RNLI funds towns lifeboat stations but not beach lifeguards? true or false ?

[Bru]

Humm not impressed with your info plus logic and reasoning therefore deductions there Mr Bru

Expending the funds to staff a Beach will attract donations in the course of the actual beach staffing during the course of events so your ref to how to spend or not spend funds already raised and collected I find rather bizarre, if not callous remember people died whist the beach funding finances were being thought about. That does not seem to fit in with the readiness to Save lives at all costs philosophy of a life saving institution, does it ?
Might say, that as I understand it the funding was in place by the RNLI the training was in place, but the beach was unmanned whilst contra funding decisions were being made, right or wrong ?

That's a rather different matter

I in no way suggested* that it would be wrong to finance operations from reserves in advance of raising specific funds. Only that it would be mismanagement to rest upon one's laurels, as it were, and use reserves to fund activities on an ongoing basis that could potentially be funded by raising fresh donations

I do not know whether you're hypothesis (that the RNLI did not do enough in advance of raising funds) is correct or not. If I interpret the situation rightly, the RNLI had done it's part but the local authority had restricted the level of funding thus limiting the availability of lifeguards? Is that correct?

Assuming that to be the case, my take on it from a charity trustee's point of view is thus ...

It's a situation that would put the Govenors and Trustees in an awkward position.

Whilst the RNLI's stated Objects clearly cover the provision of beach lifeguards, there is a separate issue of the expectation, indeed requirement, that funds raised are used for the purpose for which they have been raised. You can't raise money for one thing and the spend it on another, even if both aims are covered by the objects of the charity. And the Charity Commission is very prescriptive in it's interpretation of this and takes into account what it considers was the donor's perception of what the money donated would be spent on

Thus, in this example, it would be potentially contentious for the RNLI to spend general donations made "for the lifeboats" on lifeguarding services. I'm not saying they couldn't do so, but they'd have to be very careful about doing so (and if I were an RNLI Govenor or Trustee, I'd want clarification from the Charity Commissioners in advance that they were happy with our proposals).

And further, there is a long term funding issue for the RNLI to be considered. As I understand it, the RNLI trains and equips the beach lifeguards and the local authority effectively (via the RNLI) pays their wages. If the local authority fails to allocate sufficient funds to pay sufficient lifeguards and the RNLI steps in to cover the shortfall they are adopting what could, indeed almost certainly would, become a long term liability and one which could well set a precedent elsewhere.

It's not as simple or straightforward as it sounds, these are very difficult issues to deal with (and after three years as a charity trustee I'd frankly had enough)

* Edit: Reading back, I realise that I did inadvertently imply just that. A poor choice of words

 

[pvb]

Whilst the RNLI's stated Objects clearly cover the provision of beach lifeguards, there is a separate issue of the expectation, indeed requirement, that funds raised are used for the purpose for which they have been raised. You can't raise money for one thing and the spend it on another, even if both aims are covered by the objects of the charity.

Surely they already do this with their extensive free tow-in service for broken-down boats? I don't think that's what the little old ladies thought their money would be spent on.

 

[Bru]

Surely they already do this with their extensive free tow-in service for broken-down boats? I don't think that's what the little old ladies thought their money would be spent on.

It's good training for the crews

 

[[70521]]

Humm well, following that sad public RNLI debacle in the Channel Isles I have looked at the public RNLI donations claims and requests a bit more, and have asked why it appears that the RNLI provides / funds a Towns lifeboat station but not its Lifeguards ?

Consider them a modern management company like Accenture, Capita and Stera, with a very strong brand. They are running the Lifeguarding Service on behalf of the local council.

 

[ylop]

Due to the way the Charity Commission rules and the way the RNLI was originally set up (rescue for sailors), they are not allowed to divert money to beach life guards.

I'm going to call foul on that claim unless you can back it up.
Some years ago I was a trustee of a different charity set up with a Royal Charter. There was no charity commission rules preventing us from changing our scope (especially to something that would be a logical extension). There was huge internal resistance, and using the "we will need to ask for the Royal Charter to be amended" being used as a barrier to change. Quite what benefit a royal charter conveys in the 21st century nobody ever explained. I suspect that the RNLI are in a similar "boat" that they can extend their services to those in trouble on beaches too (otherwise probably better stop responding to swimmers with the D-class), never mind their flood work.

If anything, given their huge reserves, which the CC were keen for them to put to effective charitable use, the CC would have been encouraging them to do more, not less.

So can you back up your claim?

 

[Bru]

I'm going to call foul on that claim unless you can back it up.
Some years ago I was a trustee of a different charity set up with a Royal Charter. There was no charity commission rules preventing us from changing our scope (especially to something that would be a logical extension). There was huge internal resistance, and using the "we will need to ask for the Royal Charter to be amended" being used as a barrier to change. Quite what benefit a royal charter conveys in the 21st century nobody ever explained. I suspect that the RNLI are in a similar "boat" that they can extend their services to those in trouble on beaches too (otherwise probably better stop responding to swimmers with the D-class), never mind their flood work.

If anything, given their huge reserves, which the CC were keen for them to put to effective charitable use, the CC would have been encouraging them to do more, not less.

So can you back up your claim?

Whether he can or not, you were obviously (I'm sorry to say) misinformed as a trustee

The Royal Charter or the Articles of Association must, by law, set out the aims and objectives of the organisation. And there are very strict rules regarding amendment of those objectives

In the case of a charitable organisation incorporated by Articles, any amendments to the Articles must be approved by the Charity Commissioners and Companies House

In the case of an organisation (whether charitable or not) incorporated by Royal Charter, any proposed amendments have to be approved by the Privy Council and issued as a Supplementary Charter by the reigning monarch

(In that respect, you are technically correct in that in the case of a charity incorporated by Royal Charter, it is not the Charity Commissioners who have the power of approval with regards to amendments to the charter. However, in such case they act as advisors to the Privy Council and the reality is that the advice of the Commissioners is usually simply rubber stamped by the Council so to all intents and purposes the matter is effectively the same whether a charitable body is incorporated by charter or articles)

Amending the stated aims and objectives of a charity, however incorporated, is no minor matter (and almost always a great deal more trouble than it's worth).

Firstly the proposed amendments have to be proposed and agreed at a General Meeting of the organisation (whether at the AGM or at an EGM). So you've got to get it past the members first! Then the proposed amendments have to be submitted to the relevant body for approval. The presumption on the part of the Charity Commissioners is to start from a very firm "No" and work (usually from "No" to "No way"!) from there. If the amendment is approved then a body incorporated by Articles is home free. One incorporated by Royal Charter then has to submit the amendment to Her Majesty and request a new amended charter (a formality but an unavoidable one)

I've been directly involved in the process of changing the stated aims of a charity (incorporated by Articles) as a trustee and it was, even though the amendments were minor and, to use your words, a logical extension of the existing Objects, a length and frankly tedious process to get it approved

 

[Mister E]

Tha arcticals could be changed to incorporate beach lifeguards. The way I understand the rules at the moment funds that have been raised to date do not include provision of beach lifeguard personal (that could be changed with the correct procedure).
Trustees are wary of of braking the rules.

I can find no mention of the rnli being able to pay for beach lifeguard personal in their fund raising aims.

 

[Bru]

Tha arcticals could be changed to incorporate beach lifeguards. The way I understand the rules at the moment funds that have been raised to date do not include provision of beach lifeguard personal (that could be changed with the correct procedure).
Trustees are wary of of braking the rules.

I can find no mention of the rnli being able to pay for beach lifeguard personal in their fund raising aims.

There are no articles! There is a Royal Charter (which is effectively the same but administratively different - see my earlier post for the procedure to change it)

The Charter does not, in fact, need changing to incorporate beach lifeguards. The sole Object of the institution is "to save lives at sea and on inland and flood waters" and I cannot see how that can be interpreted as not covering the provision of lifeguards

The Powers allow for payment to personnel so there's no problem there either

It's when it comes to use of existing funds that the potential sticking point arises. The more so because it is a subjective rather than a prescriptive decision as to whether paying for lifeguards is something past donors would have expected some or all of their (unfenced) donation to be put towards

If I were an RNLI Governor I would be very wary of that both because of potential grief from the Charity Commissioners and due to the potential for adverse publicity and complaints from past donors. Better to raise new funds specifically for the purpose

 

[ylop]

Bru,

Sounds like:

1. I was not misinformed
2. The charter doesn't even need changed, but if it did the CC would have been very unlikely to stand in the way, because it is a natural extension
3. You should read what I wrote again, properly.

Unless someone can prove otherwise, I still doubt that the charity commissioners said the rnli could not use its general funds raised for saving lives at sea, to fund life guard operations. Obviously restricted funds (the bane of all charity trustees!) could not be used for such a purpose. I suspect it is Chinese whispers.

 

[jordanbasset]

I suppose the issue is that it could led to a very high bill. How many beaches are there in the UK and how much would it cost to patrol all of them with life guards paid for by the RNLI. Would some beaches get a life guard and others not. Who would decide and would the RNLI have problems if some one drowned on a beach they decided and or could not afford to patrol.

 

[Bru]

Bru,

Sounds like:

1. I was not misinformed

You said ( quote)

"Some years ago I was a trustee of a different charity set up with a Royal Charter. There was no charity commission rules preventing us from changing our scope"

I responded that you were misinformed. Sorry, but you were because as I pointed out there are very strict rules about changing the "scope" (to be precise the Object and Powers) of a charity

2. The charter doesn't even need changed, but if it did the CC would have been very unlikely to stand in the way, because it is a natural extension

Correct, that's what I said

3. You should read what I wrote again, properly.

I did. Mayhap you need to do the same

Unless someone can prove otherwise, I still doubt that the charity commissioners said the rnli could not use its general funds raised for saving lives at sea, to fund life guard operations. Obviously restricted funds (the bane of all charity trustees!) could not be used for such a purpose. I suspect it is Chinese whispers.

I doubt the matter has even been raised with the Charity Commissioners. What I pointed out was that it would be a potentially contentious issue. Entirely separate to charters and articles, funds have to be used for the purpose for which they have been raised. The proceeds of an appeal to "support the lifeboats" (for example) cannot, or at least should not, be diverted to funding lifeguards because those funds were not donated for that purpose (they can, however, be used to fund admin, support and back office in support of the lifeboats).

Take the headline from the RNLI's own main fundraising page on their website -

"We depend on donations like yours to keep saving lives at sea. Your support means our lifeboat crews can reunite 23 people with their families every day"

There is a very clear implication that donations made through the page will be going towards supporting the lifeboat crews. There is no mention whatsoever of lifeguards. You may think it hair-splitting (and I wouldn't argue with you frankly) but splitting hairs is just what the Charity Commissioners do in these situations.

 

[ylop]

I suppose the issue is that it could led to a very high bill. How many beaches are there in the UK and how much would it cost to patrol all of them with life guards paid for by the RNLI. Would some beaches get a life guard and others not. Who would decide and would the RNLI have problems if some one drowned on a beach they decided and or could not afford to patrol.

The RNLI already decides where to deploy its resources which means that some places are better served than others. Including, often controversially, deciding to close stations when they can no longer justify it. Invariably when they do that people get into difficulty who would have been better serviced by the old facility.

Whilst I'm not a fan of how the RNLI defines "lives saved" they claim to have saved 127 lives with lifeguards last year (v's 431 with Boats). Not a bad return especially when you consider the also helped over 20,000 others (lost children, jelly fish stings etc).