There was a time when the word ‘charitable’ when harnessed to the word ‘body’, would for most conjure up the image of an organisation run by a collection of good hearted souls and amiable coves, dedicating their spare time or retirement to raising funds on behalf of worthy causes. Those funds would accumulate as a result of the collective takings from jumble sales (events now effectively killed off by Ebay), whist drives, tombolas and village fetes all set to a backing track of clinking collecting tins. Apart from the odd, poorly remunerated executive all involved were volunteers, often funding any expenses from their own pockets. Of course no one should be surprised that as the world changed and went all corporate that charities would do the same. This isn’t to say that old coves and the like are not still hard at it, perhaps more so now than ever before, but the reality is that charitable giving is dominated by the big boys and let’s be fair, big girls too. To ensure that the public’s largesse gets to the destination intended (or as much as is left over once the inflated salaries, generous pension benefits, executive motors and business class travel demanded by the big boys and big girts who run charities have been paid for), the UK’s £9.8 billion giving business is overseen by the Charity Commission. The Commission has a formidable range of powers including the authority to close down any operation that does not exercise proper governance; however, as the example of the RSPCA demonstrates, having the authority and actually making use of it are very different things.
This time last year the Charity Commission publicly admonished the RSPCA’s governance describing it as “below standard”, before going on to invite it to improve matters or face regulatory action. For many years now the RSPCA has been run by a bloated Council put there by a tiny number of members. Against best practice the RSPCA has continued to hang on to long serving trustees despite the Commissioners guidance which says that trustees’ appointments should be time limited. Having given a commitment to sort this matter out, the RSPCA has done nothing, with the result that some of its trustees would be better off in a fossil collection than overseeing how the charity is managed and run. The RSPCA has been similarly inert over the question of the number of voting members. The inference drawn from its failure to honour a commitment to recruit more of them (the trustees are elected by just a handful of people) is that it suits the RSPCA that way. Why? Because, it is argued, those voting are heavily biased in favour of an animal rights agenda, an idea that is hard to rebut when one looks at the composition of the RSPCA’s board. The resentful inertia continues as the RSPCA has failed to implement the recommendations of its own internal governance review, let alone come up to the standards of best practice recommended by the Charity Commission.
The RSPCA’s apparent indifference to the criticism levelled at it by the Charity Commission would seem driven by a view that it doesn’t really matter because nothing is going to happen anyway. They may well be right, given the latter’s long track record for talking tough and doing nothing. And it is this which has encouraged the establishment of a raft of animal rights organisations to register as charities. Although charities must be apolitical, the reality is that these groups are anything but; however, they must clearly draw strength from the fact that the biggest beast in this part of their world, the RSPCA, is blithely able to make promises it does not keep and ignore strictures and threats from its ruling body.
Right now charitable donations made in good faith toward the cause of tackling serious animal welfare issues are being spent on distorted and dishonest campaigns, many of them aimed at country pursuits and, as a long list of failed court cases have demonstrated, have been brought about by motives that are at best questionable and at worst malicious. This situation is unlikely to change until the Charity Commission decides to stop posturing and instead begin acting. Is it going to happen? Well, as recent reports have highlighted, with charity funded aid workers relieving the stress of bringing succour to the third world by enjoying a bit of light relief in the company of call girls, the Charity Commission could be excused for saying it has other things on its mind, but even without it the prospects of seeing the RSPCA disqualified and its board dismissed are remote indeed.