Dear all
A couple of quick points:
- the name doesn't really matter that much: let's go for something
reasonable, and concentrate our time on getting the objects and what it
is going to DO, and how we are going to do it, right. It will be
trading as something sensible. Yes, cheques etc would normally need to
be made out to the official name, but I understand that can be changed
with arrangement with the bank.
- the only issue as I understand it with "Trust" is that the charity
would be holding something in trust (ie on behalf of a common good) -
like a pot of money or land, which is not suitable for what is being
proposed
- charities don't have to be limited companies, and limited companies
don't have to be charities.However, it is recommended that charities
that deal with a reasonable amount of money are limited companies, to
limit the liability of the trustees/directors. I'm a a trustee of a
charity that is not incorporated, so I have unlimited liability for
anything the charity does - we've agreed that if we start to do bigger
things, we'll incorporate.
Charities that are limited companies are "limited by guarantee" rather
than by shares, as a charity's primary purpose is not to make money for
its shareholders, but to make a social return. Companies limited by
shares (like Tesco) have shareholders, companies limited by guarantee
have members (ie guarantors). The Memorandum has a statement in it
saying what the maximum liability of each member is in the event of the
organisation being wound up.
Charities that are companies limited by guarantee have two types of
people associated with them. They can overlap, but they do not have to
be the same thing:
1) the people who set the strategic direction of the organisation -
these are the trustees and directors - the terms are essentially
interchangeable
2) the people who provide the guarantee - the members.
In some cases, the members are the trustees. In other cases, they are
not.
http://www.voluntarymatters1and2.org/organisation/legal_matters/
index.html
It is still unclear to me, frankly, whether for charities that seek to
be membership organisations, the people who join as members for that
organisation HAVE to be members in the sense of providing the nominal
guarantee. I know that in the membership organisation I look after,
that is the case, (in the event of us going belly-up, every member has
to pay a pound) though we are not a charity.
- the Charity Commission hates there being more than about 10 trustees
- it prefers fewer. The trustees need to be able to meet, make
decisions and work effectively - six to eight is usually a good number.
It's the same with companies - how many do you really want on your
board?
- payments via paypal/nochex aren't that simple to set up, and other
options require merchant accounts, which cost.
www.givenow.org is
fairly simple and works - see the link at
http://www.rosentrust.org.uk/donate.html for an example of what it
looks like without customisation.
Finally, it is worth noting that if trustee meetings are to be
conducted electronically, or by conference call, the articles must
state this explicitly - see paragraph 9 of:
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/cc48.asp#4
Best wishes
Scott
On Thursday, December 8, 2005, at 10:54 am, Gordon Joly wrote:
Yes, but you can set up a Charity without any members.
This was my
suggestion. It would make things simpler in the first phase, and
membership (voting or non voting) could follow.
We are still quite small. Everybody could be a Trustee. If say half of
in the list
"People interested in helping to create a local chapter"
at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
came and signed up, that would fine. Very fine in fact!
We would have about 20 Trustees!
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party -
http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/