Comic Relief - What happened....

notanewuser

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

I accept what you say. I obviously did not interpret the investment bit appropriately. The trustee issue was highlighted to show that one trustee claimed £6,657 in expenses (what for?). Nobody else claimed anything at all.

Expenses for trustees are limited as to what they can be for.

I daresay it was for travel.

Equaliser123

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

I accept what you say. I obviously did not interpret the investment bit appropriately. The trustee issue was highlighted to show that one trustee claimed £6,657 in expenses (what for?). Nobody else claimed anything at all.

£6k as total expenses for all of the trustees seems to be massively low to me!

Hoof_Hearted

Equaliser123 wrote: »

£6k as total expenses for all of the trustees seems to be massively low to me!

The point is that this was for ONE trusteee -- the others claimed nothing....

Equaliser123

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

The point is that this was for ONE trusteee -- the others claimed nothing....

So what? You have absolutely no idea what that one trustee did.

I would remind you - the trustees did not get paid any remuneration. £6k between the lot of them for a year really is not bad value at all!

notanewuser

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

The point is that this was for ONE trusteee -- the others claimed nothing....

I used to be the treasurer and a trustee for a small charity. Of the 6 trustees, 5 never claimed a single expense, despite being entitled to.

1 claimed for absolutely everything, even the diet coke he bought a celebrity at a function (£1).

Hoof_Hearted

Equaliser123 wrote: »

So what? You have absolutely no idea what that one trustee did.

I would remind you - the trustees did not get paid any remuneration. £6k between the lot of them for a year really is not bad value at all!

It looks like all the trustees gave their time FREE for charity except one who took over £6,000 out of the pot. It's not £6,000 among the lot of them; it's £6,000 for one and none for the rest. I do not know why and there may be a good reason, but I would like to know what it is.

notanewuser

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

It looks like all the trustees gave their time FREE for charity except one who took over £6,000 out of the pot. It's not £6,000 among the lot of them; it's £6,000 for one and none for the rest. I do not know why and there may be a good reason, but I would like to know what it is.

Okay. Lets assume that all the other trustees live in, or not far from London. Now, they are happy to travel to meetings etc and bear the cost. But one trustee lives in Scotland, and it costs £250 in flights and £150 in hotel accommodation each time. 10 meetings a year = £4ks worth of expenses that the others don't have.

Just an example of how it can happen.

System

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

It looks like all the trustees gave their time FREE for charity except one who took over £6,000 out of the pot. It's not £6,000 among the lot of them; it's £6,000 for one and none for the rest. I do not know why and there may be a good reason, but I would like to know what it is.

It sounds like you believe only the affluent should be a trustee? Perhaps one trustee couldn't afford to lose £6k while the others could.

Although more likely one trustee went somewhere like Africa to check on progress

ThumbRemote

Hoof_Hearted wrote: »

It looks like all the trustees gave their time FREE for charity except one who took over £6,000 out of the pot. It's not £6,000 among the lot of them; it's £6,000 for one and none for the rest. I do not know why and there may be a good reason, but I would like to know what it is.

Firstly, the £6000 is not a payment for time. They all gave their time free. Simply one incurred out-of-pocket costs that the others didn't.

Maybe one trustee did a lot more work than the others.

Alternatively, maybe one claimed for everything possible then donated money back, so the charity can claim gift aid on that donation and end up making a profit.

Or maybe the others were slow getting their expenses claims in, and there'll be another load of £6k plus claims in the next financial year.

I suspect if you contact Comic Relief and ask they will be willing to shed more light on it.

dacouch

nicebiscuits wrote: »

In the words of Bono, "well tonight thank God it's them instead of you", are very apt.

I think Bono was talking about income tax when he sang that line