON-voted disinterest, or patron charged?
B)
Would have made sense if there was any support.
Too late now to cry over spilt milk
So don't worry about it
However my concerns are not quite the same as how Uo1 is depicting them at the surface level.
When we consider the Zero VAT factor we have to ask the principle issue of whether the activities are assigned at either the Logistical Capacitance or Logistical Supportive scales, where the impact within Organisational Budgetary allotments underlines the organisational performance.
Not just as the Work Flow management, but to incorporate the Logistical Flow management too.
Where this comes in, is at the Trustee level where Quarterly meetings are evidently insufficient, to support potential budgetary pitfalls.
Working on the below sums Trustee consideration can be 3 times longer than breech intervention requirements, at the contractual level, whilst at the organisational level, a hiring policy effects the breech limits, where the selection process can be loaded.
Logistical Capacitance:
Working within the contractual environ, where if say you had 5 archaeological sites for a month, that alone would breech Budget level for Trustee considerations.
This would be on the basis of employing 10 people per site to work in-office, on-site and as specialists.
This equates to over ?50,000 at the work-flow level, whilst logistical support is assumed to be able to be drawn from pre-existing support structures.
Logistical Support:
Alternatively employing say 200 people for a year, would equate to ?250 per person per annum, or ?5 per week (an interesting sum).
Whilst employing 40 people the same process would equate to a 3 Week pay packet for per person, over the course of a year.Potentially based upon the period in which people would focus their time by volunteering on training excavations and potentially being paid for their efforts.
In my experience of working within Logistical Capacitance, individuals fall by the wayside, whilst hiring policy is culturally transformative and plainly too independent of Trustee interest for the boards interest in organisational oversight.
As such if you do not operate within the umbrella of operational Trustees’ then you can find yourself as isolated from the supportive Trustee Culture, not Corporate Culture, which may not be down to elections, but invitations.
I’d say if you work in a Charity and never met a Trustee of Patron, then the problem is beyond solving outside of job descriptions, which may not support Charity Status activities by negligible inactive reference or absence.
I worked in archaeology for while and I never ONCE saw or met a Trustee, in any form of walk around.
As such I think it shows the level of disparity between the stakeholders and the influence they have upon determining Profit to Charity ratios.
:face-topic:
In returning to the Topic are they looking for new volunteer sub-committee trustees, or will it remain tacit NON-voted disinterest, or patron charged?
B)
Would have made sense if there was any support.
Too late now to cry over spilt milk
So don't worry about it